I think I’m for it. Not in a spirit of separatism, but in a spirit of communication, raising awareness, sharing our enthusiasms for some of the women writers the larger world doesn’t “get” (yet). It seems a lot more constructive than the alternatives (complaining, protesting, bitching, trying to be more patient, trying to get them to change their minds, etc.) It’s a healthy outlet for frustration that offers the constructive side benefit of changing the literary landscape (and believe me, it will!).

I used to be very suspicious of listing and besting, but now I think the main reason that people like them is that almost everyone is some combination of busy and lazy, and lists simply make entering new literary territory easier and more convenient for those on the “outside” of a particular tradition. And it makes sense that the people who end up making the lists would be the people who are most invested/excited/enthusiastic/knowledgeable about the literature in question.

A list, like an anthology, can function as a doorway or invitation to explore a larger territory. If we want others (female and male) who currently ignore or fail to properly appreciate women’s literary achievements to raise their knowledge/appreciation of women’s writing, it seems like a practical strategy to meet them halfway with a list.

Thoughts like these are discussed in an essay of mine originally written as a letter to a distressed young woman poet. It’s called “How to Create a Poetic Tradition” in THE BODY OF POETRY.

Annie

Thought to wonder because you’ve set up a separate internet space for women, right? And so this seems to be a separate best of list for women. I’m not sure separating is the best thing. So I wanted to know your take.

-Teri

My contribution is of the “idle comments” variety, though I think they’re relevant and some may find them interesting.

The picture, from a vase in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples, has often been reproduced, usually labeled as “the poetess” or even “Sappho.” Though it could be either, it’s pure assumption: there’s no inscription on it, and though I’m not an expert on ancient art, to the best of my knowledge there’s no iconographic reason to think it’s either. The fact that she’s holding wax tablets implies a contemporary Roman mise-en-scene — wouldn’t Sappho would be holding a lyre if anything? It’s true that Roman poets often drafted their poems on wax tablets, but it’s also true that such tablets were often used for love notes, so this could be a portrait of a woman meditatively composing a letter to a lover. All pure speculation, but at any rate it’s a really beautiful portrait.

Another idle though more directly relevant comment: the remarks on the poet as outsider reminded me of something I happened to read recently in, of all places, W. H. Auden’s introduction to The Oxford Book Of Light Verse (not a very good anthology I think — I much prefer Kingsley Amis’ revision — but where was I oh yes) to the effect that the greater the extent to which the poet is integrated into society, the easier it will be for that poet to speak in commonly understood language, but the harder it will be for that poet to have a vision of truth undistorted by social conventions; conversely, the poet who is is more detached from society will find it easier to reach a vision of truth unspoiled by society’s illusions, but harder to find the language to communicate it. I’m not sure if fair use will allow me to quote the whole passage, but you could look it up.

http://ululate.blogspot.com/2009/09/why.html

“Why do women so rarely leave comments?”

Which is of course different from the lists questions, but then also not. Is it necessary to create a “safe” space?

I was just trying to say that the men are less courageous than the women…and always have been.

Gary’s (hopefully ironic) deployment of the misogynist term “wussy” was obnoxious, whether ironic or not. (Etym.: wussy = wimp + pussy; pussy = vagina = woman; wimp = cowardly, unmanly, at least sometimes with a connotation of being gay.)