On why even an author we do know could use some more collective attention.
If there’s one 19th century New England woman writer with whom
21st century Americans have some familiarity—well, I guess it’d be Emily
Dickinson. But not far below the Belle of Amherst in our collective
consciousness can be found Sarah Orne Jewett,
whose short story cycle The Country of the Pointed
Firs (1896) is certainly the most famous work of New England
regionalist writing, and whose story “A White Heron”
(1886) was part of my middle school reading list back in the day (and showed up
again as a passage on, as I remember it, the SAT II English reading analysis
section). Given that those two relatively well-known works are two more than
the other four authors I’ve highlighted in this week’s series have, combined, in
our current collective canon, it would seem greedy of me to ask for us to read more
Jewett as well.
But I am asking,
and for a specific work: Jewett’s novel A Country Doctor
(1884). I wrote about Doctor
previously in this space, as part of a post
on the striking spate of “woman doctor” works and characters within the
five years between 1881 and 1886. Jewett’s Doctor Nan Prince is very much in
conversation with those other works and characters (likely overtly so, as Henry
James named his woman doctor character Dr. Prance in a book
published two years after Jewett’s novel), but I would also argue that Jewett’s
novel stands out for one particular (and very salient to this week’s series)
reason: it represents, from its title on, a unique combination of New England
local color and feminism, of tradition and progress, the past and the future. That
is, Dr. Nan Prince achieves her personal and professional dreams not by leaving
her small New England local community (one in which her dying mother had
abandoned her as an infant) but indeed by returning to it, and becoming at the
novel’s end a practicing country doctor within that space.
While those
qualities make Jewett’s novel unique, impressive, and well worth our reading on
its own terms, they also reflect another way to look at New England women’s
writing and regionalism more generally. It’s easy, and not inaccurate, to see
such writing as deeply rooted in the past, in the traditions and histories that
constitute local communities and limit (or at least delineate) the lives and
identities of those who live within them. But such a view minimizes, if it does
not miss entirely, the ways in which change and growth occur at least as much
for such individuals and communities as they do for more obviously modern ones
like the 19th century’s rapidly evolving cities. Indeed, what links
all of the authors and works I’ve highlighted this week is precisely such
intersections of history and future, of tradition and progress, of heritage and
change, for all of their focal characters and for the communities—theirs and
ours—with which they engage.
April Recap this weekend,
Ben
PS. What do you think?
Other under-read writers or works you’d share?
No comments:
Post a Comment