Hello,
Just a quick update to say I have a new research site for the Fall 2011 semester: Indians as Curiosities. The blog is for Dr. Lisa Logan's LIT 6936: Studies in Literary, Cultural, and Textual Theory: Women and/in Early American Cultural Studies at the University of Central Florida.
Also, my new personal blog is available here: http://jayjaystroup.com, which has a list of all my current and past research projects.
-Jay Jay
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Final Paper
The assignment from Dr. Logan:
The assigned texts for this course barely scratch the surface of literary representations of women in early America. As scholars of American literature, we will investigate this field more deeply by conducting primary and secondary research and developing projects that add original insight to the conversation about this topic. To that end, each of you will choose for your research project one text (or set of texts, in some instances) from those listed (separate handout), all of which are lesser-known and infrequently taught. You will then spend the semester completing successive stages of a research project on this novel, from learning the publication history of the text to developing an initial bibliography using various databases to writing abstracts of critical articles to completing and peer-reviewing drafts and presenting your work at a final LIT 6216 conference, to be held during the final exam period.
[Submitted 7 December 2010]
The women of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book are old, middle aged, young, married, single, widowed, separated from their husbands, excommunicated from their church, have children, are childless, have suffered the death of loved ones, participate in different sects of Christianity, and represent varied economic backgrounds. Despite these cultural, social, and religious, and economic differences, preserved in Moore’s handwritten commonplace book are bonds of female friendship in the form of poetry and prose, authored by women for women. These bonds of intimacy create a female homosocial space, in which the lesbian continuum functions as a measuring rubric for these bonds.
The 1997 modern critical edition of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book (hereafter MMMB) makes accessible previously ignored women’s writing in early American literature through Moore’s commonplace book, a rare example of the non-traditional format. I say non-traditional in that the commonplace book existed in manuscript rather than printed form, and because the genre’s origins are closely tied to the education of men. The commonplace books by male authors of this time period have received critical attention; women’s commonplace books are, more recently, pushed into the scholarly spotlight. Catherine La Courreye Blecki and Karin A. Wulf, the editors, provide invaluable scholarship regarding the cultural, social, manuscript, and print culture of revolutionary Philadelphia and emphasize the bonds of friendship connecting the contributing authors and editor of the manuscript. This essay extends Blecki’s and Wulf’s reading of female friendship by using feminist theories to explore the physical object of Moore’s commonplace book as a site of the female homosocial and lesbian continuum. This argument is strengthened by a selective reading of friendship themed prose and verse entries from MMMB.
I argue that Moore’s commonplace book preserves the work of Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson, thereby establishing a female homosocial presence through the dominance of female authorship within the text. Though other themes are represented, the text opens with “An Essay on Friendship” by Griffitts, thereby signaling the tone and theme of the work as a whole. Drawing on literary scholarship of Susan Stabile and Ivy Schweitzer, feminist scholarship of Adrienne Rich and Eve Sedgwick, and history of the book scholarship from Kevin J. Hayes, I illustrate the relationship between the strategies of defiance and non-compliance in regards to the readership, authorship, and female friendship in MMMB and the ways in which these relationships create a female homosocial space.
The assigned texts for this course barely scratch the surface of literary representations of women in early America. As scholars of American literature, we will investigate this field more deeply by conducting primary and secondary research and developing projects that add original insight to the conversation about this topic. To that end, each of you will choose for your research project one text (or set of texts, in some instances) from those listed (separate handout), all of which are lesser-known and infrequently taught. You will then spend the semester completing successive stages of a research project on this novel, from learning the publication history of the text to developing an initial bibliography using various databases to writing abstracts of critical articles to completing and peer-reviewing drafts and presenting your work at a final LIT 6216 conference, to be held during the final exam period.
