Clarissa Dalloway in Mrs. Dalloway: Character Thursday (56)

Clarissa is the heroine of Mrs. Dalloway, and she was in her middle age. At this stage of life, she began questioning her past decision to leave her ex-boyfriend Peter Walsh and married Richard Dalloway. I think Clarissa and Peter should have been made a good couple; they loved each other, and they understood each other very well. Often in their meetings, they knew what the other was thinking before they really said it. However, Clarissa was so afraid of uncertainty, that she finally chose Richard Dalloway who was more mature and settled than Peter.

Other reason why Clarissa left Peter, was because Clarissa didn’t like to be scrutinized by him. I think the thought of her boyfriend could read her mind and knew her too much had annoyed her. Clarissa seemed to be always hiding most of her feeling from public. She always wanted to be seen ladylike and quite descent in her high-class society. She was so afraid that she looked too old or too unfit for it (that’s why she was very sensitive to Peter’s unspoken critics).

And in the middle of that fuss, Clarissa never thought about the true meaning of life. She just flowed with it, and enjoyed it. When she held a dinner party, for example, it’s just that she wanted to host a party, no other (more important) reason. She bought flowers for that occasion to feel younger and fresher. She was irritated when Richard was invited to a lady’s lunch without her—not that she was jealous I think—but because the lady did not appreciate her much to invite her. So, how people regarded her was the most important thing for Clarissa Dalloway.

In the end I think Clarissa began to think deeper than the only what in the surface. By beginning to reasoning her marrying to Richard, I think she began to see how she had prioritized status than love; the surface than what’s in the inside. And finally, Clarissa was forced to realize the mortality of human’s life. She was tried to be indifferent to it, blaming the young man’s death as reducing her party’s festivity, but in the end she must have realized that she too must think about it more seriously than just the glamour and glitters of the flowers, fashion and parties.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Turn Of The Century Salon March Prompt: Mrs. Dalloway

For the salon, I have read Mrs. Dalloway (here is my review, and here is what I've worked on for my WEM project). It was my first encounter with both Virginia Woolf and the self consciousness style, and I admit that I could not enjoy it as much as I have expected. Here are few inquiries from Katherine for the salon:

How would the plot of the novel had altered if it had been set in a different era?

The main plot would have not altered too much even if it had been set in a different era, I think. Yes, it is set right after the war, but the problems occurred to the main characters could happen too in a different situation. The general theme of Mrs. Dalloway was a search of life meaning and freedom, which is still relevant to these modern days, and I think, in the earlier centuries too.

What are some adjectives that define what you feel the book is saying?

Snob, indifferent, confused, dependent.

Find a work of art or music within the same time-period that reflect the book and share it.

A Day in June, 1913, by George Bellows

The woman in the right corner brings flowers, which reminds me of Clarissa Dalloway, who went to buy flowers on one sunny morning in London...

Mrs. Dalloway (Final Review)

You probably notice that until now I have not read too many books from modernist authors; I think my favorite still remains with Victorian or 19^th century’s :) Well, to repair that, I’ve decided to participate in Allie’s A Modern March event which invites us to read more modernist books. I picked Mrs. Dalloway for this event, first because I’m curious with the stream of consciousness style, and second because Mrs. Dalloway is believed to be one of Virginia Woolf’s masterpieces. And it’s only 200s pages too! But….what a wrong choice that has been for me!

At first, I am fascinated by the stream of consciousness. It’s something different; it’s like entering someone’s mind and flowing with it. It’s remarkable to realize how human’s mind could contain many different things at a time, how they could hop from one place to another in an instant—and sometimes they don’t have any connections at all. Like I said, it’s fascinating to read the earlier part of the book (my ebook version doesn’t have chapters or parts); however the more I got into the middle part, the more I got bored. It’s nice to watch people’s thoughts sometimes, but it would be overwhelming to do that all the time.

Clarissa Dalloway was a mid-aged woman from a high class society of England. It was around 1923, when England has just passed the war. One clear June morning Clarissa was walking around London’s street to buy flowers for her dinner party at that night. During the walk, her mind wandered around retrieving her old memories. From then on, Woolf brought us to ‘inspect’ several other characters’ mind; among them were Peter Walsh’s—Clarissa’s ex boyfriend, and Kezia Warren Smith’s—wife of a nerve-broken man. They were all judging their past decisions, wondering what would have happened if they took a different path, and what they must do next.

So I was lost in their minds, when every now and then Woolf would switch from one’s mind to another’s without any signs, that made me often being at a loss of whose mind I was at a time. My favorite is Kezia and Septimus Warren Smith. They were out of Clarissa’s radar, thus building their own story about their faith. Septimus was struck by his friend’s death in the war—and perhaps by the war itself—which lead him to a nerve breakdown. When he got his seizure, Septimus believed he was being chased by his death friend’s ghost, and would talk to himself and seemed to lose conscious of his surroundings. Kezia put enormous effort in making Septimus look normal in public, while often felt that Septimus ignored her and did not loved her anymore. I felt pity for Kezia…. No wonder she said: “To love makes one solitary.”

There’s nothing really interesting about Clarissa herself. She mostly argued about her past love life. She was with Peter Walsh for some time and seemed to be a perfect couple, before she met Richard Dalloway. On that particular day, Peter suddenly appeared at her house announcing that he would divorce his present wife to marry an Indian woman. Both Clarissa and Peter were reasoning with themselves whether they’d have been right not to marry each other. Clarissa remembered too how she was fond of her girlfriend Sally Seton, how they had been not only friends, but more intimate than that. Clarissa was thinking about her husband Richard too, how he seemed to be away from her, and she was a bit jealous because a lady had invited Richard to lunch without her.

All in all, Mrs. Dalloway is about uncertainty and a search of life’s meaning and freedom. Clarrisa Dalloway and Septimus both were searching for freedom from the society, but both from different situation. Clarissa was sick of being under criticism of others (that’s why she had broken up with Peter Walsh), and she longed to have privacy, that she chose to sleep in an attic room in her house. Septimus sought for freedom for a deeper purpose. He was treated inhumanly by his neurologists; the so-called Professors and experts forced him to take this medication and that kind of treatment, but forgot to treat him with the more humane touch. They treated him as merely a sick patient, but failed to see that what he needed most is love and care. They thought that keeping him alone in an asylum would be the best cure, whereas people like Septimus should have mingled with society who would treat him like a normal man. They should have treated him as a friend, put trust on him. I’m not a doctor, but I believe it will make him feel better.

