4 invention and criticism.The modification makes a difference.It bespeaks a breaking up of boundary lines,a lifting of constraints--an uncorseting--that allows what is essential in any liberation effort:a freedom of movement away from the closure of representation of "real"experience toward the open mindedness of experiment,or more accurately yet,toward experimentation with open endedness. Commenting on Susan Sontag's "prophetic"statement (1975),"[l]ike all moral truths,feminism is a bit simpleminded.That is its power and...that is its limitation ..("Feminisms Wake"106),Marks,while not necessarily agreeing that "feminism is a bit simple-minded," is,nonetheless,convinced that feminism "must establish and maintain connections between itself and other contemporary modes of inquiry"("FW"106)in order to survive.similarly feminism and contemporary writing by virtue of their alterity in relation to the dominant conventions ought to have,in my view,intersected,formed a nexus,but have missed making that connection,indeed,at their most parochial,have fallen far afield from one another. Experimental prose fiction since World War II has come to be called postmodern (writing).It is among other things,highly self-reflexive and frequently marked by attempts to break the old forms,blur the genres,make indistinct the line between fiction and non-fiction (criticism,history and philosophy),and to release the tension between the warring opposites characteristic of Western thought,such as inside/outside,presence/absence
4 invention and criticism. The modification makes a difference. It bespeaks a breaking up of boundary lines, a lifting of constraints—an uncorseting—that allows what is essential in any liberation effort: a freedom of movement away from the closure of representation of "real" experience toward the open mindedness of experiment, or more accurately yet, toward experimentation with open endedness. Commenting on Susan Sontag's "prophetic" statement (1975), "[l]ike all moral truths, feminism is a bit simpleminded. That is its power and . . . that is its limitation ..." ("Feminisms Wake" 106), Marks, while not necessarily agreeing that "feminism is a bit simple-minded," is, nonetheless, convinced that feminism "must establish and maintain connections between itself and other contemporary modes of inquiry" ("FW" 106) in order to survive. Similarly feminism and contemporary writing by virtue of their alterity in relation to the dominant conventions ought to have, in my view, intersected, formed a nexus, but have missed making that connection, indeed, at their most parochial, have fallen far afield from one another. Experimental prose fiction since World War II has come to be called postmodern (writing). It is among other things, highly self-reflexive and frequently marked by attempts to break the old forms, blur the genres, make indistinct the line between fiction and non-fiction (criticism, history and philosophy), and to release the tension between the warring opposites characteristic of Western thought, such as inside/outside, presence/absence
5 truth/lie,fiction/reality,and even masculine/feminine.It is at once fluid and discursive.It would seem that such a writing would be eminently suitable to a feminist practice-- inviting even.It could be that place where women would be able to articulate new visions,envision new articulations: a horizon that sparkles with possibilities.And yet there are hardly any women writers among the postmoderns,except, perhaps in France where there has been some experimentation going on.(I will discuss the situation in France presently.) It may be that postmodern writing is tainted for women writers by its discursivity,its self-reflection--distanced and distancing--because according to feminist literary theory,discursive writing is phallocentric,that is,of a masculine order.Not only does the postmodern appear to be masculine theoretically (as just briefly stated),but also empirically,as confirmed in such critical works as Ihab Hassan's Dismemberment of orpheus and Annie Dillard's Living by Fiction,in whose compendia of postmodern writers (or contemporary modernists,as Dillard calls them)female names are rarely seen.These lists contain the (mostly male) names of contemporary writers whose works have become part of the canon and are currently being discussed in the intellectual journals,book reviews,and university classrooms throughout much of the Western world. It is paradoxical that such a purportedly masculine endeavor dominates at the very time of the cultural and political emergence of women,a time of increased visibility
