Feminist Book History - Revision history

Wtrettien at 02:51, 7 December 2017

2017-12-07T02:51:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:51, 7 December 2017
Line 101:		Line 101:

	"the project of recovering women's writing involves more than simply the process of editing individual authors; it is ultimately an attempt to reconstruct a lost manuscript culture." (70)		"the project of recovering women's writing involves more than simply the process of editing individual authors; it is ultimately an attempt to reconstruct a lost manuscript culture." (70)

			--

			:'''Kate Ozment, "Book History, Women, and the Canon: Theorizing Feminist Bibliography," ASECS conference paper (2017)'''

			"book history’s resistance to diversity is inherited from the identification of its origins in Anglo-American textual scholarship. The discussions of agency and textual authority from G. Thomas Tanselle, D.F. McKenzie, and Jerome McGann pull from a legacy of bibliography as empirical and scientific3 and consequently insulated from critiques of gender, race, postcolonialism, and sexuality."

			"I make the case for a revision of this historiography I call feminist bibliography that expands our narrow citations in textual scholarship to the diverse work in bibliography and its related fields that has and continues to be done on minority authors."

			"we have built the vast majority of our bibliographic theories on the work of a single demographic—white, male authors. As this is the narrative we have absorbed into book history, I argue that book history’s issues with diversity are born out of the limited selection of our foundational texts. In order to imagine a diverse book history, we must revise our foundation."

			"A feminist rereading could include critiques of mainstream methods as well as an embracing of the odd to avoid bringing order to authors and genres to which order is not native. Rather than excluding what does not fit or is not easily categorized, book history readers and companions can champion the individual and the unique just as they appreciate such characteristics in physical objects."

Wtrettien: /* Feminist Editing / Textual Studies */

2017-05-28T00:46:14Z

Feminist Editing / Textual Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:46, 28 May 2017
Line 44:		Line 44:
	--		--

	~~Gary Taylor, "The Renaissance and the End of Editing" in Palimpsest~~		: Estill, Laura, and Michelle Levy. "Evaluating Digital Remediations of Women's Manuscripts." ''Digital Studies / Le champ numerique'' (2015): https://www.digitalstudies.org/ojs/index.php/digital_studies/article/view/360/438

	~~Taylor, "c~~:~~\wp\file.text 05:41 10-07-98"~~

	~~David Greetham, Theories 434, "a feminist ethic to editing"~~

	~~Hanna, Pursuing History~~

	--

	Estill, Laura, and Michelle Levy. "Evaluating Digital Remediations of Women's Manuscripts." ''Digital Studies / Le champ numerique'' (2015): https://www.digitalstudies.org/ojs/index.php/digital_studies/article/view/360/438

	--		--

	Barratt, Alexandra. "Feminist Editing: Cooking the Books." ''AUMLA'' 79 (1993): 45-57.		: Barratt, Alexandra. "Feminist Editing: Cooking the Books." ''AUMLA'' 79 (1993): 45-57.

	Feminist editing -- making visible the assumptions in editing and making them feminist; "One characteristic of such feminist editing should be that it privileges women's texts."		Feminist editing -- making visible the assumptions in editing and making them feminist; "One characteristic of such feminist editing should be that it privileges women's texts."
Line 64:		Line 54:
	--		--

	Danielle Clarke, "Nostalgia, Anachronism, and the Editing of Early Modern Women's Texts." ''Text'' 15 (2013): 187-209.		: Danielle Clarke, "Nostalgia, Anachronism, and the Editing of Early Modern Women's Texts." ''Text'' 15 (2013): 187-209.

	"Editing has been central to gendering the Renaissance." (187)		"Editing has been central to gendering the Renaissance." (187)
Line 108:		Line 98:
	--		--

	Roberts, Josephine. "Editing the Women Writers of Early Modern England." ''Shakespeare Studies'' (1996).		: Roberts, Josephine. "Editing the Women Writers of Early Modern England." ''Shakespeare Studies'' (1996).

