It’s disheartening to look back at contemporary critics like Ellen Pilon, who dismissed Penn Kemp's raw honesty as "misplaced anger" meant only for "angry women." In my view, that is a distinctly unempathetic and foolhardy stance. Kemp wasn’t interested in appealing to the "widest possible audience" or the "lowest common denominator." She was writing for the minority, the women trapped in an adversarial system who felt utterly alone and "indefinably guilty." Her anger wasn't a flaw; it was the pristine ingredient that gave the work its authenticity. Thank you for sharing this Jennifer.
How astonishing to read this well-thought out review, forty-two years to the day after its publication! Thank you, Jennifer and James!
It’s disheartening to look back at contemporary critics like Ellen Pilon, who dismissed Penn Kemp's raw honesty as "misplaced anger" meant only for "angry women." In my view, that is a distinctly unempathetic and foolhardy stance. Kemp wasn’t interested in appealing to the "widest possible audience" or the "lowest common denominator." She was writing for the minority, the women trapped in an adversarial system who felt utterly alone and "indefinably guilty." Her anger wasn't a flaw; it was the pristine ingredient that gave the work its authenticity. Thank you for sharing this Jennifer.
You are so right, and very perceptive. Thanks, Bryan.