| Original Message |
Priscilla Perkins
Posted Oct 7, 1999 4:48 PM
Writing in 1981, literary scholar Nina Baym suggested several reasons why, until that point, there were no female novelists in the American literary canon (or commonly-accepted list of "great" texts). After dismissing the possibility that out-and-out sexism was the main cause, she wrote that
"A second possibility is that, in fact, women have no written the kind of work that we call 'excellent,' for reasons that are connected with their gender although separable from it. This is a serious possibility. For example, suppose we required a dense texture of classical allusion in all works that we called excellent. Then, the restriction of a formal classical education to men would have the effect of restricting authorship of excellent literature to men...The reason, though gender-connected, would not be gender per se....
"...Until recently, only a tiny proportion of literary women aspired to artistry and literary excellence in the terms defined by their own culture. There tended to be a sort of immediacy in the ambitions of literary women leading them to professionalism, rather than artistry, by choice as well as by social pressure and opportunity. The gender-related restrictions were really operative, and the responsible critic cannot ignore them. But again, these restrictions are only partly explanatory.
"There are, finally, I believe, gender-related restrictions that do not arise out of cultural realities contemporary with the writing woman, but out of later critical theories. These theories may follow naturally from cultural realities pertinent to their own time, but they impose their concerns anachronistically, after the fact, on an earlier period. If one accepts current theories of American literature, one accepts as a consequence--perhaps not deliberately but nevertheless inevitably--a literature that is essentially male."
--from "Melodramas of Beset Manhood"
Here are two questions that you may wish to address. First, in your reading of Fanny Fern's _Ruth Hall_, what evidence do you find to support or challenge Baym's claims about 19th century women writers' "aspirations to artistry"? Second, when you compare _Ruth Hall_ to the other texts we have read this semester, what can you speculate about the late 20th century critical concerns that might have led to the inclusion of each text on our syllabus? |
|