tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post2980388893813455089..comments2024-03-28T14:04:54.557-07:00Comments on the prowling Bee: Going to Him! Happy letter!Susan Kornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-65265920109209312072023-07-11T10:05:09.147-07:002023-07-11T10:05:09.147-07:00Three months hence I would answer my question, “Ye...Three months hence I would answer my question, “Yes she would, knowing that any graphic sexual interpretation would escape their young understanding.” <br /><br />“Fanny and Loo, as Emily affectionately called them, are considered to have been some of Dickinson’s closest friends. When the cousins were orphaned in 1863 [a year after ED composed this poem], Dickinson offered her home as a refuge: “What shall I tell these darlings except that my father and mother are half their father and mother, and my home is half theirs, whenever, and for as long as, they will. . .” (L278).” <br /><br />https://www.emilydickinsonmuseum.org/frances-1847-1919-and-louisa-1842-1896-norcross-cousins/<br /><br />Francis and Louisa Norcross lived at Homestead for several years after 1863, when both their parents were dead. ED’s mother was their aunt.<br /><br />Franklin (1998) tells us: “Three variants, (one lost), about 1862. The lost manuscript [Variant A], sent to Louise and Frances. About late summer 1862 ED made the third copy, apparently from the earlier one. The later copy, on embossed notepaper, was signed "Emily" and has been folded. Although prepared as if for a recipient, the manuscript remained among ED's own papers. It was not sent to Samuel Bowles.<br /><br />Johnson (1950) tells us ED signed both the “him” and “her” variants, “Emily”, also undoubtedly true for the lost “them” variant.<br />Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-6088648449485848662023-07-10T17:45:01.821-07:002023-07-10T17:45:01.821-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-20258875670592566092023-04-06T10:41:08.100-07:002023-04-06T10:41:08.100-07:00Now, now, if ED had intended Lines 5 and 6 to have...Now, now, if ED had intended Lines 5 and 6 to have a graphic sexual interpretation, no matter how ambiguous, would she have sent this poem to her two cousins, Frances (1847-1896) and Louisa (1842-1919) Norcross, ages 15 and 20?Larry Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810899482852120751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-9469110064686461162023-04-05T15:10:56.543-07:002023-04-05T15:10:56.543-07:00The "him" version, which followed the &q...The "him" version, which followed the "her" version, was signed "Emily" and was folded. Although prepared as if for<br />a recipient, the manuscript remained among ed's own papers. It was not sent to Samuel Bowles (Franklin 1998).Larry Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-56522054507697856192020-09-17T14:13:36.124-07:002020-09-17T14:13:36.124-07:00Thanks, Greg. I finally noticed this when revisiti...Thanks, Greg. I finally noticed this when revisiting this poem and fixed it.Susan Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-82717069253971573882015-12-08T13:34:25.051-08:002015-12-08T13:34:25.051-08:00The earlier of the two surviving manuscripts reads...The earlier of the two surviving manuscripts reads "Going to Her! Happy Letter. Judith Farr, in the Passion of Emily Dickinson observes that this "demonstrates that she could readily adapt her passionate thoughts gender." p 159; and love that comment new Anon ( :Greg Mattinglyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05992933717468579465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-7279912352295235052014-10-23T16:02:36.021-07:002014-10-23T16:02:36.021-07:00Now that did give me a new reading!Now that did give me a new reading!Susan Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-33698768639267085382014-10-23T11:35:26.929-07:002014-10-23T11:35:26.929-07:00Lines 5 & 6, particularly! *fans*
-- new Anon...Lines 5 & 6, particularly! *fans*<br /><br />-- new AnonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-52396831039714014562014-09-30T09:46:59.835-07:002014-09-30T09:46:59.835-07:00Yes, I agree and thought my comments said as much ...Yes, I agree and thought my comments said as much -- although not as succinctly!Susan Kornfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05384011972647144453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4029797379711350813.post-34426188709553074152014-09-30T04:56:34.494-07:002014-09-30T04:56:34.494-07:00Dear Susan,
Thanks for your analysis. Although yo...Dear Susan, <br />Thanks for your analysis. Although your ideas are compelling, I believe that poem 494 is actually laden with flirtatious innuendo and is more than just a 'love letter'. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com