Today’s discussion was really interesting from a craft perspective. What I learned about Woolf’s mental health really helps me understand the narration of the novel. Woolf used free and direct discourse, which means that she had to basically become the character while describing it in third person. You (McLeod) said that Clarissa could feel things before she could fully react to and process them. I’m sure that Virginia Woolf was a lot like Clarissa in that aspect, which is why this free direct discourse probably came easy to her. She took on the characters so well because she could feel what they feel and describe it to a tee. I found the narration confusing at first, but after the discussion, it makes complete sense. I also really liked the bird metaphors we spoke about, and I find a lot of Woolf in these metaphors. I think she was a woman who constantly felt like she was going to float away with the wind (and wishes she could fly away), hence the curtains that critics argue was the time of Septimus’s death. Woolf most certainly represents the structure of feeling by using free and direct discourse because she shows it from several angles and does so through things like the bird metaphors and also characters that are settled and characters that are floating. Elizabeth seems like she knows who she is, and Richard, too. So they represent settled characters. However, Clarissa and Septimus are floating characters because everything moves them in a way they can’t control. Interesting enough, Woolf herself was both. Her soul could easily fly off the handle, but in her suicide, she sank.

I 100% agree with you about the style of the novel. However, for me the stream of consciousness was a huge turn off when I first read the book. I agree, one of the biggest turn offs about this book for me was that I had a really hard time telling who was talking to the point that I had to (shamefully) sparknote a bit in the beginning.

However, after today on the walking tour I found a new appreciation of the writing style because I found her personal life history very closely related to Septimus’s life. Septimus suicide planned like her suicide, but Woolf’s suicide was very much rehearsed down to a “T”. I feel like the stream of consciousness style of writing allowed me almost a bit into her mind and what she was feeling. Because with Septimus, I could see his entire intimate thought process laid out, and I could see how he saw the world and what elements (evil of man, etc.) drove him to his madness.

Before we get started talking about Mrs. Dalloway, I’d like to ask if anyone else found it difficult to tell when focus was shifting from one character’s perspective to another. I found myself reading along, knowing the focus was a particular character, then realizing that the focus had shifted, and having to re-read previous passages to figure out where the transition was. Are there clues that Woolf included to indicate that she was transitioning to another’s character’s perspective that I overlooked? I did find it got easier to tell as I became more familiar with the characters, but initially it was pretty confusing.

I’d also like to say that I loved that there was so much packed into just one day. I like the way Woolf included information (about the characters, the culture, the history) through the perspectives of different characters concerning both the present and the past. I think she really captured the thought processes many of us have throughout our days. Sometimes that thought process is repetitive and annoying, but also very interesting and revealing.

Today’s Tour was very interesting, though I didn’t think that the suicide notes were funny. There are way too many deaths by suicide then and even now which shows us that it is important how we treat one another, no matter who you are or where you are in life. I think we take these things with a grain of salt when really people are committing suicide every few minutes.

To to tie this up with writing, well, I for one think that writing is one of the best ways to express yourself. Diaries are important and they help me to elevate my mind. When I can’t find the words to speak, I can usually write down what I feel. I think it’s important to write down and track things daily because you never know where they may end up.

lastly, I was surprised to find out about Virginia Wolf’s stressful life, but then I remember that she was just another human being dealing with the stress of life in her own way. But one of the best ways to solve problems is to let the pain bleed through the ink of your pen. And through her stories and her various characters, we can see how Wolf is able to turn her own problems into characters that deal with some of the things she may have dealt with, but could not express to others..

i think that that most authors have an underlying motive and a message and its up to the readers to discover it!

So far I’m enjoying unfolding these stories through our discussions because there have been so many hidden messages that I have overlooked! This encourages me to get a deeper understanding of everything I read, and to not just “read it” because it was assigned for class.

thank you!

I really enjoyed today’s tour, mainly because the weather was better than the others! The main reason why I found it fascinating is the tour guide mixed the Bloomsbury writers with the other prominent people of that day so well. I enjoyed learning the dirty little secrets of all the writers and I couldn’t help but compare them to our society today. They are just like the free spirited writers we see in literature now days. And yet in a time when scandalous actions were frowned upon, the Bloomsbury writers could careless! Also the tour around this part of London was more uplifting than the Darkest Victorian tour.