Bonds of Intimacy:
The Female Homosocial and Lesbian Continuum in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book
The 1997 modern critical edition of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book (hereafter MMMB) makes accessible previously ignored women’s writing in early American literature through Moore’s commonplace book, a rare example of the non-traditional format. I say non-traditional in that the commonplace book existed in manuscript rather than printed form, and because the genre’s origins are closely tied to the education of men. The commonplace books by male authors of this time period have received critical attention; women’s commonplace books are, more recently, pushed into the scholarly spotlight. Catherine La Courreye Blecki and Karin A. Wulf, the editors, provide invaluable scholarship regarding the cultural, social, manuscript, and print culture of revolutionary Philadelphia and emphasize the bonds of friendship connecting the contributing authors and editor of the manuscript. This essay extends Blecki’s and Wulf’s reading of female friendship by using feminist theories to explore the physical object of Moore’s commonplace book as a site of the female homosocial and lesbian continuum. This argument is strengthened by a selective reading of friendship themed prose and verse entries from MMMB.
I argue that Moore’s commonplace book preserves the work of Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson, thereby establishing a female homosocial presence through the dominance of female authorship within the text. Though other themes are represented, the text opens with “An Essay on Friendship” by Griffitts, thereby signaling the tone and theme of the work as a whole. Drawing on literary scholarship of Susan Stabile and Ivy Schweitzer, feminist scholarship of Adrienne Rich and Eve Sedgwick, and history of the book scholarship from Kevin J. Hayes, I illustrate the relationship between the strategies of defiance and non-compliance in regards to the readership, authorship, and female friendship in MMMB and the ways in which these relationships create a female homosocial space.
Conference Presentation
[See the Conference Program for reference.]
Panel 1: Unruly women and gendered formations of national identity
I acted in the role of a respondent, and provided two pre-written questions, and one spontaneous question. Note, this does not mean my questions were necessarily posed and answered, merely that I came prepared as per the conference regulations.
Q1: How effective would you consider your novel to its contemporary readers based on the author’s “goals.” By goals, I mean it seems that all three novels contain moral or instructive purpose, either explicitly mentioned in their preface/introduction or within the story itself.
Q2: The theme of education, albeit in various forms, seems to run throughout all three of your texts. In Female Quixotism, it is the education of young girls, in “Rosenglory” it is the education of the public about the consequences of seduction, and in Rachel Dyer, it is the education of the public about the danger of linking external and internal appearances and virtue. Do you think these novels are working on a public/private or personal/national level?
Spontaneous Q: [I will update this after our conference.]
Panel 2: Unruly women, gender boundaries, and crossing
I acted in the role of presenter, alongside Blake and Mark.
Thesis: Preserved in Moore’s handwritten commonplace book are bonds of female friendship in the form of verse and prose, authored by women for women. The book itself, by virtue of its genre, is a transgressive object – colonial women in the eighteenth century adapted and repurposed the commonplace book for their own uses, using it to circulate knowledge amongst themselves. These bonds of intimacy, contained within a newly feminized genre and expressed in a language of affection, create a female homosocial space in which the lesbian continuum functions as a measuring rubric.
Intervention in current scholarship: I think my use of the lesbian continuum, as a rubric for the female homosocial space, is what differentiates my approach from others’ research on the commonplace book in our field. The lesbian continuum opens up a world of possibilities, which are now freed from the constricting and unproductive binary of hetero/homosexuality. The focus is now on female-female relationships instead of through a filter of men.
Example from paper:
For my example, I want to share with you all some lines from the opening entry in Moore’s commonplace book, Hannah Griffitts’s “An Essay on Friendship,” a poem.
The poem, we are told, is written because “The Friend requires, & friendship does demand, / At least th’ attempt from my inferior Hand.”
While I describe the social Joys we find
In Hearts cemented & the friendly Mind,
The strong Affection & the watchful Care,
The feeling Pity & the ardent Pray’r.
I paint the mutual Love, the melting Eye
And all the Beauties of the tender Tye.—
—Friendship, my Friend’s an Union of the Soul
Expands its Flames & spread’s throughout the whole.
