The time is overdue to admit that there is some- thing of a vacuum in women’s poetry, and that we abhor it. For a woman to concede this is not disloyal to her sex; it’s the first step in the creation of an environ- 5ment in which women artists will flourish. But what can be done about the fact that the list of beloved women poets is not as long as the list of beloved poets who were born male?
The most liberating response to the problem was 10the one Elizabeth Bishop chose. As James Merrill writes, “Lowell called her one of the four best women poets ever—which can hardly have pleased Miss Bishop, who kept her work from appearing in ‘women’s anthologies.’ Better, from her point of view, to be one 15of the forty, or forty thousand, best poets, and have done with it.” And he adds, “If I raise the issue at all, it’s to dissociate her from these shopworn polarities.” For the working poet, moved by the sexless sunset or the sex-indeterminate beetle, the polarities are indeed 20shopworn, but perhaps as readers we may pursue the issue an inch further. For one thing that we can do about these two unequal lists is to read women poets of the past who have never been much read and to dis- cover whether or not they deserve to be.
25Emily Dickinson, after all, would never have become one of the most revered poets in the world had her sister Lavinia not rescued her poems from the obscurity of a dresser drawer; and had her editor Mabel Loomis Todd not painstakingly transcribed nearly illeg- 30ible scraps using a bizarre typewriter. Helen Hunt Jackson, that once celebrated, now forgotten poet whose work Dickinson herself admired, was another “sister” in this story, for she alone fully understood Dickinson’s gifts. Jackson wrote to Dickinson urging 35her to publish: “You are a great poet—and it is wrong to the day you live in, that you will not sing aloud,” her letter went. “When you are what men call dead, you will be sorry you were so stingy.” That has to be one of the most moving moments in American literary history.
40And yet, and yet. Another reason many of us are devoted to Dickinson is that we love the romance of her story. Dickinson has to be one of the luckiest great writers who ever lived. She chose to live in isolation, which meant she was saved from the corruption of the 45literary crowd; no husband ever patted her head dismis- sively, no child ever interrupted her, and when her life was finished a team of disciples ensured her immor- tality. If we do the necessary work of reappraising the literary “canon,” and if we add some new women’s 50names to the reading list, we will nonetheless have to settle for discoveries less dramatic than Lavinia Dickinson’s, and we can’t expect them to appear with frequency.
For the fact is that we can’t have it both ways. We 55can’t simultaneously espouse the line that women haven’t until recently been allowed the depth of educa- tion and experience to become Shakespeare, while also claiming that we really have an abundance of Shakespeares, if anybody would just take the time to 60read us.
But what is all this rating and counting and classi- fying of authors about anyway? If we set up one writer against another, aren’t we giving in to what some femi- nists tell us is the adversarial mentality of patriarchal 65culture? We may think of Matthew Arnold’s view of the function of criticism—“to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought”—and squirm in our chairs: Who’s to say what is best, who’s to say what is relevant?
70Theoretically, these questions are of some interest. Practically speaking, most of us who are habitual readers of poetry already have an answer. While acknowledging our profound differences of taste, we never doubt that there are good poems and terrible 75poems, and that the good ones are the only ones we have time for.
What else can be done about the fact that the list of the best women poets is not as long as the men’s list? In addition to looking closely for unjustly neglected 80women, one might question whether some men poets have been overrated. I think, for some reason, of poets whose names contain double Ws—William Wordsworth, Walt Whitman, William Carlos Williams—and while I would be sorry to throw out the entire oeuvre of them, I 85confess that each of these poets has at times bored me to tears.
The problem with taking men poets down a peg, however, is that it’s hard to do so with discernment. The zeal to undo, immediately, the centuries of neglect 90and abuse endured by women poets has resulted in the devaluation of great poets who were born male and (far worse) in the devaluation of poetry itself.
- Which of the following most fully lists solutions considered by the author to the problem that the list of beloved women poets is not nearly as long as the list of beloved men poets?
