Talk:Virginia Woolf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Orlando as fiction

Orlando of course references Vita Sackville-West, but it is clearly a work of fiction for the most part, and I believe it should be listed there rather than under "Biography." When a work claims to be a biography of a fictional character, then it becomes a work of fiction. eeesh 6:08 PM May 14, 2006

Orlando can't be thought of as anything other than a novel. Woolf acknowledged that it was inspired by Vita Sackville-West, but it was in no way an attempt at biography. Yallery Brown 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A new book about Virginia Woolf

There is a new book about her written by Thomas Szasz "My Madness Saved Me": The Madness and Marriage of Virginia Woolf ISBN: 0765803216 , 2006, here one can find some opinions on this book http://www.szasz.com/woolf.html Quotation Bela Buda: "She put an end to her life by a conscious and deliberate act, according to Szasz, and not driven by the irrational motives of an illness." Austerlitz 88.72.1.11 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) According to the letters she has left which have been cited on the main page she has committed suicide because of deep unhappiness and hopelessness. That's what Alice Miller says, too, and it is plainly true. Austerlitz 88.72.1.11 11:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Miller has written about Virginia Woolf in her book The body never lies and in her book Thou Shalt Not Be Aware revised edition 1998 http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php?page=3 . Austerlitz 88.72.2.223 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dreadnought hoax

this should get a mention in here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Feminist"

I think talking about her dislike of the "feminist" term in the lead paragraph is a bit weird - it's a minor detail given undue prominence. It's also unsourced. A whole section, with sources, on her relationship to the feminists of her time (she greatly admired suffragette crusaders such as Ethel Smythe) should be added.

Yes, I know -- I should do it myself if I want it done. I'm just making this note so people won't be startled when I move the discussion of the "feminist" label out of the lead paragraph.

Dybryd 05:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Storing this cut text here until I can get more accurate version sourced:

Though she is commonly regarded by many as feminist, it should be noted that she herself deplored the term, as she felt it suggested an obsession with women and women's concerns. She preferred to be referred to as a humanist (see Three Guineas).

Dybryd 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can get the quotation from here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91tg/ (tyger 05:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the link. I don't think it supports the text I cut. Dybryd 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Commentary a reliable source?

I'm not sure about the material that's just been added sourced to Commentary magazine. Commentary is a polemical publication, and one of the things it specializes in is hatchet-job articles on writers whose politics are not its editor's. A few months ago, I was involved in a discussion over at the Michel Foucault article, in which claims about Foucault were added to the article based on Commentary's review of a biography. It was eventually found that the biography being reviewed did not in fact support the lurid, sensationalistic assertions made in the review.

I suspect something very similar is happening here. The paragraph on Leonard I just added is also sourced to a review of the same biography Commentary discusses in its article. The picture that review paints of the book--and of the Woolfs' marriage--is a good deal less highly colored and polemical.

In any case, I feel that phrases like "corrosive contempt" are in themselves POV and out of place in an encyclopedia article. Dybryd 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, having read the article carefully it looks fine, and "corrosive contempt" is quoted to Glendinning, not to the reviewer. Dybryd 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is a fine article, describing -besides other- the tragedy of Leonard Woolf having married a woman suffering from repulsive anti-semitism. Austerlitz 88.72.25.173 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant material removed from Flush: A Biography

This was appended after the footer of the article about Flush. I suspect it was just a bit of linkwhoring and it doesn't seem to fit WP, what with the subjectiveness and the questions and the what-have-you, but I thought I should leave it here (since there is no page for Kew Gardens) just in case:

Kew Gardens

Plot Summary The story begins by setting the garden scene: a mild, breezy, summer day in July with "perhaps a hundred stalks" of colorful flowers, petals unfurled to meet the sunlight. The light hits not only the flowers in an "oval-shaped flower-bed" but the brown earth from which they spring and across which a small snail is slowly making its way. As human characters saunter thoughtfully or chattily through the garden and through the story, the narrator returns again and again to descriptions of the garden and the snail's slow progression. Men and women meander down the garden paths, zigzagging like butterflies, as the narrator hones in on particular conversations.

---

Characters The wife of Simon and the mother of two children (Caroline and Hubert), Eleanor walks through the garden chatting with her husband who tells her of his failed marriage proposal to Lily years before in Kew Garden. Eleanor remembers herself as a little girl, painting by the lake with five other girls. As Eleanor painted, a "grey haired woman with a wart on her nose" suddenly kissed her on the back of the neck, a precious kiss that became Eleanor's "mother of all [her] kisses all [her] life." When her husband asks whether she minds if he talks about the past, she responds that she does not mind and asks, "'Doesn't one always think of the past, in a garden with men and women lying under the trees? Aren't they one's past, all that remains of it, those men and women, those ghosts lying under the trees . . . one's happiness, one's reality?"'

---

Themes Each human character in the story seems lost in his or her own reminiscences. Despite walking with someone in Kew Gardens, the narrator emphasizes ways in which their thoughts are their own. Some of the characters are merely alone with their thoughts, like the first couple who remember by themselves and then talk with each other about their memories. Other characters, like William and the "ponderous woman," seem lonely. They walk with a companion who does not seem to notice them. In the end, the man and the "ponderous woman" are perhaps not merely lonely but alienated from those around them. The old man's strange behavior seems to keep him locked into a world all his own, unable to connect with anyone around him.

---

Narrative The narrator is an omniscient third person. The narrator sets the scene and is able to delve into each character's private thoughts. The true narrative insight appears not so much in what is said or illustrated but in the demonstrated inadequacy of the characters' conversations. The narrator illustrates the garden scene in a fashion that deflects emphasis from an individual person or group of persons. People appear in a series that is implicitly continuous and repetitive. The snail offers the only consistent character and even "his" progress is not only mundane, but it is not narrated to completion; the story ends with the snail in the act of tentative progression. The descriptions of the garden are omniscient about the visual impression of the garden—the play of light, the shape, angle, and placement of garden objects, and the diffusion of color. As a result of these narrative emphases, the story de.....

---

Analysis Guide Compare the four different groups of people who stroll through Kew Gardens. Do you see any similarities among them? How do Eleanor and Trissie compare? How do Simon and the young man compare with Trissie? Why is so much attention paid to a snail walking across the garden floor? What is unique about this story? Can you formulate a plot? What is the story trying to do by skipping around from group to group and why doesn't the story tell the reader more about what happens to each of its characters?

http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-kewgardens/

Mwillia9 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Woolf alumna of king's college london? the oxford world's classics edition of 'to the lighthouse' has a woolf timeline which says that she studied history and greek at kcl...please update

Neopagan

Woolf was part of the group called the Neopagans, but I'm unsure how this relates to the category:neopagans she's been put in here; was she really a neopagan in the sense of Neopagans? 131.111.8.104 10:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No, she wasn't at all. Woolf coined the term "neopagan" as a joke and a backhanded insult - she didn't really consider herself a member of the group, it was what she called the group surrounding Rupert Brooke who were less literary and more funloving.

Here's an NPR story that talks about it - [1] Dybryd 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

suicide note: "believed by most"?

The article has been changed to read "In what is believed by most to be her last note to her husband she wrote"

Is there expert debate about this really being her suicide note? If so, then I think that's notable and deserves fuller discussion and sourcing. If not, then I'm not sure why the uncertainty and the weaselly-vague language "believed by most" has been introduced.

Dybryd 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Discouraging exclusivity subtle POV

This may seem nitpicky, but there is a subtle POV issue with this sentence in the Personal life section:

The ethos of Bloomsbury discouraged sexual exclusivity, and in 1922, Woolf met Vita Sackville-West.

This implies that she entered into the relationship because exclusivity was discouraged--that seems doubtful considering its length. Can we rephrase this? It would be like saying "The ethos of England discourages sexual inclusivity, and in 1912, Virginia Stephen met Leonard Woolf." Its implicitly attributing motivations to them which there may or may not be evidence for. Now if there is evidence that it was a relationship which entered into because exclusivity was discouraged, such as diaries stating as much, and a respectable biographer has seen the evidence and written about it, then please source. Brentt (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Life and Marriage

It says she was with her husband from 1880 to her death, but she wasn't even born then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.150.183 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct name?

In his foreword to the abridged diaries, Quentin Bell wrote that Woolf's given name was "Adeline Virginia." Can anyone confirm this, and modify her full name here? Thanks. Huntington (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Bell was my grandfather's (Heward Bell's) cousin and I think my grandfather said something about this to me, but it should probably be corroborated further just in case. (Truthbody (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

I tried to check it out, but no luck finding anything definitive so far. (Truthbody (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

TS Eliot ??

Eliot was born in 1888, and the household which he is said to have visited (Virginia's parents'/father's) effetively broke up at her father's death in 1904 (when Eliot would have been 16). Eliot didn't arrive at Oxford until 1914. I've removed T S Eliot from the list of visitors to V's parents' household. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.236.156 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Stream of Consciousness

I can't believe that the article doesn't mention stream of consciousness - VW's main writing style - except in relation to a biography! 195.74.145.252 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Short Stories Collections Section

In that section besides the names of books written by her the year in which that book was written has been given. Some books' years are after her death like 1944 and 1973 and 1985. Is this any writing mistake? Rohitrrrrr (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

King's College, Cambridge?

"Following studies at King's College, Cambridge"? It seems unlikely that she ever studied at King's College Cambridge, they did not admit women until 1972. The source cited mentions only King's College London. I propose deleting the mention of KCC, and moving the citation to the following phrase, about KCL. Maproom (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Her death

How does someone kill themselves by simply walking into a river? Overcoat and pockets full of stones doesn't really explain it (the rocks aren't so heavy that she can't walk into the water in the first place). No matter how much one wants to end their own life, there is an instinctual struggle against drowning. 151.197.64.210 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

People are more than capable of drowning themselves. María (habla conmigo) 14:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf revert?

Hi Xxanthippe. I was puzzled by your revert of the Virginia Woolf edits. You mention that the "English expression not good enough". I didn't actually change the syntax. I toned down the POV of "While nowhere near a simple recapitulation of the coterie's ideals... " and "writers of the calibre of Jorge Luis Borges and Marguerite Yourcenar" which have judgement loaded into the phrases re WP:EDITORIAL. 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is not to do with Virginia Woolf. A list of cultural references is discouraged by WP:TRIV - especially ones repeated in other sections. I think my edit summaries reflect this. I'm not sure what this has to do with English expression. I look forward to hearing your reasons for reverting. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed from the article Virginia Woolf the pieces "While not a simple recapitulation of the coterie's ideals, Woolf's work can be understood as consistently in dialogue with Bloomsbury, particularly its tendency (informed by G.E. Moore, among others) towards doctrinaire rationalism." and "such as of ". Woolf was a pretty good prose stylist and the article about her should match her own style in quality. The above sections unfortunately do not. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

The explanation you've given is not a valid justification for reverting Spanglej's amendments. If there's an issue with the style, neutrality or grammar of an edit the usual thing is to correct, not to revert.To suggest an article should reflect the prose style of its subject is not a tenable position. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Xxanthippe was correct in that there were a few small wording issues with the recent edits. I've copy-edited slightly, so it should read better now. I've also restored Spanglej's removal of repeated info, as well as the nixing of trivia, since Xxanthippe's revert mistakenly (?) undid these. María (habla conmigo) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Thanks Maria, for the copy edit. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A "list" of cultural references is discouraged, but when there is a lone, overwhelming, cultural reference, how can you leave it out?! I, for one, have long known the name only due to the play. To quote Mad Magazine "Who the heck is Virginia Woolf?" I was quite startled to find that she was a real person! I'm sure others are in the same boat. The reference needs to be reinstated.66.3.106.1 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Albee's play "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? The play is not about her... Span (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The play is not directly about her, but the Virginia Woolf of the title (and in the finale) is indeed her. Call her a "background" figure (or, perhaps, "muse").

This is not the case of someone with a (coincidentally) matching name -- the Virginia Woolf in the play is her. 66.3.106.7 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Year of death of Leonard Woolf

On this page, it states that Leonard Woolf died in 1941, yet on the page dedicated to him, it says that he died on the "14 August 1969 (aged 88)". Leonard and Virginia's dates must have become muddled. I have therefore changed the date to match the one on his dedicated page, which is the one that can be seen in other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thudoro (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

How can an article about Virginia Woolf not mention bipolar disorder? Karada 03:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should add references to that claim. Post mortem psychological diagnoses are not the most reliable ones... EnSamulili 08:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of good work done on the diagnosis of Woolf. While it is often difficult to do post mortem diagnosis, it is a bit easier with Woolf because of the volumes of her letters and diaries. She writes quite a bit about her periods of mania and depression. These can be used to make a DSM-IV tr (psych diagnostic tool) of bipolar. See also, The Flight of the Mind: Virginia Woolf's Art and Manic Depressive Illness, by Thomas Caramagno

Reading Woolf's diaries closely, I find that headaches - occipital,throbbing and prolonged, depersonalization experiences aka "mystic states",illusions of "control" i.e. body-parts, identity not her own,"leaden paralysis" and synesthesias were prominent. It is my clinical opinion that she likely sufferred from some kind of Complex Partial Seizures, without secondary generalization. She clearly delineates depressive episodes with neuro-vegetative symptoms which last a week or less, which are more like post-ictal dysphoria - and by a stretch can be called Bipolar Disorder, Type II, with an even slighter possibility of Borderline personality organization vide Kernberg. The episode leading to suicide could be a Major Depressive disorder, with psychotic features - or perhaps the harbinger of what used to be called Late-Life Paraphrenia. It is also my feeling that by as early as 1919 she was already envisioning publication of the "Diaries" ( she writes of "gathering shreds and pieces" at age 55 to publish, and expresses the feeling that Leonard "would not burn them after my death". ) so a lot of the "real stuff" was repressed, or glossed over e.g. marital quarrels, sexual & aggressive impulses & c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.181.145 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the mention of Caramagno's book, this is all utterly irrelevant, due to WP:NOR. -- 98.108.209.103 (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar debate currently surrounds New Zealand writer Janet Frame, who, according to a recent study, may have been autistic. IMHO, such posthumous diagnoses are harmless and, if anything, keep the author in the spotlight and reflect the growing concerns of the reading-public. --Doclit (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Doclit. A posthumous diagnosis made by an IP address cannot be taken seriously. Please find a suitable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

James Joyce's writing

I disagree with the statement that Virginia Woolf disagreed with the modernist writer, James Joyce. In her essay, "Modern Fiction," she outwardly praises him for capturing LIFE within his writing, which she states is essential to writing. If writing does not have anything to do with life, Woolf believed it was absolutely worthless. I am going to remove the James Joyce mention because I believe it is inaccurate. Aurora 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Virginia Woolf did ultimately dismiss Joyce's work, at least Ulysses, as tedious, or "common" or something to the effect of both. Where is the author of this page on this? You have this statement: She has been hailed as one of the greatest novelists of the twentieth century and one of the foremost Modernists, though she disdained some artists in this category. --but no examples of the Modernists she may have disdained are given. This is also a serious problem in the section which follows, concerning her reputation as an author: throughout that section NO examples are given of either the critics who have attacked her or those who have built her reputation, besides the EM Forster quote. PLEASE GIVE US AT LEAST SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FOR ALL THE CONCLUSIONS YOU MAKE REGARDING HER CRITICAL REPUTATION.

According to the Virginia Woolf biography by Herminoe Lee, Virginia Woolf did voice her disappointment with James Joyce, especially Ulysses, and when she met him once she was not particularly impressed. I believe the original source is her diaries but I haven't read them all yet! --Karina.l.k 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Her dismissal of Ulysses is in her letters. Read the second volume. "We've been asked to print Mr. Joyce's new novel, every printer in London and most in the provinces having refused. First there's a dog that p's - then there's a man that forths, and one can be monotonous even on that subject - moreover, I don't believe that his method, which is highly developed, means much more than cutting out the explanations and putting in the thoughts between dashes" (p. 234). "Never did I read such tosh" (p. 551). Tomasboij 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, in 'Modern Fiction', she claims that Joyce's writing fails when compared to Youth or The Mayor of Casterbridge because of "the comparative poverty of the writer's [ie Joyce's] mind". Illu45 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

List of occupations

Do we really need so many words in the introduction, listing her occupations? Won't "author, essayist, publisher, and writer of short stories" suffice? And how many casual readers of this site will know what an "epistler" is? Can't we simply cover the many genres of her writing under the umbrella terms "author" and "essayist"? I made this edit earlier but someone reverted it, so I assume there must be a reason as to why the list is so wordy. And also, why, if there must be this many terms, is only one hyperlinked? JackHeslop91 (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The user who reverted you seemed to only take issue with the overlinking in the lead; terms like author, writer and publisher are readily understood, so they don't need to be linked. I've reverted to your previous edit, since I agree with your points re: wordiness, although I've removed some superfluous links. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreeSpanglej (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks. Yeah I do have a bad habit of overlinking! JackHeslop91 (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

These long lists do not make good copy, and too many of the Wiki lead-sections are written like this. The point about 'author, essayist, publisher, and writer...' etc is that many of the terms overlap, and when they don't, it is likely that one of them is ten times more significant than the rest put together.

For Woolf, I would suggest 'English modernist writer and prominent figure in literary society.' (You don't need 'twentieth century - the dates are there anyway.) 109.154.25.128 (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentions in Popular Media?

First, is the reference in the spoken lines of Cave Johnson from Portal 2's new DLC. (Community Testing Initiative.) Can others help make a list of all references? 98.151.187.249 (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian ancestry

Virginia's cousin William Dalrymple states in this Guardian article that his and Virginia's shared ancestress Sophia Pattle was descended from a Hindu Bengali woman. He also mentions it to the Times of India. Although Dalrymple himself does not mention that Pattle is also Woolf's ancestor, this genogram for Woolf (from Smith College) confirms that Pattle is indeed also Woolf's ancestor. Ihaberlin (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The intention is that the talk pages discuss proposed changes to the article etc, not discuss the subject. Were you wanting to add this information to the article? I think Indian ancestry deserves a brief mention in the article, so that's one opinion, and if I assume that you were wanting to include it, that would make two opinions in favour of inclusion. Are there any more views on this? 33gsd (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinions please on edits 04:06, 21 September 2012‎

The aims of these edits were

(1) to form bulks of text into focussed, coherent paragraphs that can later be improved (2) to remove repetition (3) to make it more concise by removing some low-quality, unsourced material, without resulting in bias/ significant change to the thrust of the original.

In the process, I also added material I thought was more suitable/needed for continuity. Naturally I see the result as a work-in-progress.

I would invite any comments on this edit (which was reverted by another contributor hours later) and would invite others to use it as a base for improving the article. I intend to continue to work on it myself; maybe it should be kept on the talk page, until it is of a high standard.

Specific points you may wish to comment on could include:

Did I remove any good material? Did I unwittingly change meanings when I rewrote a phrase to make it more concise?

many thanks

(On the subject of the reversion without any reason being stated and without comment on the talk page, it could be interpreted as a claim to own the article. But I assume good faith on the part of the reverting editer, and indeed I decided, before seeing the reversion, it would be best to create an article on the talk page to invite opinions on my edit, so perhaps we thought along the same lines. I want to go forwards, not backwards; but please, could you state your justification for the reversion?)

33gsd (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)33gsd (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Band name

A band called Modest Mouse got their name from one of Virginia's short stories. Should that be mentioned in the article or should The mark on the wall(I think thats it) have its own article? Happymeal33 (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be on either page because I see it as a significant Modest Mouse fact, not a significant fact about Woolf, or one of her works. If someone convincingly argues that the Modest Mouse continue the Virgina Woolf legacy, then possibly it could count as trivia. cheers. 33gsd (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown after sex with husband ? ?

Okay, I'm being serious, not sensational, but I think I remember reading in the introduction to The Voyage Out that one of Woolf's breakdowns followed the one and only time she had sex with her husband. Am I imagining reading this? I thought it was rather....striking. But elsewhere in these discussions, I see some state it's unknown if her marriage was consumated at all. What's the story? Codenamemary (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we require reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

Hello? Is anyone prepared to look for reliable sources? 33gsd (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia and Leonard Woolf did consummate their marriage. Vanessa Bell (Virginia's sister) mentions in a letter that the two of them anxiously consulted her, after their honeymoon, about how soon in her own marriage she had experienced orgasm. Vanessa told them she couldn't remember. The honeymoon seems to have been disastrous for another reason, which Leonard Woolf described in his memoirs. Virginia had a serious nervous breakdown on the trip. Woolf had not been warned by her family about the severity of her mental issues. He found himself, a new groom, far from home, trying in desperation and terror to find a way to take care of his insane new wife. Younggoldchip (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

SEXUALITY

=I deleted a claim in the article that Virginia and Vita Sackville-West had a sexual affair "for most of the '20's," because good sources like Nigel Nicolson (Vita's son) and Quentin Bell (Virginia's nephew) believed otherwise. In Bell's biography *Virginia Woolf*, he stated that most friends and relatives who knew Virginia well believed that she was asexual--that she enjoyed toying with the idea of sexual relations, but not the actuality. Nigel Nicolson, in his memoir of his parents, Portrait of a Marriage, states that his mother Vita told him she and Virginia actually went to bed on a total of two occasions. Vita felt Virginia was emotionally too fragile to risk having an intense affair. There is, however, no question that the two women shared a deep friendship and love. Younggoldchip (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that there's been a small revert war about Virginia Woolf's sexual orientation. She is listed as a famous gay, lesbian, bi person but the text only mentions that her work has feniminist and lesbian themes. So, was she or was she not a lesbian/bisexual? EnSamulili 10:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Woolf's sexuality is a point of some contention amongst scholars, especially those who wish to claim her for the history of lesian/bisexual literature. What is clear is that Woolf formed intimate personal relationships with both men and women, including with her husband Leonard Woolf and with fellow female writer Vita Sackville-West. Whether either of these relationships was consummated sexually is uncertain, although I'm inclined to believe that both were. The letters between Virginia and Leonard, and Virginia and Vita, contain numerous playfully sexual references, and one of Vita's letters to her own husband mentions sex with Virginia.

Homosexuality and bisexuality were much less stigmatised within the Bloomsbury circle than in wider early 20th century society, and many of Woolf's closest male friends were gay. It's not unlikely that she too was expressively bisexual. However, I do think that Woolf's relationships with men and women are of different qualities, and that its difficult to assign her a definitive sexuality with any certainty.

Is there any point to the line "Woolf and her beloved sister Vanessa Bell were also close friends."? It seems arbitrary, especially because the whole section is about Woolf's sexuality. --90.194.237.3 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a paragraph that says "In her last note to her husband she wrote...". To me, this indicates she was married. How then can people from the future, claim that she was LGBT - of which I'm assuming relating to bisexual, if not lesbian? This seems to me like the LGBT twisting the past, to satisfy their current political goals, saying - in fact in the past, lots of people were LGBT, but it was all repressed... Well... that would be like people in the future saying, sorry, it was all repressed, but everybody was in fact Buddhist or something like that. 203.161.120.119 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what she was, but it is naive to think that being married to a man precluded her from being a lesbian.--172.190.48.107 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Quentin Bell (Virginia's nephew), in his biography of Virginia, believed that her so-called love affair with Vita Sackville-West had been puffed up out of all recognition to what actually occurred. He believed that Virginia, whom he described as a snob, liked the idea of being linked with the glamorously aristocratic Sackville-West. However, according to Bell and to Sackville-West's son, the affair seems to have flourished primarily in the minds of these two gifted women. They enjoyed exchanging flirtatious letters, but only went to bed twice, during all the years they knew each other. Younggoldchip (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Human nature, modernism/postmodernism

Woolf's recollection of the onset of the modern denial of human nature. She, or rather the related quote—"On or about December 1910..."—is used in "scores" (according to Steven Pinker) of English syllabi. Would be powerful to have it squeezed in somewhere in this article. LudicrousTripe (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Award refusal

I think it's worth remembering the episode of the "title" that E.M. Forster offered her (with great effort), and that she refused because she didn't want to be the only woman "authorised" to hold it, as a sort of white fly. I think I may have read the story in Forster's diaries, but S. Rosenbaum 1998 is another source and says it was the London Library Committee. Nemo 22:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Bloomsbury section

Currently, the first sentence of that section reads "Woolf came to know Spongebog, Elizabeth Kubek, Brangelina, Saxon Sydney-Turner, Duncan Grant, Leonard Woolf, John Maynard Keynes, David Garnett, and Roger Fry, who together formed the nucleus of the intellectual circle of writers and artists known as the Bloomsbury Group.".

Spongebog [sic] and Brangelina are obvious nonsense, but I don't know whom she actually used to know, so I cannot edit it myself. Somebody with more historical knowledge should correct the sentence to contain the real people.92.192.109.52 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I found a number unacknowledged quotations and erroneous citations. This also constitutes an excessive use of lengthy quotation. I have edited but really these passages should be deleted. My suspicion is that there may be more of this. Rwood128 (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was in particular thinking about the section on the influence of Thoreau. Furthermore isn't this an over-emphasis of one minor article? Rwood128 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have modified the emphasis on Thoreau and unless there's objection will trim (précis ) this section, which appears to over-emphasise Thoreau. Though it does seem likely that transcendentalist movement might have influenced Woolf. What about Ralph Waldo Emerson?

Though maybe it just appears to be an over-emphasis, because there's little discussion of other important influences? Rwood128 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Virginia Woolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10801
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128025206/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/vwoolf.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/vwoolf.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10801&page=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/44663661/0/fiche___pagelibre/%26RH%3DCLE_ANG110100

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Error? - Cites 'gemlike flame' as a quotation from Thoreau which inspired Woolf. 'Gemlike flame' from Walter Pater

Round about footnote 70 the article says that Woolf was highly inspired by Thoreau - here is the quote:

Another influence on Woolf was the American writer Henry David Thoreau, with Woolf writing in a 1917 essay that her aim as a writer was to follow Thoreau by capturing "the moment, to burn always with this hard, gem-like flame" while praising Thoreau for his statement "The millions are awake enough for physical labor, but only one in hundreds of millions is awake enough to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive".

The quotation 'hard, gem-like flame' is from the English critic Walter Pater. Did Thoreau quote it from Pater and did Woolf then cite it to Thoreau? I think Woolf would have known this was Pater, though? Will investigate further but if anyone knows in the meantime that would be great - many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Bill (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Stunning fact about Virginia Woolf

Virginia Woolf wrote all of her books while standing.I just read about this fact in a book which consists of stunning facts about great people depicting their path to success. Abishe (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not so "stunning", actually. Many writers write standing. Winston Churchill was another well-known one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"shant"

This was a minor edit, but I thought it might deserve a mention. I put an appostrophe in "shant" because that is proper, however, I do not know whether this is what she wrote.

A quotation cannot be changed because there is an error in it. Instead it is shown as written with a [sic] to denote that a usage is incorrect, but part of a quotation that can't be changed. I changed shan't to shant [sic].

Well, that was dumb, because it was some WP editor, not Virginia Woolf, who left out the apostrophe. -- 98.108.209.103 (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It also depends on whether the quotation is from her writing, or a transcription of an oral statement. An oral quotation could have an apostrophe added, as the error was then made by the transcriptionist, and not by the person quoted. rags (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar

Just a thought, maybe the grammar could be cleaned up a bit in the biography portion of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.57.78 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go when I next get a little spare time. I see the article is only rated C. With all the information about Woolf available, perhaps we could aim for something a bit higher?

(Truthbody (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

I'll pitch in if you want to have a go at getting this to Good or Featured status. I'm copyediting the existing text right now. --Fullobeans (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article seems much better than back in December, thanks everyone. (Truthbody (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC))

Bloomsbury section needs help. I have done a little, but what to do about "that she became considered the better writer", concerning Vita Sackville-West. I'm sure we can do better, I'm just at a loss for the moment. rags (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2018

Change "modernists authors" to "modernist authors" in the first full paragraph. Bobconway (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection

I requested protection due to recent vandalism - though this may be due to her recent birthday, when she got 1.3 million page hits --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

I have added "unreferenced section" template to the Ancestry section because it is very easy to construct an ancestry tree from unreliable sources published on the internet. However it only takes one mistake for large parts of the tree to be incorrect. For example if a grandmother is recorded as the first wife rather the second wife (the correct mother), then a quarter of the tree will be inaccurate, even if all the other entries for every single person are correct. For this reason trees need accurate sourcing from reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

From the edit history:

• 09:47, 3 January 2018‎ Almanacer . . (Undid revision 818251310 by PBS (talk) The Lee biography has the full family tree. Citation added.)

@Almanacer See WP:BURDEN "... is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". One inline citation in a whole section does not meet that criteria. At the very least you need to add a footnote to the citation explaining that all of the section is covered by the one source. Also just because relatives are covered that doe not mean that all the ancestors are. If they are then you need to add a citation to the ancestry tree stating as much. -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

See the featured article Charles I of England#Ancestry for an example how this can be covered if there in one source for the whole tree. -- PBS (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your concerns re “accurate sourcing from reliable sources” I don’t see this as an issue with the Woolf article ancestry section which has multiple links to other appropriately referenced articles and a family tree which is consistent with the family trees in the Lee and Quentin Bell biographies (I have now added the latter as a citation – it has a measure of extra data). In the absence of any controversy over or disputing of the data in these reliable sources (which is where WP:BURDEN would then apply) it seems to me the criteria that the data be verifiable is adequately met. I appreciate where controversy might arise eg in the Charles I article you mention or similar ones where genealogies are more remote and less accessible, more rigorous standards would apply. I see it as evident from the location of the citations that all of the section is covered by the sources. Almanacer (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The current footnotes do not meet WP:V "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article", what is the source that explicitly states that Therese Josephe Blin de Grincourt was VW's great-great-grandmother? The point of including the link to the section Charles I of England#Ancestry is to show the sort of citations needed for feature articles (and so is the sort of citation level that articles like this should strive to meet) and demonstrate inline citations that "clearly support the material as presented in the article". Wikipedia is not a reliable source so "multiple links to other appropriately referenced articles" does not meet WP:V. As you removed my request for citations (you could have replaced it with one citation and a {{refimprove section}}) the burden is on you. -- PBS (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The family trees in the Lee and Bell biographies as cited both include Therese Josephe Blin de Grincourt along with the other relatives mentioned in the section and "clearly support the material as presented in the article". The level of citation appropriate to any given article will vary according to the degree of controversy or lack of clarity re its content. For this article neither has been shown to be the case. Almanacer (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The section to which WP:BURDEN links does not mention "degree of controversy or lack of clarity" precisely to remove that sort of question. It is much much more binary (black and white). "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged" and " The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I have challenged and used the template {{citation needed}} as a proxy for removing the ancestry chart. I have provided a featured article example (Charles I of England#Ancestry ) of how that challenge can be met. As user:Blueboar has written many times before at WT:V, if one has access to a source that can verify a fact, it is far less time consuming for everyone if one adds the appropriate citations than to dispute whether they are needed. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, the family trees in the Lee and Bell biographies as cited both include Therese Josephe Blin de Grincourt along with the other relatives mentioned in the section and "clearly support the material as presented in the article", including in the ancestry chart which now has its own citation. Are you challenging the data, eg the inclusion of Therese Josephe Blin de Grincourt, as verified by these reliable sources, if so on what basis? I don't see the Charles I model as useful for this article. Almanacer (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You could do worse than look at her mother's page - Julia Stephen --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

English atheists

Woolf is in Category:English atheists, yet there is no mention in the article of a belief that there is no God, and no corresponding reliable secondary source to support it. WP:CAT/R specifies, "For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." The article text should explain and document such a consensus in order to qualify for the category. 2600:8800:1880:2B95:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done:Woolf's atheism is considered well-documented by scholars in her field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

And where is that documented in the article? The reference you provided is not there. It doesn't count on the talk page. 2600:8800:1880:2B95:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:CATV requires, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category." 2600:8800:1880:2B95:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoomp. While you're referencing snippets of guidelines, you may be interested in WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Just sayin'. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Most people reference snippets of guidelines. If they didn't they be accused of being verbose or not knowing the policies/guidelines. Just sayin'. Dig _deeper ^talk 03:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, sure. I made two general handwaves in the direction of policies immediately above so it would be quite hypocritical to object to snippet-referencing. I find that some editors will quote one policy/guideline/essay/whatever while ignoring others that equally apply to the situation at hand but which also reflect more poorly on their demands. Hence the references. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. The anonymous posters' request for sources does not seem unreasonable. Requesting multiple reasons, when one valid reason is adequate seems inappropriate. Similarly WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY could be added to most disagreements to stifle productive discourse. I find that some editors will also use the WP:LAWYERING inappropriately, to stifle productive discourse. WP:BITE might equally apply here. I did a quick google search and was unable to quickly find a reliable source to support this categorization. It would not be unreasonable for the poster to WP:be bold and remove the category until such time as a sentence with a reliable source is added to the article. Also, the WP:onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Dig _deeper ^talk 19:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

notability of books that discuss her mental health

The reference to the first book suggesrs this is a rare and obscure opinion. Also as per WP:INTEXT, it is best to include author and book details in the reference, rather than mr. x says tjis but my w says that. I propose we delete the following paragraph, since the second sentence is there to balance out the obscure opinion.

Irene Coates's book Who's Afraid of Leonard Woolf: A Case for the Sanity of Virginia Woolf holds that Leonard Woolf's treatment of his wife encouraged her ill health and ultimately was responsible for her death. Though extensively researched from the feminist perspective, this view is not accepted by Leonard's family and some critics.[45] Victoria Glendinning's book Leonard Woolf: A Biography argues that Leonard Woolf was not only supportive of his wife but enabled her to live as long as she did by providing her with the life and atmosphere she needed to live and write. Virginia's own diaries support this view of the Woolfs' marriage.[46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig deeper (talk • contribs)

Dig deeper, regarding this, it is not correct that WP:INTEXT suggests omitting the name of the author. Per WP:INTEXT, claims such as these should be attributed to the author via in-text attribution. We obviously don't present claims as fact. We don't necessarily need to mention books, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the article reads well and does not follow the pattern outlined above. Dig _deeper ^talk 02:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Dig deeper, what pattern are you talking about? Either way, I pointed you to what WP:INTEXT states because that is what we should be following when it comes to claims that are not widely accepted as fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The claim is not even supported by the secondary source. The source provided to support this sentence actually criticizes the authors claim as preposterous. To say the claim is not widely accepted as fact is an understatement. This is an obscure opinion WP:UNDUE applies here. WP:INTEXT also technically applies, but is secondary to WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE is what resulted in it's deletion. Dig _deeper ^talk 19:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dig deeper, I simply wanted to note that if we were to retain the information, it should be given in-text attribution. As for the claim, I'm not sure how prevalent it is. But if it's discussed/debated enough in reliable sources, it is worth a brief mention. If it's obscure, then yeah, we shouldn't mention it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf

In the introductory paragraph the publication of her first novel The Voyage Out [1915] is attributed to Hogarth Press which she and her husband Leonard founded in 1917. In the body paragraphs the publication is correctly attributed to Duckworth, owned by her half-brother. There is no need for an outside reference as the correct information is in the body of the entry. Dr. Patricia Waters 204.29.77.84 (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Patricia, thank you for pointing out the error. You are correct, the first edition clearly shows the Duckworth imprimatur. I will see that it gets fixed. Michael Goodyear (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Status

This page is not in good shape. I am concentrating on cleaning up citations at present. It should be at least GA (after all her mother, Julia Stephen is). Although rules vary by country, German is the only GA version to date, and provides a model. Someone removed the language tag I placed there as an incentive, so I will mothball it here.

--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Inline citations and bibliography are now cleaned up to facilitate future editing --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As part of a major rewrite, the Selected list of publications is being revised to link to citations within the text - please don't change it to a regular list - there is already a separate bibliography and also one in the navbox below the text. See all my FA/GA biographies for this style --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

List of publications revised. Earwig check for possible copy violation found one and rewritten --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

External links cleaned up, curated and sorted into bibliography --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of sentences in this article that also appear all over the internet. As usual it is difficult to know who copied whom. As an abundance of caution rephrasing is underway. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Numbering of letters

The editors of Woolf's letters gave each a unique number for a good reason. There are nearly 4000 letters spread over 6 volumes. I have used the letter number in referencing them for the purpose of verifiability since it makes it much easier to retrieve them. As a compromise, they could be footnoted, as in a number of her biographies. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 12:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Letter numbers have been moved to footnotes --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There has been a fair bit of to and fro on this. Biographers of VW vary in the way they treat letters. I suggest we stick with the style used by Hermione Lee in her definitive biography, placing the year in the text and the details in the footnote - unless there is an especial significance to the actual date. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Keeping the original quotes

Patrick, the reason brackets are used to replace letters in a quote, is to ensure that the whole quote is given as the original. In this case, the quote comes from the middle of a sentence. The capitalise it and remove the brackets is to change the context of the quote and suggest this is the start of a sentence. There is virtue on keeping the original wording. Anna (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely concur: the brackets are needed since the quoted source has brackets. We cannot change the punctuation from that used in the Hermione Lee paper if we are going to quote that paper. Otherwise, what does quoting mean? Doctormatt (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion and sorry I didn't reply sooner. Without meaning to sound condescending or possibly smug (and probably failing), I'm an editor of 25 years' standing, so I do know what square brackets are for. This isn't the place to settle the argument over whether square brackets are even necessary around single letters, but they seem to have become a fad in recent years when they were rare only a couple of decades ago, which suggests that editors weren't too bothered about the matter till recently. I tend not to favour them, mainly because they look ugly and pedantic while making the text look messy. This is an encyclopedia, not an academic paper.

Anna, you say that "[t]here is virtue [i]n keeping the original wording", but we're not changing the wording, just restoring the original capitalisation. Why didn't Hermione Lee keep the original capitalisation if it's so important? You want to keep "the whole quote ... as the original"? Good. Let's keep the original, which is Woolf's. Doctormatt claims that "[w]e cannot change the punctuation (sic)". Why not? Lee did. Surely in an article about Virginia Woolf, it makes more sense to quote what Woolf actually wrote rather than an academic's bastardisation of what she wrote. If, as Anna says, to "remove the brackets is to change the context of the quote", then adding them, as Lee did, committed just that sin and by refusing to change it back we are preserving a gross error.

You've called this section "Keeping the original quotes". So let's keep the original quote, which is Woolf's, not Lee's. Patrick Neylan (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Virginia Woolf - Վըրճինիա Վուլֆ.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

== Virgina Woolf == by victroia reddin

• As a woman, I have no country. As a woman, I want no country. As a woman, my country is the world.

• I would venture to guess that Anon, who wrote so many poems without signing them, was often a woman.

• The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.

• If one could be friendly with women, what a pleasure - the relationship so secret and private compared with relations with men. Why not write about it truthfully?

• The truth is, I often like women. I like their unconventionality. I like their completeness. I like their anonymity.

• This is an important book, the critic assumes, because it deals with war. This is an insignificant book because it deals with the feelings of women in a drawing-room.

• Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size.

• It is fatal to be a man or woman pure and simple: one must be a woman manly, or a man womanly.

