Reading Victorian Poetry as the World Burns

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 POETRY
Marion Thain
{"title":"Reading Victorian Poetry as the World Burns","authors":"Marion Thain","doi":"10.1353/vp.2024.a933704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Reading Victorian Poetry as the World Burns <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Marion Thain (bio) </li> </ul> <p><strong>I</strong> write this in summer 2023 as an unprecedented heatwave burns up nearby southern Europe and beyond. Climate change has become a frightening reality in data that has already, this year, provided evidence of endless “firsts” or “highests.” In this context, why read Victorian poetry? Who cares, and why should anyone care? This is a particularly pertinent question to ask at the sixtieth anniversary of the journal <em>Victorian Poetry</em>, whose leadership has shaped the field under the fine stewardship of John Lamb, and which is about to pass to a new editor-in-chief.</p> <p>In the 2002 issue (revisited in this present issue), I wrote about the category of “women’s poetry”: what is a “woman poet” and, crucially, how did that concept develop historically.<sup>1</sup> More specifically, how did the idea of women’s poetry frame engagement with the writing and reception of poetry by women in the nineteenth century? And how might we usefully trouble the deceptively unified category of “women’s poetry”? Pointing out that the category was not always being used as a biological-sex-based category (Alfred Miles’s well known anthology, I noted, included the work of female poets in volumes other than the one specifically devoted to “women’s poetry”), I concluded that women’s poetry was, in the late nineteenth century, as much a genre-based category as a gender-based one. What might we learn from exploring this late-nineteenth century gender taxonomy at the present moment, in which the nature of the category “woman” is (at least in some quarters) much discussed? That analysis of the concept of “women’s poetry” in 2002 has gained a potential whole new relevance as the categories of “women’s sport” and “women’s toilets” have become contentious in recent years. The recognition of the highly constructed nature of the categories of poetess and the “woman poet” provides a foundation and touchstone for the questions that are now being asked about gender identity: about the multiplicity of identities within and across categories, and the way those categories are inhabited. We are once again, and in a new way, at a moment when the issue of gender categorization is relevant and important <strong>[End Page 543]</strong> in public discourse. At the same time as the concept of “woman writer” is necessarily being explored afresh, a number of talented new scholars are working on the formation of trans-identity discourses in late nineteenth-century literature. The late nineteenth-century moment in which sexology, psychoanalysis, and the queer identities of decadence were providing new discourses and taxonomies for gender and sexuality is a moment that needs to be read in relation to the attempts of our current age to find ways of articulating a diversity of experiences. As ever, we look back in order to be able to look forward more effectively, and in a more informed way; both learning from the past and putting current thinking in a broader frame.</p> <p>That’s one significant way in which the field I was exploring in 2002 is still highly relevant but has been given a new urgency and a new direction. I will not speak for those undertaking this new work on gender identity in relation to poets such as “Michael Field”; it is for this new generation of scholars to bring forward their insights and to show us why and how work in this field will continue to develop. What I’m going to focus on in this essay is a broader issue about the discipline of literary studies that underpinned my 2002 contribution in a way that was implicit yet constitutive. This is an issue of methodology, and specifically the role that “close reading” played in that article. Half of that article was a close reading of just one short poem: a display of a method that is fairly distinctive to our discipline, and one that could not be further from the quantitative and/or big data methods that are the bread-and-butter of STEM subjects—and one whose value is, therefore, in danger of being out of tune with the current age. Yet close reading...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":54107,"journal":{"name":"VICTORIAN POETRY","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VICTORIAN POETRY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/vp.2024.a933704","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"POETRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Reading Victorian Poetry as the World Burns
  • Marion Thain (bio)

I write this in summer 2023 as an unprecedented heatwave burns up nearby southern Europe and beyond. Climate change has become a frightening reality in data that has already, this year, provided evidence of endless “firsts” or “highests.” In this context, why read Victorian poetry? Who cares, and why should anyone care? This is a particularly pertinent question to ask at the sixtieth anniversary of the journal Victorian Poetry, whose leadership has shaped the field under the fine stewardship of John Lamb, and which is about to pass to a new editor-in-chief.

In the 2002 issue (revisited in this present issue), I wrote about the category of “women’s poetry”: what is a “woman poet” and, crucially, how did that concept develop historically.1 More specifically, how did the idea of women’s poetry frame engagement with the writing and reception of poetry by women in the nineteenth century? And how might we usefully trouble the deceptively unified category of “women’s poetry”? Pointing out that the category was not always being used as a biological-sex-based category (Alfred Miles’s well known anthology, I noted, included the work of female poets in volumes other than the one specifically devoted to “women’s poetry”), I concluded that women’s poetry was, in the late nineteenth century, as much a genre-based category as a gender-based one. What might we learn from exploring this late-nineteenth century gender taxonomy at the present moment, in which the nature of the category “woman” is (at least in some quarters) much discussed? That analysis of the concept of “women’s poetry” in 2002 has gained a potential whole new relevance as the categories of “women’s sport” and “women’s toilets” have become contentious in recent years. The recognition of the highly constructed nature of the categories of poetess and the “woman poet” provides a foundation and touchstone for the questions that are now being asked about gender identity: about the multiplicity of identities within and across categories, and the way those categories are inhabited. We are once again, and in a new way, at a moment when the issue of gender categorization is relevant and important [End Page 543] in public discourse. At the same time as the concept of “woman writer” is necessarily being explored afresh, a number of talented new scholars are working on the formation of trans-identity discourses in late nineteenth-century literature. The late nineteenth-century moment in which sexology, psychoanalysis, and the queer identities of decadence were providing new discourses and taxonomies for gender and sexuality is a moment that needs to be read in relation to the attempts of our current age to find ways of articulating a diversity of experiences. As ever, we look back in order to be able to look forward more effectively, and in a more informed way; both learning from the past and putting current thinking in a broader frame.

