Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, by Anita Loos.

In “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes”, Anita Loos used the vapidity of her main female character Lorelei Lee as a satirical reflection of the shallowness of the men which surround her. Specifically, Lorelei is portrayed as being superficially fixated on material wealth, but the men who covet her are represented as being equally superficial in their interest in her physical beauty. In a broader sense, Loos used the background of upper-class America in the Jazz Age as an object of ridicule itself.

Lorelei is a masterful social climber in this world, and while she is not a “bad” or immoral character, the abilities she utilises to successfully manipulate those around her are amoral and shallow. She makes frequent spelling mistakes and uses punctuation badly. She is easily swayed by flattery into overestimating herself – note the March 16^th entry, when the “gentleman” she is with tells Lorelei that she could write a book of her thoughts, which she secretly believes would in fact create an entire series of “encyclopediacs”. Her vanity and vapidity are no handicap to her in the world which she inhabits – they are almost beneficial. While Lorelei is shown, from time to time, to exhibit a sort of stagnant natural intelligence, she rarely needs to. Common sense and humility were commodities assigned little merit in her social circles. Her friend Dorothy plays the sort of devil’s advocate to Lorelei’s shallowness – her intelligence and cynicism directly posing the sort of questions about the bourgeoisie unlikely to be asked by the bourgeoisie themselves. It is worth noting that while Dorothy does not attract as many potential suitors as Lorelei, those she DOES attract tend to be of better calibre.

Lorelei is an intentionally humorous character. She is portrayed as likable, but ridiculous. As she is the narrator of the novel, the reader is privy to her private thoughts. It is never a mystery to the reader that she is completely silly. She’s not someone to be dissected, revealed and analysed – she’s a caricature. Her function is to mirror the follies of those around her. The men in the book fall all over themselves to win her affections despite it being obvious to the reader that she’s a vapid moron. As she looks at her potential suitors and really sees only their material wealth and social standing, they look at her and see only her physical assets (the novel was reportedly inspired by Loos wondering why her friend H.L. Mencken was so interested in a particular blonde woman). The values which the members of both sexes search for in the other are equally superficial, and as such both are portrayed as ridiculous. They are also oblivious to the crass and hamfisted courting techniques of the members of the opposite sex, which are all painfully transparent to the reader. While Lorelei is certainly somewhat clueless, even she displays a certain kind of world-weary cynicism toward romance at times. For example, the famed sentiment of “diamonds are a girl’s best friend” seems to portray a mistrust of the fickleness of men and the vagaries of their affections.

Modernism was concerned with the abandonment of traditional values, which the movement claimed had been rendered meaningless in light of historical developments (particularly the Great War). Gentlemen Prefer Blondes continues this trend by satirising the traditional aims of marriage and financial security. Lorelei is from “the sticks”, but she moves to the big city in search of social prestige. Flying in the face of traditional gender roles, she proceeds to have a series of (presumably) torrid interactions with a string of hapless men. Lorelei is empowered only by her sex appeal, which turns otherwise relatively sensible men into jabbering fools, and her unshakable self-confidence. While the strong literary heroine was of course not unheard of when Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was written, Lorelei differs greatly from, for example, one of Jane Austen’s heroines. While there is a common theme of flouting societal expectations for “correct” womanly behaviour, Austen’s heroines are intelligent and strong-willed, subversive even. Lorelei is a brainless leading lady for a brainless age. Rather than resisting marriage and conformity for the sake of independence and intellectual cultivation, she is principally interested in diamonds, champagne and her elaborately constructed self-image. Her more or less unqualified success story is a critique of the vapidity of the modern era.

- Connor Moloney

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes By Anita Loos

This humorous novel by Anita Loos takes us on the hilarious adventures of a stereotypical ‘material girl’ called Lorelei.

The book is somewhat mind numbing to read as Lorelei’s cold, dispassionate thoughts are splattered onto the page presented in the form of a diary. It makes a bold comment on the shallow, gold digging, ‘High Brow’ society as well as the pathetic strive some people have to fit into the mould of the upper class.

We immediately dive directly into the thoughts of the character. It is very subjective as we receive only one point of view. It is written in a fast pace which alludes to the subconscious. These thoughts appear very automatic and choppy, which could be related to the popular style of automatic writing during this modernist period. Loos adapted modernist techniques for a more popular audience.

Lorelei is typically charming on her search for diamonds and material assets, although completely cold and detached from emotion. It is very important never to appear out of control of ones feelings. It fits in with the prominent theme of anti-sentimentality, with a mood of hostility and cruelty. There is no element of compassion or pity, which is what the literature of this period was characterised by. It is filled with cynical ideas, crying is always contrived and pity is represented as false, while these cheap sentiments are used for manipulation.

Not only does Lorelei lack compassion towards her victims, simultaneously, Loos is certainly not kind-hearted towards the idea of this ignorant character. There is no alternative to the atmosphere of self-interest and cynicism.

“If I go to Paris I will have to leave Gerry and both Gerry and I have made up our minds not to be separated from one another from now on”

These uniquely structured, long-winded sentences are full of contradictions and very colourful spelling. It is language that goes around in circles, to emphasise the one-dimensional aspect of the character being portrayed.

Throughout the novel, a major concern of Lorelei is the concept of time being wasted. She is constantly worried about wasting her time that almost nothing is worthy of her time, to the point where she becomes painfully bored and depressed. She seems to be in some sort of a rush in life, when she comes close to finding what she is looking for she becomes tired of the idea, which leads her to sadness.

“I was so depressed. So today I think I had better go over to Madame Frances and order some new evening gowns to cheer me up.”

Although the novel is a satire, it is filled with deeper aspects of great sorrow and unhappiness. It is not difficult to grasp the idea of the book. It is in fact quite an easy read in comparison to the many eccentric, abstract pieces of literature during the modernist period. Yet, there is an exploration of more advanced themes if the ambiguities are filled in, the things that Lorelei so famously would not even put in her diary. It is narrated in an inappropriately light way, and scrupulous about never mentioning sex. There is an ambiguity into how much we’re licensed to read into. There are things we don’t see as she censors her own story. Her situation becomes sad when you assume the exploitative sexual relationships she has or perhaps may be in denial about with these men. With no hint or possibility of romantic love, there is an emotional flatness and a lack of pity for her story. ‘Love’ is portrayed as merely a façade or a strategy to obtain an object, whether is be financial or sexual. Not only is the stereotype of a dumb blonde being ridiculed, but materialism, parochialism and largely the male attitude towards women. The obsession with moral purity and improving ones mind coexisting with lust and sexual desire. Mr. Eismann can be seen as a womaniser, desperately wanting Lorelei for her ‘brains’. We also see the district attorney Bartlett publicly take up the tone of moral condemnation, while privately happy to pursue Lorelei as an object of desire. It is the notion of hypocrisy and the reality of their own desires. It is savagely satirising the crusade against morality in society and the general male characters. It largely follows idea that these moral crusaders are not moral all the way down.

KING KONG - the eternal struggle between man and nature.

(Side Note - this was my absolute favourite film when I was 3 and rewatching it for class I cannot understand why..)

Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack’s 1933 adventure/fantasy/horror film King Kong, a metaphoric re-telling of the archetypal Beauty and the Beast fable, is a classic representation of the modernist era of the early 19^th century. Exploring the classic relationship between man and nature, desire and sexuality and greed within its Great Depression context, King Kong operated to reflect society and the economy while illustrating these some of these key modernist ideals. Most interestingly I found the examination of the antagonistic and self destructive relationship between man and nature, and our attempts to control our environment, represented by Kong himself, key topic for discussion. Man’s attempt to control nature, symbolised in the first sequence of the film on Skull Island, is juxtaposed against the second sequence of the film in which the destructive force of nature – King Kong – attempts to control his modern and highly advanced technological setting.

Kong exists without any significant qualities of modern man, his predominant characteristics of aggression, sexual desire and selfishness representing the basics of human emotion that modern man has evolved to control and repress. Kong places a mirror upon society to force it to reflect upon the qualities that we each possess but suppress for our ‘modernity’. In this way we can also see Kong as a symbol of nature and its wild and destructive forces as he acts out only natural instincts and destroys without reason the creation of man, much like nature itself. Carl Denham, the greedy and inspired director who pushes the characters to this island of horror represents the capitalist man of the 1930’s struggling with their Great Depression context and desperate for economic survival. His attempts to control Kong for his own economic and social gains symbolise an eternal battle between the two forces.

In the ‘capture of Kong’ sequence on the island, we can see the two forces of nature and men come together through Kong and Carl Denham, exemplifying the destructive relationship between the two. Man attempts to control nature as Denham explains he could make a greater profit through capturing Kong for exhibition by knocking him out with gas. Kong is driven by his want of Anne Darrow and confronts this ambush, exemplified by Denham “We’ve got something he wants” highlighting the drive of sexuality in humans, as well as the relentless destruction of nature. The grotesque imagery of this scene, highly confronting to its original audience demonstrates the eternal battle of man attempting to master its environment for economic and social gain and its often violent outcome. Man itself is highly destructive towards nature in our technological and industrial advances and its attempts to control its external forces are illustrated in this sequence.

This is further exemplified by Denham’s exclaiming “We'll give him more than chains. He's always been king of his world, but we'll teach him fear... we’re millionaires’ boys” with Kong’s fallen body in the forefront of the shot and the remaining men standing over it. The exclamation of “we’re millionaires’ boys” emphasises Denham’s greed and desire for power as a reflection of his capitalist society. The description of Kong as king of this world who needs to be taught fear symbolises man’s desire to control and master the elements and our natural environment, as well as our desire to control our subconscious repressed characteristics that Kong displays throughout the film. Also the positioning of Kong in the forefront of the shot with the men towering over him highlights man’s control over nature as well as their position of power. Man in this instance wins the battle against nature.

The iconic climbing of the Empire State building by King Kong further explores the relationship between man and nature. The modern capital of the world in 1933, New York symbolised freedom and economic stability for millions globally, but fell under the hands of the Great Depression. King Kong’s placement in this setting is the true pinnacle of the collision of the developed world and primitive society and their eventual self destruction. His attempts to climb the recently build Empire State building, a beacon of modern industrialisation, technology and architecture emphasise the conflict between man and nature, and their attempts to control one another; Kong climbs the famous building in attempt to control his modern environment. The close up angles of the pilots attempting to take down Kong, juxtaposed with long shots of Kong’s desperate flailing further emphasise this conflict, with ultimately the machine guns – a symbol of modern warfare and destruction – destroying him. Denham memorably explains that it was “beauty killed the beast” which we could understand to mean mans sexual desires and their control over the conscious as it is his carnal desire that ultimately destroys Kong.

Discussion topic - to what extent does the Film King Kong portray the self destructive relationship between man and nature through the conflict between King Kong and man/New York City?

By Alexandra Ritchie

King Kong - What made it such a huge success in the greatest depression of our time?

By Samantha Churcher

(N.B.: Please click the links shown in grey for video footage accompanying the text.)

The original 1933 version of King Kong directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Shoedsack is definitely considered a hard film to watch for most members of the later generations. Still considered one of the most advanced films of its time, King Kong today, though a classic, just doesn't have the special effects, the pizzazz to capture an audience. However, regardless of how modern day audiences view the original film, when it was released in 1933 audiences were stunned. Not only did the film have effects that had never before been seen, but the concept and story line were also something new.

The film itself starts out extremely realistically, with the main protagonist, Carl Denham finding himself in the same position as the directors, Cooper and Shoedsack. Used to filming wild animals and tribes in a more documentary-like style of storytelling, Denham is told by the studios that a modern film needs romance to capture an audience. In this regard, King Kong’s success was largely due to its replication of what was happening in America at the time. In the twenties and thirties, America was suffering from a depression, as was most of the world. Early on, King Kong shows this aching depression: when we first see the main female protagonist, ms Ann Darrow, Denham finds her in his search for a leading lady, as she is caught trying to steal an apple, as shown in this scene: King Kong, 1933 - Denham meets Darrow

As Denham buys her a meal and convinces Ann to join him on the adventure of a lifetime, he learns that Ann is unemployed and starving, and this introduces us to the films financial standpoint. Already, the film has become relatable to the general populous, as well as promising the idea of an adventure to a mysterious land, something that would have been highly intriguing to the general population of America in the 1930s. Once aboard the ship, Denham informs the crew that he has obtained a map, and they will instead be sailing to a primitive island. With this statement, the films adventure begins. This allows the audience to escape from their reality,to let their imaginations freely follow Denham, and go along for the ride with the films magical adventure fantasy. During the depression this was a great feat, as many people were considered poor during the depression, and the cinema was a cheap means of entertainment. Therefore, by creating a new world for viewers to escape to, more and more viewers were likely to see the film.

