:D Kinda the way I felt first starting, but once you get in the flow so to speak, it is wonderful. And seeing the same view from different aspects is informative as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
Printable View
:D Kinda the way I felt first starting, but once you get in the flow so to speak, it is wonderful. And seeing the same view from different aspects is informative as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
I'm having the same problem. It feels like someone is just saying "Blah, Blah, Blah...." in my head while I am reading. I'm holding to the idea that once I get used to the rambling way in which it seems to be written I'll start to make more sense of everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by motherhubbard
Well, I'll say two things about the novel--one encouraging others to read the novel, and the other warning them of its shortcomings.
Encomium:
To The Lighthouse is a great representation of change: intellectually, spiritually, personally, whatever. Woolf creates the two Ramsey parents as stand-ins for the typical Victorian ideas. Mrs. Ramsey, for example, has all the conservative (and sexist) ideas as to women's place in society. She also represents the philanthropic ideal of the earlier nineteenth century. To make Mrs. Ramsey even less ambiguous, Woolf has her positioned in front of a picture of Queen Victoria at least once in the novel. Mr. Ramsey, like his wife, could be considered a conservative Victorian voice. He has all of the intellectual ambitions of the previous generation. He even quotes Tennyson. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have the Victorian ideal in mind; but, despite their high hopes, they consider themselves failures. Mr. Ramsey is comically stuck on Q, and Mrs. Ramsey knows she cannot end worldwide suffering. The parents must place their hope in their children and their younger friends who have radically different notions. This contrast comes out most strikingly in Lily Briscoe. Her painting is new and inventive; it aims at a completely different object than the one expected. In the tension between Lily Briscoe and Mrs. Ramsey we see the profound change occurring and all the confused feeling that go along with it. Both Mrs. Ramsey and Lily don't know what to make of each other. The complicated relationship between the past, present, and future is experience within their characters, and it's fun to watch.
Complaint:
I think the novel is a little over critical. Sometimes its overly suspicious to the point of paranoia. When Minta Doyle wants to hold Nancy's hand, Nancy's first thought is, "What is it that she wants?". The most basic affection is approached only warily. Not only do the characters have problems accepting emotion from others, they can't make the minimal effort to express themselves. Either a character makes the most circuitous attempt at a genuine communication, or they don't at all. The narrative is the closest thing we get to psychological contact with them, but even this seems distant. Distant? No erratic is probably the best word. It comes and goes; sometimes it is very subtle and at other times its brutally honest. Compare this to the transparency of Shakespeare's characters or Dickens'. Obviously, I'm not saying that Woolf should emulate them. I'm not even saying that her characters are poorly done. I just think that Woolf could be a little more forthcoming.
Perhaps I should try to help a little with this since some of you are having trouble. First this is not a plot oriented novel. The tension is psychological. And her writing style weaves through the minds of the characters. This is what is going on in part I:
The main drama is occuring between Mrs Ramsey and Mr Ramsey, in that they are disputing whether to take their little child James on the next day to go visit the lighthouse. Also all the characters are all waitng or planning to attend Mrs Ramsey's dinner party that evening. Along with that Mrs Ramsey is trying to help two couples: Paul and Minta to get married (she has set them up) and Lily and William Bankes, trying to now set them up with hopes of a future marriage. Lily resists it, she is a solitary person and just wants to paint her picture. There are other guests as well and also the rest of the Ramsey's children. They each have certain motivations and psychologies. All though are centered in some way around Mrs Ramsey, her personality, and aura. Part I climaxes with the dinner party with the reflection of what Mrs Ramsey means to them.
And then we get to part II.
Quark and Virgil - I commend both of you on your excellent posts and explanations of the novel and it's style. I read the book a few years back and will be starting it soon, after I finish a short work of 100 pgs I am currently reading and half way. I think from Quark's explanation, I now can better conceptualize what I previously had read and my impression of the story and characters. This, in other words, clarifies my own vague ideas on what the story was intended to say or represent. Virgil is correct in saying this is not a 'plot driven' novel, although a simple plot does emerge eventually. I like his synopsis of part I - that was very helpful to me, in refreshing my memory. Thanks, V. It is the relationships in the novel and the interaction of the characters and their thoughts that are most important to this concentrated/intense novel. It is more 'cerebral' than most novels and so one has to withdraw into the minds of the characters, let their thoughts just flow within that 'weaving' and look beyond any concrete storyline. If you keep searching for a plot you will miss the nuances in the characters themselves and that is the main interest of the book, in my opinion.
Thank you both Virgil and Quark for your explanations. I still hold little hope of enjoying the novel, but at least I know where it is going somewhat. I've been more worried that admist all the talking that there was some busy plot that I'm missing when there seemed to be endless pages of thoughts about walking out of the house and such. I'm going to spend some time reading tonight and maybe I'll start to like the story a little better. It is nice to know before hand to not expect much in the way of plot since now I will not have the expectations and therefore no dissapointment in that arena. Thanks again for the explanations.
Meg
I started reading the novel last night...as I couldn't get my hands on my copy, I had to search for an online text to start...but hopefully, I'll get my copy soon enough.
I'm still a little confused, that I have to read certain parts more than once. But so far, I think I understand almost everything.
I'm in no position of analysing Woolf's works myself, but I think I'm really gonna enjoy the discussion :D
Hi, I new to this forum but what got me to join was the fact that you guys were going to read To the Lighthouse... I just read it for my "Mystical Writers" class... Not saying that what I learned is 100% correct, but when studied in class, the novel was very mystical... In the first part of the book we hear a lot about the lighthouse... As a matter of fact, we hear Mrs Ramsey comparing herself to the lighthouse... She says she is the steady beam of light... (I think, I'm trying to remember some of it) At the end of the first part we have the dinner party and we pretty much see what everyone thinks of everyone else... We find that everyone loves Mrs Ramsey and that she is the one that brings everyone together... They all come together in communion as represented by the fruit. The fruit mimmicks the wedge shape of the lighthouse. Mrs Ramsey doesn't like when someone takes a piece of fruit because it disrupts the shape... It makes her uncomfortable...
We know the dinner party was a very important part of the book because in the third part we see Lily reflect on it and remember it vividly.. But I'll leave it at this as I don't want to ruin the end for those who didn't finish it...
Thanks for letting me be a part of To the Lighthouse.... And happy reading...
Oh I can't wait to discuss this either. I promise I will start in a serious way by the first of August. This is an all summer read. Thanks middleyears for bringing up the symbolism of the Lighthouse and its link to Mrs. Ramsey.
Hi middleyears and welcome to this forum, I am so glad you are going to join us. I will be starting my reading soon of the novel. I am very familiar with the novel and the story since I read it several years back and also (now some may groan) I own the BBC film version, which is quite close to the book and well done. I have wanted to discuss the book/story for sometime now. Having just read your post, I am excited since it seems you have gathered much insight into various parts and symbols in the book, which you picked up in your recent class. I have never thought of the book as 'mystical' - how very interesting. This gives it a new direction and interests me. I also, did not correlate Mrs. Ramsey to the 'lighthouse' as a symbol. This is good as you quoted it. I agree - the dinner party seems to be very significant and I believe it also marks the passage of time. Were there not two dinner parties or two dinners in the entire book that are of significance? The big significant dinner party with all the guests attending does mark a time they all gather collectively and each personality is made very evident with contrasts and comparisons and loyalities and pettiness as each thinks about the individuals that make up the group. It is like a mini-world. In fact, I felt the dinner party to be the most memorable event in the book. Now, by reading your post and writing this, I have interested myself in my second reading. I am anxious to get started.
To others - stick with the book, eventually a very coherent story does emerge and it draws one into the thought process(es) of the story. The characters begin to form and take most definite shape and are the interesting part of this novel. Each is presented as a very distinct portrait.
This is some good analysis, and I think we can compare the lighthouse to Mrs. Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey, or the author on his behalf, makes this connection in the third section. The lighthouse could also be symbolic of the marital strife between Mrs. and Mr. Ramsey, and it could also represent James' ambitions which are thwarted. It's hard to pin down a specific meaning for the lighthouse--particularly based on the first section.Quote:
Originally Posted by middleyears
The term "mini-world" is the best description of that scene. We don't really get much new information or insight. Really, all that's done is a summary of the various ideas brought up earlier. We see Charles Tanley being ego-centric, Mrs. Ramsay playing the matchmaker, and Lily Briscoe failing to act in any meaningful way. All of these characteristics had been already established, but they come back much overtly the second time in the dinner scene. The only character that doesn't get a similar summary is Mr. Ramsay. Any ideas why he is so absent--almost out of the picture--during the dinner?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quark, I wish I did know for sure, but unfortunately my memory is failing me on Mr. Ramsay's character being given a different type summary, than it was given in the first dinner party. I do have a vague idea on it. I don't want to say too much, to spoil the reading for the others, but I think the fact that he and the family have gone through an emormous sense of loss probably has a lot to do with that change in his demeanor or character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I plan soon to re-read the entire book, but presently I am finishing up a short non-fiction book; should be able to finish that tonight and start TTLH. Now I am anxious to discuss it with you and everyone else, as well.
