Edith Wharton Society Panels at the American Literature Association Conference, Boston, MA, May 2025

The Edith Wharton Society organized two panels at the 2025 American Literature Association conference in Boston: Wharton and Democracy, chaired by Emily Coit from the University of Chicago with a response from Arielle Zibrak from the University of Wyoming, and Wharton and Popular Culture, chaired by Emily J. Orlando from Fairfield University. Both panels fostered new ways of thinking about Edith Wharton within the context of our lives in 2025. During the democracy panel, compelling conversations took place that not only related to the politics during Wharton’s life but also linked to our current political climate in the United States. Similarly, the panel on popular culture considered Edith Wharton’s long-lasting relevance and popularity in our twenty-first-century culture, especially among younger generations of Wharton fans and readers. By making connections between morals and opinions, politics and culture, and the past and present, these two panels inspired innovative ways of understanding the great importance of Wharton’s work and its broad, enduring applicability to our own time.References to binaries and boundaries, such as the relationship between the private and the public, were consistent among some of the papers presented on the Wharton and Democracy panel. Nir Evron of Tel Aviv University referred to philosopher Judith Shklar’s theory of vices when he pointed out that the separation between the private and public can be bridged by vices. If we understand the actions of such characters in private and public settings alongside their vices, then we can successfully define their character. Elizabeth Youngman of the University of Wyoming also pointed out the divide between the private and public in her discussion of female independence in Wharton’s “Bunner Sisters.”Panelists at the Wharton and Popular Culture panel all made clear that Wharton’s current popularity is a result of the relatability of her work to the audiences of today’s new Gilded Age. As Orlando emphasized in her introduction, Wharton’s relevance today can be explained in part by the reach of her work far beyond the academy and into public acclaim through adaptation and social media virality. Elif S. Armbruster of Suffolk University reported showing adaptations of The Age of Innocence to her students, who were surprised by the extent to which they were able to relate to its contents. As all the panelists pointed out, social media plays a huge role in the way Wharton’s work becomes known to younger generations. Armbruster described how young people are more likely to read Wharton’s work after they first encounter her in movies and social media. H. J. E. Champion of Université Bordeaux Montaigne, France, also foregrounded the significant impact that social media has on current readership by pointing out how many people became intrigued by The House of Mirth after the actor Timothee Chalamet posted a selfie holding the book on his Instagram story. On the surface, these modes of proliferating Wharton’s work seem quite positive, but a few skeptical questions came up during the panel. For example, Champion pondered how Wharton would feel about this popularization of her literature and about whether this way of literary consumption is shallow.As is a common theme among much of Wharton’s fiction, feminism was an existing link across the two panels. On the democracy panel, Youngman argued that Wharton uses the story of the Bunner sisters to reshape the goals of the women’s movement at the time to present a more realistic path to achieve independence as a woman. Similarly, on the popular culture panel, Armbruster pointed out that the 2023 television series The Buccaneers promotes feminism by portraying a powerful sisterhood consisting of women who challenge social norms. Feminism was an especially relevant topic among the papers on popular culture since multiple panelists theorized that the feminist aspect of Wharton’s work is why her writing continues to be thought of as relatable in our current society. For instance, Laëtitia Nebot-Deneuville from Dublin City University pointed to the feminist outlook at the end of The Glimpses of the Moon when the lead female character does not give in to the social expectations of the time. Leila Stegemoeller of University of California, Santa Barbara added to the conversation by comparing The House of Mirth to a twenty-first-century novel.Another commonality that existed among the dialogues of both panels was the significance of perception when it comes to Wharton’s work. Coit’s paper explained Walter Lippmann’s ideas of perception in relation to politics, media, and news. By pointing out the consistent presence of newspapers in The Age of Innocence, Coit discussed the connections between Lippmann’s and Wharton’s ideas on how information is circulated in modern democracy, positioning Wharton within the debate between Lippmannian and Deweyian ideas of educational access and the information economy. Comparably, Youngman discussed the ways in which knowledge and education are portrayed in “Bunner Sisters.” Wharton was a supporter of the Working Girls’ Club movement of the time, which aimed to educate and support female labor. In this way, knowledge was shared through the method of education rather than through print. Additionally, Evron argued that incuriosity and moral inattentiveness are represented most negatively in Wharton’s work. Her emphasis on both vices reflects Wharton’s high regard for education and knowledge alongside her judgment of those who lack intelligence. In her response, Zibrak outlined the connections among Wharton’s work, education, and politics. She pointed out that some vices that Wharton prioritized may be fixed through education, but also that Wharton herself argued that reading can be a vice when it comes to “mechanical readers,” who, Zibrak suggested, are comparable to the characterization of readers and writers of autofiction as considered by Anna Kornbluh in her recent work Immediacy. The rich conversation that followed began with a question posed by Zibrak’s response: Is elitism of the kind Wharton derides a more Lippmanian or Deweyian response to the idea of broad educational access? Does Wharton really want education? Panelists discussed Wharton’s relation to the reading public and the apparent paradox of her broad appeal and elitist reputation.A conversation on perception was also raised in the panel on popular culture in relation to how readers (then and now) perceive Wharton’s work. Stegemoeller focused on how readers perceive female characters as being likable or unlikable, regarding, for example, traits like superficiality and irritability. Positing a societally imposed balance that exists for women’s personalities in terms of perception, she compared the lead female characters in Ottessa Moshfegh’s My Year of Rest and Relaxation (2018) and Wharton’s The House of Mirth in terms of being simultaneously perceived as vulnerable but not too vulnerable. As discussed among the panelists, modern adaptations of Wharton’s work in the form of movies and TV shows have the capability of reshaping Wharton’s ideas to create a