An Extensive Republic - pg. 350-363
Men Writing in the Early Republic
David Leverenz
This week's reading was super interesting, and let me tell you why: It was about men. I know! I said it. It's a weird thing to say, but I've said it and it's out there.
So let me explain myself, I guess.
Like many students of the female persuasion, I've always gravitated toward courses centered around women in literature. I'd eagerly chime in on the debates about diversifying the canon and nod along while others professed their dissatisfaction with sexist readings of literary history. And I don't take any of that back, really…..but it has occurred to me lately that I may have overdone it a bit. While I was taking up the cause for female writers, and while I understood the importance of this cause, what I actually lacked (and am in many ways still lacking) -- is that knowledge of classically canonical (and masculine) texts that provides a sort of foundation on which the emphasis on women writers has been built upon.
In other words, I am the product of literature courses that put particular emphasis on women's writing, and because of this I feel an odd disconnect from what is meant to be "common knowledge" (at least to English grads).
So, I suppose that is a sort of jumbled explanation of why this week was so very enlightening. :) I found the points about masculinity and manhood to be interesting, particularly the little insights into how some of these authors sought or failed to find a true sense of manhood. I had hoped that Leverenz would return to some of the earlier discussion about pseudonyms, perhaps looking more closely at the different attributes, because I found this particularly interesting-- but overall it was an informative and clear reading.
I completely agree, Emilee! I found that I was also interested in exploring the "behind the scenes" account of very canonical figures. While I certainly think that a focus on women's studies is fruitful, perhaps we are also overlooking important aspects of the past. I do not have any answers, but maybe these are good thoughts to consider.
ReplyDeleteCallie
Hi Emilee, thanks for posting. These days it's hard to say what is, and what is not, "common knowledge" among graduate students, and even professors. Since the canon was exploded, graduate studies in literary areas has moved towards highly specialized subjects, and way from a survey approach. You should not feel self-conscious because you might not know something that someone else does, especially when that person does not know what you know. But thanks for considering a wider balance. dw
ReplyDeleteEmilee, I have to say I completely agree. I, too, gravitate toward women's writing and conversations about changing the canon to include more women writers. However, I thought that Leverenz really helped me see the ways ideas of masculinity can be affected by the negative force of patriarchy as well. How well do you think these male writers challenged the definition of masculinity, I wonder? How well do women challenge and redefine femininity as well? all interesting.
ReplyDelete