Ainsley’s CS for 3/24 Readings

Posted on by
1

In Martha Nell Smith’s Editorial History I: Beginnings to 1955, she says, “every writer is her first editor,” and goes on to mention how this idea elicits “special consideration” in Emily Dickinson’s case (272). I find this so interesting, on several accounts. We know from reading her letters to T.W. Higginson that she reached out to him seemingly searching for mentorship. He gave her poetic advice that she did not accept (rightfully so!). This leads me to my first (set of) question(s) connected to the quote I pulled–Could Dickinson have wanted to be her first (and only) editor? Why might she have reached out for advice? We know that she never explicitly asked for his advice (it’s just what seems most likely). If she wasn’t asking for feedback, what could she have been searching for? Additionally, the only editing feedback that Dickinson ever implemented was Susan’s advice for poem 124 “Safe in their Alabaster Chambers”. What does this say to you? I find it hard to ignore when thinking about Dickinson’s disapproval with the editing of her poems more generally, too. From what she said in her letter to Higginson about the editing of her work that was published in The Springfield Republican, her frustrations lie in the feeling of edits undermining the nature of the poem. I think that this speaks to how deeply she felt for Sue, beyond the obvious.

Smith also talks about how Sue’s process of assembling the “Book of Emily” was a slow one, partly due to her qualms with categorizing works that she did not believe could be categorized (because of Dickinson’s creative genius, and Sue’s deep affection for her creative genius) and partly due to her working during a time of immense grief. Vinnie was impatient with the speed, or lack thereof, in which Sue was working, so Vinnie discouraged Sue from continuing the project and sought other sources who might complete it faster. I don’t have a sister, and this could very well be Vinnie feeling protective over her sister in a time of grief, but I struggle not to feel a little bit critical over Vinnie in this–especially considering Dickinson not being keen on publishing her own work anyhow. Dickinson was such an appreciator of nature and its processes, and I feel that she would have appreciated Sue taking her time to work through her grief and to consider her qualms with the project. How do you feel about Vinnie’s impatience during this time? Where do you feel this impatience may have stemmed from?

The last lines of poems 5 and 7 stuck out to me immediately. Poem 5 is an assertion of love for Sue which ends in “Sue – forevermore!” Poem 7 rejoices in an everlasting summer that lives inside and ends in “Thy flower – forevermore!” The connection between the two is syntactically obvious, but I am curious about your thoughts about the connection between the two on a deeper level. Could Dickinson be aligning Sue with the summer and the bloom, vice versa, or something else? I really love these parallels and would love to hear your thoughts on them.

I have a confession to make.

Posted on by
Reply

…I think I like Emily Dickinson better than Walt Whitman. Yes, yes, I know I was a diehard Whitmaniac at the beginning of this semester, I even got my blog username from one of his poems… but there’s something about Dickinson’s writing, both prose and poetry – and speaking of both, I love that they overlap, prosetry if you will – that captivates me so so so much. She sees the world in such a unique and beautiful way, simultaneously whimsical and authentic. It also might be because I see a bit of myself in her (ie, I’m projecting). Who knows. She’s a wonderful mystery.

WWDT: What Would Dickinson Think?

Posted on by
1

In a letter to Dickinson from Helen Hunt Jackson, Helen writes asking why Dickinson won’t consider publishing any of her works. She says that when she is dead and is looking back on her life, Dickinson will be sorry that she was so stingy with her work. It made me wonder if Dickinson would be or is regretting her decisions. Based on her reclusive and solitary nature, I’m not sure if she is disappointed. Her work has gotten out without her having to deal with the publicity that comes with it. If anything, I think that this is exactly what she would have wanted, if she wanted her work to ever be published at all.

Real Life Dickinson vs. Curated Literary Dickinson

Posted on by
1

In letter #342a, Higginson writes to his wife about meeting Dickinson. Something that really stuck out to me in this letter was his description of meeting Dickinson in person for the first time; he describes her as very meek, saying that she seemed frightened and childlike. This feels like the complete opposite of the Dickinson that we see presented in her letters. Obviously, this description of meeting her shouldn’t be too surprising as we know that she rarely sees new people, but the difference between the self-assured confidence she exudes in her letters and her poetry compared to the shyness that she shows in-person felt very drastic.

Salem’s CS for 3/19

Posted on by
Reply

In the letters we read, Emily Dickinson consistently blurs the line between friendship, romantic love, and spiritual devotion. Her language is intensely emotional but she rarely defines or labels what these relationships mean to her. It appears she gravitates towards existing in a space of deliberate ambiguity, but why does she feel the need to avoid definition? It could be a way Dickinson garners a sense of control and maintain emotional intensity with her peers without sacrificing her immediate perception or risk losing a relationship altogether. It seems almost elementary in this light. The way she writes is sort of a “peak-a-boo” to its recipient and a quiet hope that they catch on to her affections.

By refusing to categorize her relationships, Dickinson creates space for feelings to exist in their most expansive and contradictory forms. Love, longing, admiration, and distance can all coexist without needing to be resolved into fixed identities. Dickinson pours her heart into her letters, though sporadic in nature, but it seems at various points she limits herself. It could be nerves or fear of rejection, but I believe it to be that she did not want to be viewed as feeble, or at least more than she already was. We see this every place that Dickinson is mentioned, the repeated speculation on her mental state and if she truly despised the world and could only digest it through her own writings, and its this mentality that probably pushed her to be more secretive. I believe a lot of words went unwritten due to the constraints of her time period and I wonder, if at all, how much more abstract her letters would become if written today.

