Galperin, W., ed. "Re-reading Box Hill: reading the practice of reading everyday life." Six articles on the Box Hill scene in Emma . "Unanswerable Gallantry and Thick-Headed Nonsense" by Michael Gamer. "Part of my aim is simply to show its complexity of signification, particularly the degree to which Austen frustrates even the most fundamental acts of interpretation and upsets rudimentary correspondences between signifiers and apparent signifieds." "Box Hill and the Limits of Realism," by George Levine. "Perhaps the most difficult thing for a modern reader of Emma to do is to take it straight, to accept Mr. Knightley as the moral authority the story seems to make him." "Social Theory at Box Hill: Acts of Union," by Deidre Lynch, who sees the scene as an acting out of several contradictory imperatives of nationhood and British identity. "Leaving Box Hill: Emma and Theatricality," by Adam Potkey, who traces Austen's stated preferences for Cowper and Johnson in pursuing issues of theatricality and display, to an ultimately deconstructive result. "Saying What One Thinks: Emma at Box Hill," by W. Walling, who considers the problem of anachronism, especially as it relates to views that either praise Austen's progressivism or bemoan her cultural limitations. "Boxing Emma; or the Reader's Dilemma at the Box Hill Games," by Susan J. Wolfson, who offers a close reading of the episode and its ramification in Emma . Wolfson contends it demonstrates that the character of Miss Bates is essential to a shifting idea of community in the novel. Romantic Circles (2001).
Feminist critical analysis is concerned with the politics of women’s authorship, representation of the women’s condition within literature. Origin of feminine criticism is originally derived from the classic works of 19th Century women authors like George Eliot and Margaret Fuller. Based on the feminist theory , the feminist critical evaluation analyzes elements like stereotypes of women, images of women in literature, literary mistreatment of women, place of women in patriarchal societies and challenges faced by women in the modern era.
Obama asks his friend, “You seem surprised at Eliot’s irreconcilable ambivalence; don’t you share this ambivalence yourself, Alex?” Instead of isolating Eliot in some social, ethnic, or sexual category, instead of hearing in him the voice of political or ideological error, Obama finds a deep ambivalence that might be felt by anyone, just as Kermode sees Eliot’s “shudder” as a special case of something felt by everyone. And instead of making an assertion to his friend about her own ambivalence, Obama asks her a rhetorical question, because no one can be certain about someone else’s inner life, though sympathy makes it possible to guess. Having first placed Eliot in his historical and literary context, then having pointed to what is unique in him, Obama ends by showing how he speaks to any individual reader who pauses to listen. This is what the finest literary criticism has always done.