All About Books discussion

Better late than never. Here is the thread for the discussion of A Room of One's Own by Virginia Woolf.

Looking forward to reading this, heard really good things about it.

Just bought it on kindle.

Hope you enjoy it Alannah - I'm really loving it so far!

I read it and loved it. I am just waiting for the discussion to start. I am eager to follow the points discussed.

I've just ordered it from my library.

Found a 99c Kindle version, so just bought it (my first ever Kindle purchase, hurray!) Then bought three other classics :D

I'll start it retourning from the seaside in september ...

I won't be rereading this, but just wanted to add that I loved it! Very of its time, well written and quick to get through...plus not half as difficult to grasp as her fiction!

Pink wrote: "I won't be rereading this, but just wanted to add that I loved it! Very of its time, well written and quick to get through...plus not half as difficult to grasp as her fiction!"

That is really good to hear.

I finished the book last night and I thought it was excellent. Woolf's thesis that a woman needs money and a (locked) room of her own to be creative is as true today as it was when she wrote this in 1928. I came of age as a professional nurse in the mid 1970s, and at that time sexism was still rampant. My parents paid for my older brother's college education, but since I was a female and unlucky enough not to be getting married at age 17, I was on my own. I got a nursing scholarship and worked to put myself through school. I worked for a time as an OR nurse, and after the first time I scrubbed in with a locally famous surgeon, he pinched my rear and said "Good job, tootsie." Appalling. I think there are still many societal customs and mores that tend to keep women in an inferior position. Woolf talks so clearly about the potential of women writers and the existing prejudices of male writers. I found this book fascinating from a historical perspective as well. I'm inspired by reading this to find a good biography of Virginia Woolf.

About to start reading thism

this*.

Finished the second half of this today .. so many things to say, but first I need to gather my thoughts

I'm half-way through, but I can say that I have respect for Woolf as a person. I'll hurry up and try to finish it asap :)

Alice, technically the read goes through September; so you're still early :) I think many haven't read it yet.

Thanks for reminding me! I'm presently also reading Jenny but am near the end already.

Terri, that surgeon does sound appalling!

I will be starting this in the end of the month, so Alice, no need to rush!

Really enjoyed reading this. Not sure what I was expecting but it was really interesting.

I've just finished this and have rated it 4 stars. The book resonates with me generally and on a personal level.

Here's my review if anyone is interested:-

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

A coincidence: I just bought a book by Sigrid Undset on the Lives of Saints (Stages on the Road) and as I gave a general look into it, I came across a footnote citing A Room of One's Own. So I will just give what was inside the book and the footnote.

From the book:

The other day I came across a book which illustrates in a rather droll way the extent to which Northern European women have taken it for granted that this peculiar North European form of the subjection of women since the Reformation was characteristic of the whole past of Europe.It was a little essay written by an English writer, Virginia Woolf - I confess that it is all I have read of hers, but she is said to have a great reputation as a novelst. A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN she calls it, and it tells of a visit to one of the old English universities. And she draws a comparison between the wealth of these universities, resulting from the liberality and cultural interest of generations, and the unsightly poverty of the new little women's college. And in searching for the reason of women having made so small a contribution to art and science she believes it to be due to the conditions of life with which woman has always had to be content-nt even a room of her own in which to study or work have the men ever been willing to grant her. And she indulges her fancy as to the tragical fate which must have awaited Shakespeare's sister, if she had had her brother's genius-since society was never disposed to tolerate, much less encourage the woman of genius.
To our minds, it is really odd to see how entirely Miss Woolf leaves the Catholic tradition out of account. She thinks that woman makes her entry into the history of English literature with Aphra Behn, a lady of rather doubtful reputation who, amongst other things, acted as a spy under Charles II; she wrote a great many novels and plays and had considerable talent. Curiously enough Miss Woolf seems to have forgotten two English women writers of the Middle Ages who made important contributions to mystical religious literature. Only fragments survive--enchanting fragments they are--of the work of Margery Kemp of Lynn; but Julian of Norwich's REVELATIONS OF THE DIVINE LOVE is accounted one of the pearls in all medieval religious literature, and there has been no lack of recent editions of the book--I myself have three that have been published in the last twenty years--nor of works about Julian and studies of her personality and her work and her relation to the religious and philosophic thought of her age

