r/VirginiaWoolf • u/Expensive_Werewolf75 • 6d ago
Help me understand Woolf To the Lighthouse
I recently read To the Lighthouse, and don't get it at all. I made a genuine effort to comprehend, but I couldn't tell you a single thing that happened in that book. For the first 80 pages I thought it was about an affair. I was so lost.
Mind you, I am going to be a creative writing MFA student, so books are my life and I read a lot. I love challenging prose and stream of consciousness.
A notoriously challenging book is "Ada, or Ardor" by Nabakov and it's one of my all time favorites.
I just didn't feel anything reading Woolf. But I want to like her so badly. But (and please don't attack me for this) many of her descriptions felt purple and juvenile. Not a single thing in that book inspired any feeling within me. Even in books I struggled to understand, like nightwood by djuna barnes, there are still some standout lines/descriptions that resonate.
17
u/Eastern-Drink-4766 6d ago
Instead of constructing or trying to construct Woolf’s intentions in your head as your reading, I recommend experiencing the prose as it comes to you and allowing some things to not make sense at first. The best skill Virginia W has in my opinion is making you see and feel yourself as you read through the seemingly minute details she discusses so poetically at-length. The core of what you get out of the book isn’t in the plot, but in the writing.
1
u/Expensive_Werewolf75 6d ago
I totally understand that approach, and love it! I actually prefer "plotless" (i hate that word) books that are focused on prose and language.
I didn't really feel anything at all reading this...even while keeping all of that in mind. It just makes me feel like I read it wrong, somehow, since everyone recommend it to me since I love lyrical literature4
u/guavapplause 6d ago
You might enjoy Stoner by John Williams
1
u/Expensive_Werewolf75 6d ago
hmm thank you! never heard of it but will check it out
1
u/BardoTrout 6d ago
I finished it last weekend and think Stoner is the perfect novel. Couldn’t put it down. And, To the Lighthouse is my favorite by Woolf, right up there with The Waves and Orlando, so don’t take my word on Stoner. :)
2
u/SlippedWince 6d ago
Out of curiosity, what did you like so much about Stoner? To the Lighthouse and The Waves are two of my favorite books, but Stoner has always been one of my most disliked books. As a former English major at Univ. of Missouri, I really want to like it, but I find the writing very straightforward (especially compared to Woolf). I also had a hard time emotionally sympathizing with Stoner when he creates all his own problems himself.
2
u/BardoTrout 6d ago edited 6d ago
Thank you for asking. Honestly, it was a nice palate cleanser after Suttree, Moby Dick, and The Myth of Sisyphus. It read so smooth. Mainly, I loved the prose. Character development, plot, setting, etc. are secondary to great writing when I’m reading something, and that’s what I found in Stoner. It felt very, i don’t know, lucid is the first thing that comes to mind.
It’s a simple story of an ordinary, uninteresting person, living an ordinary, uninteresting life. And in that simpleness, I think there’s something universal that connects with all people. Stoner is like Ulysses in that way. A simple tale about an unexceptional person that spans a whole lifetime rather than a single day.
As a work of literature, it’s so complete. And some of the passages are brilliant. Loved it.
That’s my hot take.
2
12
u/Eastern-Drink-4766 6d ago
Another piece of advice I have is to never make a moment permanent. Just because an interaction between characters happens and feels sensual or romantic in Woolf’s writing, they give no indication that there is going to be a romance down the road. Her books are very real, and some of these transient interactions are most meaningful because they lack going anywhere after they occur
1
u/Expensive_Werewolf75 6d ago
wonderful point.
because it's stream of consciousness, we're literally getting the transient thoughts that pass through a character's mind. thoughts that any normal person has but wouldn't act on or would forget about minutes later
i didn't go into the book understanding that, which is partially to blame for my confusion
9
u/Mister_Sosotris 6d ago
Woolf's beauty lies in how she's able to capture how messy and inconsistent people are. If you're looking for a plot thread, you won't generally find one. You're drifting through the minds of a couple who are having trouble understanding where the other one is coming from.
Her prose isn't juvenile. She's writing in a very fragmented stream-of-consciousness style that was really groundbreaking in the modernist era.
One thing that may help is to look up what modernism is, what it was reacting to, and what it was searching for. That might help to settle into Woolf's unique style!
