(no subject)

[owlectomy]

When I rule the world, no one will be allowed to say Jane Austen wrote the "early 19th century equivalent of trashy Harlequin romance novels" unless they can name at least three pre-20th century women writers they like better - and have read at least one trashy Harlequin romance novel.

That last is just because I believe this hypothetical person deserves all the suffering you can only get by reading "The Greek Billionaire Tycoon's Secret Baby."

Emily Dickinson doesn't count unless you can recite something from memory. It's not that hard, people, you can sing them all to the tune of "Yellow Rose of Texas."

If you're going to say something like that, you probably feel the same way about Jane Eyre (which inspired later generations of formulaic gothic romances) and Wuthering Heights (which is, in all honesty, kind of emo) - it's a way to conveniently, unconsciously, have a canon that just happens to include only men.

Paging Joanna Russ on line 5, paging Joanna Russ on line 5.

Comments

[ozarque.livejournal.com]

Wonderful. Thanks for posting this.

[owldaughter.livejournal.com]

If this is your platform, I fully support your bid to take over the world.

[wintersweet.livejournal.com]

Actually, I can't stand the Brontes, but Jane Austen is worth reading, IIRC. :P I keep meaning to read her, because I don't remember a bit of what little I read as a child.

But I agree about flippant comparisons.

[flemmings.livejournal.com]

(Tries it with Because I could not stop for death he kindly stopped for me, finds it works dear God, falls off chair in hysterics of laughter.)

Much trashier than Austen are Maria Radcliffe, Mrs. Henry Wood, and Aphra Behn if she counts. Truly, Austen's subtext is *nasty*. I've never read a harlequin but if it had subtext like that I would.

(Can't stand WH, by the way. Charlotte oppresses me but she writes honestly, Emily is just-- 'why am I supposed to be interested in these idiots?')