with a little help from my friends

Friends, not to become confused with the entourage.

MY friends, or peers rather, of which a couple this week joined in my bewilderment of Picasso by Stein.

Outside of my normal discussion group, I am breakin the rules and am including a couple comments from others in the class pertinent to Picasso. Good to broaden the circle,

Meagain's blog begins to break down the details of what is going on in the poem. What IS going on?

Follows, something to gain by following, leaders getting something, or working towards something else entirely,

all notions that speak to my initial friends vs. entourage theme. Obviously, Stein observed much the same pandering and ass kissing we see in our own Art(rock) Stars of today. It is comforting to know, that as much changes, some things do remain the same. Huh, interesting notion, Historical personages are people too.

Decker

Oh, and I gather, that Hanna Is just as confused as I

it is, perhaps after all, a simple matter of perspective

Cubism, that wacked out confusing jumble of images portraying different aspects of a thing or person, is a visual invention made famous by Picasso. Most anyone viewing his work will find themselves either loving it or hating it,  few remaining unaffected. Picasso garnered a following that crossed many professional boundaries, with more than a few taking bits and pieces of his fragmented style incorporating it into their own work. 
Picasso developed  a way of viewing the world around us. Seemingly bits and pieces are more of angles and representations of different aspects of the thing that he was depicting. (Usually paintings, but there are quite a few sculptures as well.) Many of the individual parts and pieces in the art were repeated over and over again in the same painting, slightly changed. 


Gertrude Stein’s “Picasso” is certainly more than a commentary of Picasso himself. It is also a homage to that repeated fragment style of perspective. At first, one read the text as simple repetition of the same line over and over. Lines upon lines of identical phrases are laid out, in a sort of hypnotic pattern. But then one realizes that the lines are NOT the same, but rather, slightly changed in subtle ways. A sentence would be repeated word for word, with only one word changed, omitted, moved in the sentence to create a slightly different meaning or reinforcing the meaning. 


Over a series of lines, the meaning changed more and more revealing more and more, as well as less and less. Over a series of lines, the meaning revealed more and more changing more and more, as well as less and less. Over a series of meanings, the lines changed more and more revealing changes more and more, as well as less and less.


Sort of like the telephone game we played as children, and the exaggerated story telling we play as adults, Steins prose repeats and alters at the same time, leading the reader down a merry chase until, at the end, it is revealed that Picasso’s work, works for some, while some work, for some, very little.  


The beginning lines speak of Picasso’s charm, as well as the effect that charm had upon the viewers. By the end, the narrative spoke towards the influence of Picasso’s work upon the viewer. How their own perceptions had changed over time and how time had changed their perceptions and how their perceptions changed their perceptions. Does time change time? Or does change change time? Or is it, that how we view things/time differ from our perception of that time/change?


If I have confused you; 
made you think, 
then right back at ya, 


because at times, 
the best of times,
you do it to me


             - Decker      

big 2 hearted followup

This weeks class work was engaging to say the least. Interesting how a few short stories can elicit such stimulated conversation. Then again, if these stories failed at such, then they wouldn't be included in a survey right?

I found myself reviewing what I wrote in my blog prior to class in an effort to see what we learned from Scott as well as each other would influence a followup. Finding lots and little, (meaning that I like what i wrote, and that there was a seemingly overwhelming amount of additional information gleaned from class) i wandered over to my small group blogs to see if their thoughts could add some clarity.

kassie's blog mirrored many of my own thoughts; a good place to gain some perspective. She has some good questions specific enough to attempt to answer.

i was interested in her questions about the significance of the grasshoppers. I too was struck by Hemingway's use of a simple creature. Is it so simple? Having read some Hemingway, especially when I was living in Sun Vally one year down the way from his old house, as well as spending the following spring in the Bahama islands drinking at one of his old houses now turned into a bar, led me to some of his stories; he is not as simple as he leads on.

I am going to cut and paste part of Kassie's blog, inserting some comments about her observations

My other pondering question is the grasshoppers.  What do the grasshoppers represent?   do they represent other people? or us the reader? hopping through life, no genderal direction or goal other than to survive another day? In the beginning he is stretching his legs and having a smoke when he sees a grasshopper but it’s black.  He picks it up and inspects the grasshopper and it has absolutely no color.  Later he walks on and when he sets up camp he goes and gets grasshoppers so he can use them as bait.  Was he just inspecting them for bait or do they have some symbolic reason for the description and how much detail Hemingway goes into when he is fishing?   only the ones that were black or adapted to black amongst the ashes of the fire live on. Birds have obviously eaten the light green and white ones. Survival narrative? Nick goes to get the grasshoppers and they are cold and the dew is still on the grass so he is grabbing them and putting them into a bottle.  Bottle seems to represent a prison for the grasshoppers. One which each attempts to escape from as Nick plucks them from it to bait his hook. Most find the business end of that hook and are used to obtain something larger and more nourishing. One does indeed escape, but is sucked into the depths, eaten by a fish. Does this speak to the futility of avoiding one's fate? A useful fate? Is Hemingway saying that it is better to have a use even if it is a doomed one? Nick finds a log and there is a grasshopper lodge where there are hundreds.     we all seem to hide amongst our peers. Much good that it does us when the hand of God, (or his representative) reaches down and plucks you from your existence to begin a new function.

