Shakespeares Sister Essay Analysis Short
What happened in Virginia's childhood that made her ambivalent and somewhat fearful of male sexuality and how did she compensate?
Virginia's eldest stepbrother, George Duckworth, sexually abused her beginning around the time her mother died. Because she was young, extremely shy and naïve, Virginia was horrified by the abuse, but awed by her much older brother (he was twenty-seven; she was thirteen.) Though filled with disgust for her brother and wracked with self-loathing, Virginia never told anyone about the abuse except her sister Vanessa. Because of the abuse, as an adult, Virginia was physically unresponsive to men-even finding male lust unfathomable and inconvenient for all parties involved. Although she was very much in love with her husband Leonard Woolf, she simply couldn't respond to him physically, and sex was something she did not enjoy in the slightest. She compensated by engaging in a number of "affairs of the heart" with dynamic, often beautiful women. Her first stirrings for a woman occurred when she was twenty when she met long-limbed, confident Violet Dickinson. Although the two only shared passionate letters, they remained good friends for many years. Another woman, Katherine Mansfield, evoked extremely complex feelings in Virginia-part love, part hate-and although Virginia may have fallen in love with Katherine, nothing came of it. Finally, Vita Sackville-West was an engaging, darkly attractive female writer who adored Virginia and her writing. Virginia's nephew and her biographer Quentin Bell says that Vita and Virginia engaged in a love affair for the four years between 1925 and 1929. The letters that exist from this period indicate a mutual romantic love. Despite her wandering heart, Virginia remained true to Leonard.
How was the Bloomsbury world different from the world in which Virginia had grown up?
The Bloomsbury Group was full of just the kind of people Virginia was looking for. Intelligent, insightful, well read, well educated, slightly unkempt, unconcerned with fashion and a little snobbish. In addition, Virginia was attracted by the fact that both she and her sister were accepted wholeheartedly into the clan with no mention of their sex, and no expectation that their contributions to the group would be anything less than equal or better. This was a radical shift from the kind of household they, and nearly every British female during the Victorian period, grew up in. Although Leslie Stephen was extremely supportive of his bright daughters, lending them books, teaching them Greek and having them tutored, like most fathers, he reserved the university training for his sons. In fact, few British universities were even admitting female students at that point. This meant that regardless of Virginia's intellectual ambitions, she would always be limited to her own books; she'd have to educate herself. Meanwhile, she was expected to learn charming skills that would be useful when it came time to find a suitable match for marriage: musicianship, social grace and drawing were just a few of the skills that marriageable young woman of the upper middle class were expected to acquire.
Yet when Virginia and Vanessa joined the Bloomsbury Group, the entire Victorian moral system dropped from beneath their feet and they found themselves in an environment in which frankness was in and inhibition out. Add to that the fact that the people gathered at the Stephens' Bloomsbury house on Thursday nights were some of the best minds of the time-including Lytton Strachey, John Maynard Keyes, Clive Bell, Roger Fry, Desmond MacCarthy and Duncan Grant-and you had an imposing club. However, as the Bloomsbury Group's fame grew (with each accomplishment from its members), its infamy grew in direct correlation. Artists saw it as a snobbish, exclusive club-or worse, a clique. Virginia's friends were shocked by the company she was keeping, especially her stepbrothers, the Duckworths. Rooted firmly in the stiff Victorian moral code in which men and women had cordial relationships, though certainly not overly familiar ones, the Duckworths found Virginia and Vanessa's behavior shocking. They were scandalized when they learned that the girls had taken to staying up until three in the morning visiting with Thoby's friends. Despite her half-brothers' reservations, Virginia and Vanessa thrived in Bloomsbury.
Summarize Virginia's stance on talented women writers and their place in society, as well as the opportunities afforded them in which to practice their art.
Virginia was likely recalling her own lack of opportunity as a young woman when she wrote A Room of One's Own. A slender treatise on the importance of opportunity for talented female writers, the book took society to task for limiting the choices available to women of talent, and suggested that the only way for those women to produce the great works of literature that they were capable of producing was to make sure they had five hundred pounds a year and a room to call their own.
While the ideal writer is androgynous in mind-that is, sexless; a writer whose writing is not informed by his or her sex. Virginia found women whose anger at their lack of opportunity seeped into their prose artless. However, that anger must be wiped clean, and in order for that to happen, women must be given the opportunity to attend university and to be free from the social expectations heaped upon her shoulders even before she leaves the nursery. Economic independence is a necessity, for one thing. A relaxation of the social mores, is another. Virginia writes in A Room of One's Own of a hypothetical Shakespeare's sister who might have been laboring in a laundry or in an ale house, and who, given the opportunities Woolf was now demanding, might have been even better than Shakespeare.