As for the discussion this morning, I liked hearing more on how the role of women and men were so strict with the upper class. Margaret is one of those heroine characters I can’t help but compare to modern heroines. First to come to mind is Tris from the Divergent series. Both come from such fixed normed societies and they break these rules without much thought processing. Tris does this a lot faster, but the point is that the heroine takes action and never just allows society control her life.

I was so impressed with the tour today! I always knew that the population of London   has had to endure horrendous impoverishment, but I didn’t know the full extent of it in terms of hygiene and health (except for the Bubonic Plague of course). I love how we were told about the different signs of wealth like the color of brick or the location of the railways. Some of the things our tour guide told us about the drinking water and sewage made me gag, and I’m surprised that Gaskell doesn’t provide more description of the poverty in her novel, especially considering the amount of dialogue and imagery. I feel like the poverty is something that would catch the attention of young readers more. Instead of plowing through the “pointless” description, they would be more engaged with the material while also learning more about the history of London. Another thing I want to talk about is the class issue. Gaskell beautifully lays out how class is divided up and how they both need each other but refuse to compromise. to provide contrast to this argument, I think it was you (McLeod) who said it perfectly: “The workers can run the factories without the master, but the masters can’t run the factories without the workers.” Using this as a jump off, I would argue that the rich want to keep the poor in the ghettos so they don’t lower the market value of the rich neighborhoods. Like you said before our Brick Lane tour, the East end (brick lane) neighborhood is dirtier with more trash on the streets and is just less aesthetically pleasing altogether. However, the prices for homes, land, and business spaces are going to stay low in that neighborhood while the other sides of London (not all) will stay high. London wants to keep what we know as the color-line in tact. The rich want to keep the drugs and railways in the slums, and it will probably stay that way for quite some time.

I think Gaskell explains the class systems in the Victorian period very well in North and South. The characters that represent each class stay within their system they were born into and on the rare occasion they rise above. Thornton was the odd exception to this rule, being a man who made his own fortune. I love that Gaskell put in a character like him because it changes how people today see the class system back then. The majority knows how the system works and that it was nearly impossible to move class ranks, but it was capable. Thornton to me was a light of hope in the beginning, being the strong man he is, but he lost his business from a lack of understanding the wealth in people. His workers were the reason his mill kept afloat, and when he replaced them with the Irish the failure was on his hands. Those hands were his skilled workers not just mindless bums off the street. The workers are the ones with all the true power, not the master. I don’t believe labor unions are the most efficient solution for corrupt masters; further education is the solution. Gaskell doesn’t reveal this as being a solution, but her books were educating the upper class. Furthering knowledge to all people will only continue to raise a society. Cheers to Gaskell!!!

Today’s discussion helped me appreciate Gaskell’s craft so much more. She is truly a skilled writer. It takes a lot to really understand the message of her writing. I didn’t really understand why this book was chosen until today. I realize that it is not just another Victorian romance. Gaskell’s desire to raise awareness within her own community is so powerful.

My favorite part was the use of the words “hands” to describe the servants. It makes me appreciate being a hand or lending a hand even more. Why? Because I know that people depend on me. The hand is arguably the most important part. While the servants were the “hands,” Mr. Thornton served as the arm. He held the hands together because the hands would be useless without the arm of the business. To me, Margarett is the elbow joints. She has the power to move the arms  which will then determine the way the hands move. I love how she was able to tug at Mr. Thortons heart literally throughout the book. She helped Mr. Thorton to realize the significance of the hands, the arms, as well as the joints that all work together to create a powerful movement.

Throughout the tour and while discussing North and South in class today, I couldn’t help but compare it to other Victorian novels (specifically the ones from class last semester). When reading Dickens and Hardy, it was very apparent to me that the novels contained a lot of critical social commentary. However, when reading some of the women authors I felt that some of the social commentary was a little more subtle. The novels we read by both the Bronte sisters as well as Eliot definitely contained a lot of social commentary, but it seemed to blend more seamlessly into the story, and perhaps required a closer reading to see. With Gaskell as well as Dickens and Hardy, the approach seems at times more direct, as characters talk openly about the social concerns the novels focus on, and are thus more apparent. I’m curious if other women authors in the Victorian period were as direct as Gaskell was in the novel once she got readers hooked with the marraige plot. The differences between how men and women wrote are very interesting, and it does seem to me that Gaskell was a little more straightforward in her criticism. I’m curious if she received any criticism herself for that, and am curious in general about what was said about her work when it was published.