# Reading > Forum Book Club >  Summer '07 Reading: 'To The Lighthouse' by Virginia Woolf

## Scheherazade

*


We will be reading To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf during the next three months.



This novel is an extraordinarily poignant evocation of a lost happiness that lives on in the memory. For years now the Ramsays have spent every summer in their holiday home in Scotland, and they expect these summers will go on forever. 
In this, her most autobiographical novel, Virginia Woolf captures the intensity of childhood longing and delight, and the shifting complexity of adult relationships. From an acute awareness of transcience, she creates an enduring work of art. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.


from amazon.co.uk

Please post your opinions and questions on the book in this thread.


Book Club Procedures*

----------


## Virgil

:Banana:  Yay!!! I'm still on the June read, but this will be a great read.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Yay!!! I'm still on the June read, but this will be a great read.


 :Rolleyes: 

 :Tongue:

----------


## Quark

When will the discussion begin?

----------


## Scheherazade

There is no set time frame but we usually discuss as we read along... so probably in couple of days, when everyone gets their copies?

----------


## Turk

W. Woolf looks like a lesbian, but i will read for the sake of Scherazade.

----------


## Quark

Can I start a rival thread for _Tender is the Night_ and try to pull people towards it?

I'm a poor loser.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Can I start a rival thread for _Tender is the Night_ and try to pull people towards it?
> 
> I'm a poor loser.


 :Tongue: 

You can always start a discussion thread in F.Scott Fitzgerald section of the Forum  :Smile: 

I am far from being a Woolf fan myself but this is the beauty of the Book Club; we get to read the books/authors we don't usually pick ourselves. 

And I always say it is more fun to rant about a book after reading it!  :Tongue:

----------


## Quark

> I am far from being a Woolf fan myself but this is the beauty of the Book Club; we get to read the books/authors we don't usually pick ourselves. 
> 
> And I always say it is more fun to rant about a book after reading it!


I can understand that if you've only read Woolf's earlier novels like _The Voyage Out_ or _Night and Day_ you might become bitterly opposed to Virginia Woolf. _To The Lighthouse_, however, is entirely different. Woolf later novels lose the boring plots of her earlier works and gain a detached, philosophical tone that is really interesting and perceptive. It is a bit of a change. The later novels are less about exposition and more about investigation. If you give the book a chance, I think it will surprise you.

----------


## Scheherazade

I have so far read _Mrs Dalloway_ and _Orlando_...

I don't like stream of consciousness and Woolf's themes in general.

And I think I said this before but I will be surprised if I like _To The Lighthouse_!  :Tongue:

----------


## Quark

> I don't like stream of consciousness and Woolf's themes in general.
> 
> And I think I said this before but I will be surprised if I like _To The Lighthouse_!


Well don't look at me: I voted for Fitzgerald.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Well don't look at me: I voted for Fitzgerald.


Wishing I had too!  :Tongue:

----------


## Turk

> And I think I said this before but I will be surprised if I like _To The Lighthouse_!


A woman who's feign to be a writer is a woman who tries to be a man. :Smile:

----------


## Scheherazade

> A woman who's feign to be a writer is a woman who tries to be a man.


I know. Women shouldn't worry their little heads with such 'serious' pursuits. Leave the book discussions to you guys too maybe.

Anyway, I am off to the kitchen. Can I make tea or coffee for you guys? Some cakes and sandwiches as well?

----------


## Turk

> I know. Women shouldn't worry their little heads with such 'serious' pursuits. Leave the book discussions to you guys too maybe.
> 
> Anyway, I am off to the kitchen. Can I make tea or coffee for you guys? Some cakes and sandwiches as well?


Yeah thanks, i would like to eat cheese sandwich and tea, thanks for now.

----------


## grace86

I just picked up a copy from the library. Won't start it yet until I finish June book club reading (there are a lot of reads right now). Are we really reading it for the entire summer months?? Kind of short, but less strenuous (sp?). Well at least I don't have to worry much about keeping up.

This is my first Woolf reading.

----------


## Pensive

Yay, I have found the book now.  :Biggrin:  Tried to read it sometime ago, but couldn't get into it. On the other hand, this time I am going to read it as a 'school course book' which means I have to read it whether I like it or not so that after completing it I would be able to form a definite opinion rather than giving an opinion about it without having finished it!  :Smile:  

Would be starting it today!




> A woman who's feign to be a writer is a woman who tries to be a man.


They say the men who have joined a literature forum but feign to look masculine are actually the ones trying to reject their inside which is very feminine. Don't ya agree?  :Tongue:

----------


## Nossa

I'm getting my copy, hopefully by tomorrow or friday max.  :Biggrin:

----------


## applepie

I should be getting my copy today from the library.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Are we really reading it for the entire summer months??


Yes, Grace, we will be reading it during the next three months and, like you mentioned, it is not a long book.  :Smile:

----------


## plainjane

Oh, I loved _To the Lighthouse_. Read it for the first time a few months ago, and the characters are most interesting.  :Smile:

----------


## Nossa

I think it's actually good that we're reading the book during the entire summer..Since we already have a Wilde read next month..and we'll have other books..it would only make us read more...I guess..lol

----------


## Scheherazade

> I think it's actually good that we're reading the book during the entire summer..Since we already have a Wilde read next month..and we'll have other books..it would only make us read more...I guess..lol


Yes, this is just an extra opportunity to read another book (especially for those of us who find it difficult to follow the monthly reads or want an alternative).

PS: Can't remember if I mentioned this before but I like your avatar very much, Nossa!  :Smile:

----------


## Nossa

> PS: Can't remember if I mentioned this before but I like your avatar very much, Nossa!


Thank you  :Biggrin:  
I actually had to go through nearly 30 avatars to choose this one for this forum...lol..Glad you liked it  :Biggrin:

----------


## SFG75

Read it as part of a BOTM discussion on another board, absolutely loved it. The very end was dignified in its simplicity and emphasis of stepping forward. :Wink:

----------


## Walter

That's a very nice choice. I'll definitely be joining in!  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## JBI

I finished it some months ago (I stuck my loved it vote on the poll) and as for you Turk, if you are against feminism, I wouldn't recommend reading it, seeing as it has strong feminist themes, as well, somewhat coincidentally, addresses the idea mentioned in your post about female artists and whether or not they are or can be as good as male artists, if not better. Of course, judging by the reception of the book, and the fact that it has touched so many people, we have our answer.

----------


## Turk

Ok, actually Charles Baudelaire told it, not me. :Wink:  He's probly one of top 3 French poets of all time. Anyway. I don't mind reading book, W. Woolf is already looking like a man more than a woman, at least more manly than D.H Lawrence. Oooh those English are weirdos their men are more feminine than their women, and their women are more masculine than their men!

If you want to know what i think about feminism read related thread; "Will femminism dismantle patriarchy?". I am not against women who defend human rights, but basically i am against these women who are ashamed of their gender, and wants to be like men in all ways.

----------


## Janine

I read it a couple of years ago and liked it very much. I will review it, or read once again as we go along. I am quite interested in disgussing it. It should be a good discussion with this many people joining in. Great!

----------


## Scharphedin2

This will be the first book that I am participating in reading through this site. Could someone explain (or point me the appropriate thread) how this works. Will there be some kind of reading schedule and/or topics to discuss, or, is it just a free-for-all?

----------


## Scheherazade

> This will be the first book that I am participating in reading through this site. Could someone explain (or point me the appropriate thread) how this works. Will there be some kind of reading schedule and/or topics to discuss, or, is it just a free-for-all?


Glad you will be joining us, Scharphedin.  :Smile: 

There is no set schedule; we discuss the issues/questions that we encounter as we read along so feel free to jump in anytime you feel like  :Smile: 


> Ok, actually Charles Baudelaire told it, not me. He's probly one of top 3 French poets of all time.


The fact that Baudelaire said it does not make it any less misogynistic and unfair.


> W. Woolf is already looking like a man more than a woman, at least more manly than D.H Lawrence. Oooh those English are weirdos their men are more feminine than their women, and their women are more masculine than their men!


Judging authors based on their gender and their looks? That speaks for the reader's intellectual and maturity level rather than author's, I believe. If you can pass the fact Virginia Woolf does not look like Jodie Foster or Portia de Rossi , please feel free to join us as well, Turk.

----------


## Turk

> Portia de Rossi


WOW! She could write good book.  :FRlol:  Though i didn't understand anything from Jodie Foster. It says "document not found". :Frown:

----------


## Scharphedin2

Thanks for the clarification of how this works, Scheherazade. I look forward to re-reading _To the Lighthouse_ and hopefully contributing to the discussion.

It has been almost ten years, but I did at one point read a number of Woolf's books, as well as a couple of biographical books. As such things go, I have forgotten many of the details of both the books and Woolf's personal life. However, during the weeks, when I was reading Woolf, I became very taken with her -- her writing was often very beautiful, and I found most of her books fascinating. More than that, her credo, when it came to reading and recording personal experience (journal writing) made a deep impression on me. Woolf studied the literature of the ages, and thought about her readings in her journals -- some of this work later became _A Common Reader_, which I remember as a particularly exciting book (as I was undertaking similar personal reading projects at the time). With respect to personal experience, Woolf apparently held that a day is not lived, until you have recorded it in writing. As someone who has never been able to maintain a journal, this insistence on thinking in written words, deeply impressed me, and impresses me still. Again, most of the details of what I read I no longer retain, but the portrait that I maintain of Woolf above and beyond anything else is of a lady, who had an immense passion for the limitless possibilities and phenomena of the world, and that of literature in particular.

I thought she came across as very sweet and beautiful, and, a woman with a gigantic imagination and mental presence. I liked to look at the photographs in the biographies, and to imagine from the words on the pages of the books, what a day in the country (Woolf loved to walk) with Virginia would have been like, and what kind of conversation I would have carried with her. I tried to penetrate the customs of dress and social mores of her time, and to meet her as someone in her day. I am sure I would have found her very attractive... in every way.











I do not think it makes all that much sense to talk about and look at Virginia, or any other individual of the past for that matter, in the context of the present fashions, when it comes to physical appearance. As another note on the photos of Woolf, I think many of the later ones are of a woman along in years (and, remember, people aged sooner in Woolf's day), who, for most of her life suffered extreme bouts of mental depression, so severe in fact that they affected her physically.

----------


## Pensive

> Ok, actually Charles Baudelaire told it, not me. He's probly one of top 3 French poets of all time. Anyway. I don't mind reading book, W. Woolf is already looking like a man more than a woman, at least more manly than D.H Lawrence. Oooh those English are weirdos their men are more feminine than their women, and their women are more masculine than their men!


You aren't English, are you?  :Tongue:

----------


## Janine

*Hi Scharphedin2*, I very much enjoyed your post and your enthusiasm. I loved the photos you posted and have never seen the first one before - it is marvelous. I read "To the Lighthouse" and "Mrs. Dalloway" a few years back and liked them. I found the style very different from what I am used to reading. I thought some passages were extraodinarily sensitive and beautiful. The way she strings words together is pure genius. 
I had heard or read that "To the Lighthouse" is basically autobiographical about her family's yearly outing to a seaside house they owned. I thought this of particular interest. Do you know anything about this; if so could you you expand on the idea?

----------


## Scharphedin2

Hi Janine. I really look forward to re-reading _To the Lighthouse_, and will have to, in order to contribute meaningfully to any conversation on Woolf or this particular novel. I think the biographical elements in _To the Lighthouse_ are generally recognised; I also think that most of Woolf's other fiction substantially draws on her personal life, and the personal life she did not have, but imagined that she would have liked to have had (if that makes sense). What I do remember is that the Stephens family did own a property in the Hebrides where _To the Lighthouse_ takes place, and the makeup of the Stephens family did correspond relatively closely to that of the novel.

Basically my acquaintance with Woolf is based on 2-3 weeks of vigourous reading, and I admit that to me at this point _Mrs. Dalloway_, _To the Lighthouse_ and _The Waves_ bleed together in memory -- if what memory I still have of these books serve me right, they are also quite similar in style, whereas the others I read -- _Orlando_, _The Common Reader_, _A Room of One's Own_ and _Between the Acts_ did not quite employ the same fragmented style (stream-of-consciousness) - _Common Reader_ and _Room of One's Own_ not being fiction at all, in fact. The biographies I read (concurrently with these books) were Quentin Bell's Virginia Woolf: A Biography and Lyndall Gordon' Virginia Woolf: A Writer's Life. Both were good, although I remember being most taken with the former, as it was written by her nephew and (not surprisingly) had a more personal feel without sacrificing good scholarship.

As you remark, Woolf's ability with language is singularly beautiful -- it will sound clich&#233;ed, but certain passages almost read like prose-poetry. The hard part for many readers, I imagine -- and, especially if reading these books for school -- are the analyses of these long passages, where thoughts, and emotions, and events from the lives of several characters and different times flow together. Personally, I am not really good at this kind of analysis (or, all that interested), chosing instead to surrender to intuition at some point along the way, and letting the work and the words of the author carry me, not necessarily needing to intellectually comprehend every paragraph. The insight into the author's life on the other hand interests me, and maybe that takes the place of hard academic analysis for me. In any event, it will be fun to read along with the forum in this manner, and hopefully I will be able to contribute more along the way.

In closing, I return the compliment, Janine. I have read parts of the _Women In Love_ thread, and I am impressed with the level of insight you, and several other forum members, have into the novel, and Lawrence's body of work and life in general.

----------


## Pensive

Hey, thanks for the photos, Scharphedin2! 




> I do not think it makes all that much sense to talk about and look at Virginia, or any other individual of the past for that matter, in the context of the present fashions, when it comes to physical appearance. As another note on the photos of Woolf, I think many of the later ones are of a woman along in years (and, remember, people aged sooner in Woolf's day), who, for most of her life suffered extreme bouts of mental depression, so severe in fact that they affected her physically.


Reading about her life made me a kind of sad. It's a pity conditions got so bad, the mental depression and all that she had to commit suicide...  :Frown:

----------


## Turk

> You aren't English, are you?


Didn't you see my picture? I have hair on my face.  :FRlol:

----------


## Pensive

> Didn't you see my picture? I have hair on my face.


No, I didn't. And you know there are plenty of fake beards available out in the market!  :Tongue:  

Anyway, back on the topic: I think I have read it that Virginia Woolfe uses 'stream of consciousness'. Can anyone explain to me what exactly does 'stream of consciousness' mean? I have tried to look up its definition on wikipedia but it doesn't make any sense. 

Thanks.

----------


## Virgil

> Basically my acquaintance with Woolf is based on 2-3 weeks of vigourous reading, and I admit that to me at this point _Mrs. Dalloway_, _To the Lighthouse_ and _The Waves_ bleed together in memory -- if what memory I still have of these books serve me right, they are also quite similar in style, whereas the others I read -- _Orlando_, _The Common Reader_, _A Room of One's Own_ and _Between the Acts_ did not quite employ the same fragmented style (stream-of-consciousness) - _Common Reader_ and _Room of One's Own_ not being fiction at all, in fact. The biographies I read (concurrently with these books) were Quentin Bell's Virginia Woolf: A Biography and Lyndall Gordon' Virginia Woolf: A Writer's Life. Both were good, although I remember being most taken with the former, as it was written by her nephew and (not surprisingly) had a more personal feel without sacrificing good scholarship.
> 
> As you remark, Woolf's ability with language is singularly beautiful -- it will sound clichéed, but certain passages almost read like prose-poetry. The hard part for many readers, I imagine -- and, especially if reading these books for school -- are the analyses of these long passages, where thoughts, and emotions, and events from the lives of several characters and different times flow together. Personally, I am not really good at this kind of analysis (or, all that interested), chosing instead to surrender to intuition at some point along the way, and letting the work and the words of the author carry me, not necessarily needing to intellectually comprehend every paragraph. The insight into the author's life on the other hand interests me, and maybe that takes the place of hard academic analysis for me. In any event, it will be fun to read along with the forum in this manner, and hopefully I will be able to contribute more along the way.


Wow, you read all that in 2-3 weeks. I am looking forward to discussing To The Lighthouse with you and all the others. It is beautifully written, but I'm not sure I would call the style fragmented. It seems to flow like water from here to there rather than breaking into pieces. But those are just descriptive metaphors we each give her style. I think we are referring to the same thing. But more on that when we start. I won't be starting for a bit. Still need to finish Women In Love and I need to start Don Quixote too. But we do have all summer. This should be a great discussion.  :Smile:

----------


## Turk

> No, I didn't. And you know there are plenty of fake beards available out in the market!  
> 
> Anyway, back on the topic: I think I have read it that Virginia Woolfe uses 'stream of consciousness'. Can anyone explain to me what exactly does 'stream of consciousness' mean? I have tried to look up its definition on wikipedia but it doesn't make any sense. 
> 
> Thanks.


Basically think it to write someone's mind. Like you are in someone's mind and watching his thoughts.

----------


## Scharphedin2

> Wow, you read all that in 2-3 weeks. I am looking forward to discussing To The Lighthouse with you and all the others. It is beautifully written, but I'm not sure I would call the style fragmented. It seems to flow like water from here to there rather than breaking into pieces. But those are just descriptive metaphors we each give her style. I think we are referring to the same thing. But more on that when we start. I won't be starting for a bit. Still need to finish Women In Love and I need to start Don Quixote too. But we do have all summer. This should be a great discussion.


Actually, I am a very slow reader, but I basically had the leisure to do nothing else at the time than to read (summer break from school), and so I did. At this point in time, the same undertaking would probably take me several months. What a sad state of affairs.

You are right, "fragmented" is not the best description, hence the "(stream-of-consciousness)."

_Don Quixote_ was a summer reading project of mine a couple of years ago, and I was intimidated by the length of the book (summer vacations having shrunk from the several months of the past to a meagre two weeks), but I managed, because the book is simply about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. Seriously! I could not put it down, and it literally had me crying with laughter at times. Enjoy!


EDIT: Pensive, I do not know the exact definition of "stream-of-consciousness," but the term fits. Woolf's prose is exactly that. One thought or event on the page will lead to a memory of another time and place or event, and without any real transition, the book will move on to that other time and place. "Think" about the process of thoought: You are at a flowershop, you are looking at the flowers, wondering which ones to take home -- your eyes fall upon a bouquet of red roses, and your mind wanders to someone's funeral, where someone placed roses on the grave, and you think about what the mourners were saying at the funeral. In your memory, someone is describing an afternoon of the past, where the deceased was singing at a garden party, and you think back to that party on that afternoon, and you are recalling the final examns that were occupying your mind at the time, as the now deceased family member was singing. It goes something like that, but not quite as schematic. Woolf will sometimes write this way, allowing the thoughts and actions of several characters to interweave. It can be quite a euphoric experience to read.

----------


## Pensive

Thanks! This seems interesting, ain't sure if I like that though - character's mind wandering here and there, but this surely seems real. I think I have not read many books consisting of this before.

----------


## Scharphedin2

> ...ain't sure if I like that though - character's mind wandering here and there...


 :Smile:  You are funny... Trust me, my example above is a very poor man's attempt at describing what Woolf does.

----------


## Scheherazade

> WOW! She could write good book.  Though i didn't understand anything from Jodie Foster. It says "document not found".


Fixed the Jodie link... Glad you liked the pictures as both those actresses are gay. 


> I had head/read that "To the Lighthouse" is basically autobiographical about her family's yearly outing to a seaside house they owned.





> I think the biographical elements in _To the Lighthouse_ are generally recognised; I also think that most of Woolf's other fiction substantially draws on her personal life, and the personal life she did not have, but imagined that she would have liked to have had (if that makes sense).


Yes, most of Woolf's work was based on her personal experiences and this is one of the reasons why I don't like reading her books. I feel as if I am privy to something private or an inside joke which I do not get.

I am aware that there are many writers who make use of their personal experiences while telling stories but Woolf is the only one (I think?) who makes me feel this way. Maybe it is the combination of personal experiences with stream of consciousness that creates that 'privy' effect on me?

*Scharphedin2>*Thank you very much for your informative posts. I really enjoyed reading them and they almost made me consider giving Woolf another chance...almost!  :Biggrin:

----------


## applepie

> Thanks! This seems interesting, ain't sure if I like that though - character's mind wandering here and there, but this surely seems real. I think I have not read many books consisting of this before.


I'm not sure I'm going to like it much either. I don't mind first person writing, but this seems to be a whole different deal altogether. I'm not sure I want to follow along wth someone's though process. Mine is confusing enough most days, and I am wondering if I am going to find that Woolf's doesn't make any sense to me. I've recieved my book, though, so I guess I'll find out soon enough.

----------


## Pensive

> I'm not sure I'm going to like it much either. I don't mind first person writing, but this seems to be a whole different deal altogether. I'm not sure I want to follow along wth someone's though process. Mine is confusing enough most days, and I am wondering if I am going to find that Woolf's doesn't make any sense to me. I've recieved my book, though, so I guess I'll find out soon enough.


Yes, this can be a problem. Like this:  :Frown:  

_I have to sleep. No I have to eat. Eat what? Why shan't I drink rather than to eat. Yeah, the drink Mother poured for me three days ago was just amazing. Mothers are wonderful things, aren't they? Oh Miriam's mother has died. I shall better go to her place and try to help her through such a difficult time. I shall also die one day after all. I am sure Sara is not going to come on even my death day! She is such a oh well many people in this world are self centred bad bad world. I think I have forgotten to take my tea. The glass in which Huma poured the juice was beautiful._

I wouldn't be interested in reading that! But I neither think it would be much like this (it's just an exaggerated version perhaps!  :Tongue: ). Hope it would be interesting. *goes off to proceed from the third page*

----------


## Virgil

Just to clear things up on stream of conscious, a great writer just doen't write whatever comes to mind. There is purpose to what he chooses and makes it appear like it's random thoughts.

Let me also add that I don't believe Virginia Woolf writes in pure stream of conscious like Joyce does in parts of Ulysses. Woolf, and I think this makes her writing so different and original, interweaves third person narration (limited view) with a stream of conscious narration, so that one is not completely in the mind of the character and yet know their thoughts.

----------


## Janine

> Hi Janine. I really look forward to re-reading _To the Lighthouse_, and will have to, in order to contribute meaningfully to any conversation on Woolf or this particular novel. I think the biographical elements in _To the Lighthouse_ are generally recognised; I also think that most of Woolf's other fiction substantially draws on her personal life, and the personal life she did not have, but imagined that she would have liked to have had (if that makes sense). What I do remember is that the Stephens family did own a property in the Hebrides where _To the Lighthouse_ takes place, and the makeup of the Stephens family did correspond relatively closely to that of the novel.


*
Hi Scharphedin,* thanks for the explanation. Was the Stephens family Woolf's immediate/biological family? I read a short biography in Literature Online ages ago and can hardly remember now what I read. I believe they did mention this aspect of her life with the family going on vacation every summer, and also her father taking along a student. Where exactly is Hebrides? The film I saw shot the shore scenes in Scotland - very impressive. I read "To the Lighthouse" about 2 yrs ago and liked it, although I have some trouble reading stream-of consciousness-style authors, unfortunately. I think her 'long run on sentences' seem to be a problem for me personally; my mind tends to wander away on it's own. I realise the book is not 'plot driven' but I liked it very much. I like the central ideas of the book and I very much am interested now in discussing it. I also, have a film version done by the BBC, which is quite well executed and accurate to the book. 




> Basically my acquaintance with Woolf is based on 2-3 weeks of vigourous reading, and I admit that to me at this point _Mrs. Dalloway_, _To the Lighthouse_ and _The Waves_ bleed together in memory -- if what memory I still have of these books serve me right, they are also quite similar in style, whereas the others I read -- _Orlando_, _The Common Reader_, _A Room of One's Own_ and _Between the Acts_ did not quite employ the same fragmented style (stream-of-consciousness) - _Common Reader_ and _Room of One's Own_ not being fiction at all, in fact. The biographies I read (concurrently with these books) were Quentin Bell's Virginia Woolf: A Biography and Lyndall Gordon' Virginia Woolf: A Writer's Life. Both were good, although I remember being most taken with the former, as it was written by her nephew and (not surprisingly) had a more personal feel without sacrificing good scholarship.


Well, that reading list is quite impressive – I commend you! I also have to say your articulate and expressive manner of writing is very impressive. I so enjoyed reading your last post and especially can relate to your enthusiasm for an author; I am the same way with D.H.Lawrence. I have tried to read everything he wrote and now plan on reading my 4th biography. The more I learn about him, the more I want to know. I suppose it has become an obsession, but at least it is a worthwhile one. 

The biographies you listed on Woolf sound very enticing. I may have to explore those someday, in the near future. I always find learning the backgrounds of the authors completely benefical to understanding their work. It is one more valuable tool in delving into their deeper meanings and understanding just why they write/think as they do. Also, thanks for being so helpful in categorizing Woolf’s novels – I may be interested in “A Room of One’s Own” someday soon, although “The Waves” has been on my ‘to read list’ for sometime. 





> As you remark, Woolf's ability with language is singularly beautiful -- it will sound clich&#233;ed, but certain passages almost read like prose-poetry. The hard part for many readers, I imagine -- and, especially if reading these books for school -- are the analyses of these long passages, where thoughts, and emotions, and events from the lives of several characters and different times flow together. Personally, I am not really good at this kind of analysis (or, all that interested), chosing instead to surrender to intuition at some point along the way, and letting the work and the words of the author carry me, not necessarily needing to intellectually comprehend every paragraph. The insight into the author's life on the other hand interests me, and maybe that takes the place of hard academic analysis for me. In any event, it will be fun to read along with the forum in this manner, and hopefully I will be able to contribute more along the way.


Not clich&#233;d at all, but true that certain passages do read like ‘prose-poetry, or at least they do to me. I think this is one attraction I do have to this author – she paints vivid pictures with her words. You know I had not even thought of analysis, when I first read this book. I only thought of flowing through the book or being ‘swept away’ in the currents of her writing. I would imagine a second reading and this group discussion will be much different. I know in viewing the film version, I have often tried to figure out parts of the story and interpret them on my own. A discussion will shed much light on what I have thought about for sometime. I am the same way, usually my strength lies in the investigation and delving below the surface and into the authors life and the relationship it has to his/her work. 





> In closing, I return the compliment, Janine. I have read parts of the _Women In Love_ thread, and I am impressed with the level of insight you, and several other forum members, have into the novel, and Lawrence's body of work and life in general.


*Scharphedin,* Thank you emensely for this compliment. It is so good to know that others are reading the posts, and appreciating them, perhaps learning from them as well. I have been told by other people on Lit Net that they too, are following the Lawrence discussion groups. 
I know “To the Lighthouse” will be a great discussion group. It is starting out wonderfully enthusiastic!

----------


## applepie

> Just to clear things up on stream of conscious, a great writer just doen't write whatever comes to mind. There is purpose to what he chooses and makes it appear like it's random thoughts.
> 
> Let me also add that I don't believe Virginia Woolf writes in pure stream of conscious like Joyce does in parts of Ulysses. Woolf, and I think this makes her writing so different and original, interweaves third person narration (limited view) with a stream of conscious narration, so that one is not completely in the mind of the character and yet know their thoughts.


Thanks for clearing this up a little. I'm still not really excited about the book, but the fact that I have a copy and plan to participate at least means I'm willing to give it a shot. I am very selective about the books that I read written in the first person. I'm just starting to see how selective I am. I never paid attention to the fact that if I pick up a book and begin to see "I" and "me" I generally just put it back down.

----------


## plainjane

> Thanks for clearing this up a little. I'm still not really excited about the book, but the fact that I have a copy and plan to participate at least means I'm willing to give it a shot. I am very selective about the books that I read written in the first person. I'm just starting to see how selective I am. I never paid attention to the fact that if I pick up a book and begin to see "I" and "me" I generally just put it back down.


mkhockenberry, 
Even though I now enthustically endorse _To the Lighthouse_, it was not the easiest book to immerse myself in, and it took a little time to get into the rhythm of her writing, it is only the second of her books I've read, the first being _Mrs. Dalloway_. 
It is well worth the time though.  :Smile:

----------


## Scharphedin2

> Thanks for clearing this up a little. I'm still not really excited about the book, but the fact that I have a copy and plan to participate at least means I'm willing to give it a shot. I am very selective about the books that I read written in the first person. I'm just starting to see how selective I am. I never paid attention to the fact that if I pick up a book and begin to see "I" and "me" I generally just put it back down.


Although, as I wrote earlier, much of Woolf's fiction sprang from her own experience, these are not "I" novels. In fact, as I remember it, Woolf's writer's stance is mostly quite omniscient.

----------


## FrozenDuchess

> Just to clear things up on stream of conscious, a great writer just doen't write whatever comes to mind. There is purpose to what he chooses and makes it appear like it's random thoughts.
> 
> Let me also add that I don't believe Virginia Woolf writes in pure stream of conscious like Joyce does in parts of Ulysses. Woolf, and I think this makes her writing so different and original, interweaves third person narration (limited view) with a stream of conscious narration, so that one is not completely in the mind of the character and yet know their thoughts.



I agree, nothing like Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury. I found to the Lighthouse frankly tedious to read, but only because I knew what the examiners would expect us to write on...as I read it. *Sigh* All those feminine subject positions. Admittedly I am no great fan of her books generally.

----------


## Scheherazade

> Admittedly I am no great fan of her books generally.

----------


## Pensive

Okay, I have read a little bit. Can't find anything immensely interesting. I see there are hardly any dialogues in it, very few. The main focus seems to be on the descriptive writing yet. The descriptive writing seems to be quite good though, that's also a reason I am keeping up with the novel. There are not many, as I call it, 'happenings' in the novel yet, very little action there seems to be.

Perhaps it would get a bit faster later, it's just the start after all that I am reading. I am tending to be very slow while reading it, so not to miss anything. Reading it like a course book!

----------


## Nossa

> Just to clear things up on stream of conscious, a great writer just doen't write whatever comes to mind. There is purpose to what he chooses and makes it appear like it's random thoughts.
> 
> Let me also add that I don't believe Virginia Woolf writes in pure stream of conscious like Joyce does in parts of Ulysses. Woolf, and I think this makes her writing so different and original, interweaves third person narration (limited view) with a stream of conscious narration, so that one is not completely in the mind of the character and yet know their thoughts.


I'm not actually a fan of the stream of conscious way of writing. I've studied The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy last year..and I hated it, to say the least. Call me dumb, but I had to re-read many parts just to understand what was going on. But Virginia Woolf is a must read for me, so I'm hoping I won't go through the sam suffering again...lol

----------


## Scharphedin2

> Perhaps it would get a bit faster later, it's just the start after all that I am reading. I am tending to be very slow while reading it, so not to miss anything. Reading it like a course book!


Pensive -- Not specifically relating to Woolf, but also relevant here. I think you should just read the book. Read it like anything, and try to just let the words on the pages, the images carry you. If you do not catch absolutely everything, you will have your friends here in the forum to help clarify, and, in fact, there is a good chance you will actually "miss less" by reading it the way you would read any other book. By forcing yourself to read slowly, and treat the book like a course book, you will irritate yourself, and ruin what enjoyment you possibly could have from the book, and by doing so also take less with your from your reading.

Someone smart about reading once told me that it is better to read a book fast twice, than to read it slowly once. Personally, I still am not a fast reader, but I do try to pace myself, and, if anything, I do feel that I retain more of what I read.

(Pensive - I hope that did not sound smart or condescending; it was not meant to. Just sharing advise and practises that have been helpful to me)

----------


## Virgil

> Someone smart about reading once told me that it is better to read a book fast twice, than to read it slowly once. Personally, I still am not a fast reader, but I do try to pace myself, and, if anything, I do feel that I retain more of what I read.


Well, why not read it slow twice.  :Wink:  Someone even smarter just said that.  :Biggrin: 




> I agree, nothing like Ulysses or The Sound and the Fury. I found to the Lighthouse frankly tedious to read, but only because I knew what the examiners would expect us to write on...as I read it. *Sigh* All those feminine subject positions. Admittedly I am no great fan of her books generally.


Look I'm no raging feminist  :Tongue:  (quite the contrary) but i think Woolf's feminism is a question of fairness to women and an understanding of thier point of view, which because most of literature prior to her day was predominantly male and lacked that perspective. 




> 


Looks like Scher's got a brand new set of smilies.  :Biggrin:  I like them Scher.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Scheherazade

> Someone even smarter just said that.


You have company over there?

 :Biggrin: 

(You know I am just kidding, Virgil. Just couldn't resist it  :Smile: )


> Looks like Scher's got a brand new set of smilies.  I like them Scher.


On behalf of my smilies, thank you!

----------


## Pensive

> Pensive -- Not specifically relating to Woolf, but also relevant here. I think you should just read the book. Read it like anything, and try to just let the words on the pages, the images carry you. If you do not catch absolutely everything, you will have your friends here in the forum to help clarify, and, in fact, there is a good chance you will actually "miss less" by reading it the way you would read any other book. By forcing yourself to read slowly, and treat the book like a course book, you will irritate yourself, and ruin what enjoyment you possibly could have from the book, and by doing so also take less with your from your reading.
> 
> Someone smart about reading once told me that it is better to read a book fast twice, than to read it slowly once. Personally, I still am not a fast reader, but I do try to pace myself, and, if anything, I do feel that I retain more of what I read.
> 
> (Pensive - I hope that did not sound smart or condescending; it was not meant to. Just sharing advise and practises that have been helpful to me)


No, it's okay. Actually, thanks for taking the time to advice.  :Smile:  And oh you don't seem as if you are trying to be condescending.  :Smile:  

Actually, like most of the books I read, I am not merely reading it out of just enjoyment but also because of some of the themes in it like feminism (people say it deals with that) or 'stream of consciousness'. I am really curious about how it deals with that. It's not like I have to put a lot of thought on it after completing one or two pages, on the other hand I am trying to be careful so that I don't leave anything. A single sentence can have any reference to the theme in it. Heh that's making me more and more careful.

----------


## Scharphedin2

> Well, why not read it slow twice.


I suppose you could...

----------


## Janine

*Scharphedin2,* Your advice to *Pensive* makes perfect sense to me and I hope to others, too. It is good advise and not condenscending sounding at all; it is helpful. Personally, I like to read a book slowly and am naturally a very slow reader. I understand your idea of letting the book just drift along and enjoying it, not worrying about catching every single thing. As you said....."the images carry you". One has to just go along with the flow of these style books and not be so 'clinical', otherwise they can be a huge chore and boring as well. I think I too, will pace myself with the second reading of this book; just read so many pages a night. I will enjoy it much better that way with no pressure. And we have the summer months to discuss it, right? A 200 pg book hardly needs to be rushed through. Then having the text online we can go back and review and quote from it. It is online here, isn't it? I forgot to check.




> Well, why not read it slow twice.  Someone even smarter just said that.


 :FRlol:  hummm....was that someone you, *Virgil?* .....you crack me up! :FRlol:  




> Look I'm no raging feminist  (quite the contrary) but i think Woolf's feminism is a question of fairness to women and an understanding of thier point of view, which because most of literature prior to her day was predominantly male and lacked that perspective.


I agree with this, neither am I one, but I think her writing did have it's place in time and women authors such as Woolf needed to speak out and be heard. 




> Looks like Scher's got a brand new set of smilies.  I like them Scher.


Yes, *Scher,* love it too! Is that a cheerleader - cute pompoms!  :FRlol:  Does she ever stop? She is quite energetic!


 :Smile:  Hi *Pensive,* I believe you are now in the 'analytical mode' due to our recent L discussions. :FRlol:  I am also; it is hard to depart, once one has crossed over into that 'mode of observation' while reading.

----------


## Pensive

> Hi *Pensive,*
> I believe you are now in the 'analytical mode' due to our recent L discussions. I am also; it is hard to depart, once one has crossed over into that 'mode of observation' while reading.


Oh my! You guessed it quite right.  :Tongue:  Half due to that and the other half due to summer holidays. I have got a lot more time to think!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> You have company over there?
> 
> 
> 
> (You know I am just kidding, Virgil. Just couldn't resist it )On behalf of my smilies, thank you!





> hummm....was that someone you, *Virgil?* .....you crack me up!


 :FRlol:  Well, I was only kidding around.  :Tongue:

----------


## Janine

> Oh my! You guessed it quite right.  Half due to that and the other half due to summer holidays. I have got a lot more time to think!


 :FRlol:  And *Pensive,* I love it when you 'think'!  :Wink:  




> Well, I was only kidding around.



 :FRlol:  *Virgil,* no I really thought you were serious - you are pretty 'smart'! :Wink: 

Are we having fun yet???

----------


## Virgil

Hey, just to let people know, since this is a summer read I plan to start the book around the beginning of August. But I'll drop by and see how the discussion is going.

----------


## manolia

> Hey, just to let people know, since this is a summer read I plan to start the book around the beginning of August. But I'll drop by and see how the discussion is going.


That's a relief Virgil! I'll start at about the same period (work is rather thick now..)

----------


## applepie

> Okay, I have read a little bit. Can't find anything immensely interesting. I see there are hardly any dialogues in it, very few. The main focus seems to be on the descriptive writing yet. The descriptive writing seems to be quite good though, that's also a reason I am keeping up with the novel. There are not many, as I call it, 'happenings' in the novel yet, very little action there seems to be.
> 
> Perhaps it would get a bit faster later, it's just the start after all that I am reading. I am tending to be very slow while reading it, so not to miss anything. Reading it like a course book!


I'm having the same problem. I started to read the book and everything is just sort of a blur for me. There isn't much action to really give me any sort of a focal point or something to grasp onto. Plus, is it just me or does the story seem to periodically switch between a couple people's point of view??? I'm praying that there is more going on as I get further along in the book and this is just Woolf's way of setting everything up for a more interesting tale.

----------


## Quark

I'm getting the book Tuesday, but I may be the only one of the few people talking about it. Don't worry, though. I think there is enough to talk about to keep the discussion going into August.

----------


## manolia

> Plus, is it just me or does the story seem to periodically switch between a couple people's point of view???


Hi !
I haven't started with the book yet but i have already read Mrs Dalloway and loved it (i read it in two days and i am a very slow reader  :Wink:  ) but what you say here reminds me of that book as well. In "Mrs Dalloway" Woolf switches between a couple of peoples' point of view  :Wink:  so i guess it isn't just you and your observation may be correct  :Wink:

----------


## Pensive

> And *Pensive,* I love it when you 'think'!


So do I. So do I. When I think before I speak!  :Tongue:

----------


## NickAdams

I have to read Wilde's short stories, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest and the Bastille pick, so I hope to start towards the end of this month. I want to be done with it, so I can participate in Rushdie.

----------


## Janine

*manolia and Pensive*, I am glad to see you two here also. I probably won't get started till late either. I feel so pressured right now with the other threads still active. I may just review and my library book is due back this week, I have not even opened it yet. I better get it renewed and then when that time runs out my friend has a copy she said she would loan me. I think that, as *Quark* pointed out, there is enough in this book to keep us going by August. It is an intensely written, layered book, even though, technically, it is short. Glad to see there will be other late starter such as myself. It should be interesting. I will read along with your posts, *Quark*, since I know the story well, having read it a few years back.

----------


## Quark

I like that you bolded my name--it makes me feel important. I'll try to return the favor.

----------


## Janine

> I like that you bolded my name--it makes me feel important. I'll try to return the favor.


 :FRlol:  I think all you people are important - I always bold the names... :FRlol:  

Yes, please do; it would be nice if you do return the favor. I want to see my own name looking *important*.

----------


## Scheherazade

Janine

 :Biggrin: 

(Sorry; in a goofy mood... woof!)

----------


## Janine

> Janine
> 
> 
> 
> (Sorry; in a goofy mood... woof!)




 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

I could not stop laughing - thanks *Scher*.....that is a good one!!! :Thumbs Up:

----------


## motherhubbard

I started this book last night. I voted for this book; a friend of mine loves Woolf. Man- is the whole thing going to be like this? Oh, I dont know if I can make it through. I dont even know what Ive already read. It sounds like the stuff that goes on in my brain when I havent had any sleep and I still have miles to go. How can anyone follow anothers rambling thoughts around in a circle until it all comes back again, then put together those peaces to make any since? Ill start over again today and see if it makes any better sense.

----------


## DianaT

I don't think I'm skilled enough of an analyst to make particularly interesting remarks about Woolf because her writing is quite complex. However reading a novel like _To the Lighthouse_, for me, is much like listening to a Mozart opera--I may not understand everything completely (i.e. the harmonic structure and how it shapes, with liberty and restraint, the melodic lines; not to mention the foreign language in which the libretto is sung  :Smile: ) while listening "casually." 

I just finished _To the Lighthouse_, and loved it. I found the prose flowed smoothly and melodically. I am excited to see what others discover while reading the text. I love reading analysis of novels. 

But for now I'm going to transition from the flowing prose of Woolf to the staggering action of Wimbledon (talk about drama  :Smile: ).

Diana

----------


## Behemoth

This was one of the required texts for my course this year (I certainly wouldn't have approached it with a bargepole otherwise) and although I probably wouldn't read it again, I was pleasantly surprised with what I found. The stream-of-consciousness works well once you become accustomed to it, and I think the 'Time Passes' section is beautifully written. However, I absolutely cannot stand  :Flare:  the character of Mrs Ramsay and I think it's that more than anything which would keep me from re-reading this in the future.

----------


## plainjane

> Man- is the whole thing going to be like this? Oh, I dont know if I can make it through. I dont even know what Ive already read. It sounds like the stuff that goes on in my brain when I havent had any sleep and I still have miles to go.


 :Biggrin:  Kinda the way I felt first starting, but once you get in the flow so to speak, it is wonderful. And seeing the same view from different aspects is informative as well.

----------


## applepie

> I started this book last night. I voted for this book; a friend of mine loves Woolf. Man- is the whole thing going to be like this? Oh, I dont know if I can make it through. I dont even know what Ive already read. It sounds like the stuff that goes on in my brain when I havent had any sleep and I still have miles to go. How can anyone follow anothers rambling thoughts around in a circle until it all comes back again, then put together those peaces to make any since? Ill start over again today and see if it makes any better sense.


I'm having the same problem. It feels like someone is just saying "Blah, Blah, Blah...." in my head while I am reading. I'm holding to the idea that once I get used to the rambling way in which it seems to be written I'll start to make more sense of everything.

----------


## Quark

Well, I'll say two things about the novel--one encouraging others to read the novel, and the other warning them of its shortcomings. 

Encomium:
_To The Lighthouse_ is a great representation of change: intellectually, spiritually, personally, whatever. Woolf creates the two Ramsey parents as stand-ins for the typical Victorian ideas. Mrs. Ramsey, for example, has all the conservative (and sexist) ideas as to women's place in society. She also represents the philanthropic ideal of the earlier nineteenth century. To make Mrs. Ramsey even less ambiguous, Woolf has her positioned in front of a picture of Queen Victoria at least once in the novel. Mr. Ramsey, like his wife, could be considered a conservative Victorian voice. He has all of the intellectual ambitions of the previous generation. He even quotes Tennyson. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have the Victorian ideal in mind; but, despite their high hopes, they consider themselves failures. Mr. Ramsey is comically stuck on Q, and Mrs. Ramsey knows she cannot end worldwide suffering. The parents must place their hope in their children and their younger friends who have radically different notions. This contrast comes out most strikingly in Lily Briscoe. Her painting is new and inventive; it aims at a completely different object than the one expected. In the tension between Lily Briscoe and Mrs. Ramsey we see the profound change occurring and all the confused feeling that go along with it. Both Mrs. Ramsey and Lily don't know what to make of each other. The complicated relationship between the past, present, and future is experience within their characters, and it's fun to watch. 

Complaint:
I think the novel is a little over critical. Sometimes its overly suspicious to the point of paranoia. When Minta Doyle wants to hold Nancy's hand, Nancy's first thought is, "What is it that she wants?". The most basic affection is approached only warily. Not only do the characters have problems accepting emotion from others, they can't make the minimal effort to express themselves. Either a character makes the most circuitous attempt at a genuine communication, or they don't at all. The narrative is the closest thing we get to psychological contact with them, but even this seems distant. Distant? No erratic is probably the best word. It comes and goes; sometimes it is very subtle and at other times its brutally honest. Compare this to the transparency of Shakespeare's characters or Dickens'. Obviously, I'm not saying that Woolf should emulate them. I'm not even saying that her characters are poorly done. I just think that Woolf could be a little more forthcoming.

----------


## Virgil

Perhaps I should try to help a little with this since some of you are having trouble. First this is not a plot oriented novel. The tension is psychological. And her writing style weaves through the minds of the characters. This is what is going on in part I:

The main drama is occuring between Mrs Ramsey and Mr Ramsey, in that they are disputing whether to take their little child James on the next day to go visit the lighthouse. Also all the characters are all waitng or planning to attend Mrs Ramsey's dinner party that evening. Along with that Mrs Ramsey is trying to help two couples: Paul and Minta to get married (she has set them up) and Lily and William Bankes, trying to now set them up with hopes of a future marriage. Lily resists it, she is a solitary person and just wants to paint her picture. There are other guests as well and also the rest of the Ramsey's children. They each have certain motivations and psychologies. All though are centered in some way around Mrs Ramsey, her personality, and aura. Part I climaxes with the dinner party with the reflection of what Mrs Ramsey means to them.

And then we get to part II.

----------


## Janine

*Quark and Virgil* - I commend both of you on your excellent posts and explanations of the novel and it's style. I read the book a few years back and will be starting it soon, after I finish a short work of 100 pgs I am currently reading and half way. I think from Quark's explanation, I now can better conceptualize what I previously had read and my impression of the story and characters. This, in other words, clarifies my own vague ideas on what the story was intended to say or represent. *Virgil* is correct in saying this is not a 'plot driven' novel, although a simple plot does emerge eventually. I like his synopsis of part I - that was very helpful to me, in refreshing my memory. Thanks, *V.* It is the relationships in the novel and the interaction of the characters and their thoughts that are most important to this concentrated/intense novel. It is more 'cerebral' than most novels and so one has to withdraw into the minds of the characters, let their thoughts just flow within that 'weaving' and look beyond any concrete storyline. If you keep searching for a plot you will miss the nuances in the characters themselves and that is the main interest of the book, in my opinion.

----------


## applepie

Thank you both Virgil and Quark for your explanations. I still hold little hope of enjoying the novel, but at least I know where it is going somewhat. I've been more worried that admist all the talking that there was some busy plot that I'm missing when there seemed to be endless pages of thoughts about walking out of the house and such. I'm going to spend some time reading tonight and maybe I'll start to like the story a little better. It is nice to know before hand to not expect much in the way of plot since now I will not have the expectations and therefore no dissapointment in that arena. Thanks again for the explanations.

Meg

----------


## Nossa

I started reading the novel last night...as I couldn't get my hands on my copy, I had to search for an online text to start...but hopefully, I'll get my copy soon enough.
I'm still a little confused, that I have to read certain parts more than once. But so far, I think I understand almost everything.
I'm in no position of analysing Woolf's works myself, but I think I'm really gonna enjoy the discussion  :Biggrin:

----------


## middleyears

Hi, I new to this forum but what got me to join was the fact that you guys were going to read To the Lighthouse... I just read it for my "Mystical Writers" class... Not saying that what I learned is 100% correct, but when studied in class, the novel was very mystical... In the first part of the book we hear a lot about the lighthouse... As a matter of fact, we hear Mrs Ramsey comparing herself to the lighthouse... She says she is the steady beam of light... (I think, I'm trying to remember some of it) At the end of the first part we have the dinner party and we pretty much see what everyone thinks of everyone else... We find that everyone loves Mrs Ramsey and that she is the one that brings everyone together... They all come together in communion as represented by the fruit. The fruit mimmicks the wedge shape of the lighthouse. Mrs Ramsey doesn't like when someone takes a piece of fruit because it disrupts the shape... It makes her uncomfortable... 
We know the dinner party was a very important part of the book because in the third part we see Lily reflect on it and remember it vividly.. But I'll leave it at this as I don't want to ruin the end for those who didn't finish it...
Thanks for letting me be a part of To the Lighthouse.... And happy reading...

----------


## Virgil

Oh I can't wait to discuss this either. I promise I will start in a serious way by the first of August. This is an all summer read. Thanks middleyears for bringing up the symbolism of the Lighthouse and its link to Mrs. Ramsey.

----------


## Janine

Hi *middleyears* and welcome to this forum, I am so glad you are going to join us. I will be starting my reading soon of the novel. I am very familiar with the novel and the story since I read it several years back and also (now some may groan) I own the BBC film version, which is quite close to the book and well done. I have wanted to discuss the book/story for sometime now. Having just read your post, I am excited since it seems you have gathered much insight into various parts and symbols in the book, which you picked up in your recent class. I have never thought of the book as 'mystical' - how very interesting. This gives it a new direction and interests me. I also, did not correlate Mrs. Ramsey to the 'lighthouse' as a symbol. This is good as you quoted it. I agree - the dinner party seems to be very significant and I believe it also marks the passage of time. Were there not two dinner parties or two dinners in the entire book that are of significance? The big significant dinner party with all the guests attending does mark a time they all gather collectively and each personality is made very evident with contrasts and comparisons and loyalities and pettiness as each thinks about the individuals that make up the group. It is like a mini-world. In fact, I felt the dinner party to be the most memorable event in the book. Now, by reading your post and writing this, I have interested myself in my second reading. I am anxious to get started. 
*To others* - stick with the book, eventually a very coherent story does emerge and it draws one into the thought process(es) of the story. The characters begin to form and take most definite shape and are the interesting part of this novel. Each is presented as a very distinct portrait.

----------


## Quark

> we hear Mrs Ramsey comparing herself to the lighthouse... She says she is the steady beam of light... (I think, I'm trying to remember some of it) At the end of the first part we have the dinner party and we pretty much see what everyone thinks of everyone else... We find that everyone loves Mrs Ramsey and that she is the one that brings everyone together... They all come together in communion as represented by the fruit. The fruit mimmicks the wedge shape of the lighthouse. Mrs Ramsey doesn't like when someone takes a piece of fruit because it disrupts the shape... It makes her uncomfortable... 
> We know the dinner party was a very important part of the book because in the third part we see Lily reflect on it and remember it vividly..


This is some good analysis, and I think we can compare the lighthouse to Mrs. Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey, or the author on his behalf, makes this connection in the third section. The lighthouse could also be symbolic of the marital strife between Mrs. and Mr. Ramsey, and it could also represent James' ambitions which are thwarted. It's hard to pin down a specific meaning for the lighthouse--particularly based on the first section.




> The big significant dinner party with all the guests attending does mark a time they all gather collectively and each personality is made very evident with contrasts and comparisons and loyalities and pettiness as each thinks about the individuals that make up the group. It is like a mini-world. In fact, I felt the dinner party to be the most memorable event in the book.


The term "mini-world" is the best description of that scene. We don't really get much new information or insight. Really, all that's done is a summary of the various ideas brought up earlier. We see Charles Tanley being ego-centric, Mrs. Ramsay playing the matchmaker, and Lily Briscoe failing to act in any meaningful way. All of these characteristics had been already established, but they come back much overtly the second time in the dinner scene. The only character that doesn't get a similar summary is Mr. Ramsay. Any ideas why he is so absent--almost out of the picture--during the dinner?

----------


## Janine

> The term "mini-world" is the best description of that scene. We don't really get much new information or insight. Really, all that's done is a summary of the various ideas brought up earlier. We see Charles Tanley being ego-centric, Mrs. Ramsay playing the matchmaker, and Lily Briscoe failing to act in any meaningful way. All of these characteristics had been already established, but they come back much overtly the second time in the dinner scene. The only character that doesn't get a similar summary is Mr. Ramsay. Any ideas why he is so absent--almost out of the picture--during the dinner?


*Quark,* I wish I did know for sure, but unfortunately my memory is failing me on Mr. Ramsay's character being given a different type summary, than it was given in the first dinner party. I do have a vague idea on it. I don't want to say too much, to spoil the reading for the others, but I think the fact that he and the family have gone through an emormous sense of loss probably has a lot to do with that change in his demeanor or character. 

I plan soon to re-read the entire book, but presently I am finishing up a short non-fiction book; should be able to finish that tonight and start TTLH. Now I am anxious to discuss it with you and everyone else, as well. 

Do you agree that the two dinner parties mark a significant change in time, etc? Yes, glad you agree - I think it is like a microcosm - the very personal/private world of a family/the Ramsay's; and we, being the observers, are given closer assess into their lives and their minds, making this book with it's natural free-flowing style, very intimate indeed.

----------


## Virgil

I collect ceramic replicas of real lighthouses. Lighthouses are special to me. There is a special meaning to what a lighthouse's function. From Enclycopedia Britannia:



> LIGHTHOUSE, a form of building erected to carry a light for the purpose of warning or guidance, especially at sea. 
> 
> I. Early History. - The earliest lighthouses, of which records exist, were the towers built by the Libyans and Cu****es in Lower Egypt, beacon fires being maintained in some of them by the priests. Lesches, a Greek poet (c.660 B.e.) mentions a lighthouse at Sigeum (now Cape Incihisari) in the Troad. This appears to have been the first light regularly maintained for the guidance of mariners. The famous Pharos 1 of Alexandria, built by Sostratus of Cnidus in the reign of Ptolemy II. (283-247 B.C.) was regarded as one of the wonders of the world. The tower, which took its name from that of the small island on which it was built, is said to have been 600 ft. in height, but the evidence in support of this statement is doubtful. It was destroyed by an earthquake in the 13th century, but remains are said to have been visible as late as 1350. The name Pharos became the general term for all lighthouses, and the term " pharology " has been used for the science of lighthouse construction. 
> 
> The tower at Ostia was built by the emperor Claudius (A.D. 50).50). Other famous Roman lighthouses were those at Ravenna, Pozzuoli and Messina. The ancient Pharos at Dover and that at Boulogne, later known as la Tour d'Ordre, were built by the Romans and were probably the earliest lighthouses erected in western Europe. Both are now demolished. 
> 
> The light of Cordouan, on a rock in the sea at the mouth of the Gironde, is the earliest example now existing of a waveswept tower. Earlier towers on the same rock are attributed the first to Louis le Debonnaire (c. A.D. 805) and the second to Edward the Black Prince. The existing structure was begun in 1584 during the reign of Henri II. of France and completed in 1611. The upper part of the beautiful Renaissance building was removed towards the end of the 18th century and replaced by a loftier cylindrical structure rising to a height of 207 ft. above the rock and with the focal plane of the light 196 ft. above high water (fig. 1). Until the 18th century the light exhibited from the tower was from an oak log fire, and subsequently a coal fire was in use for many years. The ancient tower at Corunna, known as the Pillar of Hercules, is supposed to have been a Roman Pharos. The Torre del Capo at Genoa originally stood on the promontory of San Berrique. It was built in 1139 and first used as a lighthouse in 1326. It was rebuilt on its present site in 1643. This beautiful tower rises 236 ft. above the cliff, the light being elevated 384 ft. above sea-level. A lens light was first installed in 1841. The Pharos of Meloria was constructed by the Pisans in 1154 and was several times rebuilt until finally destroyed in 1290. On the abandonment of Meloria by the Pisans, they erected the still existing tower at Leghorn in 1304. 
> 
> In the 17th and 18th centuries numerous towers, on which were erected braziers or grates containing wood or coal fires, were established in various positions on the coasts of Europe. Among such stations in the United Kingdom were Tynemouth (c. 1608), the Isle of May (1636), St Agnes (1680), St Bees (1718) and the Lizard (1751). The oldest lighthouse in the United States is believed to be the Boston light situated on Little Brewster Island on the south side of the main entrance to Boston Harbour, Mass. It was established in 1716, the present structure dating from 1859. During the American War of Independence the lighthouse suffered many vicissitudes and was successively destroyed and rebuilt three times by the American or British 1 A full account is given in Hermann Thiersch, Pharos Antike, Islam and Occident (1909). See also Minaret. 
> ...


A few images:

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* these lighthouse photos are amazing! I love the first one - truly awesome. I copied it for my own file, hope you don't mind. I like lighthouses, too. Wow, did not know you collected ceramic ones - how neat. Always nice to learn more about 'individuals' on here. 
I did not read your history you posted yet, but thanks so much. That should be fascinating and will give us some symbolic insight to the novel. I will leave that till tomorrow; I am too tired out now and a movie awaits me.

----------


## middleyears

Hello again and thank you for the warm welcome... Let me start off by saying I am a non traditional student aiming for a major in English... Many of these insights are the insights that have been pointed out to us as a class by a brilliant professor... She truly is a wonderful teacher... But having said that, she picked this book (one of her favorites) for our mystical writers class because by the end of the book we find Lily Briscoe becoming "one with." I won't get into much detail on that as I know many people have not finished the book.. But I did want to point out one more thing on the dinner... There is a point at the dinner party where Lily finds herself staring at I believe it's a salt shaker or perhaps it's the shadow of the salt shaker but the shape is triangular... This theme of lighthouse shapes runs through the whole book... 
I saw on one of the posts that someone made a comment about Mrs Ramsey and Mr Ramsey not having a good marriage or something of that nature... I want to say thank you on that as I argued that point in class last semester... Our professor said that Mr and Mrs R were very much in love... That Mrs Ramsey loved Mr Ramsey very much.. I took it the opposite... Especially because she could never say in words that she loved him... 
But alas and alack I was shut down on that point.. LOL... It was just nice to see that other people saw what I saw........ 
Have a wonderful day...

----------


## Janine

> Hello again and thank you for the warm welcome... Let me start off by saying I am a non traditional student aiming for a major in English... Many of these insights are the insights that have been pointed out to us as a class by a brilliant professor... She truly is a wonderful teacher... But having said that, she picked this book (one of her favorites) for our mystical writers class because by the end of the book we find Lily Briscoe becoming "one with." I won't get into much detail on that as I know many people have not finished the book.. But I did want to point out one more thing on the dinner... There is a point at the dinner party where Lily finds herself staring at I believe it's a salt shaker or perhaps it's the shadow of the salt shaker but the shape is triangular... This theme of lighthouse shapes runs through the whole book... 
> I saw on one of the posts that someone made a comment about Mrs Ramsey and Mr Ramsey not having a good marriage or something of that nature... I want to say thank you on that as I argued that point in class last semester... Our professor said that Mr and Mrs R were very much in love... That Mrs Ramsey loved Mr Ramsey very much.. I took it the opposite... Especially because she could never say in words that she loved him... 
> But alas and alack I was shut down on that point.. LOL... It was just nice to see that other people saw what I saw........ 
> Have a wonderful day...


Hi again, *middleyears,* It is great when one has a wonderful professor with much insight. I am happy to hear you are seeking a degree in literature - wonderful! 

Although, as I have earlier stated, I have not yet read the book my second time, in order to review it, I do know the story quite well, and I will debate the love issue more extensively with you when I get further into my reading and we get further along in the book discussion. For now, and this could change on a second reading, my own innate feeling is that - yes, Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey did love each other very deeply. Yes, they were always in opposition and turmoil, since they very much were opposites in personality and other factors in each individual character (within themselves lied conflicts). Often opposite attract and one person will make up for what the other lacks. This is the 'ying and yang' or the 'two halves making up the whole' idea. This topic will make for good further discussion when more people have read the book; also when I can quote specific passages.


*middleyears*, don't be so modest and humble. You have relayed/expressed well what you have gathered from other sources. All of us do only that, checking on other sources of commentary/information, and then put it into our own words or 'quote' authors of commentary. It is insightful what you have written and now you have given us a direction to go with the idea of the 'symbolism', etc. I know this will shed much new light on my own reading and interpretation. I have long wanting to know more about the interpretation of this book for sometime. I have had many questions about the story that I have pushed asside until I should find a good group or person to discuss the book with. This comes are a perfect time. I was to my library last night and forgot that I wanted to see if they had a book of commentary on "To The Lighthouse" specificially. I know they have many books on Woolf commentary ,so I must check it out when I go there tomorrow. So as you can see we all draw from many sources for our information and ideas. This is how we all learn more.

Now I will be alerted to the shape of the lighthouse running throughout the book. In our short story thread we have gotten used to underlining keywords. Virgil started me on this idea and it is so helpful in understanding the stories. This would be very beneficial in this book, I would think. I will keep it in mind as I read and maybe it would be a good suggestion to others as well.

----------


## middleyears

Again many thanks for the warm responses I have recieved... As for my degree in English Janine, well right now I'm hoping to be done before I'm fifty and there's not much time left... LOLOLOLOL....
I have found that To the Lighthouse like many other works by great authors are very hard to understand if read on your own.. I know I would not have picked up many things unless I was in a classroom setting....
Another author I really love is Edith Wharton... If no one has ever read her, you can get a lot of her work on line and one of my favorite pieces by her is called "Roman Fever" It's a short story and trust me you don't have to be in a classroom setting to get it... LOL... It's pretty much cut and dry....
Another of my favorites is Henry James... My favorite piece by him is called "The Middle Years" hence my screen name... 
Anyone else out ther Wharton or James fans... Of course when I'm not in class my favorite thing to do after work is make some coffee and curl up with a good murder mystery.........

----------


## Janine

> Again many thanks for the warm responses I have recieved... As for my degree in English Janine, well right now I'm hoping to be done before I'm fifty and there's not much time left... LOLOLOLOL....
> I have found that To the Lighthouse like many other works by great authors are very hard to understand if read on your own.. I know I would not have picked up many things unless I was in a classroom setting....
> Another author I really love is Edith Wharton... If no one has ever read her, you can get a lot of her work on line and one of my favorite pieces by her is called "Roman Fever" It's a short story and trust me you don't have to be in a classroom setting to get it... LOL... It's pretty much cut and dry....
> Another of my favorites is Henry James... My favorite piece by him is called "The Middle Years" hence my screen name... 
> Anyone else out ther Wharton or James fans... Of course when I'm not in class my favorite thing to do after work is make some coffee and curl up with a good murder mystery.........


Hi *middleyears*, you are very welcome - glad you are here. You seem serious about good discussion and debates on the novels. Funny, you should mention Wharton - we just did a monthly book read on "Ethan Frome" (three months or so ago). If you put it into search the thread will come up and you can view the discussion; it was an interesting one. I hope to read more of her work, but first I will read the short story you suggested; it sounds interesting, just by the title. 
Yes, actually, I think there is someone on here who likes Henry James exceedingly - that is Jamesian. He pops in and out of various threads, but usually he is in the 'last movie' thread. 
I have only read some short stories/short novels which I liked very much and I bought "Wings of the Dove" a year or so ago, after seeing the film version, which I love. Unfortunately I started it and did not get back to it; will have to start again I am sure. I love almost all the period film versions of his novels, so I plan on reading them all. In fact I own about 4 of those films. I did read "Washington Square" and I loved it! Film is good, also. I will definitely have to read the short story "The Middle Years". Most likely, I own it in a huge book I have of his short stories. Opps, just looked and my book is the "Short Novels" but actually I think I will find it in another book; I have tons of book stashed away. 
If you view my signature, you will see my favorite author is D.H.Lawrence, not to say I don't love others too. Presently a few L threads are still in the listing; they were mostly active last month, but 'Short Stories' and 'Tortoise Poems' are still going strong. Maybe you will be interested in joining one of those. Would be nice to see a new face in those threads. 
Yes, I do agree with you about "To the Lighthouse", It begs commentary, explaining and discussing. I know I will get a lot from this upcoming discussion/debate. I will start the book tonight most likely. I think I already have a different perspective going into my reading which is good. I will be looking for more symbolism and particular keywords and clues. We did this in our last book discussion and it was very worthwhile indeed.

----------


## Quark

When I mentioned the Ramsey's marital problems I only meant that they have a tumultuous relationship in which they are often in disagreement. 

Are they in love? Before we can even talk about that we have to ask whether in _To The Lighthouse_ love is possible. The characters are always at a large psychological distance to each other because they can't speak honestly or completely. They never truly understand each other. When they make judgments about each other usually they are only partial and not really substantial. Sometimes the judgment is even more of a reflection on the judge than it is on the one judged. Look at the way Mrs. Ramsey's feelings about Charles Tansley change rapidly over the first section. Can we really tell what Mrs. Ramsey's relationship with Tansley is at the end of the first section? To come to a conclusion about Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey might be even more difficult. We can be sure that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey compliment each other in some ways, and that they enjoy each other's company. If those are the elements that form love, then, yes, they are very much in love. If you believe that love is based on a deep understanding and agreement between two people--a kind of intimacy--then, no, they are not in love.

----------


## Virgil

Interesting post Quark. I'm not in a position to cnfidently respond to your posts until i actually get in the reading. But as to whether Mr. and Mrs Ramsey's love for each other, remember they have been married quite a few years. I'm not sure if it actually says, but they have nearly grown children. Love at that age is not the same as newlyweds. I think they are in love. They keep having children.  :Wink:

----------


## applepie

Wow, after reading some of the discussion, I'm going to have to make the time to sit and read some tonight. To the Lighthouse has sort of been on the back burner for me since school has been pretty hectic. I'm curious to see if I believe that Mr and Mrs Ramsey are in love based on the reading. From what I've read of the discussion so far, it seems that it will be possible to argue either way and that makes for the best topics to discuss. I'm sorry to hear that your professor didn't want to hear that discussion middleyears. I've had a few teacher like that and it is always frustrating.

----------


## Janine

My feelings about the 'love' issue are mixed. I think they 'needed' each other, but as *Quark* pointed out, did they really have a deep understanding and if not perhaps their relationship was not love in a higher/true sense of the word. I feel that they did love each other within the limits of what type of love these two people were capable of. There are different levels and types of love and relationships are not all the same. 
And *Virgil,* I have known many a couple who kept on having kids, but had very little, if any, truely deep love between them. People have their needs. I have a specific couple in mind who all their life argued and fought and were at odd ends most of the time. They happen to have 7 kids!  :Wink:

----------


## middleyears

Hello again all.... Gees, this is a lot of fun.. Wish I had joined sooner... LOL... Ok, as for the question of the Ramsey's being in love, my theory was based on the fact that she couldn't tell him that she loved him and also she was always trying to marry people off... I took that as a "misery loves company" sort of thing... The teacher pointed to the one scene in the first part where the Ramseys had some sort of tiff and were not speaking and he was slamming doors and she was pretending he didn't exist and then at one point he called her outside and the argument was over.... It reminded me of how my husband and I argue... One minute we're ignoring one another and the next minute we asking what the other one wants for dinner... So I guess there is a lot of things to base both arguments on... I still to this day lean towards the idea that they really didn't love each other that much.. It always seemed to me that Mrs Ramsey was always longing for someone else... I kind of got it into my head that she perhaps loved another man from long ago or the present but knew she couldn't have him.. I have no idea what I'm basing this on, it's just a feeling I got from reading the novel.....
I will check out those other threads Janine... As for D. H Lawrence, we also did him in our mystical writers class... We did "Song of a Man Who Has Come Through" and "Fish"..... 
As for Henry James and "The Middle Years" well that is perhaps my favorite not because of the story so much as a small part of the story which changed my life forever.. The paragraph comes right at the end when Dencombe says to Dr Hughes
"Second chances. That's the delusion. There was never meant to be but one. We work in the dark, we do what we can, we give what we have. Our doubt is our passion and our passion is our task. The rest is the madness of art."

----------


## Janine

*Middleyears,* I will try to answer your post more thoroughly tomorrow. I am pleased to report that I got into my reading; I am up to page 50 pg as of today! Had to go to my doctor appointment; she was running quite late, so I enjoyed the peace and quiet and read TTLH. I am enjoying it much more than the first time I read it. I feel I am getting so much more out of the fluid text and absorbing/understanding the story and characters so much better. It really is a beautifully written book. I hope to someday read "The Waves" - a friend told me that is her favorite Woolf novel. For now I can't wait to continue later tonight with my reading. 
I tried to find the short story "The Middle Years" online and in my books but have not come across it yet. Is it listed on this site under Jame's main page?

----------


## Virgil

> *Middleyears,* I will try to answer your post more thoroughly tomorrow. I am pleased to report that I got into my reading; I am up to page 50 pg as of today! Had to go to my doctor appointment; she was running quite late, so I enjoyed the peace and quiet and read TTLH. I am enjoying it much more than the first time I read it. I feel I am getting so much more out of the fluid text and absorbing/understanding the story and characters so much better. It really is a beautifully written book. I hope to someday read "The Waves" - a friend told me that is her favorite Woolf novel. For now I can't wait to continue later tonight with my reading. 
> I tried to find the short story "The Middle Years" online and in my books but have not come across it yet. Is it listed on this site under Jame's main page?


Janine, _The Waves_ is a pretty novel. I enjoyed it. It is much more conventionally written.

So you started reading. Oh, I will be behind you all.  :Frown:

----------


## plainjane

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

----------


## 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. 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.

----------


## middleyears

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....

----------


## plainjane

> 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]..



> 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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.  :FRlol:  Our word banter can be a real battle.  :Biggrin:  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.  :Tongue:   :Biggrin:

----------


## plainjane

> 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.

----------


## Janine

> 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.  Our word banter can be a real battle.  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.


*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&#37; 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.

----------


## Quark

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.

----------


## plainjane

Oh, I that Kenneth Branagh's version? I'd completely forgotten I have the DVD! Will have to watch it tonight.  :Blush:

----------


## Janine

> 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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.





> *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?

----------


## plainjane

> 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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?

----------


## 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_?

----------


## plainjane

> 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."




> 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.

----------


## Virgil

> 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."


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?




> I think she does love him...in a way.


Well, then you agree with me. All the relationships I have mentioned "love...in a way."

----------


## plainjane

> 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?
> 
> 
> Well, then you agree with me. All the relationships I have mentioned "love...in a way."



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.

----------


## 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&#37; 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.

----------


## plainjane

> 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.


And yet..... :Smile:  

I reiterate.



> in the important things they do not deprive each other.


You say that is a "romanticized" or "idealized" version of marriage, I disagree. 
Strongly.

----------


## Virgil

Well perhaps we disagree. 

Let me say, that was fun.  :Smile:  We could never be married Jane, or perhaps make a perfect couple.  :Wink:   :Tongue:

----------


## plainjane

> Well perhaps we disagree. 
> 
> Let me say, that was fun.  We could never be married Jane, or perhaps make a perfect couple.



Ya think we disagree?  :Rolleyes:   :Biggrin:  

Seriously, friendly disagreement is the meat of book discussions IMO.

----------


## Quark

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?

----------


## Janine

> 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. 
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.

----------


## plainjane

> 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?


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....



> 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.


As Woolf mentions, extreme! 
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.

----------


## Janine

*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.

----------


## plainjane

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.

----------


## Quark

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.

----------


## plainjane

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.

----------


## plainjane

> 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 couldn't help but think during my initial reading that all her matchmaking was somewhat in the vein of "misery loves company".  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Virgil

> 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 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.




> I couldn't help but think during my initial reading that all her matchmaking was somewhat in the vein of "misery loves company".


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.  :Biggrin:

----------


## manolia

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:

----------


## plainjane

> 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.



He was a rather mediocre sort of man and a bit pretentious, and I thought his limitations, although realized, frustrated him.




> 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.


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.

I could have been projecting to some extent.

----------


## Janine

> 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


Wow, the posts got away from me, too and I want to read them all but don't have time now. 
*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.

----------


## middleyears

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...

----------


## Virgil

> Gees, it's all so very complicated...


Ah, life and love and time.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> Ah, life and love and time.


ahhhhh...yeah, indeed, 'life and love and never enough time!'  :FRlol:

----------


## Walter

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.

----------


## plainjane

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.... :Biggrin:

----------


## Walter

> 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.


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.
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!  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

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.

----------


## Walter

*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.

----------


## Quark

> 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.


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.




> I couldn't help but think during my initial reading that all her matchmaking was somewhat in the vein of "misery loves company".


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. 




> 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.


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. 




> 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.


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.


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.

----------


## Janine

> 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.


*Quark,* Good to see you posting here. 
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.




> 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 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.






> 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.


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.




> 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.


*Quark,* this is good and explains it much better than I attempted to do.




> 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.


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!

----------


## plainjane

> 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.


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. 




> 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 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.

----------


## Janine

> 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.


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. 




> 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 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. 

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.

----------


## 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.  :Biggrin:  

IOW = In Other Words
BTW = By The Way

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



> 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.  :Smile:

----------


## 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.  :Smile:

----------


## Jamilah

Many thanks to all who spent time typing away in an attempt to get me to stay with the book. I do feel much better and I will just read and allow myself to be carried along with the words. Even if I realize that I don't like the book at the end, it's part of the experience. You can't like everything you read, but must reserve judgement until after you've read it. Okay, back I go....

----------


## Walter

Way to go, *Jamilah*! YAY!

----------


## Janine

*Jamilah,* Good for you! I don't think you shall regret it. I am glad you have the attitude to not judge, until you are done with your reading. Other's should take a lesson from you. It is all a part of the experience, as you said, and if you don't like the book, you can always say you experienced Woolf's writing. Look at your reading like a rare moment into the minds of the various characters. I drifted with the thoughts this time and liked the book much better. Enjoy your reading.

----------


## rakeleta

First time to me in your book club, I read "To the lighthouse" some years ago, but I promise to read it again for the club.

----------


## Quark

> I do feel much better and I will just read and allow myself to be carried along with the words. Okay, back I go....





> First time to me in your book club, I read "To the lighthouse" some years ago, but I promise to read it again for the club.


You know I'm going to hold you to that

----------


## applepie

I'm about to give up. I read everyone's responses and the book sounds much more interesting to me than I'm finding it. I don't really like the characters, and the stream of conciousness (sp?) method of writing is giving me a lot of trouble. I'll be reading along without an issue, the two or three sections later all I can do is ask myself "What on Earth just happened". Nothing really seems to be happening to me, especially for the volume of chatter. I'm also having some trouble with the changing of who is thinking. I keep forgetting who is really the one thinking during that passage and then I'm really messed up. Any good suggestions on how to try and get through the rest of this?

----------


## Walter

> I'm about to give up. I read everyone's responses and the book sounds much more interesting to me than I'm finding it. I don't really like the characters, and the stream of conciousness (sp?) method of writing is giving me a lot of trouble. I'll be reading along without an issue, the two or three sections later all I can do is ask myself "What on Earth just happened". Nothing really seems to be happening to me, especially for the volume of chatter. I'm also having some trouble with the changing of who is thinking. I keep forgetting who is really the one thinking during that passage and then I'm really messed up. Any good suggestions on how to try and get through the rest of this?


If you don't mind marking in the book, start using a pencil and underlining lightly the words and hints in the text that identify who is speaking, whenever the speaker changes and can be identified, and then use long brackets vertically in the margin to collect that speakers thoughts until the next change of speaker. Keep an eraser handy as you figure things out better and make adjustmennts, and you should finally be able to sort it out. It does really help. It was what I ended up doing.

----------


## manolia

I am about to finish the book tonight. A quick comment since i don't have the time to write much, right now. 
James' great love for his mother and hate for his father reminded me of the greek tragedy of Oedipus. I can't be sure if Woolf had that in mind, though, but for me the thought was inevitable.
Since the book is supposed to be autobiographical, can we presume that Lily is Woolf herself? And if yes what does this tells us about her relationship with women? (I have her almost obsessive love for Mrs Ramsey in mind  :Wink:  ). I have read in many a referance, that Woolf was supposed to be a lesbia..is this depicted in the book in the character of Lily? What do you all think?

EDIT

In the begining of the book it is said (by Mrs Ramsey herself, in one of her thoughts) that she was in love with another man who died or something of the sort??? Did any of you notice this??

----------


## Janine

> I am about to finish the book tonight. A quick comment since i don't have the time to write much, right now. 
> James' great love for his mother and hate for his father reminded me of the greek tragedy of Oedipus. I can't be sure if Woolf had that in mind, though, but for me the thought was inevitable.
> Since the book is supposed to be autobiographical, can we presume that Lily is Woolf herself? And if yes what does this tells us about her relationship with women? (I have her almost obsessive love for Mrs Ramsey in mind  ). I have read in many a referance, that Woolf was supposed to be a lesbia..is this depicted in the book in the character of Lily? What do you all think?


*Hi Manolia,* I don't really think it is a Oedipus thing with the boy and his mother (Are we thinking of DHL thread and S&L's?) I thought of that possibility, but then from my additional reading, of critics and commentary, it has not really been pointed out as such. I tended to dismiss the idea myself. It is mostly just that the mother has taken him asside and coddled James, he being the baby of the family, and very sensitive, as well - the text mentions that often. In reality the father is extremely sensitive a man, painfully so and so is James. But James and the mother are aligned and she seems to like it that way. Afterall doesn't she also coddle the father at times to placate him. She puts herself in a position of being the leveling element/peace-keeper between the father and the son. Mrs. Ramsey is a very controlling woman in a quiet way and yet she is keeping her household together probably the best she knows how. 
I don't think Lily is at all thinking in a lesbia...fashion about Mrs. Ramsey. I think she is very much a woman sworn to her principals of suffrage and woman's rights and feels she is justified in being single and seeking a husband and yet at the same time she has mixed feelings about that since she very much envies the other woman for her life and loves the family extensively. I think she very much loves Mrs. Ramsey but not at all in a sexual way. 
(Hey, M, are we now thinking of the film MD?  :FRlol:  ) 





> In the begining of the book it is said (by Mrs Ramsey herself, in one of her thoughts) that she was in love with another man who died or something of the sort??? Did any of you notice this??



I picked this up several places in the book, actually, or at least an eluding to the fact that once she has been sublimely happy with someone, but not her husband, prior to her marriage. Someone from her youth was the impression I got and this reminded me right away of the James Joyce story "The Dead" - have you ever read the story? It is a good one, but I won't reveal that story here - it would spoil it for those who wish to read it eventually.

*Walter,* I don't know about your advise to poor *mkhockenberry*; I think your method sounds rather labour intensive. I don't know if I could enjoy a book having to mark down all the names and figuring it out that way. It sounds a bit clinical. 

*mkhockenberry* If I might ask how far are you in the book? I have a short attention span myself, so I find this type of writing very difficult. Depending on how far you have advanced, I would say that all books are not for all people and this 'stream of consciousness' style may not be for you. It depends on how persistent you can be; it may be worthwhile to continue, but then again, it may not be. The book is divided into 3 sections and you might find the second section easier or harder. Actually, I thought the writing lovely in the second section, but I did find it harder to read in some ways. There is very little plot in the second part, but mostly description, which is quite poetic. It is not a long book to read but it is quite intricate and complex. If you read back few posts to the last page you will see that a lot of good advise was given to *Jamilah!*. This might help you, since they also had a difficult time getting into the flow of the book and did not know whether to persist with it.

----------


## manolia

> *Hi Manolia,* I don't really think it is a Oedipus thing with the boy and his mother (*Are we thinking of DHL thread and S&L's*?) I thought of that possibility, but then from my additional reading, of critics and commentary, it has not really been pointed out as such..


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  My sides are hurting (with the phrase in bold)

I guess you are right. But like i said it is difficult for me to read about a situation like this one (son loving dearly his mother and hating his father) and NOT think of Oidepus..




> I tended to dismiss the idea myself. It is mostly just that the mother has taken him asside and coddled James, he being the baby of the family, and very sensitive, as well - the text mentions that often. In reality the father is extremely sensitive a man, painfully so and so is James. But James and the mother are aligned and she seems to like it that way.


I agree with this. Mrs Ramsey is the protective force against an indifferent (most of the time he is completely swallowed up by his work, but he has some "good father" glimpses) and some times cruel father. But i got the feeling that James was very jealous when his father was succesfull in securing Mrs Ramsey attention to himself. He got those violence notions (wanting to stick a knife to his heart..)




> I don't think Lily is at all thinking in a lesbia...fashion about Mrs. Ramsey. I think she is very much a woman sworn to her principals of suffrage and woman's rights and feels she is justified in being single and seeking a husband and yet at the same time she has mixed feelings about that since she very much envies the other woman for her life and loves the family extensively. I think she very much loves Mrs. Ramsey but not at all in a sexual way. 
> *(Hey, M, are we now thinking of the film MD?  )*


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  (phrase in bold)

Well, she didn't strike me as a lesbia too, untill i got nearly the end were 10 years have passed and she is crying and thinking very intensivelly of Mrs Ramsey..and having read that this book is autobiographical, i assumed that Woolf can be identified as one of the characters and the one that seemed more probable was Lilly  :Biggrin:  (being artist and all).




> I picked this up several places in the book, actually, or at least an eluding to the fact that once she has been sublimely happy with someone, but not her husband, prior to her marriage. Someone from her youth was the impression I got and this reminded me right away of the James Joyce story "The Dead" - have you ever read the story? It is a good one, but I won't reveal that story here - it would spoil it for those who wish to read it eventually.


That's why i mentioned it..i got the same feeling. Perhaps this is partly the answer to what you were discussing previously on the thread, whether she loved her husband or not.I believe she loved him as a woman loves a man with whom she had 7 (or 8?) children and have passed her whole life together..but that first love, was her true love  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

*manolia,* glad you make your sides hurt from laughing. How we are influenced by the last things we read and discussed recently. I too think like that things seem to be carried over from other books such as ideas and references. 
I believe, Nancy, who is hardly mentioned in the text, is the daughter representing Woolf, but I could be wrong. More reading outside the novel and in my library commentary may reveal the answer to that. Woolf was one of the children, since this book is basically a portrait of her own parents and the household, or is at least based on her perception of her family vacationing each year at the seaside, and gave her the basic idea for the book. I do think Lily epitomises some of the characteristics/ideals of Woolf's, but I don't think she is mean to represent Woolf herself.

----------


## Quark

> That's why i mentioned it..i got the same feeling. Perhaps this is partly the answer to what you were discussing previously on the thread, whether she loved her husband or not.I believe she loved him as a woman loves a man with whom she had 7 (or 8?) children and have passed her whole life together..but that first love, was her true love


It could very well be true that Mrs. Ramsay had more affection for her first lover, but it still wouldn't solve the question of the Ramsays' marriage. It is true that they have many children, but they don't seem to rally around their kids; or, if they do rally it's for different reasons. And, even if they did feel some common bond through their children, it still wouldn't give us enough information to tell us why they had kids in the first place.

I am curious about the relationship between James and his mother. I didn't make the observation that James was possessive of his mother, but I do remember his violent impulses toward his father. I'll have to go back and see if his hatred of his father is connected with his love for his mother.

----------


## manolia

> *manolia,* glad you make your sides hurt from laughing. How we are influenced by the last things we read and discussed recently. I too think like that things seem to be carried over from other books such as ideas and references. 
> I believe, Nancy, who is hardly mentioned in the text, is the daughter representing Woolf, but I could be wrong. More reading outside the novel and in my library commentary may reveal the answer to that. Woolf was one of the children, since this book is basically a portrait of her own parents and the household, or is at least based on her perception of her family vacationing each year at the seaside, and gave her the basic idea for the book. I do think Lily epitomises some of the characteristics/ideals of Woolf's, but I don't think she is mean to represent Woolf herself.


Hehehe Janine, i think i'll wait till you're done with your additional reading and researching and see which character was supposed to be made after Woolf  :Wink:  Go on Shirlock  :Thumbs Up:  I love it when you do your analysing  :Wink:   :Smile:  




> It could very well be true that Mrs. Ramsay had more affection for her first lover, but it still wouldn't solve the question of the Ramsays' marriage. It is true that they have many children, but they don't seem to rally around their kids; or, if they do rally it's for different reasons. And, even if they did feel some common bond through their children, it still wouldn't give us enough information to tell us why they had kids in the first place.


That's why i used the words "perhaps" and "partly"  :Smile:  . Apart from what i have already said, let me add that their relationship being very complex (and very lifelike if you ask me) i believe it isn't meant to be answered with a simple "yes, they were in love" or "no, they weren't". And if you ask me, i don't think it is the most important issue of the book  :Smile:

----------


## Virgil

Well, I'm back and I will start the novel either tonight or tomorrow. Glad this is a lively discussion. In perusing some of the threads I find things to agree with and things to disagree. I don't know if it makes sense for me to go back. I'll see.

----------


## Quark

> That's why i used the words "perhaps" and "partly"  . Apart from what i have already said, let me add that their relationship being very complex (and very lifelike if you ask me) i believe it isn't meant to be answered with a simple "yes, they were in love" or "no, they weren't". And if you ask me, i don't think it is the most important issue of the book


Sorry, I didn't mean to cavil about some small detail. It's just, after three pages of back and forth arguing over a point, you get a little suspicious of anyone who has a quick, concise answer. I don't know how important the Ramsays' relationship is. That greatly depends on what you think the main themes are. I just wanted to make sure we get an accurate idea of the events in the story--relevant or not. And, I just wanted you to say more. It sounded like you were coming up with a good idea, but it wasn't really clear. You still had some "perhaps" and "partly"s. Once the verbal hedges drop away we can really talk about it. Sorry if I sounded combative, I was just trying to be challenging. 




> Well, I'm back and I will start the novel either tonight or tomorrow. Glad this is a lively discussion. In perusing some of the threads I find things to agree with and things to disagree. I don't know if it makes sense for me to go back. I'll see.


Yeah, if you can go back and read the discussion it would be great. I think people have said some important things--which I've only sometimes gotten in the way of.

----------


## Walter

*Janine*, It _is_ labor intensive, but the only way I know to mark thought and dialogue in a confusing book, for convenient later reference in a serous discussion -- in effect to build an index to the book. Saves a lot of frustration and endless page flipping for me and my vague memory, after I stagger through the unmarked book once totally confused. If there is a simpler way I'd be glad to hear it.

----------


## manolia

> Sorry, I didn't mean to cavil about some small detail. It's just, after three pages of back and forth arguing over a point, you get a little suspicious of anyone who has a quick, concise answer. I don't know how important the Ramsays' relationship is. That greatly depends on what you think the main themes are. I just wanted to make sure we get an accurate idea of the events in the story--relevant or not. And, I just wanted you to say more. It sounded like you were coming up with a good idea, but it wasn't really clear. You still had some "perhaps" and "partly"s. Once the verbal hedges drop away we can really talk about it. Sorry if I sounded combative, I was just trying to be challenging.


Oh no need for "sorry"! I wasn't offended  :Smile:  
For me the central theme (or main subject, if you prefer) of the book is the (relentless) passing of time. What we get in this book is two days in the lives of a set of people. A little detail : the two days have a distance of ten years between them (which include a war - in which Andrew was killed and two more deaths -Prou (SP?) and Mrs Ramsey). I liked the middle part of the book where the process of time is described through the "decaying" of the house. Very strong images!
What i also noticed (a very important issue too) is the anthropomorphisms in the novel. Allow me to use this term, since i got the feeling that both the house and the lighthouse almost had a life of their own  :Wink:  . Tell me what you think and we can expand on these a little more  :Wink:

----------


## Quark

> For me the central theme (or main subject, if you prefer) of the book is the (relentless) passing of time. What we get in this book is two days in the lives of a set of people. A little detail : the two days have a distance of ten years between them (which include a war - in which Andrew was killed and two more deaths -Prou (SP?) and Mrs Ramsey). I liked the middle part of the book where the process of time is described through the "decaying" of the house. Very strong images!
> What i also noticed (a very important issue too) is the anthropomorphisms in the novel. Allow me to use this term, since i got the feeling that both the house and the lighthouse almost had a life of their own  . Tell me what you think and we can expand on these a little more


Yes, the passing of time is very important to the novel. From the Ramsay's perspective, its passage would have to be described as relentless--if not cruel. They lose almost everything they hoped for; though, I think, in the end, they get some consolation. Like _The Sound and The Fury_, you could read the story as another pessimistic Modernist tale about the dissolution of a family, but I think it might be more. While the Ramsay's fail, other characters achieve some success: Lily begins to paint, and Mr. Carmichael becomes a popular poet. _To The Lighthouse_ ends with more hope than most stories about the mortality of the world. I think a fuller idea for the novel might be change, rather than only destruction and loss. 

I'm also curious about the anthropomorphizing of the lighthouse. What human traits do you think the lighthouse has? The lighthouse is a difficult symbol to understand, and we haven't talked about it much yet, so it might be a good time to start.

----------


## manolia

> I'm also curious about the anthropomorphizing of the lighthouse. What human traits do you think the lighthouse has? The lighthouse is a difficult symbol to understand, and we haven't talked about it much yet, so it might be a good time to start.


Hehehe don't laugh*, but the lighthouse gave me the creeps..like it is always there watching over people..its beam is like an ever watching eye..which has the ability to see everything (do you remember some of the descriptions of its beam being cast over their beds, creeping through windows etc etc?). Moreover the lighthouse is a place where little James wants to reach but he can't..he has a strange, almost supernatural appeal to him..and in the end when he actually goes there he drows this very interesting parallel between himself and the lighthouse..they are both very proud and erect or something of the sort..they somehow look alike.

*I guess i have read so many sci-fi and fantasy books in my life and watched too many thrillers..but there was something in the lighhouse's beam that reminded me of the eye of Sauron from LOTR  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

Ok, I've been reading and there are interesting things to point out in the openning pages. 




> Yes, of course, if its fine tomorrow, said Mrs Ramsay. But youll have to be up with the lark, she added.
> 
> To her son these words conveyed an extraordinary joy, as if it were settled, the expedition were bound to take place, and the wonder to which he had looked forward, for years and years it seemed, was, after a nights darkness and a days sail, within touch. Since he belonged, even at the age of six, to that great clan which cannot keep this feeling separate from that, but must let future prospects, with their joys and sorrows, cloud what is actually at hand, since to such people even in earliest childhood any turn in the wheel of sensation has the power to crystallise and transfix the moment upon which its gloom or radiance rests, James Ramsay, sitting on the floor cutting out pictures from the illustrated catalogue of the Army and Navy stores, endowed the picture of a refrigerator, as his mother spoke, with heavenly bliss. It was fringed with joy.


What we see is Mrs. Ramsey as soothing, nurturing, instilling hope and vision and imagination. She s helping the boy cut out pictures, and so much of this novel is about pictures and imagination. Notice also how perspective is introduced: "and the wonder to which he had looked forward, for years and years it seemed" Years and years? He is only six. And yet it will be years and years until this wish is fulfilled. And the novel also introduces how childhood develops: "since to such people even in earliest childhood any turn in the wheel of sensation has the power to crystallise and transfix the moment upon which its gloom or radiance rests". The artistry of the imagination is what will shape James, and in affect all of us (this is Woolf's ideas, not necessarily mine). 

And further along, we get a contrasting scene:




> But, said his father, stopping in front of the drawing-room window, it wont be fine.
> 
> Had there been an axe handy, a poker, or 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, narrow as the blade of one, 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. What he said was true. It was always true. He was incapable of untruth; never tampered with a fact; never altered a disagreeable word to suit the pleasure or convenience of any mortal being, least of all of his own children, who, sprung from his loins, should be aware from childhood that life is difficult; facts uncompromising; and the passage to that fabled land where our brightest hopes are extinguished, our frail barks founder in darkness (here Mr Ramsay would straighten his back and narrow his little blue eyes upon the horizon), one that needs, above all, courage, truth, and the power to endure


The contrasting "But" sets up a polar opposite idea. The father is harsh, blunt, anti-imagination, realistic, fact driven. And it is realistic; it turns out to be true. They will not be able to go the the lighouse because of the weather. Woolf has set up two archetypical characterization: the mother as nurturing, the father as forceful; the mother as imaginative, the father as realistic; the mother as soothing, the father as harsh, fact driven.

----------


## Virgil

Notice then the contrast between how Mrs. Ramsey's mind works with that of Tansley"s:




> But it may be fineI expect it will be fine, said Mrs Ramsay, making some little twist of the reddish brown stocking she was knitting, impatiently. If she finished it tonight, if they did go to the Lighthouse after all, it was to be given to the Lighthouse keeper for his little boy, who was threatened with a tuberculous hip; together with a pile of old magazines, and some tobacco, indeed, whatever she could find lying about, not really wanted, but only littering the room, to give those poor fellows, who must be bored to death sitting all day with nothing to do but polish the lamp and trim the wick and rake about on their scrap of garden, something to amuse them. For how would you like to be shut up for a whole month at a time, and possibly more in stormy weather, upon a rock the size of a tennis lawn? she would ask; and to have no letters or newspapers, and to see nobody; if you were married, not to see your wife, not to know how your children were,if they were ill, if they had fallen down and broken their legs or arms; to see the same dreary waves breaking week after week, and then a dreadful storm coming, and the windows covered with spray, and birds dashed against the lamp, and the whole place rocking, and not be able to put your nose out of doors for fear of being swept into the sea? How would you like that? she asked, addressing herself particularly to her daughters. So she added, rather differently, one must take them whatever comforts one can.


Notice that she envisions the painful existence of the lighthouse family, the isolation, their being cut off from society, havoc of the natural world to human existence, the onslaught of time (symbolized in "the same dreary waves breaking week after week"). These are all themes which will be developed throughout the novel. 

But notice how Tansley sees the trip to the lighthouse:



> Its due west, said the atheist Tansley, holding his bony fingers spread so that the wind blew through them, for he was sharing Mr Ramsays evening walk up and down, up and down the terrace. That is to say, the wind blew from the worst possible direction for landing at the Lighthouse.


Tansley in some ways is another version of Mr. Ramsey. Pure logical facts, harsh facts. Even his atheism suggests a lack of intuition and imagination.

And Woolf even has Mrs. Ramsey get to the heart of Tansley's person. Notice this several pages in as Mrs R gets Tansley to go into town with her:



> Let us all go! she cried, moving on, as if all those riders and horses had filled her with childlike exultation and made her forget her pity.
> 
> Lets go, he said, repeating her words, clicking them out, however, with a self-consciousness that made her wince. Let us all go to the circus. No. He could not say it right. He could not feel it right. But why not? she wondered. What was wrong with him then? She liked him warmly, at the moment. Had they not been taken, she asked, to circuses when they were children? Never, he answered, as if she asked the very thing he wanted; had been longing all these days to say, how they did not go to circuses. It was a large family, nine brothers and sisters, and his father was a working man. My father is a chemist, Mrs Ramsay. He keeps a shop. He himself had paid his own way since he was thirteen. Often he went without a greatcoat in winter. He could never return hospitality (those were his parched stiff words) at college. He had to make things last twice the time other people did; he smoked the cheapest tobacco; shag; the same the old men did in the quays. He worked hardseven hours a day; his subject was now the influence of something upon somebodythey were walking on and Mrs Ramsay did not quite catch the meaning, only the words, here and there ... dissertation ... fellowship ... readership ... lectureship. She could not follow the ugly academic jargon, that rattled itself off so glibly, but said to herself that she saw now why going to the circus had knocked him off his perch, poor little man, and why he came out, instantly, with all that about his father and mother and brothers and sisters, and she would see to it that they didnt laugh at him any more; she would tell Prue about it.


Never having gone to the circus, the deprivation of childhood imaginings. This in a way parallels little James not going to the lighthouse. Will James be a Tansley? Or will Mr. Tansley be like James? Notice the effect she has on him. She shows him some paintings as the wonder through town:




> So Mr Tansley supposed she meant him to see that that mans picture was skimpy, was that what one said? The colours werent solid? Was that what one said? Under the influence of that extraordinary emotion which had been growing all the walk, had begun in the garden when he had wanted to take her bag, had increased in the town when he had wanted to tell her everything about himself, he was coming to see himself, and everything he had ever known gone crooked a little. It was awfully strange.


Through her personality Tansley is "coming to see himself, and everything he had ever known gone crooked a little." And then he lightens up, almost awakes and suddenly realizes what has been in front of him for the longest time:




> There he stood in the parlour of the poky little house where she had taken him, waiting for her, while she went upstairs a moment to see a woman. He heard her quick step above; heard her voice cheerful, then low; looked at the mats, tea-caddies, glass shades; waited quite impatiently; looked forward eagerly to the walk home; determined to carry her bag; then heard her come out; shut a door; say they must keep the windows open and the doors shut, ask at the house for anything they wanted (she must be talking to a child) when, suddenly, in she came, stood for a moment silent (as if she had been pretending up there, and for a moment let herself be now), stood quite motionless for a moment against a picture of Queen Victoria wearing the blue ribbon of the Garter; when all at once he realised that it was this: it was this:she was the most beautiful person he had ever seen.
> 
> With stars in her eyes and veils in her hair, with cyclamen and wild violetswhat nonsense was he thinking? She was fifty at least; she had eight children. Stepping through fields of flowers and taking to her breast buds that had broken and lambs that had fallen; with the stars in her eyes and the wind in her hairHe had hold of her bag.


She brings out a childish spark out of him.  :Smile:

----------


## middleyears

The lighthouse is a difficult symbol to understand, and we haven't talked about it much yet, so it might be a good time to start.[/QUOTE]


Hi, it's been a while since I jumped in on the conversation but from what I learned in class about the book, and of course this is the professor's opinion, is that the Lighthouse is actually Mrs Ramsey. She is always there to look over things and keep all in line and make sure dinner parties go well and she's there to match people up to have a wonderful life. SHE is the lighthouse. 
At the end when Lily finishes the painting she draws Mrs Ramsey as a wedge shaped core. She becomes one with her for only a moment. At that same moment that she finished the painting, Carmichel says that Mr Ramsey, Cam and James have reached the lighthouse. They have all had a moment of shared conscieneness. (not sure if that's spelled right L

----------


## Virgil

> The lighthouse is a difficult symbol to understand, and we haven't talked about it much yet, so it might be a good time to start.


[/QUOTE]
I fully agree with your professor. I think I had expressed something like that earlier. All the other characters are in orbits around Mrs Ramsey, and she is their guide and protector.

----------


## plainjane

I happened to run across this quote on another forum. I don't have the books of VW's letters, but the page and book is in the quote.
It is her view of the meaning of the Lighthouse itself.
I found it interesting.



> I meant nothing by The Lighthouse. One has to have a central line down the middle of the book to hold the design together. I saw that all sorts of feelings would accrue to this, but I refused to think them out, and trusted that people would make it the deposit for their own emotionswhich they have done, one thinking it means one thing anther another. I can"'"t manage Symbolism except in this vague, generalized way. Whether its right or wrong I don"'"t know, but directly I"'"m told what a thing means, it becomes hateful to me. (Letters, vol. 1, May 27, 1927, #1764).

----------


## Walter

*PlainJane,* Very interesting, then, if I recall correctly, that Lily finally finishes her painting by drawing a single straight line on it. And that's it!
The straight line that we now see as Mrs. Ramsay herself?

----------


## plainjane

Yes, the unifying factor. That is how I saw it.

I did like the way the Lighthouse was used in the middle section, sweeping across the house and contents showing the degeneration over time. Reaching into corners exposing all the cobwebs of the house [of the inhabitants minds?] along the way.

----------


## Janine

I have had modem/computer problems, but hopefully will be back on tonight...at my library currently using their computer. Got new modem today. Wow, I have been missing a great discussion. I can't wait to read all posts since I left. Hopefully see you later on.

----------


## Walter

Somehow the house has always appeared to me in a dual role. The central section shows beautifully how it slowly ages and can be a symbol for the passage of time. On the other hand, the changes in the house with time are as nothing compared to the havoc that time has wrought with the lives of the characters. And it is from exactly the same house that the story resumes in the third section, so the house has also seemed to me to be a fixed point in their lives -- a symbol of stability in their radically changing world. So I see it both ways and can't choose one or the other way of looking at it.

----------


## Quark

> Notice that she envisions the painful existence of the lighthouse family, the isolation, their being cut off from society, havoc of the natural world to human existence, the onslaught of time (symbolized in "the same dreary waves breaking week after week"). These are all themes which will be developed throughout the novel.


We've talked about time and death in the story, but I don't think anyone has brought up isolation. Who do you think is isolated? How are they isolated? I wrote something about the large psychological distance separating the characters and Lily's difference from the Ramsays, but do you think there is a broader theme of isolation in the book?

----------


## plainjane

I have not gone back for individual examples, but I did feel, probably due to the writing style, that everyone was isolated in their thoughts. Unable to tell the others what was really going on in their minds. The interchange between the Ramsays, her dreams for the children and Lily.
Mrs. Ramsay had all the relationships of the young people set in her mind, some worked out some didn't, and even the ones that did...her daughter married and soon died, so the future Mrs. Ramsay imagined for her never took place. The lives that were cut off by the War, never coming to fruition were in her imagination only.

Maybe more than isolation, a hopelessness and helplessness against McFate is a theme.

----------


## Virgil

> We've talked about time and death in the story, but I don't think anyone has brought up isolation. Who do you think is isolated? How are they isolated? I wrote something about the large psychological distance separating the characters and Lily's difference from the Ramsays, but do you think there is a broader theme of isolation in the book?


Absolutely, isolation may be the central theme. Everyone is isolated. Look for it and you'll see it. The writing style compliments that theme perfectly. The writing is all interior monlogue with sporadic and sparse periods of dialogue. If you took all the dialogue in the novel and put it together, I bet it wouldn't add up to ten pages, versus 250 pages of interior thoughts. What does all that interior monologue suggest? Internal isolation that is the human condition. 

Also why is the first part of the novel called "The Window?" I'll leave that for you to ponder. When I get up to the specific passage of the window I'll post it and give you my thoughts.

----------


## Virgil

Actually i wanted to look at the first encounter of Lily's painting. Here she is looking at it:




> The jacmanna was bright violet; the wall staring white. She would not have considered it honest to tamper with the bright violet and the staring white, since she saw them like that, fashionable though it was, since Mr Pauncefortes visit, to see everything pale, elegant, semitransparent. Then beneath the colour there was the shape. She could see it all so clearly, so commandingly, when she looked: it was when she took her brush in hand that the whole thing changed. It was in that moments flight between the picture and her canvas that the demons set on her who often brought her to the verge of tears and made this passage from conception to work as dreadful as any down a dark passage for a child. Such she often felt herselfstruggling against terrific odds to maintain her courage; to say: But this is what I see; this is what I see, and so to clasp some miserable remnant of her vision to her breast, which a thousand forces did their best to pluck from her. And it was then too, in that chill and windy way, as she began to paint, that there forced themselves upon her other things, her own inadequacy, her insignificance, keeping house for her father off the Brompton Road, and had much ado to control her impulse to fling herself (thank Heaven she had always resisted so far) at Mrs Ramsays knee and say to herbut what could one say to her? Im in love with you? No, that was not true. Im in love with this all, waving her hand at the hedge, at the house, at the children. It was absurd, it was impossible. So now she laid her brushes neatly in the box, side by side, and said to William Bankes


First i take this to be many of Woolf's aesthetics: "Then beneath the colour there was the shape." I think we can see this in the novel, in the way we see the characters. Beneath the visual there is the other part of them; beneath their bodes there is their internal, their mind.

Second, the connection between the external world and the artistic replication of it is a struggle:



> She could see it all so clearly, so commandingly, when she looked: it was when she took her brush in hand that the whole thing changed. It was in that moments flight between the picture and her canvas that the demons set on her who often brought her to the verge of tears and made this passage from conception to work as dreadful as any down a dark passage for a child.


The demons which prevent art is again the internal mind interfering with the artistic execution.

Third, insecurity that is at the root of her mind's demons is related to her womanhood working in the world of men. Read this again in light of what i just said:



> Such she often felt herselfstruggling against terrific odds to maintain her courage; to say: But this is what I see; this is what I see, and so to clasp some miserable remnant of her vision to her breast, which a thousand forces did their best to pluck from her. And it was then too, in that chill and windy way, as she began to paint, that there forced themselves upon her other things, her own inadequacy, her insignificance, keeping house for her father off the Brompton Road, and had much ado to control her impulse to fling herself (thank Heaven she had always resisted so far) at Mrs Ramsays knee and say to herbut what could one say to her? Im in love with you? No, that was not true. Im in love with this all, waving her hand at the hedge, at the house, at the children. It was absurd, it was impossible. So now she laid her brushes neatly in the box, side by side...


In another passage, she recounts how men have told her in her life, women can't do this and women can't do that. She has been forced to live a woman's life, "keeping house for her father." But she finds that courage to paint, to express her vision. Her statement, "'But this is what I see'" is a struggle to create her identity. It is to me (and obviously to Woolf) a heroic attempt. [Who says I'm always anti-feminist?  :Tongue:   :Biggrin:  ] Notice two more things: It is to Mrs. Ramsey that she wants to fling herself upon to construct this vision. Remember that at the end of the novel when Lily completes her vision. Notice that she cannot finish here and puts down her brushes when Mr. Bankes comes by. It is the intrusion of the male that inhibits her psychologically from that vision, even though Mr. Bankes is a nice man and she likes him.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil and everyone else*, been reading all of your posts tonight and everyone is addressing some key issues here. The posts are great and very insightful. I think 'isolation' is a key theme in the book. I liked the quote by Woolf herself giving us some perspective on her view of just what the lighthouse represented. Interesing since sometimes we all tend to over analyse a work. Always interesting to see just what the author has to say about a particular aspect or image in the book. I think the lighthouse symbol can mean many things, and different things to different people. 

Hmm..."The Window"...that certainly suggests much - a private window looking into the private thoughts of others, perhaps? a window looking into a very private world of the Ramsey family.

----------


## applepie

Does anyone else find it odd the Mrs. Ramsey seems to encourage isolation between James and his father? Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, but from what I've read she seems to encourage James to hate his father. Not really by word, as such, but by any lack of action. I'm only about halfway through the story, but she seems to delight that her son "belongs" only to her.

----------


## Janine

> Does anyone else find it odd the Mrs. Ramsey seems to encourage isolation between James and his father? Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, but from what I've read she seems to encourage James to hate his father. Not really by word, as such, but by any lack of action. I'm only about halfway through the story, but she seems to delight that her son "belongs" only to her.


*Hi mkhockenberry,* I think this question or something similiar was brooched earlier. I would say that Mrs. Ramsey is not intentionally encouraging James to hate his father, but rather taking on the role of protector of James. Somewhere in her thoughts it is stated that she understands how terribly sensitive and artistic James is. I think she would know instinctively just how much her husband could damage the boy physcologially. She tends to act as protector and leveler for the family and so I don't think it that odd or strange that she especially do so with her youngest child. The mother and father are at odds so often and she knows the hurt and scathing ways of the father, and wants to protect and isolate James from feeling those hurts. Mostly the friction lies between her and her husband but in this case she is the one separating the two who are in constant opposition and friction on the question of going to the lighthouse. Instead of taking his frustrations out sensibly or constructively, Mr. Ramsey tends to rend his frustration into a sort of wrath upon his family, especially using it upon James, who is more vulnerable and I can clearly see Mrs. Ramsey shielding James from this wrath and nastiness of Mr. Ramsey's.
Hope all this makes sense. It is late and I am a bit tired out but I tried to express what I feel about the situation with the three people - James, Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey.

----------


## Virgil

> Does anyone else find it odd the Mrs. Ramsey seems to encourage isolation between James and his father? Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, but from what I've read she seems to encourage James to hate his father. Not really by word, as such, but by any lack of action. I'm only about halfway through the story, but she seems to delight that her son "belongs" only to her.


Hmm.  Where do you see that Hock? I'm not sure I've ever noticed that. Perhaps you can quote it.

I have found an electronic version of the novel here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...virginia/w91t/

That's where I'm pulling off quotes. I don't think we have here at lit net books.

----------


## applepie

I'll look through to find the quotes that left me with that impression. It seems like it was a few spread throughout, so I'll look today and try to post them later.

----------


## Janine

Yes, quotes directly from the book always help and it is laborious to type it out so thanks, *Virgil*, for posting that link to the story text. I have needed that because, you are correct, TTLH is not available on this site. I am surprised you found the full-text online and free. I will check it out.

----------


## Quark

> Absolutely, isolation may be the central theme. Everyone is isolated. Look for it and you'll see it. The writing style compliments that theme perfectly. The writing is all interior monlogue with sporadic and sparse periods of dialogue. If you took all the dialogue in the novel and put it together, I bet it wouldn't add up to ten pages, versus 250 pages of interior thoughts. What does all that interior monologue suggest? Internal isolation that is the human condition.


Well, think carefully here. Is it introversion that separates them? Would you say that Wordsworth's poems had isolated speakers and characters? Wordsworth often wrote about characters who had internal thoughts and were social outsiders; but, at the same time, they don't appear to be isolated. Wordsworth's characters find a way--or the poet found it for them--to turn their narrow personal experiences into universal concepts that can be appreciated by others. His Cumberland Beggar is a lonely exile of the town who can't communicate with anyone around him, but his personal tragedy is somehow translated into a universal idea. Wordsworth writes, 

"While thus he creeps
From door to door, the Villagers in him
Behold a record which together binds
Past deeds and offices of charity
Else unremember'd, and so keeps alive
The kindly mood in hearts which lapse of years,
And that half-wisdom, half-experience gives
Make slow to feel, and by sure steps resign
To selfishness and cold oblivious cares" (79-87). 

The isolated individual joins the townspeople around him as a fully understandable idea. This doesn't happen often for Woolf's characters, though. But, why is that? 

If we look at other books with long internal monologues, it might help. Dostoevsky created a lot of characters that mumbled to themselves. Raskilnokov talked to himself out loud sometimes. _Notes from The Underground_ is one long internal monologue. These protagonist are desperately searching for self respect, and they constantly are trying to reinvent themselves to themselves to gain some sort of confidence. This process isolates them. But, I don't think we can say that the Ramsays are self-seeking individuals. They have some doubts about their lives, but it doesn't amount to the almost pathological self-criticism that Raskilnokov goes through. Another well known internal monologue driven writer is Joyce. His characters had large stores of knowledge and memory which were different for every character. The present would be sifted through each character's own knowledge, connections would be made, and a reality would form. But, no character would end up with the same reality because they didn't make the same connections. The characters get isolated because they can't agree on reality. This is a plausible way for a character to end up in isolation, but I don't think Woolf's characters disagree on the nature of reality or meaning. 

So, where are we at? We know that introversion doesn't equal isolation. We know that internal monologue might be a symptom of isolation, but it doesn't tell us what kind of isolation or what's causing it. You brought up Lily and her art. Maybe we should start with her. Why is she isolated? 




> First i take this to be many of Woolf's aesthetics: "Then beneath the colour there was the shape." I think we can see this in the novel, in the way we see the characters. Beneath the visual there is the other part of them; beneath their bodes there is their internal, their mind.
> Second, the connection between the external world and the artistic replication of it is a struggle:
> 
> The demons which prevent art is again the internal mind interfering with the artistic execution.
> 
> Third, insecurity that is at the root of her mind's demons is related to her womanhood working in the world of men. Read this again in light of what i just said:
> 
> In another passage, she recounts how men have told her in her life, women can't do this and women can't do that. She has been forced to live a woman's life, "keeping house for her father." But she finds that courage to paint, to express her vision. Her statement, "'But this is what I see'" is a struggle to create her identity. It is to me (and obviously to Woolf) a heroic attempt. [Who says I'm always anti-feminist?   ] Notice two more things: It is to Mrs. Ramsey that she wants to fling herself upon to construct this vision. Remember that at the end of the novel when Lily completes her vision. Notice that she cannot finish here and puts down her brushes when Mr. Bankes comes by. It is the intrusion of the male that inhibits her psychologically from that vision, even though Mr. Bankes is a nice man and she likes him.


There, now we have three good reasons. Lily is isolated because of insecurity, sexism, and the "internal mind". Insecurity is pretty easy to understand--especially for me. We know that could cause a person not to express themselves and end up alone. I think we understand how sexism could isolate a person, too. This "internal mind" is a little harder to grasp. I already said that introversion isn't a cause of isolation, so the word internal isn't relevant. Really, we want to know what the word "mind" means. You said that beneath the visual there is a hidden form. What is this form? 

Another passage where Lily is painting refers to this form. Except this time, it's referred to as a rhythm. Woolf writes that Lily senses a something "which was dictated to her...so that while her hand quivered with life, this rhythm was strong enough to bear her along with it on its current". Now that have the word rhythm to word with I can find a similar statement in Woolf's Letters to work with. Woolf wrote, "Style is a very simple matter; it is all rhythm...Now this is very profound, what rhythm is, and goes far deeper than words. A sight, an emotion, creates this wave in mind, long before it makes words to fit it". Perhaps, if we can go from "form" to "rhythm", the next step might be to "emotion". Is emotion what's being written about? Is that also what separates the characters?

----------


## Virgil

I must say Quark this is a really exellent post.




> Well, think carefully here. Is it introversion that separates them? Would you say that Wordsworth's poems had isolated speakers and characters? Wordsworth often wrote about characters who had internal thoughts and were social outsiders; but, at the same time, they don't appear to be isolated. Wordsworth's characters find a way--or the poet found it for them--to turn their narrow personal experiences into universal concepts that can be appreciated by others. His Cumberland Beggar is a lonely exile of the town who can't communicate with anyone around him, but his personal tragedy is somehow translated into a universal idea. Wordsworth writes, 
> 
> "While thus he creeps
> From door to door, the Villagers in him
> Behold a record which together binds
> Past deeds and offices of charity
> Else unremember'd, and so keeps alive
> The kindly mood in hearts which lapse of years,
> And that half-wisdom, half-experience gives
> ...


I understand what you're saying. Style like symbolism can have multiple meaning. One has to put into context of the rest of the work. And the rest of To The Lighthouse has isolation everywhere. The isolaton of the lighthouse keeper is one point. I will point it out more as I read on and come across it.




> There, now we have three good reasons. Lily is isolated because of insecurity, sexism, and the "internal mind". Insecurity is pretty easy to understand--especially for me. We know that could cause a person not to express themselves and end up alone. I think we understand how sexism could isolate a person, too. This "internal mind" is a little harder to grasp. I already said that introversion isn't a cause of isolation, so the word internal isn't relevant. Really, we want to know what the word "mind" means. You said that beneath the visual there is a hidden form. What is this form?


Great question. I'm not sure Woolf answers that. Of course "mind" was my term. I struggled to find the right word. Personality perhaps is a another but still not perfect word. I'm referring to the interior self. Whatever the word, I think Woolf has created dichoteme between the interior and exterior. And I still believe that the over emphasis on the interior supports her theme of personal isolation.




> Another passage where Lily is painting refers to this form. Except this time, it's referred to as a rhythm. Woolf writes that Lily senses a something "which was dictated to her...so that while her hand quivered with life, this rhythm was strong enough to bear her along with it on its current". Now that have the word rhythm to word with I can find a similar statement in Woolf's Letters to work with. Woolf wrote, "Style is a very simple matter; it is all rhythm...Now this is very profound, what rhythm is, and goes far deeper than words. A sight, an emotion, creates this wave in mind, long before it makes words to fit it". Perhaps, if we can go from "form" to "rhythm", the next step might be to "emotion". Is emotion what's being written about? Is that also what separates the characters?


Rhythm connects with the other theme of time, the cycles of time such as the seasons and the ocean waves, and life's death and rebirth. This is a book with a vast scope and remarkably broad for just 300 pages.

----------


## quasimodo1

Something from the NYT book review section about "To the Lighthouse" http://theater2.nytimes.com/2007/03/...s/03ligh.html# quasimodo1 ps: two pages

----------


## Quark

> Great question. I'm not sure Woolf answers that. Of course "mind" was my term. I struggled to find the right word. Personality perhaps is a another but still not perfect word. I'm referring to the interior self. Whatever the word, I think Woolf has created dichotomy between the interior and exterior. And I still believe that the over emphasis on the interior supports her theme of personal isolation.


Yeah, I think you right to say that _To the Lighthouse_ focuses more on the internal thoughts of the characters rather than the external action around them. Agreed. But, I don't think that means isolation. I think what creates isolation is the focus on the personal over the universal. A lot of writers do this--I tried to make a short list earlier. The problem is that the personal can mean many things: a psychological ego, an individual's circumstances, or even a person's own sensations. These could all be considered personal experiences; yet, what I'm curious to know is what particular personal experiences Woolf writes about, why they isolate characters, and what do I think of living the kind of life Woolf writes about. I'm thinking that _To the Lighthouse_ is made up of the emotional experiences of the characters. Intense emotions like fear, distrust, remorse, love, and nostalgia move the story. These emotions are very personal. The characters have problems communicating them because--as you pointed out earlier--expression is blocked by self-doubt, unfair societal criticism, and disruptive psychological turmoil. But, before I start to make judgments on all of this, I would like to make sure I'm certain, and you still insist that introversion causes their isolation. I don't know if introversion alone could isolate. Introversion means that the characters live their lives within themselves, derive importance from their inner resources, and seek inner perfection over external triumph. I don't think we can say this about the Ramsays--or really anyone--in this book. Tansley wants academic achievement, Mr. Ramsay wants lasting praise, Mrs. Ramsay wants marriages, and Lily desires society's acceptance and acclaim. All of these goals are external. So it seems like we have extroverted characters who are separated, not by their preference for the internal, but by their personal emotions which are uncommunicable. 

I hope I'm not pushing to hard on this point. I don't mean to make you come to conclusions if you haven't gotten to the end or if you simply don't care. I just thought it was an important idea.

----------


## applepie

Sorry I haven't posted those quotes yet. I've been sidetracked by other things and I just forgot. I'm going to try and get to it this week. I'm also trying to finish the book so I can talk a little more about what I've gotten from the book.

----------


## quasimodo1

17 critical essays on "To the Lighthouse" by Virginia Wolfe...http://www.bookrags.com/criticisms/To_the_Lighthouse quasimodo1

----------


## Virgil

I've been really busy with work and fairly spent in the evenings so I apologize for being slow with either responding or pushing the discussion forward. But I have slowly been reading and I have come across two passages that specifically respond to issues brought up within this thread. First in reply to those who think that Mrs. Ramsey doesn't love her husband there is this:




> A shadow was on the page; she looked up. It was Augustus Carmichael shuffling past, precisely now, at the very moment when it was painful to be reminded of the inadequacy of human relationships, that the most perfect was flawed, and could not bear the examination which, loving her husband, with her instinct for truth, she turned upon it; when it was painful to feel herself convicted of unworthiness, and impeded in her proper function by these lies, these exaggerations...


Notice she is thinking of the "inadequacy of human relationships". So yes, her marriage is not perfect, but she also says "the most perfect was flawed, and could not bear the examination which, loving her husband, with her instinct for truth, she turned upon it." I think she is being very frank. "Loving her husband" is an honest expression, supported by the further honesty of it being "flawed". Notice also how just like Lilly, she feels inadequate personally, and within the context one can draw out that its root is her womanhood in comparison to the male world.

The other passage I wanted to highlight is in respect to the theme of isolation. Lilly in her complete admiration and love of Mrs. Ramsey is laying her head on her lap and trying to understand her and what makes her so special.



> Was it wisdom? Was it knowledge? Was it, once more, the deceptiveness of beauty, so that all ones perceptions, half way to truth, were tangled in a golden mesh? or did she lock up within her some secret which certainly Lily Briscoe believed people must have for the world to go on at all? Every one could not be as helter skelter, hand to mouth as she was. But if they knew, could they tell one what they knew? Sitting on the floor with her arms round Mrs Ramsays knees, close as she could get, smiling to think that Mrs Ramsay would never know the reason of that pressure, she imagined how in the chambers of the mind and heart of the woman who was, physically, touching her, were stood, like the treasures in the tombs of kings, tablets bearing sacred inscriptions, which if one could spell them out, would teach one everything, but they would never be offered openly, never made public. What art was there, known to love or cunning, by which one pressed through into those secret chambers? What device for becoming, like waters poured into one jar, inextricably the same, one with the object one adored? Could the body achieve, or the mind, subtly mingling in the intricate passages of the brain? or the heart? Could loving, as people called it, make her and Mrs Ramsay one? for it was not knowledge but unity that she desired, not inscriptions on tablets, nothing that could be written in any language known to men, but intimacy itself, which is knowledge, she had thought, leaning her head on Mrs Ramsays knee.
> 
> Nothing happened. Nothing! Nothing! as she leant her head against Mrs Ramsays knee. And yet, she knew knowledge and wisdom were stored up in Mrs Ramsays heart. How, then, she had asked herself, did one know one thing or another thing about people, sealed as they were? Only like a bee, drawn by some sweetness or sharpness in the air intangible to touch or taste, one haunted the dome-shaped hive, ranged the wastes of the air over the countries of the world alone, and then haunted the hives with their murmurs and their stirrings; the hives, which were people. Mrs Ramsay rose. Lily rose. Mrs Ramsay went. For days there hung about her, as after a dream some subtle change is felt in the person one has dreamt of, more vividly than anything she said, the sound of murmuring and, as she sat in the wicker arm-chair in the drawing-room window she wore, to Lilys eyes, an august shape; the shape of a dome.


So many questions and they seem to all go unanswered. That in itself is significant. Let me re-highlight this:



> But if they knew, could they tell one what they knew? Sitting on the floor with her arms round Mrs Ramsays knees, close as she could get, smiling to think that Mrs Ramsay would never know the reason of that pressure, she imagined how in the chambers of the mind and heart of the woman who was, physically, touching her, were stood, like the treasures in the tombs of kings, tablets bearing sacred inscriptions, which if one could spell them out, would teach one everything, but they would never be offered openly, never made public.


and



> Could loving, as people called it, make her and Mrs Ramsay one? for it was not knowledge but unity that she desired, not inscriptions on tablets, nothing that could be written in any language known to men, but intimacy itself, which is knowledge, she had thought, leaning her head on Mrs Ramsays knee.


Ponder those passages. She is trying to penetrate Mrs. Ramsey's being and truely know her. But look at the very next paragraph: "Nothing happened. Nothing! Nothing! as she leant her head against Mrs Ramsays knee." Three times she says "nothing," a negation and Woolf uses exclamation marks. And then the critical question:



> And yet, she knew knowledge and wisdom were stored up in Mrs Ramsays heart. How, then, she had asked herself, did one know one thing or another thing about people, sealed as they were?