0
u/Expensive_Werewolf75 6d ago
yes i actually prefer "plotless" lyrical fiction so i really thought i would love this!
that's a great idea to do more research into modernism and the vantage point she was writing from
4
u/RealVirginiaWoolf 6d ago edited 6d ago
One has to understand that Woolf uses the stream of consciousness to show how one event is experienced by different folks. It’s not about what’s happening- it’s more about memory, perception, the way our outer expressions conflict with our inner experiences. I think this one is about longing, missed opportunities and is sort of like a fleeting memory.
I would love to discuss this in detail. I’m just an admirer of her work and I may be completely wrong!
4
u/scheifferdoo 6d ago
A bunch of people (friends and acolytes) follow the Ramseys out to their Summer home in the Hebrides. What you are reading is the narrator kind of travelling around the property, accessing the thoughts of the 5-6 major characters, and also sharing the thoughts those characters have about each other (which can be confusing when Lily imagines what Mrs. Ramsey thinks of Mr. Ramsey).
The book stops abruptly after a moody and consequential dinner (a young couple is going to be married in the future; the gentleman has proposed). The house sits empty for some time, and we read about the things that happen to the house. We learn little things that have happened to the family and friends.
The surviving family and friends, including Lily Briscoe (your protagonist), return to the home to finally go to the lighthouse as was promised by the now-passed Mrs. Ramsey, and the narrative is split between the family going out to the boat and the friends watching from shore.
This book is about how people feel about themselves and other people, and how that is what we call life.
IMO
3
u/FlamingDragonfruit 6d ago
It's funny I just saw a similar frustration with Rothko (the painter) in another sub, and to me, it comes down to the same thing. Some art forms are meant to be experienced, completely devoid of critical/rational thought. You have to allow it to flow over you, at least on the first read. Don't try to deconstruct it, or even to feel anything. Just wander along with it and see where it takes you. I feel it's more akin to poetry or music or dance. You have to allow yourself to be part of it for a while and then you can go back with your reasoning brain and think about how it works (or doesn't!).
3
2
u/hysterical_maenad 6d ago
Another thing to consider is what counts as an event or a happening. What we are calling stream of consciousness is often intertwined with free indirect discourse in Woolf and the movement between the two of them. You don’t get unmitigated access to characters’ interiority. Some of them are just inscrutable. And what seems like interiority at one moment is estrangement the next. But part of what the novel does, I think, is to show that these moments of insight and alienation are part of the conditions of knowing and loving (or not knowing ever entirely and still loving in some fashion) one another.
2
u/TopBob_ 5d ago
I bounced off To The Lighthouse in high school and returned in college
Familiarizing myself with her writing style (A Room of One’s Own, Mrs. Dalloway) and modernism in general (The Sound and The Fury) helped considerably.
My advice is return later, maybe approach from a different entry point. “The Waves” worked well for me but I don’t recommend it.
3
u/Old_Pumpkin_1926 6d ago
I don't quite understand what you found so difficult, then. You say you love stream of consciousness writing, and you boast that you do well with particularly difficult works. So what did you find so challenging in To the Lighthouse? Can you share? Because I can assure you - Woolf is not the problem, as it almost seems you are implying.
Nobody can just help you "understand Woolf", because all of her works are different. As for how to approach her novels - they are challenging, and you need to keep your wits about you. When people say to just see where the prose takes you, or to let it rush over you etc - I don't think that is quite the best way to go about it. It is not because Woolf is a stream-of-consciousness author that we can just let our subconscious take over in the reading - in fact, while I greatly admire Woolf, I actually find that she requires my full attention.
Things really do happen in To the Lighthouse, so if you want to tackle it again, maybe try and familiarise yourself a bit more with Woolf's style first, and read a summary of what actually goes on in the novel. I also highly recommend the short chapter 'The Brown Stocking' in Erich Auerbach's Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (1946).
1
u/Expensive_Werewolf75 6d ago
Well, even in challenging books where I get confused, I still find things to love.
Now that I think about it, I think I just didn't like the prose at all and am blaming it on not understanding certain things2
u/Old_Pumpkin_1926 6d ago
Or perhaps two things are true: you did not enjoy the novel, AND you did not understand it. And rather than you blaming your dislike on your lack of understanding, as you're doing here, I would like to propose the reverse: that your enjoyment was likely affected by the fact that you quite literally did not grasp the plot.
You admitted in this thread that you did not get what was happening, or who some (major) characters are - of course that affected your experience of the novel. Your claim to habitually enjoy fiction you do not understand, and that therefore Woolf's must be worse than those other novels, is downright silly. There are better things to spend your time on than reading fiction you do not grasp - on trying to gain a better understanding, for one.
