I have read most of Woolf’s novels, but have never come across in them these extremely objectionable statements she made about the poor! Seems like maybe some people learned too much about her—most people who read her work know only the work, and maybe a few factoids about her life, and perhaps our ignorance is to be preferred.
Woolf and Keynes are certainly geniuses. Most social circles have zero geniuses. Two seems like more than enough ;)
Forget Lee and read Harvena Richter’s The Inward Voyage. Truly inner voyage into her characters’ psychological lives. She is the Bach and Wagner of her novels.
It is fascinating to see how culture and society influence our perspectives, as exemplified by the Bloomsbury set.
I read a lot of 19th-century short stories, and I reflect on the context of the time. I am intrigued by the individuals who were able to go against societal norms. The people who took a stand for what was just & good. I wonder if I would have been as clear-minded, or as brave.
In the midst of these troubled times, how can we avoid being swayed by popular rhetoric and societal influence? How can we remain committed to what is ethical and beneficial for all of humanity?
As a self-described Woolf devotee, I found your analysis fascinating, especially because I happened upon this X conversation a few days ago and have been thinking a lot about it. Given the dynamics of Bloomsbury/Woolf and the complexity of admiring great-but-flawed artists, your last line rings true and is perhaps the best we can do. Though modern values make me highly uncomfortable with Woolf's open classism and racism, I'm equally uncomfortable with the desire for a long-dead writer living in an entirely different cultural context to be nice and prejudice-free (and, admittedly, my own occasional urge to excuse the prejudice). Ultimately, I'd rather admire the genius of the work and accept (but not necessarily approve of) the person for exactly who s/he was, warts and all. Much to consider here, thank you!
Leonard Woolf's autobiography, largely (unfairly) forgotten in the wake of so many loving Virginia for the wrong reasons, is worth more than the rest of Bloomsbury
It is enough. I do believe in sequestering the work from the author for this reason alone. I am happy to hold admiration for a writer as a writer and disliking them for their views on stuff.
I wonder why we expect writers to be prejudice free and nice? They are the same as everyone, full of furies, fears, hatreds, failings. Perhaps we think that the work itself, when it is profound and brilliant, that it contains an essence of goodness because it had to arrive from a mind that was humane and able to see beyond their darkness. And Woolf was a troubled woman, and ended her own life. Maybe her prejudices were part of her troubled mind?
Two of my favourite writers, VS Naipaul and Philip Larkin were very unpleasant, albeit with Larkin, privately in his letters. His poems are free of any of that.
Dull contemporaries like Orwell - really???? He may have had an overly sentimental view of the working class (I speak as one of them) and dated views re gays etc but as a champion of human decency and enemy of cant he has no equal for me.
I have a friend who doesn’t read Woolf, because Woolf disdained Joyce. Woolf is in my pantheon of great writers, as is Joyce. Why break a friendship because one artist is read by one party but not the other? It makes me tired. Loved this essay.
Not sure you quite get it here. Agree that, by our standards most Bloomsburyites were snobs and full of prejudice (but not E.M. Forster) but they were also pioneers of what has become hegemonic- the liberal boho yuppie lifestyle where what matters is sex (not only hetero), friendship, pleasure, and art/literature. They invented it and spread it. Or at least they bourgeoisified an aristocratic ethos.
If they bourgeoisified an aristocratic ethos that’s quite a lot less than your first claim. And the question is what they are valued for and some people wish to value them for reasons other than this. Lee wasn’t praising the bourgeoisified aristocratic ethos but the vices.
The piece is called “How to rate Bloomsbury” which surely means that their immense overall social impact is relevant to it? Finding it hard to see why not. And I myself think the way they bourgeoisified something that had previously been aristocratic libertinage counts as an invention actually. But nothing rests on that. Thanks for the essay though!
There must be books on the topic, mustnt there? From where I came from, at the time I did, the power and reach of Bloomsbury values was obvious, no need for academic legitimation. It was disseminated by journalists like Desmond MacCarthy, food writers like Elizabeth David and designers in the wake of Fry, British pysychoanalysis led by James Strachey etc etc. Of course not all these figures were at the heart of the group which quickly became a broad network extended across those with most cultural power and prestige in Britain. This network had opponents obviously, most notably the Leavisites, whose denunciations of Bloomsbury are worth reading.
