Nevertheless, Woolf is constantly reminding herself and refraining from writing without fear or anger. This was a tad confusing but... Ultimately, the androgynous mind that that the narrator speaks of seems to be gendered, but not necessarily preferring one gender over the other. It takes the fusion and productivity of both sexes in the mind to “fertilise” and cultivate innovative writing. Making another comparison to Shakespeare, the narrator claims he is a fine example of this androgynous mind, but believes that he is destructive by asserting the superiority of his own sex, in turn putting down the opposite gender. She also judges this standard on other various famous writers and concludes that the mind needs to hold both of the sexes at equal levels for full capacity and a fostering “perpetual life.”
Woolf takes over the position of the narrator in order to address criticisms she anticipates will be brought against her original narrator. First, that she didn’t opinionate the relative merits of males and females; and second, that her audience might have thought she was being classist and focusing too much on material things. I ask, isn't a mind is strong enough to work without money and privacy? But back to $=Freedom, she still argues that without money, the mind can’t experience intellectual freedom. Only with this freedom will great writing follow.
The essay is wrapped up by Woolf maintaining and insisting that women’s writing is important. Good writers are connected with "reality", and are the people who can relate this heightened sense of reality to their audience. Today, we can see that her point (backed up by the professor) that genius buds only in the rich and educated is wilted, but many of Virginia Woolf's other ideas about gender and writing still hold true in feminist thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment