The Problem with Woolf and Other Such Movementeers
Apparently, if you give a woman a room of her own and money
she can be creative. I would like to point out that it does not necessarily
follow that she will create anything of value. Anything lasting. Anything with
aesthetic quality. Anything that would remind us of the eternal, so to speak.
Virginia Woolf showed me something she likely did not intend when she wrote A
Room of One’s Own.
This book is a cute and neat little thought experiment. One
that I could most certainly do without. Oh, what’s that Virginia, Shakespeare
had a sister you say? Who did not produce anything? She died? No? Well, really,
who cares? That is my question.
She’s really writing an answer to a question nobody asked.
So, bravo Virginia. Bravo.
My problem with literature movements, like feminism and
multiculturalism, is that they are fighting against something that didn’t occur
in the first place. They want to establish that there are equally great writers
out there living in a white man’s shadow. And these movements presuppose that
the reason the others are living in those shadows is solely because the man is
white and the man is a man. This says very little about the man’s art in
question.
Well, sad news for you movementeers out there: that is not
the case. Some authors and their works are not good. Plain and simple. And when
it comes to Shakespeare, who cares who Shakespeare actually was? Male or female. It is a fun thought experiment
but the value we get from Shakespeare is the writing itself. And Hamlet is a
great enigma with or without a gender-specified author. The Sonnets can speak to
us on some fundamental level. There will likely be at least one sentence in
there somewhere that says our feelings or thoughts. The sonnets don’t achieve
this because the author had a penis. What in good heavens does that have to do
with the value of the work? Big surprise here: none.
Works are influenced by the author’s personal experiences.
There is no arguing that. But the works that we value are not based on gender
specific authors. In fact, the areas where this bias occurs are the very same
areas trying to fight against that.
If our movementeers and their movements would stop waging
war on perceived wrong-doings then maybe we could get back to what counts.
Perhaps this is my skewed perspective as an aesthete. But I do not care for
that brush off.
One statement from this book that I think is highly valuable
is as follows: “for great poets do not die; they are continuing presences; they
need only the opportunity to walk among us in the flesh” (113). If only she
hadn’t preceded this with “But she lives”, the great imaginary she who never
did anything other than be born, live briefly and die.
Woolf has a lot of wonderful things to contribute, which I can
mention at a later post, but she really ought to hire a butler to help her with
all that baggage.
While I have not read the work, do you think perhaps, Woolf might have meant that women, lacking the literary role models men can find in abundance might perhaps be conditioned to seek a route which does not meet their potential or test their abilities. I think perhaps, we take for granted the effect historical and environmental pressures and gendered socializing have on the individual affecting his or her ability to chose and the liberty to partake intentionally in the formation of one's character? Just a thought. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteWhat I took Woolf to mean was that women have not had the same opportunity. And I'm not about to argue that point. Women, she seems to argue, require the freedom to be creative. I think everyone needs the freedom to be creative. I also think that not all creative creations are valuable to everyone. Which opens up many debates about art and artist and...But her point about women having the freedom to be creative is a valuable observation. However, it is not just about women. Plenty of poor people have been creative without money of their own. Plenty of men have not been given the freedom she is asking. I think her agenda mucked up her creative drive. There are some amazingly beautiful moments in the book, and I would certainly recommend reading it, and this is not her only message of the book of course. But she continues to fall back on what seems to be an agenda. That's ok with me. When I re-read it I focus on the beautiful moments and let her have her vent for the rest. The area of the 'formation of one's character' is a rather intriguing topic! Delicious I would say.
ReplyDelete