The Disruption of the Feminine in Henry James

Kelly L. Green is a freelance writer living in Ajax, Ontario.

Priscilla L. Walton, assistant professor of English at Carleton
University, has produced a cogent and articulate critical analysis of
the influence of the feminine in the work of Henry James. With
impressive intellectual integrity, she neatly deconstructs the flimsy
foundations of realist interpretations of James’s novels and short
stories—interpretations espoused by realist critics and by the writer
himself.

Walton introduces her argument with an analysis of the realist (or
masculine/referential) critical paradigm. James and other avowed realist
critics and writers maintained that realism in literature reflects life
through an artistic mirror, allowing the reader to refer the work of
literature to true life conditions or situations. Walton maintains that
this realist paradigm is self-defeating. By insisting that realist
literature reflects “real” life, these critics box themselves into
this corner: the realist paradigm can allow for only one correct
interpretation of any particular work of literature. Walton brilliantly
exposes the absurdity of the realist argument by quoting from various
realist critics who proposed wildly different interpretations of
James’s work, from his early novels to the later works of his major
phase.

The bulk of Walton’s analysis concentrates on the changing nature of
the feminine in James’s work. She describes the literary feminine as
absence versus presence; the plural authorial voice; potential rather
than fulfilment; refusal to accept a single interpretation; and ongoing
revision of text. She takes the reader on a journey through James’s
development as a writer, vividly demonstrating how his attempts to
control the feminine voice in his early writings give way in his mature
works to a conscious authorial acceptance of active reading, and of the
potential for multiplicity of interpretation. In short, she makes an
excellent case for removing James from the realist canon.

Walton’s work is generally accessible to the serious reader, although
she does occasionally lapse into deconstructive jargon, such as her
incessant use of terms such as “foreground” (as a verb) and
“polysemous.” This volume is a valuable addition to the study of
Henry James, and is a fine example of the value of poststructuralist
feminist literary criticism.