Victorian Sensationalism in Post-Civil War America: The American Reception of Sensational British Women Authors, 1865-1899 PDF Free Download
1 / 64/64
100%
Victorian Sensationalism in Post-Civil War America:
The American Reception of Sensational British Women Authors, 1865-1899
Stephanie Kay
4164059
Master's Thesis: Literary Studies
Supervisor: Dr. Mathilde Roza
July 2012
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Kay/1
Table of Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction................................................................................................................................................3
1. The Nineteenth-Century American Literary Market..............................................................................6
1.1 American Culture: Antebellum to Postbellum.................................................................................6
1.2 Transatlantic Piracy and Publishing.............................................................................................. 11
1.3 American Literary Periodicals.......................................................................................................16
1.4 Harper's Monthly: Purpose and Audience..................................................................................... 18
2. Gender and Popular Culture.................................................................................................................21
2.1 Success of Sensational Fiction in America....................................................................................21
2.2 Sensationalism as Female 'Low Art' .............................................................................................26
2.3 Exclusion of Female Authors in Postbellum America...................................................................31
3. Sensational British Women Authors in America..................................................................................37
3.1 Literary and Cultural Roles........................................................................................................... 37
3.2 Popularity and Criticism................................................................................................................41
3.3 Publication and Promotion............................................................................................................ 44
3.4 The Effect of International Copyright........................................................................................... 48
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix A.............................................................................................................................................. 55
Works Cited..............................................................................................................................................58
Kay/2
Abstract
This thesis presents research on the topic of the American reception of sensational fiction by British
women writers after the Civil War. The first chapter provides a background of postbellum American
society and literature, showing that elite postbellum authors were critical of American culture,
demonstrating an appreciation for British culture instead. In addition, the first chapter explores how
piracy played a role in American publishing and was a point of contention between prominent
periodicals, the leaders of American high culture. The second chapter discusses the popularity of
sensational fiction in American society as well as the position of female authors in American literary
culture. It is argued that sensationalism and realism were portrayed as gendered opposites, leading to
the exclusion of American women authors from high literature. In the third chapter, the rise and fall of
sensational British women writers in the United States is analyzed. They are shown to have been
successful in postbellum American society, notwithstanding the censorship of their work by elite
American institutions. However, with the introduction of the Copyright Act of 1891, they lost their
position in American culture.
Kay/3
Introduction
In Marvin Felheim's introduction to The Gilded Age (1873), he recounts a dinner conversation between
the authors Mark Twain and Charles D. Warner. In this conversation, the authors were disparaging the
popular fiction of that time, which was then dominated by women. Their wives disagreed and
“challenged them to write a better novel,” leading Twain and Warner to write The Gilded Age (vii).
This story is intriguing because it reveals an aspect of American culture that has been left in the past—
that is, the dominance of women writers in the nineteenth-century American market. Indeed, the
involvement of female authors was overwhelming enough to cause Nathaniel Hawthorne to famously
remark: ‘America is now wholly given over to a d–d lot of scribbling women’ (qtd. in Park, 1574).
American female authors were not the only women taking over literature with their 'scribbling'; British
female authors, too, had taken a strong position in the American literary market by the 1870s. After the
Civil War, such transatlantic exchange had become a common part of life, especially in the field of
literature (Cognard-Black and Walls, 5). This thesis will address the role of British women in
postbellum American society and explore, in particular, how American readers received sensational
novels written by British women.
Before exploring this topic further, it is necessary to clarify what 'sensational literature'
encompasses. The term 'sensational' refers to narratives that use shocking events to incite emotional
reactions, such as fear and horror, that grip the reader's attention (Fahnestock, 47). Rather than focusing
on artistic or conceptual ideals, sensational stories tend to focus on riveting plots and daring characters,
“thrilling the senses more than stimulating thought” (Keetley, 357). Depictions of immoral behavior
typically provided this emotional thrill, e.g., murder, bigamy, thievery, etc. Initially, sensational fiction
revolved around notorious criminals, but during the second half of the century, the genre became more
domestic, bringing crime and immorality into the home and personal sphere; the terrible criminals were
“seemingly respectable citizens who were often women” (Phegley, “Mary,” 87). Obedient wives and
caring mothers were revealed as murderers and adulteresses in disguise, fostering violent thoughts
beneath their innocent appearance. This household setting increased the reader's shock, since it
revealed not only the criminal underworld, but also the suppressed sadness and dissatisfaction of
domestic women. The disturbing effect of a man's death was intensified by his wife's apparent glee and,
indeed, her personal involvement in his murder (Showalter, 158, 160). This thesis will primarily focus
on these later sensational novels, which became predominant after the American Civil War.
Kay/4
Although this study mainly regards British work, it will also refer to American authors for the
sake of literary context. By investigating American fiction, this thesis will show that imported
sensational novels were not pioneers in the American market, but rather extensions of a preexisting
American genre. Moreover, it will be argued that the American market was conducive to sensational
British material, since postbellum Americans were drawn to foreign settings and exciting plots,
opprobrious for their depictions of immorality and crime. This argument contrasts the image of
American culture portrayed in the American canon, which tends be rational, realist and high-minded—
qualities associated with the masculine gender. Indeed, it will be shown that the American canon, or
'high literature', does not represent the entire American population, but rather an elite segment of
readers. Although these elites were also drawn to British novels, it will be argued that they constructed
an anthology of British literature that was realist and masculine, disregarding its sensational and
feminine aspects. This historical context is necessary for placing British women sensationalists within a
frame of reference, which will provide a more accurate understanding of their reception in America.
Because this research concerns the perspective of American society, it will focus primarily on
circumstances in America. As far as possible, British authors will be perceived through the lens of
American culture, in which they had influential power. As Jennifer Cognard-Black and Elizabeth Walls
point out, every popular British author in the nineteenth century had an audience in America, at times
even larger than in England: “authors saw their audience as twofold, constituted of both American and
British readers” (6). Although nineteenth-century authors are typically studied within the confines of
their native country, the publishing industry was, in fact, oriented towards multiple countries. This
international component is equally relevant for research, since it offers insights that are otherwise
overlooked when focusing on the native country alone. Thus, despite possible shortcomings that arise
from disregarding the British context, limiting the scope of this thesis to the American perspective will
be productive and valuable for future research.
In addition to analyzing nineteenth-century American culture, this study will emphasize the role
of gender in the field of literature. It will be argued that American female authors were increasingly
excluded from participating in high culture after the Civil War. This exclusion coincided with the
women's rights movement and the rise of sensational literature, which was gendered as female and
identified as low culture. “The politics of culture were also the politics of gender,” as Gaye Tuchman
and Nina Fortin state (92). This thesis will explore the unique position of British women novelists
within this environment and argue that that they were placed both in low culture, as women, and in
Kay/5
high culture, as British citizens. Furthermore, the popularity and importance of British women
sensationalists in American society will be highlighted; in particular, it will be shown that sensational
fiction by British women was widely published and read in the United States. However, despite their
powerful presence in the American market, this chapter will conclude that their influential position was
temporary and dependent upon a lack of international copyright. Once the 1891 Copyright Act was
passed, production of sensational novels by British women was significantly reduced, implying that
their work was ultimately perceived as ephemeral literature, not worth paying royalties for.
The research presented in this thesis will be divided into three chapters. The first chapter will
examine American literary culture before and after the Civil War, focusing particularly on prominent or
elite authors, publishers and periodicals. Then, the second chapter will emphasize the role of gender
within this market and discuss the divide between realist high culture and sensational low culture; the
popularity of sensational literature will also be established. Finally, the third chapter will address the
position of sensational British women authors within this American literary market, highlighting points
of their success and failure, including the effect of copyright on their work. This thesis will conclude
with an evaluation of the research presented, along with some final thoughts on topics for further study.
Kay/6
1. The Nineteenth-Century American Literary Market
This chapter will provide a background to American literary culture during the postbellum era,
regarding in particular elite literature and leading literary periodicals. The first section will explore the
effect of the Civil War on the course of American literary development and will argue that a divide can
be made between antebellum and postbellum society and literature, moving from optimistic
nationalism to a more critical view of America. Subsequently, the second section will address the
business practices of American publishers before the Copyright Act was passed, emphasizing especially
the role of piracy in transatlantic publishing. The third section will then highlight the British-based
Harper's Monthly and examine the conflict between American literary periodicals that extensively
pirated British material and those that relied mostly on American work. Finally, the fourth section will
take a closer look at Harper's and examine its intended audience and purpose in American society. The
information discussed in this chapter will create a cultural background for the topics presented in the
second and third chapters of this thesis.
1.1 American Culture: Antebellum to Postbellum
The development of American literature in the nineteenth century is, to some extent, a pendulum swing
between disdain and admiration of England. Two momentous wars within fifty years had created an
intense rivalry, if not contempt, between the two countries. In America, the Revolutionary War and the
War of 1812 lead to an era of nationalism that pervaded American culture and writing. Americans were
intent on forming a unique identity both politically and culturally separate from England. Having a
distinct literature, thriving with intelligent authors and influential works, was seen as a significant step
towards total freedom. American critics began to evaluate authors on the basis of how 'American' they
were, as opposed to how 'good' they were, since “they knew no way to find out the best other than by
comparing American to British writing. Such a criticism struck them as both unfair and unpatriotic”
(Baym, “Melodramas,” 125). Thus, American literature was closely linked to the concept of
Americanism, with the 'best' authors being the 'most American' as well.
Although England and America were politically at peace, cultural antagonism between the
countries was still evident throughout the antebellum period. American literary circles actively sought
to distance themselves from England, but British authors and critics were not easily jousted from their
influential positions, nor were they as readily enthusiastic about American writing. Despite the
Kay/7
triumphs of American authors such as Cooper, Longfellow and Hawthorne, the British remained
somewhat ambivalent if not condescending towards the significance of America literature in general.
As Adam Seybert stated in 1820 in his analysis of American development: “The Americans are a brave,
industrious, and acute people; but they have hitherto given no indications of genius […] In the four
quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?” (“Review,” 79). British reviewers were outspoken
about American weaknesses, particularly in regards to culture and literature; however, these jibes were
not necessarily rooted in bitterness or intended to discourage American progress in the arts. “Certainly,
there were elements of British disapproval and schadenfraude. […] But this was the tone they took
about everything and everybody, including each other” (Cunliffe, 62). In other words, British criticism
of America was typically British and not, per se, anti-American. Similarly, Americans were not
adamantly opposed to reading British literature, as long as their own literary identity remained separate
and unique. The cultural antagonism between America and England was perhaps best described as a
love-hate relationship, divided between fierce cultural competition on one side, and shared economic
advantage on the other.
Indeed, even before the Civil War began, Americans were already struggling to maintain their
optimistic goal to culturally separate themselves from England. Seventy years after political
independence, the United States was still a major consumer of British literature and far from being the
cultural leader it had hoped to become. “Whatever the progress toward a native American literature in
the antebellum generation, even its most sanguine proponents could scarcely argue that the Master
Genius […] had arrived” (Spencer, 81). Furthermore, the American literary masters who had arrived
were often 'tainted' by British writing style and subjects, leaving American literature as dependent on
England as ever. In 1872, British literary critic Keningale Cook wrote that “Hawthorne ought to have
been born in England. […] Irving and Cooper show the plainest marks of English influence […]
Longfellow is a minor English poet in all his essentials,” and that only a few American writers
“manifest a distinctive colour proper to their own land”—those 'few' being Artemus Ward, Mark Twain
and James Russell Lowell (72).
That American literature was rarely “both good and original” was attributed to numerous
causes: for example, America was still too young to have an independent literature; it lacked the
“cultural resources” that Europe possessed, e.g. patrons, academies, galleries; British English was
thought to be linguistically superior to American English; and, perhaps most often cited, inadequate
copyright laws allowed prolific piracy of British work, which prevented American literature from
Kay/8
blossoming (Cunliffe, 60). However, much closer to home lay an equally if not more imposing
challenge—the Civil War.
As the Civil War approached, American nationalism began to falter against the threat of disunity
and internal conflict. Unlike the wars with England, which united Americans against an outside enemy
and inspired strong nationalistic sentiments, the Civil War divided the nation against itself,
undermining its identity as a united whole. The war may have begun “with a great sense of elan on
each side and much romantic panoply in the two armies,” but after several years of battle, the conflict
had become “a bitter and disillusioning war of attrition” (Ringe, 177). This depleted morale caused
American literary production to suffer, both before and throughout the war. According to Benjamin
Spencer, the national tension of the Civil War affected authors and publishers alike, curtailing
production capacity and exhausting their creative efforts (290). “It is a bad time for literature,” as
Charles Eliot Norton wrote when facing the impending conflict (qtd. in Spencer, 290). The optimism
and national pride of antebellum literature no longer suited the atmosphere of America after the 1850s.
Bitter internal division had altered American experience and introduced “an age that was utterly
different from the one that had gone before” (Ringe, 177). The demands of postbellum America would
prove to be especially challenging for American authors as they attempted to negotiate their artistic
ideals with the public's post-war disillusionment.
Although the Civil War had been a difficult time for American authors, it had not entirely
destroyed the publishing industry, nor had it completely squelched American ambitions for establishing
a great literary tradition. However, the War and Reconstruction had certainly transformed the social
environment of America, leaving behind an exhausted and embittered people. Whereas antebellum
America had generally supported the crusade for an independent, world-renowned literature—as an
expression of patriotism—the American public of the 1860s no longer prioritized cultural production or
the concept of 'high art'. Instead, its endeavors revolved around profit and progress. American literati
were confronted with “a cultural vacuum which developed between a doctrinaire humanitarianism and
vulgar materialism as major forces in American society” (Spencer, 292). Authors who aspired to refine
their skills rather than make money were stifled by this plutocratic atmosphere; in order to create a
'truly American' literature, it seemed, American authors would need to aim for marketability, producing
work quickly rather than laboring for art's sake. As a result, authors of elite literature began to feel
ostracized and disconnected from their native culture. They could not become representatives of a
society that they did not believe in, nor could they find readers in a society that did not share their
Kay/9
values (Spencer, 297-8).
Dispirited, these authors began to criticize rather than celebrate American culture in their
journals, letters and literary work. Unlike their literary predecessors, elite postbellum writers tended to
exhibit more respect for Europe than for America. For instance, in 1889, Mark Twain published a wry
novel, entitled A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, about a sly American who travels back in
time and visits King Arthur's court. He attempts to incorporate American values into the chivalric
society of Camelot, but his schemes are ultimately destructive, leading to a massacre of knights. Twain
also presented bleak views of nineteenth-century American culture in the novels The Tragedy of
Pudd'nhead Wilson [1894] and The Gilded Age [1873], which he co-authored with Charles Dudley
Warner (“Mark Twain,” 1272). Similarly, W. D. Howells focused on grim aspects of postbellum society
in his novel, A Modern Instance [1882], which explores “psychic, familial, and social disintegration” in
a secularized America (“W. D. Howells,” 1464).
Additionally, after the Civil War, elite writers commonly spent a period of time residing in
Europe, particularly England, where they seem to have found artistic support. Stephen Crane, Bret
Harte, Ambrose Bierce, W. D. Howells and Henry James all spent at least four years living in Europe,
and usually longer. Harte, for example, worked as an American consul in Prussia for two years (1878-
1880) and Scotland for five years (1880-1885), then settled in London until his death in 1902. Although
his later novels were unsuccessful in America, he had an appreciative English audience throughout his
life (“Bret Harte,” 1484). These expatriate writers were seemingly caught between cultural
dissatisfaction with America and a lingering loyalty to their native country. Henry James wrote in 1869
that he was “fatally homesick” for America (Letter to Mary, 2 Mar., 224), and yet he was appalled by
the Americans he met overseas: “There is but one word to use in regard to them—vulgar, vulgar,
vulgar” (Letter to Mary, 13 Oct., 144). Critics of American society suggested that the country was
fertile for business, but not for literature, and therefore repelled its best authors. Cook declared that
America was too “vivid and business-like” for the needs of its authors, “not affording scope enough for
[their] ideality and spiritual imagination to work in” (73). Granted, this criticism was mainly concerned
with the production of 'elite' literature, excluding popular fiction because of its low literary quality.1
After all, lowbrow novels were typically profit-driven and, therefore, part of the problem.
However, America's 'vulgar' and 'business-like' culture after the Civil War was not entirely
discouraging. Ironically, elite American authors were both frustrated and funded by the money of
1 In fact, authors of popular fiction were quite successful in postbellum America, a topic explored further in chapter two.
Kay/10
businessmen. America's thriving economy created wealthy families that could afford to send their
floundering artists overseas. “Often the very plutocracy which so many of them found intolerable […]
[enabled] them to linger indefinitely on foreign shores and denounce the crassness from which they had
escaped” (Spencer, 303). Thus, while postbellum writers lamented the profit-driven aspect of American
culture, they also depended upon it for practical support. Their frustration may have been partially
related to this financial dependence. Whereas Europeans were accustomed to patronage and aristocracy,
such a dependency was culturally unacceptable in America. As a British correspondent noted in 1870:
“There is only one word in use to express the class of unoccupied men: men not employed in business
are 'loafers' […] and have no place in American civilisation” (“New York,” 92). It is possible, then, that
American writers who endeavored to create fine works of literature—while presumably living off the
purse strings of their family—traveled overseas to avoid the social discomfort they would experience as
'loafers', whose craft was not yet profitable.
This American social tendency to judge writers' careers and novels according to their
profitability rather than aesthetics was arguably part of why postbellum American writers began to take
interest in European society. Many talented and honored American authors, “Yankee as they were,
looked back with a certain reverence upon 'our old home'”; their admiration and respect, if not envy, for
European literature occasionally led them to demean their own accomplishments and overlook “the
merits of a Whitman or a Twain” (Austin, 375). Not only were postbellum American writers impressed
by European culture, the periodicals they wrote for also tended to promote British novels above
American ones. Influential literary magazines such as Harper's Monthly did praise American work as
well, but their comments were often backed by positive British reviews, as if British support was
needed to legitimize the American reviews. “Ironically, the practice of citing British sources as a
confirmation of the worth of American books” grew more frequent when Harper's Monthly began to
highlight national literature in the late 19th century (Phegley, “Educating,” 45). Using British reviews to
emphasize the talent of American authors only revealed which nation held greater cultural dominance,
effectively defeating the original intention of promoting Americans as imminent literary producers.
Furthermore, American literary critics tended to focus more on British works in general,
regardless of how they compared to American works. “Comment on Dickens, Thackeray, Carlyle, and
Tennyson was especially prominent” (Mott, 159). These authors were so praised that they could
generally publish their work in top American magazines such as The Atlantic without much difficulty
(Austin, 377). Moreover, their work appeared in British periodicals and newspapers, which were
Kay/11
popular across America and regularly imported. In 1872, English journalist John Hutcheson wrote that
“London papers” appealed to isolated Americans on the frontier because the papers were “foreign
luxuries” and therefore not expected to arrive fresh (111). Whereas American newspapers were
pressured to arrive 'on time', content from England retained its value regardless of how late it arrived.
British authors were thus doubly promoted. American magazines closely monitored them while British
magazines and papers continued to be sold for their nostalgic and cultural worth.
Given the generous amount of public space allotted to successful (and predominantly male)
British authors, it seems that American authors could not fairly compete with their transatlantic
counterparts. Interestingly, however, the situation was reversed for publishing companies: the largest
American publishers far excelled those in England. Already in 1850, Harper & Bros. had seven five-
story buildings and produced more than 2,000,000 volumes each year. “And yet the astonishing fact
remains that the huge and technologically sophisticated American industry drew on the superabundance
of English fiction. Thus Harper's first catalogue contained 234 titles of which 90 per cent were English
reprints” (Sutherland, 70-71). This incredible dominance of British material was part of Harper's
profitable business strategy. Certainly, British novels sold well because of their “high cultural value,”
but Harper could also publish them at little or no cost due to “the dearth of international copyright law”
which made such novels royalty-free (Brake, 105). Thus, during the postbellum era, English literature
gained the interest of two disparate crowds of Americans: literary aficionados and venture capitalists.
1.2 Transatlantic Piracy and Publishing
Transatlantic piracy played an important role in nineteenth-century publishing. Although England was
the greater literary producer and thus the greater target of piracy, both America and England used
foreign work without paying royalties. Especially in the latter half of the century, British publishing
firms took advantage of the growing number of skilled American writers who were gaining popularity.
Bestselling authors such as Harriet Beecher Stowe were “robbed of veritable fortunes by unscrupulous
publishers abroad” (Spencer, 338), and English editions of renowned books like Uncle Tom's Cabin
“were multiplied beyond belief” (Mott, 130). Since Europe and America both permitted piracy, British
and American authors held similar strategies and sometimes formed partnerships in order to qualify for
copyright protection in both countries. For example, American authors might travel to Canada before
publishing a book, since British law recognized a book's copyright if its author was “within the borders
of Britain or its colonies at the time of publication.” Similarly, a British author might briefly change her
Kay/12
address and 'live' in the United States—although this tactic was mostly unsuccessful due to a legal
stipulation requiring the British author to also seek U.S. citizenship (Khan, 19). If an author was willing
to share the savings, a more viable solution was co-authorship. Stowe suggested this option to
Elizabeth Gaskell, proposing that they could “secure copyright mutually in our respective countries and
divide the profits” (qtd. in Khan, 19). Although Gaskell and Stowe did not ultimately work as partners,
Stowe's suggestion indicates that piracy was a serious concern for established authors on both sides of
the Atlantic.
Nevertheless, reprinting remained more common and advantageous in the United States, and
therefore affected primarily British authors. The prominence of British literature in America was
significant enough to attract media attention from overseas. In 1867, the London Review noted wryly
“that England is becoming every day more and more the literary producer for America” (“Literary
Gossip,” 75). American companies were well-structured and may have benefited more from piracy than
companies in England. Whereas publishing firms in England were mainly concentrated in London,
American publishers tended to divide their production among several cities, allowing for rapid mass
distribution if prices were low enough. For example, an American publisher could feasibly price The
Mill on the Floss at $1 each and sell ten thousand copies in four days; in comparison, a British
publisher would be thrilled to sell 6,500 copies within a year, priced at approximately $7.60 each
(Sutherland, 70). One way for American companies to ensure such tremendous sales was to reproduce
bestselling British work, avoiding both royalty costs and the difficulty of finding popular novelists. The
only risk was the possibility that competing American publishers would reprint the same novels,
flooding the market and forcing prices below the margin of profit. In these cases, the companies that
introduced the novel first and estimated the market size correctly sold all their copies while slower
and/or less market-sensitive companies lost their investment (Khan, 21). This winner-takes-all state of
affairs was common in the first part of the century, but by the 1840s, American publishers had settled
on a more stable way of conducting business based on a gentleman's agreement, called a 'trade
courtesy' or 'trade custom', that recognized certain companies as having “the exclusive right to reprint
specific authors” (Khan, 24).2 In this way, American publishing houses were able to develop a collusive
arrangement to avoid competition, albeit within the confines of 'honor'.
Not all foreign authors were chosen for this 'trade courtesy', however. Since its main function
was to prevent a disastrous race for the best authors, foreign authors who were not popular, well-known
2 Less respectable publishing houses did not necessarily adhere to this agreement, but their deviance was minimally
harmful due to their shady reputations and lower-quality work.
Kay/13
or respectable enough to attract the attention of many companies remained open for piracy. If authors
reached a certain level of fame, a company could establish a trade courtesy by offering to publish their
work with a slight remittance. If several publishers competed, the company most agreeable to the
author would have the right to publish her. These offers were often much lower than what a British
writer might expect in England, but authors “were only too happy to receive any compensation under
the existing laws” (Austin, 376). Exceptions to this rule were extremely popular and respected authors
like Wilkie Collins, whose payment rose to almost the same level of what he received in England: “For
The Moonstone [1868], Collins received £750 from Harper & Bros., slightly less than the £850 he was
paid by Charles Dickens for the serial in All the Year Round” (Leighton, 208). Of course, the majority
of authors did not receive this elite income. The most respectable publishing houses, those that paid for
manuscripts, still tended to grossly undervalue foreign work; English authors “were almost always
selling more for less in America than they were at home” (Sutherland, 71).
In some respects, this underpayment was necessary to enable American publishers to compete
with imported books from England, which tended to be cheaper than non-pirated American books, even
when customs' duties were high. In 1867, the New York Times attributed this market inequality to “the
high prices of labour here” along with the various taxes and tariffs on materials needed for publishing.
“English publishers find no difficulty in paying even the heavy customs on their importation of books
[…] and then underselling us in our own market,” the newspaper states (qtd. in “Literary Gossip,” 75).
The customs' duties referred to were those enacted by the 1861 Morrill Tariff Act, which was intended
to raise funds for the war. This law placed a fifteen percent ad valorem tax on imported books, later
raised to twenty-five percent in 1864, and lasted until the end of the century (Anderson, 153). With
such a stiff levy, one might question whether the New York Times columnist was exaggerating the
British advantage. Even so, the article highlights how English and American companies were in
competition for the American market, and in order to gain the upper hand, American publishers
shrewdly undercut them wherever possible.
Indeed, competition between well-established England and developing America might have
seemed unfair at first, since England held industrial resources that America lacked. However, this
apparent inequality was ultimately to America's advantage. Competition from England motivated
American industrialists “to create a range of institutional and technological innovations in order to
survive” (Schwartz, 148). As previously mentioned, American publishers formed large companies with
extensive continental networks to enable mass distribution and speed. “Traditionally, everything in
Kay/14
America was larger, faster, cheaper and earlier” (Sutherland, 71). It is important to note that piracy of
British novels was a small, albeit crucial piece of this complex system of publishing. Keeping ahead in
a globalized book trade required more than reprinting foreign work at minimal cost——innovation and
marketing were important factors, too.
The long-term success of Harper's Monthly illustrates how American publishing firms used
innovation alongside piracy to compete with England. Reprinting enabled Harper's to distribute quality
material at cheap subscription rates, but in order to compete with the prestige of imported magazines,
Harper's also needed to develop a culturally superior image. It accomplished this “by adding lavish
illustrations, increasing the amount of material […] and appealing more overtly to the pride of middle-
class readers,” who could purchase the magazine as a symbol of their class status. Although imported
magazines also imparted a sense of status, British weeklies such as Household Words and All the Year
Round were “more like cheap newspapers with narrow columns of print and no illustrations” (Phegley,
“Educating,” 32). In comparison, Harper's was attractive, affordable and easy to read. It combined
American business savvy with British literary quality and created a new style of magazine, unlike any
British periodical.
Despite the importance of factors besides piracy, reprinting became the focus of debate as the
century progressed and as international copyright became a political issue. The low cost of books was
the focal point of arguments for and against the proposed copyright law. For those opposed to
international copyright, “refusing to respect foreign copyrights was good, since free reprinting led to
cheap books” and prevented monopolies on literature (Anderson, 164). This argument even went so far
to claim that piracy was “proof of an enlightened democracy” since it made literature affordable for all
people, regardless of class (Phegley, “Educating,” 31). In a country founded upon the ideal of freedom,
citing democracy as a reason for allowing piracy was highly persuasive. In 1857, Russel's Magazine
ran an article outlining the pros and cons of having inexpensive books—that is, of not having an
international copyright agreement. According to the article, despots deplore affordable literature
because it illuminates knowledge and promotes free thought and speech. “Freedom to speak and write
is the basis of modern liberty—that without which no adequate conception can be formed of liberty. A
Cheap Literature, then, which brings into every man's house, rich or poor, the thoughts of others, must
be an inestimable blessing” (“Cheap Literature,” 418). Although the article is careful to comment on
negative points as well, it does not give any arguments for copyright that are stronger than this
fundamental appeal to democracy and liberty.
Kay/15
Russel's Magazine was participating in a debate that was just beginning, and its position was
typical of magazines in the mid-century. In later years, however, support for international copyright
became more common. This trend coincided with the rising popularity of British sensational fiction, a
genre that was considered morally subversive. Piracy made these books extremely inexpensive and thus
highly accessible. In 1888, the Scientific American stated that the cost of books had lowered from
twenty-five cents to fifteen and ten cents for good editions, and for cheaper editions with smaller type,
six and three cents (qtd. in Anderson, 165). These cheap novels were often low or middlebrow fiction
with sensational themes, such as murder and bigamy, rather than works of 'quality' or literary renown.
Americans with higher expectations for their country, whether cultural or moral, “found these cheap
novels very disturbing” (Anderson, 165). From an elitist perspective, cheap literature was not a symbol
of democracy, but rather a detriment to society, enabling mass consumption of frivolous and vulgar
material.
Since elites often held prominent public positions, their opinions tended to be more influential
than those of the working classes. For example, a well-spoken New York clergyman, Henry Van Dyke,
preached a sermon in January 1888 called The National Sin of Literary Piracy, in which he stated that
reprinting or 'stealing' foreign books (presumably British) would cause “national taste and manners” to
be perverted—the divine punishment for piracy. He blamed foreign fiction for this perversion, stating
that “nine-tenths of [pirated works] are novels of a doubtful character” (qtd. in Anderson, 165). After
preaching in New York, Van Dyke was invited to repeat the sermon in Washington, where he preached
to a substantial audience that included President Cleveland's wife and a number of personally-invited
congressmen. Thereafter, his “sermon was published as a pamphlet and widely distributed” (Seville,
229). Van Dyke's argument for an international copyright essentially revolved around how piracy
lowered literary standards and demoralized American culture, discounting if not belittling the reading
preferences of many Americans. The largest consumers of 'low-status' fiction—the working classes
and, not uncommonly, women—could not fairly respond to his sermon. They lacked Van Dyke's
education, authority, and political clout, and were thus comparatively voiceless.
Although Van Dyke and other elites made 'bad novels' the scapegoat of piracy, the foremost
benefactors of pirated material were actually American magazines. Certain American publishers, such
as Harper & Bros., adopted the practice of serializing British material before releasing it in book form.
Indeed, the most successful nineteenth-century American magazine, Harper's Monthly, was made
possible largely because of reprinted English serials (Mott, 128). Priced at an affordable 5 cents,
Kay/16
Harper's held “an annual circulation of almost 5,000,000 in 1860,” making it “the biggest single
customer for English fiction in the world” (Sutherland, 71). Although Harper's pirated and mass-
produced foreign fiction, it did not have a subversive or dubious reputation. Rather, its content was
culturally and morally respectable. It reprinted notable English authors such as Dickens and Trollope,
and eventually became the literary magazine in America, both for entertainment and quality. Thus, Van
Dyke's evaluation of American piracy was only partially correct. Lack of international copyright
enabled cheap production of low and high literature—especially in large publishing companies like
Harper & Bros.
1.3 American Literary Periodicals
Periodicals in postbellum America can be loosely divided into two groups: those that depended
primarily upon European serial fiction, and those that did not. Magazines that relied mostly on
American authors included Putnam's, The Continental and The Atlantic. Usually, magazines that based
their content on French and British fiction were small and eclectic, with the exception of Harper's
Monthly, which was large and highly successful (Austin, 377; Mott, 172). This categorical division
between American-content and British-content magazines indicates a general orientation rather than a
sharp contrast. American-oriented magazines, like Putnam's, still occasionally pirated British material,
just as British-oriented magazines, like Harper's, did not entirely ignore American authors.
Nevertheless, magazines tended to form a reputation for publishing either American or British authors.
This section will explore how conflict between these groups existed, particularly between the
magazines with predominantly American content and the popular Harper's Monthly, which reprinted
British serials.
Harper's was the only large, enduring American periodical to become tremendously popular
reprinting almost exclusively British work. Its success was a source of irritation for competing
magazines that riskily supported American writing. While Harper's thrived comfortably on foreign
material, periodicals like Putnam's and The Atlantic struggled to print quality material and stay
financially afloat “in what many of the best writers saw as a culturally barren nation” (Phegley,
“Educating,” 37). Perhaps the popularity of Harper's would have been less aggravating if it were the
only source of British content in America, but it was merely one of many. Leading British periodicals
such as the London Review were also reprinted in New York and held large American audiences. “The
Edinburgh Review was much more widely read in the United States than the North American,” for
Kay/17
example (Mott, 129). Simply put, British authors were popular, and American-content magazines that
tried to compete found themselves on the losing side of the market.
Under these conditions, it was easy for the 'American' magazines to portray Harper's as
unpatriotic, since it snubbed American authors by reprinting British serials. However, since many of the
American-oriented magazines also dabbled in piracy, their attacks were somewhat hypocritical. As
Phegley points out, they “vociferously attacked what they characterized as its blatant piracies not
because they did not follow similar policies in their own magazines but because they had not been as
diligent in the practice or as overwhelmingly successful” (“Educating,” 40). Their frustration was
therefore a result of two failures: neither their original American content nor their pirated British
content could beat the top-selling Harper's.
Criticism of Harper's was common among fellow literary magazines and their publishers,
although it did not affect the magazine's influence or popularity. Putnam's characterized Harper's as
having “no opinions, no politics, no religion” and as being “in no proper sense an American magazine”
but rather, “a second table of the English periodicals” (qtd. in Maddox, 124). Putnam's was blunt and
perhaps bitter, but not entirely off base; Harper's only began to publish more American content after
Putnam's had folded [1870] and lasted until the end of the century (Maddox, 124). The description that
Putnam's put forward, which portrayed Harper's as both piratical and ingratiating, was not an isolated
opinion but an eloquent summary of how the magazine was generally viewed among nineteenth-
century critical circles (Phegley, “Educating,” 45). Though unflattering, its reputation had little bearing
on its overall success and popularity among Americans. Only a handful of nineteenth-century American
magazines endured for as long as Harper's did, and the few that did manage to win support were still
either competing with or overshadowed by the magazine's immense popularity.3
In retrospect, such criticism of Harper's was tenuous, based on strife between magazines rather
than actual evidence. Competing magazines claimed that Harper's negatively affected American
literary development because it relied on British writing, thereby depreciating the work of American
authors. Although seemingly sensible, the accuracy of this argument is debatable. American elites
argued for international copyright ostensibly for the sake of native writers—pegging cheap British
work as the primary problem—but Zorina Khan's study shows that “there is little support for these
3 The Library of Congress provides an online list of twenty-three influential nineteenth-century American periodicals and
their years of coverage. Of these, eighteen were active after the Civil War. Only four magazines compare to the survival
of Harper's (49 years): the New Englander (49), Atlantic Monthly (44), Living Age (56), and North American Review
(85). Not included here are magazines that were renamed and/or sold to other magazines, such as Putnam's, which sold
its subscription list to Scribner's Monthly (later renamed Century) when it folded (Maddox, 125).
Kay/18
contentions” (27). She highlights how, during this period, American authors were not suffering from
low royalty payments or less favorable writing contracts, as would be expected under unfair
competition. Rather, “one observes over time higher royalties and better terms being offered to
American writers” (12). In the end, fears of a floundering national literature were more connected with
rhetoric and competition between periodicals than with the actual well-being of American authors.
1.4 Harper's Monthly: Purpose and Audience
Because Harper's remained influential throughout the postbellum era and used mainly British content,
it is particularly relevant to this thesis and serves as an illustration of the American publishing culture.
It was especially influential in a country that had not yet established a cultural center, a metropolis
comparable to London or Paris. Instead, American literary critics tended to be divided in opinion
according to their regions, with each district or city adhering to its own standards. Blackwoods noted in
1848 that “the country is parcelled out among small cliques, who settle things their own way […] Thus,
there are shining lights in Boston, who are 'small potatoes' in New York” (“The Periodical,” 111).
Although disunity may have led to greater variety, it was also problematic for American writers who
were caught between being among the best and the worst depending on where and who they asked.
Significant periodicals like Harper's were among the first establishments “to seek truly national rather
than regional audiences” and to fulfill the need for a “capital of culture” in America (Phegley,
“Educating,” 16). Their editorial decisions and advice influenced approaches to writing, and the authors
they chose to feature became role models for new writers in the field. Mid-century, England had not
developed its periodicals to the same extent as America. The “idea (so ridiculed by the Edinburgh) of a
magazine writer becoming a great lion in society, is not so very great an absurdity if applied to
American society,” Blackwoods further remarks (“The Periodical,” 106). The formation of an American
literary identity, therefore, was as much a task for authors as it was for the editors hiring them.
Alongside prominent magazines like The Atlantic, Harper's helped to define which novels,
authors and writing styles were superior and worth imitating. However, unlike the American-based
periodicals, it selected British authors to communicate those ideals. These literary recommendations
were primarily directed at women, since women were commonly viewed as fiction readers as well as
leaders in literary education. This choice of audience was part of the magazine's broader goal to
properly educate American society by making high-quality British literature inexpensive and accessible
(Phegley, “Educating,” 35). The magazine's editors believed that women could use their domestic
Kay/19
position to guide children and family members toward appropriate reading, thereby charting the future
course of American literature. They encouraged women “to nurture the next generation of native
readers with the British literary model it provided so that they would eventually have the skills to both
recognize and create a distinctly tasteful American literary culture (Phegley, “Educating,” 33). If
women were responsible for the direction of American culture, Harper's intended to be their guide.
This quasi-patriotic appeal to women was advantageous for the magazine's popularity among
both genders. On the one hand, the magazine directed its rhetoric towards women and thus procured a
female audience. On the other hand, addressing its advice towards women allowed the magazine to
tacitly address educated men. “By feminizing the magazine's readers,” Phegley notes, “the editors were
better able to adopt an authoritative (and sometimes condescending) tone that eliminated the need to
negotiate the boundaries of taste with male readers, whose status would be closer to their own”
(“Educating,” 48). They intended to become a literary authority for middlebrow Americans, but in
order to gain this position of command, they needed to direct their 'advice columns' towards women—
even though Harper's was not strictly speaking a women's magazine. Alongside gender-neutral British
fiction and nonfiction, Harper's published material specifically for women, such as J. H. Agnew's
article, “Women's Offices and Influence” [1851]. In this column, Agnew describes the responsibilities
of women in society and, particularly, in regards to literature. According to Agnew, women are “vestal
virgins” who must “watch the fires on the altar of the fine arts.” Since men are business-oriented and
inclined to pursue wealth, not culture, the article asserts that women must use their feminine influence
to redirect their husbands and sons “away from earth's sordid gold to the brighter gems of literature.”
They must persuade men to use their energy and skill for the sake of “intellectual and moral
advancement” (655). Presumably, a number of men also read this column. Since it specifically
addresses women and female responsibilities, however, male readers were perhaps less likely to be
offended by its authoritative style.
Harper's portrayed women as powerful cultural leaders while simultaneously implying that they
were incapable of forming sound literary opinions on their own. They needed advice from educated
literary critics, which were predominantly men, in order to recommend the right books. As the
emotionally-volatile 'weaker sex', women were presumed to be intellectually vulnerable and therefore
in need of educated guidance. It was believed that reading certain novels could be dangerous, leading to
poor health and destructive tendencies. J. P. Quincy asserted in 1879 that doctors had attributed
disorders of the nervous system “to the enervating influence of the prevalent romantic literature,” to
Kay/20
which women were especially inclined (Quincy, 393). Women received advice from various articles
and manuals, written by both genders, that emphasized the importance of feminine domesticity and
carefully warned against pursuing certain activities, such as reading the wrong books. As shown by
Agnew's article, this didacticism was also present in leading fiction-based periodicals. Harper's made
clear which writing styles were superior by consistently praising the works of certain authors, often
men of high culture. “Educated, elite men were to prevail” (Tuchman and Fortin, 69), both as literary
guideposts and editors for women readers.
As discussed in the first section, the business culture of postbellum America valued money
more than art, producing a gap between the American literati and the general public. The ability of
(female) Americans to choose praiseworthy reading material was dubious, according to Harper's. As
the magazine commented, “It is hardly safe in these days to give an English novelist free access to the
general American public […] without careful scrutiny” (“Editor's Study” 476). The lack of copyright
enabled a range of literature to be produced cheaply, and not all foreign novels met elite standards.
With Harper's as a guide, American women would ideally learn which novels were 'good taste' and
pass on their knowledge to the future writers and readers of America.
Kay/21
2. Gender and Popular Culture
This chapter will explore the connection between the growth of sensational fiction in America and the
exclusion of women from American high culture. The first section will address certain reasons for the
success of sensational novels in America, looking particularly at the factors of class and gender. The
second section will then examine how sensational fiction was artificially attributed to female writers,
who were marked as producers of 'low culture'. In conclusion, the third section will show how most
American women authors were restricted to writing domestic fiction, which excluded them from high
literature and prevented them from competing with male authors. The information presented in this
chapter will serve to provide a background of American culture so that the cultural position of British
women authors in America can be better understood.
2.1 Success of Sensational Fiction in America
Although prominent literary periodicals promoted realism as a superior form of literature, 'sensation
stories' remained extremely popular after the Civil War. In 1860, the National Review Quarterly
claimed in its article, “American Female Novelists,” that 90-99% of American citizens preferred the
sensational works of Sylvanus Cobb, Jr., and Emerson Bennet above “the noble productions” of George
Elliott, Edward Bulwer, and Mrs. Muloch (i.e., Dinah Craik). Novels like “The Hidden Hand and The
Gunmaker of Moscow are by far more universally read than John Halifax and The Mill of the Floss,”
the article states (33). Many of the century's bestsellers were considered to be sensational. For example,
Elizabeth Phelps's sensational novel The Gates Ajar, published in 1864, was the second bestselling
book of the century, with Uncle Tom's Cabin being the first (Griffith, 121). According to Shelley
Streeby, the most popular American author of the century was E.D.E.N Southworth, whose work was
serialized in sensational story papers such as the New York Ledger (86). She published more than sixty
novels and “sold more books than any female author in American history,” and her work remained in
print until the 1940's, approximately 90 years after her first bestseller appeared (Garrison, 82). The
mass appeal of sensation was a formidable challenge for those attempting to shift American culture
away from sensationalism and towards realism. Sensational novels drew readers because they were
exciting, affordable and oriented towards public desires; unlike elite literature, they were focused on
the concerns and values of the bottom majority, rather than the top minority, and were therefore a
tenacious contender in the literary market.
Kay/22
Sensational fiction reached its heyday in the second half the of the century, but its popularity
actually began in the 1830s and 1840s, when railroad expansion and technological improvements in
publishing made books cheaper, plentiful, and accessible across the continent (Streeby, 180). Frontier
Americans were able to purchase new books, despite their isolation and financial constraints. Literature
was finally “cheap enough to be affordable even to a pioneer family” (Ramsey and Derounian-Stodola,
263). Although this low cost applied to all books, regardless of literary style, the lower classes
ultimately preferred “fun reading” above elite or educational literature. “Whether dime novels or story
papers, people wanted cheap, fun, disposable reading” (Anderson, 166). Thus, while technological
innovations increased access to all forms of literature, producers of sensational fiction benefited the
most from the addition of lower-class readers, who were more interested in light entertainment than
high-minded ideas.
Indeed, sensational fiction before the Civil War was heavily influenced by urban crime, which
was far from idealistic, but certainly exciting. For example, George Lippard's mystery novel, The
Quaker City, published in 1845, was based on a pennypaper account of murder and seduction:
Singleton Mercer killed Mahlon Heberton, who had seduced and abandoned Mercer's sister. This crime
occurred in 1843, only two years before Lippard released The Quaker City. The novel was extremely
successful, to the extent that city officials in Philadelphia “banned a theatrical adaptation of it […]
because they feared the performances might provoke riots” (Streeby, 182). After all, the crime was still
fresh in the public's mind. It is likely that Lippard's novel incited, if not encouraged, controversy
regarding the murderer's guilt or innocence. Sensational stories like The Quaker City commonly
crossed moral boundaries in order to produce the 'shock' or 'thrill' their readers desired. Pamphlets
publishing this genre of fiction would preface and conclude their material with statements emphasizing
their moral intentions, stressing that their stories would prevent “virtuous readers” from slipping into
criminal activities; however, this “moral influence is certainly subsumed by lurid elements in the plot
itself” (Keetley, 346). Thus, despite its purported virtues, sensational fiction was foremost a source of
popular entertainment and excitement.
During and after the Civil War, literary entertainment became more important and prominent in
American culture. Americans read novels as a form of escapism, a way to distract themselves from the
stresses of war. For example, the editor of The Atlantic was pressured “to provide his readers with a
steady stream of stories and sketches that diverted their attention from the war”; whereas the magazine
had preferred works of nonfiction before the war, it began to publish predominantly fiction during and
Kay/23
after the war (Boyd, 18). While this change does not necessarily signify an increase in sensational
literature, it implies that the public was demanding less reality (nonfiction) and more fantasy (fiction).
Indeed, when the Civil War ended, sensational literature thrived in the new cultural climate. Sensational
novels flourished under companies such as Beadle and Adams, whose industrial working conditions
enabled them to produce novels rapidly and cheaply, leading to their series of 'Beadle's Dime Novels”
(Streeby, 180). From 1860 onward, they released two to five new novels every month and priced them
at ten cents each, a practice that publishing firms such as Munro and Talbot soon copied (264, Ramsey
and Derounian-Stodola). These novels were primarily, if not entirely, for entertainment. Their plots
revolved around exciting motifs such as murder, abduction, and robbery. In the second half of the
century, an average of one novel each year took place in Nauvoo or Salt Lake, using the Mormon
religion as a source of mystery and terror (Lynn, 101). Thus, while sensational literature existed before
the Civil War, its readership and presence in the literary market notably increased after the war.
The rise of sensation fiction was worrisome to some Americans, who blamed it as the source of
various individual and societal problems. In 1879, J. P. Quincy stated in his government report of
American public libraries that “ephemeral literature,” with its exciting subjects and moral ambiguity,
was “responsible for an immense amount of the mental disease and moral irregularities” that plague
modern society (395). If sensational novels were indeed so detrimental, as Quincy believed, something
had to be done about it. Accordingly, censorship grew significantly after the war, a phenomenon that
Americans termed 'comstockery' after the 1873 Comstock Act, which suppressed the flow of dubious
material in the mail. Furthermore, by 1900, concerned Americans had “secured anti-obscenity
legislation in thirty states” (Stielow, 38). These measures indicate that elite Americans, or those
carrying social and political power, were ill at ease with their country's cultural production. They
perceived a problem, whether moral or aesthetic, that either had not existed or had not warranted their
attention until then.
While elite groups viewed sensational fiction as a social problem and a cultural threat, the
majority of the public—that is, low and middlebrow readers—continued to prefer the genre. In a letter
from 1875, a librarian from the Friends' Free Library in Philadelphia comments that many of the
library's visitors are factory girls, or “the class most disposed to seek amusement in novels.” Since the
library did not carry novels, the factory workers initially needed guidance choosing other materials.
The librarian, Mr. Kite, compares them to “children learning to walk,” suggesting that the girls are
developing superior sensibilities, thereby outgrowing their attraction to 'imaginative literature' (qtd. in
Kay/24
Quincy, 394). However, by portraying literary taste as a matter of education only, Mr. Kite disregards
other legitimate reasons for the girls' interest in light reading material. For example, poverty and an
exhausting work schedule did not allow for much economic freedom or leisure time. “I sometimes get
very tired and almost worked to death,” wrote a mill worker, Rachel Campbell, in 1895 (qtd. in Battan,
608). Sensational fiction was, perhaps, the only vacation that they could afford. Moreover, the
characters depicted in sensational novels usually led adventurous and/or luxurious lives, offering
vicarious experiences for readers whose lifestyles were neither exciting nor lavish. They were, as
Victorian Woodhull describes herself, mostly “poor, uneducated and obscure people, without position
or prospects in the world” (qtd. in Battan, 608). Although it is likely that readers from all social classes
read sensational novels to some extent, the lower and middle classes had the greatest impetus to do so,
since the novels provided cheap entertainment and portrayed extravagant lifestyles that were otherwise
beyond their reach.
Keeping this vicarious aspect in mind, it is worth noting that sensational literature that dealt
with European subjects grew in popularity after the Civil War. As chapter one pointed out, upper-class
Americans during this time had taken an interest in Europe, both for traveling and to signify cultural
status. As Charles Godrey Leland states, Europe was where “the majority of Americans who know
anything or have read anything, go” (qtd. in Spencer, 307)—only, one might add, excluding those
Americans who could not afford the trip. For that unfortunate class, reading about Europe would have
to suffice. Thus, in addition to the 'all-American' sensational novels (e.g., about Mormons), Americans
began to read flamboyant fiction about Europe, filled with sophistication and scandal. As Hart remarks,
nearly any novel that depicted a cosmopolitan and aristocratic lifestyle “was likely to have a following
during the post-war years” (123). For example, one of the most popular English authors of sensational
fiction was Ouida (a.k.a., Louise de la Ramée), whose novels revolve solely around romance and
secrecy in the high ranks of society, with characters and settings that were “so hopelessly artificial” and
so fascinating to Americans (Elwin, 311). Similarly, Mary Braddon's Lady Audley's Secret and Ellen
Wood's East Lynne were both remarkably successful due to their aristocratic content. Although these
novels include all the stock material of sensation, such as murder and bigamy, Americans were mainly
attracted to their “lush descriptions of high life in titled society” (Hart, 122). These details provided a
glimpse into the exotic European upper class, made yet more intriguing by the addition of crime,
adultery, and other forbidden activities.
Just as readers could experience European luxury vicariously through novels, American women
Kay/25
could enact their fantasies and frustrations through the women characters depicted in sensational
fiction. The daring exploits and, oftentimes, criminal behavior of sensational women character
enhanced the genre's shock appeal while simultaneously giving voice to female desires and emotions.
As Pamela Gilbert points out, sensational novels are centered on “the body of a woman,” drawing the
reader's attention to “her secret, and her affect” (“Braddon,” 191). For instance, East Lynne follows the
experience of a woman, Lady Isabel, who leaves her husband and child to elope with an aristocrat, who
later deserts her with their illegitimate baby. Lady Isabel then disguises herself and is hired as a
governess in the house of her previous husband and his new wife. This story was tremendously popular
throughout the second half of the century, both as a novel and a play. Although its upper-class setting
certainly attracted an audience, its enduring success relied also on “the voyeuristic experience of
watching the tortured feelings” that result from the interaction “between the unrecognized and
powerless woman and her children and her lost husband” (Humphreys, 55). Whereas elite literature
rarely focused on the behavior of an immoral woman, at least not sympathetically, sensational novels
made her the protagonist—her thoughts and transgressions sustained the plot as well as the reader's
interest. It was a subject women readers were drawn to, as it intimately involved their own concerns.
In addition, during the second half of the century, sensational fiction was increasingly written by
women, thereby offering actual female celebrity alongside the imagined celebrity of female
protagonists. Although male writers originally dominated the genre in the 1830s and 1840s (e.g.,
George Lippard, Ned Buntline), more women entered the field during and after the Civil War, writing
the bestsellers of the 1850s and 1860s (Streeby, 186). To place these emerging women authors within a
literary context, Moby Dick and The Scarlet Letter were both published in the 1850s. Herman Melville
and Nathaniel Hawthorne are now secure authors in American literary studies, but in their lifetime, they
were overshadowed by popular women. The bestsellers of the 1850s were written “chiefly by women”
(Mott, 171). Granted, popularity does not necessarily represent quality of writing. One could argue that
bestselling sensational novels were aesthetically flawed, and therefore unworthy of the same renown
that has been awarded to Moby Dick or The Scarlet Letter. For example, they lack a certain poetry or
mastery of language and contain technical errors, such as incorrect spelling or grammar. However, this
viewpoint discounts the importance of factors unrelated to aesthetics—e.g., choices of character and
subject material that reflect the reader's interests. Despite possible failures in technical 'beauty',
sensational novels presented characters and plot lines that demonstrated an awareness of what
fascinated (female) readers. They revealed fantasies, explored social taboos and showed that women
Kay/26
were as dangerous, as malevolent, as men. As Dee Garrison remarks, the strength of sensational works
like East Lynne did not lie in their literary form, per se, but in their “intuitive understanding” of “the
rebellious hearts of their feminine characters” (81). In other words, their sophisticated perception of
women compensated for their aesthetic shortcomings in literary style. Sensational fiction filled a niche
in the market for novels addressing female emotions and experience. These works resonated with
American women because they portrayed daring, intelligent female characters and explored topics
relevant to female experience, such as female sexuality and domestic discontent. Since women
constituted the majority of readers in America, it is ultimately unsurprising that sensational literature
was so popular.
2.2 Sensationalism as Female 'Low Art'
The proliferation of sensational novels and the dominance of women writers in the mid-century led to a
change in how literary elites perceived novel-writing and, in particular, sensationalism. Indeed, as
Nicola Thompson points out, “by the mid-nineteenth century, novel-writing was associated with
women,” both as readers and as authors (“Reviewing,” 22), and their inferior social status was then
attributed to the genre as a whole. Reviews began to make a divide between 'serious' or elite literature,
authored primarily by men, and 'frivolous' or popular literature, authored primarily by women. Popular
novels that were written by women, addressed female concerns and had a female audience were
“dangerously in line for the critical guillotine” (Thompson, “Responding,” 8). The following section
will explore how these feminine works were defined as sensational as a mark of low quality, while
more masculine works were defined as realist to indicate high quality. Literary style and respectability
were thus divided according to gender, classifying women as producers of low culture (sensationalism),
while men represented high culture (realism). However, this section will also show how this divide was
more contrived than accurate, since both men and women participated in high and low culture. Both
genders employed sensational and realist techniques, and were moreover conscious of financial as well
as artistic concerns. The difference lies in how each gender was fundamentally perceived: men were
regarded as superior and women as inferior, regardless of aesthetic style, due to preconceptions and
expectations of each gender.
From the mid-century onward, the writing of popular fiction can be viewed as a gender role
belonging to women. The female mind was ideally suited for writing trivial stories, it was believed,
because women were romantic, socially observant, and naturally drawn to frivolous matters. Such
Kay/27
female characteristics, generally considered to be weaknesses, were strengths in the context of
producing light entertainment. “All these alleged female traits, it was supposed, would find happy
outlet in the novel” (Showalter, 82). Coincidentally, this viewpoint also removed women from
competing on the same level as men. Women were inclined to write popular, entertaining stories and
were therefore ill-suited for writing 'serious' literature—the genre delegated to men, the more rational
sex. As the National Quarterly Review noted in 1860, “women have rarely excelled men in the higher
branches” due to their impulsiveness and sentimentality, which made them prejudiced, irrational and
thereby incompetent in realism (“American,” 31). Five years earlier, E. Faxton from the North
American Review stated that women had “naturally sterile brains,” which accounted for their absence in
high literature (439). While 'sterile brains' were welcome in popular fiction, realism required elite
sensibilities and thus belonged to the domain of men.
Just as femininity and low culture were portrayed as being intrinsically connected, masculinity
and high culture were also naturally related. The National Quarterly Review attributed men with the
qualities of calmness, cautiousness and rationality, asserting that men do not “hastily jump at
conclusions” as women do, but are rather careful about studying details and discovering the facts
(“American,” 32). These traits were readily identifiable with realism, the superior literary form and the
opposite of feminine popular fiction. Although editors and reviewers at high-end literary periodicals did
not directly state that 'high culture' was masculine, they portrayed the male character as being “capable
of having an impact on the mind,” whereas the female character was associated with “flutter,” or
mindless and ephemeral material (Tuchman and Fortin, 78). As Jennifer Phegley points out, high
culture was deemed masculine because men and elite literature were cerebral, realistic, artistic and
focused on character, especially moral character. Low culture, on the other hand, was viewed as
feminine because women and popular literature were sensuous, sentimental, profit-driven and focused
on the plot (“Educating,” 26). However, this distinction between the genders was artificial, a concept
that literary magazines advocated rather than a perceptible reality. In actuality, the differences between
male and female authors, as well as between high and low art, were less definite than literary critics
portrayed them to be.
It was supposed that men were natural masters of realism, whereas women were incapable of
accurately reproducing reality. The artificiality of these stereotypes becomes evident when one
considers how American literary critics blurred or ignored the distinction between sensationalism and
realism, or high and low art, when the author was male. For instance, sensational aspects are evident in
Kay/28
the works of romanticist authors such as Edgar Allan Poe and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and yet these
celebrated authors were canonized as literary predecessors to realism; no connection was made
between them, the praised male romanticists, and the female sensationalists of the postbellum era
(Streeby, 188). Similarly, realist male writers were free to use sensation in their plots without losing
cultural status. Wilkie Collins, for example, was at the forefront of sensational fiction with popular,
thrilling novels such as The Moonstone and Armadale, and yet Harper's associates his work with that
of Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Charles Reade and Anthony Trollope. In particular, the
magazine highlights his collaboration and friendship with Dickens as proof that he is among the best
English writers: he is “a part of that great past” (Bowker, 3). Harper's reprinted personal letters from
Dickens to Collins that express admiration for Collins's work: “My Dear Wilkie,” one letter begins,
“my heartiest congratulations on […] having triumphantly finished your best book.1 I presume that the
undersigned obedient disciple may read it now?” (Dickens). These appreciative comments suggest that
Collins is an inspiring literary fellow of Dickens, although technically, his novels are closer in style to
the sensational, 'low culture' works of Mary Braddon.
However, Collins and Dickens did share a similarity that Braddon did not, besides their gender:
while Dickens tended to be realist and Collins tended to be sensational, they both held fairly traditional
sexual and social viewpoints. Although Collins wrote exciting, bestselling stories that followed many
of the conventions of sensational fiction, his women characters ultimately conform to the domestic
model of femininity. “Like Dickens, Collins inevitably ends his novels with sentimental marriages of
patient woman and resolute man, marriages whose success is validated by the prompt appearance of
male offspring” (Showalter, 163). Braddon's great success, Lady Audley's Secret, presents quite a
different picture. Its lead female character, Lady Audley, is a beautiful blonde who turns out to be a
bigamist, arsonist and attempted murderess. She abandons her baby, tries to kill her first husband,
considers poisoning her second husband, and burns down the hotel where all “her other male
acquaintances are residing” (Showalter, 163). Essentially, she is everything a man might fear from a
woman. Collins's main female characters—for all their mystery—are still rather conventional in
comparison. They are not so dangerous or drastic in their behavior. Thus, while Collins and Braddon
are both considered to be sensational authors, their views on women differ significantly; Braddon's
female characters have a much higher capacity for villainy. This gender-based difference was likely a
determining factor behind the discrepancy between Braddon and Collins, the former being part of low
1 Dickens is referring to The Woman in White [1860], the first of four sensational works Collins wrote in the 1860s.
Kay/29
culture and the latter being part of high culture.
Therefore, the terms 'realism' and 'sensationalism', which supposedly separated novels on
aesthetic grounds, also indicated the moral and social standpoint of a novel, especially in regards to
women. As Dee Garrison points out, literary standards during this time were linked with moral
concerns: “aesthetic complaints were minor matters compared to the moral ire of those who sought to
shape mass reading taste” (71). A woman writer could emulate realism and yet still be criticized if her
female characters were immoral or failed to follow social standards of behavior. Instead of being
recognized for having a perceptive attention to detail, her work would be viewed as flawed because it
failed “to combine details with characters who were role models and with story lines that taught clear
moral lessons” (Phegley, “Educating,” 113). The Atlantic states in its review of Hedged In [1870], by
Elizabeth Phelps, that the novel gives the impression of being “a work of art,” not because of its use of
language, but because of its moral content directed at women. Indeed, the novel is about two “ideal
women” who form a friendship despite their social differences. The book's greatest achievement is its
“profound faith in humanity”—or, more accurately, its faith in “the best possibilities of [female]
character.” The lesser woman envisages what she “may be,” and the pure woman envisages what she
“ought to be” (“Reviews,” 756). The review praises Phelps's literary art, and yet its critical reasoning is
based on morality rather than aesthetics. Thus, women writers who failed to depict 'reality' were
perhaps only guilty of presenting women characters that did not match male expectations.
Women writers who were lauded in American periodicals were therefore more likely to be
moral guideposts than examples of realist fiction, although realism was ostensibly the standard
reviewers upheld. A woman author who sought positive reviews needed to be careful about the moral
appearance of her work and personal life, for even if she were stylistically a realist, her work could be
rejected due to her characters' or her own 'unfeminine' behavior. For example, American reviewers
highly praised the work of George Eliot, who was the “touchstone against which other women writers
would be compared and found wanting” (Thompson, “Responding,” 8). However, since she was a
professional woman—being a translator, magazine editor and prominent author—as well as the
mistress of George Henry Lewes, her public image required some adjustment in order to avoid
widespread critical attacks. Elaine Showalter notes that “signs of self-censorship” are evident in Eliot's
work after 1860: she wrote “less autobiographical fiction” and carefully removed any potential “double
entendres in proof” (96). Lewes managed the publishing end of her writing, corresponding with her
American publishers so that she appeared unassociated with business concerns, emphasizing her proper
Kay/30
femininity. Furthermore, she put distance between herself and the suffragettes, having nothing more but
tepid feelings towards women's rights (Griffith, 123). She did not sign the 1866 petition for women's
suffrage because, she stated, woman's difficulties should be “the basis for a sublimer resignation in
woman and a more regenerating tenderness in men” (qtd. in Showalter, 217). Although Eliot did not
entirely separate herself from womanly concerns, as her correspondence with H. B. Stowe indicates
(Griffith, 124), she tended to promote a more conservative view of women, especially in comparison
with her sensational contemporaries. This traditional public image, supported by moral writings, helped
to hush or excuse her questionable private life.2 It was perhaps possible, then, for a woman writer to
raise her literary status by emphasizing her morality and femininity; however, American literary
standards for women were tenuous, and as the century came to a close, they became increasingly
difficult to meet.
In addition to stylistic consideration, a pivotal difference between popular and elite literature
was made according to their placement in the market. Participants of high culture were reputed to be
aesthetically-minded, valuing art before money, while participants of low culture were typified as being
entirely profit-driven. Masculine realism represented the “sublime realm of art,” while feminine
sensationalism was part of “the gritty world of manufacturing and commerce” (Bernstein, 223).
However, both categories and genders were conscious of their economic assets. Although sensational
women authors were singled out and disparaged because of their commercial success, realist male
authors were also concerned with their popularity and financial gain. Indeed, the revered realist author,
Charles Dickens, held a significant income from his American publishers and even actively sought to
increase his pay. “He played publishers off against each other, and as many as four companies paid him
large sums” in order to become “his sole American representative” (Khan, 28). Male authors who were
more sensational, such as Wilkie Collins, were also admired for their high pay; it was proof of their
literary talent. Richard Rogers Bowker, editor of Publisher's Weekly, wrote in Harper's that Collins
received £3000 and £5000 for two of his works, the latter of which (£5000) was offered “before the
book was outlined or a line written” (4). Bowker uses these monetary details to emphasize Collins's
literary merit, praising instead of criticizing his popularity. Thus, although certain men were also
popular and well-paid, their financial gain did not lessen their respectability in literary circles.
In contrast, women authors were belittled for their ability to make money. Wealth degraded their
2 Respect for Eliot's work was possibly also related to her nationality, as a British author. Although not all British women
authors were praised, they were less frequently criticized in American reviews than were American women, a dynamic
that will be addressed in chapter three.
Kay/31
literary reputations because, from a moral standpoint, women were supposed to remain outside the
financial world. The ideal woman had no commercial aspirations because she existed on a higher level
of spiritual thought, beyond the reach of 'mammon'. If she happened to earn money through her writing,
it would be unexpected. As the North American Review stated, “many a sweet soul has […] been
quietly winning for her brows, while yet she dreamed not of it, the saintly halo” (Faxton, 440). Thus, a
woman writer who became a celebrity with a significant salary was morally suspect unless she could
portray herself as innocent of her own success. She needed to seem domestic, 'unprofessional' and
reluctant to be famous. Ellen Wood, for example, fostered the notion that she was an amateur
“hobbyist” whose writing was secondary to her duties as a mother and wife, to the extent that she wrote
under 'Mrs. Henry Wood', her husband's name (Phegley, “Domesticating,” 181).3 By seeming
uncompetitive and traditional, Wood received slightly more respect than was commonly granted to
women writers who openly pursued their careers and wrote sensational novels. Nevertheless, she was
still subordinate to her male counterparts in literature due to the gendered divide between high-culture
realism and low-culture sensationalism.
2.3 Exclusion of Female Authors in Postbellum America
Towards the end of the century, even traditional women writers began to lose their place in literary
circles. Editors of prominent American periodicals began to limit their publication of female authors,
thereby lessening their access to literary prestige. Since respected literary magazines helped to
determine which authors were worth reading and studying, this exclusion had significant ramifications
on the (lack of) canonization of women's writing. While male authors like Henry James, William
Howells and Mark Twain were made into “future immortals” of American literature, female authors
who had built serious careers following the advice of (male) editors and publishers were set aside and
dismissed as ephemeral. The staff of The Atlantic, for example, “wanted to establish a small canon of
writers who represented the nation's highest literary achievements” in order to muffle the various
voices competing for recognition in an ever more “democratic literary market” (Boyd, 22). This elite
canon had noticeably little room for women possibly because of the rising momentum of the women's
movement, which coincided with the exclusion of women from prominent periodicals. The increasing
involvement of women in the public sphere represented a threat to men, both economically and
3 Jennifer Phegley's article, “Domesticating the Sensation Novelist: Ellen Price Wood as Author and Editor of the Argosy
Magazine,” analyzes Wood's career and argues that Wood was, in fact, a highly professional women who crafted her
public image to further her professional growth. Thus, ironically, seeming indifferent to her career was a successful
strategy for actually pursuing one.
Kay/32
politically. In literature, men resisted this destabilization of gender roles by viewing female authors “as
being engaged in a kind of aggressive conspiracy to rob men of their markets, steal their subject matter,
and snatch away their young lady readers,” not because of their superior skill, but because of their
sheer numbers (Showalter, 75). As Nina Baym notes, women writers were viewed “as the enemy”
(“Melodramas,” 130). This section will show how male publishers, editors and critics reacted to this
threat by excluding women from literary establishments and discouraging women from writing 'serious'
works, thereby lessening their competition with men.
Gender relations in America changed significantly during the second half of the nineteenth
century, both politically and socially. Debates and tensions arose on issues such as voting rights,
“marriage and divorce laws, women's property and custody rights, and educational and employment
opportunities for women” (Thompson, “Responding,” 2). Fiction by women tended to address these
feminine concerns, even in lighthearted domestic novels. As Dee Garrison highlights, the female
dissatisfaction evident in women's writing during this period reflects the “cultural shift” from an
idealistic view of womanhood “to a more realistic consideration of feminine needs and abilities” (84).