On Women in Literature • [W]omen have burnt like beacons in all the works of all the poets from the beginning of time.

• If woman had no existence save in the fiction written by men, one would imagine her a person of the utmost importance; very various; heroic and mean; splendid and sordid; infinitely beautiful and hideous in the extreme; as great as a man, some think even better.

• Have you any notion how many books are written about women in the course of one year? Have you any notion how many are written by men? Are you aware that you are, perhaps, the most discussed animal in the universe?

On History • Nothing has really happened until it has been recorded.

• For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.

On Life and Living • To look life in the face, always, to look life in the face, and to know it for what it is...at last, to love it for what it is, and then to put it away.

• One cannot think well, love well, sleep well, if one has not dined well.

• When you consider things like the stars, our affairs don't seem to matter very much, do they?

• The beauty of the world, which is so soon to perish, has two edges, one of laughter, one of anguish, cutting the heart asunder.

• Each has his past shut in him like the leaves of a book known to him by his heart, and his friends can only read the title.

• It's not catastrophes, murders, deaths, diseases, that age and kill us; it's the way people look and laugh, and run up the steps of omnibuses.

• Life is a luminous halo, a semi-transparent envelope surrounding us from the beginning.

• Someone has to die in order that the rest of us should value life more.

On Freedom • To enjoy freedom we have to control ourselves.

• Lock up your libraries if you like, but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.

On Time • I can only note that the past is beautiful because one never realises an emotion at the time. It expands later, and thus we don't have complete emotions about the present, only about the past.

• The mind of man works with strangeness upon the body of time. An hour, once it lodges in the queer element of the human spirit, may be stretched to fifty or a hundred times its clock length; on the other hand, an hour may be accurately represented by the timepiece of the mind by one second.

On Age • The older one grows, the more one likes indecency.

• One of the signs of passing youth is the birth of a sense of fellowship with other human beings as we take our place among them.

• These are the soul's changes. I don't believe in ageing. I believe in forever altering one's aspect to the sun. Hence my optimism.

On War and Peace • We can best help you to prevent war not by repeating your words and following your methods but by finding new words and creating new methods.

• If you insist upon fighting to protect me, or "our" country, let it be understood soberly and rationally between us that you are fighting to gratify a sex instinct which I cannot share; to procure benefits where I have not shared and probably will not share.

On Education and Intelligence • The first duty of a lecturer is to hand you after an hour's discourse a nugget of pure truth to wrap up between the pages of your notebooks and keep on the mantelpiece forever.

• If we help an educated man's daughter to go to Cambridge are we not forcing her to think not about education but about war? - not how she can learn, but how she can fight in order that she might win the same advantages as her brothers?

• There can be no two opinions as to what a highbrow is. He is the man or woman of thoroughbred intelligence who rides his mind at a gallop across country in pursuit of an idea.

On Writing • Literature is strewn with the wreckage of those who have minded beyond reason the opinion of others.

• Writing is like sex. First you do it for love, then you do it for your friends, and then you do it for money.

• It is worth mentioning, for future reference, that the creative power which bubbles so pleasantly in beginning a new book quiets down after a time, and one goes on more steadily. Doubts creep in. Then one becomes resigned. Determination not to give in, and the sense of an impending shape keep one at it more than anything.

• Masterpieces are not single and solitary births; they are the outcome of many years of thinking in common, of thinking by the body of the people, so that the experience of the mass is behind the single voice.

• A biography is considered complete if it merely accounts for six or seven selves, whereas a person may well have as many as a thousand.

• Odd how the creative power at once brings the whole universe to order.

• When the shriveled skin of the ordinary is stuffed out with meaning, it satisfies the senses amazingly.

• A masterpiece is something said once and for all, stated, finished, so that it's there complete in the mind, if only at the back.

• I meant to write about death, only life came breaking in as usual.

• I was in a queer mood, thinking myself very old: but now I am a woman again - as I always am when I write.

• Humour is the first of the gifts to perish in a foreign tongue.

• Language is wine upon the lips.

On Reading • When the Day of Judgment dawns and people, great and small, come marching in to receive their heavenly rewards, the Almighty will gaze upon the mere bookworms and say to Peter, "Look, these need no reward. We have nothing to give them. They have loved reading."

On Work • Occupation is essential.

On Integrity and Truth • If you do not tell the truth about yourself you cannot tell it about other people.

• This soul, or life within us, by no means agrees with the life outside us. If one has the courage to ask her what she thinks, she is always saying the very opposite to what other people say.

• It is in our idleness, in our dreams, that the submerged truth sometimes comes to the top.

On Public Opinion • On the outskirts of every agony sits some observant fellow who points.

• It is curious how instinctively one protects the image of oneself from idolatry or any other handling that could make it ridiculous, or too unlike the original to be believed any longer.

On Society • Inevitably we look upon society, so kind to you, so harsh to us, as an ill-fitting form that distorts the truth; deforms the mind; fetters the will.

• Great bodies of people are never responsible for what they do.

• Those comfortably padded lunatic asylums which are known, euphemistically, as the stately homes of England.

On People • Really I don't like human nature unless all candied over with art.

On Friendship • Some people go to priests; others to poetry; I to my friends.

On Money • Money dignifies what is frivolous if unpaid for.

On Clothes • There is much to support the view that it is clothes that wear us, and not we, them; we may make them take the mould of arm or breast, but they mould our hearts, our brains, our tongues to their liking.

On Religion • I read the book of Job last night, I don't think God comes out well in it.

About These Quotes This quote collection was assembled by Jone Johnson Lewis. Each quotation page in this collection and the entire collection © Jone Johnson Lewis. This is an informal collection assembled over many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.189.240 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Death of the Moth" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Death of the Moth and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 30#The Death of the Moth until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)