Choice 评论

Frickey, for whom there is no background given among the (incomplete) notes on contributors, dismisses the importance of feminist approaches to Rhys. Yet, recent interest in Rhys is the result of feminist perspectives on her work, and these cannot be cavalierly ignored without severely limiting the usefulness of a critical perspective, whether provided for ^D["the general reader. . .scholars [or] serious readers.^D]" This aversion to feminist perspectives on Rhys may explain the choice of critical pieces, which are, for the most part, at least ten years old. The limitations of vision and the dated quality of the selections are not offset by the bibliography, which is incomplete with regard to citations from 1987 on. Furthermore, the editor's notes on the need for a comprehensive bibliography ignore the annual bibliography furnished by the Jean Rhys Review. There are several fine pieces in the collection, and there is a need for a collection of critical pieces on Rhys for students, scholars, and readers, but this work does not quite serve.