 |
|
|
ENG
3230October 1, 1999: Essays on James's Washington Square
Cynde Reese
Much is said of the internal reality of the characters in Henry James's novel Washington Square. It is seen as a "psychological novel" where most of the action takes place in the minds of the characters. In an essay titled, "Washington Square: A Study in the Growth of an Inner Self," James W. Gargano addresses the internal reality of the character Catherine Sloper. Within the essay, Gargano argues that "James anatomizes the process by which Catherine's active, secret existence transforms her into an imaginative woman" (129). Although a few of his premises seem far-fetched, I agree with the major arguments of his critique. Most of his examples support his thesis well.
Early in the essay Gargano states that, "in James's fiction, naivete may wear the look of an empty mind, but it is often the ideal preparation for receiving life fully and impressionably" (130). Gargano then tells us that Catherine will feel more intensely because she has not known strong emotions before. According to him, "her ingenuousness is the key to her genuineness and her sense of seeing, feeling, and judging life for the first time" (130). I feel this is a key element in understanding Catherine.
Gargano also brings out how well James "traces [Catherine's] developing insight" (131) into her own nature. He refers to the part in the novel where James writes, "She watched herself as she would have watched another person, and wondered what she would do" (qtd. in Gargano 131). Then Gargano adds, "it is hard to write off as dull a young woman with such a vivid 'contact' with her own development" and Gargano also felt that "James intended the dullness to be ascribed to the bright people around her who never even glimpse her hidden abysses" (131). This is an interesting viewpoint, which, when applied to the novel, adds a deeper perception of the characters.
Some of Gargano's other premises were not as insightful for me. For example, I had trouble with what Gargano called Catherine's "transcendentalizing imagination" that causes her to create "beautiful figments" of Townsend that possess her and become the "paramount value of her life, and other attachments, no matter how strong, must somehow accommodate themselves to it." (132). This contention tends to belittle Catherine's intelligence as well as her grasp of reality.
I also disagreed with one of Gargano's conclusions that, "loss is the real goal for which James's central characters are secretly striving, that they engage life only to see that it falls below their lofty expectations and that mastery and transcendence are gained by renunciation" (135). The strong character that Catherine has become by the end of the novel clearly belies this statement. She has dignity and respect for herself, which this conclusion does not support.
- Gargano, James W. "Washington Square: A Study in the
- Growth of An Inner Self." Critical Essays on Henry
- James: The Early Novels. Ed. James Gargano.
- Boston: G.K. Hall &Co., 1987. 129-136.
Gretchen Anthony
In his essay, "Washington Square: A Study in the Growth of an Inner Self," James W. Gargano argues convincingly that the Henry James's novel, Washington Square, revolves around the emotional, psychological, and spiritual development of Catherine Sloper. With one small exception, Gargano makes his case so persuasively that it seems hard to believe that there could be any other view of Catherine and her role in the book. Yet, Gargano asserts that James scholars before him have persistently focused elsewhere leaving Catherine to be categorized much the same way her father characterizes her as dull and listless (Gargano 355, 357).
Gargano rightly shifts the critical debate from fascination with the ethical conundrum of Dr. Sloper's behavior to concentration on the process of self-realization which takes place slowly and silently in Catherine's mind (Gargano 355). Finding proof of his thesis in the exacting way James investigates Catherine's growth, Gargano sees that James has purposely shown Catherine as innocent in the beginning of the story to demonstrate a contrast to who she becomes as she begins to wake up to herself as the story progresses, and contends that upon meeting Townsend, Catherine "emerg[es] from a sort of dormancy" (Gorgano 356). Gorgano astutely points out that meeting Townsend is not a horrible mishap in the life of Catherine Sloper, but an event which catalyzes the girl to mature in her thinking and feeling.
Gargano pays special attention not only to Catherine's behavioral changes, but to the way James notes those changes as part of an inner process (Gargano 356). From her deceptive replies to her father's straight forward questions to the realization that she is separate and autonomous, Catherine evolves and becomes more sophisticated emotionally leaving all the other main characters to continue operating in their predictable ways. Evidence of James' regard for his heroine's development can be found throughout the second half of the novel. After Catherine informs her father that she and Townsend plan to marry and her father responds by suggesting a postponement and a European tour, James' narrator tells us that:
her father's displeasure . . . cost the girl . . .a great deal of deep welling sorrow-sorrow of the purest and most generous kind. . . but for the first time . . . .there was a spark of anger in her grief." (James 140)
Gargano correctly praises James for "undertak[ing] the difficult art of making the undemonstrative, psychic unfolding of his heroine arresting and interesting" (Gargano 357).
Gargano acknowledges that many readers find Catherine "stupid" for not recognizing Townsend's heinous deceit, but answers skeptics with the notion that Catherine is demonstrating a kind of spiritual wonder. Offering the counter example of Mrs. Penniman's irresponsible tendency to propagate romantic fantasy, Gargano asserts his claim that Catherine's thinking is a kind of sacred expression of "faith and poetry" (Gargano 359).
Gargano's essay authoritatively argues that it is James's intention to show the transcendent nature of emotional, psychological and spiritual growth by focusing on the subtle development of Catherine Sloper, but one part of his discussion lacks insight. Gargano seems to have trouble with the way James leaves Catherine in the end. He suggests that there is undue emphasis on her "spinsterishness" and "mechanical life," and that the narrator's final words, "picking up her morsel of fancywork, [and] seat[ing] herself with it again-for life, as it were" imply an empty period of waiting for death (Gargano 362, James 219). This interpretation of the end of Washington Square is inconsistent with Gargano's earlier contentions, and should be re-examined. Another possible and significantly more powerful interpretation of the ending of the book-that James is showing Catherine as fully self-contained and ultimately satisfied with the choices that she has made-makes more sense. Despite his final reticence, the quality of his thinking and the quantity of his evidence suggest that James Gargano has a good understanding of Henry James's main artistic occupation in writing Washington Square.
- Gargano, James W. "Washington Square:
- A Study in the growth of an Inner Self."
- James, Henry. Washington Square. New
- York: Signet, 1979.
Brett Ganyard
After reading Henry James's Washington Square, I was left a bit curious as to why James had so many static characters in his novel. Character development is a major literary device in most works, but was almost completely ignored in this book. I say almost because Catherine's demeanor seems to, even if just to the most subtle degree, drift towards an unphilanthropic attitude. Dr. Austin Sloper, his two sisters and poor Morris Townsend remain rigidly in their roles from start to finish, even throughout the span of two decades.
Fortunately, the most accomplished poet T. S. Eliot, defends James on exactly this topic in his short essay, "A Prediction." "With 'character,' in the sense in which the portrayal of character is usually expected in the English novel," Eliot writes, "he had no concern" (55). He went on to add " 'character' is only one of the ways in which it is possible to grasp at reality" (55). Eliot insists that had James been better at developing characters, his writing would have suffered in other aspects (55).
Fair enough, but then I was left with a question from his 'prediction'. What then is the driving point to Washington Square? Is it the plot perhaps, or the interaction of these concrete characters?
Consider the complexity, or rather lack thereof, of the action and plot. The characters are introduced and Morris Townsend meets young Catherine. They court for a short while and Dr. Sloper investigates the young man's behaviors and concludes that he doesn't like him and forbids the marriage when the idea is presented to him. He and Catherine travel to Europe while Mr. Townsend visits with Lavinia, but upon Dr. Sloper's return, leaves Catherine. Finally, some twenty years later, the doctor dies leaving none of his fortune to his daughter who is visited by Mr. Townsend one last time resulting in absolutely no consequence.
If somebody told me that there was a book in which two hundred pages of plot was accurately and completely summarized in one short paragraph and character development was of no concern, I would have been most certain that what they actually had read was a screenplay for a porno. Plot was obviously not one of James' major concerns with this novel, but to his credit, implements it better than Willa Cather's Death Comes for the Archbishop.
Towards the end of his essay, Eliot hit upon the magic of Washington Square. James "was possessed by the vision of an ideal society; he saw (not fancied) the relations between the members of such a society" (56). If nothing else, James did a superb job of interaction at a social/class level. The intercourse between Townsend's lower class sister and Doctor Sloper illustrates James's commanding penmanship in this regard. With the question of James' merit finally answered by Eliot, I wonder what James would have thought of The Waste Land?
- Eliot, T. S. "A Prediction: A Prediction in Regard to Three
- English Authors." Vanity Fair (1924): 55-56.
Rachel McKinzie
In the article "A Prediction," by T. S. Eliot, Henry James is both criticized and praised as a writer: "His technique has received the kind of praise usually accorded to some useless, ugly and ingenious piece of carving which has taken a very long time to make; and he is widely reproached for not succeeding in doing the things that he did not attempt to do" (55). Eliot seems to feel that James has not been properly criticized, and in fact that some criticisms are contradictory and inconsistent. Perhaps critics of James have expressed themselves in these manners because James's writing is hard to identify with because it is not real.
In Washington Square, there are several components that cause the novel to come across as unrealistic. The most prominent appears to be the characters and how they are presented and interact with each other throughout the novel. The personality of each character is very hard to pinpoint. As I read through the novel, I could not figure out exactly what Doctor Sloper's motives were. Did he really dislike Morris Townsend or was he just trying to keep his daughter from marrying anyone at all? The Doctor's reasons seem sufficient enough, "If Morris Townsend has spent his own fortune in amusing himself, there is every reason to believe that he would spend yours" (71).
