White 2011: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with ':White, Micheline, ed. ''English Women, Religion, and Textual Production, 1500-1625.'' Burlington: Ashgate, 2011.') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:White, Micheline, ed. ''English Women, Religion, and Textual Production, 1500-1625.'' Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. | :White, Micheline, ed. ''English Women, Religion, and Textual Production, 1500-1625.'' Burlington: Ashgate, 2011. | ||
many gynocritical studies read religious women's writing as secular; "as a result, scholars viewed many female-authored religious works as marginal or depressingly acquiescent, and those that did not appear to resis gender norms were largely overlooked" (2) | |||
:"In considering this significant critical reorientation, we might note that new interpretive paradigms emerged as scholars began acknowledging the central (rather than marginal) place of religious writing in Renaissance England; began reading women's religious texts as ''religious'' texts; and began positioning them in relation to a range of religio-cultural developments rather than solely in elation to early modern gender norms." (2 | |||
Revision as of 17:51, 28 September 2013
- White, Micheline, ed. English Women, Religion, and Textual Production, 1500-1625. Burlington: Ashgate, 2011.
many gynocritical studies read religious women's writing as secular; "as a result, scholars viewed many female-authored religious works as marginal or depressingly acquiescent, and those that did not appear to resis gender norms were largely overlooked" (2)
- "In considering this significant critical reorientation, we might note that new interpretive paradigms emerged as scholars began acknowledging the central (rather than marginal) place of religious writing in Renaissance England; began reading women's religious texts as religious texts; and began positioning them in relation to a range of religio-cultural developments rather than solely in elation to early modern gender norms." (2