There exists a silence that precedes the word. Not an empty silence, but a dense one, heavy with everything that has not yet found form, with everything that has been prevented. For centuries, this silence was the forced homeland of half the world. Literature, that seemingly free realm of the human, was for a long time a well-organized spinning mill, where some set to work the spindles of discourse and others, when fortunate, could stroll in 19th-century salons, animators of conversation but rarely authors of the text itself. Their task was to weave relationships, to inspire, to be muse, object, hieroglyph. The ethereal muses of others' grand narratives: sublime symbols, but still symbols. Women painted with another's ink, on pages whose binding they did not control.
Then, a crack. A woman sits on a riverbank and reflects. She has been asked to speak about "women and fiction". The question expands, branches out. It becomes a matter of space, of minted coin, of existing. "A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction". This dictum, which became a cornerstone of thought, was not just talking about four walls and a salary. It was pointing to the right to intellectual existence. The room is the brain free from the noise of expectations, it is time not devoured by care, it is the body that is no longer colonial territory. Without that room, the silence remained forced. With it, the dull and powerful noise of one's own voice could begin.
The Weight of the Canon and the Search for a Voice
But how do you write when the only grammar you know is that of the colonizer? When the models of greatness, of "universality," are all forged from an experience that is not your own? A young writer, at the start of her career, confessed to aiming to "write by exhibiting a virile pulse", because she believed all great writers must possess that attribute. It is the trap of the canon: it convinces you that to be worthy, you must resemble those who built it. The pioneers of the pen, in the early decades of the last century, often accepted and reaffirmed women's socially subordinate role, while lamenting their suffocated sensitivity. Their female characters, even the most suffering and complex, found redemption almost exclusively in traditional roles. It was the horizon of the imaginable.
This is the first, great misunderstanding the aspiring female writer encounters: the world does not await her version. On the contrary, her visions, if divergent, are a nuisance. Why? Because her authenticity, if she ever manages to extract it from the depths of that silence, would be an inconvenient mirror. It would reveal that the structures upon which the common narrative rests – love, desire, family, passion – are not natural laws, but constructions. It would show that the "universal" of those who have always held the pen is, in truth, very particular. The author who writes about war is epic. The authoress who writes about childbirth is "particular". He who describes a marital crisis explores the human condition. She who does the same is "gnawing on her own bone of small domestic dramas". This asymmetry is a glass cage: invisible, but omnipresent.
And so, the path for many has been a laborious attempt at mimesis. Write like the other. Think like the other. Erase the experience of one's own body, one's own specific feeling, to access that presumed neutrality which was, in reality, a disguised point of view. The price was cleavage. You had to look at the world with eyes that were not entirely your own, describe it with a language that was not born from your viscera. The result could be technically impeccable, but lacking that warmth, that flavour that arises only when the word perfectly adheres to experience. It was a literature of the surface, even when deep.
"I shall speak about women's writing: about what it will do. Woman must write her self: must write about women and bring women to writing, from which they have been driven away as violently as from their bodies".
This injunction, launched like a manifesto, is not a simple exhortation. It is a revolutionary act. To write herself. Not as a narcissistic exercise, but as an act of ontological reappropriation. It means refusing the definition given by others. It means exploring the "dark continent" not with the invasive torch of the explorer, but with the tactile perception of one who inhabits it. It means finding a language for pregnancy that is not medical or romantic, for desire that is not pornographic or angelic, for anger that is not hysterical. It means breaking the binary that has governed thought: active/passive, sun/moon, culture/nature. Feminine writing, in this radical vision, is that which transcends these oppositions, which is both body and mind, reason and viscera, linear and circular. It is an écriture that flows, that is not afraid of the unfinished, of ambiguity, of plurality.
The Liberation That Does Not Seek Applause
Here, then, the point of no return you speak of – the moment when the need to be understood vanishes – becomes the moment of maximum creative power. It is not contempt. It is the recognition of an elementary truth: you are writing in a language the world does not yet know. You are translating the untranslatable of your experience. How can you expect someone who has only ever read black-and-white maps to understand the colours you are describing?
The real turning point, for many female authors, was abandoning the search for recognition in the drawing-room of the lords of literature. It was turning one's back on the question: "Am I expressing myself correctly?" to embrace another, more urgent one: "Am I speaking my truth?". It is the shift from writing well to writing true. This shift required an act of enormous courage: to look within, into those shadowy zones that culture had labelled as shameful, irrelevant, "too feminine". For some, it was the immersion in childhood and its desperate lucidity. For others, the ruthless investigation close to the wild heart of consciousness. For others still, the sounding of female friendship as a geopolitical force, of love as a battlefield, of motherhood as an ambivalent and wrenching experience.
This writing stops asking for permission. It does not try to insert itself into the canon; it bursts through it, creating a side breach. Some heroines of this narrative are not "likeable" or edifying characters. They are hurricanes of life, faithful only to themselves. Others did not want to be models for young ladies, they wanted to write, and they were sullen and impetuous. These voices do not explain, do not justify. They expose. Their light is not the reassuring one of the streetlamp, but the intermittent and wild one of the will-o'-the-wisp. It is a light that can disturb, because it illuminates corners one would prefer to keep in half-light: the boredom in marriage, the competitiveness between mothers, the physical toll of the female body, the complexity of desire that seeks no redemption.
To accept incomprehension is the final act of liberation. It means your ideal reader is no longer the literary critic, but that woman – or that man – who in your words recognizes an echo of a truth never before articulated. Your writing then becomes a signal in the dark, a beacon for shipwrecks of the same shipwreck. It is not meant to convince those comfortable in their black-and-white vision. It is for those who, in the grey, have begun to perceive shades and are desperately seeking a name for them.
The room of one's own, therefore, is not a refuge. It is an outpost. From there, one does not passively observe the world. From there, one rewrites it. Word by word, women writers have dismantled the stereotype of the angel-woman and the demon-woman, have refused the destiny of wife and mother as the only narrative horizon, have told of the body not as an object of desire but as a subject of experience. They have shown that intimacy is not small, but is the microcosm where all the great philosophical battles are played out: for power, for freedom, for meaning.
Keep shining, even if no one applauds. Because perhaps, the real task is not to be applauded, but to be recognized by those who matter: by those who seek the same light. Your intensity is not a factory defect. It is proof that the darkness is not absolute. A single point of true, tenacious light is enough to prove it. Women's literature, in its most radical and authentic search, is precisely this: a tenacious point of light that, instead of adapting to the darkness, invents a new way of seeing. Without asking permission. Simply, because it must. Because, as the one sitting on that riverbank knew, on that room, on that freedom, everything depends.
#FeminineWriting #LiteratureAndFeminism #ARoomOfOnesOwn #EcritureFeminine #WomensLiterature #UnheardVoices #WritingAsLiberation #FemaleCanon #nostr