However, the Doctor's motives also seem curious. He waited to tell Catherine that he disliked Morris until after he had asked her to marry him, when all along the Doctor disliked Morris. In fact, it was hard to ignore the doctors snide comments about Morris that appeared consistently throughout the book. For example, at the traditional Sunday evening at Mrs. Almond's, the Doctor comments, "'He is amazingly conceited!'" (57). The Doctor comments without having really talked with Morris. He has made up his mind about Morris before he really even meets him
Regardless of James's failure to present real characters who have believable social settings, work for a living, and express emotions and opinions about the trials and tribulations that they encounter, Eliot argues that, "had James been a better hand at character, he would have missed the sensibility to the peculiar class of data which were his province" (55). Perhaps, if James did explain his characters better and have them appear to be more realistic, then his novel, Washington Square, would not be the same. The novel sparked anger in me as I read it because James never does fully engage his characters in real life, and maybe that emotion, or some other emotion, was the reaction from the reader that James was seeking to achieve.
Eliot, T. S. "A Prediction."
Vanity Fair Feb. 1924: 55-56.
Beth
Lowe
I chose to read a critical essay by Michael Kearns entitled, "Henry James, Principled Realism, and the Practice of Critical Reading." In it, Kearns invents the terms "principled reality" and "naïve reality" and how to apply these perspectives when reading Washington Square.
As Kearns explores these two types of realities, he states that the readers should take a stance of "principled realism" which he defines as follows: "principled realism, like pragmatism, is a method which holds that no objective truths or transcendentally privileged perspective can be found but that we can understand enough about a situation or event to be able to act responsibly towards all persons involved." We can achieve this, according to Kearns, by understanding that the characters are fully dimensional. We must look at their strong points, their positions on certain issues, and we might speculate what their downfall might be.
Although Kearns thinks that we who read Washington Square with a principled realistic perspective should remain ethically neutral, he does urge that we also become emotionally involved. He states: " Principled realism recognizes the importance of emotional as well as rational responses; to the extent that readers come to care about the novel's characters, they are in a position to perceive and share the fundamental ethical stance of James's fiction."
On the other hand, Kearns defines his term "naïve realism" as characteristic of "someone who mistakenly elevates socially constructed and verbalized knowledge over the individual and inarticulate rather than accepting both as valuable." Kearns believes that Dr. Sloper and the narrator both practice naïve realism and this, he contends, is dangerous thinking. He continues: " Sloper's naïve realism manifests itself in his belief that he can build a valid theory on facts…he has reduced to propositions."
Kearns implies that James creates fictional characters (such as Dr. Sloper) to help his readers form the correct ethical judgement about the novel. The doctor is so cold, so calculating, the readers naturally would want to take the opposing position. He is not the only one that Kearns believes uses naïve realism. The narrator does as well: "as the story develops and Catherine's experience expands, the narrator remains superior; in particular, he grants the young woman no depth of inner life." Because the narrator chooses not to give Catherine much perspicacity, we as readers practicing principled realism will want to give her more depth. We take a participatory role in this novel by making our own ethical judgements - Dr. Sloper and the narrator guide us as how not to experience Catherine and the world of Washington Square.
- Kearns, Michael. "Henry James, Principled Realism, and
- the Practice of Critical Reading." College English.
- V56n7. pp. 766-787. November 1994.
Danielle Shook
It never fails to amaze me how someone can take a theory and expand on the idea so much that it takes twenty pages to defend his or her thesis.
Such as the case with Michael Kearns, an English professor at the University of Texas - Permian Basin. In Kearns' journal article that appeared in College English, he cites a student's question regarding Chapter 10 of Washington Square: "Why does the narrator tell us that 'this is all that need be recorded of their conversation'? And why does he tell us that if Catherine's aunt had been present for this conversation, she 'would probably have admitted that it was as well it had not taken place beside the fountain in Washington Square'"? (Kearns 766)
Had this question been posed in our class discussion of Washington Square, it would be possible that we would discuss it for a short while and then move on. Not Mr. Kearns instead, he goes on for 19 pages about the questions that his student asked. Granted, there were some but only a few arguments about the questions that I thought Kearns presented well. However, most of the article was cumbersome to me, as the reader, and I questioned whether Kearns was just elaborating on nothing in hopes of being published in an academic journal.
Kearns writes that the question that his student posed was valuable for several reasons, among them being that "it demonstrated for the class an act of critical reading reading that goes beyond a novel's characters, plot, setting, symbols, motifs, and so forth to look at the rhetoric of intention embodied in all of the choices that comprise a novel" (Kearns 766). This is a very valid opinion that Kearns has. Somehow in academic readings, it seems that the important things gets left behind as we stress heavily on the listing that Kearns chose.
Another valid argument that Kearns had is that the student used naïve realism in her reading, and therefore showed ethical issues that are part of the human condition (Kearns 766). As a result, Kearns feels that this enhances the reading of the characters: "I assume that readers will accept the invitation to respond, not only ethically but also emotionally" (Kearns 769-770).
In conclusion, had Kearns left his argument to a simplistic means, I think that this article would have been fascinating to read. However, it was disappointing as it seemed that Kearns fell into the trap that many others have when it comes to journal articles. Their thesis seems to get lost in the language and the length that they lose their reader. While this may be true of me, I also feel that Kearns expressed some interesting aspects of reading that also lies beyond Washington Square.
