| Since
its publication in 1892, Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Yellow Wall-paper"
has always been recognized as a powerful statement about the victimization
of a woman whose neurasthenic condition is completely misdiagnosed,
mistreated, and misunderstood, leaving her to face insanity alone,
as a prisoner in her own bedroom. Never before, however, has the story
itself been portrayed as victimized.
In this first critical edition of Gilman's "The Yellow Wall-paper,"
accompanied by contemporary reviews and previously unpublished letters,
Julie Bates Dock examines the various myth-frames that have been
used to legitimize Gilman's story. The editor discusses how modern
feminist critics' readings (and misreadings) of the available documents
uphold a set of legends that originated with Gilman herself and
that promulgate an almost saintly view of the pioneering feminist
author. The documents made available in the collection enable scholars
and students to evaluate firsthand Gilman's claims regarding the
story's impact on its first audiences.
Dock presents an authoritative text of "The Yellow Wall-paper"
for the first time since its initial publication. Included are a
textual commentary, full descriptions of all relevant texts, lists
of editorial emendations and pre-copy-text substantive variants,
a complete historical collation that documents all the variants
found in important editions after 1892, and a listing of textual
sources for more than one hundred reprintings of the story in anthologies
and textbooks.
Other documents in the casebook that illuminate the story's publication
and reception histories include Gilman's successive and varying
accounts of the story's history, her diary and manuscript log entries
and letters pertaining to the story, W. D. Howells's correspondence
with Gilman and Horace Scudder, editor of The Atlantic Monthly,
and his remarks on the story when he reprinted it in Great American
Short Stories, and more than two dozen reviews of the story by Gilman's
contemporaries.
Taken together, the criticism, text, documents, and annotations
constitute a rich and valuable contribution to Gilman scholarship,
calling into question the feminist literary criticism that has helped
to shape interpretations of a literary masterpiece. |
|
|