Talk:Feminist literary criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An introduction that is not like the body of the article[edit]

The introduction is too convoluted. It's filled with information that shouldn't be in a intro. It's hard to understand "What feminism is" 61.3.126.215 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this better?

"Feminist literary criticism is literary criticism informed by both feminism and feminist theory. Using feminist principles and ideological discourses, it critiques the language of literature, its structure and being. This school of thought seeks to both describe and analyze the ways in which literature reinforces the narrative of male domination in regard to female bodies by exploring the economic, social, political, and psychological forces embedded within literature.[1] Its history has been broad and varied, from the classics of George Eliot and Margaret Fuller to other theoretical works by "third-wave" authors. In general, feminist literary criticism before the 1970s (the first and second waves of feminism), was simultaneously concerned with both women's authorship and the representation of women's condition within literature; including the depiction of fictional female characters. Furthermore, it was also concerned with the exclusion of women from the literary canon.

With the development of more complex conceptions of gender and subjectivity along with third-wave feminism, feminist literary criticism explores a variety of new routes, one of which is the tradition of the Frankfurt School's critical theory. It has further considered gender in the terms of Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis (as part of both the deconstruction of existing relations of power, and as well as a concrete political investment).[2] It has also been closely associated with the birth and growth of queer studies. The representation of women and its subsequent politics, being a more traditionally central feminist concern, has continued to play an active role in feminist literary criticism. Ergo, modern feminist criticism deals with those issues related to the patriarchal programming within key aspects of society including education, politics and the work force." 61.3.126.215 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Mlanderson (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)If you could try spreading out the information on "Feminist Literacy Criticism" for a clearer understanding of what it really means. So maybe dividing information into sections based on dates and importance. Someone who is not so familiar with the topic may find it difficult to grasp the concepts. Try breaking the waves into sections and explaining how they contributed to feminist theory. You mentioned "Gynocriticism" but didn't go into detail on the importance and how it shaped the way we look at literature. When did it become significant, who was apart of it and so on? mlanderson (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Feminist criticism[edit]

Should this article be merged with Feminist criticism? They both seem to cover the same topic. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- whatever useful material has been added in the article on feminist criticism should be merged into this article (under the less ambiguous "literary criticism" title, since there might at some point also be other articles on, say, feminist art criticism and feminist film criticism). However, on quick perusal of the new material, that article looks potentially unuseful to me -- it's garbled and reads more like a student's first essay on the topic than an encyclopedia article. Much of the material may need to be cut or intensively reworked rather than simply merged here. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Feminist literary criticism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Feminist literary criticism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Spencer":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 00:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)