Summer '07 Reading: 'To The Lighthouse' by Virginia Woolf

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

---

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:

---

And she looked at him smiling. For she had triumphed again. She had not said it: yet he knew.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

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]..

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.
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 :D

Quote:

---

one does not triumph over a mate. Not when it counts.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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 :D

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

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.

---

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.

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

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]..

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.
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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.

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.

---

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 Virgil

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plainjane

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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?

---

Love is not abusive.
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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

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?

---

You are right, that is the question, and to me her true feelings hang 'pon the one word...triumphant.
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.