Printable View
Actually I was thinking of the person who is abused and still loves and stays. Look, I'm not saying this type of relationship is not dysfunctional. Of course it is and of course I don't condone it. But why is it inconceivable that a person still feels love. How can I project into someone else's heart and say I know what they feel?Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Well, then you agree with me. All the relationships I have mentioned "love...in a way."Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
In the broadest of senses only, a true love between a husband and wife and all it entails would not act in such a fashion. A marriage is a partnership, a pulling together. Of course there are squabbles, but in the important things they do not deprive each other.
Regarding what you say about the abused one still loving, I have to say that is not love any more than the other side of the coin. A dependence....yes, some sort of compulsion, maybe, love? No.
I hate to belabor this, but "true love?" Your definition of true love seems like it would exclude 99% of the marriages in the world. It sounds idealized, even romanticized. I'm talking reality (and I think so is Woolf), not a one out of a hundred anomaly.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
And yet.....:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I reiterate.
You say that is a "romanticized" or "idealized" version of marriage, I disagree.Quote:
in the important things they do not deprive each other.
Strongly.
Well perhaps we disagree.
Let me say, that was fun. :) We could never be married Jane, or perhaps make a perfect couple. ;) :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ya think we disagree? :rolleyes: :D
Seriously, friendly disagreement is the meat of book discussions IMO.
I was wondering what people thought about the relationship between the Ramsay's and their children. What importance do you think Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay place on their children? And, what do the children think of their parents?
Thank God - another topic of discussion. I was about to say, 'will we be stuck on the question of whether Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey truly love each other forever?' Is it that important at this point in our reading? I think we should read the entire book; then form an opinion (and it will end up being just that, an opinion) on whether it was true love or not. I think it is important to look at other aspects of the story, so thank you, Quark, for turning the discussion to the relationship of the children towards the parents. I for one think it is quite a complicated/complex question and should make for some very good discussion. The family seems to be the prominent aspect to this story. They make up a world of their very own and so each unit contributes something in the whole structure of the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Unfortunately, I cannot expound on my own ideas presently, since real life calls me out to do errands again. Maybe later tonight. I am over half way through reading the novel.
I have to refresh my memory on the children, but I do remember how passionately James seemed to hate his father in the beginning, in fact quite early on when the father mentioned that it would not be fine James....Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
As Woolf mentions, extreme!Quote:
Had there been an axe handy, or a poker, any weapon that would have gashed a hole in his father's breast and killed him, there and then, James would have seized it. Such were the extremes of emotion that Mr. Ramsay excited in his children's breasts by his mere presence; standing, as now, lean as a knife.....grinning sarcastically, not only with the pleasure of disillusioning his son and casting ridicule upon his wife, who was ten thousand times better in every way than he was [James thought], but also with some secret conceit at his own accuracy of judgement.
I really thought James was a bit of a spoiled brat. But there were some saving times at the end, which I won't go into now, as Janine isn't finished yet.
Hi Plainjane, you can go into those details on James. You won't spoil it for me since I read the book before a few years back. Also I have seen the BBC film countless times. Always trying to figure it all out. I got the impression he was spoiled too, being the youngest. He was younger than Cam, wasn't he? or at least the youngest boy. Yes, James did seem to hate the father and favor the mother. He seemed rather clingy with the mother, I thought, like he was 'tied to her apron strings', so to speak. In this way, it reminded me a little of D.H.Lawrence's autobiographical novel "Sons and Lovers"; how Paul hated his father and favored his mother giving her almost abnornal love and in that case also, Paul was a highly sensitive child and creative. He too, was the youngest boy and sheltered and spoiled by the mother. The mother and father constantly bickered and were total opposites, as well. On first reading TTLH, I had not thought of these similarities in the two families and the two novels....interesting.
The only thing I was really thinking of was that Mr. Ramsay's sour personality really colored the entire family. Mrs. Ramsay was always a bit on edge, the children hardly knew how to take him sometimes. I suppose his gruffness came from many things, he was not as successful as he would have wished, he was unsettled in his married life to some extent, he seemed not to know how to give praise, and that seems to be the factor with James at least. He hardly ever heard a word of praise from his father. Children thrive on praise, although it can be carried too far I think, but some is essential to their growth. Just the simple "Well done!" that is given him by his father during the eventual trip to the Lighthouse was enough to swell him with pride. I thought it interesting he would not even look at anyone, and Cam thought that was fine, as James did not wish to share in his pleasure.
Interesting and very sad actually.
Yes, Mr. Ramsey's insecurity poisons many of his relationships. He becomes irritable at dinner because people are too frivolous and don't value his work enough. His lack of empathy comes out in the first scene with Mrs. Ramsay and James. He also places a large burden on his children to continue his work--particularly Andrew. During the last part of The Window Mr Ramsay thinks to himself, "It didn't matter who reached Z (if thought ran like an alphabet from A to Z). Somebody would reach it--if not he, then another" (122). It seems like Mr. Ramsay is counting on the next generation to finish his work--at least that thought gives him some consolation. This strong desire--and his deep insecurity--I think made his relationship what it was with his children.
I wonder, though, are there not also--at the beginning of the story--unsatisfied desires and goals that the mother is trying to live out through the kids? Look at her need to pair everyone up. I think we best see into this part of Mrs. Ramsay when she is thinking about Prue's marriage. She says, "Is it good, is it bad, is it right or wrong? Where are we all going to? and so on. So she righted herself after the shock of the event, and quite unconsciously and incongruously, used the branches of the elm trees outside to help her to stabilise her position. Her world was changing: they were still. The event had given her a sense of movement. All must be in order... It flattered her, where she was most susceptible of flattery, to think how, wound about in their hearts, however long they lived she would be woven; and this, and this, and this, she thought, going upstairs, laughing, but affectionately, at the sofa on the landing (her mother's); at the rocking-chair (her father's); at the map of the Hebrides. All that would be revived again in the lives of Paul and Minta. . . . It was all one stream, and chairs, tables, maps, were hers, were theirs . . . and Paul and Minta would carry it on when she was dead" (115). Now I ruthlessly butchered that quote to make it succinct, but I do think it shows the different importance Mrs. Ramsay is placing on her children--what she hopes they will carry on.
Obviously, if you've read to the end of the novel, you know what happens to these two plans that Mrs. and Mr. Ramsey make for their children. We know that the Ramsay's are doomed, and the Lily Briscoes and William Bankes will inherit the earth. But, I think it's important to realize what Ramsays believe in so we can see the change that occurs in the story.
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Ramsay's dissatisfaction in life had some basis in his wife's refusal to give in to his wish to be verbally assured of her love. I know, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but wouldn't something like that eat at a man like that? I am not saying that was the end all, be all of his feelings, but would that not have assuaged his feelings of inadequacy somewhat?
I wonder too if his sarcasm and [seemed to me] hostility towards James was actually directed at Mrs. Ramsay...sort of a misdirected anger? Possibly his refusal to even consider the trip to the lighthouse in the beginning was simply out of pique?
Another thing I wonder about...is it only me, or does anyone else feel that Lily is attracted to Mr. Ramsay? She certainly seems to obsess on him during his eventual trip to the lighthouse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I couldn't help but think during my initial reading that all her matchmaking was somewhat in the vein of "misery loves company". :rolleyes:
I think he's just a limited human being. Although he may be a good philosopher, he's not a great philosopher. Quark points out that A to Z metaphor that's in the novel, and Mr. Ramsey realizes he can only reach I forget which letter, "T" is it? I think he would have been more consoled if Mrs. Ramsey had been more assuring, but at his age assurance only goes so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Well wouldn't that make her pretty malicious? I believe she believes that marriage and family, with all its issues, is a good and beneficial thing. I think that is supported by the feelings of loneliness that certain characters have, and that marriage and family are a means to minimze that loneliness. Now this stands in stark contrast to what Lilly believes, and perhaps it's up to us to assess what Woolf thinks herself, since she gives us two leading characters with opposing views.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Oh i can't wait to start reading. :D
So many pages already!!!! I am afraid i can't read them all. At least not now.
I started reading the book yesterday. I haven't made good progress yet but i can safely say that i like it :nod:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
He was a rather mediocre sort of man and a bit pretentious, and I thought his limitations, although realized, frustrated him.
I don't mean that she did this on purpose, it was a subconscious sort of vibe I picked up. She was attempting to force the issue only considering the superficial aspects of some of the people, IOW, what she thought they should want and what she thought was appropriate for them, not how they really felt.Quote:
Well wouldn't that make her pretty malicious? I believe she believes that marriage and family, with all its issues, is a good and beneficial thing. I think that is supported by the feelings of loneliness that certain characters have, and that marriage and family are a means to minimze that loneliness. Now this stands in stark contrast to what Lilly believes, and perhaps it's up to us to assess what Woolf thinks herself, since she gives us two leading characters with opposing views.
Oh i can't wait to start reading. :D
I could have been projecting to some extent.
Wow, the posts got away from me, too and I want to read them all but don't have time now.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
manolia, I am so glad to see you here - you always make for good discussions! Stick with the book; I have read about 3/4 so far, and it gets better and the style is beautiful in the images and words. It goes pretty fast, when you get into the flow of the writing style. I probably won't post much until I am done reading. Too many other threads are calling to me and also real life.
Plainjane, I am glad you think that about Mrs Ramsey also.. I made that comment in class that I thought she wanted to get everyone married off because "misery loves company"
As for is Lily loves Mr Ramsey at the end.. I'm not sure about that... But it's interesting to think about... I know she loved Mrs Ramsey... She almost wanted to be like her... But their personalities were so different that would never be...
My opinion is that in the end of the book, we see Lily accepting Mr Ramsey for what he is and I think she then sees why Mrs Ramsey did love him (if in fact she did) Gees, it's all so very complicated...
Ah, life and love and time. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by middleyears
ahhhhh...yeah, indeed, 'life and love and never enough time!' :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Hello, everyone,
I come to this discussion late, having just noticed it, and having read the book some time ago. I won't try to define love /everyone can breathe now/ but I do remember, still, my earlier appraisal of their relationship, and one comment here sheds additional light on it, in my opinion. So I'll just post my thought without connecting it, because I don't think I have seen it explicitly presented. And please remember it is only one thought among all that you have already presented, that I have in fact read, so I am not presenting it as the 'answer' to all of the observations already made, even though it falls down here at the end.
What kind of marriage was this? When I read the book, I came away with the feeling that it was an arranged marriage in its later stages. In my imagination I see it as the result of a young woman being married, many years prior to the book, for reasons of position and prestige, to a man whom she didn't know well, or perhaps didn't even know at all, and whom she didn't start out loving at all. But it turned out that the marriage went well for her in a material sense, in that it brought her a good life, with servants, and well provided for. It needn't have done that. She could have been miserable her whole life in an arranged marriage, and she knew it.
As observed above, in this thread, her husband was a mediocre man. He was domineering. He could not control his temper and, finally, the pinnacle of his career was turning out to be somewhat shorter than he wanted it to be. He was stuck -- partway through the metaphorical alphabet -- without being able to complete his professional understanding up to where he wanted it to be, enfolding everything in a single grasp.
Entering into such a marriage, I believe she might have been pleasantly surprised at her comfortable arrangements and developed an affection, or certainly an appreciation, for her husband and what he provided for her life. But, mainly, I think she also had to learn how to cope, and especially how to "manage," his temperamental and irascible side.
We see her at the dinner table looking at her husband appraisingly, trying, I think, to imagine which way his emotions are going to take him and what sort of row or nastiness she might be going to have to handle and get back under control. When they go off arm in arm, that is part of her being pleasant to him, and perhaps genuinely affectionate, but also, and most important, bringing the situation back to a degree of politeness and normalcy. It is one of her techniques for keeping him in bounds. He craves for her affection, love and appreciation, and he knows that in some sense he has those things from her, and she knows he knows, because she knows she has those feelings for him and shows them. But -- the crux of the matter -- she also knows that she will not surrender to him, because otherwise the situation would become totally intolerable under his emotional and unstable domineering. So the only way she can manage him, and keep her head above water, so to speak, is to hold him at arms length and in a position of supplication and, perhaps tender, mutually acceptable subjugation. Perhaps he was much like an unruly child, with her having to take the position of a caring parent.
It is about control, as has been observed, and she is controlling him to preserve and protect the children from his harshness and meanness. I might more call it management rather than control, but she clearly sees his destructiveness in being glad to tell the boy that he likely won't be going to the lighthouse tomorrow, and that destructiveness was what she was protecting her children as well as herself against.
So did she love him? Perhaps, yes, in an appreciative or affectionate sense. Was she protecting herself from him. Definitely yes! Had she triumphed once again? Absolutely, as so many times before!
So, that's a convoluted thought for consideration here.
You know Walter, I had not looked at it in exactly that light, one of in a way self preservation on her part. I think that is exactly right. It makes good sense and fits perfectly with the time and place. I couldn't get past the actual event in the book and for some reason could not see it was a self/child protection device, but I absolutly agree.
I do wonder though if she'd given in on that point [of telling him] if it would have tamed him -- but more likely I think it would have made him more domineering. Sometimes it is difficult to know which way to go.
middleyears, You mention Lily loving Mrs. Ramsay, yes she did, and that is partially why I thought she turned to appraising Mr. Ramsay at the end, he was a strong connection to the past and Mrs. Ramsay. I wonder if she felt somehow that she would become Mrs. Ramsay...not in a creepy way, but IOW inhabit Mrs. Ramsay's life.
And lol, I usually think there is an element of spite in matchmaking. But I tend to be a bit cynical there....:D
Well, Plainjane, it has taken a long time for that picture to finally come together in my thoughts, long after reading the book and being totally baffled by that triumph. But it does seem to fit several of the 'odd' scenes and, in her place, I would not want to have risked giving in to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
I'd still like to know what sort of 'mistake' someone had made, if I remember the word right. Might he have he found some new idea in his academic studies where he felt others had 'got it wrong.' Or just what was he talking about? Whatever it was, in the book it conveys again the sense of his blustery lack of control.
PS. I just absolutely loved the book! :)
Kudos to Walter! I liked very much the way you stated all of this. It finally puts into clear-cut words the ideas I have been toying with since I read the book. I too read the book several years ago and have just come back to a re-reading of it and find it better the second time around. I agree with all that you have said but consider the part about an arranged marriage probably not quite arranged, such as by parents, but rather a young not well thought marriage and not necessarily based upon love. When the Ramsey's would have married there were not so many opportunities for women and often they did not know well the man they chose as their spouse so I think the idea you have stated coincides with this idea of a young, inexperienced couple who marry. Love would come later, if it were to come.
Other than this, I think I see Mrs. Ramsey as the person who is relied on always to balance things and to keep the peace and although the Ramseys do fight and argue, she keeps a semblence of control over that situation; she keeps her husband in-check, otherwise the household would be total chaos.
I felt awhile back in my reading two things emerge - one someone has already mentioned or questioned. I felt as though Mrs. Ramsey did elude (several time) to having been infinitely happy at one time in her life, perhaps with another love, not her husband. I picked up on hints of this several places in the text but I am not equipped presently to quote those exact passages. After my reading I will try to locate them. There did seem to be a kind of longing for 'something/someone' in her past.
The second thought came to me about the ages of the Ramseys. He was about 60 and she in her 50's - not young anymore. I think at times, many times during the course of this story, Mrs. Ramsey is really tired, tired of keeping the peace and tired of keeping such a large family. Although she is very connected to her family, there is a sense of fatique and being burdened somehow, with the weight of it all upon her shoulders. Even to be cheerful and uplift the others is a great responsibility and perhaps the woman has had enough and feels she needs a rest from all the stress and tension, of keeping her husband in-check and her children happy and protected from her husband's tempor and rages and domineering ways. Mrs. Ramsey is only 'human' after all.
I think that Mrs. Ramsey's matchmaking thoughts are not so much a matter of 'misery likes company', but more an activity that can occupy her mind and give her something she will feel worthwhile about doing. Also, I think she is vicariously living through her children and the visitors, who are surrounding her, during the summer vacations at the house. This, too, is a control issue, don't you think? I don't think she truly feels she has complete control of her own family and husband all the time; with the matchmaking she can feel she exerts some control over others lives, basically an illusion, but she needs this to feel whole and worthwhile.
Like Walter already pointed out, it is the same with me. These are merely my own thoughts on the matter and my own opinions, but I thought at this point, it would be good to share them and add to the great post by Walter; thanks for taking the time to write all of that; it really makes it clear and lays the ideas out well.
Janine, thanks for the kind words. You, however, brought out so many more of the elusive subterranean layers that one can wonder about in this very complicated relationship which doesn't quite fit together on the surface. If one puts it in its time, and thinks of it perhaps as a specifically feminist work, then not only is Woolf showing us a dysfunctional marriage, but then also I can hear her voice saying loud and clear, "This is how I would have handled it!" That would make it a novel with a very powerful statement from the author.
Yes, I think you're right to say that Mrs. Ramsay does try to manage Mr. Ramsay, and I do think she is somewhat defensive with him. She particularly tries to defend the children from his oppressive neediness and sometimes cruelty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
First, I don't know if Mrs. Ramsay is miserable; and, second, I don't know if her matchmaking is really motivated by malice. I think Mrs. Ramsay is quite comfortable in her marriage, and I think--in a way--Mr. Ramsay satisfies some of her important needs. Particularly, she needs Mr. Ramsay to give her direction, knowledge, or--more abstractly--truth. At the end of the first section Mrs. Ramsay wants Mr. Ramsay to speak. For a moment she begins to have doubt and she wants her husband to settle it. Woolf narrates, "Slowly it came into her head, why is it then that one wants people to marry? What was the value, the meaning of things? (Every word they said now would be true.) Do say something, she thought, wishing only to hear his voice. For the shadow, the thing folding them in was beginning, she felt, to close round her again. Say anything, she begged, looking at him, as if for help.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
He was silent, swinging the compass on his watch-chain to and fro, and thinking of Scott’s novels and Balzac’s novels. But through the crepuscular walls of their intimacy, for they were drawing together, involuntarily, coming side by side, quite close, she could feel his mind like a raised hand shadowing her mind; and he was beginning, now that her thoughts took a turn he disliked—towards this “pessimism” as he called it—to fidget, though he said nothing, raising his hand to his forehead, twisting a lock of hair, letting it fall again.
“You won’t finish that stocking tonight,” he said, pointing to her stocking. That was what she wanted—the asperity in his voice reproving her. If he says it’s wrong to be pessimistic probably it is wrong, she thought; the marriage will turn out all right." (125). Mrs. Ramsay needs Mr. Ramsay to settle inner disputes for her; she needs his objectivity--his truth. In turn, Mr. Ramsay needs her beauty. He wants because she has a calm attractiveness that is unobtainable for him. Woolf writes, "But she knew that he had turned his head as she turned; he was watching her. She knew that he was thinking, You are more beautiful than ever. And she felt herself very beautiful" (125). This beauty is what attracts Mr. Ramsay, and that knowledge is what attracts Mrs. Ramsay. And, I believe this relationship makes them happy: some of the last words of the first section are, "Nothing on earth can equal this happiness" (126). As for her desire for other marriages, I think that is motivated by a desire to spread the idea of beauty that she has, and somehow overcome mortality which threatens to erase everything that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay stand for. Through marriage she can continue in other people's lives--my other post was much more descriptive on this point.
Are you trying to say that Woolf is speaking her arguments through Mrs. Ramsay? That may be hard to prove. After all, it would not be a very feminist or modernist novel if it made Mrs. Ramsay the heroine. Mrs. Ramsay fully admits the superiority of Mr. Ramsay's mind and even enjoys his domineering nature. She does "triumph" over her husband in that she doesn't admit verbally that she loves him, but she only refuses him this because she lacks the communicative skills that she believes Mr. Ramsay is superior with. If Virginia Woolf is trying to make a feminist statement it doesn't seem reasonable that she would do it through Mrs. Ramsay. Mrs. Ramsay's death and the failure of the marriage she sets up seem a more powerful message than the manipulations that she employs. Also, I don't think that Mrs. Ramsay could be seen as overly positive because she is so Victorian. Her and Mr. Ramsay both have the Victorian ideals that had collapsed by the time Virginia Woolf was writing the novel. In fact, the marriage of truth and beauty that I talked about above is very strongly rooted in Victorian thought. Matthew Arnold, writing in the mid-nineteenth century, argued that people need to obtain a "harmonious perfection" between truth and beauty in order to create a perfect society. People needed to be weened from their natural inclinations to follow this perfection which he called "culture". In the same sense, we can see Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay working to this end with both each other and their children. Woolf, however, acts very critical to these kinds of ideas, and has these ambitions thwarted in To The Lighthouse. I wouldn't think she would do this to the Ramsays, and then try to voice her arguments through these characters. I think it's much more likely she would use a character like Lily Briscoe who is slightly detached and has a critical eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
I don't know if Mrs. Ramsay is bored or insecure. While on some subconscious level this may be true, I think the real reason that Mrs. Ramsay coerces couples to marry is to overcome her own doubts. Mrs. Ramsay is preoccupied by fears that nothing she does matters and that everything will pass away. This heightened sense of mortality causes her matchmaking because she believes she can live on through other couples--in some philosophical sense. We know--having read the second chapter--that, yes, these misgivings that Mrs. Ramsay has are justified, and we know--having read the third chapter--that her method of overcoming these problems is not a real solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
And, wow, 147 posts. Thanks everyone for getting in on this. When this thread started I thought that I would just be talking to myself.
Quark, Good to see you posting here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Another thought came to me, when reading your post. In trying to control Mr. Ramsey's behavior or curb his anger, do you think this sets up a feeling, for Mrs. Ramsey, of resentment at times? It certainly would be an exhausting undertaking, day in and day out. I would think that somedays, she would feel hemmed in and trapped. Perhaps this is why she goes out so often to minister to poor families. It is an outlet and she feels needed and yet not 'bleed to death' by emotion - the poor families are distant/set appart, not close like a marriage relationship. Could this actually bring her some sense of selfworth and relief? This could apply to her matchmaking; it is merely a relief mechanism or an outlet for her frustrations.
I think you have brought out some very good points here. I think they do compliment each other and make up for the lack in each other's being - her beauty and grace and his brains and knowledge. It would be different if she had not stated how much she admired him and the same with he admiring her beauty. I do recall that statement standing out starkly in the novel "Nothing on earth can equal this happiness". How could that be thought or said if love did not exist between them? It might be a 'limited' type love in our eyes, but they have both adjusted in their own personal way to each other and lived together effectively for many years. I don't get the sense that their life together was miserable, at all. We are only seeing their older years; it might be at this time they feel thwarted or frustrated sometimes and voice this in their own minds and thoughts. Doesn't everyone have days like that occasional or during periods of their lives? Life and relationships are not fairytale perfect, afterall.Quote:
First, I don't know if Mrs. Ramsay is miserable; and, second, I don't know if her matchmaking is really motivated by malice. I think Mrs. Ramsay is quite comfortable in her marriage, and I think--in a way--Mr. Ramsay satisfies some of her important needs. Particularly, she needs Mr. Ramsay to give her direction, knowledge, or--more abstractly--truth. At the end of the first section Mrs. Ramsay wants Mr. Ramsay to speak. For a moment she begins to have doubt and she wants her husband to settle it. Woolf narrates, "Slowly it came into her head, why is it then that one wants people to marry? What was the value, the meaning of things? (Every word they said now would be true.) Do say something, she thought, wishing only to hear his voice. For the shadow, the thing folding them in was beginning, she felt, to close round her again. Say anything, she begged, looking at him, as if for help.
He was silent, swinging the compass on his watch-chain to and fro, and thinking of Scott’s novels and Balzac’s novels. But through the crepuscular walls of their intimacy, for they were drawing together, involuntarily, coming side by side, quite close, she could feel his mind like a raised hand shadowing her mind; and he was beginning, now that her thoughts took a turn he disliked—towards this “pessimism” as he called it—to fidget, though he said nothing, raising his hand to his forehead, twisting a lock of hair, letting it fall again.
“You won’t finish that stocking tonight,” he said, pointing to her stocking. That was what she wanted—the asperity in his voice reproving her. If he says it’s wrong to be pessimistic probably it is wrong, she thought; the marriage will turn out all right." (125). Mrs. Ramsay needs Mr. Ramsay to settle inner disputes for her; she needs his objectivity--his truth. In turn, Mr. Ramsay needs her beauty. He wants because she has a calm attractiveness that is unobtainable for him. Woolf writes, "But she knew that he had turned his head as she turned; he was watching her. She knew that he was thinking, You are more beautiful than ever. And she felt herself very beautiful" (125). This beauty is what attracts Mr. Ramsay, and that knowledge is what attracts Mrs. Ramsay. And, I believe this relationship makes them happy: some of the last words of the first section are, "Nothing on earth can equal this happiness" (126). As for her desire for other marriages, I think that is motivated by a desire to spread the idea of beauty that she has, and somehow overcome mortality which threatens to erase everything that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay stand for. Through marriage she can continue in other people's lives--my other post was much more descriptive on this point.
I was not too sure about this statement of Walter's either, but I considered it a possibility. It is good to hear your 'take' on the whole idea. I don't know that much about Woolf's writings or her intentions in this novel. I have some commentary to review, when I finish reading my book (have 20 p. left). I found two good books at my library with a number of pages devoted to TTLH in each. I will read those and perhaps get a better understanding of just what Woolf intented here with the Ramseys and Lily B.Quote:
Are you trying to say that Woolf is speaking her arguments through Mrs. Ramsay? That may be hard to prove. After all, it would not be a very feminist or modernist novel if it made Mrs. Ramsay the heroine. Mrs. Ramsay fully admits the superiority of Mr. Ramsay's mind and even enjoys his domineering nature. She does "triumph" over her husband in that she doesn't admit verbally that she loves him, but she only refuses him this because she lacks the communicative skills that she believes Mr. Ramsay is superior with. If Virginia Woolf is trying to make a feminist statement it doesn't seem reasonable that she would do it through Mrs. Ramsay. Mrs. Ramsay's death and the failure of the marriage she sets up seem a more powerful message than the manipulations that she employs. Also, I don't think that Mrs. Ramsay could be seen as overly positive because she is so Victorian. Her and Mr. Ramsay both have the Victorian ideals that had collapsed by the time Virginia Woolf was writing the novel. In fact, the marriage of truth and beauty that I talked about above is very strongly rooted in Victorian thought. Matthew Arnold, writing in the mid-nineteenth century, argued that people need to obtain a "harmonious perfection" between truth and beauty in order to create a perfect society. People needed to be weened from their natural inclinations to follow this perfection which he called "culture". In the same sense, we can see Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay working to this end with both each other and their children. Woolf, however, acts very critical to these kinds of ideas, and has these ambitions thwarted in To The Lighthouse. I wouldn't think she would do this to the Ramsays, and then try to voice her arguments through these characters. I think it's much more likely she would use a character like Lily Briscoe who is slightly detached and has a critical eye.
Quark, this is good and explains it much better than I attempted to do.Quote:
I don't know if Mrs. Ramsay is bored or insecure. While on some subconscious level this may be true, I think the real reason that Mrs. Ramsay coerces couples to marry is to overcome her own doubts. Mrs. Ramsay is preoccupied by fears that nothing she does matters and that everything will pass away. This heightened sense of mortality causes her matchmaking because she believes she can live on through other couples--in some philosophical sense. We know--having read the second chapter--that, yes, these misgivings that Mrs. Ramsay has are justified, and we know--having read the third chapter--that her method of overcoming these problems is not a real solution.
Yes, by the time the summer months end, we should have a sizable number of posts. Good to see this much participation.:thumbs_up Keep posting everyone; the discussion is getting interesting!Quote:
And, wow, 147 posts. Thanks everyone for getting in on this. When this thread started I thought that I would just be talking to myself.
I don't mean flat out miserable all of the time, more in waves. I think there is an undercurrent of unhappiness, or maybe more accurately dissatisfaction in her marriage. More a 'what could have been' than out and out miserable. Comfort does not equal satisfaction or happiness. Yes he satisfies her material needs fairly well, but that is certainly not the most important aspect of a marriage. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean material things are unimportant, just not top dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I disagree with that reasoning...I felt she refused him to keep a portion of herself to herself. IOW it was the one thing she could with hold and not be criticized about. Walter brought out her refusal was a protective tool and that makes perfect sense to me.Quote:
She does "triumph" over her husband in that she doesn't admit verbally that she loves him, but she only refuses him this because she lacks the communicative skills that she believes Mr. Ramsay is superior with.
I do not think she refused him due to any lack within herself.
Hi plainjane, I understand what you are getting at her. I think that when people get older many think to themselves "so it that all there is?" Everyone has some regrets and wonders what life would have been like having taken another path. I think this is what is going on with Mrs. Ramsey at this point in her life. I think Mr. Ramsey is feeling this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
I don't mean this unkind, but when you use abreviations like 'IOW' I don't really know what they mean. There may be others, from various countries, whose first language is not English and who also may not know that short hand. If possible, could you refrain from using abreviations so I fully understand your posts. I am not up on the latest shorthands for computer.Quote:
I disagree with that reasoning...I felt she refused him to keep a portion of herself to herself. IOW it was the one thing she could with hold and not be criticized about. Walter brought out her refusal was a protective tool and that makes perfect sense to me.
I do not think she refused him due to any lack within herself.
Probably you are correct in saying to withhold something from her husband such as the love declaration was the one thing he could not actively criticise her for. Perhaps, too, it was only at the moment that she could not answer him since she did not truly feel it. They say people who love each other often 'fall in and out of love'. She had been quite perturbed about him lately with the Lighthouse issue and James so maybe she just felt numb and unable to say anything back to him.
Oh sure! No problem, I used it without thinking, I know very few myself. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
IOW = In Other Words
BTW = By The Way
I include the latter in case I used it previously....can't remember. :blush:
Quite true. It seemed to me his attitude was overly malicious. I wondered if he was in a sense lashing out at James because of Mrs. Ramsay's attention to the child. Rather childish himself, but entirely possible. Especially considering the reconciliation of sorts at the end of the book on the actual trip. Mrs. Ramsay seems to have been a catalyst for jealousy between Mr. Ramsay and [some of] the children.Quote:
She had been quite perturbed about him lately with the Lighthouse issue and James so maybe she just felt numb and unable to say anything back to him.
plainjane, Thanks for complying with my request. I am just not up on all the short-hand jargon.Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
Yes, he did seem malicious and mean. I think he acted quite childish many times and very needy emotionally. He was just that type of man, insecure in matter of everyday life. He was advanced in his literary knowledge but could not always relate to everyday occurances. This is how I see him. It was like Mrs. Ramsey, at these times, had another child on her hands to placate. Perhaps in his friction with the child he was showing a kind of jealously. Mrs. Ramsey did seem to dote on the boy, he being the baby of the family and a very sensitive child. Not quite sure of the meaning of your last line or what that would indicate.Quote:
Quite true. It seemed to me his attitude was overly malicious. I wondered if he was in a sense lashing out at James because of Mrs. Ramsay's attention to the child. Rather childish himself, but entirely possible. Especially considering the reconciliation of sorts at the end of the book on the actual trip. Mrs. Ramsay seems to have been a catalyst for jealousy between Mr. Ramsay and [some of] the children.
Yes, I am suggesting that those, among others, represent Woolf's attitudes. What constitutes feminism in practice is I think open to some discussion, and I believe that Woolf is well regarded as a feminist author. Lily is, of course, easily recognizable by today's standards as a single young lady 'doing her own thing' as we might say. Mrs Ramsay is constrained within a dysfunctional marriage and her range of options is more limited. However, the question of what feminism meant was also of considerable interest back in Woolf's lifetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
An early and contemporaneous critical evaluation of Woolf's life and literary work was written by another author, Winfred Holtby, who
She summarizes the predicament of the woman author subject to the conflicting attitudes of the times:Quote:
was a novelist, journalist and social reformer who campaigned for the causes of peace and social and racial equality. Her most famous work is the novel South Riding, published posthumously in 1936. She died in 1935.
Back cover: Virginia Woolf - A Critical Memoir, by Winifred Holtby, 1932
But with respect to Virginia Woolf, specifically, of educated and literary background rather different than her own working class background, Holtby nevertheless recognizes thatQuote:
She was told to write like a human being, to write like a woman, to write like a political propagandist, and not to write at all. The confusion and the conflict were immeasurably disturbing. The wonder is that any women continued to write novels at all.
Holtby, who used her writing talents and efforts for suffragist activism rather than 'art', further observes, not ungenerously, that, in terms of demands on Woolf's timeQuote:
She was far to intelligent and too honest to remain unaware of the importance of the suffrage movement. . . . She was irritated and depressed in the extreme by the thought, [expressed in a speech at a conference] that "in all that audience, among all those women who worked, who bore children, who scrubbed and cooked and bargained, there was not a single woman with a vote."
So Woolf was no stranger to the woman's situation in her times, working class or otherwise.Quote:
She chose to be an artist, to concern herself with ends and not with means. . . She could do only one thing at a time, and that with difficulty. . . [But] one side of her mind was continually rubbing up against the minds of people engaged in getting pit-head baths for miners, educational scholarships for women, or a higher standard of administration in the colonies.
And yes I think it is deliberate that she chose to show a wife who, though she might be viewed perhaps as disobedient by society's norms, was nevertheless standing off her husband at arms length in a dysfunctional marriage. So what we have, in the same novel, are two different approaches to feminist action -- nuanced would be the modern word -- depending upon the circumstance of the woman and what was realistically within her power to do.
Is it a feminist novel? That depends on what you mean by the term. But Lily Briscoe and Mrs. Ramsay both spring from the mind of the same author and I see consistently feminist attitudes and actions in the two characters she created.
Walter, I like seeing someone doing a little research. I think this is the only way to come up with answers. I also have some commentary to read and perhaps this will throw more light to the deeper meanings of the novel and intentions of the author. One does have to know a little bit about the authors themselves and how they wrote and for what reasons before one can truly access the meaning of a novel.
I am glad you have shared this bit of commentary with us and I know from other conversations with friends that yes, Woolf did favor feminism, but just what that meant to her personally I still need to explore. Obviously if she wanted to convey that housewives, like Mrs. Ramsey, were perfectly happy she would not have put so many doubts and questions in the woman's mind and showed her audience, us, what she is thinking from time to time. The environment would have felt more peaceful and harmonious I believe. Both Lily and Mrs. Ramsey do have parellels in some ways, but often are quite difference, don't you think? However is seems that Lily Briscoe envies the life Mrs. Ramsey leads and her adoration is all for the family.
I am anxious now to get to my own research and see what I can come up with on these issues. It might be just opposite with what I have stated or somewhat in accord. Time will only tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Mrs. Ramsay, without meaning to, caused her husband and child to react to each other in a jealous manner.Quote:
Mrs. Ramsay seems to have been a catalyst for jealousy between Mr. Ramsay and [some of] the children.
Add Mrs. Ramsay to the equation and the child and the man were not able to get along because they both wanted her attention. Removing Mrs. Ramsay from the equation they were able to interact normally, or at least closer to normal than before, it was I would hope an ongoing process of reconciliation between father and child.
Walter,
Lily was an independent woman that saw no reason to marry only for the sake of marrying, in this Woolf presented a view point that was not exactly at the forefront of society at the time. And really in the end Mrs. Ramsay did what she pleased, she only managed it in a more indirect manner than Lily.
Yes Lily and Mrs. Ramsay are very different. And the fact that Lily admires Mrs. Ramsay's situation while Mrs Ramsay has doubts, is I think part of a larger theme of the difference between how others see the characters and they see themselves. Mr. Ramsay, for another example, is respected by the young man; but he himself is dissatisfied with his own understanding of his field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
As for research, google is your friend, your super-abundant friend. :)
Yeah, good point, I saw some clear instances of Mrs. Ramsay's rising resentment. She believes that Mr. Ramsay is far too blunt and overbearing. It comes out in the opening of the novel with Mr. Ramsay refusing to allow even a possibility of going to the lighthouse. We also see that Mrs. Ramsay has some resentful feelings toward his student Tansley, whom Mrs. Ramsay pictures loudly hurling books to the ground while the children try to sleep. I don't know if we can say she feels trapped or hemmed in, though. I can't think of any instances where she really gets adventurous or even tries to step outside of the narrow circumscribed area that she's alloted in the family. While I think it's natural for someone to feel trapped in that situation--I know I would--I don't think Mrs. Ramsay does. I don't remember all of the novel, so there may be parts that are eluding me. This may be just part of Mrs. Ramsay's character that I didn't pick up on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I know what you mean when talk about the Ramsay's relationship vacillating hot and cold between love and frustration. I think you're completely right. I didn't mean to say that Mrs. Ramsay was entirely happy or entirely despondent; I simply wanted to point out that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay still have some reason for being together--that their marriage wasn't finished. Yet, at the same time, I don't believe that Mrs. Ramsay is purposefully withholding love from Mr. Ramsay. The last part of the first chapter, in which she "triumphs", read, "He wanted something—wanted the thing she always found it so difficult to give him; wanted her to tell him that she loved him. And that, no, she could not do. He found talking so much easier than she did. He could say things--she never could…A heartless woman he called her; she never told him that she loved him. But it was not so—it was not so. It was only that she never could say what she felt". Maybe I'm reading this too literally. It sounds like Mrs. Ramsay doesn't admit her love, not out of some desire to manipulate, but more because she can't find the words. And, in the end, Mr. Ramsay understands that she loves him. Perhaps this is the "triumph". It isn't that she triumphs over her husband because she doesn't admit her love. This can't be right because Mr. Ramsay can sense her love. Another idea is that Mrs. Ramsay triumphs in the sense that she does express her love; that she breaks through the barrier that separates her and Mr. Ramsay without words. This might make more sense--being that the last words of the first chapter are, "For she had triumphed again. She had not said it: yet he knew".Quote:
Originally Posted by plainjane
I agree with you that Virginia Woolf was a feminist writer. I just don't think that Mrs. Ramsay was a particularly feminist character. She's convinced of her husbands superiority, and I see few instances where she expresses any rebellion to the position she's in. And, those few instances of free thought are usually expressed tacitly. I don't believe that Woolf was establishing Mrs. Ramsay as a feminist hero. I think it's more accurate to consider her the opposite. Lily, on the other hand, has a progressive and radical outlook on gender that is more in tune with what I think we would call feminism or equality. She openly defies the repressive, Victorian sexism that surrounds her. She is the one antagonized by Tansley: "Women can't paint". On top of that, Mrs. Ramsay seems to join in with the criticism against Lily. Mrs. Ramsay condescends to have her portrait done, and then smiles sarcastically when she considers a female painter. While I think Lily and Mrs. Ramsay have some bond, they are two characters with radically different views on women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
Quark, It seems it all depends on how we see Mrs. Ramsay's attitude toward Mr. Ramsay, and possibly on how much independence we (but really, they)expect feminism to introduce into an existing marriage. As the example of what feminism might be, no, she is not the most 'out there' example in terms of our standards, but she might have been quite enough for the attitudes of the time to digest, with independence being characterized as rebelliousness, I would imagine. I suspect many a married man of the time grumbled at her for her lack of submissiveness -- if he read the book, and if that is how we see it.
