Black Female Sexuality in Passing

I think it’s interesting that when you consider the sexual context, Irene projects onto Clare and Brian that they are threatening her security, but in reality, Irene is threatening her own security with her homoerotic feelings.  In being the actual threat, her paranoia becomes more plausible, especially as the homoerotic feelings and paranoia escalalate simultaneously.  Passing certainly puts several interesting subjects up for discussion, and that being so, I have to disagree with or at least challenge some of Deborah McDowell’s assertions.  First of all, she argues that sexuality is the center of the novel, and race is not.  She says, “the books invites the reader to place race at the center of any critical interpretation” (pg. 372).  Perhaps this is because race is actually the central idea.  Maybe Larsen did want to discuss sexuality as the main idea, and was just too afraid to do so, but I must say I think race is in the forefront for a reason.  Also, I am of the belief that when you are looking for support in a piece of work for a certain argument, sometimes you begin to pull out things that may not have been meant in a certain context.  In McDowell’s case, she asserts that the envelope at the very beginning of the novella is a metaphorical vagina (pg. 374).  Not being an expert on criticism of Passing, this may be an accepted idea, and McDowell does provide support for her idea.  However, can’t an evelope just be an envelope?  I think that the sexual undertones in this book are valid, and a good thing to consider in discussing the work, but  I think this article possible placed an unnecessary amount of emphasis on the sexual tension between Clare and Irene.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Black Female Sexuality in Passing

  1. I tend to agree with you on the subject of the envelope, Ashley. This is the moment in McDowell’s reading that I’m most skeptical of. It seems a bit forced, something like saying a particular poem is about burritos. I don’t know if she could have done a better job connecting this particular “how” to her overarching “what.”

    Having said that, it’s worth remembering that Larsen is writing in the 1920s, when everyone is paying attention to Freud. Whether one thinks Freud got anything right or got everything wrong, what one has to realize is that they thought he was right. And so Freudian interpretation of symbols is more apt to be correct in modernist literature than in other periods.

Comments are closed.