Rilegato

ISBN 10: 0198117191 ISBN 13: 9780198117193

Casa editrice: Oxford University Press, 1993

This book is an original and fascinating look at the topos of the woman reader and its functioning in cultural debate between the accession of Queen Victoria and the First World War. The issue of women and reading--what they should read; what they should be protected from; how, what, and when they should read--was the focus of lively discussion in the nineteenth century in a wide range of media. Flint uses recent feminist analyses of how women read as a context for her detailed and readable study of these debates, exploring in a variety of texts--from magazines like Woman's World and My Lady's Novelette to works of literature like Jane Eyre and The Portrait of a Lady--the range of stereotypes and directives addressed to women readers, and their influence on the writing of fiction. She also looks at how women readers of all classes understood their own reading experiences.

About the Author:

Kate Flint was previously lecturer at the University of Bristol, and Fellow and Tutor in English at Mansfield College, Oxford. She edited the World's Classics edition of Dickens's Great Expectations (1994) edited and introduced the WC edition of Trollope's Can You Forgive Her? (1982) Her other publications include Elizabeth Gaskell (Northcote House, 1994) Dickensr (Harvester, 1986) and as editor The Victorian Novelist (Croom Helm, 1987) Virginia Woolf's The Waves (Penguin, 1992) and Impressionists in England (Routledge, 1984)

Review:

"The firm historical perspective combined with vivid, bristling detail makes The Woman Reader valuable as well as interesting....The range of sources is staggering....Utterly engrossing, not only as history but as a clue to categories of 'woman reader' today."--The Independent

"Flint's book is of incalculable value. She is excellent at summarizing what Victorian and twentieth-century critics and theorists have assumed about women readers; summarizing what we can actually deduce on the basis of the evidence available; and then pointing to the discrepancies."--Victorian Review