Article at Salon about an interesting sounding book by Elaine Showalter:-
"A Jury of Her Peers: American Women Writers From Anne Bradstreet to Annie Proulx." Billed as "the first comprehensive history of American women writers from 1650 to 2000," "A Jury of Her Peers" has to negotiate the treacherous battlefield between the still-widespread, if fustian insistence on reverence for Great Writers and the pixelated theorizing of poststructuralists hellbent on overturning the very notion of "greatness."
Unquestionably erudite, she has always striven to communicate with nonacademic readers, and her prose is clear, cogent and frequently clever. She has insisted that themes central to women's lives -- marriage, motherhood, the tension between family and individual aspirations -- constitute subject matter as "serious" and significant as traditionally masculine motifs like war and travel. Yet she rejects the preference of many feminist literary scholars for emphasizing "culture importance rather than aesthetic distinction," and she doesn't hesitate to describe some of the writers discussed in "A Jury of Her Peers" as artistically limited, if historically interesting.
I’ve always found Showalter a pleasure to read – she has sensibility; she has sense; and her theories are made from what she observes, rather than from what ought to be in a pre-conceived view of the world.
Why, for example, did Britain produce several women novelists of genius during the 19th century -- Jane Austen, George Eliot and the Brontës, as well as accomplished lesser artists like Elizabeth Gaskell -- while America did not? That question could (and sometimes does) lead to a lot of speculation on the national characters of the English-speaking peoples, but Showalter mentions an equally plausible, practical cause: "While English women novelists, even those as poor as the Brontës, had servants, American women were expected to clean, cook and sew; even in the South, white women in slaveholding families were trained in domestic arts." Quite a few of the short biographical sketches she offers feature women complaining about being compelled by parents to learn to make pies or mend when they would rather write. In 1877, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps made the heroine of her novel, "The Story of Avis," fume, "I hate to make my bed, and I hate, hate to sew chemises, and I hate, hate, hate to go cooking round the kitchen."
The lack of domestic service is interesting. While watching the series John Adams I had wondered at Abigail Adams’s constantly carrying out household and farming tasks, considering her husband’s position as a lawyer. But it isn’t true of Emily Bronte, for instance, who used to make the bread while reading German – admittedly you can study while kneading bread and waiting for it to rise more easily than doing other sorts of cooking. All right, I’ll concede that as a possible reason.
“They [American women] felt hemmed in by the need to observe a ladylike decorum and to disavow any great literary ambition.”
But American women were notably freer than Englishwomen during the nineteenth century – whenever there is an encounter between them in eg Little Women the easy Americans are compared to the stuffy, class conscious English. Trollope observed how much freer an American young lady was, being able to go out independently and make friends with young men. So I don’t think that is right.
I would say that in the nineteenth century British novelists both female and male outclassed the Americans. Think of the substantial bodies of work by Dickens, Scott, Thackeray, Trollope, Gissing, Stevenson and James, (an honorary Englishman) compared to Melville (okay, I can’t get through Moby Dick and Typhee is silly facetiousness) Twain (brilliant but limited in scope), Hawthorne (very slight) and Howells.
Put it down to an older culture with an established literary tradition competing with a newer culture whose literary tradition is still in a raw state.