English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Do We Apply Anxiety of Authorship to Today's Author?
First I will say that the Gilbert and Gubar reading was fascinating in light of Bloom's work. I also found myself feeling more sensitive to the plight of "woman" in history than I normally am. I hope ultimately that Gilbert and Gubar are over-sensationalizing the point that woman's only options are madness and monsterhood. Surely today's woman (thanks to the work of her matriarchal pioneers) can freely create poetry and prose, and even take part in the much envied "anxiety of influence." Why not? Can today's female writer (even today's feminist female writer) not now identify with Emerson and Whitman? On literary grounds, they should not be seen as male writers but as creators. Let's back up a bit.
Gilbert states, "Bloom's model of literary history is intensely [. . .] male, and necessarily patriarchal" (2025). This thought had never crossed my mind. Is this because I am a male? Most feminists would answer in the affirmative. Or is it because I unconsciously believe that this theory crosses the sex spectrum, making it a unisex theory? Even Milton's "fiercely masculine Satan" in my mind is asexual. Where Bloom defines the poetic process as sex between the "male poet and his female muse," one must wonder (2025). On this point, Gilbert and Gubar ask a legitimate question: "Where does the female poet fit in?" (2025). Perhaps the poet (either male or female) is better described as the creative force, and the muse is the intuition (and source of inspiration). Nonetheless, one thought I had while reading was that if there is a decline in Bloom's poetry that is coming close to poetry's demise, then perhaps women are the answer in its resurrection. After all, if all men can do is write poetry that is inferior to the precursor, then maybe women, void of any starting place (precursor), can take poetry to a new level. I don't know that I buy this, because I don't think I concur with Gilbert's theory exactly. Yesterday's female author did have a major set of obstacles to overcome in order to create something for public consumption. But today's female writer seems to be just as abundant as today's male writer. And we males are perfectly willing to share our male precursors, and by extension share our anxiety of influence.
The main question I come to in this exploration is this: Does the "anxiety of authorship" apply to the female writer of today? Much time has passed since Gilbert and Gubar wrote this treatise.
A second question pertains to the notion that women writers have a literary subculture of their own that defines itself in relation to the patriarchal culture. Can someone tell me what this means? How? Why? It seems to me that this subculture is exactly what I was referring to when I suggested that women could be the salvation of poetry. Since our poetic culture will kill itself according to Bloom, then this subculture has the potential to revitalize the arts.