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

[Walter]

I think I'll finally join in again, with a thought that this discussion has brought to mind. Quite some time back I said that the Ramsay's marriage sounded to me like an arranged marriage which had started out without love but which in material respects had turned out to be much better than Mrs. Ramsay might well have expected in the circumstances.

This discussion has brought to mind recollections, now many months old, of Mrs. Ramsay briefly musing about a happiness that might have been, and of the things her children might get to do in their lives differently than she in her own. (If I have both those things correct, and not in the wrong book ) In short I'm beginning to believe that, indeed, there is a sadness in the foundation under Mrs. Ramsay's life, and that she might be described as having received only half a cup of living, without the other half, of genuine happiness, added in. She has material comfort, two children she is content with, a social circle of friends, but an irascible husband who is mean to James and whom she watches warily for his moodiness. It would be too much to say she was imprisoned in her circumstance, but I think not to much too say that she was beleaguered by demands upon her and that she is doing her best to cope.

To move on to a second thought, I think the house only reinforces that 'down' feeling. Not only does the house in the second part beautifully and poetically show the passage and debilitating effects of time, but within the structure of the book it also has a second, negative effect; it completely blots out any narrative description of the ordinary events of life going forward. Principal characters die, marriages dissolve, but only in the merest of mentions in the background, as if those events were insignificant to the narrative. In effect, the War came and plopped a big blot down on people's ordinary lives and destroyed their life's best plans. The War was all consuming and those pages in the book might as well be represented by a big black blot when it comes to the narrative of the story. Only after ten years does life begin to recover, from exactly the kitchen where it left off, with Lily now having a cup of tea in old surroundings and trying to recapture the thread.

So, more so than I thought on first reading, I think there is considerable sadness in the book, with Mrs. Ramsay at the end (of Part I) still not having conquered it, but having gained only one more temporary victory before she dies.

On reread, I think I'll be looking at the book with a completely new eye.

[Quark]

I think I'll finally join in again, with a thought that this discussion has brought to mind. Quite some time back I said that the Ramsay's marriage sounded to me like an arranged marriage which had started out without love but which in material respects had turned out to be much better than Mrs. Ramsay might well have expected in the circumstances.

I think a lot of this reasoning was based off a misreading of the story. When we started talking about Mrs. Ramsay's relationship with her husband someone brought up the idea that Mrs. Ramsay had a previous lover. This other lover she felt passionately for, but the affair ended somehow in misfortune. Then, she marries Mr. Ramsay for wealth and comfort. She marries Mr. Ramsay because she has already experienced powerful love and doesn't need that from her husband. This argument might be true if it wasn't for the fact that Mrs. Ramsay didn't have a previous lover. I read back over the section that talks about Mrs. Ramsay history:

But was it nothing but looks, people said? What was there behind it—her beauty and splendour? Had he blown his brains out, they asked, had he died the week before they were married—some other, earlier lover, of whom rumours reached one? Or was there nothing? nothing but an incomparable beauty which she lived behind, and could do nothing to disturb? For easily though she might have said at some moment of intimacy when stories of great passion, of love foiled, of ambition thwarted came her way how she too had known or felt or been through it herself, she never spoke. She was silent always. She knew then—she knew without having learnt. Her simplicity fathomed what clever people falsified. Her singleness of mind made her drop plumb like a stone, alight exact as a bird, gave her, naturally, this swoop and fall of the spirit upon truth which delighted, eased, sustained—falsely perhaps.

Here, William Bankes is asking himself whether Mrs. Ramsay ever had a passionate relationship with a man that ended in disaster. He isn't saying that she did. The answer turns out to be no.

Perhaps this isn't how you reached your conclusion, but I remember someone arguing something like this.

This discussion has brought to mind recollections, now many months old, of Mrs. Ramsay briefly musing about a happiness that might have been, and of the things her children might get to do in their lives differently than she in her own. (If I have both those things correct, and not in the wrong book ) In short I'm beginning to believe that, indeed, there is a sadness in the foundation under Mrs. Ramsay's life, and that she might be described as having received only half a cup of living, without the other half, of genuine happiness, added in. She has material comfort, two children she is content with, a social circle of friends, but an irascible husband who is mean to James and whom she watches warily for his moodiness. It would be too much to say she was imprisoned in her circumstance, but I think not to much too say that she was beleaguered by demands upon her and that she is doing her best to cope.

Mrs. Ramsay does have doubts about the meaning of her life or whether she's as happy as she could be. Although, she never lets those fears control her life. Woolf says of Mrs. Ramsay, "But for her own part she never for a single minute regret her decision, evade difficulties, or slur over duties". This work is tiresome for her. At one point, Mrs. Ramsay refers to herself as a "sponge" for her family's emotions. Lily believes that Mr. Ramsay is killing his wife with his constant demands on her sympathy. Beleaguered is good way to describe Mrs. Ramsay.

To move on to a second thought, I think the house only reinforces that 'down' feeling. Not only does the house in the second part beautifully and poetically show the passage and debilitating effects of time, but within the structure of the book it also has a second, negative effect; it completely blots out any narrative description of the ordinary events of life going forward. Principal characters die, marriages dissolve, but only in the merest of mentions in the background, as if those events were insignificant to the narrative. In effect, the War came and plopped a big blot down on people's ordinary lives and destroyed their life's best plans. The War was all consuming and those pages in the book might as well be represented by a big black blot when it comes to the narrative of the story. Only after ten years does life begin to recover, from exactly the kitchen where it left off, with Lily now having a cup of tea in old surroundings and trying to recapture the thread.

So, more so than I thought on first reading, I think there is considerable sadness in the book, with Mrs. Ramsay at the end (of Part I) still not having conquered it, but having gained only one more temporary victory before she dies.

On reread, I think I'll be looking at the book with a completely new eye.

Are you saying it was time that destroyed the Ramsay's house? or WW I?

Quark,
As far as I know Woolf suffered for the larger part of her life from her mental disease, that is not something that just hits like a bolt from the blue. The seeds and beginnings of it are there for many years, if not all of ones life.
The degree may and does vary but is ever present.

The very fact of all the failure you point out is evidence of a sad outlook of life.
It has been many months since I read TTLH, I can only give impressions at this point, and a hopeless and depressive feeling are what I took away from it.

I don't know I'd characterize Woolf as having a "fondness for death" as you put it, but she did have an aura of inevitability of disaster about her

Ratz... I hit the wrong button!

I meant to add that originally I'd posted.... And I cannot back away from that.

I think what you're arguing is that the book is pessimistic; that the novel doesn't project a favorable impression of life. But, while I somewhat agree with that, it's a large leap from there to suggest that it favors death or suicide. It ends tragically for the Ramsays, yes. But do all tragedies promote suicide. King Lear ends sadly, but it doesn't make me want to kill myself. The Sound and the Fury ends sadly, and yet still no suicidal impulse. Are you really saying that To The Lighthouse, because it thwarts the ambitions of most of the characters, is encouraging the audience to take its own life? I don't think you are (if you are, just say so). I just think you're saying the book is pessimistic.

[Walter]

Hi Quark,
Thanks for your careful reading of my post.

1. No, my thoughts about it sounding like an arranged marriage were posted long in advance of any of the more recent posts that you mention. It was then just a feeling about marriages, based on nothing specific in the text.

2. Time eroded the house. The war overrode all other aspects of their lives that might have been worth talking about, was my thought. The description of the house provided a structural way of not talking about their lives during that period.

[plainjane]

Quark,
I don't think I ever meant to imply that the books purpose was to incite suicide, when Virgil [tongue in cheek ?] brought out the suicide card, it really sent my mind on a tangent that brought me to the conclusion that in essence Woolf's basic unhappiness with life in general colored the book drastically.

Walter wrote...../..... I think the house only reinforces that 'down' feeling. Not only does the house in the second part beautifully and poetically show the passage and debilitating effects of time, but within the structure of the book it also has a second, negative effect; it completely blots out any narrative description of the ordinary events of life going forward. Principal characters die, marriages dissolve, but only in the merest of mentions in the background, as if those events were insignificant to the narrative.

Bolding above by me.
That is what struck me so forcefully. It shows a disregard for their lives, makes them as you say, insignificant, disturbing to me to say the least.

[Virgil]

I haven't been able to keep up lately but i'll try to respond to many of the points since I last posted sometime this week.

As to the suicide issue, yes i brought it up and i guess it did cause some havoc. When i mentioned it I was not thinking of Woolf's suicide at all. What I was saying was that based on Quark's and Plainjane's reading of the novel, one can only conclude that Woolf is advocating suicide since you guys see everything that Mrs. Ramsey does is for nought and that she is not heroic. If a fight is heroic and one loses (think of the movie Rocky in Rocky I) than the effort itself is worth it. If the fight is not heroic and one loses than it is all a waste of time, and in this case the fight is against life so one might as well not pursue life. That's why I'm saying the logical conclusion of your reading is suicide.

[Walter]

Just as a personal aside I don't think suicide is ever a logical conclusion, and related to any mood in the book, I don't think that it is either remotely suggested or even alluded to.

[Quark]

I haven't been able to keep up lately but i'll try to respond to many of the points since I last posted sometime this week.

As to the suicide issue, yes i brought it up and i guess it did cause some havoc. When i mentioned it I was not thinking of Woolf's suicide at all. What I was saying was that based on Quark's and Plainjane's reading of the novel, one can only conclude that Woolf is advocating suicide since you guys see everything that Mrs. Ramsey does is for nought and that she is not heroic. If a fight is heroic and one loses (think of the movie Rocky in Rocky I) than the effort itself is worth it. If the fight is not heroic and one loses than it is all a waste of time, and in this case the fight is against life so one might as well not pursue life. That's why I'm saying the logical conclusion of your reading is suicide.

Virgil, I don't think anyone is going to say that Mrs. Ramsay's ambitions were not noble. I'm not trying to slight the charity and courtesy that Mrs. Ramsay practices. Even the other characters pick up on this side of her, but there are always some doubts about it. I think my opinion of Mrs. Ramsay is actually quite similar to her daughters. After Mrs. Ramsay exercises that charity and compassion toward Tansley, her daughters express mixed feelings:

and it was only in silence, looking up from their plates, after she had spoken so severely about Charles Tansley, that her daughters, Prue, Nancy, Rose-could sport with infidel ideas which they had brewed for themselves of a life different from hers; in Paris, perhaps; a wilder life; not always taking care of some man or other; for there was in all their minds a mute questioning of deference and chivalry, of the Bank of England and the Indian Empire, of ringed fingers and lace, though to them all there was something in this of the essence of beauty, which called out the manliness in their girlish hearts, and made them, as they sat at table beneath their mother's eyes, honour her strange severity, her extreme courtesy, like a Queen's raising from the mud to wash a beggar's dirty foot, when she thus admonished them so very severely about that wretched atheist who had chased them-or, speaking accurately, been invited to stay with them-in the Isles of Skye.

The daughters, like the reader, respond to Mrs. Ramsay's behavoir with both respect and doubt. The part of her that sacrifices for her family and helps others is noble, no doubt. But, it's combined with some over self-interested goals that weaken her heroism. Originally, the argument was that Mrs. Ramsay is heroic because she brings characters together. She sees into others thoughts and soothes their inner needs. I think you brought up the part with Tansley and circus and also the dinner party. Even in these parts, though, we can see that Mrs. Ramsay is both noble and selfish. She does reach out Tansley, but why? Context is important here. Just two pages earlier she was explaining her need to become "an investigator, elucidating the social problem". Then, conveniently, Tansley exposes that he, himself, was poor. Suddenly, Tansley is part of that social problem, and Mrs. Ramsay can run to his rescue. Is this noble? Yes, she is helping people. But, it's also for herself that she's doing this, and that self-interest does change her character. I don't think we can see her as the courageous fighter for truth and justice here.

No, these traits resemble more closely the tragic hero. She has the greatness of strength and ability that the hero needs, but she also has a weakness. I brought up Ahab earlier because he is the paragon of tragic heroes; someone who represents all human ambitions. But, Ahab suffers from monomania. We can sympathize with his ambition. We all have something that we desperately want. Ahab suffers and dies because of his flaw, though. We can feel equally sympathetic towards Mrs. Ramsay. Most of us see charity and courtesy as virtues. But, Mrs. Ramsay has flaws. And, like in Moby Dick, fate punishes her flaws.

I'm not sure what relation any of this has to the Rocky movies--those were a little before my time. Well, I guess this book was a little before my time too, but I think that To The Lighthouse might have more staying power than a movie about a senseless man being repeatedly punched in the face.

[Virgil]

Virgil, I don't think anyone is going to say that Mrs. Ramsay's ambitions were not noble. I'm not trying to slight the charity and courtesy that Mrs. Ramsay practices. Even the other characters pick up on this side of her, but there are always some doubts about it. I think my opinion of Mrs. Ramsay is actually quite similar to her daughters. After Mrs. Ramsay exercises that charity and compassion toward Tansley, her daughters express mixed feelings:

What you are confusing with the attitdes of the daughters and even Lily is not whether Mrs. Ramsey is heroic but a secondary theme of changing attitudes of the next generation. I think Woolf is looking back nostalgically on Mrs. R, and Woolf identifies a post WWI moment where she feels life changed. But that doesn't mean that Mrs R's effort against life is not valiant. And yes, if you're not saying that directly you are implying that.

The daughters, like the reader, respond to Mrs. Ramsay's behavoir with both respect and doubt. The part of her that sacrifices for her family and helps others is noble, no doubt. But, it's combined with some over self-interested goals that weaken her heroism. Originally, the argument was that Mrs. Ramsay is heroic because she brings characters together. She sees into others thoughts and soothes their inner needs. I think you brought up the part with Tansley and circus and also the dinner party. Even in these parts, though, we can see that Mrs. Ramsay is both noble and selfish. She does reach out Tansley, but why? Context is important here. Just two pages earlier she was explaining her need to become "an investigator, elucidating the social problem". Then, conveniently, Tansley exposes that he, himself, was poor. Suddenly, Tansley is part of that social problem, and Mrs. Ramsay can run to his rescue. Is this noble? Yes, she is helping people. But, it's also for herself that she's doing this, and that self-interest does change her character. I don't think we can see her as the courageous fighter for truth and justice here.

Woolf is creating a three dimensional character. Of course there is self interest. All real people have self interests. I don't feel this takes anything away from Mrs Ramsey. All charitable people have a self egrandizement element to their charity. They feel good about it. What's wrong with that?

No, these traits resemble more closely the tragic hero. She has the greatness of strength and ability that the hero needs, but she also has a weakness. I brought up Ahab earlier because he is the paragon of tragic heroes; someone who represents all human ambitions. But, Ahab suffers from monomania. We can sympathize with his ambition. We all have something that we desperately want. Ahab suffers and dies because of his flaw, though. We can feel equally sympathetic towards Mrs. Ramsay. Most of us see charity and courtesy as virtues. But, Mrs. Ramsay has flaws. And, like in Moby Dick, fate punishes her flaws.

Ahab dies from trying to kill the white whale, that is following through with his monomania. How does Mrs.R die? Helping people? Soothing egos? Helping her husband? Raising eight children? Providing a dinner for people to enjoy? Thinking about James? Wanting to help the lighthouse keeper's son? You're mixing things up. Mrs. R has no relation to Ahab. Look at the structure of Moby Dick. Ahab is not the central conscousness of the work. We are looking at Ahab from the outside. You cannot have a central character such as Mrs R be the central character, endow her with noble attributes, see the bulk of the novel through her consciouness, and then only to knock her down at the end. Such a novel would be structurally flawed. That's why Ishmael exists in Moby Dick.

I'm not sure what relation any of this has to the Rocky movies--those were a little before my time. Well, I guess this book was a little before my time too, but I think that To The Lighthouse might have more staying power than a movie about a senseless man being repeatedly punched in the face.

What's relavant about Rocky I is that the form of the work is that of heroic yet losing battle.

[Janine]

Virgil and Quark,Yes, and I think, that like Rocky, you two guys should come out into the ring and shake hands.
I am so confused by now, that I don't know if Mrs. Ramsey is heroic or not. If she is most women who have to put up with a man with Mr. Ramsey's disposition probably are heroic. I think this is why they have a day called 'Mother's Day'. Not only is she heroic for putting up with Mr. R, but raising how many kids?
Did anyone look up the word hero in the dictionary? I would imagine the word would be open to many interpretations, so probably both of you are right in your individual interpretation. Like in 'Hamlet' some people might think him heroic and others may not at all.
Didn't Rocky win, Virgil, at the end of Rocky 1?

[Quark]

Alright, Janine, I think I can stop. It may be getting out of hand here. Although it pains me to have stop mid-argument. I had such a witty retort, too. Enough, though.

Instead, I think I'll ask the simple question: did people like the novel? Who were the best characters? Could you follow the stream of consciousness writing? Would you change anything?

[Virgil]

Virgil and Quark,Yes, and I think, that like Rocky, you two guys should come out into the ring and shake hands.
I am so confused by now, that I don't know if Mrs. Ramsey is heroic or not. If she is most women who have to put up with a man with Mr. Ramsey's disposition probably are heroic. I think this is why they have a day called 'Mother's Day'. Not only is she heroic for putting up with Mr. R, but raising how many kids?
Did anyone look up the word hero in the dictionary? I would imagine the word would be open to many interpretations, so probably both of you are right in your individual interpretation. Like in 'Hamlet' some people might think him heroic and others may not at all.
Didn't Rocky win, Virgil, at the end of Rocky 1?

No Rocky lost in Rocky I.

Alright, Janine, I think I can stop. It may be getting out of hand here. Although it pains me to have stop mid-argument. I had such a witty retort, too. Enough, though.

Instead, I think I'll ask the simple question: did people like the novel? Who were the best characters? Could you follow the stream of consciousness writing? Would you change anything?

Go ahead Quark, I'm not upset or anything, just forceful in my argument. I wanted to post something on the third part. But I guess not tonight.

[Quark]

Go ahead Quark, I'm not upset or anything, just forceful in my argument. I wanted to post something on the third part. But I guess not tonight.

Oh, no, it wasn't that. While there is a fine line between being challenging and being combative, I knew you were on the genial side--as usual. I just started to sense people yawn and roll their eyes at us and our debate over one word (important as it may be).

[Virgil]

Oh, no, it wasn't that. While there is a fine line between being challenging and being combative, I knew you were on the genial side--as usual. I just started to sense people yawn and roll their eyes at us and our debate over one word (important as it may be).

This is true. I think we've made our points and we just disagree. Let everyone else make up their mind.

[Janine]

Ok, Virgil and Quark, I am proud of both of you guys - now you are being sensible and showing mature characters and attitudes. Yeah, no more knocking about in that boxing ring. Yes, Quirk, I, for one was rolling my eyes and saying "oh no, not another post about that dang word".

Quark,I did not know what to make of Woolf's stream of consciousness style at first but this time (re-reading the book) I found I did what someone in the post suggested - I did not fight it but let the words just flow and it was truly a beautiful experience, although the 'tone' of this book did depress me a bit, sort of like the Chekhov story and Yahov. The writing in this novel was very commentable and quite elegant and I especially enjoyed the middle section with the descriptions of the decaying house. I feel it is a good novel and worth reading but I don't think it is an easy novel to discuss. I often felt quite overwhelmed trying to describe how I felt about certain aspects of the book - it is very complex and the characters the most complex (with much layering) of all. In the end they are truly as real people would be - difficult to conclusively figure out. This is part of the charm of the book and the genius as well. Personally, I like stories and films, where you keep wondering why a character acted in a certain way, or was a certain way, or wondered if you perceived him/her correctly.

[Quark]

Quark,I did not know what to make of Woolf's stream of consciousness style at first but this time (re-reading the book) I found I did what someone in the post suggested - I did not fight it but let the words just flow and it was truly a beautiful experience, although the 'tone' of this book did depress me a bit, sort of like the Chekhov story and Yahov. The writing in this novel was very commentable and quite elegant and I especially enjoyed the middle section with the descriptions of the decaying house. I feel it is a good novel and worth reading but I don't think it is an easy novel to discuss. I often felt quite overwhelmed trying to describe how I felt about certain aspects of the book - it is very complex and the characters the most complex (with much layering) of all. In the end they are truly as real people would be - difficult to conclusively figure out. This is part of the charm of the book and the genius as well. Personally, I like stories and films, where you keep wondering why a character acted in a certain way, or was a certain way, or wondered if you perceived him/her correctly.

I think Virginia Woolf may be my favorite stream of consciousness writer, now. The discussion has encouraged me to go out and get a couple of her other novels and I've been impressed. I think the middle of Mrs. Dalloway is some of the best writing I've ever read. I'm curious, though, Janine. Why did you like the middle section more than the other two? I think the writing is quite different between them; most of the book is told in a critical tone that maintains intellectual precision, but the second part deviates and becomes poetic. I actually prefer the first and third part, though, because I think that the middle section--while being very poetic--isn't as affecting as the other parts of the book. The descriptions of the house decaying seem kind of forced at time. It seemed like just words with nothing behind it. The other sections were much more powerful, I thought. For some reason, Virginia Woolf does much better with understatements in prose than effusions of poetry.