	"the project of recovering women's writing involves more than simply the process of editing individual authors; it is ultimately an attempt to reconstruct a lost manuscript culture." (70)		"the project of recovering women's writing involves more than simply the process of editing individual authors; it is ultimately an attempt to reconstruct a lost manuscript culture." (70)

Wtrettien: /* Feminist Editing / Textual Studies */

2017-05-28T00:45:02Z

Feminist Editing / Textual Studies

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :[[Ross and Salzman 2016]] -- edited collection; helpfully lays out tradition of feminist recuperation and how that early activist work is being resituated in current scholarly contexts
-:Ezell, Margaret J. M. "Editing Early Modern Women's Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy-Text." ''Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102-109.
+:Ezell, Margaret J. M. "Editing Early Modern Women's Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy-Text." ''Literature Compass'' 7.2 (2010): 102-109.
 "Clearly there has been the practice of feminist editing, recovering texts from obscurity and making them widely available for classroom use to challenge and change the nature of the traditional canon. Do the now post-feminist literary editors of early modern women writers clamor for a new cladistics redeﬁning the family of texts from a feminist perspective to create scholarly editions of early modern women’s texts or will the existing models created for us by Greg, Bowers, Tanselle, McGann, and their heirs do just ﬁne? In particular, are there issues raised by early modern women’s manuscript materials which are not usefully addressed by current principles and practices of editing early modern manuscripts for print? Finally, if one turns to e-editions – surely a ‘gender free’ zone, some might think – are there issues arising from the recent history of the recovery of early women’s manuscripts about which we should think further?" (103)
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 "What concerns me is that I hear in the narratives told by the current history of the book and in the rhetorics of editorial principles and practices for early modern texts the same types of language which obscured, misrepresented, and ‘lost’ for generations the writings of early modern women. Because of this easy transference of older critical terms and textual conceptualizations into a new editorial media, I would argue that editors of electronic projects, too, still need to be more aware of the signiﬁcance of the materiality of texts, of the social conventions of handwritten culture as they may differ from print cultures, and the multiple ways in which these unique, single copy-texts are of interest and value to scholars. Otherwise, we will run the risk of continuing to classify, describe, and edit them in ways that ‘edit’ out the richness and complexity of their ways of communicating. Perhaps there is still room for a little positive feminist interrogation of editorial principles after all, in the mutual pursuit of the recovery of textual communities." (109)

Wtrettien: /* Feminist Editing / Textual Studies */

2017-05-27T22:38:42Z

Feminist Editing / Textual Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 27 May 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:

	"Are there some early modern texts that simply cannot, or perhaps even ''should'' not, be edited for a print format and with these texts will an electronic edition solve our problems?" (103)		"Are there some early modern texts that simply cannot, or perhaps even ''should'' not, be edited for a print format and with these texts will an electronic edition solve our problems?" (103)

			"I have argued elsewhere that in the new narrative of the history of the book, early modern manuscript volumes are being cast in very similar terms as early modern women writers were in the 1980s –either the handwritten volume is ignored as if it does not exist, or it is some oddity which was as Tanselle suggests ungoverned by the social decorum demanded of ‘real’ literature, that is printed works (‘Invisible Books’)." (104)

			"I have repeatedly argued that in the attempt to make early modern manuscripts more accessible to modern users, archivists and librarians in their attempts to classify and to preserve have in fact obscured texts with their labels such as ‘commonplace book’, ‘recipe book’ and ‘meditations’, what is actually being performed in the text itself (‘Redeﬁning Early Women Writers’). These are genres which are particularly associated with the surviving manuscripts by early modern women and volumes which typically have multiple authors contained in them. Related to this attempt to document and classify materials, it seems to me, is the way in which existing theories of the copy-text and editing early modern materials are willing to ‘sacriﬁce’ aspects of the original in pursuit of usability for the modern reader." (106)

			Editor's task is usually taken to be distinguishing between varants, errors, slips of the pen -- but these are crucial part of the meaning of manuscrips

			Do e-editions solve this problem? Not really.

			"What concerns me is that I hear in the narratives told by the current history of the book and in the rhetorics of editorial principles and practices for early modern texts the same types of language which obscured, misrepresented, and ‘lost’ for generations the writings of early modern women. Because of this easy transference of older critical terms and textual conceptualizations into a new editorial media, I would argue that editors of electronic projects, too, still need to be more aware of the signiﬁcance of the materiality of texts, of the social conventions of handwritten culture as they may differ from print cultures, and the multiple ways in which these unique, single copy-texts are of interest and value to scholars. Otherwise, we will run the risk of continuing to classify, describe, and edit them in ways that ‘edit’ out the richness and complexity of their ways of communicating. Perhaps there is still room for a little positive feminist interrogation of editorial principles after all, in the mutual pursuit of the recovery of textual communities." (109)

Wtrettien: /* Feminist Editing / Textual Studies */

2017-05-27T22:01:09Z

Feminist Editing / Textual Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 27 May 2017
Line 23:		Line 23:

	:Ezell, Margaret J. M. "Editing Early Modern Women's Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy-Text." ''Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102-109.		:Ezell, Margaret J. M. "Editing Early Modern Women's Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy-Text." ''Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102-109.