Do you agree that the two dinner parties mark a significant change in time, etc? Yes, glad you agree - I think it is like a microcosm - the very personal/private world of a family/the Ramsay's; and we, being the observers, are given closer assess into their lives and their minds, making this book with it's natural free-flowing style, very intimate indeed.
I collect ceramic replicas of real lighthouses. Lighthouses are special to me. There is a special meaning to what a lighthouse's function. From Enclycopedia Britannia:
A few images:Quote:
LIGHTHOUSE, a form of building erected to carry a light for the purpose of warning or guidance, especially at sea.
I. Early History. - The earliest lighthouses, of which records exist, were the towers built by the Libyans and Cu****es in Lower Egypt, beacon fires being maintained in some of them by the priests. Lesches, a Greek poet (c.660 B.e.) mentions a lighthouse at Sigeum (now Cape Incihisari) in the Troad. This appears to have been the first light regularly maintained for the guidance of mariners. The famous Pharos 1 of Alexandria, built by Sostratus of Cnidus in the reign of Ptolemy II. (283-247 B.C.) was regarded as one of the wonders of the world. The tower, which took its name from that of the small island on which it was built, is said to have been 600 ft. in height, but the evidence in support of this statement is doubtful. It was destroyed by an earthquake in the 13th century, but remains are said to have been visible as late as 1350. The name Pharos became the general term for all lighthouses, and the term " pharology " has been used for the science of lighthouse construction.
The tower at Ostia was built by the emperor Claudius (A.D. 50).50). Other famous Roman lighthouses were those at Ravenna, Pozzuoli and Messina. The ancient Pharos at Dover and that at Boulogne, later known as la Tour d'Ordre, were built by the Romans and were probably the earliest lighthouses erected in western Europe. Both are now demolished.
The light of Cordouan, on a rock in the sea at the mouth of the Gironde, is the earliest example now existing of a waveswept tower. Earlier towers on the same rock are attributed the first to Louis le Debonnaire (c. A.D. 805) and the second to Edward the Black Prince. The existing structure was begun in 1584 during the reign of Henri II. of France and completed in 1611. The upper part of the beautiful Renaissance building was removed towards the end of the 18th century and replaced by a loftier cylindrical structure rising to a height of 207 ft. above the rock and with the focal plane of the light 196 ft. above high water (fig. 1). Until the 18th century the light exhibited from the tower was from an oak log fire, and subsequently a coal fire was in use for many years. The ancient tower at Corunna, known as the Pillar of Hercules, is supposed to have been a Roman Pharos. The Torre del Capo at Genoa originally stood on the promontory of San Berrique. It was built in 1139 and first used as a lighthouse in 1326. It was rebuilt on its present site in 1643. This beautiful tower rises 236 ft. above the cliff, the light being elevated 384 ft. above sea-level. A lens light was first installed in 1841. The Pharos of Meloria was constructed by the Pisans in 1154 and was several times rebuilt until finally destroyed in 1290. On the abandonment of Meloria by the Pisans, they erected the still existing tower at Leghorn in 1304.
In the 17th and 18th centuries numerous towers, on which were erected braziers or grates containing wood or coal fires, were established in various positions on the coasts of Europe. Among such stations in the United Kingdom were Tynemouth (c. 1608), the Isle of May (1636), St Agnes (1680), St Bees (1718) and the Lizard (1751). The oldest lighthouse in the United States is believed to be the Boston light situated on Little Brewster Island on the south side of the main entrance to Boston Harbour, Mass. It was established in 1716, the present structure dating from 1859. During the American War of Independence the lighthouse suffered many vicissitudes and was successively destroyed and rebuilt three times by the American or British 1 A full account is given in Hermann Thiersch, Pharos Antike, Islam and Occident (1909). See also Minaret.
forces. .At the third rebuilding in 1783 a stone tower 68 ft. in height was erected the illuminant consisting of four oil lamps. Other early lighthouse structures on the New England coast were those at Beaver Tail, near the entrance to Newport Harbour (1740), and the Brant at the entrance to Nantucket Harbour (1754). A watch-house and beacon appear to have been erected on Beacon or Lighthouse Island as well as on Point Allerton Hill near Boston, prior to 1673, but these structures would seem to have been in the nature of look-out stations in time of war rather than lighthouses for the guidance of mariners.
http://jersey.blogs.com/photos/jerse...lighthouse.jpg
http://www.jefftraynor.com/portland/lighthouse.jpg
http://www.matt-mcdonnell.com/pics/lighthouse_small.png
Virgil, these lighthouse photos are amazing! I love the first one - truly awesome. I copied it for my own file, hope you don't mind. I like lighthouses, too. Wow, did not know you collected ceramic ones - how neat. Always nice to learn more about 'individuals' on here.
I did not read your history you posted yet, but thanks so much. That should be fascinating and will give us some symbolic insight to the novel. I will leave that till tomorrow; I am too tired out now and a movie awaits me.
Hello again and thank you for the warm welcome... Let me start off by saying I am a non traditional student aiming for a major in English... Many of these insights are the insights that have been pointed out to us as a class by a brilliant professor... She truly is a wonderful teacher... But having said that, she picked this book (one of her favorites) for our mystical writers class because by the end of the book we find Lily Briscoe becoming "one with." I won't get into much detail on that as I know many people have not finished the book.. But I did want to point out one more thing on the dinner... There is a point at the dinner party where Lily finds herself staring at I believe it's a salt shaker or perhaps it's the shadow of the salt shaker but the shape is triangular... This theme of lighthouse shapes runs through the whole book...
I saw on one of the posts that someone made a comment about Mrs Ramsey and Mr Ramsey not having a good marriage or something of that nature... I want to say thank you on that as I argued that point in class last semester... Our professor said that Mr and Mrs R were very much in love... That Mrs Ramsey loved Mr Ramsey very much.. I took it the opposite... Especially because she could never say in words that she loved him...
But alas and alack I was shut down on that point.. LOL... It was just nice to see that other people saw what I saw........
Have a wonderful day...
Hi again, middleyears, It is great when one has a wonderful professor with much insight. I am happy to hear you are seeking a degree in literature - wonderful!Quote:
Originally Posted by middleyears
Although, as I have earlier stated, I have not yet read the book my second time, in order to review it, I do know the story quite well, and I will debate the love issue more extensively with you when I get further into my reading and we get further along in the book discussion. For now, and this could change on a second reading, my own innate feeling is that - yes, Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey did love each other very deeply. Yes, they were always in opposition and turmoil, since they very much were opposites in personality and other factors in each individual character (within themselves lied conflicts). Often opposite attract and one person will make up for what the other lacks. This is the 'ying and yang' or the 'two halves making up the whole' idea. This topic will make for good further discussion when more people have read the book; also when I can quote specific passages.
middleyears, don't be so modest and humble. You have relayed/expressed well what you have gathered from other sources. All of us do only that, checking on other sources of commentary/information, and then put it into our own words or 'quote' authors of commentary. It is insightful what you have written and now you have given us a direction to go with the idea of the 'symbolism', etc. I know this will shed much new light on my own reading and interpretation. I have long wanting to know more about the interpretation of this book for sometime. I have had many questions about the story that I have pushed asside until I should find a good group or person to discuss the book with. This comes are a perfect time. I was to my library last night and forgot that I wanted to see if they had a book of commentary on "To The Lighthouse" specificially. I know they have many books on Woolf commentary ,so I must check it out when I go there tomorrow. So as you can see we all draw from many sources for our information and ideas. This is how we all learn more.
Now I will be alerted to the shape of the lighthouse running throughout the book. In our short story thread we have gotten used to underlining keywords. Virgil started me on this idea and it is so helpful in understanding the stories. This would be very beneficial in this book, I would think. I will keep it in mind as I read and maybe it would be a good suggestion to others as well.
Again many thanks for the warm responses I have recieved... As for my degree in English Janine, well right now I'm hoping to be done before I'm fifty and there's not much time left... LOLOLOLOL....
I have found that To the Lighthouse like many other works by great authors are very hard to understand if read on your own.. I know I would not have picked up many things unless I was in a classroom setting....
Another author I really love is Edith Wharton... If no one has ever read her, you can get a lot of her work on line and one of my favorite pieces by her is called "Roman Fever" It's a short story and trust me you don't have to be in a classroom setting to get it... LOL... It's pretty much cut and dry....
Another of my favorites is Henry James... My favorite piece by him is called "The Middle Years" hence my screen name...
Anyone else out ther Wharton or James fans... Of course when I'm not in class my favorite thing to do after work is make some coffee and curl up with a good murder mystery.........
Hi middleyears, you are very welcome - glad you are here. You seem serious about good discussion and debates on the novels. Funny, you should mention Wharton - we just did a monthly book read on "Ethan Frome" (three months or so ago). If you put it into search the thread will come up and you can view the discussion; it was an interesting one. I hope to read more of her work, but first I will read the short story you suggested; it sounds interesting, just by the title.Quote:
Originally Posted by middleyears
Yes, actually, I think there is someone on here who likes Henry James exceedingly - that is Jamesian. He pops in and out of various threads, but usually he is in the 'last movie' thread.
I have only read some short stories/short novels which I liked very much and I bought "Wings of the Dove" a year or so ago, after seeing the film version, which I love. Unfortunately I started it and did not get back to it; will have to start again I am sure. I love almost all the period film versions of his novels, so I plan on reading them all. In fact I own about 4 of those films. I did read "Washington Square" and I loved it! Film is good, also. I will definitely have to read the short story "The Middle Years". Most likely, I own it in a huge book I have of his short stories. Opps, just looked and my book is the "Short Novels" but actually I think I will find it in another book; I have tons of book stashed away.
If you view my signature, you will see my favorite author is D.H.Lawrence, not to say I don't love others too. Presently a few L threads are still in the listing; they were mostly active last month, but 'Short Stories' and 'Tortoise Poems' are still going strong. Maybe you will be interested in joining one of those. Would be nice to see a new face in those threads.
Yes, I do agree with you about "To the Lighthouse", It begs commentary, explaining and discussing. I know I will get a lot from this upcoming discussion/debate. I will start the book tonight most likely. I think I already have a different perspective going into my reading which is good. I will be looking for more symbolism and particular keywords and clues. We did this in our last book discussion and it was very worthwhile indeed.
When I mentioned the Ramsey's marital problems I only meant that they have a tumultuous relationship in which they are often in disagreement.
Are they in love? Before we can even talk about that we have to ask whether in To The Lighthouse love is possible. The characters are always at a large psychological distance to each other because they can't speak honestly or completely. They never truly understand each other. When they make judgments about each other usually they are only partial and not really substantial. Sometimes the judgment is even more of a reflection on the judge than it is on the one judged. Look at the way Mrs. Ramsey's feelings about Charles Tansley change rapidly over the first section. Can we really tell what Mrs. Ramsey's relationship with Tansley is at the end of the first section? To come to a conclusion about Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey might be even more difficult. We can be sure that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey compliment each other in some ways, and that they enjoy each other's company. If those are the elements that form love, then, yes, they are very much in love. If you believe that love is based on a deep understanding and agreement between two people--a kind of intimacy--then, no, they are not in love.
Interesting post Quark. I'm not in a position to cnfidently respond to your posts until i actually get in the reading. But as to whether Mr. and Mrs Ramsey's love for each other, remember they have been married quite a few years. I'm not sure if it actually says, but they have nearly grown children. Love at that age is not the same as newlyweds. I think they are in love. They keep having children. ;)
Wow, after reading some of the discussion, I'm going to have to make the time to sit and read some tonight. To the Lighthouse has sort of been on the back burner for me since school has been pretty hectic. I'm curious to see if I believe that Mr and Mrs Ramsey are in love based on the reading. From what I've read of the discussion so far, it seems that it will be possible to argue either way and that makes for the best topics to discuss. I'm sorry to hear that your professor didn't want to hear that discussion middleyears. I've had a few teacher like that and it is always frustrating.
My feelings about the 'love' issue are mixed. I think they 'needed' each other, but as Quark pointed out, did they really have a deep understanding and if not perhaps their relationship was not love in a higher/true sense of the word. I feel that they did love each other within the limits of what type of love these two people were capable of. There are different levels and types of love and relationships are not all the same.
And Virgil, I have known many a couple who kept on having kids, but had very little, if any, truely deep love between them. People have their needs. I have a specific couple in mind who all their life argued and fought and were at odd ends most of the time. They happen to have 7 kids! ;)
Hello again all.... Gees, this is a lot of fun.. Wish I had joined sooner... LOL... Ok, as for the question of the Ramsey's being in love, my theory was based on the fact that she couldn't tell him that she loved him and also she was always trying to marry people off... I took that as a "misery loves company" sort of thing... The teacher pointed to the one scene in the first part where the Ramseys had some sort of tiff and were not speaking and he was slamming doors and she was pretending he didn't exist and then at one point he called her outside and the argument was over.... It reminded me of how my husband and I argue... One minute we're ignoring one another and the next minute we asking what the other one wants for dinner... So I guess there is a lot of things to base both arguments on... I still to this day lean towards the idea that they really didn't love each other that much.. It always seemed to me that Mrs Ramsey was always longing for someone else... I kind of got it into my head that she perhaps loved another man from long ago or the present but knew she couldn't have him.. I have no idea what I'm basing this on, it's just a feeling I got from reading the novel.....
I will check out those other threads Janine... As for D. H Lawrence, we also did him in our mystical writers class... We did "Song of a Man Who Has Come Through" and "Fish".....
As for Henry James and "The Middle Years" well that is perhaps my favorite not because of the story so much as a small part of the story which changed my life forever.. The paragraph comes right at the end when Dencombe says to Dr Hughes
"Second chances. That's the delusion. There was never meant to be but one. We work in the dark, we do what we can, we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art."
Middleyears, I will try to answer your post more thoroughly tomorrow. I am pleased to report that I got into my reading; I am up to page 50 pg as of today! Had to go to my doctor appointment; she was running quite late, so I enjoyed the peace and quiet and read TTLH. I am enjoying it much more than the first time I read it. I feel I am getting so much more out of the fluid text and absorbing/understanding the story and characters so much better. It really is a beautifully written book. I hope to someday read "The Waves" - a friend told me that is her favorite Woolf novel. For now I can't wait to continue later tonight with my reading.
I tried to find the short story "The Middle Years" online and in my books but have not come across it yet. Is it listed on this site under Jame's main page?
Janine, The Waves is a pretty novel. I enjoyed it. It is much more conventionally written.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
So you started reading. Oh, I will be behind you all. :(
I read To the Lighthouse a few months ago, and I am afraid the details are fading already, but I wanted to comment on the question of love between the Ramsays.
Middleyears, I also based my opinion on the fact that Mrs. Ramsay triumphantly withheld her verbal expression of love from Mr. Ramsay. I saw it as a control issue. The time and place they inhabited was so anti-female and everything, at least the establishment, conspired to hold women down that really the only power women like Mrs. Ramsay had was something of just that sort of "rebellion". I do think she cared for him, but not in the selfless way a spouse should care for the mate, male or female.
If she had felt that selfless sort of love, control would not, could not have been an issue, at least between them within the marriage. JMO
To all those who have commented on the Ramsey marriage, let me say as someone married sixteen years that marriage and love and life is complicated. I don't know of any marriage that I'm privey of seeing the inside of that is built on lovey-dovey bliss. My parents, until my father recently passed away, were married 46 years and probably bickered and argued and I'm sure at times hated each other almost every day, but at the end of the day they always loved each other, cared for each other, supported each other. With my father struggling at the end to survive in a nursing home, my mother cried and stood by him every day while he was in a nursing home for two years. Every single day, except for a week when she got sick herself and had to go to the hospital, every single day she was there and took care of him, much more so than the aids. And yet they still bickered and fought at the nursing home, and yet she was there every single day. Love is a very complicated thing, layered with issues of life and intertwined into a knot.
Hello again... Janine I'm not sure about that James short story.. I swear I printed it out for someone recently... I could be wrong though, I've been known to be wrong.. LOLOLOLOL... Maybe I gave them a copy of my copy.... I am going to look today if we aren't too busy... It's orientation this weekend so all the newbies will be flocking in....
Virgil, I know just what you are saying about the marriage thing.. I have been married for 30 years and I know just where you are coming from... That is the same argument my professor used but honestly, there was just something about how it was written that just gave me the feeling that she was pining for someone else.... I know I could be totally off base.....
Well happy reading to all this weekend... As for me, I'm rereading The Order of the Phoenix before I go see the movie next week.....
Have a good weekend all....
