Works Cited:
Barney, Natalie. The One Who Is Legion. Facsimile reprint. Orono: U of Maine Printing Office, 1987.
Benstock, Shari. Women of the Left Bank. Paris, 1900-1940. Austin: U of Texas P, 1986.
Cohen Jeffrey J. and Todd R. Ramlow. “Pink Vectors of Deleuze: Queer Theory and Inhumanism.” Rhizomes. Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge. Ed. Ellen E. Berry and Carol Siegel. Issue 11/12 (2005/2006). November 2007 <http://www.rhizomes.net/issue11/cohenramlow.html>.
Colebrook, Claire. Deleuze. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Deleuze, Gille and Félix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. London: continuum, 1984.
---. A Thousand Plateaus. Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. London: continuum, 1987.
Elliott, Bridget and Jo-Ann Wallace. “Fleurs du Mal or Second-Hand Roses?: Natalie Barney, Romaine Brooks, and the 'Originality of the Avant-Garde'”. Feminist Review. 40. (1992): 6-30.
Gilbert, Sandra M. and Susan Gubar. No Man's Land. The Place of the Women Writers in the
Twentieth Century. Volume 1: The War of the Words. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 1988.
Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. London: U of Chicago P, 1993.
Gordon, Avery F. Ghostly Matters: Haunting and the Sociological Imagination. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997.
Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke UP, 1998.
Jay, Karla. The Amazon and the Page. Natalie Clifford Barney and Renée Vivien. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP 1988.
Kendall, James. Eccentricity, Or, a Check to Censoriousness. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co, 1859.
Kolbas, Dean E. Critical Theory and the Literary Canon. Boulder: Westview Press, 2001.
Livia, Anna. Pronoun Envy. Literary Uses of Linguistic Gender. Oxford: Oxford Up 2001.
Lotman, Juri. Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London/New York: I.B. Tauris Publisher, 2001.
McCabe, Susan. “'A Queer Lot' and the Lesbians of 1914: Amy Lowell, H.D., and Gertrude Stein.” Challenging Boundaries. Gender and Periodization. Ed. Joyce W. Warren. Athens and London: U of Georgia P, 2000: 62-90.
Mullin, Katherine. “Modernisms and Feminisms.” The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Literary Theory. Ed. Ellen Rooney. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006: 136-152.
Nigianni, Chrysanthi and Merl Storr (ed.). Deleuze and Queer Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2009.
Parr, Adrian. The Deleuze Dictionary. New York: Columbia UP, 2005.
Scott, Bonnie Kime (ed.). The Gender of Modernism. A Critical Anthology. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana UP, 1990.
Sela-Sheffy, Rake. “Canon Formation Revisited: Canon and Cultural Production.” Neohelicon. XXIX,2 (2002): 141-159.
Zimmermann, Bonnie. “What Has Never Been: An Overview of Lesbian Feminist Criticism”. Feminist Studies 7.3. 1981: 461/462.
Notes
- 1) To assign the label “lesbian” to any text of this period is highly problematic since it subsumes so many different concepts such as androgyny, hermaphroditism, inversion, or mannish women. As Judith Halberstam argues: “I have argued to keep the label 'lesbian' at bay throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Neither Fred (Anne) Lister, Woods and Pirie, John (Radclyffe) Hall, Colonel Barker, Robert (Mary) Allen, the women in Havelock Ellis' case histories nor their lovers would have identified as lesbians. When we describe them as such, we tend to stabilize contemporary definitions of lesbianism.” (Halberstam 109).
- 2) “Deterritorialisation frees a possibility or event from its actual origins. [...] Deterritorialisation occurs when an event of becoming escapes or detaches from its original territory” (Colebrook 58/59).