Woolf's (I hope I'm using this right) free indirect discourse creates multi layered relationships and tensions between the characters. The style of Woolf's writing utilizes direct dialogue usually presented in quotes such as, "'James will have to write his dissertation one of these days,' he added ironically, flicking his sprig" (34). With indirect discourse provided by the narrator that reveals the interiority of the characters and their deeper anxieties. For example, directly following the above quote, the narrator explains, "Hating his father, James brushed away the tickling spray with which in a manner peculiar to him, compound of severity humour, he teased his youngest son's bare leg" (34). Here we can see through the commentary of the narrator that James has a strong repulsion to his father without him actually having to say so. This seems to make the thoughts of the characters and the narrator indistinguishable at times. I suppose I'm noting this style to at least point out that it places a greater role on the narrator and narrator's commentary on the interiority of each individual more so than Hemingway, as we noted Hemingway places the importance on dialogue and on what is 'not' said in order to reveal his characters motivations to us.
Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay also seem to "think" much more than they "say." Early on, when discussing whether or not they will be able to go to the lighthouse the next day, Mr. Ramsay becomes very irate that his wife says it is "possible" that the weather may change for the better. The narrator provides us with some indirect discourse: "There wasn't the slightest possible chance that they could go to the lighthouse tomorrow, Mr. Ramsay snapped out irascibly. How did he know? she asked. The wind often changed" (35). The narrator then comments in detail on Mr. Ramsay's now aggravated mental state seemingly from 'Mr. Ramsay's' perspective as if at this moment the narrator and Mr. Ramsay are one-in-the-same. The narrator explains, "The extraordinary irrationality of her remark, the folly of women's minds enraged him. He had ridden through the valley of death, been shattered an shivered; and now, she flew in the face of facts, made his children hope what was utterly out of the question, in effect, told lies" (35). This technique puts the reader in a precarious position of who to "believe" or identify with or sympathize with. Had Mrs. Ramsay actually just "told lies?" Or, is Mr. Ramsay completely overreacting and simply feels insecure because his wife challenged him? I'm not exactly sure of the significance of this style of narration other than I'm initially noting how different it appears from the style of Hemingway. Hopefully, I'll come up with something better by class time.
Comments
Megan Gibson
Wed, 11/19/2014 - 09:18
Permalink
The narration of this story
The narration of this story does seem to be essential and breaks, as you point out, boundaries between the voice of the narrator and the characters' inner thoughts and motivations. Within this confusing context, there is one part where Lily comments "How then...did one know one thing or another thing about people, sealed as they were?" (51). Whereas the reader (perhaps actively participating in the story by listening to the inner thoughts of the characters) is privy to what's going on and therefore able to know at least some "things about [the] people" in the story, the characters themselves do not have that advantage. As you suggest, this also does not necessarily offer the reader any more concrete meaning or accuracy of judgment than the characters - and perhaps this even serves to confuse us more by not allowing the characters to objectively "show" themselves (as Hemingway's characters do in many parts of The Sun Also Rises), but rather we are forced to receive a biased and ambiguous account of the people in this story, and I think that this is intentional on the part of Woolf.
Casie Trotter
Wed, 11/19/2014 - 10:07
Permalink
This issue of narration also
This issue of narration also interests me a lot in the novel. Just as you mention the interiority of each character (Chris), and that we as readers also get little glimpses into some of the characters, whether or not they're reliable (Megan), this tension seems to me to be characteristic of modernism on a broader scale. We only get glimpses, of ourselves and of other people, and the fragments have to make up a reality that's "enough" because it's all we have. We have to construct a reality on a more human, individual level because that's what we're left with in the wake of war. It's incomplete and it's alienating, but it's something.
Lily's/the narrator's reflections seem to hit on this idea early in the novel: "Could the body achieve, or the mind, subtly mingling in the intricate passages of the brain? or the heart? Could loving, as people called it, make her and Mrs. Ramsay one? for it was not knowledge but unity that she desired, not inscriptions on tablets, nothing that could be written in any language known to men, but intimacy itself, which is knowledge, she had thought, leaning her head on Mrs. Ramsay's knee.
Nothing happened. Nothing! Nothing!" (54). The relationships between the characters may change, just as we adapt our reactions to them over the course of the novel, but I don't think it makes these momentary impressions any less real or legitimate because that's often the closest we get to something tangible as interior selves--a collage of moments.