Talk:Virginia Woolf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Women writers (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject England (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mentions in Popular Media?[edit]

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? (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Just a thought, maybe the grammar could be cleaned up a bit in the biography portion of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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))

TS Eliot ??[edit]

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 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

James Joyce's writing[edit]

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)


=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. -- 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. (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.-- (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)

Bipolar disorder[edit]

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 (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the mention of Caramagno's book, this is all utterly irrelevant, due to WP:NOR. -- (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)


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. -- (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Orlando as fiction[edit]

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[edit]

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 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 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 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 . Austerlitz 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dreadnought hoax[edit]

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


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: (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?[edit]

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 12:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant material removed from Flush: A Biography[edit]

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[edit]

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?

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


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? 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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Correct name?[edit]

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))

Life and Marriage[edit]

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

Stream of Consciousness[edit]

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

Short Stories Collections Section[edit]

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?[edit]

"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[edit]

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. (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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

List of occupations[edit]

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.) (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown after sex with husband ? ?[edit]

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)

Virginia Woolf revert?[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Year of death of Leonard Woolf[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 09:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Band name[edit]

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)

Indian ancestry[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Human nature, modernism/postmodernism[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)