“idealized feminist and feminine judge is, ironically, in many ways engaging in a type of decision making which owes more to a literary and narrative sensibility than the interpreting judge… idealized feminist or feminine judge finds herself facing interlocking wens of stories which she must somehow weave together and then complete.” (206)

West talks again about this “stock story” that law creates, which is not the experience of everyone affected by the law. This is why it is essential to acknowledge all voices and narratives that are generally not heard. Which in turn is the importance of the narrative. The law deals with people and their possible or actual experiences, so using this interpretation method that uses conflicting rules, principles, and theories disregards all other stories. The narrative allows the education of the ignorant and provides truth to the misinformed judgment. The feminist theory uses this strategy very strategically. But does that make it effective? Feminism and literature do the same thing– they want to bring forward excluded voices to change the legal theory. Feminism itself also follows this “stock” story of what the white heterosexual woman faces.

What is West’s point? That literature and feminist theory are both important in making a change in our society? Does she think that this will be successful? How do we push for literature that is outside the “canon” and highlight marginalized voices?