Hey folks, I'm not sure if I can request help here on /lit/, but it seemed like the right place.
So I've got an essay due next week,and the prompt is
"In what ways do these two female writers establish a feminist literary tradition? To what purpose?"
It's six pages-- nothing huge. It's about selecting two female authors; one from around the English Reform-ish time, and one from modern times. I've already got the authors I want selected, so that's not real important. I just can't figure out for the life of me what "Feminist Literary Tradition" might mean.
I'm assuming it means something like a tendency that feminists followed over the ages to undermine male authority in the time they were in. Still, I'm not sure, and most of you folks here are much smarter than me and loads more read.
So, can you folks help me figure this one out. What is "Feminist Literary Tradition", and can you give some examples?
Thank you.
>>7436944
what class is this for, exactly?
Women and Literature, survey course with an emphasis on reading the literature through a feminist lens.
>>7436944
sounds like retard shit TbH
>>7436969
i think you can wing it, then. just go with what you said and stretch it out and sprinkle "oppression" and "rape fantasies" into the paper, and you should get the gold star.
oh, and at least ONE mention of "patriarchy"
It's a pretty fascinating course. Unfortunately the teacher is brilliant, but the entire class is filled with really shitty women.
I'm the only guy in this class. I signed up for the class thinking I would get to meet several strong, powerful female personalities to inspire my writing.
As it turns out women can be petty idiots like everyone else.
Aside that, reading stuff like a feminist is a lot of 'Oppression' and not at all 'rape fantasies.' It's also not women whining about their lot in life and playing the victim card all the time.
Anyways can anyone drop a description or is 4chan not the place to talk about feminism >_<
>>7436994
it took you a class to discover that people can be idiots regardless of their sex? cmon bruh.
i don't know man, i don't ever hear about egalitarianism literature, or men and literature, there's no specific class for those, i imagine, and it's just a bit insulting and tiresome at this point. i'm not one to say that women arent incredible authors or what have you, but to focus on their gender over the content of their work is kind of insulting to the women in the first place, let alone the other people left out because they werent born with the right junk. but hey, it's a class, gotta go fast.
I dont got enough ammo to debate whether or not the class is valid.
I just want to know what you folks might think about what "feminist literary tradition" might mean.
>>7436994
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HA!
>>7436994
there's feminist literary critique
>>7436994
4chan is probably the worst place to talk about feminism.
i wouldn't say the point of literary feminism is to undermine male authority. the act of writing to make their voices and experiences heard is a feminist act.
>>7436994
>Anyways can anyone drop a description or is 4chan not the place to talk about feminism >_<
pretty much, it's all guys here and the shitposters are redpillers (see above), and the people who actually know their shit don't really engage with feminism much.
if i were you i'd write about how the authors you picked broke off from their contemporary modes of discourse and established a feminist strand in whatever they were writing.
>What is "Feminist Literary Tradition", and can you give some examples?
basically like Jane Austen type novels where feminine introspection is the main feature as opposed to being a distinct Other like in much of russian romanticism. desu you should probably ask your prof to explain something you have trouble understanding instead of us, they'll be more likely to know how to explain it to you.
>>7437013
it means how far back can we find a social construct of concentrating on women's rights in literature, and taking into account what the motivations for each author were, and how their work inspired further similar literature, what these pieces gave to society as a whole, how they changed the public view, and whether or not they were met with resistance, and how they overcame it, or didnt. also, if you're not sure if the class is valid, why take it? just an idle question.
also since it's from past to modern, you can show how the tradition compares and contrasts, seeing the changes in values and opinions, and their impacts.
>>7437028
It is what my college calls a 'triple threat', which means it fulfills three GE capstones at once. Basically, this class removes an entire semester's worth of units in classes.
Thanks for all the replies, especially those near the bottom. I think I've got a good idea of what to do now for this essay.
Thank you all so much :)
- Go to Oxford Bibliographies
- Look up Elizabethan England (try Renaissance / Renaissance Italy / and 16th+17th c. France too)
- Go to Women/Gender
- Look for recent books by women historians of women's history that discuss female literary output
- If you can't find explicit references to theory and an explicit outline of how modern scholarly consensus on this shit sees the issue of feminism in this context (e.g. was it precocious, was it limited, what are the major scholarly works you need to nod to, etc.), mine a few of those books for their introductions/bibliographies and you'll find the major relevant texts that will help you
If you show you did your historiographical background, you will get a good grade. If you extemporize based on your persona lview, you're 98% guaranteed to wind up being wrong, at best in the "wrong but still decently thought through" category, i.e. begging for a B. If the person assigning this project is remotely familiar with women's history in Reformation England, they are going to be familiar with an established scholarly tradition and compare everything they grade with that.
Source: I'm writing an essay on women's history in Early Modern studies right now and finding it's actually pretty vast.
Just out of one of the bibliographical books next to me (check it out, the Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe, particularly Julie Campbell on "The Querelle des femmes" and Diana Robin's article on female intellectuals), check out King & Rabil Jr., _The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe_. Also look into a very famous article called "Did Women Have a Renaissance?" by Joan Kelly, which has prompted a lot of response and been pretty seminal. Look into _Rewriting the Renaissance. Discourses of Sexual Difference in early Modern Europe._
Quote from page 382 of the Ashgate:
"Beyond the mere profusion of newly discovered writings by women, the scholarship on early modern women writers has changed as well. Current critical studies have focused not only on the performativity and mutability of gender roles in women's literary works, but also on women's self-portrayal through their autobiograhical writings."
Quote from 400 (in the conclusion):
"The foundations of modern feminism can be seen in the debate already under way by the close of the fourteenth century in France on the nature of woman: the querelle des femmes."
^-- this is what you should probably demonstrate some familiarity with.
The querelle is probably what she mostly wants you to interface with:
Check out Constance Jordan, _Renaissance Feminism_ (1990)
"Early Feminist Theory and the Querelle des Femmes, 1400-1789" by Kelly again (1982)
_The Invention of Renaissance Women_ (1992)
It goes on like this. Use the Ashgate and read these bibliographic essays for references, then skim those references for basic familiarity with the scholarly discourse, and you're guaranteed an A.
>>7437075
Sounds helpful.
>>7437075
This is amazing. Great post.
>>7436944
"They don't. Everything is a poor imitation of a man"
>>7436994
>As it turns out women can be petty idiots like everyone else.
>>7438361
>the wire villain
at first was rustled
but now i'm like
>mfw