The greatest Blessing we enjoy below,
From this pure Stream untainted Pleasures flow,
So fix’d this Friendship & so firm its Love,
‘Tis only rival’d by the bless’d above,
Notice the language of intimacy present in the poem – hearts cemented, strong affection, feeling pity, mutual love, and tender tie. We are told friendship is a union of the soul and has spreading influence, described as flames. Friendship is the greatest blessing while alive on Earth, and is a pure stream of untainted pleasure; its only rival is Heaven itself. This language continues throughout the rest of this poem, and appears in more friendship entries by Hannah Griffitts, Susanna Wright, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson. Their vision of friendship is one of love, tenderness, devotion, strength, commitment, and support, and it is beautiful, touching, and lovely. It was truly my pleasure to explore the female homosocial space these women created, and to examine the ways in which the lesbian continuum existed in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book.
Panel 3: Theorizing unruly women: performance and masquerade
I acted in the role of panel chair, but thought it best to be prepared with “emergency” questions, just in case. Also, I couldn’t help myself, I really enjoyed hunting down connections between the three papers.
Q1: All three of your texts deal with prisons or jails, in one shape or another. Zach’s texts feature actual jail cells, whereas Lesley’s and Lindsay’s texts portray the Catholic convent as a prison. Do you think the levels of surveillance are equal throughout, or would you argue that one is worse than another?
Q2: Mad Jane Ray offers a physical, bodily resistance in addition to verbal resistance. Rachel Wall provides verbal and religious resistance, and Rebecca Reed offers a literary resistance (she won’t keep her mouth shut; publishes her story + the appendix as “proof”). Who would you vote for as the most unruly character, if you had to pick?
Panel 1: Unruly women and gendered formations of national identity
I acted in the role of a respondent, and provided two pre-written questions, and one spontaneous question. Note, this does not mean my questions were necessarily posed and answered, merely that I came prepared as per the conference regulations.
Q1: How effective would you consider your novel to its contemporary readers based on the author’s “goals.” By goals, I mean it seems that all three novels contain moral or instructive purpose, either explicitly mentioned in their preface/introduction or within the story itself.
Q2: The theme of education, albeit in various forms, seems to run throughout all three of your texts. In Female Quixotism, it is the education of young girls, in “Rosenglory” it is the education of the public about the consequences of seduction, and in Rachel Dyer, it is the education of the public about the danger of linking external and internal appearances and virtue. Do you think these novels are working on a public/private or personal/national level?
Spontaneous Q: [I will update this after our conference.]
I acted in the role of presenter, alongside Blake and Mark.
Thesis: Preserved in Moore’s handwritten commonplace book are bonds of female friendship in the form of verse and prose, authored by women for women. The book itself, by virtue of its genre, is a transgressive object – colonial women in the eighteenth century adapted and repurposed the commonplace book for their own uses, using it to circulate knowledge amongst themselves. These bonds of intimacy, contained within a newly feminized genre and expressed in a language of affection, create a female homosocial space in which the lesbian continuum functions as a measuring rubric.
Intervention in current scholarship: I think my use of the lesbian continuum, as a rubric for the female homosocial space, is what differentiates my approach from others’ research on the commonplace book in our field. The lesbian continuum opens up a world of possibilities, which are now freed from the constricting and unproductive binary of hetero/homosexuality. The focus is now on female-female relationships instead of through a filter of men.
Example from paper:
For my example, I want to share with you all some lines from the opening entry in Moore’s commonplace book, Hannah Griffitts’s “An Essay on Friendship,” a poem.
The poem, we are told, is written because “The Friend requires, & friendship does demand, / At least th’ attempt from my inferior Hand.”
While I describe the social Joys we find
In Hearts cemented & the friendly Mind,
The strong Affection & the watchful Care,
The feeling Pity & the ardent Pray’r.
I paint the mutual Love, the melting Eye
And all the Beauties of the tender Tye.—
—Friendship, my Friend’s an Union of the Soul
Expands its Flames & spread’s throughout the whole.