- Kearns, Michael. "Henry James, Principled Realism, and
- the Practice of Critical Reading." College English.
- V56n7. pp. 766-787. November 1994.
Karrie Brown
In Putt's book Henry James: A Readers Guide, he speaks in a chapter about Washington Square. Within this chapter he goes over the role that Catherine plays in the story. She ultimately chooses spinsterhood, and not to defy her father, and to be the good daughter. The theme of avoidance o f marriage, spinsterhood, is something that is focused on by James in much of his work (Putt 46). Putt dwells on the fact that the father was a cruel man, and gives extraneously long quotes from James's original text to make a small point. I think that this author would have been much more effective if he would have narrowed down his thought in this chapter. Putt touches on a lot of things concerning Washington Square, such as the intrusion of the narrator, in the second person no less, and the analysis of the novel by some Doctors out in the field. It seemed to me that Putt could have been more successful by keeping it short and sweet, and not giving brief synopsis of the entire novel. The novel, Washington Square, Putt says in this chapter, is not even long enough to be considered a novel. Please tell me why. Putt offers no explanation as to why he believes this is so, and really should not have put in his own two cents anyway. Once again this jump in topic indicates a real strain to try to keep up with the subject that the author wishes to discus. He asks more questions than he answers and to me that was very frustrating.
If Putt was really trying to
be objective, he could at least have gotten the answers he
sought so that the rest of us would not have to ponder the
answer for him. Putt seemed to me to be very critical of
this work of James, although he does not deny that this is
definitely one of James's best pieces. This chapter would
have been more helpful to me as a student reading James's
Washington Square, if the author would have taken the
novel more as a piece of literature not as a science project
to be dissected for inspection.
Peter Galligan
In Donald Hall's Afterword of Washington Square, he argues that in spite of the limited number of characters and simplicity of plot, the novel still presents a complicated moral conflict. At the heart of this conflict is Dr. Sloper, "The moral force of this novel lies in the paradox of Dr. Sloper's wrong-rightness" (224). This paradox, of course, assumes that Dr. Sloper is not only right about Morris Townsend's intentions as primarily a fortune hunter who will bring unhappiness to Catherine, but also that Dr. Sloper is wrong to deny his daughter an inheritance based on her intentions to marry Morris Townsend. Assuming these two elements are present in the novel, the moral paradox indeed occurs and Mr. Hall is correct in claiming that "the book is not morally simple" (224). However, Dr. Sloper might not be completely right about Morris Townsend. And if he isn't right in assuming the worst for Morris, then clearly Dr. Sloper is the one-sided villain of the novel.
There is enough evidence in the text to assume that Morris Townsend has great interest in the fortune of Catherine. He readily admits it. As Dr. Sloper inquires of Townsend's sister of the young man's character, it seems that the marriage would be a mistake for Catherine. "This issue is crucial to the moral meaning of the book, for it makes us certain that Catherine's marriage to Morris Townsend would make her miserable" (Hall 228). However, it would be a mistake to invest too much attention into the sincerity of the conversation. The interview that takes place between Mrs. Montgomery and Dr. Sloper might be crucial to the revelation of character in the book. However, the character most revealed might not be that of Morris Townsend. It is in this interview that Dr. Sloper most adeptly shows his skill in the defamation of character. Dr. Sloper has something to prove, and as he claims throughout the book, he understands people. Dr. Sloper makes assumptions based on "a philosophic trick" and Mrs. Sloper takes "some comfort in the doctor's clairvoyance" (James 88-9). He even offers Mrs. Sloper money if Morris does not marry Catherine. Obviously, an objective opinion cannot be reached from such an interview, and thus Morris Townsend's character cannot be validated as strictly a fortune hunter who will make Catherine miserable.
Could Dr. Sloper be on higher moral ground than Morris Townsend? It is in the interview with Mrs. Montgomery that Dr. Sloper shows he cannot be, for he chooses not to judge Morris as an individual. When speaking of Morris Townsend's selfishness, both the doctor and Mrs. Montgomery admit that everyone is selfish. But the doctor proceeds to admit that he does not hide it well (one assumes the doctor does a much better job hiding his selfishness), and Dr. Sloper then admits to looking past Morris as a person: "You see I am helped by a habit I have of dividing people into classes, into types. I may easily be mistaken about your brother as an individual, but his type is written on his whole person" (James 87).
This admission shows that Dr. Sloper's sense of Morris Townsend's character is biased and prejudice. Therefore there is no dichotomy in Dr. Sloper, and the novel does prove to be morally simple.
Hall, Donald. Afterword. Washington Square. By Henry
- James. New York: Penguin, 1979.
- James, Henry. Washington Square. New York:
- Penguin, 1979.
Sara Ann
Hardesty
Henry James' s Washington Square is more than a simple novel with simple characters connected by a simple plot. There are more complex issues brought forth within the text besides a daughter heartbroken over her father's control and the departure of her money grubbing suitor. Yet only the simplistic issues and characterizations are brought forth in the critical article written by Elizabeth Hardwick.
Within the pages of "On Washington Square," published in English 3230, Hardwick offers her readers the entire plot, including the ending of James' novel, without shedding new light on the text. She offers little interpretation of the material and only provides readers with the obvious.
Hardwick explains the novel in such detail; one could almost use it as a Cliff Notes edition to the book. She uses what is said about Townsend to demonstrate that he wants nothing more than Catherine's money, yet she does not look close enough to realize that he is more complex than the information that the narrator provides ("On Washington Square" 26).
The biggest fault in "On Washington Square" is that Hardwick does not recognize that the narrator of Washington Square provides the reader with only the information he wants to, leaving out details that could slant the story. There are several times in the novel when the narrator waffles on his accuracy using phrases like, "It might very well be…" in regards to describing Catherine's emotions (James 36). The narrator also leaves out information, which the reader assumes is unimportant, but cannot be sure, for the narrator has already shone that he does not guarantee to know the emotions of the characters, let alone the importance of their actions. For example, during a conversation between Morris and Catherine the narrator cuts off the conversation and states, "This is all that need be recorded of their conversation" (66). These statements and several like them show the narrator to be unreliable, yet Hardwick explains the novel through the narrator's eyes, portraying the information as accurate.
Hardwick offers no real analysis of Washington Square, providing her reader with an elementary interpretation, one that could easily come from anyone with a minor literature background. Her unfortunate lack of synthesis regarding James and his novel leaves any reader who has read Washington Square disappointed at her inability to critically examine James' work.
- Hardwick, Elizabeth. "On Washington Square." English
- 3230 5:3 (1999): 25-28.
-
James, Henry. Washington Square. New York: Penguin
- Books, 1979.
Matt Johnson
of Separation from Washington Square
One of those crazy Greeks, Aristotle I think, said that art was one step away from life, and criticism was one step away from that. So what does that make a criticism of a criticism? Carry the one, divide by a and move the decimal point…I don't know, I was never that good at math, but it seems like we may need to drop bread crumbs like Hansel and Gretel to find our way back to the original text.
I enjoy criticism, sometimes for the purpose of learning something new and (factual and) exciting that I originally wasn't aware of in the text. Sometimes it is just fun to see where the critic's academic flight of fancy has taken them. Sometimes, and this is often true, a cigar is just a cigar…
Elizabeth Hardwick's (wasn't that Raleigh's wife's name?) article "On Washington Square" can't seem to decide whether it is fish or fowl; the reader has a hard time distinguishing between plot and character summary, New Historicist, Psychoanalytical, Formalist and all other manner of criticism. Nothing, I think was anything shockingly original or eye-opening, leaving me feeling that it was actually more review than actual literary criticism.
Hardwick dances from discipline to discipline throughout the course of the article, leaving the reader feeling spun every which way, swinging for a piñata that isn't even there. Interdisciplinary criticism is not necessarily a bad thing but, in two and-a half full pages of writing, the reader is given a whirlwind tour of too many subjects. She moves from an historical description of the time and setting of Washington Square to physical and psychological character summaries to a suggestion that the character of Austin Sloper may be James's portrayal of his brother William to a relatively long passage on the perfect balance and the source of the novel. Everything that was said was a complete thought, but there was no meat to the information; it was like gnawing on a soup bone while all you really want is a nice roast.
Actually, Hardwick's article was not at all faulty, just dry and altogether too short for the knowledge that it was trying to impart. It could have been three or four times longer and given ample attention to each point. Even better, due to the space constraints of the New York Review, she could have just concentrated on one aspect of the novel that she considered noteworthy. In any case, for the purposes of "On Washington Square," Hardwick needed to give her readers a cogent analysis of one aspect of WS rather than shallow and frustrating glimpses of several, biting off more than something so brief could possibly chew.
- Hardwick, Elizabeth. "On Washington Square." The New
- York Review of Books. 22 Nov 1990: 25-28.
Terri Benedict
The article "Re-producing James" is a defense of the feminist perspective in regards to Henry James's 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 author Barbara Rasmussen, states that another critic, Ian Bell's perspective of Henry James's writing " 'exploits the ideological equipment of that which it opposes': patriarchal capitalism" (63). However, her only point seems to be that in Ian Bell's criticism as well as in Washington Square, the writing is completely phallic, capitalistic, and patriarchal.
In defending the reading of Washington Square and Ian Bell's critical essays, from a feminist perspective, Rasmussen believes that it can change the way one sees these writings. She seems to think that James's and Bell's writings both depend on a "phallocentric exclusion of difference, but will themselves be just as complicit…in 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 hard to read. Rasmussen was a bit roundabout at getting to her point, and once I finally figured out what she was saying, I didn't really care. I personally think that Rasmussen is a sexist 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 crucial importance in reading James's Washington Square and Bell's perspectives. She believes that since she reads from the feminist perspective, she has more challenges and undertakings to recognize and deal with because of James's and Bell's use of phallic relations.
One must not, however, take 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 written in 1880 and was very much a patriarchal time. So of course, it would have been written in that perspective, especially since it was written by a man. Rasmussen is trying to take a novel which shows an accurate portrayal of the patriarchal society, and put today's value judgements, sexist, gender-specific attitudes, and morals into it. In other words, Rasmussen is a jealous woman, with an Electra complex, that because she does not hold a patriarchal acceptance in her own life, believes that the "male" perspective is wrong and unjust to women.
- Rasmussen, Barbara. "Re-producing 'James': Marxism,
- Phallocentrism and Washington Square." Journal of
- American Studies. 23.1 (1989): 63-83.
Katherine Newell
Curiosity about how Washington Square was received at the time it was written lead me to search for a review done at the time the book was published. Expecting that the late nineteenth century reader would have a different view of the work than a late twentieth century reader, it came as a surprise to find that an anonymous review in the February 1881 issue of Spectator related views similar to my own. The reviewer described the book as "dismal," filled with a "leaden-coloured group of emotions," while still conveying a "genius" for "painting character, and genius for conceiving unalloyed dismalness of effect, without tragedy and without comedy" (Gard 88-90). While I agree that the book was dismal and lacked a certain depth of emotion, I did not think it was without tragedy in the character of Catherine, or comedy courtesy of Aunt Penniman.
The anonymous reviewer asks the question: "why is the whole painted against that blank, leaden sky, not merely of absolute hopelessness, but absolute indifference to hope?" (Gard 89) To me, this clearly referred to Catherine for whom hope is an alien concept. Her everlasting endeavors to please her father who perceived her as inferior because of her gender and her singular lack of distinction, eliminated hope from her reservoir of emotions. The tug-of-war between Townsend and her father over Catherine, not for her own sake, but for money, robbed "her of her admiration for her father" (Gard 89), and a fickle fiancée. These loses she suffered behind "her ancient facility for silence" (James 216). Catherine lived her life trying to please others in a bid for love and approval, and ended up without love from anyone or the hope of acquiring it, which made her a tragic figure.
Others might consider having to live with Aunt Penniman ad infinitum to be a tragedy. Aunt Penniman did, however, offer some moments of comic relief with her "silly love of intrigue" (Gard 89) and her romantic flights of fancy. Who could not be amused by Aunt Penniman describing Morris Townsend as an "imperious" man "of great force of character," and saying to herself , "That's the sort of husband I should have had!" (James 38)
The anonymous reviewer indicts James as showing genius in creating his characters, but showing no caring for their fate, which leads to his final comment on the book, "If you desire a consummately clever study of perfect dreariness, you have it in Washington Square" (Gard 89-90). There can be no argument that James displayed a certain amount of cleverness in crafting this tale, unfortunately for his readers, he left out the heart, and gave us only a "dismal tale" (Gard 88) of hopelessness and despair.
- James, Henry. Washington Square. New York: Signet,
- 1964.
- Rev. of Washington Square. Henry James: The Critical
- Heritage. Ed. Roger Gard. New York: Barnes &
- Noble, 1968.
Jan Matney
According to Bette Howland in "Washington Square, the Family Plot," the idea that Henry James should leave Washington Square out of his New York Edition, is "a fitting irony" in that "like Dr. Sloper in the novel, James disinherited his heroine; [and] cut her out of his will" (1). Although James might have wished us to treat Washington Square as an orphan, an outcast, a black sheep as compared with its "better" relatives, Howland's essay quite clearly establishes a familial link between this and James's other, more famous works. As Howland says, "Not only is Washington Square, though disowned, a member of the family--it is the original, the mother lode" (1).
Howland begins her analysis by looking at how James took an anecdote given to him one night at a dinner party and made the "tale purely American." To Howland, the very location of Washington Square stands for James' perception of "the stifling provincial life of America" in that it is "the object of Morris' aspirations; the prison of Catherine's confinement; the seat of the Doctor's power (sic)" (16). By confining the characters to the small world of Washington Square, says Howland, James created a "closed system" in which he could work his irony most effectively (5). She also notes how James changed the simple anecdote into an ironic contest of wills. He made the father the "heavy" rather than the fortune-hunter, and he made the father a scientist, a "scholarly doctor" so that he fit in with the American values of earning an income (or seeming to), and appreciating science (Howland 3).
Howland also does an apt comparison of Washington Square in relationship to James's other novels by pointing out how he frequently talked about love in terms of the financial. As Howland says, "[With James], there's never enough [love] to go around; one person's gain is always another's loss" (7), and money is quite commonly involved in the equation. In addition, James has another system of economy that is always at work in his novels. As Howland says, "at the beginning, the good heroines are all in the dark," but "by the end, they are the only ones who see" (15).
