Mrs Dalloway - How Woolf Achieves "Better" Representation of Character
As it was made clear in the essays she wrote criticizing it, Virginia Woolf wasn’t exactly a fan of “Edwardian” literature. To give a little context, the Edwardian writing style has a few notable characteristics. Firstly, Edwardian-era novels usually employ third person–and often omniscient–narration. Secondly, such novels were usually incredibly detailed in their physical descriptions of characters, scenes, and actions. Virginia Woolf was not an Edwardian novelist, but rather was one of the pioneers of a new literary style: Modernism. Modernist literature rejects realism, focusing on the subjective nature of human experience instead of trying to represent reality in an objective manner like in Edwardian literature. It is this objectivity of the Edwardian style that Woolf found to be inadequate, claiming that, in its attempts to perfectly describe everything, Edwardian literature lacked the ability to convey the complexity of human character*. So then, how does Woolf do character representation differently?
In Woolf’s novel Mrs. Dalloway, we follow the experiences of Clarissa Dalloway–the novel’s protagonist–across the span of a single day set in early 20th century London. After finishing the 200+ page novel, however, I still wouldn’t be able to give you an accurate physical description of Clarissa. Seems odd, right? We’re so used to physical traits being the most elementary part of a character. And yet, there’s no outright physical description of Clarissa throughout all of Mrs. Dalloway, only a few rogue adjectives or mentions of her bird-like stature scattered here and there. In this physical, surface-level way, we barely know who Clarissa is; we definitely wouldn’t be able to identify her in a crowded room.
But oddly, as readers, we know Clarissa on a much deeper level than her just outside appearance, maybe even better than we know some of our friends. We learn about her fears, regrets, and past as we tag along while she reminisces about the past. Importantly, there isn’t a narrator to tell us all of these things about Clarissa; Woolf instead hops around from person to person, sort of entering each character’s mind to extract their subjective and sometimes contradictory opinions of Clarissa. To illustrate, while Peter Walsh may see Clarissa as a refined woman with a beguiling past, Ms. Kilman’s image of her is that of an ignorant, conceited, and stereotypically spoiled rich person. By viewing Clarissa from a number of angles, each with its unique perspective and context, we’re able to learn about her character in a very bottom-of-the-iceberg way. The subject-specific way in which we come to know Clarissa allows us to form our own judgments of her, unrestrained by objective physical or behavioral descriptions that we know to be factually true.
In that case, does Mrs. Dalloway do a better job of representing character as opposed to something written by H.G. Wells (Edwardian dude)? I’d say that in general, Modernist novels do a great job at developing character, since a lot of the time, properly representing an individual at a deeper level is the main focus of Modernism. However, Modernist writers like Woolf have to sacrifice plot in order to bring more attention to the characters, whereas those like Wells create vast, intricate, enthralling plots at the cost of shallower character development. The plots of Mrs. Dalloway or Nicholson Baker’s The Mezzanine are incredibly dull on their own, the same way that the character representation in Joseph Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness is comparatively underdeveloped. In the end, Modernist and Edwardian novels seek to do different things, and both have their strengths as well as their weaknesses.
9/30
Hey Josh great blog! I really liked getting to read your blog as it is already pretty similar to mine so I got to compare what you wrote to mine. I think that for the most part we are on the same page, as writing in focus of characters is what modernists like Woolf do. I also think that because Woolf focuses on the character, we get a really deep understanding of that character like Clarissa where we really get to see her from every angle. I also agree that because Woolf focuses more on the character we don't get to see the plot develop as much. Anyways keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteYou are correct to distinguish Woolf's modernist/subjective style of narration and characterization from "realism," which in this context refers to very specific nineteenth-century rules and conventions around the depiction of material and social realities in fiction, a relentless emphasis on the surface-level details and the naturalistic view that human life is largely a result of circumstances and environmental context. But I always like to remind readers that most experimental narrative styles are ALSO essentially forms of realism, in principle: we respond to Woolf's intersubjective characterization in part because this view of people as psychologically complex and self-contradictory seems "realistic" to us, and this perception has a lot to do with how ideas in psychology (Freud and others) had advanced by the time she was writing. So Clarissa, and Peter, and Septimus, and Lucrezia seem "real" to us precisely *because* they don't have some overbearing Victorian (or Edwardian) narrator trying to tell us exactly who they are and why they act like they do.
ReplyDeleteThere's another one of those chicken-or-egg dilemmas here: does Woolf's style bring us closer to how people in a society "actually are"? Or have our perceptions and ideas about how people in a society "actually are" been altered in part by literature like this? Do we perceive human character (which Woolf says is a common obsession for anyone who is alive) *differently* after reading Virginia Woolf, or Freud? Is that perception "more true," or just influenced by different framings? How can we tell?
Hey, Josh, nice blog post! I agree with the statement you made about Modernists having to "sacrifice" plot in order to draw more attention to the characters. This book does focus more on the characters more than it does the story by showing how a character looks like from the lens of other people, most specifically when it comes to Clarissa. And making this story be told from the third person makes this an even better design for this novel and how it describes the characters.
ReplyDeleteI think character driven books like Mrs. Dalloway and more plot driven books both have their place in the literature world. I like how Woolf showcases each of the characters and their thoughts and emotions in Mrs. Dalloway but sometimes, it can feel like a bit of a slog to read. I think character driven books tend to have lots more symbolic meaning and whatnot in them as well, as compared to more plot driven ones.
ReplyDeleteHi Josh! I really enjoyed reading your reflections on Mrs. Dalloway and how Woolf's approach to character representation contrasts with Edwardian literature. You’ve beautifully captured the essence of how Modernist writers like Woolf shift the focus away from external descriptions toward the internal lives of characters. I think you're absolutely right about Woolf’s decision to forgo detailed physical descriptions allowing us, as readers, to engage with Clarissa on a more intimate, psychological level. It’s fascinating how we come to understand her through the fragmented and subjective perceptions of those around her, rather than a singular, omniscient narrator.
ReplyDelete