InterChange Conference on Woolf's Between the Acts (7/3/00)

Karin Westman:

We spoke Friday about the degree of optimism or pessimism we hear in Woolf's last novel. To continue that conversation, consider the following question in order to initiate your discussion:

As the audience leaves the play, we hear fragments of conversation, including the following: "He said she meant we all act. Yes, but whose play? Ah, that's the question!" (199-200).

Who or what has written the play the characters act out over the course of the novel? Is there any chance they can can re-write or revise the scripts? For example, does hope for revision reside in Lucy Within's tendency to "increas[e] the bounds of the moment by flights into past or future" (9)? In Isa's injunction to herself "what we must remember: what we would forget" (155)? In Mrs. Manresa's self-construction? In GIles's violent action? (You get the idea....) Or, are we left without control over this "script" of our lives?

Banks Yatsula:

im not sure I could back this up, but it seems that we are left with the idea that we are, but only to a degree, able to "re-write" the script. The world changes and, as we are of this world, so we are also capable of change. Something to note, however, is that even though an ondividual can change, others may not, thus leaving a resistance to change. It is that resistance that one may feel when reading BTA. When one person changes, the dynamics of all his or her relationships change asa well.

Laura McGeorge:

I get the feeling that we are left with little control over the script in our lives. Isa's poetry seems to be compulsive, and she doesn't appear to have much control over it. Also, at the end, when Isa and Giles "must fight; after they had fought, they would embrace" (219) doesn't give me much hope that "another life might be born" from their fighting. If this is a script that must be followed, then they must have played these roles before, and nothing new has been born from their fighting and embracing so far. Plus, new criticism aside, I think one has to look at Virginia Woolf's state of mind when she was writing this book - I cannot see how a suicidal woman would be able to write an optimistic book and have it be "true", which seems to be something she was striving toward.

Banks Yatsula:

there also seems to be the idea that only something really destructive or violent can effect true change

Karin Westman:

...whcih is why I wondered whether Giles was representative of a way towards change, given his violence.

Banks Yatsula:

i see Laura's point about having an understanding of Woolf's mind at the time she was writing, but I do believe that she must have had at least some degree of hope, for she had made it through other breakdowns. So, maybe it is that little, tiny ray of hope which I want to see in BTA.

Karin Westman:

TO follow up on that cryptic comment: Do you think the novel suggests violence leads to creation as opposed to only destruction?

John Brooks:

This is a difficult question. There's a part where an old man says "Thank the actors, not the author...or ourselves, the audience." I take this to mean that although the play has an actual script and a route that it is supposed to follow, the actors are the ones who are actually doing the physical action of repeating their learned lines. I think what this man is suggesting, and perhaps Woolf, is that the actors do not have to follow the script, they simply choose to. In other words, who is to say that when the actors get on stage they must regurgitate their parts? They have "the floor" and could certainly say whatever they wished. I think by this Woolf is suggesting that although our "script" is already made out by the society and culture in which we are born, we have the ability to throw caution to the wind, to throw out the script we've been given and create our own. This sounds extremely optimistic, but I think that Woolf recognizes that most people don't have the strength or the desire to to such a brave thing and so they simply fall back into the same old patterns. And that, for Woolf, is devastating.

Laura McGeorge:

All of the characters in this book seem to be engaged in futile actions...Giles' violent action is not important because it doesn't affect anything in his life; Isa and Lucy are overwhelmed by their imaginations; Mrs. Manresa is obsessed with playing the character she has created for herself. If the book had been about action or these people breaking out of the scripts that bind them, I would view this as optimistic, but no one changes anything in the end. Everyone goes about their business in the roles to which they have become accustomed (sp). I just can't find anything positive in the stasis in which these characters continue to exist, so I would tend to think that Woolf was implying that we either have no control over the scripts of our life or that we just don't care enough to change them (the scripts), no matter how miserable we are.

Banks Yatsula:

Yes in some ways, for Miss LaTrobe's play does show progression, maybe not a true spiritual progression, but we do start with Roman roads and pass through the Victorian Time, do we not? War is a violent time out ofwhich new worlds are built....hopefully we do come away from the experience of war with a new respect for life.

Karin Westman:

What do you all make of John's comment about optimism in the fact that Woolf emphasizes scripts and acting?

Karin Westman:

Here's another approach to this question: Does awareness count for anything, or for something positive? (That is, we have some of the voices and Idsa asking about who authored the script of their lives, the need for a new one (p.215))

Laura McGeorge:

The violent action that stands out most in my mind is Giles' killing of the snake...I have to wonder if that has any creative power associated with it. He put the snake out of its misery but didn't create anything by his action, but I don't think you could call this extremely destructive, either, since he does release the snake (and the frog) from its pain. The snake is in a state of stasis and is unable to get out of it without outside interference. I wonder if Woolf is implying the same about us - that we are in a state of stasis, and only interference from an outside source will end the stasis, but kill us in the process.

Mary R:

I did not hear the earlier class discussion, so this might night be related . The question about whose play is it is interesting because, if we don't know whose play we are acting, it can be interpreted either pessimistically or optimistically, depending upon one's outlook. If we are acting in our own play, we have some control over the script. Everyone is the hero os his own novel (play). Of course nature and others would exert an influence, but I see this as more optimistic. If someone else or some other force is writing the script is writing the script, I would see that as more pessimistic.

John Brooks:

But we don't come away from war with a new respect for life. We have terribly short memories. After WWII, after Vietnam: we never remember what went on. It can be paralleled with the school shootings now--for a week or so after one we scream and holler that something has to be done and then that passion simply fades back into the depths of our memories. What does this have to do with BTA? I think Woolf is showinfg us, by the play, that humans DON'T change. THe scenery might change, the names and languages might change, the weapons might change, but in the end, we're still cruel and selfish.

Banks Yatsula:

I agree that Woolf seems to be asking us to re-think the role of an actor in relation to the actions of a real person. We do benefit and have something to learn from an actor who re-creates the past. This allows us to look in a mirror of sorts...and sometimes our reflection will strike a nerve. But which nerve it strikes definitely depends upon our state of mind and our age at the time.

Karin Westman:

...but, John, that there's always the potential for change, if we seize it?

Laura McGeorge:

I think (in response to Dr. Westman's question) that awareness only counts if people use it to affect change in their lives - to break out of the roles they play and try and do something else. On page 215 Isa is undecided if people "act different parts but are the same" - she seems more aware of her uncertainty than of the actual role she plays. I don't think awareness counts for anything unless the characters utilize it, and no on in the novel does.

Banks Yatsula:

I disagree, John. There is potential for change. But we do have selective perception and selective memories. This goes back to the idea that perhaps we need to try to see the significance of plays and literature.

John Brooks:

Awareness has to count for something. It surely doesn't mean as much as action, but awareness is the first step toward action. And I totally agree that change is possible if we seize it. I'm just trying to see things from what I think is Woolf's perspective, and I think she recognized the beauty in awareness and in the possibility of change but also was eternally saddened by the fact that as a species we have so much potential and squander it all because we're too caught up in things that are unimportant to really change.

Laura McGeorge:

I wonder if Woolf really believed that there was the potential for change - none of the characters exercise it in the book, so the potential for something new to come from Isa and Giles' fighting and embracing is unlikely. If there is potential for change, we are too stuck in our roles and scripts to grab it and go with it. Miss La Trobe is an example - she tries to touch people with her work, but even she ends up drunk and passed out in a public bar - I don't think she effectively seized the potential for change, and she is the only character in the book that seems to even try to.

Karin Westman:

OK: (RE Laura's last post): So here's where I have the same thought I had in class on Friday: Should we think of the reader of Woolf's novel and the characters within it as being at the same point in terms of power to chnage , to act? That is, what's the effect of reading this novel, and seeing characters who think about change without actually making change?

Karin Westman:

*****If you'd like to change conferences, you can. Just use the InterChange menu and join the other conference, and wait for the messages to load...

Banks Yatsula:

I dont think that life is a set road which is to be followed, and I think Woolf would agree. Yes i see that she followed a diferent path and that path obviously caused her great sadness. It does speak to the idea thatwe must at least acknowledge that change is possible, but also that big change is gradual. we cannot become something other than what we are oner night. We humans are a process as well...

Laura McGeorge:

I agree with John that Woolf's viewpoint toward awareness and change is very pessimistic. I like to think that awareness and potential for change are important, but I don't think that is what Woolf is saying. I think that her breakdown and mental state at the time leads to a very pessimistic interpretation of the novel.

Banks Yatsula:

Re Laura's point: woolf shows us that some people will not cahnge and also that here are very few people willing to risk actually effecting change. But some of the biggest changes start with one persons ideas....

