From metafandom circa 1856

[alias_sqbr]

Was linked Silly Novels by Lady Novelists by George Elliot and was put very much in the mind of snarkily amusing but overgeneralising (EDIT: and problematic) posts about Mary Sues and the portrayal of women off metafandom. Probably got her lots of narky comments letters, too :)

Lots of dodgy gender and class issues (she is such a grammar snob. Sadly we cannot see what I get the impression was some amusing satirical typesetting) but she puts in some digs against sexism and classism too. She even take a dig at American vegetarians. I looked it up and at that point she was not only not out as a woman, but hadn't actually published anything yet, which puts her choice to rant about women writers in a different context.

Having read a bunch of modern romances set in the 18th/19th century it's always interesting to read snark about romances from those eras written by a contemporary (see also "Northanger Abbey").

Comments

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

To be fair, both Americans and vegetarians do often need to be made fun of.

:P

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah but I think your lives are more interesting than "cold mush sometimes enlivened with a little warm mush" :)

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

*laughs*

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

Julie linked me a while ago, and while I can laugh at it, and it's funny, and interesting and all that, it still feels more than vaguely sexist.

It reminds me of this recent post (http://facetofcathy.dreamwidth.org/58895.html?format=light). What's the limit between condemning our fellows for the damage they're perpetuating, and being sexist ourselves? Because I do understand the anger. If a woman says something sexist, it doesn't hurt less, it hurts more; and it's comfortable to critique those women over there (I know I'm guilty of it)--but, where's the line?

So I laugh--but it's an uncomfortable laugh.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes! That's what I wanted to say but I couldn't articulate it. I'm willing to give Eliot more of a pass since she was writing a hundred and fifty years ago (though the fact she was doing it as a man creeps me out a little), but it's definitely the same dynamic.

The fact it's a mix of good points and problematic bits is one of the ways it reminds me of stuff on metafandom. If you posted it to linkspam you'd definitely need to add a warning to it :)

<3

[hlbr.livejournal.com]

I thought I perceived you did think it problematic, so yeah. (Pretty much the reason I commented. It's not a discussion that I would choose to have with just anyone, I'm so much a mess about it myself.)

(No comments about the linkspam stuff; I can just guess the interminable discussion it would cause just to reach something resembling consensus! -_-)

Re: <3

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah I've been mostly avoiding them myself. It's easier to just get involved with something like halfamoon.

[re-weird.livejournal.com]

Har, I actually complained about that in an essay in my English class last quarter.

[alias_sqbr]

The essay or the topic of the essay?

[re-weird.livejournal.com]

Both! I was writing about women's obligations and how women writers deal with that in their works. I said Eliot chose to ignore it altogether, even giving an unfair critique of silly lady novelists. I argued that bad writing is bad writing regardless of gender, and she was being too harsh.

[alias_sqbr]

*nods*
While she had some feministy stuff at the end on the whole the approach to gender was pretty dodgy.