Why were women not afforded the opportunity to attend university, and what were they expected to do instead?
Describe Virginia's pattern of composition; that is, what kind of mental cycles did she go through before, during and after writing a novel?
How did World War One affect Virginia's career and, more importantly, how did it affect her writing, as well as that of many of the Modernist writers?
Describe the dynamics in the relationship between Clive Bell and Virginia. What brought them together after a few years of animosity?
Why did other artists and British society at large find the Bloomsbury Group so threatening?
Describe the dynamics of Virginia's relationship with Lytton Strachey? What kinds of rivalry, what kinds of love?
Describe the philosophy, or modus operandi, used by the Bloomsbury Group in order to encourage free and open discussion (hint: a philosophy promoted by G.E. Moore)
Name some of Virginia's Modernist contemporaries and compare and contrast their work to hers.
The narrator is disappointed at not having found an incontrovertible statement on why women are poorer than men. She decides to investigate women in Elizabethan England, puzzled why there were no women writers in that fertile literary period. She believes there is a deep connection between living conditions and creative works. She reads a history book and finds that women had few rights in the era, despite having strong personalities, especially in works of art. The narrator finds no material about middle-class women in the history book, and a host of her questions remain unanswered.
She is reminded of a bishop's comment that no woman could equal the genius of Shakespeare, and her thoughts turn to Shakespeare. She imagines what would have happened had Shakespeare had an equally gifted sister named Judith. She outlines the possible course of Shakespeare's life: grammar school, marriage, work at a theater in London, acting, meeting theater people, and so on. His sister, however, was not able to attend school, and her family discouraged her from studying on her own. She was married against her will as a teenager and ran away to London. The men at a theater denied her the chance to work and learn the craft. Impregnated by a theatrical man, she committed suicide.
This is how the narrator believes such a female genius would have fared in Shakespeare's time. However, she agrees with the bishop that no women of the time would have had such genius, "For genius like Shakespeare's is not born among labouring, uneducated, servile people," and women back then fit into this category. Nevertheless, some kind of genius must have existed among women then, as it exists among the working class, although it never translated to paper. Even if a woman surmounted various obstacles and wrote something, it would have been anonymous.
The narrator questions what state of mind is most amenable to creativity. She finds that creating a work of art is extraordinarily difficult; privacy and money are scarce, and the world is generally indifferent to whether or not someone writes. For women in the past, the conditions were even harsher. The privacy of a private room or vacations was a rarity. Moreover, the world was not only indifferent to female writers, but actively opposed their creativity. Over time, the effect on a budding female writer is very detrimental.
The narrator believes this male discouragement accords with the masculine desire to retain the status of superiority. Unfortunately, genius is often the most susceptible to the opinions of others. She believes the mind of the artist must be "incandescent" like Shakespeare's, without any obstacles. She argues that the reason we know so little about Shakespeare's mind is because his work filters out his personal "grudges and spites and antipathies." His absence of personal protest makes his work "free and unimpeded."
Lacking historical evidence, Woolf again uses her fictional powers in describing the plight of Shakespeare's sister. She first details all the factors that aided Shakespeare's natural genius: his early education; his freedom to leave his wife for London; his ready employment in the theatrical world; his ability to earn money for himself; his opportunities to explore other walks of life; his lack of familial responsibility. Judith, conversely, is victimized by a number of socioeconomic factors: lack of education; discouragement from reading and writing; absence of privacy; lack of employment opportunities in the artistic world; the burden of children.
The narrator again cites the looking-glass relationship between men and women: men rely on women's supposed inferiority to enlarge themselves. Beyond the socioeconomic factors described above, women writers have the additional obstacle of discouragement and disdain from their patriarchal society.
And obstacles, the narrator concludes, are poison to a writer's mind. She starts developing her theory that for a writer to attain genius like Shakespeare's, there must be no external obstacles, nor can there be personal grudges within the work. Only then can genius be "incandescent," yet another word choice that equates brilliance with light.
The modern reader may find Woolf's theories classist; indeed, the statement "For genius like Shakespeare's is not born among labouring, uneducated, servile people" would be met with furor if published nowadays. However, it is important to remember that Woolf believes that money and personal independence foster freedom of thought, and that poverty and its attendant ills inhibit such thought. Moreover, she admits that brilliance does emerge from the working class, albeit rarely.
Still, Woolf is clearly at odds with any kind of "protest" literature, feeling that it dilutes the "incandescent" brilliance of the writer. Many contemporary critics maintain that protest literature is the strongest kind of art, the only art that can truly effect social change. Indeed, much contemporary feminist and minority literature theory emphasizes protest as a means to reclaim voices historically drowned out by white males. Woolf will soon elaborate on her controversial theory.