Elizabeth Andrews:

Woolf's ideas, perhaps?

John Brooks:

I think Woolf's intention was pessimistic. As Laura said (I think) it does not seem possible for a suicidal woman to write a novel with the intention of it being a positive book. Having said that, I think that what one takes away from the novel is a sense that it is possible to change. The ending is incredibly depressing, but as a reader who is not completely connected to that, we can look at this book and say "I refuse to live this way, to be placed into a role and follow it." That is what I've gotten out of this class for sure. I think Woolf's last novel has the unintended effect of pointing out the sadness of a predetermined life and the reader is therefore determined not to live his or her life in that manner.

Doug Grant:

I would agree with Laura that Woolf seems a pessimist, and also something I just noticed about Woolf's pessimism in all of her novels: Her characters are always regretting past descisions, unhappy with their circumastances, always afraid to embrace or create change, and usually conform to their stale societies with little resistance. this seems pessimistic to me.

Laura McGeorge:

I don't know what I think about Woolf's message to readers - she could be censuring the characters in the book for not acting and grasping the potential for change, which would imply that we as readers should NOT be like these characters in the book. However, I feel that this book was Woolf's statement to the world on the futility of life (keeping in mind that this would be her attitude during her depression) - if she really felt that readers of the work could affect change in their life by using the characters in the book as an example not to follow, doesn't it stand to reason that she would have felt that she as the writer would also have that potential? I think that BTA is her way of saying that there is no potential for change, and if there is that we will never take it (I don't think this way, and I hope that others don't, because we would all end up like Woolf with a view like that, but I can't see that she would feel any hope from the potential to change and then kill herself shortly after).

Karin Westman:

A side note: Do we have to read Woolf's life into her novel (to play New Critical devil's advocate)? That is, at what point should her diary writings and letters become separate texts from her novel?

DOug's suggested that the pessimism is present within the other novels too...

Elizabeth Andrews:

But does Woolf's book (and the play within it) even have its desired effect on us (half a century later)? I think it made me more aware of my surroundings and my options, but it didn't change my life or inspire me to act differently. Perhaps I am easily swayed by the books pessimism. But all the bitterness is not redeemed by a rising curtain after the precedence of inaction has been set. What kind of effect did it have on all of you?

Jennifer Boyd Cook:

I think Mrs. La Trobe utilizes her awareness. Unfortunately, she's a social outcast. This heavily counters the optimissitc ending Woolf tries to provide.

Karin Westman:

Are there advantages to being an outcast?

Doug Grant:

I read into Woolf's life. Given what we know about her present state of depression when writing het novel, it would be hard for that not to show in the pages. Also I agree that most of her charcters are representations to readers, models for the way in which we shouldn't act, paths we shouldn't follow.

Laura McGeorge:

I don't really follow the New Critical school of thought - I think that something as important in someone life (like Woolf's depression) HAS to play a role in her work, especially when she seemed so concerned with getting to the heart of life in her books - her goal to present life as it is would not allow her to write a work that is brimming with false hope...I think what she wrote is what she thought. I think it brings up the point again that Dr. W. brought up a while ago - I wonder where we as readers would stand if they had anti-depressants in Woolf's day - it would be great for her but we as readers would be cheated of some of her greatest works.

Amy Ketner:

I think that no matter how much we want to seperate an author from his/her works, there will always be conncections. There is no way that Virginia could have not, at a time when she was feeling so depressed, been venting in her book. What she wrote about is a great commentary on human life, and i believe that it goes right along with her letters and diaries at the time.

Laura McGeorge:

I think Miss La Trobe is able to be achieve something more creative that reaches out to others (her play) than the characters who are not outcasts, but she doesn't do anything with that power - she ends up drunk and unconscious at the end...

Doug Grant:

I think it's interesting that Woolf is a pessimist in her novels. If her real life was so depressing, I would think she would be better off writing of people and situations that are optimistic and that inspire. This would help her to escape the pain of her real life. Teh fact that she's a pessimist reflects how much she really wants to reach readers with her work.

Karin Westman:

To follow up on Laura's and Elizabeth A's postings: Might the time of the book's production affect our understadning of its pessimism or optimism? That is, for Woolf to be questioning the progress of British culture in 1941, setting her book in June 1939, could also be a factor....

RE: Miss La Trobe's play & power of art: Does her play last longer than she does, unconscious as she is?

