Feminist Re-reading of Henry Jamess Washington Square :: Henry James Washington Square

An Inappropriate Feminist Re-reading of total heat Jamess Washington Squ arThe clause Re-producing James is a defense of the feminist perspective in regards to Henry Jamess Washington Square. The article discusses the point of truth in words. Stating only (in a roundabout way) that the readers interpretation and perspective of reading the novel determines their understanding of the truth. The reservoir Barbara Rasmussen, states that another critic, Ian buzzers perspective of Henry Jamess writing exploits the ideological equipment of that which it opposes patriarchal capitalism (63). However, her only point seems to be that in Ian Bells criticism as well(p) as in Washington Square, the writing is completely phallic, capitalistic, and patriarchal.In support the reading of Washington Square and Ian Bells critical essays, from a feminist perspective, Rasmussen believes that it tramp change the way one sees these writings. She seems to think that Jamess and Bells writings both ex pect on a phallocentric exclusion of difference, but will themselves be only when as complicitin the face of patriarchal inadequacies (66). Yet, this seems to be the contradiction that poses as the general project of a feminist re-reading of American Literature.This article was arduous to read. Rasmussen was a bit roundabout at getting to her point, and once I finally figured out what she was saying, I didnt really care. I personally think that Rasmussen is a male chauvinist woman with an over-rated opinion She attacks both Bell and James and unjustly signifies that because the writings are from a male perspective, they are themselves sexist and phallocentric. She also implies that the feminist perspective, which she uses as no more than a title under which she can vent her own sexist attitude, is of all important(p) importance in reading Jamess Washington Square and Bells perspectives. She believes that since she reads from the feminist perspective, she has more challenges an d undertakings to recognize and deal with because of Jamess and Bells use of phallic relations.One must not, however, sway Rasmussen seriously. I felt that she was writing to please herself, and others like her who think that it is unjust, and sexist to write in a patriarchal manner. However, Washington Square was compose in 1880 and was very much a patriarchal time. So of course, it would incur been written in that perspective, especially since it was written by a man.