Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Belle of Amherst

This image, just reminds me of something very Emily Dickinson-esque.

Emily Dickinson

This was a Poet — It is That
Distills amazing sense
From ordinary Meanings —
And Attar so immense

From the familiar species
That perished by the Door —
We wonder it was not Ourselves
Arrested it — before —

Of Pictures, the Discloser —
The Poet — it is He —
Entitles Us — by Contrast —
To ceaseless Poverty —

Of portion — so unconscious —
The Robbing — could not harm —
Himself — to Him — a Fortune —
Exterior — to Time —

Was Emily Dickinson a Lesbian?

A question that intrigues scholars and readers alike: was Emily Dickinson a lesbian? While there's not (to this date, anyway) direct evidence that Dickinson was sexually active with either men or women, she did write passionate letters to women (as did many women of that age). Some historians find this as evidence of what today would be called lesbianism -- others point to incidents where she seemed to be in love with men as counter-evidence.


David K. Popham said...

I know that while civil unions and gay marriages are still off the plate for many we have come to the conclsuion that we can categorize sexuality into two camps: straight or gay. I'm wondering if either camp is appropriate for Dickinson - maybe (horror of horrors) she really was asexual. I know few would agree - but there are those who move through life without the need to connect in sexual ways with others. Whether Dickinson fits this description I couldn't say - but it is worth pondering instead of playing the games of the scholars and seeking to fit her into the social construct of gay or straight.

JoeBlow said...

David, I tend to agree with you. As for physical sexual relations, she was probably and most likely asexual. She was a very reclusive woman. Mentally and emotionally, however, she could probably be considered bisexual. Either way, I love her poetry and have since I read the first one in high school.

silvereagle said...

Does it really matter? Is "lesbianism" an act or deed or though? The fact that a person may write passionate letters to anyone, male or female, does not establish they are gay, straight, lesbian, or anyother sexual preference. It only establishes they are great writers! Why must we put every person, dead or alive, into a "category" other than that of "human"?