(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 08:49, 16 September 2010 (edit)
SvDijk (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (07:03, 7 October 2012) (edit) (undo)
SvDijk (Talk | contribs)

 
(3 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 4: Line 4:
<br><br><br> <br><br><br>
-November 22 2007 took place the first of these three annual meetings. The theme of this day was the question of female authorship: “What is a female author? Who is a woman writer?”. Continuation of the earlier discussion furthered by Michel Foucault's “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?” [1] – but with particular focus on gender aspects, and taking into account research pursued since then, for example, by Nathalie Grande [2] and Alicia Montoya [3]. <br><br>+November 22 2007 took place the first of these three annual meetings. The theme of this day was the question of female authorship: '''“What is a female author? Who is a woman writer?”'''. Continuation of the earlier discussion furthered by Michel Foucault's “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?” [1] – but with particular focus on gender aspects, and taking into account research pursued since then, for example, by Nathalie Grande [2] and Alicia Montoya [3]. <br><br>
There were also very practical reasons: in the context of the NEWW-project decisions must be taken about entering women who wrote and published in the project’s database ([[www.databasewomenwriters.nl]]). How to categorize them: as real “writers” or in specific categories of “translators”, “commentators”? Taking into account contemporary judgments or outcomes of canon formation? What about these women’s intentions ?<br><br> There were also very practical reasons: in the context of the NEWW-project decisions must be taken about entering women who wrote and published in the project’s database ([[www.databasewomenwriters.nl]]). How to categorize them: as real “writers” or in specific categories of “translators”, “commentators”? Taking into account contemporary judgments or outcomes of canon formation? What about these women’s intentions ?<br><br>
Line 15: Line 15:
10.00<br> 10.00<br>
-Welcome<br>+'''Welcome'''<br>
10.30<br> 10.30<br>
Line 30: Line 30:
12.30 <br> 12.30 <br>
-Lunch at Drift 21 (Hall) <br>+'''Lunch''' at Drift 21 (Hall) <br>
14.00 <br> 14.00 <br>
Line 37: Line 37:
14.45 <br> 14.45 <br>
-'''Annemarie Doornbos''' (University of Amsterdam): <br>+'''[http://www.womenwriters.nl/index.php/Annemarie_Doornbos Annemarie Doornbos]''' (University of Amsterdam): <br>
[["Mrs Bosboom-Toussaint" or "Geertruida Toussaint" (1812-1886) ? Male or female writing ?]] <br> [["Mrs Bosboom-Toussaint" or "Geertruida Toussaint" (1812-1886) ? Male or female writing ?]] <br>
Line 45: Line 45:
16.15<br> 16.15<br>
-Closing remarks <br>+'''Closing remarks''' <br>
16.30 <br> 16.30 <br>
-Drinks at Drift 21 <br><br>+'''Drinks''' at Drift 21 <br><br>
[1] Michel Foucault, “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?”, in ''Dits et écrits 1954-1988''. Paris, Gallimard, 1994, vol. I, p. 789-821.<br> [1] Michel Foucault, “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?”, in ''Dits et écrits 1954-1988''. Paris, Gallimard, 1994, vol. I, p. 789-821.<br>
[2] Nathalie Grande, ''Stratégies de romancières. De Clélie à La Princesse de Clèves (1654-1678)''. Paris, Champion, 1999.<br> [2] Nathalie Grande, ''Stratégies de romancières. De Clélie à La Princesse de Clèves (1654-1678)''. Paris, Champion, 1999.<br>
-[3] Alicia Montoya, ''Marie-Anne Barbier et la tragédie post-classique''. Paris, Champion, 2007. <br><br> +[3] Alicia Montoya, ''Marie-Anne Barbier et la tragédie post-classique''. Paris, Champion, 2007. <br><br><br>
-AsK, September 2010<br><br>+AsK, September 2010

Current revision


First NEWW November meeting




November 22 2007 took place the first of these three annual meetings. The theme of this day was the question of female authorship: “What is a female author? Who is a woman writer?”. Continuation of the earlier discussion furthered by Michel Foucault's “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?” [1] – but with particular focus on gender aspects, and taking into account research pursued since then, for example, by Nathalie Grande [2] and Alicia Montoya [3].

There were also very practical reasons: in the context of the NEWW-project decisions must be taken about entering women who wrote and published in the project’s database (www.databasewomenwriters.nl). How to categorize them: as real “writers” or in specific categories of “translators”, “commentators”? Taking into account contemporary judgments or outcomes of canon formation? What about these women’s intentions ?

Meeting place:

Utrecht, Faculty of Humanities:
Drift 23 (near the Janskerkhof), room 0.12, 10.00 – 17.00.

Program:

10.00
Welcome

10.30
Suzan van Dijk (UU):
Short presentation of the project “New approaches to European Women’s Writing”

11.00
Teresa Sousa de Almeida (Universidade Nova de Lisboa) and Vanda Anastácio (Universidade de Lisboa):
Networks around 18th-century Portuguese women authors, in particular around the Marquesa d’Alorna (1750-1839)

11.45
Nina Geerdink (Free University Amsterdam):
Katharina Lescailje (1649-1711): another Sappho

12.30
Lunch at Drift 21 (Hall)

14.00
Agnese Fidecaro (University of Geneva):
Reflections around "La femme auteur" by Madame de Genlis (1746-1830)

14.45
Annemarie Doornbos (University of Amsterdam):
"Mrs Bosboom-Toussaint" or "Geertruida Toussaint" (1812-1886) ? Male or female writing ?

15.30
Zsuzsanna Varga (De Montfort University, Leicester):
Margaret Oliphant’s (1828-1897) reconceptualisation of female authorship

16.15
Closing remarks

16.30
Drinks at Drift 21

[1] Michel Foucault, “Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur?”, in Dits et écrits 1954-1988. Paris, Gallimard, 1994, vol. I, p. 789-821.
[2] Nathalie Grande, Stratégies de romancières. De Clélie à La Princesse de Clèves (1654-1678). Paris, Champion, 1999.
[3] Alicia Montoya, Marie-Anne Barbier et la tragédie post-classique. Paris, Champion, 2007.


AsK, September 2010




  • Conferences > NEWW November meetings > 2007

Personal tools