Nancy Gish wrote:
> He did read her work, and was rather condescending about it: he
> called her writing "what might more crudely be called a feminine type,
> when it is also a very sophisticated type, [which] makes its art by
> feeling and by contemplating the feeling, rather than the object into
> which the feeling can be made." he said this resulted in an example
> of "a process of dissociation."
Seems to me he presents a fairly measured criticism by way of an
analysis that holds up to inspection, i.e. if that is Woolf's procedure,
her writing does present an example of dissociation. Is it necessary to
point out that he is speaking of a type, not simply the feminine?
Whether or not it is condescending is secondary to whether it is accurate.