Life is complicated. Yes it is, and we cannot ever see inside another marriage, no matter if we live with said couple. Not in real life at any rate. But here, in the fictional setting we are privy to her thoughts, we do know that she says to herself in her most private of thoughts. She claims to herself to love him, however...however she feels triumph at not giving the person she claims to love [even to herself] what they most desire to hear from her. What sort of hollow "triumph" is that? p.126 [annotated version]..Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I cannot get past Woolf's use of the word triumphed....it had to be very carefully chosen for just the feeling she was implying.Quote:
And she looked at him smiling. For she had triumphed again. She had not said it: yet he knew.
I have been married and one does not triumph over a mate. Not when it counts. Perhaps I am naive. But I'd rather be naive in this area at that rate.
When i start reading and get to that I'll comment on the actual text. But my goodness, my wife and I always try to "triumph" (I would you the word, "trump") over each other. :lol: Our word banter can be a real battle. :D Perhaps it's our personalities but I think it's a level of history that has gone on between us. It's a laying within the relationship. Hey, I don't even want to tell you what the fight is like if there is something we both want to see on TV. We made it a rule to only have one TV in the house and, while it doesn't happen very often, possesion of that remote control can be a real triumph for one of us. :p :DQuote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Perhaps I am presumptuous in assuming you have told each other of your love for each other...verbally as well as in action. That is one of the places it counts. The other you speak of is play. I was being serious.Quote:
one does not triumph over a mate. Not when it counts.
Virgil, that remote control is just that a real control issue no matter who you are trying to get it from! I would say, get another TV. I am now unmarried and I know where there is a one TV family, other members want to see other shows; so save the peace, opt for another set. The're really are not expessive these days, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
They say 'marriage takes work' and another thing is there are 'no marriages made in heaven'. I do truly believe this; people get a glorified idea of perfect bliss. Get real - this is life I say to them; life has it's ups and downs. Funny, last night I saw a good film on marriages - called "Friends with Money". It did point out some interesting inner-action between couples who had been married for awhile.
I have now read about 60 or so pages of the novel and I can't comment on the part when Mrs. Ramsey will not say if she loved him entirely. I do vaguely recall it from my previous reading and from the film version. My feelings may change on this, but I think there was just such tension existing between them at that point, she could not honestly express the idea of love to him. They say people 'fall in and out of love'. I think this is absolutely true, and of many married couples specifically. It is like the ebb and flow of the waves, changing of the season, people have to go with the currents and weather through hard times and indifferent times - in the end relationships are only strengthened by those endured times and moments and by lessons we learn. No one is going to get along perfectly with their partner 100% of the time. It is true we see the Ramsey's at a particular time in their life. Who is to say what the rest of their married days were like. I don't think she did not love him, but love can take on many different aspects during a lifetime. At this time of their life it may have rippened into a quieter time. I think when Mrs. Ramsey gives into her husband sometimes it is like she is that she has learned over time this is the best route to go with him in order to avoid a major confrontation. Perhaps, one could say to express her 'love' in words at their junction in their life together, may not have been possible for her. Perhaps it was just the moment he asked and nothing more significant. Leading up to this they had been at odds and especially quarreling. Sometimes couples get caught in a knot of quarreling and can't break out. The couples with the strongest of marriages survives periods such as this.
Well, that is my lame position until I read further along. I am enjoying the book.
Everything I want to say about love, the Ramsey's, and marriage is tied up in the third section. When we get there I think I can be more specific about my point here. Until then, my arguments will be as effective as an inkless pen.
What I can say, though, is that the Ramsey's work as a couple: that is to say they complement each other. But, I wouldn't say they're "in love" because I don't think characters in this novel can be in love for more then brief intervals. Love in this story means that one person satisfies another's psychological needs at a given moment. It isn't two people enjoying a powerful, mutual experience. Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey are not poetically,
"Continuously prolonged, and ending never,
Till they are lost, and in that Beauty furled
Which penetrated and clasps and fills this world"
No, the kind of love that is possible in To The Lighthouse is enjoyed only by an individual. It happens when one person flatters another's ego or beautifully fits into their selfish conception of the world. Characters fall in and out of love as the their psychological needs change. Mrs. and Mr. Ramsey are in love--in this sense--more frequently than any of the other characters; so, yes, they would be the closest to love in this novel. But, this love only occurs in periods, and it may not even be love at all.
As it may be apparent, I don't completely agree with Woolf's conception of love; but, for the sake of the thread, I will make sure my arguments adhere to the novel at hand.
And, while it may seem like I have no respect for Woolf's ideas, I actually do like a lot of the ideas that this novel gives--just not this one.
