 |
 |
On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, domfox wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David E. Latane" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 12:45 AM > Subject: Re: Logevity > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jun 2000, domfox wrote: > > > > > Not - quite - to answer your question, I would say that a poet I have > > > discovered recently in an academic context (having to teach her work as > part > > > of a module on C19th women's writing) who seems to me to be seriously > > > underrated and deserving a great deal of attention is Augusta Webster. I > > > didn't need any persuading at all with her - I think she's better than > > > (Robert) Browning (this specific comparison because she wrote dramatic > > > monologues). > > > > Considering that she wrote in conscious imitation of Robert > > Browning, this is a whopper. I think you need to reread _Men and > > Women_ (2 vols, 1855) cover to cover, and then look at her _Dramatic > > Studies_ (1866) to get a full sense of her derivativeness. > > But I think she *improves* on the "original" in certain respects (if she > falls short in others)...anyway, have you read Joanna Russ' "How To Suppress > Women's Writing"? Derivativeness indeed! Name one non-derivative poet, male > or female... When it comes to the dramatic monologue, Browning is quite original compared to Webster. That's all I meant. But Browning is sui generis in lots of ways. Rossetti's "Jenny" is also very derivative (formally) of Browning, but superb, like many of Webster's. I first taught the entire _Aurora Leigh_ almost 20 years ago, so I'm not interested in suppressing women's writing--but I have noticed a disturbing trend to suppress Browning's achievements among younger Victorian lit scholars, most of whom, unlike you, haven't bothered to read and thus make up their mind about _The Ring_ or any of his other poems except for a few anthology pieces. Ditto with Arnold, Carlyle, and a number of other figures whose work for me is full of quirks, oddities, and readerly difficulties. Best, David > > To be fair, I think that comparisons are probably invidious (didn't stop me > making them, but so). I was busily lining Webster's flair up against > Browning's faults (the memory of reading _The Ring and the Book_, cover to > cover, rather occludes for me the pleasures of reading some of Browning's > *shorter* verse). Will you let me have "better in some ways", if I concede > _Sordello_? > > - Dom > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%