 And the answer is the following ending:



> Only like a bee, drawn by some sweetness or sharpness in the air intangible to touch or taste, one haunted the dome-shaped hive, ranged the wastes of the air over the countries of the world alone, and then haunted the hives with their murmurs and their stirrings; the hives, which were people.


The best that she can do is this vague feeling of someone in a dream, hardly a solid understanding of another. And then Mrs. Ramsey rises and leaves.

I think to me Woolf is clear here that human interaction is a vague thing where each is isolated within themselves.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* excellent post and good documentation. I think I agree with everything you have said. It is quite complex and one cannot know all of the mystery of human interaction and relationships, as some of the last quotes indicate. 
The intricacy of this novel is a lot to digest and articulate. I think that Lily is very drawn to Mrs. Ramsey and wants to feel a part of her and her life. I feel she envies aspects of her being and cannot fully get through to the core of that being or how to merge with it, but she longs to in some conscious way, and feel a certain frustration in the isolation you mention in your last statement.

----------


## Quark

> First in reply to those who think that Mrs. Ramsey doesn't love her husband there is this:
> 
> Notice she is thinking of the "inadequacy of human relationships". So yes, her marriage is not perfect, but she also says "the most perfect was flawed, and could not bear the examination which, loving her husband, with her instinct for truth, she turned upon it." I think she is being very frank. "Loving her husband" is an honest expression, supported by the further honesty of it being "flawed". Notice also how just like Lilly, she feels inadequate personally, and within the context one can draw out that its root is her womanhood in comparison to the male world.


I think this is a good way to phrase it. That is: they are as close to love as characters can get in this story. Or, I would say, they are as close to love as is possible for Mr and Mrs. Ramsay. Whether we would call this imperfect arrangement "love" is still debatable, but I do agree that they are as close as they will come.




> The other passage I wanted to highlight is in respect to the theme of isolation. Lilly in her complete admiration and love of Mrs. Ramsey is laying her head on her lap and trying to understand her and what makes her so special.
> 
> So many questions and they seem to all go unanswered. That in itself is significant. Let me re-highlight this:
> 
> and
> 
> Ponder those passages. She is trying to penetrate Mrs. Ramsey's being and truely know her. But look at the very next paragraph: "Nothing happened. Nothing! Nothing! as she leant her head against Mrs Ramsays knee." Three times she says "nothing," a negation and Woolf uses exclamation marks. And then the critical question:
> And the answer is the following ending:
> 
> ...


Once again, yes, totally agree. I could almost see a motto for this book being "human interaction is a vague thing where each is isolated within themselves". I wonder why Woolf--I think we're on safe grounds when we intuit this as one of Woolf's beliefs--believes that human interaction is imperfect. She certainly isn't unique in this claim, but I think she might have a different reason for arguing this. I thought it might have something to do with Woolf's emphasis on personal emotions over universal ideas. Whether that's true or not I really don't know--it's been over a month since I read the novel and it's starting to fade in my mind.

----------


## Virgil

> I think this is a good way to phrase it. That is: they are as close to love as characters can get in this story. Or, I would say, they are as close to love as is possible for Mr and Mrs. Ramsay. Whether we would call this imperfect arrangement "love" is still debatable, but I do agree that they are as close as they will come.


OK. But there are other passages - the one where they interact after they have put James to bed - where it is quite a normal marriage relationship. I didn't choose it because neither actually says they love each other, but I think it comes across.




> Once again, yes, totally agree. I could almost see a motto for this book being "human interaction is a vague thing where each is isolated within themselves".


Very well said, but I will amplify on this before I'm done here. That is part of the central theme of the novel, but there is another part to that.




> I wonder why Woolf--I think we're on safe grounds when we intuit this as one of Woolf's beliefs--believes that human interaction is imperfect. She certainly isn't unique in this claim, but I think she might have a different reason for arguing this. I thought it might have something to do with Woolf's emphasis on personal emotions over universal ideas. Whether that's true or not I really don't know--it's been over a month since I read the novel and it's starting to fade in my mind.


Well, Woolf suffered throughout her life from serous bouts of depression. They did not have modern psychiatry then so I doubt she was medically treated. Probably a pill today would have helped her immensely. Not sure if you know, but she committed suicide.

----------


## Janine

It is true that Woolf suffered with depression and later committed suicide. Definitely her work is colored with this sense of depression, I feel it strongly. I have only read two of her books but it is pretty evident. Often creative people such as Woolf do suffer from some type of mental illness. A newer pill may have helped her but she might not have produced the work she did produce...interesting fact and sadly true. Often the mentally ill are quite subdued with their medications although they need them to function sufficiently. I know because I have a relative who suffers from Bipolar (Manic-Depression) disorder. Look at John Nash, the famous mathmatician, ('A Beautiful Mind'). He is a perfect example of genius and the fine line between genius/insanity. 
I think that Woolf in this novel is writing very much about her own family and her perspective on them and the way they interacted and the way they lived and loved. I don't know if it is our place to judge that or analysis the degree of love the parents have for each other. I personally do feel they love each other, but that love does have limitations. After reading the Lawrence book I am sure Lawrence would agree with that. They don't seem to be really close, like some couples are able to achieve closeness ,and yet they are so much like the general population in the they are very accepting of the love/marriage that they do have and they work within those confines. Whether their type of love is real and more genuine is a debate that could go on forever. I don't know if anyone could call Mrs. Ramsey joyously happy, nor Mr. Ramsey. I don't see that at all. But as I said before - both characters are older now and going through what many middle-aged couples go through, a whole inner questioning of being and of how their life has been spent up up until the present time. I think that Woolf is not writing about anything that extremely different in this family - only that some families have more alienation between the members than others. Also, keep in mind this is Woolf's vision which has been colored by her own deficiencies or idiosychrosies. The story is obviously very personal to her.
I don't know if any of this makes a lot of sense, but this is my own impression of the book. I have read from several sources that the characters are fashioned after her own family - how close to reality is that? I have no idea, but then how close to reality was Woolf herself? It may be like in "Sons and Lovers" where Lawrence's family is somewhat changed and the father is exaggerated, therefore the relationship of the parents also, is highly exaggerated as being one of non-love. I feel the parents in TTLH had to have something to stay together for so long and have so many children - afterall their youngest is still a small child. Is it an ideal love - no, I don't think it is. But they both feel a dedication to each other and support one another, in their own odd ways, perhaps, but the support still exists.

----------


## Virgil

Perhaps we should explore this isolation theme a bit more. I mentioned the window as an important part of the novel. The window sets up limitations of perception. Lily looks into the window and sees Mrs. Ramsey reading to James. But that is such a small view. Notice the limitation. When we look inside a window from out side, all we see is a small fraction of what is inside the house. We just catch an image but a life is within which we are not privey to. This parallels our understanding of people. All we see is a glance, but we don't know them really, even our closest relatives. Isolation is in part because of the inability to reach into other people and connect.

Another part is that life is in Woolf's view hard. In Mrs. Ramsey's extended stream of conscousness in section 10 of "The Window", she contemplates life itself.



> Only she thought lifeand a little strip of time presented itself to her eyesher fifty years. There it was before herlife. Life, she thoughtbut she did not finish her thought. She took a look at life, for she had a clear sense of it there, something real, something private, which she shared neither with her children nor with her husband. A sort of transaction went on between them, in which she was on one side, and life was on another, and she was always trying to get the better of it, as it was of her; and sometimes they parleyed (when she sat alone); there were, she remembered, great reconciliation scenes; but for the most part, oddly enough, she must admit that she felt this thing that she called life terrible, hostile, and quick to pounce on you if you gave it a chance. There were eternal problems: suffering; death; the poor. There was always a woman dying of cancer even here. And yet she had said to all these children, You shall go through it all. To eight people she had said relentlessly that (and the bill for the greenhouse would be fifty pounds). For that reason, knowing what was before themlove and ambition and being wretched alone in dreary placesshe had often the feeling, Why must they grow up and lose it all? And then she said to herself, brandishing her sword at life, Nonsense. They will be perfectly happy.


Life, time, nature is a fight, a struggle to overcome. There is irony throughout that passage. We know they will not all be happy. We know that nature and time will dislocate the entire house in the upcoming part II, "Time Passes." The natural elements will over power the human struggle. And that struggle is individual. Here's one of the passages where Mrs. Ramsey contemplates a fear that her children out on the cliffs may have encountered a tragedy:



> Well then, Nancy had gone with them, Mrs Ramsay supposed, wondering, as she put down a brush, took up a comb, and said Come in to a tap at the door (Jasper and Rose came in), whether the fact that Nancy was with them made it less likely or more likely that anything would happen; it made it less likely, somehow, Mrs Ramsay felt, very irrationally, except that after all holocaust on such a scale was not probable. They could not all be drowned. And again she felt alone in the presence of her old antagonist, life.


There are other examples, but let it suffice to say that the struggle is an isolating one, an indvudual combating the forces of nature and time. Another fascinating passage, which I'm sure most will overlook and go by, is where Nancy is playing in the water:



> Once on the beach they separated, he going out on to the Popes Nose, taking his shoes off, and rolling his socks in them and letting that couple look after themselves; Nancy waded out to her own rocks and searched her own pools and let that couple look after themselves. She crouched low down and touched the smooth rubber-like sea anemones, who were stuck like lumps of jelly to the side of the rock. Brooding, she changed the pool into the sea, and made the minnows into sharks and whales, and cast vast clouds over this tiny world by holding her hand against the sun, and so brought darkness and desolation, like God himself, to millions of ignorant and innocent creatures, and then took her hand away suddenly and let the sun stream down. Out on the pale criss-crossed sand, high-stepping, fringed, gauntleted, stalked some fantastic leviathan (she was still enlarging the pool), and slipped into the vast fissures of the mountain side. And then, letting her eyes slide imperceptibly above the pool and rest on that wavering line of sea and sky, on the tree trunks which the smoke of steamers made waver on the horizon, she became with all that power sweeping savagely in and inevitably withdrawing, hypnotised, and the two senses of that vastness and this tininess (the pool had diminished again) flowering within it made her feel that she was bound hand and foot and unable to move by the intensity of feelings which reduced her own body, her own life, and the lives of all the people in the world, for ever, to nothingness. So listening to the waves, crouching over the pool, she brooded.


Here is Woolf capturing the forces of nature and reaching back to primordial soup where life first originated and the over powering forces of nature which shapes and ends life. And the lives are so insignificant in respect to the natural forces. Mrs Ramsey's death, the death of the central character in the novel, is announced in a parenthesis.

----------


## quasimodo1

To Janine and Virgil: Obviously, I'm not a player in this thread but both of your remarks relative to fine lines, sanity and creativity are so true and i relate even more due to certain family members with this kind of incapacity. How many great writers had the truly happy mairrage, the perfect lifesyle, and stroll through life content and serene? Just had to comment. quasi

----------


## Virgil

Thanks Quasi. I hope you'll read this fine novel some day.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* good post. I am getting a lot out of this whole discussion although I am not actively participating as I had hoped to. I did read some commentary I scanned today. I took TTLH back to my library about a week ago. I know you said it was online too and posted the link. I am not that good at reading novels online though. I should get the book out of the library and review it. I read it about a month ago and it does not all stay with me - only really the essense of it and not the particular passages. Thanks for quoting directly from the book - I find that very beneficial to understanding the story and the interaction of the characters.
I will keep reading along and I know I have already gathered more knowledge of the book than I previously had by merely observing the posts. Thanks everyone. Good job so far. 
I will try to quote my book and post some of the analysist's ideas tomorrow - I scanned the pages awhile back.
Yes, thanks to you *Quasi,* for your remarks. I too hope you can read this fine novel one of these days. You won't regret it.

----------


## Quark

Virginia Woolf was a very unstable and depressed person. There really isn't any denying that--even Woolf herself admitted so. She didn't commit suicide in a fit of passion or an temporary low mood; she calmly considered her options and choose death over life. There certainly is evidence of this depression in _To The Lighthouse_. I think Virgil quoted a good passage about Mrs. Ramsay's attitude towards life that shows this. Here, we can see that life isn't seen as a pleasure or a triumph. No, here life is one big defeat after another. In life, the hopes and ideals of people are crushed by an indifferent fate. This is not a particularly optimistic way of approaching life, and, yes, this attitude might have been brought about by a depressed writer. But, I don't think that's the only way we should look at it. Or, I should say, that this might be the least productive way of looking at it. I'm a little weary of attributing entire ideas and themes of novels to the writer's problems and whims. While, yes, this may be an important part of the cause, I think it takes away a chance to have a useful discussion. Besides, if we make this about Virginia Woolf, then we have to read a great deal more about her life, times, and psychology. My laziness revolts against this idea, and I think it would turn a literary discussion into a class on psychology or history. We only really want to know why the characters are isolated, and the reasons should be in the novel. That isn't to say I completely hate psychology or history. I'm just saying that literary merit might be something different.

I think Virgil has given us three kinds of isolation here: Lily's, Mrs. Ramsay's, and the separation due to the narrative style. Lily, as the artist, paints as a means of expression. Her isolation is about the problems that plague honest expression. She is alone because she cannot communicate. Mrs. Ramsay, though, suffers from a different kind of isolation. She has ambitions which cannot be realized in the actual world which rapidly changes. Her struggle for permanence isolates her from the other characters. Finally, the narrative voice isolates the characters because it focuses on the inner emotions of the characters and not on external dialogue or easily graspable ideas. Now, I know that in the story it probably doesn't break down into these individual categories: with Mrs. Ramsay representing one thing and Lily another. For example, Mrs. Ramsay has problems communicating to Mr. Ramsay and Lily has some of the same anxieties about life that Mrs. Ramsay has. I just used the characters as categories like this because we brought up these ideas in connection with certain characters. 

I've written this all very quickly, and I don't know whether it all makes sense--or whether it's accurately punctuated. I just wanted to get it down before I leave. I'll probably edit it into more understandable form later. Bye.

----------


## Walter

*Quark*, I like your view of the matter because I think it is the direction I lean when reading a novel.
Mrs Woolf set out to write a novel, that is to say, to create a fictional setting, place fictional characters in the setting, give them personalities, and have their thoughts and interactions move the plot forward. I think we should be able to see and describe at least that much within the framework of the novel, without appealing to outside evidence.

That the story may have contacts with reality in her own life doesn't make the book a history, or an autobiography, nor does it necessarily mean that any similarities that we may recognize are highly accurate representations of reality. However accurate they might seem, they have still been filtered through her own artistic process in setting the words down on the page.

So the short form is, that I much prefer close reading, and rereading, of the actual words on the page for obtaining an understanding of what story the author was trying to communicate by putting them there, before too quickly trying to elevate into seeing a purpose, message, theme, or borader interpretation for the story. For me, the latter excursions of the imagination are easier when I feel I finally have the interactions _within_ the underlying story well understood. And, for _To The Lighthouse_, I am still working on them.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

I have been reading a commentary book on TTLH. This might help some. This quote is from the book by Many Johnson. 




> In her diary Virginia Woolf wrote that she wanted to present the personalities of her father and mother in To the Lighthouse, and St. Ives (where they spent their summers) and childhood. Aware that involvement with material so close to her own life could produce a damaging tone of nostalgia and regret, she avoided these with great technical skill, employing several points of view to minimize any overpowering emotional fixation and introducing comic aspects of domestic life to further reduce sentimentality. But what lifts this novel above the level of the ordinary family chronicle is Woolf's treatment of the human condition in an inscrutable universe. The multiple perspectives and the variations of tone serve chiefly to integrate episode, scene, and character toward this end, which is an intricately articulated response to the question "What is life?"



Therefore, I feel one of the main themes, if not the main theme is "What is life?" Now that may seem like a very broad question, but all along Lily seems to be asking this and observing a sort of cosmos of life about her within the confines and dynamics of this one family - the Ramseys. 
To totally dismiss the personal interest that Woolf had in this particular story, I feel is an utter mistake. One can never divorce the life and the personality of the author from his work. That is what truly makes works so unique and so enthralling and yes, personal. They are colored by the inner workings and minds of the authors. I think as this article says "what lifts this novel above the level of the ordinary family chronicle is Woolf's treatment of the human condition in an inscrutable universe."

In this article or another is mentioned Woolf's use of the brackets to announce the various tragic lives of the family members. I can't seem to locate the exact quote, but the critic I read seems to feel it was a device employed by Woolf in order not to appear mauldin or oversentimental in the book. In these beautiful descriptive passages, in the long middle chapter of of the book depicting the passing of time as an evitable part of life, these bracketed statements appear, almost like the ticking a clock or the spaced like the natural passage of time. They come upon one suddenly and unexpectedly (perhaps mimicing the shock one would feel when hearing of such occurances intially.) on first reading but Woolf never dwells on that sad moment more than the one statement devoted to each tradedy....interesting, I think. I have never read a book quite like this book and with the use of such a way of describing something so poignant by placing it in [ ] brackets, interspersed within the story descriptions. Wonderful and brilliant.

----------


## Quark

I don't mean to suggest that Woolf's personal life had nothing to do with the writing of _To The Lighthouse_. Your source is accurate when it says that the story is largely based on Woolf's own family, and it isn't too much of a leap to conclude that Woolf, herself, may have been trying to work out her complicated relation to her family and times through this story. But, at the same time, I don't think that Woolf's particular life is as interesting as the novel. I don't think her biography would have the same effect. I agree with the quote from Johnson, "what lifts this novel above the level of the ordinary family chronicle is Woolf's treatment of the human condition in an inscrutable universe". While, yes, the novel may be a "family chronicle" for Woolf what makes this literature is its "treatment of the human condition in an inscrutable universe", and I think that we can comment on one without total knowledge of the other. That isn't to say that Woolf's artistic rendering of the world isn't connected with the actual world in which she lived; or, that art--in general--is completely ideal or pure. I'm just arguing that the more interesting artistic side of the novel is more important in a literature discussion than the personal psychology of writer. And, to answer literary questions like "What causes 'isolation'?" or "What does 'life' mean?" with suppositions drawn from the history or mental states of the writer would take away from that discussion.

----------


## Virgil

> Virginia Woolf was a very unstable and depressed person. There really isn't any denying that--even Woolf herself admitted so. She didn't commit suicide in a fit of passion or an temporary low mood; she calmly considered her options and choose death over life. There certainly is evidence of this depression in _To The Lighthouse_. I think Virgil quoted a good passage about Mrs. Ramsay's attitude towards life that shows this. Here, we can see that life isn't seen as a pleasure or a triumph. No, here life is one big defeat after another. In life, the hopes and ideals of people are crushed by an indifferent fate. This is not a particularly optimistic way of approaching life, and, yes, this attitude might have been brought about by a depressed writer. But, I don't think that's the only way we should look at it. Or, I should say, that this might be the least productive way of looking at it. I'm a little weary of attributing entire ideas and themes of novels to the writer's problems and whims. While, yes, this may be an important part of the cause, I think it takes away a chance to have a useful discussion. Besides, if we make this about Virginia Woolf, then we have to read a great deal more about her life, times, and psychology. My laziness revolts against this idea, and I think it would turn a literary discussion into a class on psychology or history. We only really want to know why the characters are isolated, and the reasons should be in the novel. That isn't to say I completely hate psychology or history. I'm just saying that literary merit might be something different.





> *Quark*, I like your view of the matter because I think it is the direction I lean when reading a novel.
> Mrs Woolf set out to write a novel, that is to say, to create a fictional setting, place fictional characters in the setting, give them personalities, and have their thoughts and interactions move the plot forward. I think we should be able to see and describe at least that much within the framework of the novel, without appealing to outside evidence.
> 
> That the story may have contacts with reality in her own life doesn't make the book a history, or an autobiography, nor does it necessarily mean that any similarities that we may recognize are highly accurate representations of reality. However accurate they might seem, they have still been filtered through her own artistic process in setting the words down on the page.
> 
> So the short form is, that I much prefer close reading, and rereading, of the actual words on the page for obtaining an understanding of what story the author was trying to communicate by putting them there, before too quickly trying to elevate into seeing a purpose, message, theme, or borader interpretation for the story. For me, the latter excursions of the imagination are easier when I feel I finally have the interactions _within_ the underlying story well understood. And, for _To The Lighthouse_, I am still working on them.


I agree with both of you. And I must say both of you express it extremely well. I believe in looking at the art itself, not so much the artist or the social context, although both have a place in getting the most out of the book. Actually it was D.H. Lawrence, Janine, who said (I think I'm paraphrasing) "trust the art, not the artist."

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* true Lawrence did say that, but how can one divorce the author from his work? especially L? Look at any author who has written a number of works and there is something personal running through them whether they intended it or not. I think TTLH has many aspects to it, even being such a short book, and I doubt we have begun to touch on them all. I agree that we can look at the 'art' of the book as a complete thing and quite objectively. For one thing everyone is going to have a different interpretation of the book, so we have a pretty wide berth here in which to disguss. It seems to me that nothing in the book is 'cut and dry'. For instance have we really addressed all the imagery - such as the use of windows, the beacon of the lighthouse, perhaps the contrasts of light and dark, and the changes that time wroughts on the family, and the sense of time passing and things 'beyond ones control' in life, such as the deaths of some of the members? I love the way the book is divided into 3 parts - very significant. Interesting to compare the characters and their changes from first part to the last with the house as a character in between the two. I appreciate the structure of the book. It feels like a painting within itself and seems apropriate that the book centers around the perception of an artist - Lily. 

Not sure I am making sense here; I have not been well centered on this discussion - please forgive me - I have some family matters ensuing and distracting me presently. I have some more of commentary I read that I will post soon. It will expound on some of the visual aspects and symbolism I mentioned.

----------


## Virgil

You're making sense Janine, I just don't agree. I understand what you're saying. From my point of view think of it this way. If a book is crap as a work of art, then who cares what the biographical relationship is? No one is ever going to look up the biographical relationship of my poems or short stories to my life. Once a work is an aknowledged classic for itself, then it is interesting and enlightening to understand it in the context of the author's life.

----------


## Janine

> You're making sense Janine, I just don't agree. I understand what you're saying. From my point of view think of it this way. If a book is crap as a work of art, then who cares what the biographical relationship is? No one is ever going to look up the biographical relationship of my poems or short stories to my life. Once a work is an aknowledged classic for itself, then it is interesting and enlightening to understand it in the context of the author's life.


*Virgil,* I agree that the one preceeds the other - for one thing none of us would be paying attention to a book that was 'crap', as you put it. Yes, this book is a classic and it is art. I'm not disputing that one bit. In fact I feel it is like a painting - the whole novel. It is quite beautiful, although I feel the tone of the novel is shadowed with a sadness I can't quite put my finger on. It actually depressed me to read it again. As someone here said it is not at all optimistic. I have actually read one critc who thinks it is humorous at times and I can see shreds of that aspect, such as Mr. Ramsey reciting "The Charge of the Light Brigade" and also, the cleaning woman not keeping the house up as she should. Still although there is some humor there is much pathos in the passages. 
But asside from all of this debating about the author's role in the novel, I would really like to know somethings about the novel. I recall when I first read it I had tons of questions. Maybe I should just ask some here and see what the responses will be. For instance - why did the Ramseys feel it was necessary to be surrounded by others who were non-family members each year they went to the island on vacation? One of the daughters mentions it and how she wishes they could just go by themselves some year. Do you think she is indicating a need for family closeness? I also wonder why each character is so critical of each other character? I keep reading that at the end James is really more like his father or starting to identify with him. I can't exactly get through to this idea and how he is like the father. Can you help me with that, to better understand it? Why does Mr. Ramsey resent his wife going to take things to the poor? Also, why does it seem the author presents her doing it, but not entirely out of charity, for the unfortunate/sick families. I have always been a bit confused on this point. Is it because she feels she is not devoting enough time and closeness to her own family. It always feels like it is resented by the children in the family and the husband.
One thought came to me about the attic and the two children arguing about the pig head on the wall - James wants it, so does he seem more like the father in this way (with his stubborness) and now Cam is more the sensitive one, or her mother. At the end again, Cam and James are together in the boat and have pledged to hold fast against the father, but it seems that James gives way to the father at the end and that bond of hate is broken between brother and sister. At the end when Lily draws the line on the canvas and this is suppose to represent Mrs. Ramsey, maybe I am lame, but I could not really see this as a deep meaning. I know she is the central figure even after she has died in the third part of the book.
Sorry to toss so many questions out there, but I thought it might stimulate some more conversation in other directions.

----------


## Walter

*Janine*, I think those are exactly questions that can and should be directed at the book and, no, none of them are 'lame.' Far from it. In my view they will direct us, the readers, to a much closer reading of the text, where I believe we will find indications, here and there, that suggest answers. To me that is the pleasure of re-reading and trying to understand a book more deeply, for, surely, the story looks different the second time around.
So for one stab in the dark, the straight line did not strike me as so strange, because it seemed to me that it had already been suggested that the painting was non-representational, and possibly quite surreal. I don't have the book in front of me (my bad!) but the gentleman had to ask Lily what the triangle was (and Mrs Ramsay was it, in Lily's answer?). In that context, a straight line might possibly arise by free artistic association with a more detailed object or idea or abstract concept. So, the straight line? Perhaps Mrs Ramsay as the central guiding line for the family; or maybe the straight line-of-sight with which Lily saw Mrs. Ramsay in her epiphany at the end; or maybe a straight dark line to achieve balance among all the other elements on the canvas, a balance Lily was once described as having difficulty with achieving; or ???. Anyone else?

----------


## rich14285

"holding her hand against the sun, and so brought darkness and desolation, like God himself, to millions of ignorant and innocent creatures, and then took her hand away suddenly and let the sun stream down." 
The above taken from "To The Lighthouse", cited in a discussion thereto, might serve as an example of a kind of thinking inherent in Virginia Woolf's depression, and by extension to alot of other people in depression or one might say melancholy. My point being that alot of people blame "God himself" for all the ills of this world, and to do so, I should like to suggest is simply not scriptural. The question becomes, does evil come from God? Further, if so then how can one pray for goodness from an evil God? Woolf's theology is askew. She never seems to have found the light in the darkness! She is not just talking about "darkness and desolation" that engulfs "millions of ignorant and innocent creatures", as she withholds the light as if playing God. Perhaps, she is talking about her own inability to find the true light, the light that created the light so to speak. And therefore what light she had found as a young person isn't strong enough to save her from her adult darkness.

----------


## Walter

I heavily doubt that not finding the true light, or correct thinking, has anything at all to do with clinical depression (the illness). I think we should definitely distinguish sadness from depression, which has much deeper roots from everything I have read about it. Welcome aboard, however!

----------


## rich14285

Thanks for the welcome!

----------


## Virgil

Janine, I'm going to answer several of your questions with a wrap up of Part I, The Window. I think this will complete my understanding of Mrs. Ramsey as a character.

First notice how Mrs. Ramsey is characterized in Lily's painting:



> Nothing could be cooler and quieter. Taking out a pen-knife, Mr Bankes tapped the canvas with the bone handle. What did she wish to indicate by the triangular purple shape, just there? he asked.
> 
> It was Mrs Ramsay reading to James, she said. She knew his objection that no one could tell it for a human shape. But she had made no attempt at likeness, she said. For what reason had she introduced them then? he asked. Why indeed?except that if there, in that corner, it was bright, here, in this, she felt the need of darkness. Simple, obvious, commonplace, as it was, Mr Bankes was interested. Mother and child thenobjects of universal veneration, and in this case the mother was famous for her beautymight be reduced, he pondered, to a purple shadow without irreverence.


A purple triangle, symbolizing power, strength, and as mother and child, a modonna with child.

And then a couple of chapters later, when Mrs. Ramsey is in her stream of conscious contemplation, she conceives of herself:



> No, she thought, putting together some of the pictures he had cut out a refrigerator, a mowing machine, a gentleman in evening dress children never forget. For this reason, it was so important what one said, and what one did, and it was a relief when they went to bed. For now she need not think about anybody. She could be herself, by herself. And that was what now she often felt the need ofto think; well, not even to think. To be silent; to be alone. All the being and the doing, expansive, glittering, vocal, evaporated; and one shrunk, with a sense of solemnity, to being oneself, a wedge-shaped core of darkness, something invisible to others. Although she continued to knit, and sat upright, it was thus that she felt herself; and this self having shed its attachments was free for the strangest adventures. When life sank down for a moment, the range of experience seemed limitless. And to everybody there was always this sense of unlimited resources, she supposed; one after another, she, Lily, Augustus Carmichael, must feel, our apparitions, the things you know us by, are simply childish. Beneath it is all dark, it is all spreading, it is unfathomably deep; but now and again we rise to the surface and that is what you see us by. Her horizon seemed to her limitless. There were all the places she had not seen; the Indian plains; she felt herself pushing aside the thick leather curtain of a church in Rome. saw it. They could not stop it, she thought, exulting. There was freedom, there was peace, there was, most welcome of all, a summoning together, a resting on a platform of stability. Not as oneself did one find rest ever, in her experience (she accomplished here something dexterous with her needles) but as a wedge of darkness.


She concieves of hersef as a wedge of darkness, which connects to Lily's purple triangle. But then she identifies with the lighthouse light:



> Losing personality, one lost the fret, the hurry, the stir; and there rose to her lips always some exclamation of triumph over life when things came together in this peace, this rest, this eternity; and pausing there she looked out to meet that stroke of the Lighthouse, the long steady stroke, the last of the three, which was her stroke, for watching them in this mood always at this hour one could not help attaching oneself to one thing especially of the things one saw; and this thing, the long steady stroke, was her stroke. Often she found herself sitting and looking, sitting and looking, with her work in her hands until she became the thing she looked atthat light, for example.


She identifies with the third stroke, "her stroke." Triangle, wedge, third stroke, all based on the number three. What does the number three signify? Let's return to Lily's painting where Lily is pondering the form after Mr. Bankes has questioned her:



> She could not show him what she wished to make of it, could not see it even herself, without a brush in her hand. She took up once more her old painting position with the dim eyes and the absent-minded manner, subduing all her impressions as a woman to something much more general; becoming once more under the power of that vision which she had seen clearly once and must now grope for among hedges and houses and mothers and childrenher picture. It was a question, she remembered, how to connect this mass on the right hand with that on the left. She might do it by bringing the line of the branch across so; or break the vacancy in the foreground by an object (James perhaps) so. But the danger was that by doing that the unity of the whole might be broken. She stopped; she did not want to bore him; she took the canvas lightly off the easel.


"It was a question [of] how to connect the mass on the right hand with that on the left hand." To connect one with two requires three, the completion of a triangle, the third stroke. Mrs. Ramsey is the connecting foil, bringing isolated people together. You know this is the most curious stream-of-conscious novel I have ever come across. Most stream of conscious novels maintain one person's stream of conscious for either a extended length or at least a chapter. Woolf not only crosses from one person's stream of conscious to another from paragraph to paragraph, but she often crosses from one person's consciousness to another's in the very same paragraph. This is not by accident, it is aesthetically representing something. The isolation of the interior mind crosses and touches other people through a special person, a person who brings people together, tries to arrange marriages, invites guests to her home, and through a dinner party (a last supper, perhaps?) unites individuals to a community. Notice this at the beginning of the dinner party:



> Raising her [Mrs. Ramsey] eyebrows at the discrepancythat was what she was thinking, this was what she was doingladling out soupshe felt, more and more strongly, outside that eddy; or as if a shade had fallen, and, robbed of colour, she saw things truly. The room (she looked round it) was very shabby. There was no beauty anywhere. She forebore to look at Mr Tansley. Nothing seemed to have merged. They all sat separate. And the whole of the effort of merging and flowing and creating rested on her. Again she felt, as a fact without hostility, the sterility of men, for if she did not do it nobody would do it, and so, giving herself a little shake that one gives a watch that has stopped, the old familiar pulse began beating, as the watch begins tickingone, two, three, one, two, three. And so on and so on, she repeated, listening to it, sheltering and fostering the still feeble pulse as one might guard a weak flame with a news-paper. And so then, she concluded, addressing herself by bending silently in his direction to William Bankespoor man! who had no wife, and no children and dined alone in lodgings except for tonight; and in pity for him, life being now strong enough to bear her on again, she began all this business, as a sailor not without weariness sees the wind fill his sail and yet hardly wants to be off again and thinks how, had the ship sunk, he would have whirled round and round and found rest on the floor of the sea.


"Nothing seemed to have merged. They all sat separate. And the whole of the effort of merging and flowing and creating rested on her." She brings them together. She feels each guests (Tansley's impoverished upbringing, Bankes's family loss) isolating pain, "for if she did not do it nobody would do it, and so, giving herself a little shake that one gives a watch that has stopped, the old familiar pulse began beating, as the watch begins tickingone, two, three, one, two, three. " One, two, three! The third connecting stroke, completing the triangle. Notice later when she lights the candles:



> Now eight candles were stood down the table, and after the first stoop the flames stood upright and drew with them into visibility the long table entire, and in the middle a yellow and purple dish of fruit. What had she done with it, Mrs Ramsay wondered, for Roses arrangement of the grapes and pears, of the horny pink-lined shell, of the bananas, made her think of a trophy fetched from the bottom of the sea, of Neptunes banquet, of the bunch that hangs with vine leaves over the shoulder of Bacchus (in some picture), among the leopard skins and the torches lolloping red and gold... Thus brought up suddenly into the light it seemed possessed of great size and depth, was like a world in which one could take ones staff and climb hills, she thought, and go down into valleys, and to her pleasure (for it brought them into sympathy momentarily) she saw that Augustus too feasted his eyes on the same plate of fruit, plunged in, broke off a bloom there, a tassel here, and returned, after feasting, to his hive. That was his way of looking, different from hers. But looking together united them.


and a little further down:



> Some change at once went through them all, as if this had really happened, and they were all conscious of making a party together in a hollow, on an island; had their common cause against that fluidity out there.


Mrs. Ramsey unites their individual isolations against the "fluidity out there," the natural forces bent on human destruction. It all pulls together, the isolation, the uniting into a community, the fight against life's darker forces.

----------


## Quark

Janine, I think maybe we should take these questions one at a time. I'll try to say something about Lily's art before I go to bed. You say,




> At the end when Lily draws the line on the canvas and this is suppose to represent Mrs. Ramsey, maybe I am lame, but I could not really see this as a deep meaning.


I don't know if the line that she draws is really all that crucial, but I do think that her art form is important. In the third chapter Lily reflects on her artistic problems:

"She must try to get hold of something that evaded her...it evaded her now when she thought of her picture. Phrases came. Visions came. Beautiful pictures. Beautiful phrases. But what she wished to get hold of was the very jar on the nerves, the thing itself before it has been made anything. Get that and start afresh" (196).

It doesn't seem overly important at first, but I think it creates a distinction that can make the rest of the book much more understandable. There are two forms of art discussed here: one that is superficial and another that is somehow deeper and more true. The first kind is attractive, but it isn't complete. Lily uses this kind of representation when she thinks of Tansley or Carmichael. For example, Lily becomes aware that she only thinks about Tansley's sexist and self-important side. She doesn't consider his altruistic moments--like when Tansley educated his little sister. Lily comments on this unfair characterization when she says, 

"Her own idea of him was grotesque...Half one's notions of other people were, after all, grotesque. They served private purposes of one's own. He did for her instead of a whipping boy. She found herself flagellating his lean flanks when she was out of temper" (200).

The kind of representation that she uses here is very superficial and biased, and Lily's aware of this. She says, "But this was one way of knowing people, she thought: to know the outline, not the detail" (198). Most of the characters seem to think in this way. They think about each other from the position of their own self-interest in this surface-only sort of way. Look at how Tansley thinks of the dinner party in the first chapter:

"For he was not going to talk the sort of rot these condescended to by these silly women. He had been reading in his room, and now he came down and it all seemed to him silly, superficial, flimsy... They never got anything worth having from one year’s end to another. They did nothing but talk, talk, talk, eat, eat, eat. It was the women’s fault. Women made civilisation impossible with all their “charm,” all their silliness" (88).

Here we get another critical statement, but is it really fair? No, it isn't at all. We know that Tansley is only hurt because the women don't respect him and he can't find any way to assert himself. The representation that Tansley makes of the women is motivated by his own selfishness. Lily, on the other hand, is trying to get to the reality of the situation. She believes that people manipulate the world around them to reflect what they want to see. So, in order to escape the selfish kind of art, she tries a more surreal approach. Her painting of Mrs. Ramsay doesn't show her beauty, but it shows her thought. It tries to get past the appearance which can be easily manipulated, and realize what is truly there. And, in the end, she doesn't care whether it's appreciated or not. She says of her painting, "It would be destroyed. But what did that matter? she asked herself...She looked at the steps; they were empty. She looked at her canvass; it was blurred" (211). Lily doesn't have the anxieties that the Ramsays have about the future because her world isn't consumed by selfishness. She's indifferent to the change that the Ramsays fear. 

So, what does it mean when Lily draws a line in her canvass? It shows that Lily is trying to get beyond the shallowness of ordinary interpretation to find something real to represent. And, to a degree, she succeeds. She finishes her painting and has her vision.

----------


## Virgil

Hmm that's an interesting reading Quark. I haven't gotten to that point in this reading yet, but I always felt that Lily made the connection with Mrs. Ramsey at the end with that straight line. Almost like when she was alive and made all sorts of connections. I'm not sure why it's a straight line, only that the lighthouse is a line if conflated to a abstraction. Perhaps the line completes the triangle, as I described Mrs. Ramsey in the above post. 

I agree that all the characters fail to see the humanity of each other, all except Mrs. Ramsey. She can see the three dimensional nature of everyone, and can empathize with all. 

One thing I disagree with what you state:



> There are two forms of art discussed here: one that is superficial and another that is somehow deeper and more true.


I think all art is glorified in the novel, whether Rose's fruit basket arrangement or the Boeuf en Daube perfectly cooked, or the dinner party itself, perfectly arrangd with the seating and the candes and the right conversation. All are things wich bring people together out of their isolation.

----------


## Quark

Virgil, I think you're right to compare Mrs. Ramsay to the triangle, but I don't think the triangle is meant to represent connection or togetherness. The triangle isn't some nexus between lonely people. It's the loneliness itself. In the section you quote from chapter XI, Woolf narrates, 

"To be silent; to be alone. All the being and the doing, expansive, glittering, vocal, evaporated; and one shrunk, with a sense of solemnity, to being oneself, a wedge-shaped core of darkness, something invisible to others. Although she continued to knit, and sat upright, it was thus that she felt herself; and this self having shed its attachments was free for the strangest adventures. When life sank down for a moment, the range of experience seemed limitless. And to everybody there was always this sense of unlimited resources, she supposed; one after another, she, Lily, Augustus Carmichael, must feel, our apparitions, the things you know us by, are simply childish. Beneath it is all dark, it is all spreading, it is unfathomably deep; but now and again we rise to the surface and that is what you see us by. Her horizon seemed to her limitless. There were all the places she had not seen; the Indian plains; she felt herself pushing aside the thick leather curtain of a church in Rome. saw it. They could not stop it, she thought, exulting. There was freedom, there was peace, there was, most welcome of all, a summoning together, a resting on a platform of stability. Not as oneself did one find rest ever, in her experience (she accomplished here something dexterous with her needles) but as a wedge of darkness."

The triangle isn't a link to the outside world or some illumination of the inner thoughts of others. The triangle is a wedge of darkness; it represents the hidden, uncommunicable thoughts of the individual. This is what Lily is trying to represent--those thoughts that Mrs. Ramsay and the rest of the characters are unable to express. I see Lily as the one trying to understand others and give expression to the actual world. This is what makes her art more substantial than the "superficial" art that I referred to earlier. The "superficial" art is--as Mrs. Ramsay puts it--the thing that "now and again rises to the surface". This art is imperfect and motivated by selfishness. For example, why is the Boeuf en Daube perfectly cooked? It might have something to do with Mrs. Ramsay's attempts to match people up. We can see during the meal that she gives potential couples better portions. And, as I argued earlier, Mrs. Ramsay's match making is only self-preservation. She wants to live on in the hearts of others, and she uses marriage and charity as the means. So is the Boeuf en Daube Mrs. Ramsay's method of reaching out and expressing her "wedge of darkness"? No, it isn't at all. It doesn't bring anyone together, and it doesn't resist the dark forces of life which threaten them. After all, she knows her charity isn't enough, and we know that the couples she set up won't be happy together. So, no, the Boeuf en Daube isn't really the same as Lily's painting, but it is an expression of some kind. It must be considered some form of art. I just think it might be different than the kind of art Lily hopes to achieve.

----------


## Virgil

Interestng Quark. I'll have to think about that. You don't then see Mrs. Ramsey as being the center of the novel then.

----------


## Quark

Mrs. Ramsay is still at the center of the book, but she is what's being represented. She isn't the one representing. Lily is the artist. She is the one seeing into the lives of others and trying to find something permanent that will resist the darker forces of life. Lily finds expression for the "wedge of darkness", and she even tries to explain the hedge for Mr. Ramsay. That doesn't mean that Mrs. Ramsay isn't the center of the novel. After all, it is her triangle.

----------


## applepie

I've officially given up on the novel. I still can't get into the way that Woolf writes. I've managed to get through a good portion of the story, but I find that I have no liking for the characters from what I have understood. I just can't read another page, so I'm going to bow out on this book, and instead look towards the August reading. I'm glad many of you have enjoyed the book, but I doubt I'll pick up anything written by Woolf again.

----------


## rich14285

> I heavily doubt that not finding the true light, or correct thinking, has anything at all to do with clinical depression (the illness). I think we should definitely distinguish sadness from depression, which has much deeper roots from everything I have read about it. Welcome aboard, however!


My point was more in the sense of the light of the scripture that speaks of salvation in terms of health, healing, and deliverance from the dominion of the usurper who gained authority what with the fall of Adam. One hears of many instances of depressed people finding a new life in their spirit, by receiving a baptism of and in the holy spirit. So, in a sense, correct thinking is not unrelated to the subject at hand.

----------


## Janine

Hi *Virgil and Quark,* sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I think I have the August blahs. I can't seem to get back on track this month or with this book. I thank you both for your fine remarks. They both were quite helpful and insightful to the questions I possed. I continue to read your posts and find I am gathering more ideas/information about the novel. 
Thanks again for being so helpful and addressing my questions. The discussion so far has been illuminating.

----------


## Quark

Janine, you brought up a lot of good questions, and I don't want to lose them all in the confusion. Let's take another one.




> I keep reading that at the end James is really more like his father or starting to identify with him. I can't exactly get through to this idea and how he is like the father. Can you help me with that, to better understand it?


James does grow closer to his father, and I think because of two reasons. First, James is looking for positive affirmation from his father. In the third section, he finally gets the compliment he's looking for and it brings the two of them closer. Cam picks up the importance of this:

"There! Cam thought, addressing herself silently to James. You've got it at last. For she knew that this was what James had been wanting...He was so pleased that he was not going to let anybody share a grain of his pleasure...His father had praised him" (III, XII).

Mr. Ramsay is able to win over James by simply showing his son some respect. This certainly brings the characters closer together, but there is another connection between the two of them that makes James identify with his father. Mr. Ramsay keeps repeating a line from a poem that goes, "we perished, each alone. But I beneath a rougher sea". This recitation isn't meaningful only to Mr. Ramsay; the children themselves almost "shriek aloud" when they imagine him about to repeat the line. In this poem Mr. Ramsay is unloading all his loneliness and failure, and the children can feel this two. We've already established why Mr. Ramsay is alone and unsuccessful, but in this third section we see that James and Cam feel the same way. James looks at the lighthouse and Woolf tells us, 

"So it was like that, James thought, the Lighthouse one had seen across the bay all these years; it was a stark tower on a bare rock. It satisfied him. It confirmed some obscure feeling of his about his own character...James thought, looking at the Lighthouse stood there on its rock, it's like that. He looked at his father reading fiercely with his legs curled tight. They shared this knowledge. "We are driving before a gale--we must sink," he began saying to himself, half aloud, exactly as his father said it" (III, XII).

James learns what his father has known for sometime when he reaches the Lighthouse: that life is dreary and lonely. James, like his father, is a "stark tower on a bare rock". James makes a similar poetic comparison earlier in the chapter when he thinks of Mr. Ramsay: "He looked as if he had become physically what he always was at the back of both their minds--that loneliness which was for both of them the truth about things" (III, XII). James becomes more like his father here because they have both realized the same tragedy in their lives.




> "holding her hand against the sun, and so brought darkness and desolation, like God himself, to millions of ignorant and innocent creatures, and then took her hand away suddenly and let the sun stream down." 
> The above taken from "To The Lighthouse", cited in a discussion thereto, might serve as an example of a kind of thinking inherent in Virginia Woolf's depression, and by extension to alot of other people in depression or one might say melancholy. My point being that alot of people blame "God himself" for all the ills of this world, and to do so, I should like to suggest is simply not scriptural. The question becomes, does evil come from God? Further, if so then how can one pray for goodness from an evil God? Woolf's theology is askew. She never seems to have found the light in the darkness! She is not just talking about "darkness and desolation" that engulfs "millions of ignorant and innocent creatures", as she withholds the light as if playing God. Perhaps, she is talking about her own inability to find the true light, the light that created the light so to speak. And therefore what light she had found as a young person isn't strong enough to save her from her adult darkness.


I doubt that Woolf was trying to make a theological statement in _To The Lighthouse_. The book is pretty secular--almost atheistic. The only time that God or Faith is mentioned is when Mrs. Ramsay inadvertently blurts out the pious statement, "We are all in the hands of the Lord". She doesn't really believe this, though, and she concludes that religion can't save the world from those "darker forces of life" we've talked about. 




> I've officially given up on the novel. I still can't get into the way that Woolf writes. I've managed to get through a good portion of the story, but I find that I have no liking for the characters from what I have understood. I just can't read another page, so I'm going to bow out on this book, and instead look towards the August reading. I'm glad many of you have enjoyed the book, but I doubt I'll pick up anything written by Woolf again.


There are two long lists of names, and the people in either group can't understand the other one. At the top of one of the columns it reads: "People who like Virginia Woolf" and the other says, "People who find her prose impenetrable, her stories depressing, and am glad they never have to revisit this author". They are long lists; many people have been coerced into reading her, but the final conclusion on Woolf is always unclear. Really, I'm surprised the verdict so far has been this positive. Usually, the division is closer to half pleased and half annoyed. I, myself, really enjoy Virginia Woolf, and I think this novel is her most profound work. I can see where some people may be put off by her, so I won't challenge you're decision to drop the book. All I can say is that I like her characters. I actually find them believable. Think of some of the Victorian novels where the characters experience all kinds of cruelty in their childhood but somehow turn out to be perfect human beings in adulthood. The characters in so many other novels can be so flat and one-dimensional. Lily Briscoe and the Ramsays are great because they actually think, have flaws, and at the same time you are sympathetic towards them. Isn't that how we find people in life? Why shouldn't that be the way it is in our novels?

----------


## Janine

*Quark,* excellent post. I have read it over several times. I am getting much from your answers to my questions. I feel sad though that the ending is that James now feels this affinity with his father and the sadness. I suppose it is realistic, as you later pointed out but the end then feels hopeless to me or perhaps it is not because now the father is united in the sadness and the isolation is broken or the two are bridged. I have not yet made up my mind about whether the ending has hope or not. It seems Lily is thinking about Mr. Ramsey and wanting him. I am not sure still exactly what that means either. The characters in the third part towards the end seem to be making an effort to connect personally to each other, whereas in the beginning section of the book they were so issolated. Let me know what your own thoughts would be on this idea and aspect of the book and the characters. Even Mr. Carmichael seems to connect more with characters around him now that he has become a successful poet again. 
I have always been able to identify with Mr. Ramsey feeling he let his golden chances pass him by. I feel the same type of regret that he feels about not reaching the heights perhaps with his talents that he might have been able to reach when younger.

----------


## Quark

Alright, these questions are a little more difficult, and I don't have ready answers. You're going to have to bear with me while I feel my way through this.

Is the story sad? Well, I think we're supposed to feel sad. The story of the Ramsays is a tragedy that resonates with a lot of us. Is _To The Lighthouse_ a completely depressing book? No, I wouldn't quite go that far--particularly if you're like me and you think Lily is the heroine. Some people do succeed in the story. Lily does finish her painting, and she has her vision. There's something positive about that. As for there being hope, it depends on whether you think the characters have improved or advanced in the third section. After Mrs. Ramsay dies, the characters lose the social link that Mrs. Ramsay was and they have only their own thoughts to think about. Remember the distinction I made between the superficial social world and the meaningful inner world? Well in the first section the characters are more worried about the social world, and in the third they have to contemplate the inner mind. Woolf tells us the impact of Mrs. Ramsay's death in similar terms when she says, "Her going was a reproach to them, gave a different twist to the world, so that they were led to protest, seeing their own prepossessions disappear, and clutch at them vanishing" (III, XI). Mrs. Ramsay's death makes them aware of that "wedge of darkness" and those "darker forces of life" that we talked about earlier. Whether this is an improvement or not I don't know. I think it's only a change. The end is pessimistic in that the characters cannot overcome the destructive forces in nature and their own isolation, but it's positive in that they become aware. 

Wow, that's a messy ball of words that's going to take a long time to untangle. Sorry, that was the best I could do so quickly. If it didn't make sense, ask some question and I might be able to put it more coherently.

----------


## Janine

No, *Quark,* your post made perfect sense to me...it is not a "messy ball of words that's going to take a long time to untangle." It is good! you need not say "Sorry, that was the best I could do so quickly."...don't be sorry. Your effort, in answering all my questions, has been greatly appreciated and helped me better in my understanding of the characters in TTLH. I too, see Lily as a sort of heroine. But when Mrs. Ramsey was alive I did not see her that way. I think the story transfers to be central to Lily but then again perhaps it is a feeling that it is from the beginning or at least that so much of the story is through Lily's eyes and perception. She probably is the most objective of all the characters presented. She seems to be free also of the things that bog down the family. She is divorced from any great commitment but my question would be will she remain this way after the book ends? Will she remain in the independent woman role, or take over where Mrs. Ramsey left off. I can see that she would be able to handle Mr. Ramsey in a slightly different manner than Mrs. Ramsey had. What do you think of the idea that they could possibly connect in the future and even marry?
I can't write more now - there is lightening and I must shut down my computer and unplug. After my last horrid experience it is a must.

----------


## plainjane

> Will she remain in the independent woman role, or take over where Mrs. Ramsey left off. I can see that she would be able to handle Mr. Ramsey in a slightly different manner than Mrs. Ramsey had. What do you think of the idea that they could possibly connect in the future and even marry?


Janine, that is exactly my impression. I felt as though Lily somehow strove to _be_ Mrs. Ramsay, have her life, become her. Lily sort of hero worshipped Mrs. Ramsay and living her life would be the next step.
It sounds a bit creepy when put that way, but I did not find it that way in the book, it was..as though she was finishing what Mrs. Ramsay could not. 

She would never ever have attempted to usurp Mrs. Ramsay in her lifetime, but once Mrs. Ramsay was dead it was as though Lily saw the next section of her own life mesh with the Ramsay family.

----------


## Janine

*plainjane,* yes - exactly - and your quote, directly from the book, does seem to verify or confirm it, doesn't it? Is this Lily's vision, do you think?

----------


## Quark

> I too, see Lily as a sort of heroine. But when Mrs. Ramsey was alive I did not see her that way. I think the story transfers to be central to Lily but then again perhaps it is a feeling that it is from the beginning or at least that so much of the story is through Lily's eyes and perception. She probably is the most objective of all the characters presented. She seems to be free also of the things that bog down the family. She is divorced from any great commitment but my question would be will she remain this way after the book ends? Will she remain in the independent woman role, or take over where Mrs. Ramsey left off. I can see that she would be able to handle Mr. Ramsey in a slightly different manner than Mrs. Ramsey had. What do you think of the idea that they could possibly connect in the future and even marry?
> I can't write more now - there is lightening and I must shut down my computer and unplug. After my last horrid experience it is a must.





> Janine, that is exactly my impression. I felt as though Lily somehow strove to _be_ Mrs. Ramsay, have her life, become her. Lily sort of hero worshipped Mrs. Ramsay and living her life would be the next step.
> It sounds a bit creepy when put that way, but I did not find it that way in the book, it was..as though she was finishing what Mrs. Ramsay could not. 
> 
> She would never ever have attempted to usurp Mrs. Ramsay in her lifetime, but once Mrs. Ramsay was dead it was as though Lily saw the next section of her own life mesh with the Ramsay family.


Lily is envious for some of what Mrs. Ramsay has. We can see she wants Mrs. Ramsay's self-assurance, objectivity, and vivacious character, but I don't think she really wants her life. Lily is a self-critical and so far unsuccessful artist when the story begins, so it's easy to understand that she would value these traits which would make it easier to create. Lily isn't interested in living Mrs. Ramsay's life, though. I don't think marriage, family, or charity is really what Lily wants in her life. 

I should also say, Lily is fascinated with Mrs. Ramsay for another reason: her artistic value. In fact, the whole Ramsay family is of artistic value for Lily.

For all this, though, Lily may still be thinking about marriage. We're left to contemplate whether she and William Bankes will get together. They still remain friends to the end. And, in the third section Lily admits that she still loves him. If they do, however, I don't think their marriage would resemble anything like the Ramsays'.

----------


## plainjane

*Janine*, I'm not sure what quote you mean, I didn't quote in my last post [at least], but I know at the end when Lily was looking out over the sea and thinking step by step where Mr. Ramsay was, I received a strong impression of her wanting to make a life with him. 

*Quark*, I didn't think of Lily as envious, at least not in any sly, strong sort of manner. I feel envious is too strong a word for how she felt. There was a natural longing within her for companionship, she saw Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay as almost parent-like figures, or at least Mrs. Ramsay as a figure to emulate, and that perhaps is part of her thinking so much about Mr. Ramsay after Mrs. R had died. 
I do not think she was that interested in Bankes in the end, he seemed dismissed from her mind.

----------


## Janine

> *Janine*, I'm not sure what quote you mean, I didn't quote in my last post [at least], but I know at the end when Lily was looking out over the sea and thinking step by step where Mr. Ramsay was, I received a strong impression of her wanting to make a life with him. 
> 
> *Quark*, I didn't think of Lily as envious, at least not in any sly, strong sort of manner. I feel envious is too strong a word for how she felt. There was a natural longing within her for companionship, she saw Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay as almost parent-like figures, or at least Mrs. Ramsay as a figure to emulate, and that perhaps is part of her thinking so much about Mr. Ramsay after Mrs. R had died. 
> I do not think she was that interested in Bankes in the end, he seemed dismissed from her mind.


Yes, I agree - it was just an impression I got about how Lily was feeling about Mr. Ramsey. Somewhere she says she wants him. What did she mean by that? I will look up exact quote later. I don't think I got any sense of Bankes at all in the end. I did not think they had all that much connection to begin with. It seemed only to be in Mrs. Ramsey's mind and imagination that the two should ever marry. I never envisioned it for Lily, not with Bankes. And in the end Lily might only be entertaining the thought of domestic life as Mrs. Ramsey had it or think she could marry Mr. Ramsey and make things better. Women often do think this - that a second wife can go beyond what a first wife achieved. I think she is feeling this way and wondering how she could continue on in her footsteps, but develop more of a relationship, perhaps closer to Mr. Ramsey.

----------


## Virgil

Are you guys sure about that? I don't recall Lily ever desiring Mr. Ramsey. In fact i always thought the opposite. She was always scared of him. Perhaps scared is too strong a word. If not scared, then at least anxious. Can you find the quote for me if you still disagree.

----------


## plainjane

In the annotated version page 205....right after Lily ruminating over the Ramsay's relationship and their interaction...



> And as if she had something she must share, yet could hardly leave her easel, so full her mind was of what she was thinking, of what she was seeing Lily went past Mr. Carmichael holding her brush to the edge of the lawn. Where was tat boat now? And Mr. Ramsay? She wanted him.


page 210



> "He must have reached it," said Lily Briscoe aloud, feeling suddenly completely tired out. For the Lighthouse had become almost invisible, had melted away into a blue haze, and the effort of looking at it and the effort of thinking of him landing there, which both seemed to be one and the same effort, had stretched her body and mind to the utmost. Ah, but she was relieved. Whatever she had wanted to give him, when he left her that morning, she had given him at last.


Also before they left for the Lighthouse, there was interaction between Lily and Mr. Ramsay. Beginning on p.150...Lily hears Mr. Ramsay mutter under his breath the two words "Perished" and Alone". On p. 151 



> The empty places. Such were some of the parts, but how bring them together? she asked. As if any interruption would break the frail shape she was building on the table she turned her back to the window lest Mr. Ramsay should see her. She must escape somewhere, be alone somewhere.


It is then she remembers the painting she'd begun 10 years earlier. Later she paints the final unifying line through it...uniting, bringing of the parts together. 
If Lily didn't care about Mr. Ramsay, she would not have bothered to turn away so he could not see her face.

On p. 152 he is pacing up and down outside her window she cannot concentrate with him there.
Later on p. 154-155 he wants sympathy so badly from someone, but she is so nervous around him...she would not be nervous if she didn't care on some level. Care what he thought of her. She is so nervous she cannot give him the sympathy he needs, and she castigates herself for that. If she didn't care about him, it would not bother her...she'd pass it off as nothing.

----------


## Virgil

I'll reply to that later Jane, when I get to those scenes.

But first I want to point out two more things about Mrs. Ramsey and why I believe she is the center of the novel. After the dinner scene, Woolf emphasizes the power that Mrs. Ramsey posesses. Here Mrs. Ramsey is thinking as she goes upstairs:




> Her world was changing: they were still. The event had given her a sense of movement. All must be in order. She must get that right and that right, she thought, insensibly approving of the dignity of the trees stillness, and now again of the superb upward rise (like the beak of a ship up a wave) of the elm branches as the wind raised them. For it was windy (she stood a moment to look out). It was windy, so that the leaves now and then brushed open a star, and the stars themselves seemed to be shaking and darting light and trying to flash out between the edges of the leaves. Yes, that was done then, accomplished; and as with all things done, became solemn. Now one thought of it, cleared of chatter and emotion, it seemed always to have been, only was shown now and so being shown, struck everything into stability. They would, she thought, going on again, however long they lived, come back to this night; this moon; this wind; this house: and to her too. 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; the Rayleysshe tried the new name over; and she felt, with her hand on the nursery door, that community of feeling with other people which emotion gives as if the walls of partition had become so thin that practically (the feeling was one of relief and happiness) it was all one stream, and chairs, tables, maps, were hers, were theirs, it did not matter whose, and Paul and Minta would carry it on when she was dead.


It was "accomplished" echoeing what Lily says when she finishes her painting. Actually the word "accomplish" runs through the novel in several instances. For any college students out there reading this, the significance of that word in this novel would make a great term paper. Look at these lines:



> They would, she thought, going on again, however long they lived, come back to this night; this moon; this wind; this house: and to her too. 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.


 And then these:



> All that would be revived again in the lives of Paul and Minta; the Rayleysshe tried the new name over; and she felt, with her hand on the nursery door, that community of feeling with other people which emotion gives...


"Wound in their hearts" and "that community of feeling," is what Mrs. Ramsey brings to people. She connects people to community, which is something Lily cannot do.

Now look at this fabulous scene where she puts James and Cam to bed and where that skull is nailed to the wall:



> She turned the handle, firmly, lest it should squeak, and went in, pursing her lips slightly, as if to remind herself that she must not speak aloud. But directly she came in she saw, with annoyance, that the precaution was not needed. The children were not asleep. It was most annoying. Mildred should be more careful. There was James wide awake and Cam sitting bolt upright, and Mildred out of bed in her bare feet, and it was almost eleven and they were all talking. What was the matter? It was that horrid skull again. She had told Mildred to move it, but Mildred, of course, had forgotten, and now there was Cam wide awake, and James wide awake quarrelling when they ought to have been asleep hours ago. What had possessed Edward to send them this horrid skull? She had been so foolish as to let them nail it up there. It was nailed fast, Mildred said, and Cam couldnt go to sleep with it in the room, and James screamed if she touched it.
> 
> Then Cam must go to sleep (it had great horns said Cam)must go to sleep and dream of lovely bed by her side. She could see the horns, Cam said, all over the room. It was true. Wherever they put the light (and James could not sleep without a light) there was always a shadow somewhere.
> 
> But think, Cam, its only an old pig, said Mrs Ramsay, a nice black pig like the pigs at the farm. But Cam thought it was a horrid thing, branching at her all over the room.
> 
> Well then, said Mrs Ramsay, we will cover it up, and they all watched her go to the chest of drawers, and open the little drawers quickly one after another, and not seeing anything that would do, she quickly took her own shawl off and wound it round the skull, round and round and round, and then she came back to Cam and laid her head almost flat on the pillow beside Cams and said how lovely it looked now; how the fairies would love it; it was like a birds nest; it was like a beautiful mountain such as she had seen abroad, with valleys and flowers and bells ringing and birds singing and little goats and antelopes and... She could see the words echoing as she spoke them rhythmically in Cams mind, and Cam was repeating after her how it was like a mountain, a birds nest, a garden, and there were little antelopes, and her eyes were opening and shutting, and Mrs Ramsay went on speaking still more monotonously, and more rhythmically and more nonsensically, how she must shut her eyes and go to sleep and dream of mountains and valleys and stars falling and parrots and antelopes and gardens, and everything lovely, she said, raising her head very slowly and speaking more and more mechanically, until she sat upright and saw that Cam was asleep.
> 
> Now, she whispered, crossing over to his bed, James must go to sleep too, for see, she said, the boars skull was still there; they had not touched it; quite unhurt. He made sure that the skull was still there under the shawl. But he wanted to ask her something more. Would they go to the Lighthouse tomorrow?


Cam is afraid of the skull and James wants the skull on the wall. Here Mrs. Ramsey in a work of magic is able to square the circle, satisfy two seemingly incompatible desires. She does is with a moment of creative magic, a moment of artistry. And Woolf is fabulous with her own writing, the shawl and skull, both symbols of death, foreshadowing Mrs. Ramsey's passing.

----------


## Quark

> But first I want to point out two more things about Mrs. Ramsey and why I believe she is the center of the novel. After the dinner scene, Woolf emphasizes the power that Mrs. Ramsey posesses. Here Mrs. Ramsey is thinking as she goes upstairs:
> 
> It was "accomplished" echoeing what Lily says when she finishes her painting. Actually the word "accomplish" runs through the novel in several instances. For any college students out there reading this, the significance of that word in this novel would make a great term paper. Look at these lines:
> And then these:
> 
> "Wound in their hearts" and "that community of feeling," is what Mrs. Ramsey brings to people. She connects people to community, which is something Lily cannot do.
> 
> Now look at this fabulous scene where she puts James and Cam to bed and where that skull is nailed to the wall:
> 
> Cam is afraid of the skull and James wants the skull on the wall. Here Mrs. Ramsey in a work of magic is able to square the circle, satisfy two seemingly incompatible desires. She does is with a moment of creative magic, a moment of artistry. And Woolf is fabulous with her own writing, the shawl and skull, both symbols of death, foreshadowing Mrs. Ramsey's passing.


I quoted this section earlier in the discussion, but I don't think it shows Mrs. Ramsay as the important figure in the novel. In fact, once you read to the end, this section proves how ineffectual Mrs. Ramsay's accomplishments are. At this part of the story, Mrs. Ramsay believes that she can overcome deleterious nature by joining people together. Her most successful union of people is between her daughter and Paul Rayley. This is what she accomplishes. But, we know that later on this marriage will dissolve and leave both husband and wife unhappy. I don't think we can say that Mrs. Ramsay really achieved much by encouraging togetherness. We know that Mrs. Ramsay sincerely hopes that her charity and social skills will overcome mortality and change, but we also know that this isn't true. The Ramsay's end in loneliness and tragedy. We sympathize and feel compassion for the Ramsays, but I don't believe they're the most successful people in this story. Their ideas represent the exhausted Victorian age which was yielding to Modernism at the time. It's hard to believe that Mrs. Ramsay would achieve the most in this story.

----------


## plainjane

> I quoted this section earlier in the discussion, but I don't think it shows Mrs. Ramsay as the important figure in the novel. In fact, once you read to the end, this section proves how ineffectual Mrs. Ramsay's accomplishments are. At this part of the story, Mrs. Ramsay believes that she can overcome deleterious nature by joining people together. Her most successful union of people is between her daughter and Paul Rayley. This is what she accomplishes. But, we know that later on this marriage will dissolve and leave both husband and wife unhappy. I don't think we can say that Mrs. Ramsay really achieved much by encouraging togetherness. We know that Mrs. Ramsay sincerely hopes that her charity and social skills will overcome mortality and change, but we also know that this isn't true. The Ramsay's end in loneliness and tragedy. We sympathize and feel compassion for the Ramsays, but I don't believe they're the most successful people in this story. Their ideas represent the exhausted Victorian age which was yielding to Modernism at the time. It's hard to believe that Mrs. Ramsay would achieve the most in this story.


That is mainly why I thought that while isolation is certainly a theme of the book, so is helplessness and hopelessness against what Woolf sees as Fate. People are going to live their lives as they will no matter how much interference by Mrs. Ramsay.

Really isn't Lily the "most successful"? After all she completes her goal.

----------


## Virgil

> I quoted this section earlier in the discussion, but I don't think it shows Mrs. Ramsay as the important figure in the novel. In fact, once you read to the end, this section proves how ineffectual Mrs. Ramsay's accomplishments are. At this part of the story, Mrs. Ramsay believes that she can overcome deleterious nature by joining people together. Her most successful union of people is between her daughter and Paul Rayley. This is what she accomplishes. But, we know that later on this marriage will dissolve and leave both husband and wife unhappy. I don't think we can say that Mrs. Ramsay really achieved much by encouraging togetherness. We know that Mrs. Ramsay sincerely hopes that her charity and social skills will overcome mortality and change, but we also know that this isn't true. The Ramsay's end in loneliness and tragedy. We sympathize and feel compassion for the Ramsays, but I don't believe they're the most successful people in this story. Their ideas represent the exhausted Victorian age which was yielding to Modernism at the time. It's hard to believe that Mrs. Ramsay would achieve the most in this story.


But Quark, under this reading the first two thirds of the novel becomes a waste of time. You can't have a central character who is the pillar of the novel, where everything centers around her, where her consciousness is completely represented, and then let it all be a deemed as useless. Under that reading the structure of the novel would then be flawed. In the end, the character of Mrs Ramsey *has to have* significance or or it's no different than a surprise ending, where the author is essentially saying, "never mind."

----------


## Quark

> But Quark, under this reading the first two thirds of the novel becomes a waste of time. You can't have a central character who is the pillar of the novel, where everything centers around her, where her consciousness is completely represented, and then let it all be a deemed as useless. Under that reading the structure of the novel would then be flawed. In the end, the character of Mrs Ramsey *has to have* significance or or it's no different than a surprise ending, where the author is essentially saying, "never mind."


Oh, I'm not saying that she isn't important, or that she isn't central. I'm just trying to show _why_ she's important. People have argued that Mrs. Ramsay is important because she brings people together and connects with the deeper thoughts in the other characters. If this were true, that would be quite an accomplishment, and Mrs. Ramsay would be a heroic figure. I don't think this is true, though. Her efforts actually appear to be quite futile. Really, Mrs. Ramsay is important because she _doesn't_ succeed. Much of this story is tragic, and Mrs. Ramsay's ineffectualness is extremely important in that tragedy. The Ramsay's are important to us because we can see ourselves in them. Hasn't everyone had some exposure to things like Mrs. Ramsay's altruism or Mr. Ramsay's intellectualism? I think the point of the tragedy is that these things aren't enough to overcome mortality and change. Ultimately, those who put their faith in these ideas will end up isolated. 

Mrs. Ramsay is important to Lily because of artistic and social reasons. Lily desires the position Mrs. Ramsay has in many ways. Lily's life is somewhat drab; taking care of an ailing family member seems to be all the life she has outside of the Ramsays. For Lily, Mrs. Ramsay represents the busy social atmosphere and wealth that she has never had. Lily also wants the ease of expression that Mrs. Ramsay has. The Ramsays represent the kind of success Lily wishes she could achieve, but that isn't to say that Lily wants to live like the Ramsays--she just wants their level of social success. I've gone over why she's important to Mr. Ramsay before, but I can do so again. Mrs. Ramsay is important in other ways to people like Tansley or the children; but, in none of these perspectives on Mrs. Ramsay, is she successful at overcoming the main tragedy of this story.

----------


## middleyears

Hi.. It's been a while since I posted but I feel I must since now we are at the bitter end of the book..... When we see Lily with her painting on page 202, she sees a reflection of the lighthouse. She's percieving this to be Mrs Ramsey and she wants it to be Mrs Ramsey... On page 208 we see Lily becoming "one with" Mrs Ramsey at the same moment she wants to see Mr Ramsey and it's also at this moment that Carmichael says that the Ramseys have arrived at the lighthouse... At this same moment, Mr Ramsey compliments James which is huge because he is usually all about himself...
I think that the whole book culminates in this one scene.. Woolf's whole mystical vision which is a moment of whole or shared conscieneness is right in that moment... I felt she was showing that groups of people can actually have this shared moment... We are all capable of experiencing these moments through love of other people... 
I don't know, just my opinion.............
Thanks for letting me share.... Have a good day................

----------


## Virgil

> Oh, I'm not saying that she isn't important, or that she isn't central. I'm just trying to show _why_ she's important. People have argued that Mrs. Ramsay is important because she brings people together and connects with the deeper thoughts in the other characters. If this were true, that would be quite an accomplishment, and Mrs. Ramsay would be a heroic figure. I don't think this is true, though. Her efforts actually appear to be quite futile.


Her efforts are transient, and heroic while they last. Her magic in soothing Cam by covering the skull with her shawl show that. Yes time and nature will always have the upper hand, but while they are together Mrs, Ramsey improves their lives. It is a struggle with life and she fights a heroic fight. And remains with the characters after her death.




> Really, Mrs. Ramsay is important because she _doesn't_ succeed. Much of this story is tragic, and Mrs. Ramsay's ineffectualness is extremely important in that tragedy. The Ramsay's are important to us because we can see ourselves in them. Hasn't everyone had some exposure to things like Mrs. Ramsay's altruism or Mr. Ramsay's intellectualism? I think the point of the tragedy is that these things aren't enough to overcome mortality and change. Ultimately, those who put their faith in these ideas will end up isolated.


I don't see structurally how this novel would work without without seeing Mrs Ramsey as easing the inherent isolation of the other characters. Put their faith in what? A painting? yes it's a tragedy. She's human and no human can win a fight with life. But the effort is paramout. In parallel, look at the efforts of Mrs McNabb as she puts the house together after nature has had its will with it.

----------


## Quark

> I do not think she was that interested in Bankes in the end, he seemed dismissed from her mind.


Actually, in the third section she mentions Bankes one more time:




> But William, she remembered, had listened to her with his wise child's eyes when she explained how it was not irreverence: how a light there needed a shadow there and so on. She did not intend to disparage a subject which, they agreed, Raphael had treated divinely. She was not cynical. Quite the contrary. Thanks to his scientific mind he understooda proof of disinterested intelligence which had pleased her and comforted her enormously. One could talk of painting then seriously to a man. Indeed, his friendship had been one of the pleasures of her life. She loved William Bankes.


It's so typical of this novel that it would put such an important detail in an aside. That paragraph goes on for a full page, but the most important part is four words at the end. Those four words are one of the most genuine sentiments Lily ever gives voice to. Usually, Lily will say one thing but then quickly add a bunch of modifying and contradictory statements until we can't be sure what she believes. In this case, though, Lily's thoughts naturally lead to this conclusion and she doesn't try to take it back after it's said. I think Lily did feel something William Bankes. Did she not marry him to get the better of Mrs. Ramsay?




> Yes, I agree - it was just an impression I got about how Lily was feeling about Mr. Ramsey. Somewhere she says she wants him. What did she mean by that? I will look up exact quote later. I don't think I got any sense of Bankes at all in the end. I did not think they had all that much connection to begin with. It seemed only to be in Mrs. Ramsey's mind and imagination that the two should ever marry. I never envisioned it for Lily, not with Bankes. And in the end Lily might only be entertaining the thought of domestic life as Mrs. Ramsey had it or think she could marry Mr. Ramsey and make things better. Women often do think this - that a second wife can go beyond what a first wife achieved. I think she is feeling this way and wondering how she could continue on in her footsteps, but develop more of a relationship, perhaps closer to Mr. Ramsey.


Lily is forced into Mrs. Ramsay's position with her husband at the end of the story. Mr. Ramsay is still looking for someone to give him the sympathy and flattery that apparently his battery runs on. Lily tries to fill the role, but she fails miserably. The best she can do to soothe Mr. Ramsay's ego is compliment his footwear. Her attempt to be Mr. Ramsay's wife replacement is comical at best partly because she isn't as good at it as Mrs. Ramsay was and partly because she doesn't respect Mr. Ramsay the way his wife did. Never, though, is Lily ever really in love Mr. Ramsay. In fact, she says she's incapable of the kind of romance that Mr. Ramsay would want. 




> Hi.. It's been a while since I posted but I feel I must since now we are at the bitter end of the book..... When we see Lily with her painting on page 202, she sees a reflection of the lighthouse. She's percieving this to be Mrs Ramsey and she wants it to be Mrs Ramsey... On page 208 we see Lily becoming "one with" Mrs Ramsey at the same moment she wants to see Mr Ramsey and it's also at this moment that Carmichael says that the Ramseys have arrived at the lighthouse... At this same moment, Mr Ramsey compliments James which is huge because he is usually all about himself...
> I think that the whole book culminates in this one scene.. Woolf's whole mystical vision which is a moment of whole or shared conscieneness is right in that moment... I felt she was showing that groups of people can actually have this shared moment... We are all capable of experiencing these moments through love of other people... 
> I don't know, just my opinion.............
> Thanks for letting me share.... Have a good day................


You're right to suggest that people make a connection at the end. Really, that might be the only positive, uplifting part of the ending. Cam and James become aware of their father's personal tragedy; and, on the shore, Lily finally realizes how to complete her painting which is an expression of her intimacy with Mrs. Ramsay. Does the book culminate in that moment of togetherness? That might be a little harder to prove.




> Her efforts are transient, and heroic while they last. Her magic in soothing Cam by covering the skull with her shawl show that. Yes time and nature will always have the upper hand, but while they are together Mrs, Ramsey improves their lives. It is a struggle with life and she fights a heroic fight. And remains with the characters after her death.
> 
> I don't see structurally how this novel would work without without seeing Mrs Ramsey as easing the inherent isolation of the other characters. Put their faith in what? A painting? yes it's a tragedy. She's human and no human can win a fight with life. But the effort is paramout. In parallel, look at the efforts of Mrs McNabb as she puts the house together after nature has had its will with it.


I'm not going to say that the little courtesies that Mrs. Ramsay extends to her family are nothing. No, they're still rather touching. Yet, when we say something is heroic we have to prove that it somehow makes a difference in reference to the major themes. In a book like _Moby Dick_, for example, revenge and arrogance are major themes. Ahab is obviously important in that book because he's a supreme expression of arrogance and vengeful feelings, but he doesn't really accomplish anything besides the complete destruction of his ship. Ahab would have been heroic if he were able to forget about the whale and continue to live his life with his family. That would have been an act of heroism because he would have done the moral thing in relation to the themes of the novel. Ahab is still important, but not as the virtuous hero. Really, he's the opposite: he's the tragic hero. The tragic hero is important but fails because of human frailties which we can all relate to. This is more the light in which I see Mrs. Ramsay. That isn't to take away any of her importance. How could I argue that? Especially when there are passages like:




> She, on the other hand, would be forced to give. Mrs. Ramsay had given. Giving, giving, giving, she had died--and had left all this. Really she was angry with Mrs. Ramsay. With the brush slightly trembling in her fingers she looked at the hedge, the step, the wall. It was all Mrs. Ramsay's doing. She was dead.


I just think that Mrs. Ramsay doesn't understand the main themes of the novel. One of the big ideas of _To The Lighthouse_ is that the personal is more important than the societal, yet Mrs. Ramsay represses her inner emotions, doubts, and thoughts in favor of maintaining civility or flattering her husband. Another theme is the inadequacy of human relationships, yet Mrs. Ramsay believes that marriage will allow her to overcome mortality and change. She's still an important character, but she doesn't have any answers to the questions raised by the novel.

----------


## Janine

[QUOTE=Quark;432122]Actually, in the third section she mentions Bankes one more time:

*Hi Quark,* I am working up to my post in Chekov and came online to find the text to quote - got side-tracked again. I did post in Lawrence and later will post the last segment of the story. I was not sure if this thread had gone dead so I felt like checking up. I forgot I wanted to answer this post of yours I read several days ago. Good post, *Quark,* but not sure I agree on all points.





> It's so typical of this novel that it would put such an important detail in an aside. That paragraph goes on for a full page, but the most important part is four words at the end. Those four words are one of the most genuine sentiments Lily ever gives voice to. Usually, Lily will say one thing but then quickly add a bunch of modifying and contradictory statements until we can't be sure what she believes. In this case, though, Lily's thoughts naturally lead to this conclusion and she doesn't try to take it back after it's said. I think Lily did feel something William Bankes. Did she not marry him to get the better of Mrs. Ramsay?


Yes, it is typical since in the center section Woolf did something virtually unheard of in her day - she put the important events - the deaths - in brackets interspersed between the description of the decay the house has fallen into. I thought that was so interesting and inovative, a little odd, but stangely enough, when you read those, it really hits you, like in real life.

Why can't Lily be referring to Banks in a loving way but only as a friend? This is the way I took it. I've had many male friends I could easily say I love. I don't think she ever entertained thoughts of marrying William Bankes but maybe I am wrong. The statement prior to the last 4 words seems to indicate that he was her friend. She says that "Indeed, his friendship had been one of the pleasures of her life." I think I have felt that way about a true male friend, and never entertained thoughts of having a close physical relationship or marriage to them.





> Lily is forced into Mrs. Ramsay's position with her husband at the end of the story. Mr. Ramsay is still looking for someone to give him the sympathy and flattery that apparently his battery runs on. Lily tries to fill the role, but she fails miserably. The best she can do to soothe Mr. Ramsay's ego is compliment his footwear. Her attempt to be Mr. Ramsay's wife replacement is comical at best partly because she isn't as good at it as Mrs. Ramsay was and partly because she doesn't respect Mr. Ramsay the way his wife did. Never, though, is Lily ever really in love Mr. Ramsay. In fact, she says she's incapable of the kind of romance that Mr. Ramsay would want.


I don't see that she is forced into any position. Lily is quite independent and has a mind of her own. If she feels something for Mr. Ramsey it is of her free will that it happens. I don't detect him being aggressive with her or any indication of her being forced into the position of wife. She does not need to marry the man to offer sympathy, even flattery. Yes, Lily cannot fill another woman's role as a replacement - no one effectively could take the place of Mrs. Ramsey - we are all individuals after all. She has a different style than Mrs. Ramsey. I don't think Lily is 'in love' with Mr. Ramsey either, and I don't think she would marry just for convenience or to sooth Mr. Ramsey, so that I am not really sure what will happen at the close of the story.




> You're right to suggest that people make a connection at the end. Really, that might be the only positive, uplifting part of the ending. Cam and James become aware of their father's personal tragedy; and, on the shore, Lily finally realizes how to complete her painting which is an expression of her intimacy with Mrs. Ramsay. Does the book culminate in that moment of togetherness? That might be a little harder to prove.


Yes, even Lily does connect with Ramsey but not in a romantic fashion. Yes, this novel has not been too uplifting. In fact on my second reading I felt rather pulled down by it and depressed. It was odd but I had a hard time getting through it since I felt uneasy reading it when I needed something a bit more uplifting. The ending is only a glimmer of hope that the father and James will ever truly get along with each other. It is significant that Mr. Ramsey did compliment him and reach out finally to his son in this small way. Again I don't know if we can know the results of this connection or any others in the book. I think we can only surmise and quess and so each of us has to find our own closure to the story. I did not find closure in Mrs. Dalloway either. I think it is characteristic of Woolf's style. Again like in Lawrence short stories, it makes one thing on and on about the ending long after you come to the final words, not a bad thing really...books live on this way in our minds. It is good to contemplate sometimes.




> I'm not going to say that the little courtesies that Mrs. Ramsay extends to her family are nothing. No, they're still rather touching. Yet, when we say something is heroic we have to prove that it somehow makes a difference in reference to the major themes. In a book like _Moby Dick_, for example, revenge and arrogance are major themes. Ahab is obviously important in that book because he's a supreme expression of arrogance and vengeful feelings, but he doesn't really accomplish anything besides the complete destruction of his ship. Ahab would have been heroic if he were able to forget about the whale and continue to live his life with his family. That would have been an act of heroism because he would have done the moral thing in relation to the themes of the novel. Ahab is still important, but not as the virtuous hero. Really, he's the opposite: he's the tragic hero. The tragic hero is important but fails because of human frailties which we can all relate to. This is more the light in which I see Mrs. Ramsay. That isn't to take away any of her importance. How could I argue that? Especially when there are passages like:


I don't see Mrs. Ramsey as heroic but I see her with an inner beauty and strength and also much human fraility - she is human and feels many emotions and hurts and yet she is persistent in her way of life and keeping peace within her family. She is just plain a good hearted woman in my eyes, but no woman is a saint.




> I just think that Mrs. Ramsay doesn't understand the main themes of the novel. One of the big ideas of _To The Lighthouse_ is that the personal is more important than the societal, yet Mrs. Ramsay represses her inner emotions, doubts, and thoughts in favor of maintaining civility or flattering her husband. Another theme is the inadequacy of human relationships, yet Mrs. Ramsay believes that marriage will allow her to overcome mortality and change. She's still an important character, but she doesn't have any answers to the questions raised by the novel.


*Quark,* how does she believe that marriage will alow her to overcome mortality and change? I did not understand your statement to this effect. She may be always thinking and questioning and coming up with no definitive answers to these 'eternal' questions, but then how many of us do have all the answers? Again, she is only human with human fears and repressions and doubts and frustrations, etc., and many emotions beneath/hidden perhaps.

----------


## Walter

I've been following this deep discussion of character with considerable interest. Now that we are to the end of the book, I'll ask a simple question that reflects an impression I have had.

Am I mistaken, or do I see a reflection and continuation of Mr. Ramsay in James, and, likewise, a reflection and continuation of Mrs. Ramsay in Cam, and the generations will repeat themsleves?

----------


## Virgil

> I just think that Mrs. Ramsay doesn't understand the main themes of the novel. One of the big ideas of _To The Lighthouse_ is that the personal is more important than the societal, yet Mrs. Ramsay represses her inner emotions, doubts, and thoughts in favor of maintaining civility or flattering her husband. Another theme is the inadequacy of human relationships, yet Mrs. Ramsay believes that marriage will allow her to overcome mortality and change. She's still an important character, but she doesn't have any answers to the questions raised by the novel.


I'm not sure how a character can or cannot understand the themes of the novel he/she is in, unless it were metafication.  :Biggrin:  Mrs. Ramsey does survive in the hearts of those she touched and in her surviving children. In our struggle to overcome the power of nature to wipe out life, marriage and children are the means of fighting the destructing forces that Woolf sees nature as. I'll post right after this something on the middle section. But Mrs. R is portrayed as a fertility goddess. Here chapter 7 of the first part:



> Mrs Ramsay, who had been sitting loosely, folding her son in her arm, braced herself, and, half turning, seemed to raise herself with an effort, and at once to pour erect into the air a rain of energy, a column of spray, looking at the same time animated and alive as if all her energies were being fused into force, burning and illuminating (quietly though she sat, taking up her stocking again), and into this delicious fecundity, this fountain and spray of life, the fatal sterility of the male plunged itself, like a beak of brass, barren and bare.


She is fecundity, the mother of eight children, the one who's energy opposes the forces of sterilty and destruction. Woolf portrays a domestic situation in the novel but she projects heroic efforts from little actions. I'm sorry to diagree but Mrs Ramsey is supposed to be understood as heroic.




> I don't see Mrs. Ramsey as heroic but I see her with an inner beauty and strength and also much human fraility - she is human and feels many emotions and hurts and yet she is persistent in her way of life and keeping peace within her family. She is just plain a good hearted woman in my eyes, but no woman is a saint.
> 
> *Quark,* how does she believe that marriage will alow her to overcome mortality and change? I did not understand your statement to this effect. She may be always thinking and questioning and coming up with no definitive answers to these 'eternal' questions, but then how many of us do have all the answers? Again, she is only human with human fears and repressions and doubts and frustrations, etc., and many emotions beneath/hidden perhaps.


I think Janine I answered above the second part, and I think everything you list as her qualities are heroic. 




> Am I mistaken, or do I see a reflection and continuation of Mr. Ramsay in James, and, likewise, a reflection and continuation of Mrs. Ramsay in Cam, and the generations will repeat themsleves?


You are not mistaken.  :Smile:

----------


## plainjane

> She is fecundity, the mother of eight children, the one who's energy opposes the forces of sterilty and destruction. Woolf portrays a domestic situation in the novel but she projects heroic efforts from little actions. I'm sorry to diagree but Mrs Ramsey is supposed to be understood as heroic.


Fecundity does not equal heroic. I know you mean all of the above, but I really do not agree. If anything I see futility in her actions. Not that it is her fault, it is only human. The very things she strives for, the various matings she champions especially...are not successful. 
Maybe that is what Woolf in her own depressed state of mind was saying, no matter how we plan, no matter what machinations we finagle, if we try to force issues, or people into our mold of what we think they should be or do, we fail. The falling apart of the house, the inexorable sweeping of the lighthouse....all show this.

----------


## Virgil

I wanted to post something on the second part of the novel, called "Time Passes" before we go into the concluding section. Certainly we can see part II as a bridge from the first to the third, but it's more than that. It advances the theme of nature's power to destoy life and life's fight to combat destruction. It presents the central conflict within the novel, nature's forces versues human's struggle to survive.

The first part ends with the household going to bed. 



> So with the lamps all put out, the moon sunk, and a thin rain drumming on the roof a downpouring of immense darkness began. Nothing, it seemed, could survive the flood, the profusion of darkness which, creeping in at keyholes and crevices, stole round window blinds, came into bedrooms, swallowed up here a jug and basin, there a bowl of red and yellow dahlias, there the sharp edges and firm bulk of a chest of drawers. Not only was furniture confounded; there was scarcely anything left of body or mind by which one could say, This is he or This is she. Sometimes a hand was raised as if to clutch something or ward off something, or somebody groaned, or somebody laughed aloud as if sharing a joke with nothingness.
> 
> Nothing stirred in the drawing-room or in the dining-room or on the staircase. Only through the rusty hinges and swollen sea-moistened woodwork certain airs, detached from the body of the wind (the house was ramshackle after all) crept round corners and ventured indoors. Almost one might imagine them, as they entered the drawing-room questioning and wondering, toying with the flap of hanging wall-paper, asking, would it hang much longer, when would it fall? Then smoothly brushing the walls, they passed on musingly as if asking the red and yellow roses on the wall-paper whether they time at their disposal) the torn letters in the wastepaper basket, the flowers, the books, all of which were now open to them and asking, Were they allies? Were they enemies? How long would they endure?


First, what beautiful writing. Second, an open rhetorical question, from who's point of view is this being told? It's sort of a combination of omniscient and limited point of view. Strikes me as original. What we do see is the power of nature slowly taking over its domain, even down to the rust which breaks down the metal. But this goes on for more than a night:



> But what after all is one night? A short space, especially when the darkness dims so soon, and so soon a bird sings, a **** crows, or a faint green quickens, like a turning leaf, in the hollow of the wave. Night, however, succeeds to night. The winter holds a pack of them in store and deals them equally, they darken. Some of them hold aloft clear planets, plates of brightness. The autumn trees, ravaged as they are, take on the flash of tattered flags kindling in the gloom of cool cathedral caves where gold letters on marble pages describe death in battle and how bones bleach and burn far away in Indian sands. The autumn trees gleam in the yellow moonlight, in the light of harvest moons, the light which mellows the energy of labour, and smooths the stubble, and brings the wave lapping blue to the shore.
> 
> It seemed now as if, touched by human penitence and all its toil, divine goodness had parted the curtain and displayed behind it, single, distinct, the hare erect; the wave falling; the boat rocking; which, did we deserve them, should be ours always. But alas, divine goodness, twitching the cord, draws the curtain; it does not please him; he covers his treasures in a drench of hail, and so breaks them, so confuses them that it seems impossible that their calm should ever return or that we should ever compose from their fragments a perfect whole or read in the littered pieces the clear words of truth. For our penitence deserves a glimpse only; our toil respite only.
> 
> The nights now are full of wind and destruction; the trees plunge and bend and their leaves fly helter skelter until the lawn is plastered with them and they lie packed in gutters and choke rain pipes and scatter damp paths. Also the sea tosses itself and breaks itself, and should any sleeper fancying that he might find on the beach an answer to his doubts, a sharer of his solitude, throw off his bedclothes and go down by himself to walk on the sand, no image with semblance of serving and divine promptitude comes readily to hand bringing the night to order and making the world reflect the compass of the soul. The hand dwindles in his hand; the voice bellows in his ear. Almost it would appear that it is useless in such confusion to ask the night those questions as to what, and why, and wherefore, which tempt the sleeper from his bed to seek an answer.


Two important points here. First the destruction alludes to, in scientific terms, entropy, the law of nature (2nd law of thermodynamics for those interested  :Wink:  I am an engineer you know) that states that nature evolves to chaos and disorder. I'm fairly confident that Woolf is specifically thinking of entropy. It was something discussed in her day and the dramatisation describes it perfectly, even the concept of rusting. From Merriam-Webster: entropy: "2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder." Second, that middle paragraph I quoted lifts the conflict into a devine level. Entropy, the forces of destruction, is from God himself, and the human toil is Mrs. R's fight. (Remember this passage from chapter 10 of part I: "A sort of transaction went on between them, in which she was on one side, and life was on another, and she was always trying to get the better of it, as it was of her; and sometimes they parleyed (when she sat alone); there were, she remembered, great reconciliation scenes; but for the most part, oddly enough, she must admit that she felt this thing that she called life terrible, hostile, and quick to pounce on you if you gave it a chance.") 

And so you can read on about the destruction of the house and the lives and the eleven years that pass. It is also interesting to see how Mrs. McNab, the housekeeper of sorts,relates to a imaginary Mrs. Ramsey during this time. But she is ultimately asked to prepare the house again, and the human effort to combat entropy, the destructive force of nature, is dramatised:



> If the feather had fallen, if it had tipped the scale downwards, the whole house would have plunged to the depths to lie upon the sands of oblivion. But there was a force working; something not highly conscious; something that leered, something that lurched; something not inspired to go about its work with dignified ritual or solemn chanting. Mrs McNab groaned; Mrs Bast creaked. They were old; they were stiff; their legs ached. They came with their brooms and pails at last; they got to work. All of a sudden, would Mrs McNab see that the house was ready, one of the young ladies wrote: would she get this done; would she get that done; all in a hurry. They might be coming for the summer; had left everything to the last; expected to find things as they had left them. Slowly and painfully, with broom and pail, mopping, scouring, Mrs McNab, Mrs Bast, stayed the corruption and the rot; rescued from the pool of Time that was fast closing over them now a basin, now a cupboard; fetched up from oblivion all the Waverley novels and a tea-set one morning; in the afternoon restored to sun and air a brass fender and a set of steel fire-irons. George, Mrs Basts son, caught the rats, and cut the grass. They had the builders. Attended with the creaking of hinges and the screeching of bolts, the slamming and banging of damp-swollen woodwork, some rusty laborious birth seemed to be taking place, as the women, stooping, rising, groaning, singing, slapped and slammed, upstairs now, now down in the cellars. Oh, they said, the work!