- A. Reading women poets who have never been read, rejecting the writing of those whose names contain double Ws, and redefining what’s good about the literary canon
- B. Reappraising the literary canon, adding new women’s names to the list, weighing the importance of some male poets, and reading work by women as yet not widely read
- C. Questioning the importance of some male poets, encouraging readers to study women’s journals, and creating a world in which women will flourish
- D. Promoting the best work of current women writers, rediscovering older writers, reappraising Matthew Arnold’s view of criticism, and acknowledging differences in literary taste
- Which of the following sentences best summarizes the first paragraph?
- F. It is disloyal to encourage women to write, and to ask: Why do male poets flourish more readily than female poets?
- G. We must ask why there are so few women writers; perhaps asking this question will help create a women-centered culture.
- H. It can be liberating to ask questions such as: What can be done about the fact that there are fewer beloved male poets than female poets?
- J. If we admit that there is not enough quality poetry written by women, it can make it easier to discover why this is so, and help us change the situation.
- It may reasonably be inferred from lines 10–17 that James Merrill respected Elizabeth Bishop’s poetry:
- According to the third paragraph (lines 25–39), Emily Dickinson’s career was helped by Helen Hunt Jackson, who:
- F. published her; Mabel Loomis Todd, who transcribed her writing; and Lavinia Dickinson, who discovered her poems in a cabinet.
- G. encouraged her; Mabel Loomis Todd, who transcribed her work using a bizarre machine; and Lavinia Dickinson, who rescued her work from oblivion.
- H. encouraged her sister to keep writing; Mabel Loomis Todd, who convinced her to use a typewriter; and Lavinia Dickinson, who rescued her poems from a dresser drawer.
- J. taught her; Mabel Loomis Todd, who translated her writing into English; and Lavinia Dickinson, who introduced her poems to the public.
- Which of the following most clearly distinguishes between the “two ways” suggested by the author’s assertion that “we can’t have it both ways” (line 54)?
- A. Women haven’t until recently been allowed to see the depths in Shakespeare, but nobody bothers to read Shakespeare anyway.
- B. Women haven’t written as well as men because they’ve been too busy being spouses, but nobody takes time to read women writers anyway.
- C. Women haven’t written as well as men because they have not had the same educational opportunities, yet there are many great women writers no one reads.
- D. Women have always had an abundance of Shakespeares, yet have not experienced the kind of education it takes to appreciate Shakespeare.
- The author feels that “all this rating and counting and classifying of authors“ (lines 61–62) is:
- F. an example of giving in to a competitive approach to literature, which the author feels is counterproductive.
- G. an example of an approach to literature that feminists have supported and should continue to support.
- H. at odds with Matthew Arnold’s view of the function of criticism, a view that the author endorses.
- J. important, especially if it helps eliminate the entire oeuvre of writers whose names contain double Ws.
- Which of the following best states the author’s response to Matthew Arnold’s view of the function of criticism (lines 65–76)?
- A. It makes her reflect on why criticism is always so negative, yet she knows that most people don’t read criticism.
- B. It makes her uncomfortable because so many respect Matthew Arnold, yet she realizes his ideas about poetry are now irrelevant.
- C. It makes her wonder who decides what is good, yet she knows most readers think they know what good poetry is and don’t have time to read bad poetry.
- D. It makes her question why more women don’t read Matthew Arnold, yet she realizes that few women today would find Arnold’s views engaging.
- Which of the following most nearly paraphrases Helen Hunt Jackson’s statement to Emily Dickinson that “it is wrong to the day you live in, that you will not sing aloud” (lines 35–36)?
- F. It is morally reprehensible of you not to let other poets read your work.
- G. It is unacceptable for you to continue writing; you should become a singer.
- H. It is stingy and wrong of you not to read out loud to those who like your work.
- J. It is unfair to this age that you do not share your poetry with the world.
- It may reasonably be inferred that the author considers Emily Dickinson “one of the luckiest great writers who ever lived” (lines 42–43) in part because:
- The last paragraph suggests that those who would reevaluate, and perhaps want to devalue, the work of famous male poets should above all be:
