[Vwoolf] (no subject)

[Mark Scott]

As a Common Reader, my thoughts on this article centered on a couple of things.  

I have been reading Woolf’s letters for some time now and I have finally reached the summer of 1939 when the Woolfs are about to move to Mecklenburg Square.  Around the time when the first concept for ‘The Waves’ began to emerge, I started to read the diary entries for the time periods that the correspondence covered.  (I had read the diaries some time before I had even acquired the six volumes of the letter.)  What struck me about the article with regard to Woolf’s alleged ‘nastiness’ was that the author was basing his judgments of Woolf’s character on written remarks that were made in journals that were not meant to be read by anybody but Woolf herself, my point being that she wasn’t verbally making these less than flattering comments directly to the people she was describing.  How many of us have had negative thoughts about people we encounter in our lives or acquaintances or even close friends or family?  Maybe we never verbalize these thoughts and they may be judgments or conclusions that flared up in a moment of annoyance or anger that we later dismissed or forgot.  It just so happens that Woolf recorded many of her rather pointed observations about people in her private diaries.  They were not meant to be made known to the people she described.  In other words, they were not malicious attacks made directly at human targets.  It is true that close replications of her remarks often ended up in her letters, especially letters written to her sister, Vanessa Bell.  But, again, that was private correspondence usually addressed to family or close friends that she knew she could trust not to pass those comments on to anyone who might repeat them to their objects.  

My other observation is that, as is usually the case, the tired, unfortunately repetitious description of Woolf as the mad, elitist, depressed writer who ultimately committed suicide leaves out what has been evident to me since I first read ‘Orlando’; Woolf’s incisive and often scintillating wit.  Maybe it says something about my own personality but I often find myself laughing at Woolf’s imaginative puncturing of what may or may not have been overly inflated egos.  It’s true that sometimes her jabs do feel like they were aimed at undeserving targets.  That being said, I would love to have been the proverbial fly on the wall during some of the conversations between Woolf and some of her close friends and family.  Great intellect on display flavored with the spice of brilliant wit.  That’s what I hear in my imagination.

Mark Scott
Common Reader  

From: Ellen Moody via Vwoolf 
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 6:56 AM
To: Mary Ellen Foley 
Cc: Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu 
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] (no subject)

I thought it was appalling too, and asked myself  when will people tire of using what is popularly supposed of Virginia Woolf as  matter for a whipping post.  Ellen

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 9:42 AM Mary Ellen Foley via Vwoolf <vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

  Beware!  To my eye, at least, the article may begin as a comment on troll-ery, but it became something else entirely, outlining Woolf's supposed five deaths, just in case we haven't harped enough on her suicide, dwelling on snobbery above all else, damning her work with faint praise, and getting enough tiny details wrong that could have been checked, that the effect was of contempt: the author  didn't bother to check.  (The worst example, possibly: No, it doesn't matter how many stories the Stephen family house had, unless you give the number of residents, undercount the number of stories by a factor of two, and make a point about overcrowding. With 5 above ground level and one below, the enormous family and their servants did not occupy a 3-story house -- no big deal, except that it's easily checkable, and he makes a point of how packed in they were, linking that to her wish for a room of one's own, which of course is a mistaken understanding of what she meant by "a room of one's own."  Even if he was referring to the years before the top floor was added, this is very sloppy work.)

  I made the mistake of reading some of the comments.  This is a civilized site, so the comments were courteous, but that only means that many simply used more polite language in dismissing Woolf in the same way she is generally dismissed by detractors.  (If you aren't a member, you can see only a selection of comments; I visited twice and was shown different comments, but the selection was possibly not representative.)

  I totally agree that the Woolf who/that has been constructed in more recent times serves as a figure on whom we can hang whatever ideas we like; that is because this figure has been crafted by articles such as this one, doing the same. 

  Unfortunately, I read this first thing this morning. I hadn't wanted to begin the day so irritated!

  Mary Ellen

  On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:27 PM Andre Gerard via Vwoolf <vwoolf at lists.osu.edu> wrote:

    Woolf as a guide to our troll tormented times: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://unherd.com/2021/08/why-was-virginia-woolf-so-rude/__;!!KGKeukY!lB9X2USu557PNoH6ehgh2KPQJF1AnkQxinLkDa64biYikrTHd1XSc5UNeQe4KEfvm1I$ 
    _______________________________________________
    Vwoolf mailing list
    Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
    https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf

  _______________________________________________
  Vwoolf mailing list
  Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
  https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Vwoolf mailing list
Vwoolf at lists.osu.edu
https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/vwoolf/attachments/20210911/06dad423/attachment.html>