The Footnote states thus:

Since this was written I have read good deal of Virginia Woolf. That she is not only an extremely interesting and talented author, but an artist of high rank, is one of the greatest literary surprises I have met with. After A ROOM OF ONE'S OWN I am bound to say I had expected something very different.

How funny Dhanaraj, I thought of those writers when I was reading A Room of One's Own as well. I quite enjoyed The Book of Margery Kempe. I think though that these authors, while great, are not quite at the level of Shakespeare.

Also Kempe, like several of the other writers Woolf mentions, does devote some of her energy to grievances over the position of women. I think one of Woolf's points was that those personal grievances, such as the ones she points out in Jane Eyre, pervert the works of these women because the author's agenda trumps the unbiased truth of the characters. Woolf sees the highest art as that art where the author completely dissappears and the truth of the characters is all that matters. This is what she calls the "integrity" in writing that distinguishes masterworks. So the women of these periods (according to Woolf's argument), having so many restictions placed upon them, have just grievances and agendas that can't help but come out in their writing and pervert their works.

I don’t know - I find some flawed authors with strong agendas very entertaining to read, but I do understand her point.

I'm thinking she doesn't bring Kempe or Norwich up because they're non-fiction, and so much of the theory she's espousing applies best to fiction, plays, and perhaps poetry.

Personally I find Kempe and Julian of Norwich fascinating reads, however. I like reading the Christian mystics.

The point here was that woman could never write. Or that when she began to write there were lot of restrictions and she could not achieve writing anything. The division of fiction and non fiction comes later. It is the point of woman writing in Europe. She saw no woman writers before Aphra Behn. And Sigrid is right in pointing out a genre in which the women writers had already made their mark before Aphra.

It is not that I am pushing for Sigrid's points. But I too see a point in it. Of course, later she acknowledged V. Woolf's greatness as a writer. It is that a point was pointed out.

That could be true Dhanaraj - I'll need to check when I get home. Woolf made several points in the long essay.

One was the inability to write at all due to restrictions (financial and otherwise) - covered in the first 3 parts I think.

Another (in part 5 if I remember correctly) was that women authors who did write were not as high in art as men because they could not be impartial (due to their just grievances). Their agendas and grievances affected their art and made it about the author (when Woolf thinks that in the highest art the author dissappears).

I think Woolf does have a slightly dismissive attitude toward some earlier women writers (particularly in the first half of the book). I think Sigrid Undset has a valid point, and I appreciate you sharing it! I'm just imagining how Woolf would respond to the criticism.

It is a group read and we add to it whatever we could find. I came across a view and I wanted to add it to the discussion. Primarily that was my intention.

That's an interesting point that Sigrid Undset expressed. Thanks for quoting the source, Dhanaraj!

Before reading A Room of One's Own, I heard somebody quoting a source saying that Undset held the opinion that woman writers should focus more on writing about the female nature and female instinct, and surmising that Undset's contemporary Woolf might well share this opinion. After reading Woolf's essay, it is quite apparent to me that the two writers did in fact differ from one another on this point: Woolf said clearly that woman writers should best not let the female grievances show in their writing (as Greg points out above), quoting Samuel Coleridge's saying that "a great mind is androgynous".

I'm wondering if it might be possible that Woolf didn't mention those two English woman writers because she thought their deeply religious (Catholic) stance had compromised the impartiality of their writing and thus dismissed them. Just a wild guess! My gut feeling is that Woolf was a liberal minded person.

Sounds good Dhanaraj. I'm glad you did!

Good points Alice.

I am actually still wrestling with Woolf's contention that in the best art the writer vanishes. I don’t know if it's true, but then again I don’t know if I'm capable of recognizing what the "best" art is. I think many interesting works have come out of deep, personal grievances with society.

On the other hand, I do get Woolf's point that the agendas of the author disrupt what she calls the "integrity" of the work (since the writer's grievances can overpower the truth of the characters). But to be honest, sometimes I don't mind that as a reader.

I think of the Selected Poems of Claude McKay. Wow, major grievances with the social structure of the time and yet beautiful nonetheless.

Perhaps it all comes down to the type of narrator. With an unreliable narrator (and any book written deeply from the point of view of a single character can never have an 100% reliable narrator), I can accept an agenda and adjust my perception of the book accordingly since I know it's filtered through their point of view. Whether that view is skewed or not doesn't bother me at all. With more omniscient narrators, maybe the balance is more important, and that's where the "integrity" is more vital to maintain? Hmm.

I like that I'm still thinking about this clever essay. Some of her points I see immediately as true. Others I am still figuring out what I think.

Greg, I think you've made a very valid point too. My own take of Woolf's view is that woman writers should try to write fairly about her characters, male or female, without letting the typical female victimhood syndrome ruin the integrity of the story. As you rightly said, it depends a lot on the type of narrator, and using a single character's point of view throughout probably means a relative lack of credibility for the narrator. I think this is also what Woolf was trying to say: a balanced view is better than a skewed view where the sexes are concerned. Well, I may be wrong :)

No I think you're absolutely right Alice! She certainly talks primarily in terms of gender and exactly as you say. I think though that what she says could be extended to other situations as well (carrying forward her logic).

Another fascinating thing is that she doesn't talk about this attitude of victimhood necessarily as a conscious choice. It's an attitude (possibly subconscious) in the writer that's born out of what's been done to them. For instance, toward the beginning of part 4: "her mind was disturbed by alien emotions like fear and hatred and that her poems showed traces of that disturbance."

For Woolf the very best writer doesn't show traces of disturbance. Toward the end of part 3: "The reason ... we know so little of Shakespeare ... is that his grudges and spites and antipathies are hidden from us. We are not held up by sone 'revelation' which reminds me of the writer .... Therefore his poetry flows from him free and unimpeded." For her, the best authors are invisible because they're completely absorbed into the characters.

I also like later in part 4 when she talks about the limited world-experience of women writers of the period who couldn't travel or "go out alone" and how that limits the scope of their writing.

And for all that, I find women writers of the 1800s every bit as enthralling as their male counterparts. In the middle ages, I have to admit that's not necessarily true. There's several women writers of the period I like (such as Kempe), but none of them write quite as beautifully as Shakespeare. What a wonder it would have been if Woolf's hypothetical "Shakespeare's sister" had been provided for, educated, encouraged, and supported! I wonder what other wonders of literature we could have enjoyed!

Well said, Greg. I couldn't have said it any better! I do admire Woolf for her clear thinking and sense of fairness. I must read some of her novels, beginning with To the Lighthouse :)

To get into the character is the aim of any writer. And when a character speaks it must be the character that speaks and not the author who has written it. In that sense, V. Woolf is right. But to be completely devoid of any influence is something very difficult to fathom. For the character itself is part of a particular era. And when expressing a character in a particular era the influence is inevitable. Or else one can avoid it writing purely fictional works which have no basis in real life.
I think what V. Woolf said was that any work of art should not be overtly preaching or judgmental or condemning. The real presentation of characters in a particular context, be it a male or a female or a child, is very important to her. That is what she did in TO THE LIGHTHOUSE.

Some good points Dhanaraj.

I agree that Woolf writes that the character must speak, not the author. And I also agree that throughout A Room of One's Own it becomes clear that the real presentation of characters in a particular context is very important to her.

It is a pleasure to participate in this lively discussion about Woolf!

Such an interesting discussion! I am not into the book far enough to really be joining , but from reading both Undset and Woolf it appears to me that they tackle the 'women and literature- question' from fairly different points of views.

I'll come back here when I am a bit further in.

I found in article yesterday in the London Review of Books about the private Virginia Woolf, art, her sense of dress and who's verdict on her choice of coat she'd be fearing and of course: her writing. Here it is: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/jean-mcn...

I've finished reading this today and I am still in contemplation mode to be honest. But I already know that I liked this a lot. I like how even in non-fiction, and in delivering a talk of sorts one can feel her rather unique creative potential. And I can only imagine the effect she had on her listeners at the time of giving the talk. Even now, much later, and from a woman's perspective of times much changed, I feel her words resonate deeply.

Thanks for the interesting link, Jenny! Woolf seemed to have a good fashion sense, but far too sensitive to others' opinions about it.

I just finished reading this this morning and I have to admit, I really had to force myself to keep reading.

I just didn't get it - maybe it is because I was raised by a feminist who always told her three daughters that women can do anything a man can do and most likely will do it better.

To me the book was just a feminist rant about inequality. The constant undertone of bitterness was a turn-off to me.

I know there is something that I am missing since this book/series of essays is a classic - maybe I am just not intelligent enough to "get" it.

@ Beth: What was your opinion about V. Woolf's literary analysis of some of the writers? It is sad that we limit it just to 'feminist' views. I think, it is more than that. Surely, in that sense you might have got something new from the book. For instance, the way she speaks of Jane Austen was a pleasant surprise to me. And also the light manner she made fun of Shakespeare's fame.

Dhanaraj wrote: "@ Beth: What was your opinion about V. Woolf's literary analysis of some of the writers? It is sad that we limit it just to 'feminist' views. I think, it is more than that. Surely, in that sense yo..."
The part of the book I most enjoyed was her discussion about Jane Austen (who I love) - I guess part of my issue is that I just don't buy into the notion that a woman needs "a room of one's own" and to be financially independent to be a writer.

Each one is entitled to his/her own opinion. And your opinion is interesting. I always thought that a 'Room/table of one's own' is necessary for a writer irrespective of the sex.

Dhanaraj wrote: "Each one is entitled to his/her own opinion. And your opinion is interesting. I always thought that a 'Room/table of one's own' is necessary for a writer irrespective of the sex."

I also am very interested in other's opinions on books and so I feel disappointed in myself when so many others see the value in a book and I do not - I assume that it is me and that I am missing something. Perhaps I will reread it at some point.

If a writer needs a room of one's own - how do we explain Jane Austen then? Who Woolf points out wrote all of her books in the sitting room, amongst her family, while hiding her writing from servants and friends? She made it work because she had the desire, the drive and certainly the talent - I love her writing so much - it is just perfect to me.

Beth, I like that you are honest and I think your mother was right to tell you what she did! As with everything, there is the personal truth and the larger social truth. It's similar to the disputes that happened between Booker T. Washington and other Black leaders in the late 18th century. The problem is this:

One side of the coin:

as an individual, it is best for us to believe we can do anything no matter what. If you believe it's impossible to do something, you've already lost. Hence your mother's very good advice! Hence also Booker T Washington's exhortations that people of his race do everything they could to educate themselves.

The other side of the coin

... but as a society, it's important for things to be as fair as possible, but unfortunately it has often not been so historically. At the times Woolf wrote about, there were numerous extra obstacles women faced. Here are some of her many points:

1. Part 3: Women were not equally educated; so they were not exposed to the genius of past writers like Horace and Virgil that could have made their writing better.

2. Part 3: Menial labors are draining to the body and spirit. The menial labors that even women of the middle class were forced to undergo made it harder for them to find the time and energy for writing.

3. Part 3: unlike their male counterparts, women were not encouraged to write. In fact, they were actively discouraged and hindered by society and their own relations. They were told writing was unwomanly.