Although I cannot disagree with any of Howland's assertions regarding the orphaned Washington Square and its obvious relationship to James's other novels, I did find Bette Howland's piece to be somewhat disjointed and lacking in focus. It is because of this, I feel, that my own paper comes off the same way. It is in the spirit of Henry James then, that I have decided to disown this essay.
- Howland, Bette. "Washington Square, the Family Plot."
- Raritan. 15 (1996): 88-110. 28 September 1999.
- <http://firstearch.oclc.org/FETCH:...ml/fs/fulltext.ht
- m%22:/fstxt20.htm>
Christine Furgason
Bette Howland, in her criticism of Henry James's Washington Square, focuses on two different aspects of the story's development. She begins by impressing on the reader how Henry James himself viewed his creation and then plunges into the history behind the plot. In doing this, she describes how Henry James has used irony to make this story his own creation. Half way through the article she changes directions and shows how Washington Square is the forerunner of his other novels. She describes how they all have the same basic plot.
According to Bette Howland, Henry James never cared for his novel Washington Square. He refers to it as "A poorish thing" and "a tale purely American" (1). In fact, when he compiled his stories in his New York Edition he omitted this story from its pages. He claimed that, "I've tried to read over Washington Square and I can't and I fear it must go" (1). Ms. Howland claims that it is "a fitting irony. You might say that like Dr. Sloper in the novel, James disinherited his heroine, he cut her out of his will" (1).
The author of the criticism then focuses on how Henry James received the anecdote that he would transform into his novel. Henry James twists the basic story into his own work by way of irony. Dr. Sloper is at the center of James's irony. While Dr. Sloper criticizes Catherine as a simpleton who is "ugly and overdressed" (3) he states, "I expect nothing . . . so that if she gives me a surprise, it will be all clear gain. If she doesn't, it will be no loss" (3). This is ironical because he himself played a part in her creation. Bette Howland states that while Washington Square may lack the 'supersubtle' nuances of Henry James' future novels, it "offers his irony at its most efficient. The novel is a system of ironies a closed system. . . James is always doing two things at once. Except for Catherine, the characters are always describing themselves and each other . . . and everything they say cuts both ways" (5).
Bette Howland also examines the similarities present between Washington Square and The Portrait of a Lady, The Wings of the Dove, and The Golden Bowl. In the four novels, Henry James uses his favorite configuration of a triangle. The stories all have an heiress, a fortune hunter, and an accomplice. This is not the only characteristic of the Jamesian plot. There is also the Jamesian economy to recognize (15). "At the beginning, the good heroines are all in the dark; by the end, they are the only ones who see" (15).
Bette Howland's essay on Washington Square explores two different aspects in the development of the novel. While at times her thoughts become somewhat disorganized, she brings important insight into the development of Henry James's novels. At times, she seems to give the novel more credit then Henry James ever did. Ms Howland provides a refreshing twist to Henry James's family plot.
- Howland, Bette.
"Washington Square, the family plot."
- First Search. 28 September 1999
- <http://firstsearch.oclc.org/FETCH:ml/fs_fulltext.ht
- m%22:/fstxt20.htm>
Jessica Reed
I will admit it; I did not like Washington Square. That said, when I read the first line to Donald Hall's afterword, I felt like throwing the book away! "Everyone likes Washington Square" (220), HA! Well not me, Mr. Hall. I am not exactly sure why I kept on reading; maybe I was feeling a little masochistic that day! So, behold my surprise when I began to come across some of the author's words that expressed many of the thoughts that I had about the novel and its characters. Luckily, I did not have to read much before some of these ideas came into play.
Throughout the "critique," the author addresses not only the work itself, but also how the story came to be. I found it interesting to learn that Henry James had, in reality, only invented the character of Dr. Sloper. The other characters, as well as the novels main plot, had come from a story that James had been told. Considering the absolute realism of the novel, the fact that James had adapted it from reality makes perfect sense.
The aspect of this afterword that I found the most intriguing was Hall's critique of Mrs. Penniman. "Morris Townsend is revealed as her fantasy of an oedipal lover" (230). That line really struck me for it seemed to be the first comment that I had read that was unusual and new. Anyone reading the novel could, rather quickly, deduce the general personalities of the characters. The author's observations about Catherine, Dr. Sloper and Morris do not reveal any new character dynamics. But, his ideas about Mrs. Penniman elaborate beyond the usual "annoying and selfish" remarks.
Throughout the Afterword, Hall remarks about the moral conflict of the novel. The author states that "The moral force of this novel lies in the paradox of Dr. Slopers' wrong-rightnes" (224). He goes on to explain that the reader has a love-hate relationship with Dr. Sloper. You know that he is right about Morris from the beginning, but it is very difficult to overlook what a horrible and cold man he is. In part, I agree with the author's idea; it is difficult to fully despise a man who is right. But, Dr. Slopers' concerns about Catherine marrying the fortune hunting Morris seem more to be concerns over his money, rather than his daughters well being and happiness. Because of that I found that Dr. Sloper was always "wrong." He never became a character that I could like or even respect.
