Thread by @RomGothSam

Now, I don't want to dunk of this person because I'm not about that life but while it's going viral. I'm going to use it as an opportunity to talk about something that I think about a lot... because it happens a lot. And you've probably done it. (Spicy, I know!) 1/

Now... am I suggesting that you have erased hundreds of years of women writers in one feel swoop? No.

But what does happen a lot is this weird dynamic of claiming writers' importance by creating an altered version of a) history and b) contemporary reality. Let me exemplify 2/

In a dramatic and ironic twist of fate, this often occurs when people are trying to celebrate authors from various marginalised groups.

Let me rant to you about the 'ground-breaking phenomena. 3/

You tell me something is groundbreaking and I guarantee to about a 99% success rate that you've just erased a load of writers, a lot of literary history, and silenced the marginalized voices that you purport to be supporting. 4/

'A groundbreaking book about women's struggle!'

Is it though... or were you just not listening? Is it though...or have you fallen into the trap of believing canon creators? Is it though... or are you basing this of the fact that YOU haven't read anything like it before. 5/

Whenever you say something's the first, you're probably wrong. When you say that something's rare, you're probably wrong. And I apply this to myself as well.

A common cry is that f/f books are rare. But they're not though...are they? 6/

Are they published as frequently as m/m books? Possibly not. As frequently as het books? Obviously not. Do they exist in abundance? Are there multiple lesbian indie presses? Are there LOADS of great releases this year? YES!

lgbtqreads.com/tag/ff/

Let me give you some great leads RIGHT NOW.

@O_Waite @kj_charles @adiba_j Zen Cho, Leah Johnson, @s_t_gibson @LinseyMiller @KalynnBayron
@LanaPopovicLit @IMRyannFletcher @naominovik @lilliamr @gaileyfrey @AsterGlenn Like...please... just literally look for 5 seconds. 6?/

But back to where this thread/rant started - to claim that a woman who started writing in the 90s (THE 1990s) was the first to write... almost anything is doing the misogynists' job for them. 7/

Now the more specific you get, the more likely you are to be correct. Was Jewelle Gomez the first own voice writer of a black lesbian vampire - I think so (please correct me if I'm wrong so I can fling myself on top of that book before you have time to blink an eye.) 8/

But no-one was the first woman to write anything in the 90s. Every genre that exists had had successful women writers in it by then. Women have been blazing a trail in publishing, writing and text production for centuries. Millennia. Literally though. 9/

Here we get to the part where most of have done what I'm about to talk about. The way we talk about and teach literature by women (and lots of other groups but I'm going to stick to a single focus here) so often erases the past and creates a false narrative of linear progress 10/

Let me give you some examples. A couple of things that always make me want to politely smile and then scream into the sun for several hours.

The first: the Brontes had to publish under male pseudonyms because before that women couldn't be writers! 11/

Did the Bronte sisters use male pseudonyms to be taken seriously/avoid stigma? Yeeees. But it's not really that simple, is it?

Let's talk about what they were publishing. But also, more importantly, let's talk about their contemporaries publishing under their own names 12/

Let's talk about the 1790s Gothic novel, the fact that a majority of its writers were women, that 'written by a lady' was a selling point, that male writers often wrote anonymously, that big hitters like Radcliffe and Regina Marie Roche could sell books on their names alone. 13/

Let's talk about the fact that the Gothic, associated with women writers and readers, was dismissed for over a century by the critics, that we buy into that and that's why we talk about Austen/the Brontes as wunderkind. So different from their poor downtrodden writerly peers. 14/

Let's talk about the fact that there were networks of women writers from at least the 18th century. That there are famous names from much earlier. That the novel owes its greatest debt to women in its development. 15/

But that brings me to vexation 2. The competition model implicit in the 'groundbreaking' discourse and in the discourse of 'the first woman to...'

First, as I've said before, you're probably wrong. Aphra Behn was the first female dramatist I (bizarrely) hear a lot. No! 16/

Not to be the worst researcher in the world here but like... you literally only need to do scan wikipedia to know that that's wrong. Here. See?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e…

17/

There was justifiable outrage at a new companion to Early Modern drama containing no women.

The narrative of 'first' is often wrong but it also creates this pervasive myth of the stand alone exceptional woman. 18/

Were these women writers exceptional? Were they talented? Were they making their way against the current? Yes. Were they the only ones? No. Did they exist in a vacuum? No.

You're setting up a competition model. You're ignoring networks of support. Histories of co-creation. 19/

You're ignoring a tradition of women writers. You're using (whether you know it or not) a Romantic style focus on the exceptional individual which ignores a lot of what literature by women has always done. And a lot of what it often gets criticised for. By idiots. 20/

The Gothic is a great example again of this. But also popular romance as a more modern genre. This genres have always been in dialogue with themselves. Reimagining, playing, echoing, reflecting, creating a literary language. You'll know if you're a genre reader. 21/

Genre gets looked down on because it's often so aware of itself. Because each new book (with any claim to competency) is aware of its ancestors and dialogues with them. And genre fiction... well was a woman's game first. When you look at a woman writer as an isolated beacon, 22/

you almost INEVITABLY ignore a whole network of writers, traditions building on themselves, reimaginings, playful dicussion, a keen awareness (in potentially both a personal and a literary sense) of other writers. In both literary and genre fiction. 23/

If you say a writer in the 1790s, the 1890s, the 1990s is the first, the only, the game changer... chances are you're erasing the people around her. You're producing a discourse in which she's only responding to male literature. And rewriting or rejecting it. It's not true! 24/

And, yes, I said 1790s. You'll all talk about Radcliffe as a trail blazer and... sure but Charlotte Smith was writing at the same time with great success, Regina Marie Roche practically outsold her... To hold up one, you hold the others down 25/

And that brings me to my last irritated point. When we create a discourse of 'the exceptional woman writer' we place so much emphasis on their gender that we forget a) other aspects of their identity (or can do) and b) ignore the influence of women on... not women writers. 26/

They didn't just blaze a trail for women. Think bigger! Women don't just influence women. They don't just change women's lives. They change fucking EVERYTHING. 27/

I'll pop a few things in here to mull on - Phillis Wheatley - a black 18th century poet changing conceptions of race, gender and poetry. Charlotte Smith - a white 18th century poet - whose 'Elegiac Sonnets' led to the revival of the sonnet. Anna Letitia Barbauld whose theology

influenced generations through her devotional writing, poetry and children's literature. Ann Radcliffe, whose Gothic novels inspired almost a whole generation of Romantics. Romance publishing which changed the publishing world and finances most other genres! 28/

So... it's easy to fall into pitfalls. The 'trailblazer', the 'first woman ever', the 'woman alone', 'the exceptional exception' the 'such an influence on other women!'

It's easy to erase a more complicated past to make ourselves feel better or because we make presumptions. 29/

LET'S DO BETTER.

Next time you catch yourself saying 'so rare' or 'first one ever' or 'groundbreaking' - just do a quick google. Then go out and get your hands on the 10 new books you just found. (I will too!)

FIN

30/30

I am sorry for the avalanche of errors. That'll teach me to rage tweet.

If you like these tweets, you may enjoy the fact that I organise #RomancingTheGothic - free online international classes, lectures and groups on all things Gothic and Romance with guest speakers and visiting authors from around the world.

romancingthegothic.wordpress.com