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.
laurenrsblog 