The increasing cultural activity and political power of women countered the male-dominated cultural
institutions that had, until then, been relatively unchallenged. Literary periodicals such as The Atlantic
had always reflected the tastes of an elite group, but while they had once been energized and
enthusiastic about the “responsibilities of privilege,” their commentary after the Civil War “displayed
the fears of an embattled few,” who were losing their power to what they saw as “an uninformed
majority” (Boyd, 21). A large portion of this 'ignorant' crowd consisted of women, who were often
uneducated and reputed to be psychologically incapable of reason. Allowing women to sway culture
and politics would be disastrous for society, it was feared, given such mental deficiencies.
Furthermore, the notion of women having greater employment opportunities was seen as a
threat to both femininity and masculinity. Women were supposed to be delicate, pure-minded and
oriented towards homemaking, qualities that did not suit the establishment of a career. In 1851, J. H.
Agnew remarked in Harper's that the demand for women's rights had caused “woman's ambition” to
overcome “her judgment and her delicacy,” and asserted that women had left their “appointed and
fitting sphere” only to draw attention from “a curious crowd” (655). In other words, their participation
in the public sphere was unproductive and unnecessary, resulting only in a loss of female character.
By the 1880s, however, such a statement would have been more difficult to make. Women had,
by then, proven themselves to be popular, aggressive, highly productive and savvy in business. Women
Kay/33
writers, in particular, were becoming “formidable competitors,” a development that “antagonized many
of their male contemporaries” (Showalter, 155). For example, Henry James chose to read the works of
Dinah Craik over Mary Braddon, not because Craik's novels were better in quality, but rather the
opposite: Braddon was on par with men. According to James, Craik is “dull, pious, and very
sentimental,” while Braddon is “brilliant, lively, ingenious” and full of “masculine cleverness”—
exactly the traits a female writer should not have. He deemed Braddon's work to be “an almost
revolting spectacle,” ultimately, because it did not fit his expectations of female writing (qtd. in
Showalter, 155). Coincidentally, those expectations would also prevent women from competing with
men in literature, since dull, sentimental stories are rarely, if ever, as popular as clever, exciting ones.
The assumption that women were best suited for domestic concerns helped to justify this
resistance to female writers. As Agnew comments, “woman has rights, many rights […] but she has no
right to be a man” (656). In other words, women could be reasonably excluded from any positions or
activities that were identified as masculine, since their rightful place was outside the sphere of men.
Such was the case when The Atlantic hosted a dinner in 1877 to celebrate its twentieth year along with
John Greenleaf Whittier's seventieth birthday. Although the magazine often published the work of
women writers, “it invited not a single woman (contributor or otherwise) to the celebration” (Boyd, 5).
The New York Evening Post commented on this exclusion of women in their article, “The Absence of
Women at the Whittier Dinner,” pointing out that The Atlantic was “largely masculine” in content. “It
is, in a certain sense, our masculine magazine,” the Post writer claims, stating that The Atlantic avoids
“gushing sentimentality” and “all the little prettinesses of household interests”—the frivolous material
that “women mistake for literature” (qtd. in Boyd, 6). The Whittier dinner was merely a reflection of
this strictly masculine image. Thus, although women were still consistently contributing to The Atlantic
in 1877, their presence at the dinner would have been inappropriate, given the magazine's strong male
identity.
The Atlantic was not singular in its treatment of women. Scribner's, The Nation, The Galaxy,
and The Century Magazine all gave similar indications that women were not welcome in postbellum
high literature. In fact, if one considers only contributors and magazine content, the Nation was
probably the most 'masculine' American periodical rather than The Atlantic, since its staff consisted
entirely of men who criticized women writers regularly (Boyd, 32). Rebecca Harding Davis, author of
Life in the Iron Mills [1861],4 was frustrated by how The Galaxy's editors marginalized her work and
4 This novella was one of the first American works to explore the consequences of industrialization. Apart from having a
female author, it fulfilled the standards of 'high literature' due to its serious content, realist literary style and publication
Kay/34
broke their agreements. F. P. Church had persuaded Davis to serialize her story instead of publishing it
directly as a book. They agreed to a novel of approximately 300 pages in length. Later, however, the
editors wanted to cut the novel by at least 60 pages, a loss of about $500 for Davis in addition to
delaying her book's publication. In an irritated letter to the editors, she wrote that this demand was
impossible and offered a compromise of 35 pages instead. “If I had heard earlier of your wish to
shorten the story it could have been done,” she concludes, suggesting that the editors had withheld the
information that her novel was going to be abbreviated (66-67). Similarly, Mary Abigail Dodge (a.k.a.
Gail Hamilton) could not trust her her male publishers to deal with her fairly. In 1867, she discovered
that her remuneration from Ticknor & Fields was around 3 percent below the standard pay for authors.
After extensive wrangling with her publishers for appropriate remittance, she finally received $1,250 in
overdue pay (Williams, 73).5 Afterward, she wrote an account of her experience, entitled Battle of the
Books [1870], wherein she advises authors to negotiate with publishers, “not like women and idiots, but
as business men with business men” (qtd. in Williams, 73). For women writers, in particular, her point
was clear: if they wanted to be treated fairly, they should not behave like gentlewomen, since their male
publishers were evidently not behaving like gentlemen.
Male leaders in literature did not seem to appreciate the increasing competitiveness and
business savvy of women. They had, until then, only been concerned about other men ousting them
from their superior economic and cultural positions. Women were supposed to be “gentle, modest,
peaceful, and pure” (Agnew, 655), characteristics that naturally prevented them from becoming serious
competition. Thus, when women began adopting a new form of behavior, one that encouraged assertive
action, men were compelled to respond with measures to protect their positions. One strategy was,
simply, to publish fewer works by women. For example, in the mid-1860s, the percentage of female
contributions to The Atlantic in the genre of fiction went down “from 90-100 percent in the first seven
years of the magazine to only 30-40 percent” (Boyd, 18).6 Part of this dramatic drop has been attributed
to a change in the magazine's image. The editors wanted to make The Atlantic appear more elitist in
in The Atlantic. Clearly, Davis did not fit the cultural stereotype of women being frivolous and unoriginal writers.
5 Sophia Hawthorne, widow of Nathaniel Hawthorne, heard about Dodge's situation and realized that she, too, was not
receiving adequate compensation from Ticknor & Fields for her deceased husband's work. She and Dodge compared
their experiences and discovered that, besides paying lower rates, Ticknor & Fields had also made several errors in the
amounts they did pay, all of which were in the company's favor. As Dodge remarks: “If they are honest, they are most
unskillful” (81).
6 This exclusion of women had far-reaching consequences. As shown in chapter one, American periodicals influenced the
distribution of literary value, especially high-end magazines like The Atlantic. Therefore, if The Atlantic rejected a
female author or negatively reviewed her work, she would have been less likely to be canonized. As the experienced
editor William Dean Howells remarked in 1902: "In belles-lettres, at least, most of the best literature now first sees the
light in the magazines, and most of the second-best appears first in book form" (qtd. in Diffley, 88).
Kay/35
order to separate it from Lippincott's, Harper's and The Galaxy, the emerging competitors. It sought to
achieve this high status “in part by publishing less fiction by women,” since women were perceived as
low culture; their stories were only “filler” material for boosting income, not renown (Boyd, 10, 19).
However, this explanation does not take into account the increasing stringency with which literary
critics evaluated female writing. Women seemed to be in a double bind: on one hand, American critics
advised women to write amusing yet insipid domestic stories; on the other hand, American editors
rejected their work because it was not 'important' or serious enough. It was therefore becoming more
difficult for women writers to know exactly what they should or could publish. Ultimately, it did not
matter whether they wrote lighthearted or melancholy material; they would be criticized in leading
periodicals either way.
An example of these contrasting demands can be found in The Atlantic's reviews of Louisa M.
Alcott's An Old-Fashioned Girl [1870] and Berriedale's Unforgiven [1869].7 Alcott is praised for
writing “a pretty story” that readers will appreciate for its depictions of “kindly self-sacrifice, and
sweetness, and purity.” The reviewer overtly approves of the novel, but there are several comments that
an ambitious writer would have found discouraging. For instance, the opening paragraph admits that
the story is ephemeral; it will eventually grow “colder in our minds” because it is a simple narrative,
“made up of such plain material,” and has no adventure or excitement whatsoever. “It is nothing,” the
reviewer states, but a novel about a country girl who visits a happy family in the city (“Reviews,” 752-
753). While Alcott may have been content with this review, since it was essentially positive, Berriedale
would not have found any comfort in The Atlantic's review of Unforgiven, a novel that imitates
Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, except that “the victim is a young lady in the best society” (“Reviews,”
762). The reviewer determines that the story is too dark and tragic for a proper woman, and that
Berriedale should have written about a shopping trip instead. This advice is presumably directed
towards all women writers, nudging them away from sensational fiction—for which they were
infamous—and towards a calmer, domestic literature. Fiction (by women) should be about “the
amusing insipidy, the admirable dullness, of real life” rather than about “crimes and sins and shames of
whatever tint,” and The Atlantic kindly requests that Berriedale chose these lighter subjects “when she
writes again” (“Reviews,” 763). In fact, Berriedale never wrote another novel.8 In comparison, Alcott
continued to produce another fifteen novels until her death in 1888. This stark difference suggests that
7 Presumably, 'Berriedale' is a pseudonym, although the author's actual name has not been found.
8 The Library of Congress lists only one book, Unforgiven, for Berriedale. However, she may have used a different
pseudonym for her following work. This possibility could be better explored if one could discover her actual name,
perhaps by browsing the records of her publisher, George S. Wilcox, if such records exist.
Kay/36
reviews in The Atlantic did, indeed, affect writers' careers and influence the course of literary
development.
Even well-established women authors were heavily criticized if they stepped beyond their
boundaries. For example, despite having three decades of international prestige, H. B. Stowe's career
took a downturn in 1869 when she published “The True Story of Lady Byron's Life,” wherein she
accuses Lord Byron of incest. “Immediately, Stowe received widespread censure from both the British
and American press that threatened her prior authorial ethos” (Cognard-Black, 22). Even if her claim
were true, she had no authority to uncover such unpleasant information, as a woman. Thus, regardless
of their position in the cultural field, American women were pressed to produce light literature and
avoid serious work or controversial subjects. Although negative reviews of serious fiction by women
may have been well-intentioned, the limitations they imposed ultimately assured that women writers
would never attain the same respect as men. Granted, Louisa Alcott is still appreciated for works like
Little Women, but she is certainly not as renowned as Hawthorne or Twain. As the National Quarterly
Review remarked in 1860: “we are willing to award to [women writers] the praise that [they have] so
well won; begging leave, however, to state, that we do not believe that 'Aurora Leigh' is in any respect
worthy of being compared with […] a grand and noble poem” (“American,” 32). It became clear
towards the end of the century that, despite progress in women's rights, American female authors were
still subordinate to the male editors of magazines and publishing houses. While women were still
ostensibly free to participate in literary production, there was a certain level of respectability that
remained beyond their reach. As Anne Boyd notes, “there was a glass ceiling, so to speak, beyond
which women writers could not venture to achieve literary immortality” (8).
In the end, women had two choices: either they were commended for trivial domesticity, or they
were rebuked for their immoral sensationalism. Neither path led to high prestige or a position among
the literary giants—but where domesticity was constricted, sensationalism granted expressive freedom.
While domestic novelists generally stayed within the status quo, sensational novelists intentionally
crossed social boundaries and explored a range of experiences and emotions. Despite critical objection,
then, sensational fiction continued to be an attractive genre for women writers who desired creative
freedom, even at the cost of their reputations. Thus, by the end of the century, the gender divide
between realist high culture and sensational low culture, which was originally artificial, began to reflect
an actuality. The cause, however, was not female incapacity, but male editorship.
Kay/37
3. Sensational British Women Authors in America
As shown in chapters one and two, elite literary figures in postbellum America admired British culture
and portrayed masculine realism as superior to feminine sensationalism. Given these values, the
question arises: how were British female sensationalists perceived? Being British, they would seem to
belong to 'high culture'; and yet, because they were sensational women writers, they would also belong
to 'low culture'. One could view them as foreign celebrities whose work was widely read and discussed,
even among respectable publishers, but one could also consider them to be literary deviants whose
work was censored by libraries. They did not fit neatly into the dualistic frame of elite and popular
culture, being neither entirely high art nor simply low art. Literary periodicals seem to have responded
to this difficulty by ignoring their work. For instance, as Jennifer Phegley points out, editorials in
Harper's “rendered invisible” sensational British women because they did not suit the “gendered
opposites” that had been created around British realism and American sentimentalism (“Educating,”
37). This chapter will explore this tension and describe the successes and failures of British female
sensationalists in America. First, the placement of these writers in both high and low culture will be
explored by examining their roles as novelists, editors and publishers. Then, their infamy and celebrity
in America will be elaborated upon, with particular attention for the bestselling authors Ouida, Florence
Marryat, Mary Braddon and Ellen Wood. Subsequently, sources of publication, distribution and
promotion for British sensational fiction in America will be described. Finally, the effect of
international copyright on British women sensationalists will be investigated. This study will reveal
that British women sensationalists were ultimately perceived as popular culture, despite their
nationality and influence in the literary field.
3.1 Literary and Cultural Roles
British women writers had been role models for American women long before the upheaval and
aftermath of the Civil War. American women read the works of reputable British women as a form of
education. Sarah Pierce, a teacher at the Litchfield Female Academy in Connecticut (1792-1833),
advised her students to develop their minds in order that they might “emulate their sisters in Europe in
moral and intellectual acquirements” and be able “to instruct and enlighten the world” like Mrs.
Sherwoods and Hannah Mores (qtd. in Kelly, 411). As the first chapter showed, the practice of looking
towards England for literary models (whether to imitate or rebel against) did not abate in the second
Kay/38
half of the century. While elite American magazines used British male authors as a literary standard,
British female authors were also active in the American literary market and exercised their own
influence. In particular, sensational authors such as Ouida, Mary Braddon and Florence Marryat
provided models of female writing in opposition to the 'harmless' domestic literature increasingly
expected of American women authors. They were daring novelists as well as independent publishers
and editors of literary periodicals imported into the United States; thus, they participated not only in
debates about women's abilities and gender roles, but also in debates about literature and popular
culture.
Although American women writers were competitively involved in the literary market, they
were arguably at a greater disadvantage than British women writers during the postbellum period.
While American women authors were being pressed to remain in or return to the private, female sphere,
many (sensational) British women authors continued pursuing careers that were conspicuously within
the male domain. They were commercially-minded and created a public image of themselves, whether
direct and forceful, like Mary Braddon, or indirect and demure, like Ellen Wood. Furthermore, in
comparison with previous generations of women, they began their careers sooner, did not interrupt their
work as often, and “were more likely to be married and to have large families” (Showalter, 154).
Significantly, they also began to publish and edit family literary periodicals: Belgravia Magazine,
Victoria Magazine, St. James's Magazine and the Argosy Magazine were all founded or purchased by
women.1 Their management of these magazines and the greater number of women authors they
published “contributed to an atmosphere in which women writers could succeed and, indeed, have an
impact on the nation’s cultural values” (Phegley, “Domesticating,” 181). Although American women
were not excluded from editorial positions—for example, Sarah J. Hale edited Godey's Lady's Book
and Ann S. Stephens edited Peterson's Ladies National Magazine—they were rarely the owners of
these magazines, nor was the content especially directed towards literary discussion beyond book
reviews.2
In contrast, the British periodicals operated by women were serious participants in literary
production and critical reception. For example, Belgravia (1866-1899) was established and headed by
1 Not to be confused with the American pulp magazine, The Argosy or Argosy All-Story Weekly, founded by Frank
Munsey in 1882.
2 Hence, the name of the magazines: Charles J. Peterson published Peterson's Ladies National Magazine, and Louis
Godey operated Godey's Lady's Book. Nina Baym argues that Sarah Hale held significant power since she and Godey
worked independently of each other; Hale determined “editorial content and policy” while Godey managed “sales,
format, and publicity” (“Onward,” 249). Nevertheless, while this delegation of activities granted Hale more influence, it
maintained the separation of spheres and was therefore not as progressive as female ownership of a magazine.
Kay/39
Mary Braddon until 1876. During her ten years of leadership, the magazine ran critical essays about the
value and legitimacy of popular literature, asserting that popular novels were mainly intended “to
amuse and entertain” and should therefore only be critically assessed according to “how well it
achieves this purpose” (Robinson, 112). These commentaries supported popular reading preferences
and provided reasonable arguments to counter elitist claims that sensational writing was artistically
inferior. Moreover, under Braddon's management, Belgravia affirmed women as independent readers
who were capable of determining their own literary tastes apart from male advice. “Belgravia
maintained that the opinions of the critics about cultural divisions were inherently flawed and should in
fact be disregarded” (Phegley, “Educating,” 128). The popularity of critically disparaged sensational
novels indicates women were disobeying and disagreeing with literary critics long before Belgravia
legitimized and publicly voiced their autonomy. For example, in 1851, seventeen-year-old Maria
Davies kept a reading diary wherein she compared her opinions with those of George Gilfillan in
Second Gallery of Literary Portraits. Although Gilfillan was a renowned Scottish critic, Davies was
skeptical of his evaluations, since he wrote unclearly, failed to mention authors' biographies, and did
not assist her with reading Ralph Waldo Emerson, advising only to “skip that [which] I couldn't
understand” (qtd. in Kelly, 415). Thus, Braddon's Belgravia represented the literary perspective of
women who, despite being the recipients of periodical advice, were nevertheless capable of making
independent critical assessments of literature.