That’s one significant way in which the field I was exploring in 2002 is still highly relevant but has been given a new urgency and a new direction. I will not speak for those undertaking this new work on gender identity in relation to poets such as “Michael Field”; it is for this new generation of scholars to bring forward their insights and to show us why and how work in this field will continue to develop. What I’m going to focus on in this essay is a broader issue about the discipline of literary studies that underpinned my 2002 contribution in a way that was implicit yet constitutive. This is an issue of methodology, and specifically the role that “close reading” played in that article. Half of that article was a close reading of just one short poem: a display of a method that is fairly distinctive to our discipline, and one that could not be further from the quantitative and/or big data methods that are the bread-and-butter of STEM subjects—and one whose value is, therefore, in danger of being out of tune with the current age. Yet close reading...

在世界燃烧之际阅读维多利亚诗歌
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要: 在世界燃烧之际阅读维多利亚诗歌 玛丽昂-泰恩(简历 2023 年夏天,我写下这篇文章时,一场前所未有的热浪正在南欧附近和其他地区燃烧。气候变化已经成为一个令人恐惧的现实,今年的数据已经证明了无穷无尽的 "第一次 "或 "最高点"。在这种情况下,为什么要读维多利亚时代的诗歌?谁会关心,为什么要关心?在《维多利亚诗歌》杂志创刊 60 周年之际,提出这个问题尤为贴切,在约翰-兰姆(John Lamb)的出色领导下,该杂志塑造了维多利亚诗歌领域,而新一任主编即将上任。在 2002 年的这一期(本期将再次讨论),我写到了 "女性诗歌 "这一类别:什么是 "女性诗人",更重要的是,这一概念在历史上是如何发展的?我们又该如何对 "女性诗歌 "这一具有欺骗性的统一范畴提出质疑?我指出,"女性诗歌 "并不总是作为一个基于生理性别的类别(我注意到,阿尔弗雷德-迈尔斯著名的选集中,除了专门论述 "女性诗歌 "的那一卷之外,还收录了其他各卷中女性诗人的作品),我的结论是,在十九世纪末,女性诗歌既是一个基于性别的类别,也是一个基于体裁的类别。当下,"女性 "这一类别的性质(至少在某些方面)正受到广泛讨论,我们可以从探讨十九世纪末的性别分类学中学到什么呢?随着近年来 "女性运动 "和 "女性厕所 "等类别引起争议,2002 年对 "女性诗歌 "概念的分析可能具有全新的意义。认识到女诗人和 "女诗人 "类别的高度建构性,为我们现在提出的性别认同问题提供了基础和试金石:即类别内和类别间身份的多重性,以及这些类别的居住方式。我们再次以一种新的方式进入了性别分类问题在公共讨论中具有相关性和重要性的时刻 [第 543 页结束]。在重新探讨 "女作家 "概念的同时,一些才华横溢的新学者正在研究 19 世纪晚期文学中跨身份话语的形成。19 世纪晚期,性学、精神分析和颓废时期的同性恋身份为性别和性行为提供了新的论述和分类标准,我们需要将这一时刻与我们当今时代试图找到表达经验多样性的方式联系起来进行解读。与以往一样,我们回顾过去,是为了更有效、更明智地展望未来;我们既要向过去学习,也要将当前的思考置于更广阔的框架中。这就是我在 2002 年探索的领域仍然具有高度相关性的一个重要方式,但已被赋予了新的紧迫性和新的方向。我不会为那些从事与 "迈克尔-菲尔德 "等诗人有关的性别认同新工作的人说话;应该由新一代学者提出他们的见解,并告诉我们为什么以及如何继续发展这一领域的工作。在这篇文章中,我要重点讨论的是关于文学研究学科的一个更广泛的问题,这个问题以一种隐含而又构成的方式支撑着我 2002 年的贡献。这是一个方法论问题,特别是 "细读 "在那篇文章中所扮演的角色。那篇文章有一半的篇幅是对一首短诗的细读:这是我们学科相当独特的一种方法的展示,与作为科学、技术、工程和数学学科支柱的定量和/或大数据方法相去甚远--因此,这种方法的价值有可能与当今时代格格不入。然而,仔细阅读...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Founded in 1962 to further the aesthetic study of the poetry of the Victorian Period in Britain (1830–1914), Victorian Poetry publishes articles from a broad range of theoretical and critical angles, including but not confined to new historicism, feminism, and social and cultural issues. The journal has expanded its purview from the major figures of Victorian England (Tennyson, Browning, the Rossettis, etc.) to a wider compass of poets of all classes and gender identifications in nineteenth-century Britain and the Commonwealth. Victorian Poetry is edited by John B. Lamb and sponsored by the Department of English at West Virginia University.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信