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.

• 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

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.

Rough Draft

The assignment from Dr. Logan:

Post completed draft to your blog 11/23/10, 11:59 p.m. and to your manuscript circle.

Send a copy to me as a Word doc.

Using Manuscript Circles Discussion Topic in Webcourses, complete Reader’s Reports by; send copy of Reader’s Reports to individual authors by 11/30/10.

[Submitted 23 November 2010]

Bonds of Intimacy: 

The Female Homosocial and Lesbian Continuum in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book

The women of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book are old, middle aged, young, married, single, abandoned by their husbands, kicked out of their church for their marriage, 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 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.

The 1997 modern critical edition of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book makes accessible previously ignored women’s writing in early American literature through Moore’s commonplace book, a rare example of the non-traditional format.  Catherine Blecki and Karin Wulf, the editors, provide invaluable scholarship regarding the social, manuscript, and print culture of revolutionary Philadelphia and emphasize the links of friendship connecting the contributing authors and editor of the text.  This essay extends Blecki 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.

I argue that Moore’s commonplace book both preserves the work of Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson and establishes 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 and history of the book from Kevin J. Hayes, I illustrate the relationship between the strategies of defiance and non-compliance in regards to the sexuality, readership, authorship, and friendship in MMMB.