Just as women-led literary magazines were imported into America and asserted the female voice
in intellectual debates, imported British novels written by women maintained the position of female
authors in non-domestic literature. While elite American periodicals could prevent American women
from participating in serious literature by refusing to publish their work, they had little influence over
British cultural production. If they negatively reviewed a British female sensationalist, their comments
would not necessarily reach the original author, and if they did, she would not necessarily heed their
advice. Her career was established in England, and she had little reason to comply with Americans,
who were more likely to pirate than to pay. To some extent, the American literati had even contributed
to the popularity of sensational British women authors due to their preference for British writing and
culture, which inadvertently granted these women cultural capital as well. It is possible that negative
reviews of particular British women would have been less effective because of the raised status of
British work in general. Whereas postbellum American women authors were reprimanded for crossing
the divide between male and female writing (e.g., Berriedale), British women had greater cultural
Kay/40
authority and, perhaps, more freedom than American women did. For example, while Harriet B. Stowe
damaged her career by accusing Lord Byron of incest, Ouida was able to build her career around such
scandals. “Ouida's intention was obvious: épater les bourgeois” (Hart, 122), to the point that “she was
considered an apostle of insidious immorality” (Elwin, 298). Granted, Ouida wrote novels while
Stowe's article claimed to be true, but the fundamental problem was not fact versus fiction, but rather
what women were permitted to write openly about without losing their audience or publisher.
According to Anne Boyd, the reputations of the American authors Elizabeth Phelps, Constance
Woolson, and Harriet Spofford all declined during the postbellum era in part because these women
attempted “to extend their powers” into the male domain (29). In contrast, sensational female authors in
Britain formed their reputations around being bold, ambitious, and opinionated. Their novels openly
criticize “the clergy, the pompous rich, the penal system” and, especially, the institution of marriage; a
reoccurring theme is “how strong woman decisively conquers and slyly manipulates weak man,” not
uncommonly her husband (Garrison, 74). For instance, Rhoda Broughton's novel Belinda follows the
story of a girl who is caught between remaining in a loveless marriage or running away with her former
lover. She chooses to pursue the affair, although she does not actually commit adultery in the end.
Fortunately for her, the unwanted husband is found dead on the final page of the story. “Belinda is
apparently overcome by sheer delight” and faints, ending the novel “on a note of high glee” (Garrison,
76). These novelists were unlike George Eliot, who publicly upheld traditional ideals while privately
being a mistress. In fact, Braddon denied that Eliot was a genius on the basis of her succumbing to
conservative demands. According to Braddon, Eliot had a “passionless style” that did not demonstrate
“the fiery force of the genius which […] 'does what it must'” (qtd. in Showalter, 154). In other words,
Braddon suggests that brilliance should not be measured by one's technical abilities, but by one's
passion, self-confidence, and boldness in the face of conflict.
However, these values did not necessarily preclude artistic aspirations. Saverio Tomaiuolo
points out that Braddon attempted to balance “economic necessities” with literary art, and that she was
simultaneously drawn to and repelled from literary culture as a skilled sensational author (156). Her
greatest success, Lady Audley's Secret, was “not only a virtual manifesto of female sensationalism, but
also a witty inversion of Victorian sentimental and domestic conventions,” transforming the “blond
angel of domestic realism” into the villain and criminal of the story (Showalter, 164-5). This literary
innovation attests to Braddon's talent for experimenting with artistic form. Nevertheless, the majority of
sensational novels were not characterized by their artistic value, but by their psychological appeal.
Kay/41
Women readers were drawn to the rebellious female protagonists in sensational fiction because, in a
society that emphasized male authority, they confirmed that women were also powerful and intelligent
(Garrison, 83). Moreover, the novels provided a female point of view on morally controversial issues,
such as marital infidelity, during a time when that perspective was being suppressed. British women
sensationalists were thus important contributors to American culture, and the reach of their influence
was manifest in their widespread popularity.
3.2 Popularity and Criticism
References to British female authors of sensational fiction can be found in various American sources,
ranging from private letters and library records to public newspapers and periodicals. Depending on the
source, their popularity is either commended or disapproved of. For example, in a letter to her
publisher, Rebecca Davis compares a story she is serializing in The Galaxy to the British popular novel
Archie Lovell, apparently not concerned about her association with the sensational author, Mrs. Annie
Edwardes (66). In contrast, Louisa May Alcott criticized popular sensational fiction in her novels Little
Women, An Old-Fashioned Girl, and Eight Cousins. In An Old-Fashioned Girl, she specifically
highlights Lady Audley's Secret as an example of “unsuitable reading” (Wadsworth, 155).3 However,
American criticism was usually more subtle than this straightforward reference to Braddon's work.
More often, rather than printing negative reviews of sensational British authors, rebuke would take the
form of exclusion and neglect. Periodicals would fail to mention their work, and libraries would
censure certain authors without necessarily explaining their rationale, perhaps to prevent readers from
becoming intrigued. Nonetheless, despite being overlooked by these literary institutions, the work of
sensational British women remained widely read and appreciated by Americans.
While British women sensationalists were regularly reviewed in the leading periodicals of their
country, American literary magazines are mostly silent on the topic. If negative American reviews
were, indeed, ineffectual when addressing British work, it seems that American editors chose instead to
draw as little attention to sensational British women as possible. They held off famous authors like
Rhoda Broughton and Florence Marryat by not mentioning them. The scant information they do furnish
must be read carefully, for unlike British critics, they may not directly state their disapproval. Rather
than writing scathing remarks, they may profusely praise certain authors while ignoring or giving less
space to others. In this way, a ranking system is formed. For example, in 1888, Harper's published a
3 Ironically, Alcott actually began her career in 1860s by writing sensational stories for the Flag of Our Union and Frank
Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, under the pseudonym A. M. Barnard (Streeby, 187).
Kay/42
twenty-three page article about the most praiseworthy British authors of that time. The first fifteen
pages are dedicated to male authors, each of which receives one or two pages, including a portrait. The
first female author mentioned is Miss Thackeray, whose description is actually more about her father,
William Thackeray, than herself. “One can in no wise forget that she is Thackeray's daughter,” as the
article itself states (Bowker, 20). Next, Mrs. George Lillie Craik receives commendation for her novel,
John Halifax, Gentleman, for showing how a man can endure “poverty and adversity” simply by
remembering that he is a gentleman, and Mrs. M. O. W. Oliphant is praised for her productivity,
cheerful spirit and “nicety of detail.” The article skims over Annie Edwardes and M. Betham Edwards
to focus on Amelia B. Edwards, who studied Egyptology. Lynn Linton and Katherine S. Macquiod are
each connected with prominent male editors, the former with Charles Dickens and the latter with
George Lewes (partner of George Eliot). Finally, on the last page, nine women novelists are listed in
short order, with a brief apology for not providing more information about them. This list includes the
American bestsellers Ouida and Mary Braddon, for whom no praise is given, besides noting their
popularity. Indeed, no criticism is offered either, although the very absence of details indicates that
these authors are less remarkable than the previous men and women (Bowker, 26). Not only are they
tucked away in the final page, but there is scant information to draw the reader's attention to them,
whether for good or bad.
Similarly, American libraries would state their opinions of sensational novelists through
exclusion, by banning their work. One can determine which authors or literary works were considered
'immoral' or offensive by looking at the novels censured by libraries. In 1881, the American Library
Association conducted a survey of seventy major public libraries to discover which authors were
objectionable. Apart from children's literature, the libraries agreed upon sixteen questionable authors,
thirteen of which were women. Eleven of the authors were British: Jessie Fothergill, Rhoda Broughton,
Florence Marryat, Helen Mathers, Mrs. Forrester, Mary Elizabeth Braddon, Ellen Price Wood, George
Alfred Lawrence, Ouida, William Harrison Ainsworth and G.W.M. Reynolds. The remaining five
Americans were all women: Ann Sophia Stephens, Mrs. E.D.E.N. Southworth, Mary Jane Holmes,
Caroline Lee Hentz, and Augusta Jane Evans Wilson. Taking both gender and nationality into account,
the authors most likely to be censored were British women, all of whom were popular in America
(Garrison, 72-4).4 Although the report did not provide a critique of each author, a common reason for
excluding sensational literature was its lack of intellectual or moral purpose. The library was intended
4 In certain cases, this popular demand overruled censorship. Dee Garrison adds: “Despite misgivings, most large
American public libraries did stock 'immoral' novels to meet the demands of the public” (74).
Kay/43
to be an educational institution of sorts, in lieu of advanced formal schooling (Stielow, 40), rather than
an entertainment venue or a “slop shop of sensational fiction” (Quincy, 410). Town libraries would
promote fictional works insofar as they evinced a “pure moral tendency” and literary longevity (e.g.,
The Scarlet Letter and A Christmas Carol), but the aforementioned sensational authors were not
selected for this group. They belonged to “the book club, the weekly paper, the news stand, and the
railroad depot,” but not the library (Quincy, 395). Nineteenth-century library reports give the
impression that British female sensationalists were not entirely well-liked, following the opinion of
Louisa Alcott, but they represented only a minor segment of the population. For the majority of
Americans, the authors deemed objectionable were exactly the authors which they read.
In particular, Americans were drawn to the work of Florence Marryat, Mary Braddon, Ellen
Wood, and Ouida. Of these four bestselling British writers, the most eccentric was Louise de la Ramée,
known by her exotic pseudonym, 'Ouida'. Her success might seem puzzling at first, since her novels
lack humor, empathy, and plot. They were derided and despised by literary critics, and magazines were
reluctant to serialize her work. Furthermore, she had an odd personality; she wore peculiar clothing,
“wore her hair flowing about her shoulders, and assumed an habitual tone of dogmatic stridency in
conversation.” Both she and her novels were characterized by their extravagant absurdity, yet
nevertheless, “she sold in thousands” (Elwin, 291-2). Although she was fairly well-established in
England, she held her greatest popularity in the United States. In response to her immense success
among Americans, she dedicated the novel Tricotrin to “the American people, in cordial
acknowledgment of their reception of my works” (qtd. in Hart, 122). Her tales of illicit sexuality and
scandal among the European upper class simultaneously shocked and intrigued Americans, who were
perhaps more likely than the British to believe her exaggerations. Her female characters, in particular,
are remarkable for their unrepentant attitudes and rejection of conventional gender roles. They are
heroic, sexually forward, and capable of winning battles with men. Interestingly, these women do not
die or suffer tremendously for their actions as would be typical in a sensational novel (Gilbert, “Ouida,”
171, 173). Her personal eccentricity may have allowed for this freedom and garnered her success where
more conventional authors would have failed. Her image related closely to the substance of her novels,
giving her authority to write what she did. As Malcom Elwin notes: “She was smutty and 'not nice';
therefore everybody read her” (298).
Similarly, Florence Marryat followed a lifestyle that matched the content of her fiction. She
traveled extensively, married twice, separated twice (both with military officers), and was a faithful
Kay/44
Catholic spiritualist. Besides being a novelist, she had worked as an actress, entertainer, singer and
playwright. During the end of the century, such an attention-grabbing biography of a women writer
would raise book sales more than if she received the highest praise in reviews, and this was certainly
true for Marryat (Palmer, 137-8). Her American publisher, A. K. Loring, claimed in 1884 that she was
the most popular female writer in the United States, stating that “no female novelist has a greater
following” (qtd. in Palmer, 138). Mary Braddon, too, had a tumultuous background. She worked as an
actress for three years to support herself and her divorced mother before becoming the mistress of a
leading publisher, John Maxwell, whose wife was then living in an asylum. Alongside Braddon's
success, this scandal and its connection with the publishing industry created an impression of
“transgressive femininity, immorality, and profitability wrapped into one dangerously enticing
package” (Phegley, “Educating,” 116). Braddon's novels came to represent these characteristics not
only because of their content, but also because of their association with Braddon's notorious identity.
However, an infamous biography was not always necessary for a woman writer to garner a large
public following. As the previous chapter mentioned, Ellen Wood fostered an image of herself that was
contrary to the sensational personalities of the previous three authors. She was a doting mother and
wife who began writing novels only to provide an income when her husband was unemployed. Wood's
popularity in America was rooted to her second novel, East Lynne, which provided enough thrill and
scandal to compensate for Wood's steady character. Although Wood published over thirty novels after
East Lynne, they were all secondary to this enduring bestseller for which she was best known. It
remained popular even after her death in 1887 and had reportedly sold “over two and one-half million
copies” by 1900 (Garrison, 86). Its play and movie adaptations were also immensely successful,
including a burlesque comedy entitled East Lynne on the Western Front, nominated for an academy
award in 1931. Although Wood's low-key public persona was an exception among the British women
sensationalists, she demonstrated that American readers ultimately cared most about the thrill of the
story itself. If the author herself was also thrilling, so much the better.
3.3 Publication and Promotion
If the town libraries and top periodicals in America repudiated British female sensationalists, the
question arises: from what sources did these authors derive their popularity? Imported books and
magazines published in London could not possibly produce such fame and extended success without
promotional assistance from distributors and publishers within America. By accepting and advertising
Kay/45
such sensational material, these sources would have been outside the elite literary establishment
because they ignored the standards promoted by high culture institutions. As the following section will
demonstrate, these counter establishments were signified by theater houses, small-scale papers, and
dime novel publishers, all of which were upheld primarily by the middle and lower classes (Merish,
191; Ramsey and Derounian-Stodola, 269).
Just as powerful periodicals like The Atlantic serialized favorite authors before publishing their
books, story papers were the forerunners of dime novels and would serialize sensational stories,
perhaps several times, before introducing the narrative in book form (Streeby, 181). Beginning in the
1840s, these story papers multiplied extraordinarily; by 1885, there were estimated to be more than
three thousand periodicals on the market, of which a significant number published sensational fiction as
part of their content (Okker, 11).
This number excludes the many American newspapers that contributed to sensation through
their coverage of crime and scandal. Charles Dickens portrayed this development of sensational papers
in his novel, The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit [1844], wherein a British traveler arriving
in New York is taken aback by the newspapers being advertised: "'Here's this morning's New York
Sewer!' cried one. 'Here's this morning's New York Stabber! Here's the New York Family Spy! Here's
the New York Private Listener! Here's the New York Peeper.'" (278). Although these titles are fictional,
they closely resemble actual New York papers during that time: The Evening Tatler, The Subterranean,
The Telescope, The True Flash, etc. Although these newspapers did not publish sensational fiction, their
emphasis on sensational news—exposing all the gritty details of “private life in the city” (Battan, 605)
—fostered a public that would be receptive to the genre, if not demand it, as an extension of the news.
In 1872, Belgravia journalist John Hutcheson wrote an article describing the American press
and commented particularly on this proliferation of papers as a medium for public discussion and
entertainment. He writes, “every little petty village that springs up in the backwoods on the borders of a
railway, if it has but fifty inhabitants, has its own independent journal to ventilate its opinions and
express its sentiments” (102). In general, the people editing and contributing to these local journals
were not literary professionals, but held 'day jobs' in middle and lower-class industries, e.g., teaching,
farming, domestic cleaning, and factory work (Battan, 608). In essence, they did not belong to the
cultural elite. However, despite their lack of national prestige, their opinions were nevertheless
important on a local scale. As Edwin Lawrence Godkin remarked in 1890, American papers “are, and
have been for the last half-century, exerting more influence on the popular mind and the popular morals
Kay/46
than either the pulpit or the book press has exerted in five hundred years” (202). Thus, it was possible
for an author to become tremendously famous, despite being ignored and censored by elite institutions,
simply through the power of local networks and reviews. The “book clubs” and “weekly papers” that J.
P. Quincy belittled in his report about public libraries (395) were exactly the mediums that influenced
American opinions and provided an audience for British female sensationalists.
Information about the papers produced primarily for the American working classes is difficult to
gather given the nature of its distribution. Jesse Battan's research on the nineteenth-century 'Free Love'
newspapers and pamphlets, which addressed women's sexual freedom and pleasure, indicates that such
material was passed on from person to person so that subscription rates grossly underestimate their
actual audience (Battan, 608). As one anonymous reader wrote in 1857: “I received a copy of the
S[ocial] R[evolutionist] from a friend […] and I doubt not that it was read by hundreds, for it passed
from hand to hand, and from town to town, till it was pretty well read, and it has been the same with
each number” (qtd. in Battan, 608). In some cases, traveling salesmen were the original providers of
sensational or scandalous material. Two early publishers of sensational fiction, Arthus Orton and
Erastus E. Barclay, distributed their material in this way. Their salesmen would first deliver broadside
advertisements door-to-door, and then later return to sell their pamphlets of sensational stories. “A
testimonial from one salesman reports that he sold on average 400 pamphlets each week,” priced at
seven to nineteen cents each, depending on the size (Keetley, 345).
