Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "Room" questions

Expand Messages
  • anjabe_sp
    Hi, I cannot comment on your first question but regarding your second question - I had the same doubts and objections. I have just finsihed Woolf s biography
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 1, 2002

      I cannot comment on your first question but regarding your second
      question - I had the same doubts and objections. I have just finsihed
      Woolf's biography by her nephew Quentin Bell. It gave an interesting
      insight into how she lived, with whom she met and talked and why.
      When she wrote that she meant her particluar idea of writing and
      ideas. I think she was well aware that England had a very class-
      oriented society, she knew (and everybody else knew) which class they
      belonged to, she knew she could never write about characters from a
      different class than her own. But she had deep thoughts on
      literature, on writing, on the novel, and she made an important
      contribution to modern literature because she had the time to read
      all those other books, to talk to so many people, and the time to
      develop her ideas, she did not become a writer of passionate fiction
      int he narrow sense. But she had new ideas about how to change
      writing, to make it different. Her books were based on ideas more
      than experience. I think in her words she is referring to her own
      kind of writing that would not be possible under different
      Some interesting facts from the biography - throughout her life
      phases of happiness were interrupted by illnesses, feeling weak,
      headaches, and now and then mental problems. When she wrote a book
      that was important to her she struggled, it cost her a lot of energy
      and she usually fell ill afterwards, fearing the critics. This never
      changed, even with her fame. She usually wrote a "difficult" book,
      like To the lighthouse,The waves, and then a "light" book like
      Orlando or Flush. She developed her style as she developed her ideas,
      and she would not go back to what was before.
      By the way, I believe that acting is more like writing traditional
      novels, you want to create characters that come across as true. What
      Woolf did was more like inventing a new form, a new way of saying
      what happens, she wanted to inclue more of what goes on inside a
      character's mind, more feelings, intuitions.
      Maybe that'S why she objects to the portayal of Anna Karenina. She is
      portrayed as passionate, true to herself, I cried for her when I
      finsihed the book. But she is portrayed from the outside, we witness
      what happens to her but we don'T know why she does what she does, she
      is described rather than explored (difficult to say what I mean). If
      a woman had written the same story it would have come across
      differently, I think that is what Woolf wants to say with this
      I would love to read some more of her books now, but Vanity Fair is
      already claiming its place on my night table....
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.