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

[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.

Oh sure! No problem, I used it without thinking, I know very few myself.

IOW = In Other Words
BTW = By The Way

I include the latter in case I used it previously....can't remember.

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.

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.

[Janine]

Oh sure! No problem, I used it without thinking, I know very few myself.

plainjane, Thanks for complying with my request. I am just not up on all the short-hand jargon.

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, 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.

[Walter]

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.

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.

An early and contemporaneous critical evaluation of Woolf's life and literary work was written by another author, Winfred Holtby, who

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

She summarizes the predicament of the woman author subject to the conflicting attitudes of the times:

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.

But with respect to Virginia Woolf, specifically, of educated and literary background rather different than her own working class background, Holtby nevertheless recognizes that

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."

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 time

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.

So Woolf was no stranger to the woman's situation in her times, working class or otherwise.

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.

[Janine]

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.

[plainjane]

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.

Mrs. Ramsay seems to have been a catalyst for jealousy between Mr. Ramsay and [some of] the children.

Mrs. Ramsay, without meaning to, caused her husband and child to react to each other in a jealous manner.

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.

[Walter]

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.

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.

As for research, google is your friend, your super-abundant friend.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

So Woolf was no stranger to the woman's situation in her times, working class or otherwise. 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.

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.

[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.

[plainjane]

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):

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.

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.

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):

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.

It seems to me that Woolf is giving Mrs. Ramsay the power she wished her own mother had possessed, and exercised.

[Janine]

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:

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.

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.

[Jamilah]

I don't think I'm going to make it. Everytime I start reading I get drowsy and start to nod off. I know this is a classic book but I'm afraid I'm not enjoying this very much. I don't mind the work it takes to read this. I've read and re-read sections and I am truly giving it my complete attention. There are parts that are beautifully written but those passages seem scare. I need some encouragement because I'm very tempted to stop reading and I hate leaving books unfinished. I've only done it once. Will reading the discussions help? I've avoided them so far for fear of spoilers. I think I hate 'modernist' or 'stream of consciousness' writing. But I know I'm basing this on reading only 77 page of To the Lighthouse. Help!

[Janine]

I don't think I'm going to make it. Everytime I start reading I get drowsy and start to nod off. I know this is a classic book but I'm afraid I'm not enjoying this very much. I don't mind the work it takes to read this. I've read and re-read sections and I am truly giving it my complete attention. There are parts that are beautifully written but those passages seem scare. I need some encouragement because I'm very tempted to stop reading and I hate leaving books unfinished. I've only done it once. Will reading the discussions help? I've avoided them so far for fear of spoilers. I think I hate 'modernist' or 'stream of consciousness' writing. But I know I'm basing this on reading only 77 page of To the Lighthouse. Help!

Jamilah, Hi, I can empathise with your dilema. I too ,hardly ever start a book and not finish it. I can't say if you continue your reading, whether you will or will not like the book. That is always individual. I have always had trouble reading 'stream of consciousness' works. Someone, early on in this post, said not to worry so much about understanding every particle of the book, but just read and let it flow. What I have found is that I have gotten into the rhythm of the prose after a time and I now read it almost as if it were poetry. It is very much like the waves Woolf describes. If you read it late at night, it might put you to sleep, since the rolling action of the prose is very lulling at times. The writing is quite beautiful, but difficult since thoughts jump around and from one person to the other, even within the same statement. My attention span has trouble with long 'run-on' sentences, such as Woolf often employs. I have actually read this book twice and it got better/easier for me the second time around; I think it was because I found the rhythm in the writing and let myself follow it this time. Last time I was fighting against it.

I think if you stick with the book, it will become easier for you and things will come together, also. Think of the book in three distinctive divisions. I read a commentary last night, which has helped me greatly understand the book. Does your library have any source material on the book or Woolf? This might help. Reading the posts also might help. This is not a 'plot-driven' book, so I don't think it will actually spoil any big climatic ending - the ending is a quieter one, more deeply meaningful.

I would suggest reading posts from the beginning and when people start discussing things that happen further along in the story, I you could refrain from reading them, but that is your choice. Afterall, this book is not a 400 page undertaking, so I think I would suggest sticking with it, at least for a while longer. You seem to be almost mid-way through the novel - it would be a shame to abandon your reading now.

Hope all of this helps you in some way.

[Quark]

I don't think I'm going to make it. Everytime I start reading I get drowsy and start to nod off. I know this is a classic book but I'm afraid I'm not enjoying this very much. I don't mind the work it takes to read this. I've read and re-read sections and I am truly giving it my complete attention. There are parts that are beautifully written but those passages seem scare. I need some encouragement because I'm very tempted to stop reading and I hate leaving books unfinished. I've only done it once. Will reading the discussions help? I've avoided them so far for fear of spoilers. I think I hate 'modernist' or 'stream of consciousness' writing. But I know I'm basing this on reading only 77 page of To the Lighthouse. Help!

I think I would wait until you reach the end of the first chapter before you stop. Early in the novel it's hard to pick up on all the themes of the story because you're just trying to understand what's literally going on. The end of the first chapter is kind of a summary of the first part so it might help. I'm glad you think that it's well written; I completely agree. The second chapter is often considered the most beautiful and innovative for its prose--that is something to look forward to. As for whether to read the thread posts, I don't think we spoiled much because we haven't been able to agree on much. We have talked about the end some, but only in the most general and abstract ways. I think reading the posts wouldn't reveal much more than the back of your book would.

[Walter]

I don't think I'm going to make it. Everytime I start reading I get drowsy and start to nod off. I know this is a classic book but I'm afraid I'm not enjoying this very much. I don't mind the work it takes to read this. I've read and re-read sections and I am truly giving it my complete attention. There are parts that are beautifully written but those passages seem scare. I need some encouragement because I'm very tempted to stop reading and I hate leaving books unfinished. I've only done it once. Will reading the discussions help? I've avoided them so far for fear of spoilers. I think I hate 'modernist' or 'stream of consciousness' writing. But I know I'm basing this on reading only 77 page of To the Lighthouse. Help!

Jamilah, If you have gotten to 77 pages, I would suggest that you continue to go forward, however slowly, and in a while you will be seeing parts of the story that start coming together and being more interesting to think about. It is not a story with a lot of action, but it does have a lot of people with different viewpoints and it is your trying to put together the whole story from their separate parts that is the challenge. As for reading the discussion, it might very well help in giving you some thoughts about how Mrs. Ramsay might be viewed for you to think about as you go along. She is not a usual heroine. There is very little mystery in the first part of the story to 'spoil' by reading the discussion. Later on there will be notable events, but not really in part I, in my opinion. Part I sets up the later parts of the book. So go at it which ever way feels best for part I, but if you give up you will miss an absorbing read, I think, one that you will think about for a while afterward.
Part II will be unlike anything you have ever read, I guarantee!
And then I think Part III will be more like a normal story, even if a bit slow-moving. But you will have caught the rhythm by then, and it does have an outcome that finally relates to the whole story.

[plainjane]

Jamilah,
I can only echo what has been so ably said above. I found that if I just kept on plugging away at it after a bit it would just sort of engulf me and carry me along for the ride. Even if you don't "get" every single nuance....after all rereading is half the pleasure sometimes...just continue.
I'd recommend reading the thread as well, couldn't hurt.