5 truth/lie, fiction/reality, and even masculine/feminine. It is at once fluid and discursive. It would seem that such a writing would be eminently suitable to a feminist practice— inviting even. It could be that place where women would be able to articulate new visions, envision new articulations: a horizon that sparkles with possibilities. And yet there are hardly any women writers among the postmoderns, except, perhaps in France where there has been some experimentation going on. (I will discuss the situation in France presently.) It may be that postmodern writing is tainted for women writers by its discursivity, its self-reflection—distanced and distancing—because according to feminist literary theory, discursive writing is phallocentric, that is, of a masculine order. Not only does the postmodern appear to be masculine theoretically (as just briefly stated), but also empirically, as confirmed in such critical works as Ihab Hassan's Dismemberment of Orpheus and Annie Dillard's Living by Fiction, in whose compendia of postmodern writers (or contemporary modernists, as Dillard calls them) female names are rarely seen. These lists contain the (mostly male) names of contemporary writers whose works have become part of the canon and are currently being discussed in the intellectual journals, book reviews, and university classrooms throughout much of the Western world. It is paradoxical that such a purportedly masculine endeavor dominates at the very time of the cultural and political emergence of women, a time of increased visibility
6 of women's writing--of the possibility of a women's writing. At this most propitious moment,the question,"Why are there hardly any exponents of postmodernism among English- speaking women writers?"seems to me unavoidable.It should be noted that there are a few women whose fiction may be called postmodern.Among the better known are Renata Adler (Speedboat,Pitchdark);Susan Sontag (Death Kit,The Benefactor);Joan Didion (Play It As It Lays,Democracy). All three are primarily known as critics,essayists-- commentators.Reaction to their fiction has been mixed, generally guarded,and rarely is any of it found on the reading lists of courses in the contemporary or postmodern novel.An exception is Ursula LeGuin,whose science fiction is appreciated and taught.In addition to these women, there are also a few who are part of the Fiction Collective, a publishing company (whose distributor is George Braziller) made up of experimental writers among whom are Ronald Sukenick,Raymond Federman,Thomas Glynn,and Jonathan Baumbach.That there is this scarcity of women experimenters in prose fiction is actually surprising since in the past a number of women (largely English-speaking) have written experimental prose works,most notably, virginia Woolf and Gertrude stein,as well as Dorothy Richardson,Djuna Barnes,Ivy Compton-Burnett,and arguably, Jean Rhys,all of whom did their major work before the Second World War (except for Rhys who wrote her last novel, the acclaimed Wide Sargasso Sea,in 1966).They are, however,generally called modernists.It is among the
of women's writing—of the possibility of a women's writing. At this most propitious moment, the question, "Why are there hardly any exponents of postmodernism among Englishspeaking women writers?" seems to me unavoidable. It should be noted that there are a few women whose fiction may be called postmodern. Among the better known are Renata Adler (Speedboat. Pitchdark); Susan Sontag (Death Kit. The Benefactor); Joan Didion (Plav It As It Lavs. Democracy). All three are primarily known as critics, essayists— commentators. Reaction to their fiction has been mixed, generally guarded, and rarely is any of it found on the reading lists of courses in the contemporary or postmodern novel. An exception is Ursula LeGuin, whose science fiction is appreciated and taught. In addition to these women, there are also a few who are part of the Fiction Collective, a publishing company (whose distributor is George Braziller) made up of experimental writers among whom are Ronald Sukenick, Raymond Federman, Thomas Glynn, and Jonathan Baumbach. That there is this scarcity of women experimenters in prose fiction is actually surprising since in the past a number of women (largely English-speaking) have written experimental prose works, most notably, Virginia Woolf and Gertrude Stein, as well as Dorothy Richardson, Djuna Barnes, Ivy Compton-Burnett, and arguably, Jean Rhys, all of whom did their major work before the Second World War (except for Rhys who wrote her last novel, the acclaimed Wide Sarcrasso Sea, in 1966) . They are, however, generally called modernists. It is among the
7 postmodernists that we find few women writers,especially in the United states and England. In France,interestingly enough,the reverse has prevailed:there is hardly any mention of experimental women writers in the prewar period,but after the war,Marguerite Duras and Nathalie Sarraute came to be associated with the experimental writing of the fifties and sixties known as le nouveau roman.In the late sixties and seventies,a group of somewhat younger writers,at first closely associated with the Paris quarterly rel Quel,studied and built on the nouveau roman or les recherches,as the enterprise was called by Alain Robbe-Grillet.They,too,experimented with the practice of writing (l'ecriture).The French press dubbed them the school of le nouveaunouveau roman. Associated with the Tel Quel group was Julia Kristeva,an emigree from Bulgaria,whose work in literary criticism (focussing on such modern experimentalists as Artaud,Joyce, and Celine)was like the others at Tel Quel,heavily informed by the new ideas,under the rubric les sciences humaines,that were proliferating in the French intellectual world at the time:structural linguistics and anthropology, semiology (Saussure,Levi-Strauss,Barthes);philosophy and history (Derrida,Foucault,Deleuze);and psychoanalysis (Lacan,Leclaire,Lyotard).My own particular approaches in the readings which will form the body of this dissertation will draw upon linguistics,semiotics (semiology). psychoanalysis,and deconstruction. Kristeva,who has been characterized by Marks as "a
7 postmodernists that we find few women writers, especially in the United States and England. In France, interestingly enough, the reverse has prevailed: there is hardly any mention of experimental women writers in the prewar period, but after the war, Marguerite Duras and Nathalie Sarraute came to be associated with the experimental writing of the fifties and sixties known as le nouveau roman. In the late sixties and seventies, a group of somewhat younger writers, at first closely associated with the Paris quarterly Tel Quel, studied and built on the nouveau roman or les recherches. as the enterprise was called by Alain Robbe-Grillet. They, too, experimented with the practice of writing (1'ecriture). The French press dubbed them the school of le nouveau nouveau roman. Associated with the Tel Quel group was Julia Kristeva, an emigree from Bulgaria, whose work in literary criticism (focussing on such modern experimentalists as Artaud, Joyce, and Celine) was like the others at Tel Quel, heavily informed by the new ideas, under the rubric les sciences humaines. that were proliferating in the French intellectual world at the time: structural linguistics and anthropology, semiology (Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Barthes); philosophy and history (Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze); and psychoanalysis (Lacan, Leclaire, Lyotard). My own particular approaches in the readings which will form the body of this dissertation will draw upon linguistics, semiotics (semiology), psychoanalysis, and deconstruction. Kristeva, who has been characterized by Marks as "a
8 loner,charting her own domain"("Women and Literature in France"837),has held a singular and often embattled position in the French feminist movememt.While supporting the liberation of women,her credentials as literary feminist--devotion to sexual difference in writing--remain weak.In a 1977 interview with Le Nouvel observateur,she declares:"I am quite dedicated to the feminist movement but I think feminism,or any other movement,need not expect unconditional backing on the part of an intellectual woman. I think the time has come to emerge out of the 'for-women- only'practice,out of a kind of mythicising of femininity" (Desire in Language 10).In "Women's Time,"an essay published here in 1982,she writes: In this third attitude of women [of a third generation of concerned,active (writing)women], which I strongly advocate--which I imagine?--the very dichotomy man/woman as an opposition between two rival entities may be understood as belonging to metaphysics.What can "identity,"even "sexual identity,"mean in a new theoretical and scientific space where the very notion of identity is challenged?(33-34) These provocative remarks notwithstanding,Kristeva has long been concerned with repression of the body of the mother (la mere qui iouit)in Western society,the relation of women to language,the acquisition of language by the developing infant as it differentiates itself from the mother,and the reappearance of the infant's earliest echolalia and rhythmic babble in avant-garde works,as their feminine aspect or register. The writings of several other intellectual women became known during this time--a time which included the historic
8 loner, charting her own domain" ("Women and Literature in France" 837), has held a singular and often embattled position in the French feminist movememt. While supporting the liberation of women, her credentials as literary feminist—devotion to sexual difference in writing—remain weak. In a 1977 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur. she declares: "I am quite dedicated to the feminist movement but I think feminism, or any other movement, need not expect unconditional backing on the part of an intellectual woman. I think the time has come to emerge out of the 'for-womenonly' practice, out of a kind of mythicising of femininity" (Desire in Language 10). In "Women's Time," an essay published here in 1982, she writes: In this third attitude of women [of a third generation of concerned, active (writing) women], which I strongly advocate—which I imagine?—the very dichotomy man/woman as an opposition between two rival entities may be understood as belonging to metaphysics. What can "identity," even "sexual identity," mean in a new theoretical and scientific space where the very notion of identity is challenged? (33-34) These provocative remarks notwithstanding, Kristeva has long been concerned with repression of the body of the mother (la mere gui iouit} in Western society, the relation of women to language, the acquisition of language by the developing infant as it differentiates itself from the mother, and the reappearance of the infant's earliest echolalia and rhythmic babble in avant-garde works, as their feminine aspect or register. The writings of several other intellectual women became known during this time—a time which included the historic