Printable View
I’d rather say these cresting waves of insecurity are a staple amongst almost all of her characters, regardless of sex; I’d even go so far as to say that it is a great testimony to their utter humanness - of which male humans are certainly a part. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky
'Insecurity' and the need to be comforted by the opposite sex are staples of her female characters? :ladysman:Textually, I can't find that to be a valid. I am not sure that would hold up to any close reading, though I will read if you would like to give it a whirl.
Comforted, certainly. Been a while since I’ve read any Woolf, but I am thinking of a particular scene in which Mrs. Ramsey is, inwardly, and quite desperately, imploring her husband to speak, no matter the topic, only to hear his voice and thus dispel some vague gloom that had been at that moment descending upon her. Hence, so it seems to me, they quite depend upon each other for no small measure of emotional comfort (not that they don’t get on each other’s nerves quite a bit as well though, so I suppose it balances out :cool:). Of course, you might well say, ‘but that is only one couple, one example, perhaps the exception, not the rule!’ and be quite justified at that…but, unfortunately, your interlocutor is too lazy to go off digging for specifics that don’t happen to be immediately at hand, hehe…although, if memory serves, I do think that Clarissa Dalloway and Peter Walsh have a similar dynamic…perhaps you disagree (your memory might be fresher besides :wink5:)? And if I might ask, how might these men, in your eyes, have been more adequately represented?
Peter Walsh is represented as needy. Clarissa isn't, at least not in the sense of her primary relationship. Clarissa didn't marry Peter because he was "suffocating". Peter represents the romantic, chivalric ideal which she rejects in some of her essays where she champions androgyny over male romanticism. She preferred Richard Dalloway because he gave her her space. Richard, (we learned from the 'Voyage Out' her first novel) was kind of a scumbag, but suited Clarissa's needs a little better. Both of them pursued other sexual interests, Clarissa in a lesbian affair, and Richard, we can assume from his behavior in "The Voyage Out" screwed anything he could get. Peter, the hopleless romantic, spends his life heartbroken over her decision.
As to your question "how might these men, in your eyes, have been more adequately represented?" I think any author has a right to represent there characters in any way they choose, including Woolf, and in that sense she represented them according to her vision more than adequately.
Woolf inspired figures that our culture has been recycling for close to 100 years now: men are either jealous, threatened, needy, and insecure, or they are scuzzballs. Woolf is certainly not to blame for literary and cultural conditions that emerged after her, but she is to be admired creating the prototype of the ideal man as inhabiting a neat little box called androgyny: Rambo is out, certainly, but so are Keats and Shelly. What is left is a flat, dimensionless little creature who acts, in Mrs. Dalloway's case, as a financial support while not interfering with her other social interests, lesbian relationships, or any other inhibitions that might prevent her from doing just as she pleases.
You might indeed find that type of lifestyle and the attitude it bespeaks to be hardly very gratifying, to say the least, and I couldn’t begrudge you that, but in what way does it speak contrary to, well, real life people/situations? Woolf certainly didn’t invent the concept of marrying for convenience’s sake (or the caricature of the jealous or needy male, aloof somewhat whimsical female, and so on, which are certainly aspects of the aforementioned characters’ personalities, and not totally insignificant ones at that for the simple fact that if the variability of the human psyche really were so very boundless, such esteemed sciences like psychology wouldn’t have a leg to stand on :biggrin5:) and it was my impression that Mrs. Dalloway herself, while she had some room to breathe in her marriage to Richard, was well aware of, and not without some regret, having sacrificed a more “kindred spirit”, if you will, in her rejection of Peter. All in all, I think the story itself, as well as the actions of the characters involved, is really pretty typical, and not just for our time…and yet, thanks to Woolf’s own stylistic interpolations, including her adeptness (although, I think you'd dissent :thumbsup:) at giving a credible voice to all of her characters, an entertaining read nonetheless.
But ok, I’ll ask a different question, in all curiosity; I don’t necessarily always read feminism into writers considered ‘feministic’, but in this ‘domain’, if you will, which author would you rather recommend, if anyone?
Who I would recommend in this domain for realistic renderings? Tough question. George Eliot's rendering of Lydgate and Rosamond (in Middlemarch) is for me the most memorable description of a marriage in English literature. Joyce's rendering of Molly and Leopold Bloom's relationship is stunning. Madame Bovary's unsuccessful relationships to husband and lover are also incredibly rendered.
Psychology needs caricatures to have a leg to stand on? I'll have to think about that one. I don't hold psychology in very high esteem, though so I may not be the right person to comment on that. There are universals certainly -- the oedipus complex, etc...but I would hope psychology is able to go beyond patching together different elements of caricature in order to constitute man (or woman).
It's definitely an entertaining read. I didn't mean to suggest the book was not enjoyable. It is interesting to compare Austen to Woolf in her choice of Richard and her rejection of Peter. In Austen's novel 'Persuasion', Admiral Croft and his wife are presented as the perfect couple: they make all their decisions together, do everything together, and are in complete harmony with each others' lives. Neither tries to dominate the other one. I think that contrary to popular (and political) belief, this sort of relationship was surprisingly common in Regency and Victorian England. Women were enslaved in marriage? It is hard to believe that after reading about Rosamond Vincy in Middlemarch. Feminist readings of 'Persuasion' often point to the Crofts' as the perfect relationship. Woolf, of course, would view it as 'suffocating' and feminist readings of Woolf, as well as Wool'fs own writing, stress a need for women's 'space'. There are many ways the contradiction could be interpreted, of course, but one way is to point out that women complain of men being too distant in relationships and then turn around and say they need their space from suffocating men. (Well, which one is it? It can't be both.)
As for the characters being typical of our time, yes, I agree. My main contention is that a feminine hegemony have grown around Woolf's depiction of men. It has become a heavily guarded hegemony that few acknowledge and is ultimately quite negative. Caricature is a good word to describe the phenomenon and Woolf's contribution to the modern caricature of men is really quite remarkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame X
nice job on the comments! I thought Woolf's portrayal of the males in TTLH, which I just finished and will likely be my final Virginia Woolf, just about destroyed the book. There is in her thought process, it seems to me, so much twisting and fantasy with regard to the "male" person that there was a pall of incredulity over this book for me despite the decent if lazy writing. If Woolf carried these same male themes in her other novels I'd think this merely a lesbian perspective that possibly should be viewed in that context. There was certainly zero in TTLH in this sense that remotely compares to the brilliance of Middlemarch imho.