Le Guin expresses that repetition is a tool, that it is not redundancy but more foreshadowing. Seeing on the other hand attempts repetition to push language boundaries.

Stein’s main argument is that nothing is really original. Storytellers just take facts and shape it through our own way of creative writing. “Everybody is telling the story in the same way. But if you listen carefully, you will see that not all the story is the same.” Individuals have specific ways they write, and their own personal expressions will come out in their stories. Our rhetoric as authors is a pure result of our environment we live in, the people we surround ourselves with, our own personal experiences etc. To Stein there really is no such thing as repetition. Some things may seem repetitive, but really there is a  difference. This difference is the uniqueness of the individual writing, not always the words themselves, but how they use those words.

Le Guin’s approach to repition is more in support of its conventions. Le Guin says it can enhance the qualities of a story, claiming at as “an exercise in awareness”. She argues that it can give us more insight on a character. Stein is much more strict with her opinions on repetition. Stein sees truth in everything. and that no matter what we try to do, our words will always be unique to who we, the authors, are. She makes repetition almost un-producable and non-existent. Le Guin contrasts this, seeing at as a very usable tool. Repetition in her mind can bring out a natural rhythm. By manipulating words and sounds into repetition, you make them that much more special. She sees the technical aspects of repetition as necessary for structure, employing it in your work is something you consciously do yourself, where as Stein basically says it is out of our control. I would have to side with Le Guin here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.