(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22:24, 4 February 2009 (edit)
SvDijk (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 21:36, 5 February 2009 (edit) (undo)
SvDijk (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 3: Line 3:
-<br><br>This part of the site will present the reception side of the dialogues undertaken by women authors, as they are documented in the database ''WomenWriters''. The word "reader" is used in a broad sense. Firstly, it includes men ''and'' women. Secondly, those men and women can be ''more'' than readers: they can have commented or adapted the texts, reviewed or translated them, and so on. These various forms of reception need to be considered separately and to be compared, in order to see in what ways women authors or their texts have been received. This comparison is made possible by the database structure. <BR><BR>+<br><br>This part of the site will present the reception side of the dialogues undertaken by women authors, as they are documented in the database ''WomenWriters''. The word "reader" is used in a broad sense. Firstly, it includes men ''and'' women. Secondly, those men and women can be ''more'' than readers: they can have commented or adapted the texts, reviewed or translated them, and so on. These various forms of reception need to be considered separately and to be compared, in order to see in what ways women authors or their texts have been received. This comparison is made possible by the database structure. <BR><BR><br>
-'''QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES'''<br>+'''QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES'''<br><br>
-<br>Readers can be classified - for the sake of their easily being found - according to the women's national identities. Here also problems arise, because of possible confusion between nationality and language. This is equally under discussion.<br>+Readers can certainly be classified, just as we did on the "reading side", according to their national identities. It is possible to mention for example the numbers of: <br>
 + 
 +The same problems we encountered on the "writing side" here also arise, because of possible confusion between nationality and language. This is equally under discussion.<br>
<br>We welcome short articles to be published here online, as far as they result from research facilitated by the database ''WomenWriters'' (propositions are subject to peer review). The articles will be presented according to cultures and languages of reception, as follows: <br>We welcome short articles to be published here online, as far as they result from research facilitated by the database ''WomenWriters'' (propositions are subject to peer review). The articles will be presented according to cultures and languages of reception, as follows:

Revision as of 21:36, 5 February 2009


Reading women's writing:
female success, influence, reputation



This part of the site will present the reception side of the dialogues undertaken by women authors, as they are documented in the database WomenWriters. The word "reader" is used in a broad sense. Firstly, it includes men and women. Secondly, those men and women can be more than readers: they can have commented or adapted the texts, reviewed or translated them, and so on. These various forms of reception need to be considered separately and to be compared, in order to see in what ways women authors or their texts have been received. This comparison is made possible by the database structure.


QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES

Readers can certainly be classified, just as we did on the "reading side", according to their national identities. It is possible to mention for example the numbers of:

The same problems we encountered on the "writing side" here also arise, because of possible confusion between nationality and language. This is equally under discussion.


We welcome short articles to be published here online, as far as they result from research facilitated by the database WomenWriters (propositions are subject to peer review). The articles will be presented according to cultures and languages of reception, as follows:



SvD, February 2009





  • The reading side >

Personal tools