David Trotter’s LRB article from the autumn on a couple of editions of Mrs Dalloway and two critical books on it prompted me finally to read it. (His comparison to Emma, a favourite, clinched it.) I’ve now read it a couple of times in the last six months, as well as the recent Mendelson book. It instantly vaulted to the top of my favourite books list and the pointed me towards To the Lighthouse and re-reading Orlando. She clearly held views which we’d now consider retrograde. She was a product of her class and background. She also brings a deep imaginative sympathy akin to Eliot - I was often reminded of her comments on Middlemarch and Eliot’s pivot to Causubon (“why is it always Dorothea?”). With the noted exceptions of Bradshaw and Holmes, there are few wholly unsympathetic characters in Dalloway. Whatever her personal views and prejudices, the novels don’t unambiguously repeat them. If anything the reverse. She is deeply sceptical of empire and categorisation. So I’ll continue to read her. The diary selection is on my list, along with The Waves.
Separately, I’m interested in people who won’t read Woolf because of her views on Joyce. I love Portrait and Dubliners, but have repeatedly failed in attempts at Ulysses. I find Woolf more compelling and accessible.
After all, there's no good reason why every Bloomsbury Group member should have been equally talented. And time is an unsparing critic; fashions change. But it can be dismaying to find out that those we admire have feet of clay. Anna Funder's 'Wifedom: Mrs Orwell's Invisible Life' charts her dismay at discovering the appalling behaviour of her literary idol. She wrote an involving biography with an element of personal memoir. In contrast, your footnote about Lytton Strachey was on the money: marvellously waspish and entertaining but not a serious biographer.
What is your definition of genius? Mine is someone who left something behind not in the world when s/he entered it. Something, I don't know, like radar, cat's eyes, ibuprofen und so weiter. Novels are two a penny. I have never read hers because I don't like her. She denied sex to poor Leonard , who worshipped her. How hurt he must have felt every time she trotted off to have sex with her sister or Vita. Would The Hogarth Press have existed without hm? Just asking ....
I have read most of Woolf’s novels, but have never come across in them these extremely objectionable statements she made about the poor! Seems like maybe some people learned too much about her—most people who read her work know only the work, and maybe a few factoids about her life, and perhaps our ignorance is to be preferred.
Woolf and Keynes are certainly geniuses. Most social circles have zero geniuses. Two seems like more than enough ;)
Her diaries are wonderful and very much worth reading but you will find much more open prejudice there
Forget Lee and read Harvena Richter’s The Inward Voyage. Truly inner voyage into her characters’ psychological lives. She is the Bach and Wagner of her novels.
It is fascinating to see how culture and society influence our perspectives, as exemplified by the Bloomsbury set.
I read a lot of 19th-century short stories, and I reflect on the context of the time. I am intrigued by the individuals who were able to go against societal norms. The people who took a stand for what was just & good. I wonder if I would have been as clear-minded, or as brave.
In the midst of these troubled times, how can we avoid being swayed by popular rhetoric and societal influence? How can we remain committed to what is ethical and beneficial for all of humanity?
As a self-described Woolf devotee, I found your analysis fascinating, especially because I happened upon this X conversation a few days ago and have been thinking a lot about it. Given the dynamics of Bloomsbury/Woolf and the complexity of admiring great-but-flawed artists, your last line rings true and is perhaps the best we can do. Though modern values make me highly uncomfortable with Woolf's open classism and racism, I'm equally uncomfortable with the desire for a long-dead writer living in an entirely different cultural context to be nice and prejudice-free (and, admittedly, my own occasional urge to excuse the prejudice). Ultimately, I'd rather admire the genius of the work and accept (but not necessarily approve of) the person for exactly who s/he was, warts and all. Much to consider here, thank you!
What about Forster? Does he count as a full Bloomsbury member? Is there any question that he is extraordinary?
Leonard Woolf's autobiography, largely (unfairly) forgotten in the wake of so many loving Virginia for the wrong reasons, is worth more than the rest of Bloomsbury
"She was a genius. That ought to be enough."
It is enough. I do believe in sequestering the work from the author for this reason alone. I am happy to hold admiration for a writer as a writer and disliking them for their views on stuff.
I wonder why we expect writers to be prejudice free and nice? They are the same as everyone, full of furies, fears, hatreds, failings. Perhaps we think that the work itself, when it is profound and brilliant, that it contains an essence of goodness because it had to arrive from a mind that was humane and able to see beyond their darkness. And Woolf was a troubled woman, and ended her own life. Maybe her prejudices were part of her troubled mind?