As a foggy afterthought, that grumbling appeared in the opening of A Room of One's Own when she merely walked through a traditionally all-male library, if I recall correctly.
I am somewhat hobbled by the fact of my only having read two of Woolf's works, this one To the Lighthouse and Mrs. Dalloway. This also stunts somewhat my taking in some of the excellent remarks in the Cambridge Companion to Virginia Woolf which contains essays on various aspects of Woolf's novels.
In the essay Literary realism by Susan Dick she speaks of the contrasts and significance of those contrasts of eating and enjoyment of food in Mrs. Dalloway, then (p.57):I haven't read either of Woolf's bios yet, but I do understand there was a great deal of tension and even abuse connected with her childhood.Quote:
Woolf's attention to these and numerous other details of ordinary reality provides the solid base upon which speculations about other dimensions of reality may rest.
The relationship between the two realities is central to To the Lighthouse (1927), which Woolf began to plan in the spring of 1925. One of the challenges she faced as she wrote this book was that of transforming a selection of her memories of childhood and especially of her parents, Julia and Leslie Stephen, into a fictional narrative.
In the essay entitled Woolf's feminism and feminism's Woolf by Laura Marcus there is a great deal of discussion of feminism in each of her books and it is so intertwined that I have difficulty sorting it out because of my not having read most of her work. The second paragraph of this essay speaks to Woolf's feminism...(p.209):It seems to me that Woolf is giving Mrs. Ramsay the power she wished her own mother had possessed, and exercised.Quote:
The relationship between Virginia Woolf and feminism, feminism and Virginia Woolf is, as the title of my chapter suggests, a symbiotic one. On one hand, Woolf's feminism - which includes not just her explicit feminist politics but her concern and fascination with gender identities and with women's lives, histories and fictions--shaped her writing profoundly.
Hi everyone, I only have a few pages left to read. Then I'll investigate some additional materials, such as plainjane has done and posted in her most recent entry. Thanks for those entries, pj. If your book has additional material of insight, please share with us, I know the Cambridge additions are quite helpful. I want to also read a short biography about Woolf. I am sure this will help with my understanding emensely. It is good to see everyone now thinking 'outside the box' and researching some additional materials to add to the discussion and clarify some points. There are many more vital issues of discussion, such as the way the story revolves around the Ramsey's dinnertime/meals, mentioned in pj's post, the way in which time is perceived might be another. There are many aspects to talk about in this book, such as the symbolism of the lighthouse, the waves, the sea, etc. I have read some of this briefly, but we need to go onto other topics, beside the relationship of Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, because in the end I think this relationship will become clearer to us, if and as we study the other aspects of the novel. The relationships with the children and the two parents are equally as multilayered and complex. The whole atmosphere/setting of the story is vitally important and reflects many of the 'moods' of the characters. The idea of the waves and the changing seasons also echo the rhythms of life and are important to discuss. I am sure there is much contrast in the story as well, with darkness, shadows and light, mists, veils, etc.
I read something very near to the end of the book, an entire paragraph, which sums up and supports something I said in an earlier post, about Mrs. Ramsey being 'worn down'/'worn out' by life and her marriage. I will try and scan the pages of the novel online and quote that later today. I can't find it now in scanning my book; unfortunately I did not mark it down, but at the time I said 'this explains it all so well in just one paragraph'.
Quark - nearly forgot your post and this:
Yes, Mrs. Ramsey did seem to transfer some of her resentment of her husband, to Charles Tanlsey, or project it onto him. I think she had totally mixed feeling about him in the end, as she did with her husband, or mixed thoughts. As far as getting adventurous, I think she does break out in her own way, by doing the charity work and going to see sick families. I think in a small way this relieves her tension and her feeling of being trapped. I do think she feels trapped to some extend. One could only be so, being human. I know one can be inert and unable to break from a situation, but still there is a feeling of being restrained or trapped. One might not act on it, or do anything about it, but constantly feeling this way can drag a person down and make for added resentment.Quote:
Yeah, good point, I saw some clear instances of Mrs. Ramsay's rising resentment. She believes that Mr. Ramsay is far too blunt and overbearing. It comes out in the opening of the novel with Mr. Ramsay refusing to allow even a possibility of going to the lighthouse. We also see that Mrs. Ramsay has some resentful feelings toward his student Tansley, whom Mrs. Ramsay pictures loudly hurling books to the ground while the children try to sleep. I don't know if we can say she feels trapped or hemmed in, though. I can't think of any instances where she really gets adventurous or even tries to step outside of the narrow circumscribed area that she's alloted in the family. While I think it's natural for someone to feel trapped in that situation--I know I would--I don't think Mrs. Ramsay does. I don't remember all of the novel, so there may be parts that are eluding me. This may be just part of Mrs. Ramsay's character that I didn't pick up on.