Two and a half stars for Mrs. Dalloway, because I didn’t enjoy it as a whole, though I still found a treasured value behind it, which add the half star there.

~~~~~

I read ebook version from Feedbooks

This book is counted for:

5^th book for The Well-Educated Mind Self Project

my WEM inquiries post for this book

3^rd book for Turning of the Century Salon

8^th book for What’s In A Name Challenge 2013

4^th book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

37^th book for The Classics Club

Porthos in The Three Musketeers: Character Thursday (55)

Porthos is, probably, the most uninteresting musketeer from the four inseparable musketeers who served the King of France under Mr. de Treville. From my first encounter with him in Three Musketeers, it’s easy to learn that Porthos adored his appearance so much, that he challenged d’Artagnan for a duel only because d’Artagnan has caught his false golden embroidered belt!

Just like his other comrades, Porthos’ income was not as big as his taste; and like other musketeers too, he used to spend his salary so quickly, that in only few days he would have been moneyless. But again, like other musketeers, Porthos had his charming manner which was quite a gentlemanly appeal for high rank women (ladies and duchesses). From these mistresses, the poor musketeers used to get their ‘second’ salaries. It’s an easy case for Porthos too, with his handsome countenance and well-built massive body.

You can guess, I think, which one is Porthos?...

Porthos might not be very intelligent, but he was brave and loyal. In short, Porthos was a simpleton; he didn’t have many mysteries veiled his life—well, apart from his false golden belt perhaps—like Athos or Aramis, and there’s certainly not any politics in him. His only aim in life was, perhaps, being admired by others as a pure gentleman, being well taken care in terms of clothes and foods, and having enough money to get them. I don’t think he cared much for politics, he’s just loyal to the King and Queen like any other conservative gentlemen who had high adoration to royal figures. And Porthos disliked the Cardinal just because Richelieu opposed the King (and Queen).

Well, Porthos might only be an ordinary gentleman, but later in The Man In The Iron Mask, he would show his quality as a devoted and loyal friend.

That is my Character Thursday of this week, an analysis of book character of my choice, who is yours?... Just put your post URL in the linky below. Do you like to join us in discussing characters from books you read? See the details of Character Thursday first.

Mrs. Dalloway: The Stage Reading Inquiries

The ebook version I read for WEM does not include any chapter division for Mrs. Dalloway. Knowing that it is a stream of consciousness, Virginia Woolf might not using chapters at all. And I think, this kind of narrative doesn’t need one. So consequently, I did not do the usual chapter summarizes, and went directly into the stage inquiries instead. Here they are… (I would write a separate post for my final review).

Grammar-Stage Inquiry

Who is the central character?

It’s definitely Clarissa Dalloway, from whose stream of consciousness Virginia Woolf derived the most in this book.

Logic-Stage Inquiry

What does Clarissa Dalloway want? What is standing in her way? What strategy does she pursue in order to overcome this block?

I think Clarissa herself did not know what exactly that she wants, so we can say that she wants to know what she lives for, the meaning of her life. The post-war situation with all the changes might stands in her way, but her dull life might also be her block. And in one whole day Clarissa reflects and debates with herself of her past, her old friends, her marriage, and her surroundings while preparing a party for the night. Those reflections resulted a new way of viewing her life, and that’s how Clarissa overcome her block.

Who is telling you this story?

This is my first stream of consciousness reading, and it is interesting to know a little about it. It’s a kind of narrative technique which follows the flowing of character’s mind; so I think it is the third-person objective who’s telling the story, who was hopping from one’s mind to other to tell us what they’re thinking.

Rhetoric-Stage Reading

Is this book an accurate portrayal of life? Is it true?

I have never been in a war or post-war time, but I think Woolf has vividly portrayed a society that has just emerged from the war. Families ruined by its cruelty (Septimus and Rezia Warren Smith), and women began to have place in the society (Miss Kilman assured Elizabeth that women could—and must—now pursue their own career; and how she despised Clarissa for being idle at home).

Do you sympathize with the characters? Which ones, and why?

My sympathy is for Rezia. She did not participated directly in the war, but she suffered directly from it. Septimus, her husband, got a nerve breakdown from the war. Rezia must endure it alone, as people won’t understand and would think that Septimus has gone mad. Moreover, Septimus seemed to ignore her, not loved her anymore. Rezia felt very lonely and helpless, her marriage was ruined by the war, the war has taken (still) young Septimus from her.

What does the setting of the book tell you about the way human beings are shaped?

I think, war also brings uncertainty and confuse to the society after it is over. Just look at Clarissa and Peter Walsh who were searching for something; who felt that their life was incomplete, something was missing, but they did not know what it was. ‘The death of a young man’ (Septimus) has helped opening Clarissa’s mind, that shifting her from the absurdity of parties and luxury, to something more profound in life, such as death.

What exactly is Virginia Woolf telling you?

That one should not be indifferent to others. War has ruined relationships, and changed the society very much. One should adapt to it more and learn to build and rebuild relationships. Richard Dalloway’s giving Clarissa a rose bouquet (he was a very conservative man who never showed off his feeling before) proved to be a change of husband and wife (and family) relationship in the turning of the century.