 

I would add one grasshopper idea for comment.

 

When Nick shoves the fishing hook up the grasshopper's body. he describes the grasshopper reaching around it's hands in a sort of prayer. is the hook religion? is religion then a tool and trap of some other force with which to utilize us?

 

Decker

 

 

 

 

 

Boyz 2 Men

This week’s readings were all about the concept of boys becoming men. A virtual coming of age narrative reflected in the writings of Hemingway’s “Big Hearted River”, Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” and Wright’s “Almos’ a Man”. Each focused upon a male character going through a rite of passage defining themselves as a man. Self awareness. Who I am and whom do I want to be?

Reading the stories in order, I found myself quickly and easily enjoying Hemmingway’s “Big Hearted River.”  I found common ground with Nick with similar experiences upon wooded rivers far away and untouched by civilization. He, in Michigan, myself in Montana, differed only in geographical location and the fact that he was an accomplished fisherman while I catch lots of snags.  Looking deeper, I realized that the story wasn’t about catching fish, but more about making changes to one’s self adapting to one’s environment. I have a habit of “filling the room”, as my father would have said, exerting my own perspectives upon my surroundings, changing them to suit my wishes. Self awareness and experiences similar to Nick’s have taught me that it is not only easier to change one’s self, but is enlightening.

Nick changes and adapts in a myriad of ways that may seem hidden at first. To begin with, he goes to the wilderness. The storyline gives the reader nothing to reflect about the why’s about this trip, other than that Nick has visited before. I suppose, that to catch fish, one must go to where the fish live. Arriving, he manfully struggles to move all of his stuff, in one trip, to his camp. Is Hemmingway implying that we all have baggage? Heh, of course he is.

Once set up, our hero pulls from his surroundings the items he requires for success. The catching of grasshoppers takes me back to my childhood. Hemmingway does a terrific job of explaining to the reader that taking from nature respectfully is acceptable. There is PETA remorse for using another life as bait for another life to feed yet another life. Death is part and parcel to life. He takes what he can use, then places the log back for future grasshopper collections. Ouch. How many times have I failed to take care of my surroundings respectfully?

Nick fills his day with the pursuit of big trout. You will notice that I say big, but not BIGGEST. The really big one gets away, but instead of relentlessly pursuing it, like Ahab would have in Moby Dick, he reflects, relishes the experience then moves on to catch two other fish that may not be as huge, they are certainly large enough to suffice as his coming dinner and breakfast. This idea of, take what you need but no more. Excess food is a waste. Excess pride is equally wasteful. For instance; I have to ask myself; If Nick had pursued the trout (whale), who had easily defeated him already and would most likely do again, what would he do for meals? I suppose he could live off his civilized fare, but that would defeat the whole meaning of the trip now wouldn’t it? Instead, he adapts his methodology.

While there are some additional examples of large adaptions, such as his decision to wait before exploring the dangerous depths of the swamp, there are a myriad of little changes that Nick makes in his realation to his enviroment. Instead of fishing from stream, he wades right into the river. No waders, nothing to keep himself from immersing himself fully into nature. He uses his hat to drink  from; excess water running back into the river.  Utilizes the tree trunk as a cutting table. Heck, he uses it first as a blunt object to knock out the two fish he caught before gutting them. This idea of respect for everything living. He even takes the offal from the fish flinging it onto the bank for the mink to eat. Sharing…. What a concept.

His actions are deliberate. His responses to things that do not go as planned are calm. His motions are actually a combination of good habits and muscle memmory (such as how he doesn't even have to think about how to make the perfect fly cast) freeing up his mind to observe his surroundings. How many of us simply go through life, absorbed in details and drama, head down, oblivious to what is going on around us? For myself, overly so.

There is little in the way of PAST. Even fewer references to the FUTURE.  Mostly, Nick is experiencing the PRESENT which is of his own creation. Is it any wonder that critics have labeled Hemmingway a narcissist? I always found that word to be negative, but perhaps, just perhaps.... a little "self-narcissism", (I just made up that word), defined by - the ability to change one’s self to fit one’s environment in an effort to create a perfect moment. Maybe that self divinity is a meaning of life. (I say "a meaning" rather that "the meaning" since I get the feeling that there are multiple meanings out there. But then again, what do I know, I have difficulties most times catching fish.......

maybe, I need to refine my grasshopper catching skills first..... ya think?

Decker