As the the english language and the literature that accompanies and animates it advance into the 20th century we start to see significant change take place, which we now label as those characteristic of the Modern era. Chief among these is the daunting issue of how to best portray character, which is a very sweeping term, but for Virginia Woolf it means nothing less than to embody human life and existence itself. This is an extremely difficult and elusive objective, one that she admits herself she has no firm grasp of how it should be done, and one that I often wonder if it is possible at all. Nonetheless this is the goal she sets out not only for herself, but what she defines to be the overarching goal that all young novelists of her day should have been reaching for. Mrs. Dalloway, published in 1925, would have been well into the swing of the modernist era, and represents Woolf’s own rebuttal to her essays Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Brown and Modern Fiction, which detail her thoughts and beliefs as to where English literature needed to proceed.
This being the second book of the semester it would be only natural for us to compare the small taste of 20th century fiction we’ve enjoyed so far, but oh, how different the two novels at a glance would seem! Jumping from the early to 20’s to the 60’s not only do see the extreme changes in culture and everyday life that occurred in that quickly evolving setting, but we’re faced with completely different approaches to the idea of what character means. On one hand you have Woolf’s approach with her variety of characters each one of whom are spinning, seething balls of emotion, and the other you have Howie and his drinking straws. That’s not to take away from the importance of Howie as a character and a thought experiment, but certainly the contrast is striking.
While both books still work on addressing the idea of the character, you find entirely different takes on what the defining points should be in both Mrs. Dalloway and The Mezzanine. Looking at a Woolf character you really sympathize and feel for their struggles.For me, all the major characters in Mrs. Dalloway do a great job of prompting very introspective and interesting thought into my own human relations and actions towards those in my life. Definitely this is an extremely important part of my own character, and the very fact that I have this kind of a response I think signals a certain degree of success on Woolf’s part. When reading the Mezzanine, however, I had extremely different, but perhaps not any less meaningful or introspective thoughts. In a book that spends whole pages talking about the development of the drinking straw, Baker does a good job as well of causing me to consider my own character, but in a completely different manner. Instead of having the focus of his novel be on exploring the dynamics of human interaction he instead sends us on a voyage through his careful observation and reflection on the material things that make up his everyday life. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that other humans are important to Howie, (he claims he thinks of L. 580 time a year, and his family 400) but certainly his focus is much more on the little ways in which we react to our outside environment, as opposed to the mini storms of emotion that go on within.
Now I would never presume to make any statement about which of these two books is more important or influential, they both touch excellently on two entirely seperate aspects of what makes up our overall identity. Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is that there is no one correct in which one might go about exploring the topic of character. Both novels do good jobs at what they set out to accomplish, but both fail to capture in enough the full extent to human life. I suppose this might support my own belief that the quest for the perfect novel is an endless one, but this does lend a certain heroism to the novelist who would spend their whole life attempting doesn’t it?
You're right that one of the most striking aspects of Woolf's approach to characterization is that there's little sense of whether a character is "good" or "bad" (in the traditional plot-motivated taxonomy of "good guys and bad guys"). It's less a matter of a reader being compelled to sit in judgment on a character (which can come off as rather arrogant and presumptuous) and more a matter of simply understanding where they're coming from, what makes them who they are, their doubts, fears, loves, and insecurities. This dynamic is nicely reflected in the recent readings, where we move from Clarissa to Peter, back and forth, as they engage in their somewhat awkward reunion. It's not a cut-and-dried question of whose "side" we're on. We see the complexity of this (and any) human relationship, and we can sympathize with both of them in their own unique, often unspoken daily struggles.
ReplyDeleteIt seems too me that you are equating "emotion" with romantic emotion, specifically negative romantic emotion. Howie may not experience any romantic pain the way Clarissa, Peter, or the Smiths are portrayed as experiencing, but that doesn't mean the pleasure he takes in paper towels or indignity he takes about Aurilius doesn't count. In a way, Woolf's characters seem to me almost unrealistic the amount of dramatic moments they are reliving in their lives. A lot of this is related to the setting of the book (the day Clarissa and Peter run into each other, Septimus going crazy), but realistically, an everyday experience probably has more of Howie's routine than Woolf's characters pain.
ReplyDeleteThe point I'm going for here is not that I think Howie is emotionless or boring in any sense of the word. What I said that you might be interpreting as that is that Howie lacks the same interest in human affairs that Woolf's characters do. While her characters may seem ridiculous as to how dramatic their moods can be I'd say it's also not realistic to suggest that the common person has the sense of appreciation for detail that Howie has. If anything in this post I'm more just trying to point the two extremes of thought each book focuses on, and I try to vocalize that they both make valid statements on what the human experience is like, however both of them fail to capture a truly whole and realistic picture of what human nature is. I'm not suggesting that Howie is any less emotional than Woolf's characters, more just that he isn't as absorbed in human behavior as they are. In fact I tried to make it clear that I think both of them do about an equally good job of honing in on a certain aspect of our humanity.
Delete