Stein Vs. Loy -What is wrong with me?
So,
I am now away from Loy and reading the works of Stein. I miss Loy.
This is opinion of course, but I miss Loy's grasp on vocabulary, her sharpness, and her difficulty. Perhaps I haven't read enough of Stein yet, but I keep comparing to to "See Spot. See Spot Run. See Spot run with Jane." The repitition is driving me mad, as I have said a few weeks ago in class. But I am trying, though.
Now I am looking at the links in Stien. She was trying to show a work as a whole, a compision as a solid peice rather than one to be parted. I understand this format and agree with the idea of solidarity. It is a different type of work that what has proceeded it, and there is beauty in any art form. Perhaps this is where I am having problems with Stein. Acutally, I think this is it entirely. Stein stated that sentences are unemotional and paragraphs are emotion. I am picking her work apart far too much, lookint at peices, and not at the whole, which is precisely what she does not seem to want her intellegent audience to do. I will return to her work now, and try this again with a larger scope to view it all.
Still, I miss Mina's Simple complexities.
posted by Brandy | 2:07 PM
1 Comments:
The "See Jane run" dimension of things might be more accurate than you think. For we now read those elementary readers as significant, no, telling us something about what educators thought about kids and their mental processes (never mind the life, gender roles, lack of imagination ... I mean spot(?), nothing more creative than that?), that learning was a wrote business etc.
Of course I think Stein's approach is a bit more witty, playful, at times deliberately subversive.... but she does begin at basics ... and I think in that sense you CAN also look at the parts. See her Cezanne comment-- each part is important.
Post a Comment
<< Home