No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
1 Wyndham Lewis on Art: Collected Writings 1913–1956, eds., Michel, Walter and Fox, C. J. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1969), 195–96.Google Scholar
2 For a discussion of the confusion between “feminine” and “female” in Gilbert and Gubar's earlier work, see, for example, Moi, Toril, Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (London: Methuen, 1985), 57–69.Google Scholar
3 Eliot, T. S., “London Letter,” Dial, 71 (08 1921), pp. 216–17.Google Scholar See also my “Futurism, Gender and Theories of Postmodernity,” Textual Practice, 3.2 (Summer 1989), 202–21, especially 211–12.Google Scholar
4 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, “Translator's Preface” to Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology (London and Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1976), xlviii.Google Scholar For a serious discussion of Derrida's “grammatology” and gender, see Jardine, Alice A., Gynesis: Configurations of Woman and Modernity (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1985), 178–207.Google Scholar Jardine observes (p. 188) that “The trace, nonexistent, invisible, and overwhelmingly passive, marks the spot — of future feminine connotations.”
5 See, for example, Derrida, Jacques, Positions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 26Google Scholar: “It is a question… of producing a new concept of writing. This concept can be called gram or différance.”