http://www.edrants.com/roundup-24/ a cultural website in ever-shifting standing Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:01:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.edrants.com/roundup-24/comment-page-1/#comment-9963 Rake Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:55:47 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=2965#comment-9963 As for me, sic transit gloria mundi, indeed. As for me, sic transit gloria mundi, indeed.

]]> http://www.edrants.com/roundup-24/comment-page-1/#comment-9962 DrMabuse Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:28:59 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=2965#comment-9962 Leonard Woolf, however, was known in his time as the man behind Hogarth Press and the literary editor of The Nation, rather than as "the indispensible literary spouse" of Virginia Woolf. My objection is that these women (or spouses) likely have lives outside of their roles as "wife of Dan Brown" and so forth. For example, Tabitha King is a poet and novelist. But it's doubtful her work will never be critically apprised because she is the "wife of Stephen King." Leonard Woolf, however, was known in his time as the man behind Hogarth Press and the literary editor of The Nation, rather than as “the indispensible literary spouse” of Virginia Woolf. My objection is that these women (or spouses) likely have lives outside of their roles as “wife of Dan Brown” and so forth. For example, Tabitha King is a poet and novelist. But it’s doubtful her work will never be critically apprised because she is the “wife of Stephen King.”

]]> http://www.edrants.com/roundup-24/comment-page-1/#comment-9961 Orlando Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:02:31 +0000 http://www.edrants.com/?p=2965#comment-9961 Re "the indispensable literary spouse: "patriarchal", sure, but "bullshit"? I mean, these women actually do seem to have been and remain indispensible to their spouses. And the article, while pointing only to female examples, does take care to stress "spouse" over wife. Which only highlights the difference between ideal reality and things-as-they-are, I suppose. I wonder what Leonard Woolf would have thought of your term? The patriarchy inadvertently prejudiced against male "literary spouses"? Re “the indispensable literary spouse: “patriarchal”, sure, but “bullshit”? I mean, these women actually do seem to have been and remain indispensible to their spouses. And the article, while pointing only to female examples, does take care to stress “spouse” over wife. Which only highlights the difference between ideal reality and things-as-they-are, I suppose. I wonder what Leonard Woolf would have thought of your term? The patriarchy inadvertently prejudiced against male “literary spouses”?

]]>