The greatest Blessing we enjoy below,
From this pure Stream untainted Pleasures flow,
So fix’d this Friendship & so firm its Love,
‘Tis only rival’d by the bless’d above,
Notice the language of intimacy present in the poem – hearts cemented, strong affection, feeling pity, mutual love, and tender tie. We are told friendship is a union of the soul and has spreading influence, described as flames. Friendship is the greatest blessing while alive on Earth, and is a pure stream of untainted pleasure; its only rival is Heaven itself. This language continues throughout the rest of this poem, and appears in more friendship entries by Hannah Griffitts, Susanna Wright, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson. Their vision of friendship is one of love, tenderness, devotion, strength, commitment, and support, and it is beautiful, touching, and lovely. It was truly my pleasure to explore the female homosocial space these women created, and to examine the ways in which the lesbian continuum existed in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book.
I acted in the role of panel chair, but thought it best to be prepared with “emergency” questions, just in case. Also, I couldn’t help myself, I really enjoyed hunting down connections between the three papers.
Q1: All three of your texts deal with prisons or jails, in one shape or another. Zach’s texts feature actual jail cells, whereas Lesley’s and Lindsay’s texts portray the Catholic convent as a prison. Do you think the levels of surveillance are equal throughout, or would you argue that one is worse than another?
Q2: Mad Jane Ray offers a physical, bodily resistance in addition to verbal resistance. Rachel Wall provides verbal and religious resistance, and Rebecca Reed offers a literary resistance (she won’t keep her mouth shut; publishes her story + the appendix as “proof”). Who would you vote for as the most unruly character, if you had to pick?
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Annotated Bibliography
The assignment from Dr. Logan:
Annotated bibliography of all secondary sources consulted. An annotated bibliography uses MLA format and contains a brief 3-5 sentence description under each entry explaining the argument presented in that particular source. As well, one of these sentences should state exactly how the source was/was not useful in developing your project/argument. It’s fine to cite parts of critical books, such as particular chapters used/read. Please include only scholarly academic sources. The following link provides more information about annotated bibliographies, including sample entries. Please note, that for this exercise, you will simply describe the argument and its use value for the project.
[Submitted 5 December 2010]
Blecki, Catherine La Courreye, and Karin A. Wulf, eds. Milcah Martha Moore's Book: a Commonplace Book from Revolutionary America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. Print.
Blecki, Catherine La Courreye. “Reading Moore’s Book: Manuscripts vs. Print Culture and the Development of Early American Literature.” Milcah Martha Moore's Book: A Commonplace Book from Revolutionary America. Ed. Catherine La Courreye Blecki and Karin A. Wulf. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. 59-106. Print.
Brayman, Hackel H., and Catherine E. Kelly. Reading Women: Literacy, Authorship, and Culture in the Atlantic World, 1500—1800. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2008. Print.
Annotated bibliography of all secondary sources consulted. An annotated bibliography uses MLA format and contains a brief 3-5 sentence description under each entry explaining the argument presented in that particular source. As well, one of these sentences should state exactly how the source was/was not useful in developing your project/argument. It’s fine to cite parts of critical books, such as particular chapters used/read. Please include only scholarly academic sources. The following link provides more information about annotated bibliographies, including sample entries. Please note, that for this exercise, you will simply describe the argument and its use value for the project.
[Submitted 5 December 2010]
Blecki, Catherine La Courreye, and Karin A. Wulf, eds. Milcah Martha Moore's Book: a Commonplace Book from Revolutionary America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. Print.
Moore’s commonplace book, a handwritten manuscript, resides in the Edward Wanton Smith Collection in the Quaker Collection Library at Haverford College; it is not available on microfiche. The modern critical edition, edited by Blecki and Wulf, makes my project possible. The careful transcription work, the extensive and exhaustive biographical, cultural, historical, and history of the book scholarship provides the backbone of my conference paper. The strong emphasis on friendship and same-sex relationships encouraged me to explore and extend their argument by classifying these relationships as explicitly female homosocial, as well as operating on the lesbian continuum.
Blecki, Catherine La Courreye. “Reading Moore’s Book: Manuscripts vs. Print Culture and the Development of Early American Literature.” Milcah Martha Moore's Book: A Commonplace Book from Revolutionary America. Ed. Catherine La Courreye Blecki and Karin A. Wulf. University Park: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. 59-106. Print.
Blecki meticulously details the manuscript culture of Moore’s time, and the origins and use of the commonplace book genre by Moore and her contemporaries. The role Moore played as editor, compiler and transcriber of MMMB is examined, revealing the careful and precise structure of the text. Comparison of Moore’s commonplace book to her published Miscellanies, Moral and Instructive in terms of function and goals allows Blecki to claim that “Moore’s Book is her true literary and cultural success” (69). The role and use of prose and poetry in MMMB are given equal attention by Blecki, and the theme of friendship in the entries is explored thoroughly, which I used for my project.
Brayman, Hackel H., and Catherine E. Kelly. Reading Women: Literacy, Authorship, and Culture in the Atlantic World, 1500—1800. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2008. Print.
The introduction provided me with a concise summary of current (feminist) scholarship and its struggles concerning defining the woman reader, and her literacy (reading and writing). Instead of searching for THE female writer, one should research and locate specificity rather than generalizations or idealizations. They repeat the call to expand the “archive” of women’s writings by thinking creatively about sources and evidence (3). The importance and necessity of a “transnational, transatlantic context” (6) is confirmed for those studying the early modern world. The transatlantic context appears in MMMB, as Moore includes excerpts from Graeme Fergusson’s journal that she kept while traveling in England. Moore herself is a transatlantic creature, born in Madeira and later relocated to Philadelphia, with family members on three different continents.
The Plan
Like the Cylons, I too have a plan. But mine involves a lot less genocide. And by a lot less, I mean none. It’s currently 3:30 am, let’s move on so I can get some sleep, shall we?
Rough Draft Fixes*:
*These are fixes I came up with before our manuscript circle on November 30, 2010, when I realized my rough draft was rougher than I would have liked. Combined with the constructive criticism I received from Zach and Blake, I think I’ll be in good shape to fix my paper for Tuesday, December 7, 2010.
Rough Draft Fixes*:
*These are fixes I came up with before our manuscript circle on November 30, 2010, when I realized my rough draft was rougher than I would have liked. Combined with the constructive criticism I received from Zach and Blake, I think I’ll be in good shape to fix my paper for Tuesday, December 7, 2010.
- Susan Stabile relocates and categorizes the 18th century American commonplace book by women as a distinctly feminized genre. Moore is participating in a subversive tactic of adaptation for feminine purposes – genealogical motivation (reword?) fits in with the preservation of Wrights, Griffitts, and Graeme Ferugsson’s works. Find quote from Blecki/Wulf that she’s preserving the kinship and friendship networks of Quaker Philadelphia, and use the bonds of intimacy quote too.
- Ivy Schweitzer provides the context of the 18th century American view of classical friendship. She claims too often critics/scholars equate homosocial with homosexuality – this is why I want to use the lesbian continuum, allows for a broad spectrum without strict binary of hetero/homosexual.
- Kevin J. Hayes provides the context of gender norms and standards of colonial woman’s reading habits, as well as exceptions to these rules. Most notable is how many women flat out went against convention – more than I expected.
- Eve Sedgwick defines homosocial and female homosocial. Adrienne Rich defines compulsory heterosexuality and the lesbian continuum. I disagree that the lesbian continuum and female homosocial must be defined against heterosexuality.
- Evidence from MMMB: biographical, and textual. The entries provide: language of intimacy (spiritual and sometimes physical closeness – the garden), language of friendship. Female authorship dominates MMMB – Griffitts provides 50% of the entries and “An Essay on Friendship” opens the text, despite interrupting the well-ordered sections (Wright’s poems follow the first entry).
- Do I use Carroll Smith-Rosenberg’s essay or no? Do I see female rituals – do the memorial poetry/prose entries count as a female ritual?
- Rework thesis – I don’t think it’s very clear. Use above summaries to keep my goal front and center: bonds of intimacy = female homosocial -> lesbian continuum. More clearly articulated: a female homosocial space is carved out by 1. genre (Stabile) and 2. language of intimacy in the entries (by women, for women). Use of lesbian continuum leaves open the possibility of homosexuality without demanding it.
- Look up MLA rules for: poetry in-text citation and for block quotes (both prose and poetry).
- Flesh out conclusion (do after rest of paper is fixed).
- Update Works Cited to reflect only cited sources. Erase out placeholders from rough draft (note: Smith-Rosenberg, Schweitzer, Rich were listed in the rough draft as reminders to myself to pull quotes for use in the final draft).
Manuscript Evaluation Form
The assignment from Dr. Logan:
Dear LIT 6216 Scholars,
Thank you for agreeing to serve as manuscript reviewers for the upcoming conference “Early American Novel and the Nation.” I attach a Reviewer Response Form, which I ask that you use as you review the manuscripts. I request that you review at least two manuscripts. In past conferences, writers have praised this conference for the detailed reviewers’ comments that have assisted them with their research and composing processes. Please complete your reading of the manuscripts and return the sheets to the individual writers by 11/30/10.
Please fill out one Reviewer Response Form for at least two people, and make sure to post your own essay at the common area in discussions (under “Research Proposals and Drafts”). (As well, please post these at your blogs.) I am grateful for the spirit of intellectual community which pervades our classroom, and I hope that you will approach this process in that spirit.
Best, Lisa Logan
[Submitted 30 November 2010]
Instead of filling out the manuscript evaluation form via email, the class as a whole agreed to bring hard copies to our class on November 30, 2010 and read each other’s papers in person. We were each responsible for reading two people’s papers – ideally someone with whom we shared a panel presentation, and the other selection was up to us. It was optional whether or not as a reader you filled out the manuscript evaluation form or simply wrote your notes on the hard copy.
I read and evaluated the rough drafts by Blake, Lindsay, and Zach ahead of time so I wouldn’t have to deal with my own project. In other words, I happily engaged in strategies of procrastination. In class, I read Stephen’s paper, and I took home Jen’s paper and returned it to her on Thursday (the 2nd). I greatly enjoyed reading the papers that I had time for, and I’m looking forward to everyone’s presentation during our mock conference.
My readers were Zach and Blake and I want to thank them for their thoughtful and helpful comments and constructive criticism. An outside perspective is extremely helpful, especially when I’ve been involved with my text for such a long period of time that I forgot not everyone would know what a commonplace book *is* (Blake caught that issue).
I’m including the template of the manuscript evaluation form below, and then I’ll retype the notes from Zach and Blake. (Blake’s notes are briefer because we ran out of time during class.)
My rough draft is here.
Dear LIT 6216 Scholars,
Thank you for agreeing to serve as manuscript reviewers for the upcoming conference “Early American Novel and the Nation.” I attach a Reviewer Response Form, which I ask that you use as you review the manuscripts. I request that you review at least two manuscripts. In past conferences, writers have praised this conference for the detailed reviewers’ comments that have assisted them with their research and composing processes. Please complete your reading of the manuscripts and return the sheets to the individual writers by 11/30/10.
Please fill out one Reviewer Response Form for at least two people, and make sure to post your own essay at the common area in discussions (under “Research Proposals and Drafts”). (As well, please post these at your blogs.) I am grateful for the spirit of intellectual community which pervades our classroom, and I hope that you will approach this process in that spirit.
Best, Lisa Logan
LIT 6216: Unruly Women in Early American Literature
Reviewer Evaluation Form
Call for Papers! LIT 6216: Unruly Women in Early American Literature.