~~~~~

I worked on this for:

The Three Musketeers [Re-read]

This is perhaps my third reading of Alexandre Dumas’ first installment of D’Artagnan Romances series: The Three Musketeers. I read it first as a child (the illustrated abridged version), then read it again several years ago in Bahasa Indonesia translation, and now I got the chance to read it in the English unabridged version, together with Melisa, Maria and Althesia. Surprisingly, even having been familiar with the main plot—especially with the cold-hearted Milady—I was still surprised by some little details scattered within this 555 pages, which I thought I have never known before. Or, was it because I have read Twenty Years After and The Man in the Iron Mask before this that made those details more sense? Maybe….

Anyway, this time I put more attention to the historical facts of this story, The Siege of La Rochelle—the war between France and England in 1627-1628 during the reign of Louis XIII—which I have neglected in, at least, my second reading. La Rochelle was the last city which was inhabited by the Huguenots at that time, and the Cardinal wanted to take it to entirely clean France from the remnants of Calvinism. But this war was also believed (at least according to this story) to be triggered by personal interests of Duke of Buckingham and the Cardinal—who both tried to gain Anne of Austria’s love. Yes! That’s what happened when two powerful people from two countries played at a high stake.

Richelieu in "Siege of La Rochelle", 1881 by Henri Motte

The third reading enabled me to see Cardinal Richelieu as an honorable gentleman, and not merely as an antagonist who would like to destroy the queen, as I perceived before. Even d’Artagnan and the three musketeers paid some respects towards the Cardinal, despite of their dislikes. Richelieu had a mixed feeling towards the four inseparable musketeers, he admired their nobleness, brave, and intelligence, but on the other hand, he would not rest easy while they kept intercepting and ruining his plans. His last interview with d’Artagnan grew my admiration towards the Cardinal.

Rereading this book has also given me chance to follow d’Artagnan from the very early of his career. I could see that the young Gascon had already been possessing courage, intelligence, witty and prudence, even when he was scarcely twenty years of age. One quality that marked his youth off his future life as an adult was his uncontrolled amorous passion. While falling in love with Constance Bonancieux, he could also cultivate a madly attraction to Milady. I am wondering whether, if d’Artagnan met Milady when he was more experienced in his career, would he still be fallen to her charm?

In The Three Musketeers, Dumas poured out all his humour and wittiness in describing his young musketeers’ adventures. He forced me to laugh out loud several times everytime the musketeers were teasing each other; at Aramis, for example, who would be blushing a great deal when the others could guess that ‘a cousin’ means a lady he was courting, and ‘money from selling poems’ came in fact from his lover, instead of a publisher who bought his writing. It was also comical how the musketeers could never save their assets very long; for example when they got four beautiful horses from Duke of Buckingham. Athos—whose weakness was in wine and dice—put the horses at stake, and lost his and d’Artagnan’s; Aramis—with his delicate heart—sold his in low price; while Porthos—well…this is the most hilarious—he made his horse to be delicious foods which the four musketeers enjoyed very much without realizing it at first (except Porthos)! LOL, this scene is very funny indeed! =))

And in that witty manner, we came to know each musketeers’ personalities and secrets. Athos has a noble manner and heart which was sometimes senseless, but he also suffered from a huge burden that made him often drawn in his somber mood, then passed his time in drinking. It was revealed in the end, that he was actually Count de la Ferre, who came from a high rank family in the kingdom, and had a dark history concerning his marriage with Milady. Aramis was a ‘beautiful’ gentleman who adored glamorous style, and had a divine passion to serve the Church as an abbé. It was revealed later that his passion in theology appeared not of any divine reason, but rather as a gloomy reason when his lover was abandoning him! Aramis was the most hypocrite from the four, and whose life was full of mystery and intrigue, but he has the most delicate style in diplomacy—one of the best of all. Porthos was a simpleton whose intellectual was perhaps behind the others, but he was a loyal friend, and of course as brave as others. Porthos was depicted as a handsome and well-built young man who adored high fashion and exquisite gourmets.