different perception for the modern viewer. Champion explained in her paper that current social media platform communities, like BookTok and Bookstagram, have the power to change people’s perception of classic literature. This is often done by posting things like aesthetic pictures of book covers or relatable quotes pulled from books. Nebot-Deneuville pointed to the importance of considering how literature is perceived differently among academic audiences and public audiences. Armbruster queried if and how Wharton’s writings are truly reaching younger generations. It became clear through the panel’s conversations that representations of Wharton in popular culture shift younger readers’ perceptions of Wharton into something that can be considered relatable and modern.Both panels organized by the Edith Wharton Society at ALA brought up compelling ideas that are extremely relevant in this current age where politics and social media dominate our conversations. Among all the discussions that were had during these two panels, one thing rings true: Edith Wharton’s life and writing continue to withstand the test of time.In this paper, Evron aimed to point out the vices that exist in Wharton’s work and how she represents them. Evron referred to concepts in Judith Shklar’s 1984 Ordinary Vices to situate his work. According to Shklar, the most relevant vices that undergird our society can be defined as cruelty, hypocrisy, snobbery, betrayal, and misanthropy. Evron made an argument for how these vices appear to be ranked in Wharton’s point of view. He contemplated what vices she prioritized in her work and what these say about her thinking on politics. He explained that cruelty, hypocrisy, incuriosity, and inattentiveness are the vices most represented in Wharton’s work, but he argued that ultimately moral inattentiveness seems to be ranked as the most important vice to Wharton. Moral inattentiveness calls for individual self-improvement and depoliticizes vice, which may correctly reflect Wharton’s conservative political views.Youngman’s main argument was that in the 1916 novella “Bunner Sisters” Wharton makes an argument for reform by depicting a realistic representation of women’s experiences in the world of business through the story of Ann Eliza and Evelina, who start out running a successful business together. When one sister leaves and enters the public sphere, she gets taken advantage of by a man, becomes ill, and eventually dies. By telling this narrative, Wharton subtly criticizes the idealistic women’s movement of the time while making an argument that women should remain in the private sphere and rely on their domestic skills to be financially successful.Coit argued that Edith Wharton and Walter Lippmann should be put in conversation with one another due to their thoughts on democracy, media, and information. She explained that in Wharton’s memoir, she utilized Lippmann’s idea of the “dissolution of the ancestral order” to reflect on her life. Coit argued that both public figures deserve our attention because of their thoughts on a national point of view along with how it is shaped. This thinking is especially relevant when there is great change happening and the future of democracy is unknown. Coit focused on the role that media plays in shaping the opinions of voters. She pointed out that Lippmann and Wharton shared the viewpoint that the elite should guide the general public in terms of knowledge and were both often wrapped up in conversations about the circulation of information in relation to democracy and politics. Coit argued that Wharton’s and Lippmann’s discussions on the sharing of information in modern democracy are crucial to consider today in the current political climate of the United States.Armbruster argued that Wharton’s work can be considered even more relevant and relatable now than it was during the time of Wharton’s actual career. Armbruster pointed out that Wharton was perceived as an “it girl” during her lifetime and now she can be considered a “girl’s girl.” Although these are slightly different titles, they both are based on the premise of women supporting women. Armbruster explained that culture from the Gilded Age seems to be infiltrating current popular culture, not just in terms of Wharton’s work, but also through other representations of the period, such as the popular show Bridgerton. Similarly, The Buccaneers, based on Wharton’s unfinished novel by that name, has done a successful job of introducing Wharton to a new generation. Armbruster argued that by incorporating Wharton into popular culture, young people are more inclined to pick up Wharton’s books and continue her long-lasting popularity.Nebot-Deneuville posited that the recent resurgence of Wharton’s 1922 The Glimpses of the Moon can be explained by its relatability. She pointed out that it was Wharton’s first book that came after her award-winning novel, The Age of Innocence. When Glimpses first came out, it surpassed the number of sales of The Age of Innocence, which attests to its great success at the time. Nebot-Deneuville talked about the gap that exists between public opinion and academia when it comes to Glimpses, because it is not often discussed in scholarship. She explained that its popularity might be due to its humor, the positive male hero, the happy ending, the portrayal of antimaterialistic living, and the escapist quality of the book. Nebot-Deneuville argued that Glimpses is a timeless novel that remains relatable to readers today.Stegemoeller shaped her paper around references to Wharton’s work in Ottessa Moshfegh’s 2018 novel, My Year of Rest and Relaxation, alongside the related conversation of how female characters can be portrayed as unlikable in fiction and how the concept of likability is directly related to the popularity and success of the books. While discussing the recent book in relation to The House of Mirth, she pointed out that the main female characters in these novels are considered unlikable due to certain strong characteristics that shape their personalities, such as irritability and superficiality. Stegemoeller argued that the two lead characters, and the books themselves, may represent a type of individualistic feminism that plays on how likable the female characters are and how their personalities are considered controversial based on reader responses.Champion focused her paper on how social media can be used to contribute to Wharton’s current popularity. She explained that social media influence has completely changed the way people interact with classic literature. Because of this, she decided to explore the importance of social media, specifically BookTok and Bookstagram, to see if she could encourage book influencers to read Wharton’s The Reckoning and post about it on their accounts. After contacting forty people, one ended up doing a review and enjoying the book. After considering the results, Champion contemplated how Wharton would feel about this method since she wasn’t against modernity, but she wasn’t on board with all technologies since she didn’t like films. Champion brought up a compelling way of considering how Wharton’s work can be repackaged and dispersed in an aesthetic manner to appeal to young generations.