John Brooks:

I agree with Laura that Woolf's intent was to expose the futility of life, but I don't think it necessarily does that. Well, it does it, but it does it in a way that makes me want to fight against that futility. It's very strange, because I'm usually one who succumbs to sadness when I read a melancholy book. But this one...it makes me hate what these people have done with their lives. I hate that Isa keeps her poetry hidden and it makes me want to shout mine from the rooftops. Well, maybe not quite...

Elizabeth Davis:

i agree that woolf's personal unhappiness affected the character developement in this book. i think the fact that a play was made up demonstrates how fiction and reality are relative, as are optimism and pessimism. the good must come from the bad. mrs. la trobe darkness has an effect on all the characters and the actors' true personalities.

advantages to being an outcast? you hold all the power, that being mostly bad.

Amy Ketner:

I dont see any positive change or action at the ending of the play in the lives of any of the charactors that allows me to see any hope for them. Their only problem is that they cant just be real.

Laura McGeorge:

In response to Elizabeth Andrew's comment - I too felt that the rising curtain didn't redeem anything at the end. I wanted it to, and I wanted to imagine that these characters would be able to lead better lives and be happier, but I don't see that they will - I think the precedent of inaction, like E. said, has already been set. I think the only thing we can do is remember this novel and if we do find ourselves in a rut like the characters, then try and change.

Jennifer Boyd Cook:

I, too, think that this novel could indicate maybe a turn in her mental health. Everything seems so much more pessimistic. Time is not as flexible and accomodating (?) as in the Waves. Do you feel she provided an optimisstic end as an alternative because of her current state of mind?

Karin Westman:

***TO wrap up our discussion here, please offer the following: 1) Do you think *BTA* is optimitistic, pessimistic, or ambivalent about the future (for characters or readers, your choice), and 2) two reasons why.

Doug Grant:

The novel is pessimistic. Nothing is redeemed. The characters remain uncontent and unfulfilled. The mood is dark. What the hell are we supposed to get out of this novel?

Amy Ketner:

It is pessimistic. There is no action shown that provides any hope for change or for the divisions that exist between the charactors to be erased. Life in the world of BTW is simply a play. Real emotions and feelings are hidden as the play of life takes the upper hand.

John Brooks:

I think we have to read into Virg's life when reading her novels. I'd like to say that we shouldn't, but it's not like we're reading Jackie Collins or something. Woolf wrote with the intention of making a statement about the world. I don't think you can discount her personal state when trying to see what point she wished to make about the world.

Laura McGeorge:

Pessimistic - I think that Woolf shows that none of the characters has any intention or hope of embracing change that would bring them to happiness in their lives, and I think that her state of mind at the time of writing doesn't allow for an optimistic reading because she would not have felt optimistic at the time.

Doug Grant:

Pessimistic:

1. No resolve between characters.

2. No real answer or solution as to what's to be done provided.

John Brooks:

I think that Woolf meant for the novel to be pessimistic, so therefore it is pessimistic. As a novel, the characters fail to meet their potential and their lives are meaningless. But I do think that we can walk away from this novel with an anger that can spawn a desire for change. No, the characters don't change, but because we can see that, we can do our best to see that we do not end up like that, drunk on the floor and passed out in what should be our moment of glory.

Jennifer Boyd Cook:

Honestly, I think the book ended pessimistically for me. If it had ended with the crowd dispersing, though a more depressing ending, it would be more realisitic, and would atleast convey the audience's attempt to grasp what was occurring. Maybe everyone didn't get the point of the play who came to see it, but they went away with something. For some reason the ending just bothers because it's so glaringly out of order with characters like Isa and Giles, and I think this discord, though not the author's intent, offers more to be pessimistic about because it forces an optimism that part of us doesn't want to accept. Rejecting that possibility as a reader, especially at the end of the book, is troubling.

Banks Yatsula:

I have to think that Woolf herself was always searching for more, for a better farme of mind for herself. If she really was manic/depressive, then she was also searching for moderation because a person suffering from such a disease, one in which life is never moderate, cannot ever feel just ok. So, yes woolf does seem to try to work out this need to define life becomes a struggle for her in all her novels. She must have had an intense need to be "ok" with life as it was because she knew what it was like to never "be in the middle." So this said, i must accept her themes as realistic, and even slightly optimistic even though they were depressing. She knows there is a potential for change, its just that she was unable to fulfill her own potential to reach a state of moderation.

Return to ENGL 395