It is also worth noting the primitive nature of Kong. Kong is, in all essence, a primate, and seemingly has nothing but basic urges, he sees Ann as a kind of sexual play thing, and steals her away to have his way with her. Such a primitive way of thinking is strange to the people of 1933, and creates a strange, but intriguing character of Kong. He is alone, fighting with the other creatures he shares his island with, shunned by the humans, possibly his closest relatives. Kong is an outcast and sees in Ann the possibility of a mate. This adds to the allure of the primitive, the unknown and the fantasy of the story, but also allows the audience to empathise with Kong, and to realize that he may not be so much of a monster after all.

The amazing thing about how these how filmmakers created the fantasy of Skull Island and Kong, is in the ideas and technology used to create it. These filmmakers used the idea of going backward to look for something new and exciting for their films, as opposed to looking forward, which was the general idea of modernism. The idea of a primitive island was highly fascinating to people living in the western world in the early 20th Century, with very little known of primitive cultures by the uneducated public, and the idea of an untouched primitive land, with fantastical creatures was a real feast for the imagination. And so the biggest exploit of the film were the creatures and their creation. Cooper and Shoedsack wanted to create something the likes of which had never been seen, in order to truly captivate audiences, and so they turned to one of the most modern and innovative means of animating a live action, 18ft tall giant ape – stop motion. Willis O’Brien was the lead animator brought on board to bring the King of Skull Island and other fantasy creatures to life in King Kong. When Denham and the crew go after Kong in order to rescue Ann, they encounter, at close range, a stegosaurus, and the magic of stop motion in 1933 can truly be witnessed.

Stop motion photography is the concept of using a clay, plasticine and wire figurine, and moving it ever so slightly before taking a photograph. As each of the photographs are played, the minds eye is tricked into seeing motion. In 1933, this was the most cutting edge technology the movie industry had ever seen.

Willis O'Brien - Stop Motion Photography, 1984

With stop-motion photography, O’Brien was able to create creatures that could capture the imagination of a nation, and of the world. Interestingly, it should also be noted, that the most primal aspects of this film, the very creatures that should only have existed millions of years ago, were brought to life by the most modern of technologies.

So in fact, if we look at these aspects of the film that helped to make it so successful: replication of the world as it was in 1933 gained recognition from the audience, the idea of adventure in a primal land gained imagination and excitment, and last was the allure of the primitive character of Kong and the brilliant technology of stop-motion that brought him to life - we can see that the filmmakers really did achieve a film like none that had come before it, and set a new benchmark in fantasy cinema.


Samantha Churcher, z3303723

T.S. Eliot’s “The battlefield”

T.S. Eliot’s “The battlefield”

By Rosanna Moore

 

After fighting my way through the maze of cultural shrapnel and prophetic undertones of T.S. Eliot’s very fragmented narrative constituting his most influential work, the meaning behind the title began to make a lot more sense. Its referral to the battlefields of France, where muddy graves symbolised the transformation of the modern world into a wasteland in the wake of World War 1, really captures the sense of despair felt by the people of the time – as well as myself in that particular moment.

As a female and what I would generally call an optimist, I decided to focus on the elements of this elegiac mess that stood out to me. By simply observing the titles of each section of prose, I sensed rather obvious connotations to a hopeless and destructive future for mankind. ‘The Burial of the Dead’? Fire, Death and Thunder. Right. Not too cheery Eliot.

The tone is set from the outset of the poem, as Eliot describes “April is the cruelest month, breeding/Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing/Memory and desire, stirring/Dull roots with spring rain”. Isn’t Spring typically the season of hope and rebirth? The dry and sterile nature of the poem’s setting is reflected in the way Eliot contrasts symbols of renewal and regeneration, such as water, with imagery of desolate surroundings. While the remembering and “mixing” of past memories with the present, allude to a steep societal decline, the presence of flowers, sunlight and even, say coffee (always perks me up), represent a subtle underlying air of hope.

Eliot’s second book, ‘A Game of Chess’, also managed to strike a chord in me, perhaps in the way that sex is treated as such a meaningless act… or a basic human right for Lil’s husband. The way the lines objectify women here is blatant and outdated: “think of poor Albert/He’s been in the army for four years, he wants a good time/And if you don’t give it him, there’s others will”. Well gee, that’s arousing. The way Eliot de-romanticises physical interaction here really enhances the cold, bleak prospects that the population were faced with, where not even the most natural act of pleasure can be revelled in. He consequently strips such an act of its primal purpose – that of fertility, which emphasises the ‘end of the world’ feel of the piece. The reference to Cleopatra alludes to suicide and the disappointment of love in a world where everyone feels the need to grasp on to the hope of such intangible things. I think the illustration of such a futile, hedonistic society was crucial in the prevention of such an existence, and this is what really determines Eliot’s Wasteland to be such an influential milestone in modern literature.

 

Making it Difficult: Barriers to Understanding in The Waste Land

The waste land. The desert. This is the vision of the modern world that T. S. Eliot presents to us in his poem The Waste Land. The poem is both incredibly elusive to comprehension and alludes to a range of works throughout history, some quite obscure. As I read the poem for the first time, I was a little overwhelmed with the rapid perspective changes and radical changes in form that characterise the poem. Furthermore, Eliot frequently inserts lines in various other languages, as though we are all multi-lingual. In my opinion, these are intentional barriers to understanding that Eliot erects, preventing you from getting any sort of concrete understanding of the poem’s meaning, that is, if Eliot wrote the poem with one clear meaning in mind. In this way, the poem has come to be the figurehead for everything that the high modernism movement stood for.

The obscuring of understanding present in the poem begins immediately, even before the poem proper commences, with the epigraph. Written in Latin and Greek, and referencing Sybil, a mythical figure from ancient Roman history, the short passage establishes the sombre tone of the poem – “when those boys would say to her ‘Sybil, what do you want?’ she would reply, ‘I want to die.’” According to legend, Sybil was a priestess who possessed the power of immortality, but was not immune to the devastating effect of aging. Sybil can be seen as a metaphor for the world or which humans inhabit, in that it is always here, but the damage waged upon it accrues over time, until, in Eliot’s opinion, we get the destroyed society of modern times. This epigraph is confronting for dual reasons: firstly, we must decipher the combination of languages, and subsequently, we must look up the figure of the ageless Cumaean Sybil, and realise how her story is relevant to Eliot’s literary aim.

Another reason why Eliot’s poem is so difficult to get a conceptual hold is the frequent changing of place which occurs. Moreover, not only does the location of the poem change, it is often difficult to get any kind of sense of place at all. The first passage of the first part, “The Burial of the Dead,” is one of the only places in the novel in which we are definitively located, in this case in Germany. I gathered this from the line of German, “Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch,” and from the place name “Starnbergersee,” a lake south of Munich – a fact which I already knew without any assistance from the editor’s footnotes of course. For much of the remainder of the poem, we are left to speculate as to the location, with the notable exception of the beginning of part three, “The Fire Sermon.” Here we are firmly placed in London, with the mention of the River Thames. Eliot’s vision of London is a somewhat dystopian one however, adding to his central vision of the modern world which he presents, in which “the river’s tent is broken” and “the nymphs are departed.”

Ultimately, I think the aspect of The Waste Land that posed the biggest problem for my understanding and appreciation of the poem was its endless narrative perspective changes. I constantly found it extremely difficult to know whose voice a particular set of lines was in. In the first part of the poem, the very first stanza of “The Burial of the Dead,” we are given a pretty simple introduction. The stanza is narrated in the first person – “I was frightened” – and there is even a character name for us to latch on to: “He said, Marie, / Marie, hold on tight.” At this point things are under control. Unfortunately for my simplicity desiring brain, in the very next stanza the reader is thrown into narrative turmoil. It appears to me that this stanza is from the perspective of an outside narrator, someone quite different from the Marie who was first introduced. This narrator has a menacing tone, in keeping with what was established in the epigraph, delivering lines such as “I will show you fear in a handful of dust” and “the sun beats, / And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief.” These radical shifts in perspective occur through the whole poem, with other examples being the “clairvoyante” in the third stanza of part one, narrated in third person – “Here, said she, / Is your card, the drowned Phoenician Sailor” - and Tiresias in part three, stanza four, a blind prophet from Greek mythology represented in the writings of Ovid, among others – “I Tiresias, though blind...” Above all else, I believe this constant perspective shifting by Eliot is the largest barrier to understanding in the poem’s entirety.

Discussion point: Is it more important that these “barriers to understanding” aid Eliot’s ultimate literary achievement, or are they negated by the difficulty they present to audiences?

