Virginia Woolf, a true great?

[burntpunk]

Haven consumed the bulk of Virginia Woolf's texts I deeply enjoyed them and can see appreciate why they have been canonised amongst the greatest texts of the 20th century.

Other than the obvious, I've struggled to pinpoint what quantifies her brilliance. Any ideas? Don't state the obvious.

[dfloyd]

you must be pulling our collective leg about Virginia Woolf. I've read most of the well known classics and I even got through the section of Moby Dick on cetaceans, but I couldn't finish To the Light House. I think it's the only classic novel I put away to never pick up again.

[TheFifthElement]

I think Woolf's place in the cannon has more to do with influence and the way her approach changed the shape of the western novel. It's hard to appreciate that Woolf was both a linguistic innovator and an experimental writer, the problem is that with the benefit of 80ish years between her experiments and contemporary fiction the innovation of her work is not immediately apparent. It might be worth reading other works of a similar and earlier time to give you an idea of the contrast.

[Seasider]

Virginia Woolf was an experimental writer in the tradition of The Stream of Consciousness and for my money the best description she gave of what she and a few other novelists were trying to do is in her essay Modern Fiction
She wrote at length about the narrative skills of the Edwardian writers; Galsworthy, Bennett etc but then she wote about what she thought the proper business of the novelist is:-
Life is not a series of gig lamps symmetrically arranged; life is a luminous halo, a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end. Is it not the task of the novelist to convey this varying, this unknown and uncircumscribed spirit, whatever aberration or complexity it may display, with as little mixture of the alien and external as possible? We are not pleading merely for courage and sincerity; we are suggesting that the proper stuff of fiction is a little other than custom would have us believe it.
It is, at any rate, in some such fashion as this that we seek to define the quality which distinguishes the work of several young writers, among whom Mr. James Joyce is the most notable, from that of their predecessors. They attempt to come closer to life, and to preserve more sincerely and exactly what interests and moves them, even if to do so they must discard most of the conventions which are commonly observed by the novelist. Let us record the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall, let us trace the pattern, however disconnected and incoherent in appearance, which each sight or incident scores upon the consciousness. Let us not take it for granted that life exists more fully in what is commonly thought big than in what is commonly thought small.
I think that most people who have trouble with To the Lighthouse or The Waves are looking for a strong narrative thread and it isn't there...well not in the form that we are most used to.

Having said that and having declared myself a great fan of Virginia Woolf I find that when I want to read her I get most pleasure from her essays, her polemic and her letters.

[Lokasenna]

I'll admit that the closer we get to the cotemporary period, the less interested I become with the writers, but Virgina Woolf seemed pretty awful to me, even compared to many of her contemporaries. She simply doesn't appeal to me, either as a writer or an intellectual.

This is personal opinion, of course. But there are few writers out there, I believe, who talk so much but say so little.

[Seasider]

I may be wrong ,of course, but I think the original poster was looking for something a bit more enlightening than your personal opinion. That says much more about you than does it does about her.

[awhileago]

And, why exactly, do you say that Virginia Woolf is awful?

[awhileago]

Virginia Woolf is sublime because:

1. She's one of the first to employ stream-of-consciousness. She experiments with the form of a novel, instead of writing in a linear form like most authors of her time did.
2. To The Lighthouse is almost like an epic poem within the form of a novel. She combines poetry and prose together.
3. To those of you who say you can't get through her book---yes I know she writes really long sentences and I know it's HARD to read Woolf but it's worth the struggle. Her sentences are rich, lovely, complex--like poetry. The reason why a lot of people can't get through her works is because her sentences are like short poems in itself. If you can't get through a page without spending a good 20 minutes on it, it's not because the Woolf is an awful writer, it's because you need to realize that good works take a lot of time to dissect. Don't be lazy and denounce the author instead.

[dfloyd]

I'd rather flunk my Wasserman test
Than read a poem by Edgar Guest
Or a story by Virginia Woolf

[sixsmith]

I regard Mrs Dalloway as one of the more accessible 'stream of consciousness' works. There is, in that novel at least, an enticing, almost musical quality to her prose. I'm led to believe that To the Lighthouse is an altogether less palatable experience.

[Lokasenna]

I may be wrong ,of course, but I think the original poster was looking for something a bit more enlightening than your personal opinion. That says much more about you than does it does about her.

I was, in a polite and balanced way, taking issue with the OP's assertion of 'her brilliance', and that her works 'have been canonised amongst the greatest texts of the 20th century.'

It would be impossible for me to provide reasons for her brilliance, because it is my informed and scholarly opinion that she does not possess such a quality. What I am attempting to suggest, however poorly, is that we should resist totemising figures such as Woolf; rather than trying to provide reasons for her quality (which the OP has defined as not obvious), I am merely suggesting that a better question would be whether her writings were of a high quality.

As I have said, in a civil manner and making it clear that it is my own personal opinion, I do not believe she is a great writer. Nor do I think she is a great intellectual.

Perhaps that does say something about my personal tastes, but I promise you that I am not alone in these thoughts.

[Seasider]

As I have said, in a civil manner and making it clear that it is my own personal opinion, I do not believe she is a great writer. Nor do I think she is a great intellectual.

Perhaps that does say something about my personal tastes, but I promise you that I am not alone in these thoughts.

A memory from my past...as a student of Eng.Lit I had to present a paper to my seminar group onTo the Lighthouse. This was way back in unenlightened times before VW was rediscovered and though I was a voracious reader I had not read a word of hers. I went to my tutor for guidance and en passant he predicted that few if any of the men in the group would turn up. He was right.They didn't. Most of the women came, not because they considered VW a woman's writer, but because they were more conscientious about fulfilling academic tasks than the men were.
So even then you were not alone in your thoughts. But then again neither am I. So it's a stalemate between supporters and detractors. Same as with fans and non fans of Zola or anyone else. Dr Johnson whom most would regard as a literary critic of the first rank had some very harsh words to say about Shakespeare, but even the weight given to his opinion has not dimmed Shakespeare's reputation. So maybe even your informed and scholarly opinion will not tip the scales against Virginia Woolf's work.

In my first post I tried to give an indication of what VW was trying to achieve.She is a modernist in prose as Eliot is a modernist in poetry,Schoenberg in music and Picasso in painting.She was particularly critical of novelists like Bennett, Galsworthy, Charles Morgan and Warwick Deeping whom she thought were still operating like Victorians instead of 20th Century writers.
VW 's novels are not easy to skim through...they demand more of the reader.
Her essays and literary criticism are more orthodox and her letters and diaries are full of interesting, witty and sometimes scabrous comments on the English literary scene between the Wars.

[Madame X]

I'd rather flunk my Wasserman test
Than read a poem by Edgar Guest
Or a story by Virginia Woolf

Dorothy who?

[Seasider]

Originally Posted by dfloyd
I'd rather flunk my Wasserman test
Than read a poem by Edgar Guest
Or a story by Virginia Woolf

I believe Dorothy Parker wrote the couplet. Presumably the addition is by dfloyd

[qspeechc]

I was, in a polite and balanced way, taking issue with the OP's assertion of 'her brilliance', and that her works 'have been canonised amongst the greatest texts of the 20th century.'

It would be impossible for me to provide reasons for her brilliance, because it is my informed and scholarly opinion that she does not possess such a quality. What I am attempting to suggest, however poorly, is that we should resist totemising figures such as Woolf; rather than trying to provide reasons for her quality (which the OP has defined as not obvious), I am merely suggesting that a better question would be whether her writings were of a high quality.

As I have said, in a civil manner and making it clear that it is my own personal opinion, I do not believe she is a great writer. Nor do I think she is a great intellectual.

Perhaps that does say something about my personal tastes, but I promise you that I am not alone in these thoughts.

You still have not said why you think she is not a great writer. You have simply re-stated that she is not great and added that many other people agree with you. Please give the reasons why you think she is not great.