From the four, d’Artagnan was definitely the most intelligent one, although his emotional was too unstable to be their leader—we should give that to Athos instead, for his perfect calmness. It’s remarkable to see how the trust between the four was built up so quickly, one solid foundation to their true friendship. Everytime d’Artagnan rushed to pursue something urgent, the others would unquestionably follow his step, always believed that he must have a good judgement for that. And look how the three musketeers gave themselves up to d’Artagnan when they accompanied the Gascon to England for returning the Queen’s diamond studs—an incident which could have had triggered a war between England and France, even before the siege of La Rochelle, had d’Artagnan didn’t possess his iron nerve! What a brilliant and heroic rescue that was!

Although not the best from the series, The Three Musketeers has set a good base for the d’Artagnan Romances; it’s less serious, it’s historical, it’s witty, it’s really entertaining. Four swords—instead of stars :D—from me for the four musketeers. I know now why Dumas gave the title “three” musketeers instead of “four”, it’s because d’Artagnan is the center of the whole series, so it should be: d’Artagnan AND The Three Musketeers, d’Artagnan: Twenty Years After, etc.

One favorite quote of mine, from the last intriguing interview of d’Artagnan and Cardinal Richelieu, a passage which showed d’Artagnan’s noble and brave character—which basically represented all the four musketeers’ characters. This interview was very crucial, because it would fix d’Artagnan future (life or death), and this was d’Artagnan's answer for his ‘defense’….

“My Lord, I swear to you that I have not for one instant thought of defending my head against your eminence. I will submit to whatever punishment your eminence may please to inflict. I do not cling to life sufficiently to fear death.”

~~~~~

*I read the Wordsworth Classics 1993 edition*

*This book is counted for*

3^rd book for Back To The Classics 2013

2^nd book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

1^st book for Historical Fiction Challenge 2013 -2015

36^th book for The Classics Club Project

Weekend Quote 18: Mrs. Dalloway

This is, or would perhaps be, my longest Weekend Quote—if not passage—so far…. But, I just can’t ignore this beautiful passage from Virginia Woolf which shows her genius in mind description. This is taken from Lucrezia “Rezia” Warren Smith, a suffering wife of a mad man—either schizophrenia or post-war nerve disorder—Septimus. Rezia loved Septimus a lot, and she always tried to save him from humiliation in public, by making him looks normal, so that people won’t see his abnormal behavior. This, and feeling that Septimus did not love her anymore, tortured her. She felt lonely because she must endure it alone, having nobody to tell about it. And Woolf has described Rezia’s deep feeling in this…

“There was nobody. Her words faded. So a rocket fades. Its sparks, having grazed their way into the night, surrender to it, dark descends, pour over the outlines of houses and towers; bleak hillsides soften and fall in. But though they are gone, the night is full of them; robbed of colour, blank windows, they exist more ponderously, give out what the frame daylight fails to transmit—the trouble and suspense of things conglomerated there in the darkness; reft of the relieve which dawn brings when washing the walls white and gray, spotting each window-pane, lifting the mist from the fields, showing the red-brown cows peacefully grazing, all is once more decked out to the eye; exists again.”

Does being alone in a great suffer feel like dissolving into the darkest of the night? Maybe it’s when we are in our deepest despair. But somehow, the sun will shine again, we exist again. Or is it about bearing humiliation? That Rezia wanted to dissolve into the dark, but she couldn't hide it forever from the world, that one morning, everything would be clear, and everyone can see it? I don’t know, until now I still vaguely hold the meaning of that passage. It deserves my deeper reflection. Can you light me?

Weekend Quote is a meme hosted by by Half-Filled Attic. Feel free to join. You can:

• Give the context of the quote
• Give your opinion whether you agree or disagree with it
• Share your experience related to the quote
• Share similar quotes you remember
• Or anything else. Just have fun with the quote.