Virginia Woolf

[novella]

Hey, Novella. Just wanted to say "hey".

Aside: (How's it hangin', smirk?)

 

[SFG75]

Novella, this isn't the first time that you jumped in on something in a half-measured way. You did so in the Cather thread when I mentioned an article she wrote for The Nation. You disagreed without any citations or direct quotes, let alone disagreeing while having read the article that she wrote. And now you are doing likewise here.

First, Ramsey is not a ‘warts and all kind of guy.’ He’s the hero of the story.

The fact that he is adored by his wife and is respected by Tansley and the others does not change the aspects of his character. I have quoted specifically the lines about his character. You said you disagreed and provided nothing.

Haven’t you read the whole book?

Trolling

He walks like a god among everyone at the house, and they all project their insecurities and desires onto him. Each other character measures him or herself against Mr. Ramsey and what they imagine his life to be. He is the only self-contained character in the book, the only person who is not constantly changed by the moods of those around him. On the other hand, everyone else in the book, by turns, abhors and then adores him.

To the children, the abhorrence is due to his negativity about ever going to the lighthouse. Lets look at the descriptor again on this:

. . .his own children, who sprung from his loins, should be aware from childhood that life is difficult; facts uncrmopomising;and the passage to that fabled land where our brightest hopes are exinguished, our frail barks founder in darkness...

Is there an upside, yes, but that doesn't cancel out how his general demeanor is.

He’s the Sun in their universe. Contrary to raising his children with 'true grit and disappointment' he sets the world right, with measured fatherly gestures.

That's only half of it. You don't credit the "hate" of the love-hate dynamic. You quote mine and then run over to the other extreme. Yes,he is love and adored. While the Mrs. doesn't like it that he crushes the children's hopes about the lighthouse, she does love him. There is one particular scene where he is reading and she is nearby knitting looking out the window. There is a bit of flirty game there, one that is unsaid and oen that is very memorable to her.

Similarly, there is no ‘conflict’ between Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey.

I've already proved you wrong on this by citing a reference. The love-hate dynamic also reveal this as well. The unflattering portrayals in the beginning and the loving lines that come after it clearly bear out this conflict.

Who, in the cast of characters, is truly superficial and venal, socially porous, and full of clouded judgments, and who is true to him or her self?

This is your biggest mistake of all. It isn't about who is more daft or stupid in the end. No one's world viewpoint is necessarily judged as being superior to another, nor is that alluded to. It isn't about whose path in life was the best and meaningful. The book is not so much about a distinct plot and the events as being so literal. It is about subjective reality and the impermanence of this life.

Take this line:

How aimless it was, how chaotic, how unreal it was, she thought, looking at her empty coffee cup. Mrs. Ramsey dead;Andrew killed; Pruse dead too-repeatit as she might, it roused no feeling in her.

The mother line of all....

The great revelation had never come. The grat 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. Ramsey saying "Life standing still here"; Mrs. Ramsay making of the moment somthing permanent. . .this was of the nature of a revelation. In the midst of chaos there was shape;: this eternal passing and flowing.

 

[SFG75]

No, actually, I wasn't which is very clear in the post (and why you've taken it out of context). It refers very specifically to that relationship.

A close reading of the text shows no constant conflict at all. She is, as I said before, alternately adoring and resentful, as is the case with most close relationships when looked at through the moment-to-moment inner voices of any individual.

So Harvard students(who created sparknotes) are incorrect about the constant conflict of the Ramsey's and you're right? Sorry, I just don't buy it one bit. Those sources are problematic in being a bit too pithy, I have yet to encounter how you think they are wrong in their assessment of the book. Any specific elaboration on your part would be greatly appreciated.

 

[novella]

So you're intimidated and impressed by anyone who goes to Harvard? Ha.

That Sparknote was written by a couple of wankers--David Hopson and Brian Phillips-- in the offices of Spark Publishing in NY. They write sparknotes for a living. Oooo, I'm really impressed. I was doing such work twenty years ago.

 

[SFG75]

So you're intimidated and impressed by anyone who goes to Harvard? Ha.

That Sparknote was written by a couple of wankers--David Hopson and Brian Phillips-- in the offices of Spark Publishing in NY. They write sparknotes for a living. Oooo, I'm really impressed. I was doing such work twenty years ago.

So you helped to feed the beast?, interesting. Actually, anyone can do that. There is a tab that you can hit to report errors. I would encourage you to let them know about their error in regards to the Ramseys.

 

[novella]

No, I never wrote sparknotes. I was a staff writer in NYC for quite a while. If the 'beast' that you refer to is the reader, then I guess I did and do feed the beast.
Nothing wrong with that. Nothing magical either.

I find your blind faith in sparknotes really funny.

 

[SFG75]

No, I never wrote sparknotes. I was a staff writer in NYC for quite a while. If the 'beast' that you refer to is the reader, then I guess I did and do feed the beast.
Nothing wrong with that. Nothing magical either.

I find your blind faith in sparknotes really funny.

LOL-I'll be sure to post something if I find your summationof what the book is about backed up in any way. Haven't found anything yet.

 

[sirmyk]

Aside: (How's it hangin', smirk?)

Sorta to the left.

 

[Anamnesis]

I recently completed To The Lighthouse for one of my college courses. As confusing as this book was, it was also a much more enjoyable read than Orlando (the other Virginia Woolf book I read). While I won't be getting to it right away I would like to give To the Lighthouse a second try because I know I missed many, many details/observations.

 

[silverseason]

While I won't be getting to it right away I would like to give To the Lighthouse a second try because I know I missed many, many details/observations.

You will be cheered to hear that there really is a lighthouse in St. Ives. I saw it from the town, but did not visit.

I read the earlier dispute in this thread about whether or not there was conflict between the Ramsays. Of course there was conflict. There is conflict in every relationship, sometimes expressed, sometimes suppressed. They may have loved each other madly, but that doesn't mean there was no conflict.

 

[Polly Parrot]

BBC Radio 4 has started broadcasting The Waves. If you're in the UK, or anywhere else where you can get the iPlayer to work, you can listen to its first instalment.

 

[SFG75]

Just picked up a 1942 printed version of The Death of the Moth and other Essays. Evening over Sussex is an early favorite of mine so far. This is definitely not a series of essays to fly through. Minor works, but rich ones.