Janet Malcolm's Gertrude Stein: tricky, haunted, unscrupulous, endlessly-intriguing and, with qualifications, admirable.
'Two Lives' is an always interesting, often withering, typically stylish portrait of a fascinating figure (who has always baffled me -- I have dipped in and out of my Gertrude Stein: A Reader many times over the years, have always enjoyed the singularity of its sentences but have continually put the book back on the shelf with perhaps less as opposed to more of a sense of understanding -- and still does, only now slightly less so). Stein, as Malcolm has it, was deeply hypocritical (she was Jewish when it suited her, and indulged Nazis who offered sufficient flattery), selfish, morally dubious, ruthless (although, in her one-time-beloved dilettante brother Leo's case, this seems at least partly justified) and generally delusional in whatever way suited her and Alice Toklas. Stein also never doubted her own genius, and it's this factor, 'Two Lives' suggests, as well as her acceptance of herself as someone marked out for exceptional treatment and regard, that convinced enough folks to treat her like displaced royalty (Stein is convinced that her 'deep sense of equality' explains the willingness of just about everyone to do everything for her, fix her car, displace the occupant of a beloved house, you name it). Her sense of exceptionalism, perhaps, allowed whatever merit the work has to flourish, seeded and nourished it. The Making of Americans, Malcolm suggests, is the confession of an inability to write The Making of Americans, not that this would ever hamper its composition, since everything Stein had to say, so she believed (and was partly right) was of interest (she rarely redrafted). In doing so, Stein placed a curious, burgeoning shadow across all American letters.
'Stein’s own occasional reversions to conventional narration of the “one or two things they have been doing that some one is telling about them” sort give the book a movement like that of a train that now and then comes up to speed but mostly crawls along because of track work. Stein keeps returning to the project it appears she has abandoned—that of writing fiction—and then berates herself for doing it badly. “Sometimes I am almost despairing,” she writes. “I know the being in Miss Dounor that I am beginning describing, I know the being in Miss Charles that I am soon going to be beginning describing, I know the being in Mrs. Redfern, I have been describing the being in that one. I know the being in each one of these three of them and I am almost despairing for I am doubting if I am knowing it poignantly enough to be really knowing it, to be really knowing the being in any one of the three of them. Always now I am despairing” (italics mine).
Tolstoy and Dickens and Jane Austen knew it poignantly enough. Stein, realizing that she is not equipped to create fictional characters, and yet believing herself to be a literary genius, stubbornly persists in her task of filling pieces of paper every day with her earnest and remarkable thoughts. Presently she makes another daunting discovery: “I have not any dramatic imagination for action in them, I only can know about action in them from knowing action they have been doing any of them. . . .I cannot ever construct action for them to be doing.”
In other words, she cannot invent. She can only write about what has actually happened to people she knows. And yet she is hardly doing what other writers do who lack dramatic imagination --journalists, biographers, memoirists. If her characters do not resemble the characters of fiction (it is amusing to think of Anna Karenina as a mass of gritty dried stuff held together by a skin. Or Emma Woodhouse as something white and gelatinous), neither do they resemble the characters of biography, memoir, and reportage. The characters in The Making of Americans resemble shades. You never see them. Stein makes sure you know almost nothing concrete about them, sometimes not even their sex. This is truly a new way of writing a novel, a novel where the author withholds the characters from the reader. Stein regards her characters as if from a great distance and, at the same time, seems, in her desperate eagerness to understand them, almost to be taking them into her mouth and tasting them. Only the narrator remains a full-blooded person, for whom one feels increasing sympathy and a sort of stunned admiration.
What the stakes are for the narrator—why her strange taxonomy is of such desperate importance to her—becomes clearer as the book progresses. It is some sort of defense against death. Death weaves in and out of the narrative and takes it over in the end, in the solemn and mysterious section about the troubled second Hersland son, David, who obscurely wills his own early death. “Dead is dead,” the narrator grimly observes midway through the book. But some pages later she writes of the comfort she derives from the idea that every individual is a type or kind.
“This is a pleasant feeling, this is comforting to me just now when I am thinking of every one always growing older and then dying, now when I am thinking about each one being sometime a sick one each one being sometime a dead one.” She goes on in her incantatory way, “I am having a pleasant completely completed feeling and always then it is a comfortable and calming thing this being certain that each one is one of a kind of them in men and women and that there are always
very many of each kind existing . . . that each one sometime is to be a dead one is then not
discouraging.”
It takes a long time to read The Making of Americans. The language Stein writes in (after cutting herself loose from the conventional language of the opening Dehning section) is not the transparent language through which we enter stories, forgetting we are reading. We never forget we are reading while reading The Making of Americans. Stein seems to be transcribing rather than
transforming thought as she writes, making a kind of literal translation of what is going on in
her mind. The alacrity with which she catches her thoughts before they turn into stale standard expressions may be the most singular of her accomplishments. Her influence on twentieth-century writing is nebulous. No school of Stein ever came into being. But every writer who lingers over Stein’s sentences is apt to feel a little stab of shame over the heedless predictability of his own.'