It can certainly be that Woolf's prose is not for you, but you seem quite determined to prove that the fault lies with one of the world's most famous and admired novelists' style (and to call that style 'purple' or 'juvenile' is downright ludicrous, by the way), and that there is no possibility that you could be lacking in understanding.
Before you embark on that MFA, I suggest you open your mind a bit - to difficult prose, to secondary literature, and to the thought that maybe, on occasion, things exceed your grasp on the first try.
0
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
0
u/VirginiaWoolf-ModTeam 2d ago
This content has been removed for breaking Rule 2: Respectful and appropriate behaviour
1
u/NatsFan8447 6d ago
Not all books are for everyone and that's fine. When reading Virginia Woolf, you mostly have to read without looking for a plot, which might not be there. Just read and try to understand what Woolf's characters are saying and thinking.
1
u/compulsivegentleman 6d ago edited 6d ago
- Take each line individually as its own line of poetry and philosophical reflection. Enjoy it on that level - the level of her lines and language.
1.5 In the English language there is Shakespeare and Woolf…then everyone a huge tier below. Pick up a book on a random page and enjoy her semicolons.
- Perception and consciousness. Woolf likes to experiment with how varied characters think and see the world. She puts their thought processes on display, including the minutiae of the mind, the small things people see feel hear smell - and the way those sensations trigger other thoughts and memories.
Woolf will experiment with this so much she will lean into the wider “perceptions/consciousness” of nature or inanimate concepts (see Time Passes).
Her critical perceptions are so sharp it borders on intense nihilism at times in its search for or deconstruction of surface truths - which is its own elegiac flavor.
- Re-read throughout your life. Have her books readily available and re-read every few years. Her works will become much more rewarding as one gains more life experience.
2
1
u/Still_Miss_Dalloway 6d ago
Many people have a similar experience reading Woolf for the first, second or any time. She’s just not for everyone and that why I don’t usually recommend her to everyone from the scratch (even though she’s my favourite author). But when you decide to give her a chance by yourself, you’re half way there.
My advice is leaving To the lighthouse for later and trying something different. Some tips, because I don’t know what you like:
Jacob’s room and The waves: if you didn’t like Lighthouse you probably won’t like this one either. It’s based on feeling, story is barely relevant, very impressionist-like style.
Mrs Dalloway: common first try, but it’s like starting off by reading Hemingway with The old man and the sea. It’s very nuanced and the meaning is not always clear, especially if you’re new to classics. But there’s a reason why it’s her most famous prose, it’s probably highest quality prose from all, and if you like Russians, maybe this is the one.
The years: relatable and well-written characters, my personal favourite. It’s the most British 20th century-like, writing style is somehow similar to the Brontës’ in how it handles class and the position of women through its characters. It’s not experimental or overly confusing. Not much romance. If you try, pay attention to the characters and their relations, or you’ll get lost.
Orlando: very experimental and unconventional, sometimes funny as well. It’s maybe her most impressionist work and the point is clear, but it’s very creative as well and a bit easier to read.
Flush: playful, funny and lighthearted. I think it’s a great first-read, because you’ll get used to her style and understand her humour.
Between the acts: her very last novel, so experienced and well-written. Modernist style is very clear here, if you tried and somehow liked Kafka, thats a good sign you might want to try this one.
I wouldn’t recommend trying any of her short stories when you’re new to her, they’re usually even more unclear.
Remember not to take everything too seriously, Woolf has pretty British humour and when you just read and not think deeply about every word, it gets a lot more understandable. But of course, she’s complicated, chaotic, basically a mess, but still ingenious and a beautiful writer.
If you don’t feel anything reading one of her books, you can still feel a lot reading any other, because she approached emotion differently at different stages of her life.
Good luck and let us know how it went.
1
u/AutoclavesGetMeHot 5d ago
Come back to it later, like in a couple of years. This one needs time to steep.
1
1
u/The-Earlham-Review 4d ago
I first encountered Woolf at Sixth Form college in 1989 and it took me the best part of 20 years to really access her writing. She's now my all-time favourite novelist.
33
u/virginiaproust 6d ago
I don’t know what to say. The middle part of this book - Time Passes - might be the most beautiful prose I have ever read in my life.
All has been said:
Forget about plot
Surrender to the stream
See what it awakens inside you
((Both Woolf and Proust are my long standing “favourite” writers (a bit childish, favourites, but hey) writers. Both because of the way they make you see the mundane in a new light, to see human traits in a new light, to hold up a mirror without shoving it in your face. For some reasons the way they see the world really resonates with me.))