Nancy Miller.

Miller is concerned with the female critic having to operate within a pre-established discourse that is fundamentally masculine and subsequently distinguished by patriarchal institutions notably the sandstone university (but it is equally arguable that historic cultural traditions also fuelled this system- coffee houses, public forums etc). With this precedence in place women could not articulate or compose but they could look upon, watch and read. The female author, therefore, emerged from the female reader and is in this sense is a product of literary evolution, a cultural response. Miller accordingly insists on the importance of both author and reader in the exchange of literary ideas.While Barthes argues the reader has usurped the authority of the author and effectively displaced the author, Miller argues that there is a mutual compatibility. Miller embraces the reader-author binary, whereas Barthes argues one inevitably destroys the other because both can not reign supreme in literary composition and competition. Is this in itself and inherently gendered interpretation of the position of the author? The feminine embraces the platform for dialogue and response vs. masculine indignation towards the eradication of his privileged position as didactic and omniscient speaker? Simplified further -> passive/aggressive binaries of gender.

This reading identity is problematic, however, and I found problems throughout Miller's piece in regards to the reading/writing identity. The masculine hegemony she discusses seems to have nuanced channels and lines of interpretation. That is the male identity is multifaceted and the multiple 'isms' present within literary criticism lend themselves easily to the male author. Her pervasive representation of feminist criticism creates an oddity in that she often conflates the 'femenist' with the 'feminine', which is problematic. It assumes that this is the principal, if not only, identity available for female critics. Moreover it suggests that because academic practices were largely inherited from a masculine tradition women are barred from accessing them fully. In searching for tropes of femininity within literature , and endeavouring to secure a separatist feminist tradition I think she places further limits on the woman author/reader.

The writing identity is tricky, especially when Miller argues that the writing two writing identities are "male and female, or perhaps more usefully, hegemonic and marginal" (p.22) But is this useful? Firstly employing the concept of identity implies a mode of socialisation- one must learn the patterns  and conventions of the identity in order to adopt it, they must identify with an identity and Miller seems to overlook this. Is the feminine always feminist and in turn is the feminist still marginal? In a privileged western context can we say the female author is still peripheral or suppressed? Moreover in a non anglophone context is the male writer always hegemonic. Is hegemony and marginality not further dissected by issues of class, race, sexuality and education-  as well as gender?

However if we maintain Millers alignment of masculine(hegemonic) and feminine(marginal) is it possible to have a gendered writing identity that is incongruous to ones biological sex?
Lastly is masculine and feminine reading and writing operating in isolation of one another? Are they mutually exclusive? Or playing of and feeding each other? Or is Miller's idea of the feminine having to navigate and insulate itself within a masculine inheritance the only valid option?