In her recent study entitled Virginia Woolf’s Afterlives: The Author as Character in Contemporary Fiction and Drama, Monica Latham shows that “[t]he repeated patterns of madness and suicide are often central to [Woolf’s] afterlives in fiction”, and she notably demonstrates how “[a]s a textual construct, Woolf unfortunately remains trapped in deeply rooted, stubborn stereotypes despite many authors’ attempts to rescue and liberate her from the dominant image of madness and tragic suicide”. Beyond fiction, these two most intimate aspects of Woolf’s life have, for decades now, highly influenced the public and critical reception of her life and work. Indeed, the looming presence of “madness” and suicide, which both critics and common readers keep bringing up, discussing, and scrutinising, tends to frame – in the various senses of that word – Virginia Woolf as the figure of the madwoman in the river. But what of Woolf’s feminist reception? How do feminist critics engage with that specific construct of Woolf? What do they do with it? And do they undo it? At the junction of Woolf studies, feminist studies, and metacriticism, I explored in this paper how feminist critics have tackled, evaded, or subverted the issue of Woolf’s so-called madness and suicide, and wondered if a feminist ethics and politics of reception could be crafted from the feminist reception of Woolf’s intimacy.