(Side note: AROOO is not a very dignified abbreviation of the title. Oh well.)
I've been trying to think of a cohesive way to put together my thoughts about this book. There are so many things to digest/dissect! This was my second time reading it, and I'm sure not my last, as there was so much to sift through.
One thing that stood out to me in this reading was her distinction between idealistic thinking (ex: the Romantic writers she brings up several times) and rational, everyday thinking (ex: writing after the war). It seems to me that she herself is employing a bit of both; she'd start with describing a natural scene (ex: walking along a path) and the sentence would be flowing along nicely, and then all the sudden the sentence would halt with a rational, everyday instance (ex: getting shooed off the path). In this way, I think she's showing that even though that previous way of writing isn't necessarily the norm anymore and is somewhat mocked by her and others, contemporary writing (or the contemporary writing of her time) is still being affected by it. Which brings me to my next point:
When I first read this book, the passages talking about previous female authors like Austen and the Brontes seemed to me like she was calling for more attention to be brought to the talented female writers of her time, because otherwise their talent doesn't get the chance to reach its full potential. While that's still the case, one thing that stood out to me more this time was her call for ANY female writers to keep writing. Even if those writers aren't necessarily the most talented, their presence on the market and in the public eye could be enough to keep breaking down the barrier for other female writers (the Austens of our time won't need to hide their papers in their desks, so to speak). I'd add that showcasing other writers' work (women and other marginalized groups) in addition to their own would be just as important!
I've been trying to think of a cohesive way to put together my thoughts about this book. There are so many things to digest/dissect! This was my second time reading it, and I'm sure not my last, as there was so much to sift through.
One thing that stood out to me in this reading was her distinction between idealistic thinking (ex: the Romantic writers she brings up several times) and rational, everyday thinking (ex: writing after the war). It seems to me that she herself is employing a bit of both; she'd start with describing a natural scene (ex: walking along a path) and the sentence would be flowing along nicely, and then all the sudden the sentence would halt with a rational, everyday instance (ex: getting shooed off the path). In this way, I think she's showing that even though that previous way of writing isn't necessarily the norm anymore and is somewhat mocked by her and others, contemporary writing (or the contemporary writing of her time) is still being affected by it. Which brings me to my next point:
When I first read this book, the passages talking about previous female authors like Austen and the Brontes seemed to me like she was calling for more attention to be brought to the talented female writers of her time, because otherwise their talent doesn't get the chance to reach its full potential. While that's still the case, one thing that stood out to me more this time was her call for ANY female writers to keep writing. Even if those writers aren't necessarily the most talented, their presence on the market and in the public eye could be enough to keep breaking down the barrier for other female writers (the Austens of our time won't need to hide their papers in their desks, so to speak). I'd add that showcasing other writers' work (women and other marginalized groups) in addition to their own would be just as important!