![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
G&G: The Madwoman in the Attic
Apr. 26th, 2009 05:14 pmI'm putting the finishing touches on my ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
femme_fic tonight (expect something in the next 7 hours or so, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ariadne!) and then I am watching last week's SPN and curling up with The Victorian Frame of Mind.
I just finished The Madwoman in the Attic by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. I skimmed small sections of this book for my MA thesis but in no way read the text (which is highly unfortunate because I think that ultimately, G&G's methodology is probably superior to what I used of Elaine Showalter's at a critical juncture, but that's neither here nor there). This book was published in 1979, which is significant for me because that's the year in which I was born. I have a profound respect for these two women who engineered a way of reading 18th and 19th century women writers that is still valid and compelling thirty years later--no mean feat in academia. In fact, if you are going to talk about women writers from those two centuries, you *have* to acknowledge G&G, even if it's only to refute them.
Charting the themes of imprisonment and escape, ice and fire (snow), madness and sexuality, this book offers a female literary history of these two centuries. In addition, there's a lot of really, really exciting word play going on in this book. One of my favorite instances is the one in which they discuss Heathcliff hanging Isabella's dog on the bridle (bridal) hook.
I think that G&G rely far too heavily on autobiographical readings of these women writers' texts, but given the nature of their project, that predilection isn't surprising. This book also reminded me how much I really don't care for Emily Dickinson's poetry. Isolated poems I enjoy; her autobiography I find very interesting; but when forced to read twenty or so of her poems in a row, I find myself wanting to tear out my hair. Although G&G make a really fascinating argument for Dickinson's bizarre punctutation (all those dashes) as analogous to a sewing stitch that links different ideas, bottom line is that it throws me out of the poem, every damn time.
Thoughts? I think some of you have probably read this book and if you haven't and you are at all interested in women's writing you should. It's very accessible in my opinion to readers from a variety of fields and interests.
femme_fic tonight (expect something in the next 7 hours or so, ariadne!) and then I am watching last week's SPN and curling up with The Victorian Frame of Mind.I just finished The Madwoman in the Attic by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. I skimmed small sections of this book for my MA thesis but in no way read the text (which is highly unfortunate because I think that ultimately, G&G's methodology is probably superior to what I used of Elaine Showalter's at a critical juncture, but that's neither here nor there). This book was published in 1979, which is significant for me because that's the year in which I was born. I have a profound respect for these two women who engineered a way of reading 18th and 19th century women writers that is still valid and compelling thirty years later--no mean feat in academia. In fact, if you are going to talk about women writers from those two centuries, you *have* to acknowledge G&G, even if it's only to refute them.
Charting the themes of imprisonment and escape, ice and fire (snow), madness and sexuality, this book offers a female literary history of these two centuries. In addition, there's a lot of really, really exciting word play going on in this book. One of my favorite instances is the one in which they discuss Heathcliff hanging Isabella's dog on the bridle (bridal) hook.
I think that G&G rely far too heavily on autobiographical readings of these women writers' texts, but given the nature of their project, that predilection isn't surprising. This book also reminded me how much I really don't care for Emily Dickinson's poetry. Isolated poems I enjoy; her autobiography I find very interesting; but when forced to read twenty or so of her poems in a row, I find myself wanting to tear out my hair. Although G&G make a really fascinating argument for Dickinson's bizarre punctutation (all those dashes) as analogous to a sewing stitch that links different ideas, bottom line is that it throws me out of the poem, every damn time.
Thoughts? I think some of you have probably read this book and if you haven't and you are at all interested in women's writing you should. It's very accessible in my opinion to readers from a variety of fields and interests.