I just saw part of the BBC version of To The Lighthouse last night. It was good to see that Charles Tansley was just as annoying on television as he is in the novel. I also liked the person they had playing Lily. The movie version did make some glaring changes: like Mrs. Ramsey being supportive of Lily's painting, and the whole part where Mr. Ramsay goes off to watch a wrestling match (what was that?). I did expect to see some changes because how could one fill two hours with the small amount of action in the novel. And, how could you keep the story dramatic when all the action is going on through introverted thought? I liked watching the movie version because it was interesting to see an interpretation, but I wouldn't suggest anyone watch the movie without reading the novel.
Oh, I that Kenneth Branagh's version? I'd completely forgotten I have the DVD! Will have to watch it tonight. :blush:
Hi Quark and Plainjane, Yes, it is the Branagh version, that is correct; well, he has a small part and he is quite young. He plays Charles Tansey. I think he does a good job and is quite annoying/irritating, as a young man, which he is suppose to be; he captures it well. I also own the BBC film and enjoy it, but I am re-reading the novel (halfway through now) and I have also noticed parts they added into the film version. As Quark said, it would certainly be a dull film without doing so; it is not an exciting film as it is, but it is captivating. I just got past the dinner party and did not Mr. Ramsey really throw a fit during the dinner (not restrain himself like in the book) when the soup was served or does that come later? I know in the film he did throw a sort of tandrum and it upset a dinner, lunch or breakfast. I agree with you Quark, you must read the book first, but actually I do enjoy the film seeing the interaction of the people in real 'flesh and blood', so in this way to visualize the story and characters, it is beneficial to see the film if you can, I believe. To note: in the film Rosemary Harris plays Mrs. Ramsey and she does an amazing job portraying her. She is a very fine actress with a wonderfully nuanced performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I too, will immediately watch the film, when I complete my reading. I also dug up some commentary at my library tonight, that I hope to scan and later share with everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Look, what I'm trying to say in my several posts on this is that you cannot judge whether someone loves another just by whether some one gets angry or is combative or fights with their spouse. For crying out loud there are abusive relationships and yet both love each other. And you will say to yourself, how could they love each other: he may be physically abusive or she may be a witchy tyrant, and yet they stay together and profess love. I don't think anyone can look into another heart and contradict what they feel for someone. If Mrs. Ramsey says she loves her husband, then why should we disbelieve her?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil,Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
One thing I must say regarding some of the relationships you mention above, abusive or tyrannical for example, are not, not loving, no matter what they say. Dependent, obsessive or what ever other catch phrase you want to use....it ain't love.
We may accidentally or inadvertently hurt the one we love on occasion, but true love would never feel triumphant about with holding something so dear to our loved one. To be triumphant one must be victorious which implies a contest of sorts, love is not a contest.
I do not wish to be argumentative about this, but I feel quite strongly about Woolf's use of the word triumphant. Unless someone comes up with another good explanation of that phrasing my opinion remains unchanged.
Well, I don't want to be argumentative either, but I don't believe there is any set criteria as to what love is or isn't. The way some people love may not suit one, but I'm sorry it is presumptuous to say what they feel in their hearts. Where is it written that love is in this form or that form and not this other form? It is quite conceivable that a relationship rests on one person being "victorious" every couple of months, and both parties in the relationship are happy. There are relationships where one party has to always win an argument. The personalities are such that this is how they relate to one another. Am I going to say that they don't love ecah other?Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
But I think the question is do Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay love each other? And, are there a set of characteristics that make up love in To The Lighthouse?
Love is not abusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If someone beats their spouse and claims to love them should they be believed? No. They wish to dominate that beaten spouse. Domination is not love.
Actually there is criteria for what love is. 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 8 "Love is long-suffering and kind....does not behave indecently.....does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked."
You are right, that is the question, and to me her true feelings hang 'pon the one word...triumphant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I think she does love him...in a way. She is dependent on him in most aspects of her life, and I felt that she resented that dependence and Woolf was trying to put across the fact that complete dependence on another coupled with the domineering one's [in this case the male/husband] attitude is corrosive in any relationship. So she with held the one thing she was able to, the verbal expression of love he so desired. She could not be criticized for it, or 'called on the carpet' so to speak. It was all quite subtle. My only gripe is that if she had true love for him and he for her, such mind games would not have been part of the equation. It was not an honest relationship. IMO.