This thesis examines what the introduction of sexuality as a category of analysis illuminates and occludes about Henry James and his work, in particular “The Beast in the Jungle.” I used Leon Edel’s biographies of James as a point of comparison for Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet to examine what the introduction of sexuality as a category of analysis shows about readers’ preconceived notions regarding sexuality, the influences James was under when he wrote, and about James’s sexuality. I examined how I could incorporate a reading that allows for different levels and different objects of desire. I examined how James has been represented by some novelists and critics since Sedgwick’s work. Sexuality does show new and interesting aspects about readers’ ideas about sexuality, about the society that James lived in, and about James’s lifestyle, but a broader definition of sexuality that includes recognition of different levels of desire as well as different objects of desire should be incorporated. James’s assumed sexuality is almost always inextricably linked to the interpretations of his fiction. However, there are aspects outside of sexuality that should be taken into account when looking at the work and life of James. Discussion of sexuality should allow for different levels of desire from individual to individual, or situation to situation, so as to avoid normalizing certain behaviors. An impoverished vocabulary and an ingrained system of either-or thinking make it very difficult to discuss the middle ground between homosexuality and heterosexuality.