The organizers of the LIT 6216 Scholars Group announce a call for papers to be presented at its final graduate student conference on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 from 7-9:50 p.m. The conference will explore representations of women as transgressive or unruly; “unruly” is understood in a broad sense in the context of early American gender norms. Topics might include women whose experiences were out of the ordinary (captivity, travel, etc.), women who broke laws or defied dominant cultural mores and/or values, cross-dressing women, etc. Exploration of different textual forms is welcome, including sentimental or historical novels, speeches, conversion narratives, crime and execution narratives, short fiction, autobiography (including diaries memoirs, journals), biography, letters, poetry, etc. Papers should engage with the scholarly conversation in early American literary studies, including a knowledge of the historical and cultural context in which the text was produced. Please send questions and/or submit your abstract to Dr. Lisa M. Logan by 10/22/10 via email.
Conference format: Papers for this conference will be circulated beforehand and discussed (rather than read) at the conference meeting. Papers should be 8-10 pp. double-spaced using 12-pt. font. (excluding bibliography/Works Cited).
[Submitted 30 November 2010]
Instead of filling out the manuscript evaluation form via email, the class as a whole agreed to bring hard copies to our class on November 30, 2010 and read each other’s papers in person. We were each responsible for reading two people’s papers – ideally someone with whom we shared a panel presentation, and the other selection was up to us. It was optional whether or not as a reader you filled out the manuscript evaluation form or simply wrote your notes on the hard copy.
I read and evaluated the rough drafts by Blake, Lindsay, and Zach ahead of time so I wouldn’t have to deal with my own project. In other words, I happily engaged in strategies of procrastination. In class, I read Stephen’s paper, and I took home Jen’s paper and returned it to her on Thursday (the 2nd). I greatly enjoyed reading the papers that I had time for, and I’m looking forward to everyone’s presentation during our mock conference.
My readers were Zach and Blake and I want to thank them for their thoughtful and helpful comments and constructive criticism. An outside perspective is extremely helpful, especially when I’ve been involved with my text for such a long period of time that I forgot not everyone would know what a commonplace book *is* (Blake caught that issue).
I’m including the template of the manuscript evaluation form below, and then I’ll retype the notes from Zach and Blake. (Blake’s notes are briefer because we ran out of time during class.)
My rough draft is here.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Conference Program
LIT 6216: Issues in Literary Study (Unruly Women in Early American Literature) Conference Program
Stephen Collins, Tabitha Tenney’s Female Quixotism: Early American Education and the Quixotic
Spencer Tricker, ‘Cruel Ignominious Death:’ Martyrdom of the Marginalized in John Neal’s Rachel Dyer
Jennifer Brunk, “Rosenglory”: Infantilism and Free Agency in the Case of Amelia Norman
Panel Chair: Lindsay Anderson
Respondents: Zachary Hyde, Jay Jay Stroup, Blake Vives
2. Unruly women, gender boundaries, and crossing
Blake Vives, Discovering Deborah Sampson: Gallantress of Early American Feminine Masculinity
Mark Hartley, Codifying Cross-dressing for Patriotism in The Female Marine
Jay Jay Stroup, Bonds of Intimacy: The Female Homosocial and Lesbian Continuum in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book
Panel Chair: Stephen Collins
Respondents: Spencer Tricker, Lindsay Anderson, Lesley Koon
3. Theorizing unruly women: performance and masquerade
Zachary Hyde, Performance, Resistance, and the Panoptic in Early American Execution Events
Lindsay Anderson, Rebecca Reed’s Escape: A Tale of Manipulation and Masquerade
Lesley Koon, Why Are These Nuns Laughing?: Mad Jane Ray and the Deployment of Carnival Laughter in Maria Monk’s Awful Disclosures
Panel Chair: Jay Jay Stroup
Respondents: Mark Hartley, Jennifer Brunk, Stephen Collins, Blake Vives
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)