Over there in the right-hand sidebar is the topic for the third paper, along with the three articles you can choose among for writing it.
The three articles vary a great deal, and each will present different challenges for writing a critique.
The Doody article is the one that lines up most squarely with the time frame for our readings, and it may be the most clearly written of the three--but though it is perhaps the easiest to read, it may be difficult to find a standpoint from which to pick some critical holes in it.
The Jackson and Prins essy, "Lyrical Studies," is the most recent of the three essays and perhaps the hardest to get a handle on. It's also firmly oriented, though, towards the C19, which may make it a bit easier to write about (once you understand what it's arguing). You can ask, as you read along, "how do these claims NOT apply to the earlier poets we've been reading?" "what here is more generally characteristic of women's poetry than the authors assume?" "how are these claims about poetry not taking into account earlier poetry by women?" Answers to questions like those may give you some interesting avenues for writing.
Mellor's "The Female Poet and the Poetess" is perhaps the most influential of these three essays--it gets referred to a lot (Backscheider makes mention of it, and Jackson and Prins clearly have it in mind, as do most critics who choose the term "poetess" over "poet.") It describes historical phenomena that, according to Mellor, largely begin with early Romanticism--precisely the sort of arguable yet plausible claim that can give you room for a good counterargument based on your reading (much of which has been pre-1780).
We'll be talking about these essays on Friday. Here, though, feel free to identify anything in these essays that you're finding particularly baffling, ask any questions that would help you make more sense of this reading, or try out any fledgling ideas about how to write about this material.
Deadline: Friday (4/17), noon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I did 3 different psych experiments today, so bear with me. The ol' brain's a little run down at the moment. After doing my best to get through "Poet and Poetess" I got about 3/4 of the way through before realizing I had almost no idea what was going on. Maybe I'm tired or maybe this text is a bit out of my league but I feel very lost here. This text is dense and tough to get into, and I feel like no matter how many times I read the words the ideas just aren't quite materializing.
In a very basic breakdown, I think Mellor is explaining how and why female poets assert themselves through religious and political avenues in 18C. I get that women at this time had no great amount of social standing in a "man's world", but to me reading this article seems to cheapen what women's poetry is about. I understand (or at least, I'd like to think I understand) that these women were frustrated by their inability to draw respect out of the heavily male-based literary community, and they struggled for a long time for equality and to prove themselves relevant and excellent. However, as I read Mellor's article, it seems as though she's saying that these women were using a gimmick to get attention rather than utilizing their poetic prowess or message authentically. Who knows, I've been known to misread things (fairly often). The portion she wrote about Hannah More seems pretty strange as well. She mentions More's abolitionist poetry but then seemingly mocks her use of something akin to 'white privilege' in speaking about slaves, saying that "British female poets shared an assumption of cultural and religious superiority to the black slave." To me this kind of contradicts all of the high and lofty aspirations she laid out in the previous pages about much more moral and enlightened these women were compared to their male counterparts. The article also draws a strange comparison when Mellor states that men's issue with slavery was moral (a violation of natural law [i.e. no man should hold dominion over another man]) while women's issue with slavery had to do with the violation of "domestic affections" (the separation of families due to the slave trade). Maybe I'm just a guy looking at it from the wrong angle, but isn't the former point more poignant? I mean, would it be ok if slavery existed so long as the families of slaves were traded together?
Like I said, my brain hurts so if I'm babbling take it with a grain of salt.
Post a Comment