Initially, these pamphlets were chiefly written by Americans, but as the industry expanded and
competition increased, reprints of British work became more common. For example, the Frank Leslie's
New Family Magazine, founded in 1857 by a British immigrant, began with pirated serials by
sensational English writers, including Ouida, Ellen Wood, Mary Braddon, and Annie Edwardes (Mott,
439). Later in the century, these story papers were commonly associated with dime novel publishers,
such as the Saturday Journal from Beadle & Adams (Streeby, 181). These dime novel publishers began
to emerge in the 1860s, building on the established market while introducing new marketing tactics.
With an industrialized production, they offered new novels every two weeks and priced them at ten
cents to be sold at newsstands and railway depots. Beadle & Adams was the first publisher to introduce
this innovation with its series, “Beadle's Dime Novels,” from which the term 'dime novel' originates. Its
success prompted similar publishing houses to produce their own series: “Ten Cent Romances”
(published by DeWitt), “Irwin P. Beadle's Ten Cent Novels” (published by Munro), “Ten Cent
Novelettes” (published by Talbot), etc. In order to remain competitive, Beadle & Adams began to sell a
Kay/47
new design with more books, entitled “Beadle's Dime Library.” Other companies soon copied with
their own library series, and the speed of production increased. By the late 1870s, new novels were
being introduced on a weekly basis, the cheapest of which were five cents (Ramsey and Derounian-
Stodola, 264-5). Pirated British work was a significant factor enabling these low prices and high
production rates. Until the International Copyright Law was passed, the majority of sensational novels
written by British women were published in this way.5 Thus, their works were made available to
Americans without their permission or, even, their knowledge of it. Certainly, they were not paid.
Although dime novel publishers were pivotal to the dissemination of British work, the fame of
sensational authors also rested upon the success of their novels as plays. Popular theater and sensational
novels were closely intertwined during the nineteenth century, since they shared similar techniques of
shock and excitement. Both were plot-oriented and included climatic tableaux and spectacular scenes,
intended to raise the audience's interest (Hart, 122). Nicholas Daly remarks that audiences would pack
the theater simply to witness “the final act, in which a house goes up in flames” (Daly, 55). Indeed, in
1915, a Louisiana newspaper, the Bogalusa Enterprise, praised the special effects coordinator of the
play, Lady Audley's Secret, for the “fire scene in the third act,” which was declared to be “magnificent”
(“Two Big Features”). Theater reviews repeatedly emphasize the enthusiasm of the American public for
such sensational plays. “A more enthusiastic or better pleased audience never dispersed than the one
which left […] after witnessing the second performance of 'Lady Audley's Secret',” declared The
Paducah Daily Sun, a Kentucky newspaper, in 1897 (“Excellent Performance”). The fantastic success
of these play adaptations was derived, in part, from their association with the popular novels. A theater
announcement from The Times Dispatch of Richmond, Virginia, in 1909 confirms that the novel Lady
Audley's Secret was still being read more than 45 years after its publication. The newspaper
advertisement suggests that the play is worth seeing because it “closely follows the story of the book,
which has been largely read” (“At the Theatres”).
Given this close relationship between sensational literature and sensational theater, it is possible
for one to gauge the reception of British fiction, in the absence of literary reviews, by reading theater
reviews printed in American newspapers. Although the original novel and adapted play may differ in
certain respects, the fundamental story remains similar. Thus, reviews of plays can be interpreted as
indirect 'readings' of British novels. To illustrate this point, theater reviews of the play Lady Audley's
5 The Library of Congress archives list predominantly dime novel publishers (e.g., G. Munro, J. W. Lovell) for the works
of sensational female authors. Although major publishers, such as Harper & Bros., also issued select novels, these
editions were limited. The next section will discuss this topic in further detail.
Kay/48
Secret differ in how they perceive Lady Audley as a character. In 1887, The Gazette of Fort Worth,
Texas, printed a theater review that portrayed Lady Audley as “one of those strange freaks that
sometimes occur in real life—a beautiful, accomplished intriguer and heartless woman,” motivated
purely by “selfish ambition.” The reviewer takes care to highlight the importance of 'Alicia,' a minor
female character who exemplifies “the lighter shades of the feminine character” (“Lady Audley”).
Almost thirty years later, the Bogalusa Enterprise offered a more sympathetic view of Lady Audley.
Far from from “innately bad or wicked,” she is merely “a woman cursed by hereditary insanity,” whose
condition has been aggravated by “a series of terrible misfortunes.” The reviewer claims that these
“catastrophes” would have caused “any sound mind to become unbalanced,” and that it is this tension
between crime and insanity that makes Lady Audley's role “so particularly delicate” (“Two Big
Features”). These differing opinions of Lady Audley may reflect the social changes that occurred in
thirty years, the social difference between Texas and Louisiana, or both. Regardless of the reason for
their contrast, these reviews demonstrate that Americans critically evaluated plays no less than novels.
Therefore, theater reviews provide insight not only into how Americans were best entertained, but also
into how they interpreted popular British narratives.
3.4 The Effect of International Copyright
Sensational British women writers were evidently popular in America, as book sales and theater
reviews of their work demonstrate. Their novels were widely read and available, despite censorship by
dominant cultural institutions, due to the high production rates of dime novel publishers and the support
of local establishments, such as book clubs and regional papers. However, this proliferation of British
sensational fiction depended strongly upon the lack of international copyright. Thus, when Congress
passed the International Copyright Act in 1891, British female authors became less prominent in
American society. While the copyright reforms positively affected printers' unions and publishers of
copyrighted books, the introduction of copyright restrictions negatively affected non-unionized printers
and dime novel publishers, both of which supported women and sensational novelists. Furthermore,
although international copyright offered more security, it did not increase authors' salaries nor
encourage American cultural production, as copyright advocates assumed it would. Rather, the reforms
primarily benefited major publishers, which were given the power to determine which foreign authors
were worth printing in America. Since female sensationalists found little favor with these companies,
their works became scarcer during the 1890s and into the twentieth century, thereby lessening their
Kay/49
influence in American culture.
International copyright was debated in America throughout the second half of the nineteenth
century. For more than thirty years, copyright remained a public issue, but until the beginning of the
1890s, the U.S. Congress was hesitant to pass a copyright law. One reason for this reluctance was the
opposition to copyright from printers' unions. Many American printers feared that an international
copyright would introduce competition from England, where printers paid much lower salaries.
According to Donald Marquand Dozer, from 1875 to 1882, “the average daily wage of compositors in
London, Manchester, and Glasgow ranged from $1.36½ to $1.40, whereas […] the average daily wage
for the same class of printing employees [in American cities] ranged from $2.64¾ to $2.81.25” (qtd. in
Anderson, 158). An international copyright would force American publishers to cut printers' salaries in
order to compensate foreign authors without raising book prices. However, as competition between
American firms tightened during the 1880s, printers' salaries began plummeting nevertheless.
Unionized men began to lose their printing jobs to nonunion women, who accepted lower salaries.
Thus, by the late 1880s, printers' unions concluded that international copyright was in their favor after
all. Although they recognized that “the lack of international copyright was protecting the jobs of more
American printers, the workers who filled those jobs were the wrong kind—women instead of men”
(Vaidhyanathan, 55). Soon after the printers' unions declared their support, Congress passed the bill.
This move endangered the employment of the female printers because it jeopardized the future
of their employers, cheap publishers. Since these firms relied considerably on foreign reprints,
international copyright had strong repercussions on their business methods. Certain dime novel
publishers were already exploring alternatives for staying profitable. For example, the “Book-a-Day”
publisher John W. Lovell—who claimed to have sold “seven million books in a single year” (Anderson,
160)—sought to remain competitive by creating a larger firm with several other cheap publishers,
thereby reducing competition and gaining market control. In 1890, they founded the United States
Book Company. Customers feared that book prices would rise with this monopoly, but Lovell reassured
them that “retail prices for the Seaside Library, Lovell Library and Munro Library will still remain 10
and 20 cents a number” (qtd. in Anderson, 161). However, the company was unable to meet this
promise. It declared itself bankrupt after the Panic of 1893, from which it never recovered (Anderson,
161). One of the first publishers of cheap sensational fiction, Erastus E. Barclay, also did not survive
through the 1890s, closing down in 1896 after more than fifty years in business (Keetley, 345).
Although these failures were partly caused by mismanagement and severe competition, the additional
Kay/50
burden of international copyright certainly did not contribute to their success. They, along with the
women they hired and published, were no longer positioned to participate in the market.
Depending on one's point of view, the sacrifice of these companies was a minor loss compared
to the advantages that international copyright brought. Specifically, it was argued that a lack of
international copyright discouraged American literary development (Khan, 10). Already at mid-century,
certain periodicals were calling for an international copyright law for the sake of American literature,
since the influx of British work was a hazard to American cultural production. Even British articles
cited this argument: in 1848, the Blackwoods Edinburgh Magazine noted that British work was
interfering with American writing, and then remarked that “an International Copyright Law would be
the greatest benefit that could be conferred on American periodical literature” (“The Periodical,” 112).
Ironically, this reasoning did not gain persuasive momentum in the United States until American
literature was already well-established. As Zorina Khan observes, “once the U.S. had developed its own
native stock of literary capital, it voluntarily had an incentive to recognize international copyrights”
(30). For most of the nineteenth century, Americans had chiefly seen the benefits of not having
international copyright; however, when American literature itself began to attract foreign attention and
piracy, the copyright law found greater support, especially among established American authors. For
example, Mark Twain changed his opinion about copyright after his novels were pirated in Canada,
moving his stance from being firmly anti-copyright to being an active supporter of international
copyright. He stood before Congress in favor of the law, arguing that “the moral law is 'Thou shalt not
steal'—no matter what Europe may do” (qtd. in Vaidhyanathan, 56). Despite decades of piracy in the
United States, the Europeans were ultimately the thieves against which American authors needed
protection.
To lobby for international copyright, many elite American authors, critics, and publishing firms
joined together to form the American Copyright Club. By the time Congress passed the Copyright Act,
the club “claimed to represent as many as 700 authors,” and its most active members included Mark
Twain and James Russell Lowell (Vaidhyanathan, 54). However, this tremendous support is misleading,
since the list of members “is notably lacking in both women authors and in abolitionists” (Anderson,
56). Indeed, since the American Copyright Club reflected the interests of elite publishers and authors, it
was accordingly male-dominated. Publishers of popular fiction—who supported women writers and
women industry workers—were less inclined to advocate international copyright, since it undermined
their business practices, and they were therefore absent from the list. The international copyright debate
Kay/51
was thus a battle between the 'high culture' and 'popular culture' industries. Furthermore, authors
ultimately held little political sway in comparison with publishers and their employees, as the power of
printers' unions demonstrated. As Khan points out, “copyrights in books during this period tended to be
the concern of publishers rather than of authors,” since publishers either purchased authors' copyrights
or made large investments in their work (21). Authors served merely as figureheads for a law that
primarily affected publishers.
Of course, pro-copyright authors were disappointed to discover that their incomes did not
noticeably rise after 1891, particularly not if they had already sold their copyrights. Ouida, for instance,
had supported the Copyright Act for the sake of writers (Lee, 145), and yet, because she had sold her
copyrights, she reaped little or none of the profit from her book sales (Elwin, 306). In certain respects,
the copyright reforms even negatively impacted authors because it decreased their celebrity and
audience. Cheap, reprinted books and serials reached a crowd of readers that were otherwise
inaccessible due to their low incomes. This additional network of consumers was a type of investment
that authors could reap in other profitable ways, e.g., speaking engagements. Charles Dickens was a
prime example of an author who was successful, both economically and culturally, because of the lack
of copyright. Although he was pro-copyright and had written “bitter diatribes against 'the continental
Brigands' in the United States” (Khan, 28), he had actually benefited considerably from such practices.
Capitalizing on the system of 'trade courtesy', he received large payments from at least four companies,
each claiming to be his sole American publisher. Furthermore, the reprints of his work spread his fame
and led to speaking invitations, for which he was well-compensated. From 1867 to 1868, he toured the
United States, gave readings in 76 locations and earned “the astonishing sum of $228,000 in total
receipts” (Khan, 28). Given this wealthy return, it becomes unclear whether Dickens should be called a
victim or a beneficiary of piracy.
However, since the law was not retroactive, international copyright did not necessarily imperil
the celebrity status of nineteenth-century authors like Dickens, who were already well-established and
positioned in high culture by 1891.6 Americans were still familiar with his work and, perhaps, willing
to pay a higher price for his new novels. Moreover, Americans remained fascinated with European
culture regardless of copyright. As James Hart remarks, “foreign authors continued to be popular
because their mere foreignness gave them a cachet” (189). Nevertheless, international copyright had
significant consequences for authors who were not well-established and/or were excluded from high
6 Novels published before the law was enacted remained in the public domain and were still accessible (Khan, 29).
Kay/52
culture—that is, sensational British women. The publishing firms that had mass-produced their novels
had all folded by the end of the century, and the remaining publishers had little interest for sensational
fiction by women. A few, such as Harper & Bros., continued to publish select authors, but only
sparingly. Evidence for this trend can be found by searching the Library of Congress Online Catalog
for works written by sensational British women. An overwhelming number of books are listed between
1870 and 1891, the heyday of the dime novel industry; after 1891, the list either ceases or is severely
reduced.7 For example, forty-eight novels by Mary Braddon were published in the United States in the
decade before the Copyright Act was passed. In the decade afterward, only four novels were published.
Similarly, works by Annie Edwardes decreased from twenty-four to zero. While American piracy may
have irritated these authors, it was arguably better than having little to no presence in the country at all.
Thus, despite their tremendous popularity, British women sensationalists were finally censored via
international copyright and hindered from further influencing American culture in the twentieth
century.
In summary, the popularity of sensational women in America was tremendous but short-lived,
due to to introduction of the 1891 Copyright Act. They had remained bestsellers throughout the
postbellum period, despite censorship and lack of coverage in literary periodicals, due to support from
cheap publishers, local papers, and theater houses. Nevertheless, once piracy became illegal, they were
deemed unworthy of paid publication, and their works dropped out of the literary market. Although
their status in America had been uncertain for several decades, being both British citizens (high art) and
sensational writers (low art), their position became clear by the end of the century. They were perceived
as producers of ephemeral literature, part of popular culture, and consequently excluded from literary
history.
7 See Appendix A for a visual representation of this trend.
Kay/53
Conclusion
This thesis began with a study of postbellum American culture and highlighted key aspects of
contention and debate in American literature. These points of conflict included views about
international copyright, the difference between high and low culture, and the place of women in literary
production. In the first chapter, it was argued that postbellum American society was marked by
commercialism, and that elite American authors lacked the nationalism of the antebellum period,
demonstrating an admiration for British culture instead. An overview of American publishing practices
was given, with particular emphasis on the piracy of British work. Contention between leading
periodicals was described, and Harper's Monthly was highlighted as an illustration of the guiding role
these literary magazines held in high culture. The second chapter addressed issues of literary style and
gender, showing how sensationalism was both very popular in America and portrayed as feminine low
culture by American elites, leading to exclusion of American women writers from high literature.
Finally, in the third chapter, the unique position of British female sensationalists in America was
investigated, including aspects of their popularity and influence. Notwithstanding censorship of their
work, they were shown to be active and prominent in postbellum American culture. A summary was
given of the sources that published and supported their work, and the effect of the 1891 Copyright Act
on these source was described. It was found that, despite the prestige of their nationality, British female
sensationalists were nevertheless perceived as part of popular culture and edged out of the market after
1891.
Possible shortcomings in this study include the absence of the British literary perspective and an
inadequate exploration of American sensational fiction after the Civil War. The dominance of the
American viewpoint in this thesis may have led to a skewed portrayal of British culture, giving the
impression that circumstances in England were more liberal than in America, or that British periodicals
were significantly more supportive of women writers. This was not necessarily the case. “The
proposition that English readers were more tolerant than Americans [is doubtful],” Laurel Brake
remarks (113). Future research could address this imbalance, comparing the reception of British female
authors in their own country to their reception in America. Similarly, postbellum American authors of
sensational fiction have been insufficiently discussed. This weakness is partly due to the lack of
research on American sensational fiction. While information about British sensational authors has
become more widely available in recent years, American sensational fiction is still emerging as a field
Kay/54
of study (Streeby, 179). Despite this limitation, this study endeavored to represent American sensational
fiction as accurately as possible, offering a basis for further investigation.