Two of my favourite writers, VS Naipaul and Philip Larkin were very unpleasant, albeit with Larkin, privately in his letters. His poems are free of any of that.
Dull contemporaries like Orwell - really???? He may have had an overly sentimental view of the working class (I speak as one of them) and dated views re gays etc but as a champion of human decency and enemy of cant he has no equal for me.
I have a friend who doesn’t read Woolf, because Woolf disdained Joyce. Woolf is in my pantheon of great writers, as is Joyce. Why break a friendship because one artist is read by one party but not the other? It makes me tired. Loved this essay.
Not sure you quite get it here. Agree that, by our standards most Bloomsburyites were snobs and full of prejudice (but not E.M. Forster) but they were also pioneers of what has become hegemonic- the liberal boho yuppie lifestyle where what matters is sex (not only hetero), friendship, pleasure, and art/literature. They invented it and spread it. Or at least they bourgeoisified an aristocratic ethos.
If they bourgeoisified an aristocratic ethos that’s quite a lot less than your first claim. And the question is what they are valued for and some people wish to value them for reasons other than this. Lee wasn’t praising the bourgeoisified aristocratic ethos but the vices.
The piece is called “How to rate Bloomsbury” which surely means that their immense overall social impact is relevant to it? Finding it hard to see why not. And I myself think the way they bourgeoisified something that had previously been aristocratic libertinage counts as an invention actually. But nothing rests on that. Thanks for the essay though!
.
I don’t mean to be dismissive — I don’t think I believe they had much social impact — what can I read about that?
There must be books on the topic, mustnt there? From where I came from, at the time I did, the power and reach of Bloomsbury values was obvious, no need for academic legitimation. It was disseminated by journalists like Desmond MacCarthy, food writers like Elizabeth David and designers in the wake of Fry, British pysychoanalysis led by James Strachey etc etc. Of course not all these figures were at the heart of the group which quickly became a broad network extended across those with most cultural power and prestige in Britain. This network had opponents obviously, most notably the Leavisites, whose denunciations of Bloomsbury are worth reading.
David Trotter’s LRB article from the autumn on a couple of editions of Mrs Dalloway and two critical books on it prompted me finally to read it. (His comparison to Emma, a favourite, clinched it.) I’ve now read it a couple of times in the last six months, as well as the recent Mendelson book. It instantly vaulted to the top of my favourite books list and the pointed me towards To the Lighthouse and re-reading Orlando. She clearly held views which we’d now consider retrograde. She was a product of her class and background. She also brings a deep imaginative sympathy akin to Eliot - I was often reminded of her comments on Middlemarch and Eliot’s pivot to Causubon (“why is it always Dorothea?”). With the noted exceptions of Bradshaw and Holmes, there are few wholly unsympathetic characters in Dalloway. Whatever her personal views and prejudices, the novels don’t unambiguously repeat them. If anything the reverse. She is deeply sceptical of empire and categorisation. So I’ll continue to read her. The diary selection is on my list, along with The Waves.
Separately, I’m interested in people who won’t read Woolf because of her views on Joyce. I love Portrait and Dubliners, but have repeatedly failed in attempts at Ulysses. I find Woolf more compelling and accessible.
It seems strange to me, if she was only limited by her class, that she knew to self-moderate
After all, there's no good reason why every Bloomsbury Group member should have been equally talented. And time is an unsparing critic; fashions change. But it can be dismaying to find out that those we admire have feet of clay. Anna Funder's 'Wifedom: Mrs Orwell's Invisible Life' charts her dismay at discovering the appalling behaviour of her literary idol. She wrote an involving biography with an element of personal memoir. In contrast, your footnote about Lytton Strachey was on the money: marvellously waspish and entertaining but not a serious biographer.
Woolf was aware and honest. That is her crime for you and her value for me.
What is your definition of genius? Mine is someone who left something behind not in the world when s/he entered it. Something, I don't know, like radar, cat's eyes, ibuprofen und so weiter. Novels are two a penny. I have never read hers because I don't like her. She denied sex to poor Leonard , who worshipped her. How hurt he must have felt every time she trotted off to have sex with her sister or Vita. Would The Hogarth Press have existed without hm? Just asking ....
True about Strachey. Keynes is is close to genius as anyone whose economic analyses are nonsense. Woolf towers over them both, although, Orlando?