Thread by @Jigeumun_, Why does Emily Dickinson's (or another historical figure's) sexuality matter?(++ a little [...]

Why does Emily Dickinson's (or another historical figure's) sexuality matter?

(++ a little look at her relationship with Sue) ; a thread

#Dickinson

So I wanted to write about this because I see a lot of people saying "She was a lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual or whatever. Why does it matter? She was a great poet & that's all that should matter."

1) Yes, her sexual orientation or gender identity doesn't really affect her++

being a great poet. She can be queer or not, she'll remain iconic. BUT, the conversation about her possible queer identity can be relevant to the way we read & relate to her.

2) First, let's recognize the double standards: people had no problem assigning candidates for the++

'Master' for a century. When it's a man, people have no problem talking about her love life. When it's a man, no one says "Why is it relevant to her poetry?" But when it is a woman, you question it?? Smells a lot like double standard to me.

4) Finding relatable figures in++

history will ofc be important to the LGBT community. So ofc, some people will care even if you don't give a shit.

5) This conversation can also give us a new understanding of her poetry and shed more light into the world of Dickinson. It's not so different than discussing++

her possible male love interests and the famous but unknown 'Master'

6) Which brings us to her relationship with Susan Gilbert Dickinson. In my heart she was romantically involved with her but rationally speaking, no one can know 100%

Let's see some of the counterpoints:

-"No Emily had male love interests."

And? This doesn't prove anything. Sexuality is a spectrum. She could be interested in men & women. Or she was experiencing comphet, who knows? That's why I'm against giving her direct labels. Yeah maybe she could be bisexual, if we take her++

relationship with Otis Lord. I just think 'queer' or 'sapphic' could be better terms to use for her. And since we don't know her exact gender expression, even sapphic could be too limiting. And yes, there is no way we can know this because she didn't know these labels either.++

-"Even homosexual was coined in 1868, so how could she know if she had feelings for Sue or another woman?"

My favorite. Yes, she wouldn't be able to label herself in a modern sense. I acknowledged this above. But does that mean queer people didn't exist in the past?? Come on+

lesbian & sapphic literally come from Sappho (and the place she lived in:Lesbos)

You know the Greeks. If you want a contemporary of Dickinson, Oscar Wilde, who went to jail for being gay, is there for you.

The lack of labels doesn't mean one cannot feel the way they feel+

or recognize the feeling.

-"But it was normal for friends in 19th century to show affection. They shared beds, kissed and wrote affectionate letters and it wasn't regarded as romantic."

Yes, true. But did you watch every single of those friends? Maybe some of them did more++

when they shared a bed at night? Maybe they felt more but had to bury their feelings? I just find it amusing how they reject the possibility so certainly. Maybe Emily & Sue were just friends but how can you be so sure there was nothing more? This argument is just so generalizing+

imo. Also Boston marriage was a thing. Anne Lister's diaries give away so many details about how two women can be partners (and if I remember right, she even mentions sex which this argument dismisses saying women couldn't know how to have sex without a man. Lol.)

Now, time to+

do a tiny queer reading of Emily Dickinson's correspondence with Sue.

This letter is often quoted, some say it's about missing childhood etc. But the thing is, Sue & Emily weren't childhood friends. It ends with Emily adding "a kiss" shyly & asking Sue not to let anyone see.+

Dickinson could be goofy, childish but why does she need to hide the kiss? If it's so common for girls to kiss back then???

Look at this one, doesn't it sound too romantic for just a friendship? Emily's feelings could be one sided or not. But even she recognizes them here "As+

if my absent Lover was coming..."

A poem that was written after Sue & Austin's marriage:

"Sue" was removed from the verso, so she was the original recipient of the poem. "Her breast is fit for pearls" Emily says, "But I was not a diver"

Diver probably means "a man" so she+

isn't a man, therefore can't provide her beloved whatever a man can give, but she still can give her a warm home or her love. See, keeping an open mind about her sexuality can be useful in analyzing the poems.

"Egypt - thou
knew'st" -

Doesn't the last "-" stop the note at a++

perfect time? Just before Antony reveals Cleopatra's effect on him, Emily stops the quote. It's also like saying "Sue you know." to her. MN Smith still warns that it could be just a game they played, it's still interesting. Check out this essay for more
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25679386?seq=1

"At a word from her, Emily would forfeit Righteousness"

"Whatever Realm I forfeit, Lord continue me in this"

Why would she forfeit a Realm (which could be heaven) because she owns/loves Susan? Emily puts Sue in a dangerous place & don't forget Sue burnt some stuff that she++

considered too adulatory & private for publication.

So this was a short analysis just to show how considering this possibility can let us have a better understanding of her poems, letters and life in general. It matters.

Latest Threads Unrolled: