Stein Response

I do not plan on summarizing or even explaining the whole of Stein’s the “Geographical History of America” simply because I cannot, but I can, however, try to explain the small sections of the small sections that make up this whole. Starting off on page 427, in the section “After number I” it seems as though humans, although they do “it” so well (let others read what they write, write what they tell, write with human nature?) they do “it” with human nature, that is, they write through remembering and forgetting. But only once in a few generations does one write with the human mind, that is, it does not have a beginning to remember, nor middle or an end.

Human nature occupies. What does it occupy? The mind, with memories and emotions? I feel as though Stein thinks that human nature is like an old person’s yard sale, it is filled with things from their lives, and many things are spread out on tables but as you survey their goods you realize that there is nothing of use to buy. It occupies the space, but what good is it? At least when it comes to writing. Memories are not interesting because they only occupy and to the human mind, they are not useful. Writing with human nature creates a whole, a beginning and an end point. This, Stein says, is not interesting because having those things means you need to remember what happens and then inevitably you forget the details of those happenings. Perhaps that is why this work has so much repetition and no clear explanations because if there were we would have to remember them instead of keep plowing ahead, no ending in sight.

“Writing is neither remembering nor forgetting neither beginning or ending.” Writing is the human mind. One thing that I found very interesting is the sentence that follows this on page 428, the fact that being dead is in fact, something. When one dies, one does not simply vanish and one is still labeled as a state. They are dead. Even though they are not living they can still be something and that is such an impossible concept because if they are still something, are they not still alive? On 429, Stein explains that a whole is not interesting but one at a time is. This seems highly reminiscent to what she’s been doing. One section at a time, always changing, not meant to be read as a whole (but inevitably so). Each word is connecting the next word, one by one. This is action, the language and words are creating action and as long as they are acting they are not static.

Next is the relationship between the words identity and identical. Stein says “No one is identical but any one can have identity.” Identical is being exactly alike. Humans are not exactly alike but they are alike in that they all have identity. Identity would mean to be unalike, each person has their own identity that “defines” them but if everyone has an identity then that is an identical likeness. Skipping to page 437, “now at any time that there is a universe anything is very near.” I believe that this means that although the universe is impossibly large and for the most part unknown (because what are theories anyways?) the fact that it has a name, a classification, an “identity” it makes it manageable. We give names to unknown things because if they are unknown no one knows them and if no one knows them can we, as a people, say they exist? Because obviously if one does not know about something then that thing does not exist (sarcasm).

Romance makes landscape and America does not have romance because America is a flat land. Why is America flat? Well, because we can wander around it so easily. America is a whole, our states are connected to create this whole and it can only be a whole if the pieces connect which is easily done because our land is a flat land. My view of why America is flat is that there is no change. Just like if you lay something flat on a table and look at it from a horizontal point of view that thing is just a straight line. Without change or fluctuation, America keeps going like a repeating record, doing the same things, saying the same things and handling them in the same manner. But of course that is entirely my opinion and I have no idea if Stein would agree. And even if she did I doubt I would be able to understand it as an agreement because of how confusing she would make her reply.

Again, skipping to page 440, “Does it make any difference if a dog does not know the difference between a rubber ball and a piece of paper. No not any why he does…No not any only he does.” It should not make a difference because it is only the dog’s thoughts that matter to the dog and therefore it should only make a difference to him. But it still makes a different to him, does it not? Or is it only the dog that can determine that difference because he is the only one that can ask why he doesn’t know the difference. But of course we can’t know that because we cannot read a dog’s mind any more than we can read a human’s. This course of action, the determining of a difference, has entirely to do with identity. And here I will end my response because from here on in Stein begins to make even less sense than usual.

Spahr, The Transformation Response

Without hesitation, Spahr sets up her short story with the perfect introduction paragraph describing a flower, which, for the purpose of analogy I am only choosing one of the names introduced, is called huehue haole by the native people of the island. Huehue is “the name of a climber native to the islands” and haole is used to describe those that come from a different land. This name in itself is a contradiction, the first part of the name is native to the island while the other is foreign. But, as it goes on to say, in botany, it’s a name that describes a “particularly noxious and invasive species”. Could this perhaps be in reference to colonization or just foreigners in general or could it mean system and categorization? People conquer a land, establish their own systems of categorization and try to eradicate the existing customs and assimilate their own ways into the culture until the only remnants of the past are in the facial features of the natives which are also slowly being diluted as they mate with their oppressors. Though that isn’t really the entire point of this piece. 

The threesome, who for all purposes are the main characters of this story, are lovers and yet they do not know exactly how to act as a threesome since lovers are only supposed to come in pairs. Part of the problem is that they can’t find words to describe their relationship, however, they hear that on this island (which actually is Hawaii…right?) there was a word used in the native tongue to describe them. Of course, they don’t speak this language nor are they native to the land. Although these things are true, the island made them realize what they were, they gave them a name and they realized that this name is a name that belonged to them and to the other them, the they of the past. And I think that I will continue this discussion at a later time because I’d like to read it more in-depth before jumping to any more conclusions.

Kearney and Bryant

Well, last Tuesday I was only able to make it for the last few performances of Kearney’s poetry so unfortunately I did not get to see Tisa Bryant read any of her works but thankfully she did do a little bit of reading on that Wednesday. Based on those moments, I found performance poetry intriguing and saw the difference between Kearney’s written poems and how they are actually supposed to be read. Even though his poems have arrows and brackets meant to guide I don’t think I would’ve been able to follow it in the way that they were meant to be read. I’m amazed that he can even perform them that fluently with how they are arranged on page, though I guess he’s done it so often that I doubt he even reads it when he sees it on the page and it’s just purely through memorization. 

I also found the topic of Oral Texuality and the tension between the oral and textual sides of literature. Connecting it back to Africa and the oral traditions the native people used in the past and still use today was also interesting and the fact that Africa as a nation (the tribal nation) values oral over literature. While, at the same time, the western world values literature over spoken words. This duality creates tension and from the tension new things, new technique are born. I hadn’t really thought of performance poetry as being transgenre, though now that I think on it, it is so obviously clear that it is.

There is so much opportunity within this sphere for growth and production, but I feel like it is also a difficult line of concentration. How can you make the words on the page become synonymous with the feeling in which you spoke them? Kearney had tried (maybe succeeded?) with his Black Automaton and although it is indeed visually rich, does it really communicate the enthusiasm with which he performs? I can’t be so sure, actually I’m quite doubtful that it can ever be done. This makes me want to explore this new form (not personally, I’m horrible at performing things, especially my own work) and think that maybe it will gain in popularity and spread to  new genres. And although I just said new form, isn’t theatre the same thing or is it different? Maybe not, because while actors act out characters, poets act out words.