To push this further into the 21st century, it seems that today’s culture actually mirrors the same dynamics witnessed within these letters. Even with more openness around identity and relationships, many people resist clear labels, whether out of a desire for independence or a fear of vulnerability. Phrases like “it’s complicated,” “I don’t want to ruin what we have,” or the “what are we?” hypothetical broaches the same frustrating ambiguity Dickinson plays into. With these social taboos becoming increasingly normal, Dickinson’s letters feel unexpectedly modern in that people feel the need to maintain a certain level of distance with others, even if they are held dearly. This brings up the question on if ambiguity in relationships is actually emotionally freeing or just bottling intense feelings to further avoid any type of accountability?

Does Dickinson exhibit avoidant-attachment romance styles? Is she a serial-noncommittal? I wonder how she would feel if she had no control in the cat and mouse game and was the one strung along.

Dickinson deserves more credit for how much mental gymnastics she put her poor contemporaries through. What a woman. (I love her)

Tanner’s CS for March 19

Posted on by
Reply

Hello! The letters for 3/19 consist of Dickinson’s correspondence to T.W. Higginson and Helen Jackson. I have a few questions in regards to Dickinson’s relationship to these two, as well as a question on a specific letter itself. Feel free to answer any!

Dickinson’s letters to T.W. Higginson and Helen Jackson are both very intriguing, especially when you look at their relationships. The letters between Higginson and Dickinson felt very special, especially as we see them over time. We know that Higginson acted as a mentor to Dickinson, and it is clear in their correspondences, but there also feels to be a deep friendship embedded. Dickinson writes to him in times of sorrow, illness, happiness, and more. I was wondering what people made of their relationship. While it is a mentorship, would you also ascribe something additional: parental, friendship, writers, all of the above? Do you find importance in looking at this relationship outside of just mentorship? 

Additionally, Dickinson and Helen Jackson show a great friendship through their letters. In letters 573A-C, we see Jackson encouraging, and succeeding, in asking Dickinson to publish some of her writing. Helen even writes that she will take care of everything, and write from her own hand, just so Dickinson is read. Why do you think Helen was the one successful in getting Dickinson to agree, as we know she was reluctant to publish her works. Does Jackson also being a writer aid in her persuasiveness, or more her friendship? What is the importance of another woman encouraging Dickinson to publish her work anonymously? 

Lastly, the letter that stuck out to me the most is letter 459A which is written to Higginson. The letter reads: “Nature is a Haunted House – but Art – a House that tries to be haunted.” This letter feels very poetic, and it was thought to be seemingly sent on its own. I don’t want to give too much of my thoughts away, as to answer the question. So, I am curious about your reading of this letter (letter-poem?). What is Dickinson trying to express through calling nature a “Haunted House,” and art as “trying to be haunted?” Does the letter work to invoke a specific sort of emotion, specifically when thinking of the word haunted? Also, is there something to be said about the capitalization of certain words? I just want everyone to have a go at this letter in any way they see fit!

I look forward to hearing thoughts!

Bailey’s CS for March 17

Posted on by
1

In our readings for today, I was particularly interested in Dickinson’s letter to Higginson on April 25, 1862 (#261). There are a lot of interesting mysteries within. She mentions “I had a terror – since September – I could tell to none” and then later in the letter seems to emphasize this secret trauma by saying, “They are better than Beings – because they know – but do not tell.”

Famously, some scholars theorize that Emily Dickinson’s most prolific years of poetry came about due to some possible trauma (which also could have influenced her progressive isolation). But I’m curious why she would have so cryptically mentioned it here and nowhere else? Perhaps she felt safe in some way because Higginson did not yet have a personal relationship/rapport with her? Or perhaps she was simply explaining the source of her muse to a fellow literary-minded person who might best understand?

Or maybe there is a way to read this letter as Emily Dickinson sort of putting on airs? Although she doesn’t express a desire for getting published, when I read this letter, it does feel a bit like she is seeking some sort of poetic validation as she asks for Higginson’s mentorship. There are several lines which I feel she wrote purposefully to play into Higginson’s potential ego or masculinity – “I went to school – but in your manner of the phrase – had no education,” “But I fear my story fatigues you,” and, of course, her infamous comment on Whitman.

To me, this all reads very sly and coy. Emily Dickinson is so incredibly smart and she’s almost downplaying that on purpose here in order to seek Higginson’s mentorship. It makes me wonder what her true feelings on Whitman are, because to me, it seems like she’s only saying that she was “told that he was disgraceful” because it could possibly align with what Higginson believes.

I’m interested to know what other people think of these mysteries. Is Dickinson being authentic here? Or is she intentionally playing a part? If she doesn’t want to be published, what is she looking for? Validation or true tutorship?

Ian’s CS for St. Paddy’s Day

Posted on by
Reply

The letters that we looked at for today were Emily Dickinson’s correspondence with her mentors, first to some unknown person (thought to be Reverend Charles Wadsworth) and then to Higginson. When reading these first two letters, just addressed to her “Master,” I thought at first that these were meant to be to God, until she started talking about God in the third person and asking second person questions simultaneously. After these, the letters are all addressed to or are from Higginson, who she reaches out to out of the blue and entreats to be her preceptor. However, even though she regularly sends him poems for him to criticize and makes her gratitude to him very clear and frequently humbles herself to him, it seems to me that she doesn’t often take his advice. When he advised her to change something about one of her poems, Dickenson replied “I do not let it go, because it is mine. (letter 271)” This makes me wonder if she ever took much advice from her old “Master,” and who that person is. She could have learned much of what she knew from him and refused to change to accommodate Higginson. Or she could have gone against his advice as much as Higginson. At one point, she explains to Higginson that she is not religious, even though her family is, and if her old mentor really was the Reverend, I’m thinking this could point towards some dissent from his teachings. Dickinson also mentions to Higginson that her former tutor died, so this could be the same person that she was writing those initial get-well letters to.