Given the broad scope of this thesis, numerous topics were introduced that would merit
additional research. For example, the subject of British female sensationalists could be narrowed down,
addressing specific authors rather than a general group. This approach would enable a closer look at
individual novels, examining which novels succeeded and failed, as well as potential differences
between a novel's popularity in America and England. Moreover, this approach could lead to insights
regarding the association between American theater and British sensational fiction. The concept of
using American theater reviews as a form of literary criticism, especially in relation to sensational
fiction, could be developed and evaluated. Also, the effect of international copyright on theater
adaptations could be explored. Because research about the Copyright Act was particularly valuable to
this study's conclusion, the subject of international copyright—specifically, its effect on women's
literature and transatlantic publishing—warrants more critical attention. A comparison should be made
between male and female British authors regarding the publication of their work before and after 1891.
This topic could also investigate the novels that were accepted or rejected for publication in America
after 1891 (e.g., The Christmas Hirelings versus Dead Love Has Chains, by Mary Braddon), taking
into consideration the notion of copyright as a form of censorship. Due to restrictions on length and
time, these matters were not addressed in this thesis. A more detailed analysis of British sensational
fiction in American society is still necessary to better understand the points raised in this study.
Sensational fiction in America, whether of American or British origin, is a topic that has only
recently entered critical discussion and needs much exploration. As Shelley Streeby states, “the most
important task for future generations of scholars is to recover and discuss more of the huge body of
sensational fiction that remains unread, for what has been retrieved up until now is still only a small
part of a much larger whole” (189). This fresh field of study is especially intriguing because it touches
upon issues relevant to contemporary debates, such as the topics of globalization, copyright, and
popular culture. Uncovering the vast number of sensational works and determining the causes for their
popularity and demise would not only lead to a more accurate picture of nineteenth-century society, but
also bring insight into current circumstances.
Kay/55
Appendix A
The following graphs are based on publishing data obtained from the Library of Congress Online
Catalog and were produced by the author using SPSS software. They display the number of individual
book titles published in America for the authors Mary Braddon and Annie Edwardes between 1860 and
1899. For example, for the decade of the 1860s, the Library of Congress lists one book title for Mary
Braddon, published by Harper & Brothers in 1864 and entitled John Marchmont's Legacy. These
graphs reveal the effect of the Copyright Act on the publication of sensational novels by British women
in the United States. The sudden decrease of new titles published after 1891 may reflect the collapse of
the dime novel industry, as well as an unwillingness among the surviving publishers to invest in female
sensationalists, whose work was no longer free. The significant difference in publications between the
1880s and 1890s indicates that sensational fiction by women was a low priority for publishers once
reprinting became illegal. Thus, one can deduce that sensational British women were perceived as low
culture, despite the absence of literary reviews explicitly criticizing their work.
These authors have been chosen because they represent a minor sensational author (Edwardes)
and a major sensational author and editor (Braddon). Although both were popular, Braddon sustained
more attention and was evidently more active in the literary market, being an editor as well as a
novelist. It should be noted that Edwardes continued to write several novels in the 1890s that were
never published in the United States, seemingly due to copyright restrictions. Four of her twenty-one
novels were ignored: her third novel [1861] and her final three [1890, 1894, 1899]. As for Braddon,
although American companies continued to intermittently publish her works after the Copyright Act,
they tended to focus on her established successes, such as Lady Audley's Secret. Like Edwardes, several
of her later novels were never published in the United States, e.g., The White House [1906] and Dead
Love Has Chains [1907].
Kay/56
Kay/57
Kay/58
Works Cited
Agnew, J. H. “Women's Offices and Influence.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine 3 (1851): 654-657.
Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.
“American Female Novelists.” National Quarterly Review 2 (1860) 31-46. Google Books. Web. 12 Apr.
2012.
Anderson, Eric. "Pimps and Ferrets: Copyright and Culture in the United States, 1831-1891." Diss.
Bowling Green State University, 2007. OhioLINK. Bowling Green State University. Web. 18
Apr. 2012.
“At the Theatres.” The Times Dispatch [Richmond] 18 July 1909: 4E. Chronicling America. Library of
Congress. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Austin, James C. Fields of The Atlantic Monthly: Letters to an Editor, 1861-1870. San Marino:
Huntington Library, 1953. Print.
Battan, Jesse F. “'You Cannot Fix the Scarlet Letter on My Breast!': Women Reading, Writing, and
Reshaping the Sexual Culture of Victorian America.” Journal of Social History 37.3 (2004):
601-624. JSTOR. Oxford UP. Web. 17 Feb. 2012.
Baym, Nina. “Melodramas of Beset Manhood: How Theories of American Fiction Exclude Women
Authors.” American Quarterly 33.2 (1981): 123-139. JSTOR. John Hopkins UP. Web. 13 Apr.
2012.
-- “Onward Christian Women: Sarah J. Hale's History of the World.” The New England Quarterly 63.2
(1990): 249-270. JSTOR. The New England Quarterly, Inc. Web. 30 Jun. 2012.
Bernstein, Susan D. “Dirty Reading: Sensation Fiction, Women and Primitivism.” Criticism 36.2
(1994): 213. Picarta. Wayne State UP. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Bowker, Richard R. “London As A Literary Centre.” Harper's New Monthly Magazine 77 (1888): 3-26.
Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 8 Dec. 2012.
Boyd, Anne E. “'What! Has she got into The Atlantic?': Women Writers, The Atlantic Monthly, and the
Formation of the American Canon.” American Studies 39.3 (1998): 5-36. Picarta. Web. 23 Jan.
2012.
Brake, Laurel. Subjugated Knowledges: Journalism, Gender and Literature in the Nineteenth Century.
London: Macmillan Press, 1994. Print.
“Bret Harte, 1836-1902.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature: Shorter Seventh Edition. Ed.
Kay/59
Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. 1483-1484. Print.
“Cheap Literature: Its Benefits And Injuries.” Russel's Magazine 1 (1857): 416-421. Google Books.
Web. 12 Apr. 2012.
Cognard-Black, Jennifer. “Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896)” 21-24. in Kindred Hands: Letters on
Writing by British and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. ed. Jennifer Cognard-Black and
Elizabeth MacLeod Walls. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2006. Print.
Cognard-Black, Jennifer and Elizabeth MacLeod Walls. Kindred Hands: Letters on Writing by British
and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2006. Print.
Cook, Keningale. “American Novelists.” Belgravia: a London Magazine 9 (1872): 72-79. Periodicals
Archive Online. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Daly, Nicholas. “Blood on the Tracks: Sensation Drama, the Railway, and the Dark Face of
Modernity.” Victorian Studies 42.1 (1998-9): 47-76. JSTOR. Indiana UP. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Davis, Rebecca H. “Letter 6.” Letter to F. P. Church and William Conant Church. 19 April [1868].
Kindred Hands: Letters on Writing by British and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa
City: University of Iowa, 2006. 66-67. Print.
Dickens, Charles. Letter to Wilkie Collins. 19 July 1860. Harper's New Monthly Magazine 83 (1891):
685. Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
-- The Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1844. Google Books.
Web. 6 July 2012.
Diffley, Kathleen. “The Roil of Contemporary Debate: Uncovering Literature and Culture in
Nineteenth-Century America.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association 35.1
(2002): 88-95. JSTOR. Midwest Modern Language Association. Web. 23 Jan. 2012.
Dodge, Mary A. “Letter 7.” Letter to Sophia Hawthorne. 2 September 1868. Kindred Hands: Letters on
Writing by British and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa City: University of Iowa,
2006. 80-83. Print.
Elwin, Malcom. Victorian Wallflowers. London: Jonathan Cape, 1934. Print.
“Excellent Performance.” The Paducah Daily Sun 16 June 1897: 4. Chronicling America. Library of
Congress. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Bigamy: The Rise and Fall of a Convention.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 36.1
(1981): 47-71. JSTOR. University of California Press. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Faxton, E. “Miss Yonge's Novels.” North American Review 80.2 (1855) p. 439-459. Periodicals
Kay/60
Archive Online. Web.12 Apr. 2012.
Felheim, Marvin. “Introduction.” The Gilded Age. New York: Penguin Group, 1994. vii-xviii. Print.
Garrison, Dee. “Immoral Fiction in the Late Victorian Library.” American Quarterly 28.1 (1976): 71-
89. JSTOR. John Hopkins UP. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Gilbert, Pamela K. “Braddon and Victorian Realism: Joshua Haggard's Daughter.” 183-195. Beyond
Sensation: Mary Elizabeth Braddon in Context. ed. Marlene Tromp, Pamela K. Gilbert, Aeron
Haynie. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. Print.
--- “Ouida and the other New Woman.” 170-188. Victorian Women Writers And The Woman Question.
ed. Nicola D. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.
Godkin, Edwin L. "Newspapers Here and Abroad." North American Review 150.399 (1890): 197-204.
JSTOR. University of Northern Iowa. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.
Griffith, George V. “Elizabeth Stuart Phelps (1844-1911).” Kindred Hands: Letters on Writing by
British and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 2006. 121-
124. Print
Hart, James D. The Popular Book: A History of America's Literary Taste. New York: Oxford UP, 1950.
Print.
Humphreys, Anne. “Breaking apart: the early Victorian divorce novel.” 42-59. Victorian Women
Writers And The Woman Question. ed. Nicola D. Thompson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.
Print.
Hutcheson, John C. “The American Press.” Belgravia: a London Magazine 7 (1872): 103-112.
Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
James, Henry. Letter to Mary Walsh James. 2 Mar. 1869. The Complete Letters of Henry James, 1855-
1872. Vol. 1. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2006. 224-30. Print.
--- Letter to Mary Walsh James. 13 Oct. 1869. The Complete Letters of Henry James, 1855-1872. Vol.
2. Li ncoln: University of Nebraska, 2006. 141-146. Print.
Khan, B. Zorina. Does Copyright Piracy Pay? The Effects of U.S. International Copyright Laws on the
Market for Books, 1790-1920. Working paper no. 10271. The National Bureau of Economic
Research, Jan. 2004. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.
Keetley, Dawn. “Victim and Victimizer: Female Fiends and Unease over Marriage in Antebellum
Sensational Fiction.” American Quarterly 51.2 (1999): 344-384. Muse. John Hopkins UP. Web.
17 Jun. 2013.
Kay/61
Kelley, Mary. “Reading Women/Women Reading: The Making of Learned Women in Antebellum
America.” The Journal of American History 83.2 (1996): 401-424. JSTOR. Organization of
American Historians. Web. 17 Feb. 2012.
“Lady Audley.” The Gazette [Fort Worth] 13 January 1887: 8. Chronicling America. Library of
Congress. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Lee, Elizabeth. Ouida: A Memoir. London: Fisher Unwin, 1914. Print.
Leighton, Mary Elizabeth and Lisa Surridge. “The Transatlantic Moonstone: A Study of the Illustrated
Serial in Harper's Weekly.” Victorian Periodicals Review 42.3 (2009): 207-243. Muse. John
Hopkins UP. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.
“Literary Gossip.” London Review of Politics, Society, Literature, Art, and Science 14.341 (1867): 75.
Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.
Lynn, Karen. “Sensational Virtue: Nineteenth-Century Mormon Fiction and American Popular Taste.”
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14.3 (1981): 101-111. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Maddox, Notley S. “Literary Nationalism in Putnam's Magazine.” American Literature 14.2 (1942):
117-125. JSTOR. Duke UP. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
“Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens), 1835-1910.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature:
Shorter Seventh Edition. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. 1270-1273. Print.
Merish, Lori. “Melodrama and American Fiction.” A Companion to American Fiction 1780-1865. Ed.
Shirley Samuels. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 179-90. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <mey.homelinux.org>.
Mott, Frank L. A History of American Magazines, 1850 – 1865. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1957. Print.
“New York In 1870.” Belgravia 2 (1870): 90-100. Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 8 Dec.
2012.
“New York In 1870.” Belgravia 2 (1870): 90-100. Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 8 Dec. 2012.
Okker, Patricia. “Social Stories.” Social Stories: The Magazine Novel in Nineteenth-Century America.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2003. 9-28. Web. 30 Jun. 2012.
<http://www-management.wharton.upenn.edu/raff/documents/social_stories.pdf>
Palmer, Beth. “'Chieftaness,' 'Great Duchess,' 'Editress! Mysterious Being!': Performing Editorial
Identities in Florence Marryat’s London Society Magazine.” Victorian Periodicals Review 42.2
(2009): 136-154. Muse. John Hopkins UP. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Park, Roberta J. “Sport, gender and society in a transatlantic Victorian perspective.” The
International Journal of the History of Sport 24.12 (2007): 1570-1603. Taylor & Francis
Kay/62
Online. Routledge. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
“The Periodical Literature of America.” Blackwoods Edinburgh Magazine 63.387 (1848): 106-112.
Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 21 Nov. 2011.
Phegley, Jennifer. “Domesticating the Sensation Novelist: Ellen Price Wood as Author and Editor of the
Argosy Magazine.” Victorian Periodicals Review 38.2 (2005): 180-198. Muse. Web. 8 Dec.
2011.
--- Educating The Proper Woman Reader: Victorian Family Literary Magazines and the Cultural
Health of a Nation. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 2004. Print.
--- “Mary Elizabeth Braddon (1835-1815).” Kindred Hands: Letters on Writing by British and
American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 2006. 87-92. Print.
Phelps, Elizabeth S. “Letter 4.” Letter to Mary Ann Evans [George Eliot]. 27 May 1877. Kindred
Hands: Letters on Writing by British and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa City:
University of Iowa, 2006. 130-131. Print.
Quincy, J. P. "Free Libraries." Public Libraries in the United States of America: Their History,
Condition, and Management. Bureau of Education. Washington: Government Printing Office,
1879. 389-402. Open Library. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
Ramsey, Colin T. and Kathryn Z. Derounian-Stodola. "Dime Novels." A Companion to American
Fiction 1780-1865. Ed. Shirley Samuels. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 262-73. Web. 18 Apr. 2012.
<mey.homelinux.org>.
“Review of Adam Seybert's Statistical Annals of the United States of America.” Edinburgh Review
33.65 (1820): 69-80. Periodicals Archive Online. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.
“Reviews and Literary Notices.” Atlantic Monthly 25 (1870): 750-764. Google Books. Web. 13 Apr.
2012.
Ringe, Donald A. American Gothic: Imagination and Reason in Nineteenth-Century Fiction.
Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1982. Print.
Robinson, Solveig C. “Editing Belgravia: M. E. Braddon's Defense of 'Light Literature'.” Victorian
Periodicals Review 28.2 (1995): 109-122. JSTOR. John Hopkins UP. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Showalter, Elaine. A Literature of Their Own: British Women Novelists from Brontë to Lessing.
London: Virago Press, 1978. Print.
Spencer, Benjamin T. The Quest for Nationality: An American Literary Campaign. New York: Syracuse
UP, 1957. Print.
Kay/63
Stielow, Frederick J. “Censorship in the Early Professionalization of American Libraries, 1876 to
1929.” The Journal of Library History (1974-1987) 18.1 (1983): 37-54. JSTOR. University of
Texas Press. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
Streeby, Shelley. "Sensational Fiction." A Companion to American Fiction 1780-1865. Ed. Shirley
Samuels. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 179-90. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <mey.homelinux.org>.
Sutherland, J. A. Victorian Novelists and Publishers. London: Athlone Press, 1976. Print.
Thompson, Nicola D. “Responding to the woman questions: rereading noncanonical Victorian women
novelists.” 1-23. Victorian Women Writers And The Woman Question. ed. Nicola D. Thompson.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.
--- Reviewing Sex: Gender and the Reception of Victorian Novels. London: MacMillan, 1996. Print.
Tomaiuolo, Saverio. In Lady Audley's Shadow: Mary Elizabeth Braddon and Victorian Literary
Genres. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2010. Print.
Tuchman, Gaye and Nina E. Fortin. Edging Women Out: Victorian Novelists, Publishers, and Social
Change. London: Routledge, 1989. Print.
"Two Big Features At Magic City This Week." Bogalusa Enterprise 18 Nov. 1915: 8. Chronicling
America. Library of Congress. Web. 8 Dec. 2011.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It
Threatens Creativity. New York: New York UP, 2001. Print.
Wadsworth, Sarah A. “Social Reading, Social Work, and the Social Function of Literacy in Louisa May
Alcott's 'May Flowers'.” 149-167 Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from
the Victorian Age to the Present. ed. Janet Badia and Jennifer Phegley. London: University of
Toronto Press, 2005. Print.
“W. D. Howells, 1837-1920.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature: Shorter Seventh Edition.
Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. 1463-1465. Print.
Williams, Susan S. “Mary Abigail Dodge [Gail Hamilton] (1833-1896).” Kindred Hands: Letters on
Writing by British and American Women Authors, 1865-1935. Iowa City: University of Iowa,
2006. 71-74. Print.
