User talk:Scribblingwoman/Drafts

Re. the article on women's writing:

Pulling together these various lists in support of the claim that "women's writing" has long been a recognized and discrete area of literary study, it strikes me that in the interests of preventing this article from being too cumbersome and link-heavy, we might instead make some separate lists/articles (a list of biographical dictionaries and another of web-based projects come immediately to mind) and link them to the article. scribblingwoman 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that this is becoming quite substantive. To clarify, do you mean that in the later stages, we should make separate articles to link to the main article? Or that we should start doing that now (in draft form...). --Susiebowers 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either, I suppose. I was hunting down some stuff on the "exemplary women" tradition today and that seems like a natural for its own article. Then this article could just refer to it, and wouldn't need to list a pile of titles. (A sister-article on the misogynist tradition is also something I'd like to work on, some time or another.) Articles like that would take some work, though; lists, on the other hand, could be started any time (the biographical dictionaries; the web-projects). The only thing we need to keep in mind are Wikipedia guidelines on lists. scribblingwoman 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a good idea to make the lists lists (I'm currently waterlogging your draft page with them... sorry!) and then the draft can take its discursive form. Dsp13 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved the biog dicts to List of biographical dictionaries of women writers Dsp13 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the more restricted aim of justifying the existence of a wikipedia category of women's writing is concerned, how much do people think needs to be there? Dsp13 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of justifying the existence of a ww wikipedia category, is it too strong (and vulnerable to NPOV objections) to say that use of the category implies the belief that women writers as a group share in facing a persistent dynamic of gender inequality? More subtly, might we say that many have claimed there is such a persistent dynamic, and even to gauge the extent to which they are right requires the general category to be available? Dsp13 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are right. (And I was planning to tone it down a bit, honest!) The idea of an article was first suggested by another editor who is working on the List of women writers, and I said I would be interested in drafting it. So when the "woman writer" category was deleted and I read that one of the criteria for having a category was that one could write an article about it, it came together. I know it looks pretty broad and messy right now; it's at the "throw everything into the pot" stage. But it does seem to me that it needs to be fairly substantial, if it is to give a brief history of the idea that women's writing constitutes a discrete area of study. Perhaps I am off base, though? scribblingwoman 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't get me wrong, I think what you're putting together is great & totally on base! So what hopefully we'll get is a new page women writers (this at the moment redirects to a stub women's fiction), which - if we can get category:women writers reinstated - we link to in the brief explanation of the category needed at the head of the category page. I know nothing about wikipedia admin, & tend to run away from disputes, so am just greatful for your creative response here! Dsp13 11:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to post?

This is looking really solid. The separated intro and history sections are working well and they help to identify and then explain the category of women's writing and its validity. I wonder if this is ready to post... ? --Susiebowers 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a couple of requests for input; we should wait a day or two to see if others have anything to say. Plus, I would like to find some more citations; better now than in response to a slew of "citation needed" tags! If you think of anything, jump in. scribblingwoman 16:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks really good to me. Dsp13 16:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!

This is a very solid and articulate beginning to what could be a wonderful article. I agree with the need for more sources, though; particularly for Richard Polwhele's The Unsex'd Females, since it is such an important note and yet both articles are redlinked. I'm also curious about "[The Feminist Companion to Literature in English]" -- is this supposed to be linked? When I get a little more time, I'll read through it with my fine toothed comb and see if I can find anything else that may need tweaking. But very, very good work! María: (habla ~ cosas) 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just seconding what User:Yllosubmarine said. Really great work User:Scribblingwoman, well done.--Cailil 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts

While I like the article, the lead indicates that the focus is on women's literature in English and much of the body discusses broader classical and European traditions - would it make sense to separate out the non-English language material as "background" material, or, if we're going to use a lot of non-English language material, to be explicit about it and broaden it beyond Europe (there are interesting traditions of female elegic poetry in Islam, for instance - Al-Khansa is probably the most notable exemplar - where certain literary pursuits were seen as part of the women's sphere)? Sam 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't feel competent to draft material on writing outside the tradition in English, I'm afraid. If someone out there wants to expand this, or maybe better yet in the interests of focus, write a linked sister article or articles about other traditions, that would be wonderful. I refocused the first paragraph of the history section a little, to highlight the influence of the classical tradition on British writing, and hope I have thus addressed your points. If you have a chance, let me know what you think. I'd hate to loose that section, as the writers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods were so focused on classical models, but you are absolutely correct that I needed to make that clear. scribblingwoman 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - thanks! One question, and I don't know that it needs to be addressed in the article, but this article focuses on English literature and its inheritance from Classical and Continental literature, but there's also the Anglo-Saxon/Danish/Celtic inheritances and the Medieval Christian literature inheritances - is there any good work on women's literature in those areas (for example, I know that there are the frauenlieds in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, including works like The Wife's Lament and Wulf and Eadwacer, but I think there's been controversy over whether their authors were men or women and the extent to which they fit within "women's literature" as such). Sam 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wive's Lament" is often claimed by women's lit. people, though as you say, the authorship is unknown. Still, I think one can make a case based on it being one of the earliest representations of a female perspective. And it's such a moving poem. There will be a place for material on the Christian traditions of exemplary women, and saints' lives, in another article I am drafting, on the "exemplary women" tradition. Will probably end up moving all those resources in this article over to the new one, but they can stay put for now. If you have any thoughts on that ... well, you know the drill! scribblingwoman 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]