Steven Schwartz wrote, in part,

>Unfortunately women are subjected to a double whammy: On the one hand,
>we have people (like Aaron Copland, for example) obviously interested
>in classical music, who ask the question why are there no great women
>composers (answer: because they don't expect to find great women composers
>for reasons that have nothing to do with music).

True, no doubt, and yet it won't entirely do.  Why are there no great women
novelists? The answer:  there are.  And we don't have to look for them in
the 20th century.  Consider the 19th, the age of Fanny Mendelssohn and
Clara Schumann.  These women are heard today, partly on the basis of their
music, but far more because of the names they bear.  Without those names,
they would be about as well known as Louise Ferenc (sp?) a much greater
composer who was roughly their contemporary.

But how about the English novel? The names tumble forth, Jane Austen, the
Brontes, Mary Ann Evans . . .  these were the literary equivalents of what
we call great composers.  I'd venture to say that, in English literature at
least, more novels by these people are read today than by the male greats
like Dickens and Thackery.  But if they were not popular and considered
great nowadays, we would probably be tempted to say that it's because
people "don't expect to find great women novelists for reasons that have
nothing to do with literature."

So there's a difference somewhere. What might it be?

"Richard Todd" <[log in to unmask]>