Tuesday, February 19, 2008
A Room of One's Own
This piece was a little hard to wrap my head around, at least for the first couple of chapters. While I thought that Woolf presented a decent argument, “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction…women and fiction remain, so far as I am concerned unresolved problems,” I think she dabbled too long in over extended examples. I found it very jarring and surprising (well, maybe not too surprising) that she would make such a note about luncheon parties in short stories, “It is a curious fact that novelists have a way of making us believe that luncheon parties are invariably memorable for something very witty that was said, or for something very wise that was done. But they seldom spare a word for what was eaten.” (P.2096) Who is seriously interested in what the characters are eating unless it does something devastating to them later on in the story. Sorry, just had to blow off some steam for a second. I did, however, find the Shakespeare portion of the piece somewhat entertaining. Her little anecdote of how women would write if they had Shakespeare’s genius in his day and age did make me think a little bit. But then again, great genius comes along only every once in a while and thankfully, there are some women in our day and age who have that genius and write amazing literature, and some of them had no money to begin with…she did, at least have a room, or a café, same difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I disagree. We have to remember that the aim of what Virginia is trying to do is to get into the mind of the person she is describing. In this case she is trying to put down her own mind onto paper. It is typical convention for someone when writing to comment upon the signifigant factors of an even (eg what is said, who is there) but this is not, in her opinion, the aim of a novelist. It is too economic too harsh. To us what truly matters is those things that enrich our lives, and included in this for more than the majority is the rich details and textures of everything we experience down to the very food we eat. While at first blush I think that this can come off to a read as a little insignifigant, and while I must admit when I tried to read literature of this variety in high school I was bored with it, I find that it forces the reader to slow down a bit, and not just look for the enticing or flashing aspects of literature but those aspects which come across vividly and profoundly. To give another person a vivid lifelike description of what another is experiencing is a transformation of the mind that is truly amazing and requires genius of a new level that had not been seen at Virginia's time. Furthermore, but having it in the form of a novel, she can then use words and form that not only describes the situation but adds intertexuality and abstract association to other issues thus enhancing the moral and spiritual content of the message as well as the vividness of the imagery. E.g. why else would one describe a simple prune as "stringy as a miser’s heart and exuding a fluid such as might run in misers’ veins who have denied themselves wine and warmth," unless their mind views the world in a beautiful and meaningful way which they mean to share.
I also think that Woolf's description of the food helps to enhance and certainly not hinder the piece. It, first of all, sets her apart as unique, doing already something that many do not, and that doing so as a woman helps to beat home her point. Also, I think this disregard for detail is not congruent with the "normal" way a mind functions. People, frankly, notice things, environmental details, when they are in either uncomfortable situations (when around people you don't know do you not look around a lot to spot something to talk about?), or just out of courtesy for those who created the environment, such as complimenting a hostess on her fine decor. I feel that such details really bring us into the environment, some regard as such a thing as unimportant, but the environment is one of the primary influences on the individual. I do agree, personally, with the idea that it is more about the individual character, but from a literary point of view I most assuredly see the value in such descriptions.
On the luncheon quote, I think she is just using a metanarrative (and combining it with streams of consciousness). Those are some of the thoughts that lead her to her conclusion, and they make up the stream of consciousness aspect; on the other hand, Woolf is taking a meta approach by telling the reader what usually happens in novels/writings, and then vowing to break convention. Woolf was very crafty; even though I've only read a few of her pieces, I think it is safe for me to say that she liked to use streams of consciousness, metanarrative, interesting/provocative metaphors, and a lot of other literary devices that I can't remember at the moment or haven't recognized. The quotation you mention in your blog post is just one example of multiple devices at work at the same time. Finally, I think it is important to note that Woolf herself is one of the women trying to break into writing and break the male domination of the literary world; with this quote, she uses a literal discussion of writing within her own writing to infiltrate the literary world, making her point that even women have skill and can perhaps write better than, or at least at the same level as, men.
I would have to agree with prifoglk on this topic. I also feel that she is questioning the views of society. When she starts the story off by looking at how a woman is characterized in society and then turns her attention to the views of writers in history and to her present day, one must realize he frustration with society. She is in affect trying to give what she feels as a true life experience to her readers rather than societal feel of acceptence of women and their rights as human beings. she develops her ideas of the foods to enhance her views and to give a reality comparison to her readers. therefore this section only helps to place a reader in the mindset of the writter and develops an ideology which she affectively portrays.
Her style seems to match her message, I think. By blurring the strict lines of her identity, she makes clear that she isn't writing as a harangue but more along the lines of a reflection. Her pleas, though vocal to us, aren't particularly coherent or even cohesive to one another. This stream of consciousness drives home the personal emphasis she means to give. I know it is strange that she strives for anonymity while trying to push an ideology of artistic identity. I think, though, she is pushing for the opportunity for any wouldbe genius to be the next Shakespeare or Pound of Woolf. The money, I suspect, is really immaterial and less important than the freedom for which she's asking.
Post a Comment