Annotated Bibliography
Dublin Core
Title
Annotated Bibliography
Description
Harper, Margaret Mills. “Nemo: George Yeats and her Automatic Script.” New Literary History, vol. 33 no. 2, 2002, pp. 291-314. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/nlh.2002.0018
Margaret Mills Harper argues that George Yeats attempted to channel her husband, W.B. Yeats while he was still alive through automatic writing, and this led to her career as an automatic writer, where she was able to explore gender issues from a new perspective. Automatic and spirit writing allowed her to experience feminism and the different viewpoints of feminism through those that she channeled, and these radically changing positions of what she wrote confirmed her validity. Her claim is useful because it further explains how spirit/automatic writing works for this specific author and offers a new perspective on what this type of writing can be used for, rather than just channeled a late author to have him continue his works. It also is useful because it showcases an author that was well known for both her work and her husband’s work, which brings this type of writing into the mainstream, especially at the end of the Victorian period when A.H. Pratt wrote My Tussle with the Devil.
Van Doren, Carl. “O. HENRY.” Texas Review,vol. 2, no. 3, 1916, pp. 248-259. JSTOR.
Carl Van Doren argues that O. Henry’s writing style was so unique because of his tendency to know all of the details of the story before he even began writing, and his surprise endings that worked well with his dark, mysterious topics. Van Doren also argues that O. Henry “excel[led] most clever story writers” (257) because he grapples with his own morality while also keeping track of so many other elements in a seemingly simple short story and refusing to proofread his work before sending it to the publisher. This scholar calls for O. Henry to “still be remembered” (259) despite his too-early departure from the physical world. His claim is useful because it explores the writing style of O. Henry and what would prompt someone to want to emulate him, especially after he had passed. His argument of what O. Henry’s writing entailed can directly be seen in My Tussle with the Devil, not perfectly, but enough where there is an obvious connection. It is important to compare both A.H.Pratt’s version of O. Henry’s writing to that of O. Henry himself, because this is where the validity of the whole book comes from, especially with the claim that O. Henry knew every detail before even beginning to write and his lack of proofreading, which could still be implemented via Ouija board.
Margaret Mills Harper argues that George Yeats attempted to channel her husband, W.B. Yeats while he was still alive through automatic writing, and this led to her career as an automatic writer, where she was able to explore gender issues from a new perspective. Automatic and spirit writing allowed her to experience feminism and the different viewpoints of feminism through those that she channeled, and these radically changing positions of what she wrote confirmed her validity. Her claim is useful because it further explains how spirit/automatic writing works for this specific author and offers a new perspective on what this type of writing can be used for, rather than just channeled a late author to have him continue his works. It also is useful because it showcases an author that was well known for both her work and her husband’s work, which brings this type of writing into the mainstream, especially at the end of the Victorian period when A.H. Pratt wrote My Tussle with the Devil.
Van Doren, Carl. “O. HENRY.” Texas Review,vol. 2, no. 3, 1916, pp. 248-259. JSTOR.
Carl Van Doren argues that O. Henry’s writing style was so unique because of his tendency to know all of the details of the story before he even began writing, and his surprise endings that worked well with his dark, mysterious topics. Van Doren also argues that O. Henry “excel[led] most clever story writers” (257) because he grapples with his own morality while also keeping track of so many other elements in a seemingly simple short story and refusing to proofread his work before sending it to the publisher. This scholar calls for O. Henry to “still be remembered” (259) despite his too-early departure from the physical world. His claim is useful because it explores the writing style of O. Henry and what would prompt someone to want to emulate him, especially after he had passed. His argument of what O. Henry’s writing entailed can directly be seen in My Tussle with the Devil, not perfectly, but enough where there is an obvious connection. It is important to compare both A.H.Pratt’s version of O. Henry’s writing to that of O. Henry himself, because this is where the validity of the whole book comes from, especially with the claim that O. Henry knew every detail before even beginning to write and his lack of proofreading, which could still be implemented via Ouija board.
Citation
“Annotated Bibliography,” Manhattan College Omeka , accessed September 20, 2024, https://omeka-pilot.manhattan.edu/items/show/108.