Gender Expectations in Virginia Woolf's 'To The Lighthouse'

 Hi Everyone- Sorry this was so late.

What appeals to me most in Woolf’s novel is the role gender expectations play in communication and the way the characters strive to achieve real intimacy. To explain this, it is important to look at the characters of interest whom acquire this certain urge. Firstly, the ever perfect example of a Victorian dame, whom attains a solid marriage of which defines her existence. However, there is a lack of communication, which appears to keep Mrs Ramsay from having a truly close connection with her husband. To contrast this, Woolf provides her audience with an intriguing character, Lily Briscoe, who is the opposite to Mrs Ramsay in most aspects- she is single, a painter and defies societies expectations of a woman. While Lily does not have the ‘ideal’ life in the eyes of many women in her life, she acquires friendships, which contain real intimacy-something that Mrs Ramsay’s tiresome marriage lacks.

While these two contrasting characters are successful in their ploy to juxtapose ideals in society, Woolf achieves this through other, more intricate means. Through the use of tone, Woolf avoids the stereotypical topic of how rash the women of the Victorian era were, and provides her audience with something much more meaningful and complex. While it would be far more interesting to read a novel with an angry or disapproving tone, Woolf portrays Lily with tenderness, words that are soft and touching. As an audience, we are being reminded of Lily’s urge to escape her tight night, judgmental society. Below is an extract about the social expectations upon Lily and her struggle to come to grips with it:

There is a code of behaviour, she knew, whose seventh article (it may be) says that on occasions of this sort it behoves the woman, whatever her own occupation might be, to go to the help of the young man opposite so that he may expose and relieve the thigh bones, the ribs, of his vanity, of his urgent desire to assert himself; as indeed it is their duty, she reflected, in her old maidenly fairness, to help us, suppose the Tube were to burst into flames. Then, she thought, I should certainly expect Mr. Tansley to get me out. But how would it be, she thought, if neither of us did either of these things? So she sat there smiling. (pg. 74-75)

It is evident in Mrs Ramsay’s case that the burden to be a happily married couple is on both Mr and Mrs Ramsay. Mr Ramsay’s belief in the ‘righteousness’ demands sympathy, for his own emotional needs still does not satisfy his needs. It is characters like Lily, who go against the code of behaviour-giving the reader a rest from the trivial discussions about the expectations of women.

The way in which Woolf creates a sense of consciousness in the novel means the reader is able to connect with the character from the inside- inflections from characters allow us to intimately acknowledge the characters preventing us from passing judgment on them. For instance, Lily says to herself:

 …but nevertheless, the fact remained, it was impossible to dislike any one if one looked at them. (pg.70)

While this idea of consciousness is successful in its ability to form relationships between character and audience, it’s counterpart, the stream of consciousness is challenging. Woolf was one of the first authors to use this technique, paving the way for modern writers. The sentences are heavily punctuated, to the point where punctuation is unnecessarily pointed, thus becoming unfriendly to read. However, because this stream of consciousness is consistent throughout, it becomes a type of pattern, almost rhythmic-thus making it easier to read as one adjusts themselves to the concept. For example in Ramsay’s soliloquy:

“Strife, divisions, difference of opinion, prejudices twisted into the very fiber of being, oh, that they should begin so early, Mrs. Ramsay deplored. They were so critical, her children. They talked such nonsense. She went from the dining room, holding James by the hand, since he would not go with the others. It seemed to her such nonsense-inventing differences, when people, heaven knows, were different enough without that.”  (pg. 11)

Furthermore, not only does Woolf address the issue of gender expectations, she also expresses how a strictly forbearing society can affect enlightened ‘artistic’ women, such as Lily, in a negative way. Through the use of repetition, it is not only drilled into Lily the character, but also the reader that women are not to be artistic, or more appropriately, can NOT be artistic. While Lily never obeys these idea’s in society and keeps doing what she loves, she does begin to question herself, making her insecure in what she thought she was so confident in.

It is evident that Woolf felt some sense of control and power in men in her era, that women were too often taking the back seat in life-as a result, women were labeled by what they should be doing, what is ‘right’ by their husband and what is ‘right’ by society. Woolf’s writing whilst confusing and sometimes disjunctive, is enlightening to a modern woman and exposes truths that existed in her era and still exist today.

Woolf, Virginia. To the Lighthouse. London, England: Cox & Wyman Ltd, Reading, Berkshire, 1996.