4. Part 3: Women were banned from being actors, and this hindered them in the writing of dramas.

5. Part 4: women were prevented from going out alone or travelling; so their writing was forced into a limited scope of "drawing rooms" - this gave them a limited scope of experience to use in their writing

6. Part 4: the justified anger women felt at these restrictions damaged the "integrity" of their writing because their agendas affected the truth of their characters

7. Part 4: it was what men considered important that society valued; women adapted what they said to meet male criticism, and this affected the "integrity" of their work as well

So even if it was better for women as individuals to believe that they faced no obstacles and could do anything, it was simultaneously important to acknowledge and deal with the restrictions women faced so their collective future could be better.

I love one thing Woolf writes in part 2: "Great bodies of people are never responsible for what they do; they are driven by instincts that are not within their control." How subtle and incisive and how typical of Woolf to put her finger on the complex truth! Individuals are and must be totally & completely responsible for their actions, but when analyzing great bodies of men (social systems), that is just not enough. To stop there does a disservice. It's important to ask what is driving the actions of many, what corrals them, what restricts them, what impels them as a system.

That's why both Booker T. Washington and his critics could be right at once. Washington was speaking to his race as individuals to the betterment of them individually. His critics were concerned with the lynchings, the restrictions, the betterment of the social systems as a whole. Both are always necessary even though the two require a different focus and perspective.

Hopefully this doesn't just sound like lengthy rambling. Does it make sense?

It made a lot of sense and clearly, you read the book from a different perspective then I did. I guess to me it came off as a bit of a "whine" and as my daughters all know, whining never gets you anywhere with me!

I am not sure that you can compare the way women were treated to the way blacks were treated though - women were not enslaved in the same sense and it was never a crime for them to be educated - perhaps it was discouraged, but that is another thing entirely. Those who chose to read, to educate themselves (women I mean) seemed to do it - and I am not sure that traveling has much to do with the act of writing. Being well-traveled only means that you can write about different things, not that you can write well.

What I love most about Austen is her observations about people - she never needed to leave her small village to write about the various characters and their relationships. How wonderfully she describes Mrs. Bennett's silliness and Lydia's wildness and Mr. Bennett's desire to be left in his peace in his library only to emerge and make some dry, witty comments!

I guess ultimately, I don't agree with Woolf's perspective which made it difficult for me to like what she wrote.

Beth, I agree it's not quite as bad as slavery, but at many of the times Woolf was writing about, women were legally unable to own property, could be committed to mental institutions against their will, banned from many eduactional opportunities, legally banned from performing in a public play, etc. She is not only writing of her own time but of women writers historically.

While a few brilliant exceptions were able to overcome their circumstances, I do wonder how many more women writers there would have been without those restrictions. I wonder how much Austen's writing would have enlarged in scope with a bit more world experience. I wonder whether there would have been the female equivalent of Christopher Marlowe or William Shakespeare during their time.

I love Austen and many other earlier women writers, and I applaud them!

But there are clearly many more quality male writers in Shakespeare's time than women writers. One need only open a literature text covering that era to see it. But it's also just as clear that women are every bit as talented as men - one need only open a literature text covering modern times to see that! So there must have been some reason for the discrepancy other than talent then. And that's what Woolf is trying to come to grips with.

Beth, I agree with you about Austen by the way - her sharp observations of human nature & relationships, her wit & humor, her subtle social commentary, and her plain good sense - all of those make reading her books a pure delight!

All fair and accurate observations.

But since none of us can go back in time and alter the way that women were treated during Shakespeare's time - what was the point in writing about it?

Again, I thought it had an undertone of whining - "it wasn't fair". OK, it wasn't fair but in 1929 surely the landscape had changed quite a bit. Women were going to University and traveling, etc.

Greg wrote: "Beth, I agree with you about Austen by the way - her sharp observations of human nature & relationships, her wit & humor, her subtle social commentary, and her plain good sense - all of those make ..."

Agree completely!