			"Clearly there has been the practice of feminist editing, recovering texts from obscurity and making them widely available for classroom use to challenge and change the nature of the traditional canon. Do the now post-feminist literary editors of early modern women writers clamor for a new cladistics redeﬁning the family of texts from a feminist perspective to create scholarly editions of early modern women’s texts or will the existing models created for us by Greg, Bowers, Tanselle, McGann, and their heirs do just ﬁne? In particular, are there issues raised by early modern women’s manuscript materials which are not usefully addressed by current principles and practices of editing early modern manuscripts for print? Finally, if one turns to e-editions – surely a ‘gender free’ zone, some might think – are there issues arising from the recent history of the recovery of early women’s manuscripts about which we should think further?" (103)

			Work on th eMLA Committee on Scholarly Editions -- "the guidelines for vetting a scholarly edition seemed to suggest that producing a truly 'scholarly' edition of such types of material as I was working on would be quite impossible." -- only 1 extant copy of some women's works, no need for Greg's method, etc.

			"These are manuscripts that resist or repel the traditional models for determining how a manuscript should be edited." (103) -- no variants or authorial intention

			"Are there some early modern texts that simply cannot, or perhaps even ''should'' not, be edited for a print format and with these texts will an electronic edition solve our problems?" (103)

Wtrettien: /* Bibliography */

2017-05-27T21:56:21Z

Bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 27 May 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:

	:[[Federico 2009]] -- Madwoman in the Attic after 30 Years		:[[Federico 2009]] -- Madwoman in the Attic after 30 Years

			=== Feminist Editing / Textual Studies ===

			:[[Ross and Salzman 2016]] -- edited collection; helpfully lays out tradition of feminist recuperation and how that early activist work is being resituated in current scholarly contexts

			:Ezell, Margaret J. M. "Editing Early Modern Women's Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy-Text." ''Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102-109.

Wtrettien: /* Bibliography */

2017-01-18T01:04:56Z

Bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:04, 18 January 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:
	=== Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork ===		=== Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork ===

	:[[Gilbert and Gubar 1979]] -- Madwoman in the Attic		:[[Gilbert and Gubar 1979]] -- Madwoman in the Attic -- released the same year as the first two-volume edition of [[Eisenstein 1983]], which cites McLuhan as inspiration; founding moment of women's and book history together

	:[[Auerbach 1980]] -- review of Madwoman in the Attic		:[[Auerbach 1980]] -- review of Madwoman in the Attic

Wtrettien: /* Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork */

2016-08-08T22:03:39Z

Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:03, 8 August 2016
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:[[Gubar 1981]] -- "The Blank Page"		:[[Gubar 1981]] -- "The Blank Page"

			:[[Miller 1985]] -- "Rereading as a Woman: The Body in Practice"

	:[[King 1995]] -- "Of Needles and Pens and Women's Work" -- instrumental in redirecting conversation away from pens and towards needles		:[[King 1995]] -- "Of Needles and Pens and Women's Work" -- instrumental in redirecting conversation away from pens and towards needles

	:[[Federico 2009]] -- Madwoman in the Attic after 30 Years		:[[Federico 2009]] -- Madwoman in the Attic after 30 Years

Wtrettien at 22:02, 8 August 2016

2016-08-08T22:02:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 8 August 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Bibliography ==		== Bibliography ==

	== Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork ==		=== Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork ===

			:[[Gilbert and Gubar 1979]] -- Madwoman in the Attic

	:[[Auerbach 1980]] -- review of Madwoman in the Attic		:[[Auerbach 1980]] -- review of Madwoman in the Attic

Wtrettien at 22:01, 8 August 2016

2016-08-08T22:01:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 8 August 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:

	== Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork ==		== Feminist Literary Criticism: Groundwork ==

			:[[Auerbach 1980]] -- review of Madwoman in the Attic

	:[[Showalter 1981]] -- "Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness" -- founding gynocriticism		:[[Showalter 1981]] -- "Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness" -- founding gynocriticism