In general, I found that I agreed with the author. There were a few instances when I disagreed with Hall, but overall reading his "critique" left me almost enjoying the novel…. Almost.
- Hall, Donald. Afterword. Washington Square. By Henry
- James. New York: New American Library, 1964.
- 220-32.
Damon Garr
In an essay written in response to an essay written by Walter Besant, both titled "The Art of Fiction", Henry James provides both a new understanding of fiction and greater understand of his own works. James analyses, however briefly, the process of creation of a work of fiction, readers' responses to it, and the requirements of the work and the author. James' language within this essay may be in need of some levity, but he does occasionally break through the haze to make a very strong and effective point: "[T]he only condition that I can think of attaching to the composition of a novel is…that it be sincere" (161)
There is point in which over-analysis takes away from the intention, the point in which talk of theory wanders away from the actual work of art. This is as true today in the critique of fiction as it was in James' time. In analysis we often place requirements of a piece of work. We state that for something to be this, it must then have that. These restrictions and guidelines can hardly be placed on fiction. We cannot presuppose the creation of a work. As James states, "The only reason for the existence of a novel is that it does attempt to represent life" (141).
Restrictions can certainly not be made in regards to the readers' response to the work. Art should not be generated with any concerns for what is "proper" or what will be appropriately pleasing. "It matters little that as a work of art it should really be as little or as much of its essence to supply happy endings, sympathetic characters, and an objective tone, as if it were a work of mechanics" (144). James makes that point that the creation of art should "be perfectly free" (145). The writer should allow for the art and analyze the form afterwards.
Answering Besant's requirement that the "characters must be real and such as might be met with in actual life" (146), James explains it differently; "The characters, the situation, which strike one as real will be those that touch and interest one most" (147). Fiction must not necessarily be "real" and we cannot ask that the writer only write about that which he knows. James weighs impressions with as much importance as experience itself. "If experience consists of impressions, it maybe said that impressions are experience" (149).
James also wishes, in "The Art of Fiction," to make a point on what the necessary subjects of fiction need be, and it is here that we can relate James' theory directly to his own works of fiction. A novel need not contain an adventure; psychological action is enough for James. "A psychological reason is, to my imagination, and object adorable pictorial; to catch a tint of its complexion - I feel as if that idea might inspire one to Titianesque efforts" (157).
James makes a great many statements about the state of fiction and what we can expect, or not expect, of the novel, but the best statements are in regards to the quality of the author. "[T]he deepest quality of a work of art will always be the quality of the mind of the producer" (160). We cannot make expectations on the work of art, that is, the novel in itself, but what is required is the competent writer. Henry James, obviously thinking much of the writer, and himself, put is very succinctly, "No good novel will ever proceed from a superficial mind" (160).
- Besant, Walter. "The Art of Fiction." 1884. Qtd in "The
- Art of Fiction." Henry James. 1884. 139-62. Rpt. in
- Literary Criticism in America. Ed. Albert Van
- Nostrand. New Hampshire: Ayer Co. Publishers,
- 1977.
-
James, Henry. "The Art of Fiction." 1884. 139-62. Rpt. in
- Literary Criticism in America. Ed. Albert Van
- Nostrand. New Hampshire: Ayer Co. Publishers,
- 1977.
Patrick Kelly
The article that I've chosen to critique is posted at; <http://www.dramatica.com/dcritques_folder/dAnalyses.../h_james_washington_square.htm> I found the article to be dry and rather clinical in its approach to this fine work by Henry James.
From the beginning the article presents a cold psychological approach to the characters that James' has made live for me in the short novel. The article covers the character's name, gender, a short description of him or her, the role that character plays in the piece and then goes on to list the basic characteristics of him or her. Motivation, methodology, evaluation and purpose are the four characteristics that are used to describe a character.
The analysis does refer to the original work in many places. I found this to be helpful. For example when it describes Catherine Sloper it takes a quote from the novel to list her as, "a dull, plain girl she was called by rigorous critics" (James 11). This did help redeem the article somewhat. But the basic problem I found with the analysis kept leaping up. It's too scientific an approach for any literary work.
The main problem with "Dramatica," for
me, seems to be in that the theory looks at a story in
relation to, "the mind's problem solving process" ("What is
Dramatica?"). This area of the website goes on to explain
that an author must examine all possible solutions to an
issue in the story. In an effort to prove that the author's
solutions are the best. The Dramatica theory of critique
states that if, "you have covered every angle in your
argument, you've mapped all the ways an audience might look
at the problem and, therefore, all the ways anyone might
look at that problem" ("What is Dramatica?"). This mapping
turns any piece into a psychological pseudo study and
relieves it of any beauty that it may contain. I would say
that the appreciation of art is down by a person's heart not
his or her mind. Therefore the Dramatica Theory of the story
is flawed from its beginnings. The treatment of
Washington Square is just an example of science
trying to capture art and study it in a laboratory.
Literature lives in one's heart and not in the
lab.
