Jump to content

Talk:Lesbian literature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lesbian literature section improvements

[edit]

While this article contains some good information, the overview section on lesbian literature does not contain enough sources to back up what the writer is saying. At least for the paragraph about the limited availability of lesbian lit outside of tiny lesbian publishers, I found an article that can back up the statements. Here's the citation if anyone is interested in checking the article out before I add it to the article: [1]. If any other editors have another thoughts on this, please let me know.

[1]

Tisamerefleshwound (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)tisamerefleshwound[reply]

____

References

  1. ^ Seajay, Carol (December 1994). "The Backlash and Backlist". The Women's Review of Books. 12 (3): 18–19.
[edit]
1 January 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lesbian literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and improvement

[edit]

I've expanded the article a bit. It could still use some work on discussing writers outside Europe and the U.S., as well as more info on any changes brought by third wave feminism and the 21st century. I'll probably keep chipping away at it, but feel free to add any additional input or contributions! ABF99 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
14 May 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lesbian literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

Pyxis Solitary, regarding this, I'm sure it was included because, per WP:See also, we include related or similar topics in the See also section. It makes sense to link to Gay literature and Bisexual literature in that section. That's why Jami430 made this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Flyer22. I get that. But besides WP:See also stating that "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", it also says: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent", and "[A link] is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." Sometimes LGBT articles are edited by the seat of one's pants. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pyxis Solitary, I think that the links should be there, and that their relevance is immediately apparent, but I'm not hard-pressed on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the WP:See also guidelines states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". What does Gay literature have to do with Lesbian literature? What does Bisexual literature have to do with Lesbian literature? An L is not a G, a B, or an H(eterosexual). That's it in a nutshell. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pyxis Solitary, I work on sexual articles too. What you are stating is like asking: "What does fellatio have to do with cunnilingus?" They are related because they both have to do with oral sex. They are the inverse of each other. That's why they are in the See also sections of each other's article. Similarly, lesbian literature and gay literature both concern LGBT literature, and "gay literature," when taken to mean "gay male literature" (since the Gay literature article notes that "gay literature" may refer to LGBT literature as a whole), is the inverse of lesbian literature. This is why the links you removed should be restored, and is why editors will keep adding them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, I don't edit for myself. I edit for the general reader that turns to Wikipedia for information. All an editor has to do is include an explanation of why Gay and Bisexual literature is a relevant link. That's what WP:See also requires. I may know what pussy and dick may be, but is the reference to pussy about a kitten, a cat, a human female's genitals, or a profanity? Pyxis Solitary talk 09:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit for myself either. I'll go ahead and drop a line about this at the WP:LGBT and WP:See also talk pages, pointing them to this discussion, and see if others have anything to state on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I genuinely don't understand what Pyxis Solitary is trying to say; anyone who knows what the word "lesbian" means can see the connection to Gay or Bisexual literature - they come together in the umbrella of LGBT fiction; which can also be seen in the fact that the navbox in the article includes the links at Template:LGBT_fiction. However, that also means the link shouldn't be included in see also since it is in the navbox.(as a sidenote, I don't think I've ever seen the annotations as described in WP:SEEALSO) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an odd thread. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with 20th and 21st-century literature—or with sexual orientation, for that matter—should be aware that there inevitably is considerable overlap between these types of literature, and that they must have various significant themes in common. Of course it makes sense to link the others in the See also section. Pyxis Solitary's analogy to dick and pussy makes no sense, as far as I can tell, unless one is living in some alternate universe where bisexual literature and gay literature have multiple meanings. For that vanishingly rare reader who can't intuit the relevance, the answer is just a click or two away. (That was pretty much the point of wikilinks, last time I checked.) RivertorchFIREWATER 03:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what someone else 'gets' or not, those wikilinks don't need to be included in "See also". As User:Galobtter pointed out, they are already included in the {{LGBT fiction}} (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender fiction) navbox at bottom of page. The navbox includes Gay literature, Bisexual literature, LGBT themes, LGBT characters, Film and TV, and Other. It's an indubitable candy store of "see also" links. Readers can knock themselves out with it. Pyxis Solitary talk 04:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what Galobtter stated, I think this is a case where they should be in the See also section as well. Wikipedia articles are for the readers, not for the editors, and the vast majority of our readers are not going to see that box all the way down there at the end of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion whether they should be in the see also. I would say that it is true that most people don't see the navbox at the bottom. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) Sorry, but many readers won't scroll down past the Notes, References, External links, and Further reading sections. For many readers, the article ends at See also. If the idea is to facilitate navigation to related articles, we should not rely on small-type links buried in a morass of links in a box at the absolute end of the page. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take it a Wikipedia survey has been conducted by which it was determined that "many readers won't scroll down past the Notes, References, External links, and Further reading sections." If this is true, then why not just remove the navigation box from this and other similar articles? It's no skin off my reader (first) and editor (second) nose, that's for sure. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. And thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


In conclusion Sappho was a good person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.117.167 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Elizabeth Bishop not mentioned

[edit]

Why is Elizabeth Bishop not mentioned. 77.241.136.50 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do it? If you can edit the talk page you can add material to the article -- all you have to do is also include reliable sources that support the content. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't writings by men considered lesbian literature?

[edit]

I assume men's works typically do not fall under the category of lesbian literature due to differing perspectives and experiences. But then, why use the painting by John William Godward titled 'Reverie (or In the Days of Sappho)'? Godward was a man.

Secondly, there is a general consensus that KamalKumar Majumdar’s 'Mallika Bahar,' published in the Bengali periodical 'Chaturanga' in 1951, is one of the *first* Bengali short stories specifically dealing with lesbianism. Perhaps its so-called explicitness, which now seems surprisingly tame by contemporary standards, contributes to this recognition. Arxms (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the article states: "Works by heterosexual writers which treat lesbian themes only in passing, on the other hand, are not often regarded as lesbian literature." I haven't read the short story Mallika Bahar by Bengali author Kamalkumar Majumdar, and don't how it presents lesbianism and if it is (or not) written with a male gaze.
Secondly, the prominent authors mentioned in the article are: Sappho of Lesbos, Beguines, Hildegarde of Bingen, Hadewijch, Margery Kempe, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Marguerite Porete, Wu Tsao, Vernon Lee, Amy Levy, Anne Lister, Susan Koppelman, Constance Fenimore Woolson, Octave Thanet, Mary Eleanor Wilkins Freeman, Kate Chopin, Sarah Orne Jewett, Christina Rossetti, Charlotte Brontë, Vita Sackville-West, Emily Dickinson, Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper (pen name: Michael Field), Radclyffe Hall, Elsa Gidlow, Nathalie Barney, Gertrude Stein, Djuna Barnes, Renee Vivien, Nobuko Yoshiya, Virginia Woolf, Selli Engler, Maximiliane Ackers, Ruth Margarete Roellig, Anna Elisabet Weirauch, Amy Lowell, Ruth Fuller Field, Frances V. Rummell, Jane Bowles, Tereska Torrès, Ann Bannon, Patricia Highsmith, Violette Leduc, Jane Rule, May Sarton, Maureen Duffy, Rita Mae Brown, Jill Johnston, Audre Lorde, Jewelle Gomez, Paula Gunn Allen, Cherrie Moraga, Gloria Anzaldua, Ann Allen Shockley, Joanna Russ, Adrienne Rich, Judy Grahn, Alma Routsong, Anita Cornwell, Nancy Cardenas, Magaly Alabau, Mercedes Roffe, Alejandra Pizarnik, Cristina Peri Rossi, Johanna Moosdorf, Marlene Stenten, Christa Reinig, Verena Stefans, Luise F. Pusch, Eleanor Wong, Qiu Miaojin, Lin Bai, Chen Ran, Aska Mochizuki, Natsuo Kirino, Abha Dawesar, Elham Mansour, Frieda Ekotto, Ama Ata Aidoo, Alice Walker, Dorothy Allison, Sarah Waters, Carolyn Parkhurst, Jeanette Winterson, Rosa Guy, Sandra Scoppettone, Judy Blume, Nancy Garden, M.E. Kerr, Nina Revoyr, Jacqueline Woodson, Ellen Wittlinger, Paula Boock, Emily M. Danforth -- all of them females.
I did notice upon close inspection that there are a handful of male authors mentioned. If they are to be included, there should be a separate section specifically for them.
As for using the painting of Sappho by John William Godward -- it's probably because at the time it was added to the article Wikimedia Commons may not have had a notable painting of Sappho by a female artist. I would have no issue in substituting Godward's with File:Amanda Brewster Sewell, Sappho, 1891.jpg by Amanda Brewster Sewell, or File:Maria Hadfield Cosway - Sappho - Google Art Project.jpg, or File:Brygos Painter ARV 385 228 Alkaios and Sappho - Dionysos and maenad (08).jpg. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 08:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an image change. The Sewell one is good. I would hold off on the vase image, which I nominated for deletion at Commons (all are welcome to contribute at the discussion there, I'm not 100% sure I'm right). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about the vase image. Good to use it if we want. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources refer to Majumdar's work as lesbian literature? I think that's the bar here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least three sources support this claim.
Farid Ahmed from 'sylhettoday24' writes that (I'm translating):
"...a man going to multiple women or vice versa is not unprecedented or rare in Bengali literature. There have been many literary works on this. But, Mallika Bahar went beyond these and brought out the forbidden relationship of one woman with another woman in Bengali literature. No one else seems to have had the courage, desire, or imagination to write on this subject before."
Chinmay Guho from Anandabazar Patrika writes that (translating, again):
"I don't know how he managed to write a flamboyant female homosexual story like 'Mallika Bahar' in the early fifties..."
Lastly, Somesh Roy briefly discuss this topic on his PhD thesis (page 98 - 110). [ Somesh, R. (2019). Flawed Bodies: A Study of Gender Performances, Subversions, and Formation of Sexual Identities. (Accession No: 304926) [PhD Thesis]. University of North Bengal. http://ir.nbu.ac.in/handle/123456789/3965 ]
I believe 'Mallika Bahar' significantly focus on lesbian themes rather than just touching it briefly or portraying the women merely as sexual objects for the enjoyment of heterosexual male readers.
Plus, I agree with @Pyxis Solitary 's idea of having a dedicated section for literature on lesbian themes written by men.Arxms (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a section on literature on lesbian themes written by men would resolve the issue. ABF992 (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the second source is really usable here. Not sure it's enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fannie Flagg is a great example of a lesbian author

[edit]

One of her iconic works of lesbian literature is Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Shop Cafe. 24.105.221.234 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_literature&oldid=1212545797"