Notice also follwing this how Mrs. McNab (she is a parallel figure to Mrs. Ramsey) also brings people together through tea and food and gossip, and unlike the all the other characters also has children. And so it is "finished," the human effort to combat entropy. Human effort is an organizing principle, the opposite of chaos. 



> At last, after days of labour within, of cutting and digging without, dusters were flicked from the windows, the windows were shut to, keys were turned all over the house; the front door was banged; it was finished.
> 
> And now as if the cleaning and the scrubbing and the scything and the mowing had drowned it there rose that half-heard melody, that intermittent music which the ear half catches but lets fall; a bark, a bleat; irregular, intermittent, yet somehow related; the hum of an insect, the tremor of cut grass, dissevered yet somehow belonging; the jar of a dorbeetle, the squeak of a wheel, loud, low, but mysteriously related; which the ear strains to bring together and is always on the verge of harmonising, but they are never quite heard, never fully harmonised, and at last, in the evening, one after another silence falls. With the sunset sharpness was lost, and like mist rising, quiet rose, quiet spread, the wind settled; loosely the world shook itself down to sleep, darkly here without a light to it, save what came green suffused through leaves, or pale on the white flowers in the bed by the window.


The phrase "it is finished" is quite significant to the novel, but I won't get into that now; hold it for the end. What's interesting is that second paragraph where I can't help but feel that Woolf is alluding to the spirit of Mrs. Ramsey, returned. "that intermittent music which the ear half catches but lets fall; a bark, a bleat; irregular, intermittent, yet somehow related; the hum of an insect, the tremor of cut grass, dissevered yet somehow belonging; the jar of a dorbeetle, the squeak of a wheel, loud, low, but mysteriously related" all suggests a spiritual interaction, and what spirit is around everyone but that of Mrs. Ramsey.




> Fecundity does not equal heroic. I know you mean all of the above, but I really do not agree. If anything I see futility in her actions. Not that it is her fault, it is only human. The very things she strives for, the various matings she champions especially...are not successful. 
> Maybe that is what Woolf in her own depressed state of mind was saying, no matter how we plan, no matter what machinations we finagle, if we try to force issues, or people into our mold of what we think they should be or do, we fail. The falling apart of the house, the inexorable sweeping of the lighthouse....all show this.


So you think that Woolf is advocating we give up and commit suicide? You think she's advocating that no one procreate, no children be born, just go and paint our little pictures and let human life extinguish?

From M-W:
*heroic*

Main Entry: 1he·ro·ic 
Pronunciation: hi-'rO-ik also her-'O- or hE-'rO-
Variant(s): also he·ro·ical /-i-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, resembling, or suggesting heroes especially of antiquity
2 a : exhibiting or marked by courage and daring b : supremely noble or self-sacrificing
3 a : of impressive size, power, extent, or effect <heroic doses> <a heroic voice> b (1) : of great intensity : EXTREME, DRASTIC <heroic effort> (2) : of a kind that is likely only to be undertaken to save a life <heroic surgery>
4 : of, relating to, or constituting drama written during the Restoration in heroic couplets and concerned with a conflict between love and honor 

I advocate that Mrs. Ramsey is marked by courage, supremely noble, and self-sacrificing. And yes fecundity is heroic in the battle against nature. Nature as portrayed here is the force that destroys life; fecundity is the means of creating life.

----------


## plainjane

> So you think that Woolf is advocating we give up and commit suicide? You think she's advocating that no one procreate, no children be born, just go and paint our little pictures and let human life extinguish?
> 
> From M-W:
> *heroic*
> 
> Main Entry: 1he·ro·ic 
> Pronunciation: hi-'rO-ik also her-'O- or hE-'rO-
> Variant(s): also he·ro·ical /-i-k&l/
> Function: adjective
> ...



I reiterate, I do not find Mrs. Ramsay "heroic" in any shape, form, or manner.

You know I had not thought so much that Woolf was advocating suicide, but really -- perhaps in a very subterranean manner she was. How many times in her life did she actually try to commit suicide?

----------


## Virgil

> I reiterate, I do not find Mrs. Ramsay "heroic" in any shape, form, or manner.


 :FRlol:  Ok I guess we disagree. 




> You know I had not thought so much that Woolf was advocating suicide, but really -- perhaps in a very subterranean manner she was. How many times in her life did she actually try to commit suicide?


No one in this novel commits suicide. The novel stands as it's own work. Mrs R touches the lives of every character in the novel. And she fights the impossible battle of life itself, and if you sum up all the religious references that run through the novel is fighting God himself against human injustices. Yes i call that heroic.

----------


## Janine

Wow, lots of action in this thread tonight. I briefly read some of the posts, but am watching a film presently, so I will answer some of this tomorrow. Glad to see a resurgence of interest in this thread.

----------


## Quark

> Good post, *Quark,* but not sure I agree on all points.


Sigh. We never do. 




> Why can't Lily be referring to Banks in a loving way but only as a friend? This is the way I took it. I've had many male friends I could easily say I love. I don't think she ever entertained thoughts of marrying William Bankes but maybe I am wrong. The statement prior to the last 4 words seems to indicate that he was her friend. She says that "Indeed, his friendship had been one of the pleasures of her life." I think I have felt that way about a true male friend, and never entertained thoughts of having a close physical relationship or marriage to them.


You're right. There is room to interpret her love for William Bankes as close friendship. I think it's romantic, but there's nothing conclusive. It's another "how like this novel": we have an ambiguous relationship.




> I don't see that she is forced into any position. Lily is quite independent and has a mind of her own. If she feels something for Mr. Ramsey it is of her free will that it happens. I don't detect him being aggressive with her or any indication of her being forced into the position of wife. She does not need to marry the man to offer sympathy, even flattery. Yes, Lily cannot fill another woman's role as a replacement - no one effectively could take the place of Mrs. Ramsey - we are all individuals after all. She has a different style than Mrs. Ramsey. I don't think Lily is 'in love' with Mr. Ramsey either, and I don't think she would marry just for convenience or to sooth Mr. Ramsey, so that I am not really sure what will happen at the close of the story.


I'll admit the word "forced" was a little strong. I didn't mean to suggest that Lily was coerced into coming back to the Ramsay household. I did mean to argue, though, that she was coerced into taking Mrs. Ramsay's place as the blanket which Mr. Ramsay can cry into. He does manipulate Lily--as he does to everyone around him--to give him the admiration and sympathy that he needs. Lily is independent still; she doesn't ever lose control of herself. She just has to appease Mr. Ramsay if she's going to live with their family. 





> I did not find closure in Mrs. Dalloway either.


You know I just bought a copy of that, so don't spoil it for me. As for the ending of this novel, I think I'll hold off commenting on that until I say something about the section section. I never posted anything on that while we were talking about it.




> I don't see Mrs. Ramsey as heroic but I see her with an inner beauty and strength and also much human fraility - she is human and feels many emotions and hurts and yet she is persistent in her way of life and keeping peace within her family. She is just plain a good hearted woman in my eyes, but no woman is a saint.


This is my estimation of Mrs. Ramsay, too: likable--maybe even great in some ways--but not heroic in the literary sense or effectual in the context of the novel.




> *Quark,* how does she believe that marriage will alow her to overcome mortality and change? I did not understand your statement to this effect. She may be always thinking and questioning and coming up with no definitive answers to these 'eternal' questions, but then how many of us do have all the answers? Again, she is only human with human fears and repressions and doubts and frustrations, etc., and many emotions beneath/hidden perhaps.


I posted something--pages and pages ago--where I put forward this idea, and no one really challenged it. I just thought I would let it float until it hit up against some skepticism. Now that it's bounced back to me I'll try to put something behind it. Hold on, actually. Let me repost my previous argument then we can go from there.

"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."




> I'm not sure how a character can or cannot understand the themes of the novel he/she is in, unless it were metafication.


Why not? We said isolation was a theme of the novel, and then we said that James, Mrs. Ramsay, and Mr. Ramsay each understood that kind of isolation. In fact, they probably understand that theme better than we do considering we base our understanding of it on their feelings. 




> Mrs. Ramsey does survive in the hearts of those she touched and in her surviving children. In our struggle to overcome the power of nature to wipe out life, marriage and children are the means of fighting the destructing forces that Woolf sees nature as. I'll post right after this something on the middle section. But Mrs. R is portrayed as a fertility goddess. Here chapter 7 of the first part:
> 
> She is fecundity, the mother of eight children, the one who's energy opposes the forces of sterilty and destruction. Woolf portrays a domestic situation in the novel but she projects heroic efforts from little actions. I'm sorry to diagree but Mrs Ramsey is supposed to be understood as heroic.


Yeah, Mrs. Ramsay does go forth and multiply. In a sense, she does overcome death and change, but is that the sense that the novel means those words? I don't know if the Ramsays anxieties are tied to their own death. I think it has more to do with their fear that their intellectual and social ambitions might be thwarted. What makes Mr. Ramsay unhappy is the realization that he can't write another great work of philosophy. He might never reach Z. Mrs. Ramsay suffers a similar dissatisfaction when she realizes that he charity isn't enough to stop the world's suffering. She won't be able to elucidate the entire social problem. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay have doubts about the importance of the work. Death and change both stand ready to claim all their greatest accomplishments. This is the mortality that they're afraid of.

The individual emotions of the characters--or as Lily describes them, "the very jar on the nerves, the thing itself before it has been made into anything"--do survive and bring the characters together. For example, we were talking about James and Mr. Ramsay's togetherness at the end of the novel. No social pleasantries prompt this closeness, it's caused by a communion of lonely feelings. They come together because they both understand that feeling of isolation in life. These feelings are what Lily is trying to represent. And, it's what Woolf is trying to represent. It's also what a lot of other Modernist try to represent. D.H. Lawrence referred to this same idea as "life" instead of "emotion", but the concepts are quite similar. 





> Two important points here. First the destruction alludes to, in scientific terms, entropy, the law of nature (2nd law of thermodynamics for those interested I am an engineer you know) that states that nature evolves to chaos and disorder. I'm fairly confident that Woolf is specifically thinking of entropy. It was something discussed in her day and the dramatisation describes it perfectly, even the concept of rusting. From Merriam-Webster: entropy: "2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder." Second, that middle paragraph I quoted lifts the conflict into a devine level. Entropy, the forces of destruction, is from God himself, and the human toil is Mrs. R's fight. (Remember this passage from chapter 10 of part I: "A sort of transaction went on between them, in which she was on one side, and life was on another, and she was always trying to get the better of it, as it was of her; and sometimes they parleyed (when she sat alone); there were, she remembered, great reconciliation scenes; but for the most part, oddly enough, she must admit that she felt this thing that she called life terrible, hostile, and quick to pounce on you if you gave it a chance.")
> 
> And so you can read on about the destruction of the house and the lives and the eleven years that pass. It is also interesting to see how Mrs. McNab, the housekeeper of sorts,relates to a imaginary Mrs. Ramsey during this time. But she is ultimately asked to prepare the house again, and the human effort to combat entropy, the destructive force of nature, is dramatised:


I don't know. Isn't Entropy more of a post-modernist invention. We associate the literary concept of Entropy with people like Thomas Pynchon and William Gaddis. In _JR_, for example, there's a great discussion of it. We might be getting a little ahead of ourselves if we say that Woolf was arguing that Entropy destroyed the Ramsay house. I think Woolf was trying to show that human ambitions can be defeated by nature--not human order, if that makes sense. Look at Andrew's death: I don't think Entropy killed him. Most likely, Woolf was trying to show the death of Mr. Ramsay's intellectual desires. Andrew was the brightest of the Ramsay children and he had some philosophical inclination. Mr. Ramsay concluded that it was alright if he didn't reach Z so long as someone else did. Obviously, he looked to Andrew to complete that goal. Woolf kills him in WW I to show that ideals, ambitions all change--not because the universe tends to chaos.

Wow, that was exhausting. So many people posting so quickly. There were a couple of other posts that I meant to respond to, but it will have to wait until I can get some sleep.

----------


## plainjane

> Ok I guess we disagree. 
> 
> 
> 
> No one in this novel commits suicide. The novel stands as it's own work. Mrs R touches the lives of every character in the novel. And she fights the impossible battle of life itself, and if you sum up all the religious references that run through the novel is fighting God himself against human injustices. Yes i call that heroic.


You are the one that brought up suicide, I had not really connected that, but 
Virginia Woolf committed suicide. If you think her frame of mind did not influence the characters, I don't know what did. 

Mrs. Ramsay fights life just like everyone else on the planet, with some less success _in my opinion._




> Ok I guess we disagree. 
> No one in this novel commits suicide. The novel stands as it's own work. Mrs R touches the lives of every character in the novel. And she fights the impossible battle of life itself, and if you sum up all the religious references that run through the novel is fighting God himself against human injustices. Yes i call that heroic.


I do think Woolf thought little of life, and that is what comes through for me. She disposes of Mrs. Ramsay, Prue and Andrew practically in one felled swoop, the life giving characters of the story. The house goes to rack and ruin, figuratively dies over the 10 years of neglect. I wonder why 10 years, the War only lasted a little over 4 years, but I digress, the neglect of the house is perhaps part of death process of the family.
The ones that are left are either too old, too young, or not likely to reproduce [like Lily]. Death of a generation? 

Woolf writes beautifully, and innovatively, no question about that. But her severe depression and sad outlook on life comes through in a blast in _To The Lighthouse_, and while I love Woolf's writing, in this book at least I feel her depression coming through in a blast.

You are right *Virgil*, there is no suicide in the book. But there is a dismissal of life that perhaps reflects Woolf's own.

----------


## Quark

> I do think Woolf thought little of life, and that is what comes through for me. She disposes of Mrs. Ramsay, Prue and Andrew practically in one felled swoop, the life giving characters of the story. The house goes to rack and ruin, figuratively dies over the 10 years of neglect. I wonder why 10 years, the War only lasted a little over 4 years, but I digress, the neglect of the house is perhaps part of death process of the family.
> The ones that are left are either too old, too young, or not likely to reproduce [like Lily]. Death of a generation? 
> 
> Woolf writes beautifully, and innovatively, no question about that. But her severe depression and sad outlook on life comes through in a blast in _To The Lighthouse_, and while I love Woolf's writing, in this book at least I feel her depression coming through in a blast.
> 
> You are right *Virgil*, there is no suicide in the book. But there is a dismissal of life that perhaps reflects Woolf's own.


plainjane, I like the new avatar. I could never quite make out the old one.

As for suicide, I don't think you can use Andrew's and Mrs. Ramsay's deaths as evidence for Woolf's fondness for death. Those characters' deaths are lamentable, and the surviving characters feel sharp pain at that loss--so does the reader I think. I think Andrew and Mrs. Ramsay had to die--really, I'm not saying this maliciously--because a great part of the book is about the failure of what those characters represent. But, that doens't mean that the book embraces death as better than life. And, I don't think even the biographical information would support this argument since Virginia Woolf was reportedly happy at that point in her life. Her mental disease--as she would come to call it--took over her life much later; and, even though she did choose death, I don't think she would have suggested that to her audience.

I'm not saying that there isn't any evidence for suicidal feelings in _To The Lighthouse_. I'm just saying that the biographical and textual information you gave to support that claim were a little weak.

----------


## plainjane

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

 :Goof:  Ratz... I hit the wrong button! 

I meant to add that originally I'd posted....


> But there is a dismissal of life that perhaps reflects Woolf's own.


 And I cannot back away from that.

----------


## 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  :Blush:  ) 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
> 
> ...


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.  :Tongue:   :FRlol:  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?


 :FRlol:  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.  :Smile:

----------


## 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.

----------


## Janine

> 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.


You know *Quark,* perhaps I should not have made that statement. I recall that when I first got to the middle section I felt a little thrown off but I felt too it added a bit of relief from the intensity of the first section. I think you might be right that in section one and section 3 Woolf really does exhibit her best writing ability - going deeply into the minds and thoughts of the characters. The center section, with quirpy interjections about the cleaning woman, is rather humorous at times. No one can doubt it is uniquely written and very well done, but when Woolf shines brightest is definitely within her characters. I think when you read "Mrs. Dalloway", you will experience this. A friend of mine told me her favorite Woolf novel is "The Waves". I should put that one on my list. I read only two so far, but TTLH I did read twice.

So in conclusion, I would agree that the powerful aspect of Woolf's writing is definitely in the characters and their thoughts and the straight prose style. But the poetic style of in descriptions is commendable, as well. I especially like the aspects of waves and the use of this as a metaphor to the changing of peoples lives and the ebb and flow of life.

----------


## Virgil

I wanted to make a few posts on the last part of the novel, "The Lighthouse" since this concludes the novel. For the most part there are two narratives running in parallel here, Lily completing her painting (and through her thoughts reaching a series of epiphanies) and Mr. Ramsey, James, and Cam sailing to the lighthouse.

Let's look at Lily's first epiphany. In part III her thoughts go from Charles Tansley to Mrs. Ramsey:



> Charles Tansley used to say that, she remembered, women cant paint, cant write. ... He sat, she remembered, working in a blaze of sun. At dinner he would sit right in the middle of the view. But after all, she reflected, there was the scene on the beach. One must remember that. It was a windy morning. They had all gone down to the beach. Mrs Ramsay sat down and wrote letters by a rock. She wrote and wrote. Oh, she said, looking up at something floating in the sea, is it a lobster pot? Is it an upturned boat? She was so short-sighted that she could not see, and then Charles Tansley became as nice as he could possibly be. He began playing ducks and drakes. They chose little flat black stones and sent them skipping over the waves. Every now and then Mrs Ramsay looked up over her spectacles and laughed at them. What they said she could not remember, but only she and Charles throwing stones and getting on very well all of a sudden and Mrs Ramsay watching them. She was highly conscious of that. Mrs Ramsay, she thought, stepping back and screwing up her eyes. (It must have altered the design a good deal when she was sitting on the step with James. There must have been a shadow.) When she thought of herself and Charles throwing ducks and drakes and of the whole scene on the beach, it seemed to depend somehow upon Mrs Ramsay sitting under the rock, with a pad on her knee, writing letters. (She wrote innumerable letters, and sometimes the wind took them and she and Charles just saved a page from the sea.) But what a power was in the human soul! she thought. That woman sitting there writing under the rock resolved everything into simplicity; made these angers, irritations fall off like old rags; she brought together this and that and then this, and so made out of that miserable silliness and spite (she and Charles squabbling, sparring, had been silly and spiteful) somethingthis scene on the beach for example, this moment of friendship and likingwhich survived, after all these years complete, so that she dipped into it to re-fashion her memory of him, and there it stayed in the mind affecting one almost like a work of art.


Again we see above the power of Mrs Ramsey, to make something out of "that miserable silliness and spite...somethingthis scene on the beach for example, this moment of friendship and likingwhich survived, after all these years complete." She, despite being dead now eleven years, is still the force which summons images and feelings. Lily's thoughts continue:




> Like a work of art, she repeated, looking from her canvas to the drawing-room steps and back again. She must rest for a moment. And, resting, looking from one to the other vaguely, the old question which traversed the sky of the soul perpetually, the vast, the general question which was apt to particularise itself at such moments as these, when she released faculties that had been on the strain, stood over her, paused over her, darkened over her. What is the meaning of life? That was alla simple question; one that tended to close in on one with years. The great revelation had never come. The great revelation perhaps never did come. Instead there were little daily miracles, illuminations, matches struck unexpectedly in the dark; here was one. This, that, and the other; herself and Charles Tansley and the breaking wave; Mrs Ramsay bringing them together; Mrs Ramsay saying, Life stand still here; Mrs Ramsay making of the moment something permanent (as in another sphere Lily herself tried to make of the moment something permanent)this was of the nature of a revelation. In the midst of chaos there was shape; this eternal passing and flowing (she looked at the clouds going and the leaves shaking) was struck into stability. Life stand still here, Mrs Ramsay said. Mrs Ramsay! Mrs Ramsay! she repeated. She owed it all to her.


"'Like a work of art,'" Lily says out loud, and thereby connecting Mrs. R's magic to her painting. Through Mrs. Ramsey Lily is trying to penetrate the most philosophic of questions: "What is the meaning of life? That was alla simple question; one that tended to close in on one with years. The great revelation had never come. The great revelation perhaps never did come." An impossible question to answer and it goes unanswered. Lily has felt throughout the novel that Mrs. R has the answer to that question. But she doesn't answer it, but here's Lily's epiphany:



> Instead there were little daily miracles, illuminations, matches struck unexpectedly in the dark; here was one. This, that, and the other; herself and Charles Tansley and the breaking wave; Mrs Ramsay bringing them together; Mrs Ramsay saying, Life stand still here; Mrs Ramsay making of the moment something permanent (as in another sphere Lily herself tried to make of the moment something permanent)this was of the nature of a revelation. In the midst of chaos there was shape; this eternal passing and flowing (she looked at the clouds going and the leaves shaking) was struck into stability. Life stand still here, Mrs Ramsay said. Mrs Ramsay! Mrs Ramsay! she repeated. She owed it all to her.


The small "daily miracles, illuminations, matches struck in the dark," those are what make life worthwhile, what makes the struggle worthy. In the midst of chaos (nature and its movement toward entropy) there is the human mind, consciousness, giving shape, providing order, creating form. Mrs R by inviting people to her home on the beach, by soothing egos, by entertaining in a dinner party while bringing people together, makes "Life stand still here," just like Lily is doing in her painting that very moment.

----------


## Quark

I like these quotes, Virgil. You're right that Lily and Mrs. Ramsay are connected. I don't know--maybe connected isn't the right word. Their relationship is pretty one way. Most of the novel is about Lily admiring Mrs. Ramsay. There are some parts where we see that Mrs. Ramsay likes Lily, but it never rises to the level of profound respect that Lily has for Mrs. Ramsay. Lily worships Mrs. Ramsay because she's the solution to her problems as an artist. Mrs. Ramsay has all the mastery of form that Lily wishes she could have. And, when Lily is painting, she is very much like Mrs. Ramsay. Both are trying to bring things together. Lily, though, has more difficulty with this. She puts the question to herself of how to connect this with that in her painting; and, she's stumped. She can't move forward. Mrs. Ramsay, however, is quite adept at doing this, and this easy skill draws Lily to her. 

Your last observation brings nature into the discussion.




> The small "daily miracles, illuminations, matches struck in the dark," those are what make life worthwhile, what makes the struggle worthy. In the midst of chaos (nature and its movement toward entropy) there is the human mind, consciousness, giving shape, providing order, creating form. Mrs R by inviting people to her home on the beach, by soothing egos, by entertaining in a dinner party while bringing people together, makes "Life stand still here," just like Lily is doing in her painting that very moment.


"Entropy" is kind of a specific concept that states that the universe is chaotic , and that it rejects human efforts to control, change, or understand it. I don't think this is really the right way to define nature in this story. You're right to suggest that the old Romantic temperament that viewed the environment as a symbol for the soul is gone in this novel. Woolf in an outpouring of metaphor narrates, 
_
"marvel how beauty outside mirrored beauty within. Did Nature supplement what man advanced? Did she complete what he began? With equal complacence she saw his misery, condoned his meanness, and acquiesced in his torture. That dream, then, of sharing, completing, finding in solitude on the beach an answer, was but a reflection in a mirror, and the mirror itself was but the surface glassiness which forms in quiescence when the nobler powers sleep beneath?... to pace the beach was impossible; contemplation was unendurable; the mirror was broken"_

Instead of an empathic, spiritual universe, the author describes the environment that is enigmatic--but not unsolvable. "Entropy" would go to far. The mirror has shattered, yes, but there is a cause. If we look earlier in the book--just one paragraph before what I just quoted--we see a naval vessel intrude upon the scene. 

_“There was the silent apparition of an ashen-coloured ship for instance, come, gone; there was a purplish stain on the bland surface of the sea as if something had boiled and bled, invisibly, beneath. This intrusion into a scene calculated to stir the most sublime reflections and lead to the most comfortable conclusions stayed their pacing. It was difficult blandly to overlook them; to abolish their significance in the landscape; to continue, as one walked by the sea, to marvel how beauty outside mirrored beauty within."_

The ship breaks the connection that Woolf believed we once had to nature--just as WW I causes the elements to rage against each other. But, when the war is done, is the world still beyond human understanding. Read the last part of that chapter:

_"Then indeed peace had come. Messages of peace breathed from the sea to the shore. Never to break its sleep any more, to lull it rather more deeply to rest, and whatever the dreamers dreamt holily, dreamt wisely, to confirm—what else was it murmuring—as Lily Briscoe laid her head on the pillow in the clean still room and heard the sea. Through the open window the voice of the beauty of the world came murmuring, too softly to hear exactly what it said—but what mattered if the meaning were plain?"_

Now that WW I is over, nature is espousing peace and tranquility. But, unlike before, the message that the universe gives is obscure and hard to understand. Woolf says that nature murmurs "too softly to hear" with a meaning that isn't "plain". It isn't that the world is naturally chaotic. There is meaning and order; it's just difficult to detect. 

There is a negative, counter-human influence in the novel. It's death. Mortality is both a mover of the plot and a mental centerpiece for many of the characters. It takes both Mrs. Ramsay and Andrew. It also sets a limit for what Mr. Ramsay's intellectualism and Mrs. Ramsay's politeness can hope to achieve. Virgil, I can see how you might conflate Entropy with mortality. There are long passages describing tumultuous storms followed by a decaying home. You might believe that there is some proclivity towards disorder. But, when you read closely the text that gives us these images, you'll see that there are causes. The world in _To The Lighthouse_ is complicated but not incomprehensible.

----------


## Virgil

> Now that WW I is over, nature is espousing peace and tranquility. But, unlike before, the message that the universe gives is obscure and hard to understand. Woolf says that nature murmurs "too softly to hear" with a meaning that isn't "plain". It isn't that the world is naturally chaotic. There is meaning and order; it's just difficult to detect.


But isn't the peace and tranqulity variable, whimsical? It comes and it goes in a chaotic manner too. And you might be able to lump human whims in there too.

I wouldn't hold Woolf to a scientific definition of entropy. I'm fairly certain she is conscious of it (she even mentions rust at the beginning of "Time Passes, and rust is a classic example of entropy) but I think she's just suggesting the power of nature to overwhelm human struggles for order, and thereby human struggles to create art.

----------


## Quark

> But isn't the peace and tranqulity variable, whimsical? It comes and it goes in a chaotic manner too. And you might be able to lump human whims in there too.


If by variable you mean changing then yes it is. If by whimsical you mean random then no it's not. If reality were beyond understanding and fundamentally absurd, how could Lily paint? Why would Woolf point out that "The war, people said, had revived their interest in poetry"? These are human struggles to create art that succeed. In the Time Passes section, the Ramsay's house does rust and decay, and there is seemingly aimless violence in nature. But, all of the destruction and loss in that part are framed as a small part of a larger cycle. After the raging storm in the second part, Woolf poetically summarizes the previous scenes:

_"Nothing it seemed could break that image, corrupt that innocence, or disturb the swaying mantle of silence which, week after week, in the empty room, wove into itself the falling cries of birds, ships hooting, the drone and hum of the fields, a dogs bark, a mans shout, and folded them round the house in silence. Once only a board sprang on the landing; once in the middle of the night with a roar, with a rupture, as after centuries of quiescence, a rock rends itself from the mountain and hurtles crashing into the valley, one fold of the shawl loosened and swung to and fro. Then again peace descended; and the shadow wavered; light bent to its own image in adoration on the bedroom wall; and Mrs McNab, tearing the veil of silence with hands that had stood in the wash-tub, grinding it with boots that had crunched the shingle, came as directed to open all windows, and dust the bedrooms."_

The whole storm--WW I and all--are considered to be one event that happens every hundred years. Soon, peace and order are restored. But, things have changed since the storm. Reality has become more subtle and difficult to see objectively. Nature still has a purpose and a meaning; it's often referred to as a force or power. That force, though, has become complex. This leads to the need for poets and painters--like Carmichael and Lily. And, it also motivates Woolf to write. On the Chekhov thread I brought up Woolf's response to Chekhov. I think it sounds very similar to Woolf view of reality, so I'll post it here. She says, "We need a very daring and alert sense of literature to make us hear the tune, and in particular those last notes which complete the harmony".




> I wouldn't hold Woolf to a scientific definition of entropy. I'm fairly certain she is conscious of it (she even mentions rust at the beginning of "Time Passes, and rust is a classic example of entropy) but I think she's just suggesting the power of nature to overwhelm human struggles for order, and thereby human struggles to create art.


The reason I keep rephrasing "Entropy" is that "Entropy" means absurdity. Nowhere is that a theme. There is loss and change as described by the second part, but this isn't a movement towards absurdity.

----------


## Virgil

> The reason I keep rephrasing "Entropy" is that "Entropy" means absurdity. Nowhere is that a theme. There is loss and change as described by the second part, but this isn't a movement towards absurdity.


Entropy doesn't mean absurdity. It means non-order, the opposite of what an artist does.

----------


## Quark

> Entropy doesn't mean absurdity. It means non-order, the opposite of what an artist does.


Well, I wasn't meaning absurdity as in like comic absurdity. I meant the philosophical sense; that people cannot properly understand reality because it's naturally chaotic and disordered. Like you said, Entropy means non-order, but now you have to prove that non-order is a theme.

----------


## quasimodo1

First law of entropy states that systems, without maintenence, devolve from a state of order to various levels of disorder, and finally to chaos.

----------


## Jozanny

I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to chime in and say that _To The Lighthouse_ is the Woolf masterwork, in my estimation. Been some time since I've read it, and I am not sure where my tattered paperback from college is, and so I cannot make any detailed arguments, but it straddles fairy tale literature and psychological realism with just the right balance (unlike Orlando), and equally holds the reader suspended between humor and pathos.

If I had been around earlier I would have been able to join in the discussion without having to chase after the text!

----------

