Washington Irving and Content vs. Bradstreet/Wheatley and Social Status

Today in class we talked about Rip Van Winkle, specifically the Preface by Washington Irving. We talked about why the writing was different from other writings of his time, along with how it carried some traits of a typical fictional story from the early 19th century. After discussing the uniwue characteristics of this story, and Washington Irving in general, I think that it would be fair to say that the type of writing done by Washington Irving is just as innovative of that of Anne Bradstreet and Phillis Wheatley. In the late 17th century, Anne Bradstreet was making her mark as one of the first female writers of her time, beginning her own revolution for the community of aspiring women writers by beginning to publish her work. In the late 18th century, Phillis Wheatley was being discovered as a rare enslaved writer, showing that even black, women slaves can create literature. Washington Irving made his grand appearance by the content of his writing, not by his identity. He was a typical American male, but unlike Bradstreet and Wheatley, the surprise in his writing was the contact that nobody before him would ever dare to write. His writing took more of a risk than any fictional writer before him. He wrote exactly whatever story was on his mind, and not just a story that would be acceptable to his audience. Is this innovative form writing regarding content (the writing involving one's own, creative ideas, no matter how insulting or offensive to another group of people) as important as the innovation of Bradstreet and Wheatley (the focus on the innovation of the author and their social status rather than content)? Or do you believe that content is always changing, but new social classes birthing literary innovators is a more significant change?