Although *To the Lighthouse* was at first indecipherable to me, upon further reflection, I realized that, in trying to portray human experience in its entirety, it is a rather amazing work. As was brought up a few times during class, one of the major issues that this work tackles is the limits of human understanding, whether in the academic realm, as seen in Mr. Ramsay's self-effacement regarding his inability to reach R, or in the social realm—how one can achieve a certain unity with and objective understanding of people. A passage on page 51 (Chapter 9 in The Window) illustrates the difficulties that inevitably arise when trying to know someone: "[Lily] imagined how in the chambers of the mind and heart of the woman [. . .] were stood, like the treasures in the tombs of kings, tablets bearing sacred inscriptions [. . .] 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?" (51). Mrs. Ramsay too wonders about this: "How then did it work out, all this? How did one judge people, think of them?" (24, Chapter 4 in The Window).
This is a central question that the text explores and I'm interested in how you think Woolf addresses or resolves this question. The text itself seems to suggest that one cannot truly understand someone without distance and without objectivity, but besides the obvious, what else does the text say about this matter? How do you think the structure of the work and her stylistic choices mirror her views on the limits of understanding? How successful do you think the work is in trying to capture the full range of the human experience? Lastly, do you think that one can ever arrive at a complete understanding of someone else? It seems that in all the relationships in the book, no one arrives at a pure understanding of anyone else—Lily's epiphanous moment at the end ("Yes, she thought, laying down her brush in extreme fatigue, I have had my vision" (208, last page)) was a bit unconvincing to me if the implication was that Lily arrived at an understanding of Mrs. Ramsay through her art. So, lastly, please give your interpretations of the significance of Lily's painting and whether it seems realistic that art can create the depth of meaning that the text suggests.
Call me a romantic, but To the Lighthouse seriously lacks love and rebirth. I am disappointed that Lily does not end up with Charles Tansley, who Woolf gives subtle signals in "The Window" of being destined to be with Lily. Woolf writes, "They were both out of things, Mrs. Ramsay had been thinking, both Lily and Charles Tansley" (104). This special association between Charles Tansley and Lily as being out of place I thought was a means to explain an eventual coming together despite very different personalities. Lily has unconventional views for women in society and Charles is described as the man of the future in Mr. Bankes' thoughts: "[H]ere is the man. One was always waiting for the man... at any moment the leader might arise; the man of genius, in politics as in anything else. Probably he will be extremely disagreeable to us old fogies" (94). Charles and Lily needed to hook up. Since Lily does not marry, she never has children, and without children, there is no springtime for regeneration after the destructive winter that is World War I. Basically, the novel puts a huge emphasis on the passage of time, and decay as a function of time.
Furthermore, Woolf has an extremely negative view on love: "[F]or what could be more serious than the love of man for woman, what more commanding, more impressive, bearing in its bosom the seeds of death; at the same time these lovers, these people entering into illusion glittering eyed, must be danced round with mockery, decorated with garlands" (100). Woolf looks at man's love for woman as the seed of death, definitely for the woman who is the object but possibly for the man as well. That is pretty depressing. She looks at such love as an illusion that should be treated with mockery. Her word is choice is also somewhat biased against heterosexual love since it talks about man's love for a woman as being bad, but she never attacks woman's love for woman, and she had ample opportunity to do so with all of the Lily and Mrs. Ramsay moments.
Here are my questions: 1. Who has a more realistic portrayal of gender relations, Austen or Woolf? 2. Whose work (if either of them) gives you a better method to live one's life: Austen or Woolf? 3. (Bonus Question) Lily and Charles- should they have got together?
In a short and not very eventful discussion of *To the Lighthouse *I don't think we ever touched the subject of the lighthouse itself. I mean, there is a reason why the Lighthouse is mentioned in the title and with this discussion topic I hope to uncover what that reason is. Mr. Ramsey is always retreating to the lighthouse and Mrs. Ramsey is captivated by it. In fact, I think the most pervasive description of the lighthouse occurs toward the beginning of the novel, just after Mrs. Ramsey endures a harsh, verbal blow from her husband and has a private moment gazing at its light. "[P]ausing 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 nothing 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 joking, with her work in her hands until she became the thing she looked at--that light, for example" (63).
Years later, after the war has passed, the house has decayed and Mrs. Ramsey is gone, Cam, Mr. Ramsey, and James (his son and yet enemy) go sailing up to the lighthouse. Surprisingly, James describes the lighthouse as looking differently than it did when he was a child. To him, it was once "silvery" and "misty-looking" much like the bright, enchanting moments of his childhood, at least those moments spent with the Mrs. and not Mr. Ramsey. But then, when he actually gets close to the lighthouse he appears disturbed by the "stark, straight" appearance of the tower and the "barred" windows. The lighthouse up close, is not the lighthouse he witnesses from a distance. He then says that the Lighthouse is not the one (of the past) or the other (the present). It is simply "one thing." Why do you think Virginia continually and subtly chooses to allude to the lighthouse? What do you feel it represents? How important is this representation to the work or is it important at all?
~Elisabeth
I found one of the most interesting relationships to be the one between James and his father, especially as we see it throughout the third part of the book. The agreement between Cam and James to resist Mr. Ramsey's tyranny is brought up quite often, their secret contract that they will not give into his despotism. And then there is James' constant return to the idea of stabbing his father: "He had always kept this old symbol of taking a knife and striking his father to the heart" (page 184). But on the next page: "They alone knew each other. What then was this terror, this hatred?" I really loved this section, but I had trouble completely grasping it-he obviously cares deeply for his father (also-the section on page 206 where Mr. Ramsey congratulates James and Cam "knew that this was what James had been wanting...") but the relationship seems much more complicated than it should be. Even a comparison with Cam's relationship-she acknowledges and fights the tyranny with James, but not nearly so strongly or violently. And throughout this section, he constantly returns to memories of his mother, in a way that shows his great affection, feelings nearly opposite to those expressed about his father (see page 187 "She alone spoke the truth..." and following). So I guess the question is: what does it mean when James thinks that "they alone knew each other"? And then James' own question: "Why then this terror, this hatred?"
-Katie
Recent Comments