Letters and Word Clouds in Pride and Prejudice

Chapter 13, Collins to Mr. Bennet

Clearly, Collins’s main goal in this letter is to show off his newly acquired status – more than introduce himself to the family, he wants to introduce his position to the family, and though he’ll take over the Bennet estate when Lizzie’s father dies, Collins wants to give the daughters a chance to atone for the terrible misfortune of the Bennets’ not having a son.

Chapter 26, Jane to Lizzy

This letter, from Jane to Lizzy, very clearly illustrates the depth of feeling which characterizes Jane. The major words in her letter have to do with a feeling of anxiety, and are often related to her being the older sister, and feeling a measure of responsibility for her family’s and her own situation. She often tries to explain away others’ actions, and see the best in any given situation.

Chapter 35, Darcy's Letter

Darcy realizes that one of Lizzie’s biggest issues with him lies in the supposed mistreatment of Wickham, so the letter focuses on that particular problem. Darcy himself places a large emphasis on family, though not necessarily seen in his actions, as can be interpreted from the fact that several of the most common words are those relating to family. As such, Darcy would do anything for his family, and anything for his love’s family to keep their standing.

Chapter 46, Jane to Lizzy

This letter particularly expresses Jane’s devotion to her family, and their issues, as opposed to just her own feelings in any matter. Notice how none of the major words have anything to do with how Jane herself is faring in light of this matter, but most pertain to other people in the family, or the situation as a whole.

Chapter 46- Jane to Lizzy Number 2

Once again, this sequence of letters has much to do with Jane ensuring that everyone else has what they need, and knows everything going on. Jane once again forgoes telling Lizzy how she (Jane) is, and instead makes sure Lizzy is fully up to speed on the goings-on of the last few days. Everything revolves around everything else for Jane, nothing revolves around Jane herself.

Chapter 47, Lydia to Mrs. Gardiner

Obviously, Lydia does not have the same consciousness for others that her sisters have; the letter mostly revolves around Lydia and what Lydia has done, is doing, and is feeling, and how she thinks everyone else will react to her situation. This is most likely a result of how her mother brought her up – to think of marriage and nothing else.

Chapter 48, Collins to Mr. Bennet

Once again, Collins has demonstrated through his letter that the pompous outside continues on to the inside as well. This time, Collins’s focus leans towards the new acquisition of his wife, and the loss the Bennet daughters have experienced following Elizabeth’s rejection of Collins’s proposal. He becomes extremely patronizing, as the words “dear” and “sir” would suggest.

Chapter 49, Mr. Gardiner to Mr. Bennet

Though we don’t see very much of Mr. Gardiner, the Bennet girls’ uncle, this letter opens up a character who doesn’t say very much in common conversation. Mr. Gardiner seems to be a very family-oriented person, committed to making sure everyone in his family is informed as to the current situation, and safe in any situation which he can control.

Chapter 50, Mr. Gardiner to Mr. Bennet Number 2

Once again, Mr. Gardiner’s rather introverted character is brought to light through his letter to his brother. Mr. Gardiner’s greatest concern in this letter is ensuring that although Lydia may not have married into the best situation, she will have the best possible life out of that situation. This includes Mr. Gardiner doing everything he can to ensure that Wickham’s credit is clean, as the more major words, such as “assurances,” “hope,” and “creditors” would suggest.

Chapter 52, Mrs. Gardiner to Lizzy

Mrs. Gardiner often speaks up more than Mr. Gardiner, and for the most part seems to be a very caring aunt – possibly the one adult female role model in Jane and Lizzy’s lives who cares for their feelings rather than their being married. Her letter surely confirms that her personality in her small words and actions is indeed true. Though Mrs. Gardiner was not supposed to tell of the events that transpired around the time of Lydia’s marriage, she tells Lizzy anyway, just because Mrs. Gardiner knows that Lizzy is extremely eager to know the details, and just how much her family owes Mr. Darcy.

Chapter 60, Lizzy to Mrs. Gardiner

Lizzy generally doesn’t send letters in this book, as her thoughts and feelings are most intimately known through Austen’s commentary. However, this particular letter sheds an interesting light on her character. Lizzy seems to be one of the most down to earth characters, and yet her major word is “world.” Perhaps she is, in fact, more of a dreamer than we might initially think, and really all she wants is her world to be a dream one. She really feels that she has the best life in the world, after she marries Darcy.

Chapter 60, Mr. Bennet to Mr. Collins

This letter sums up Mr. Bennet to a tee. He doesn’t mess around, he likes to be simple and quick, and if he can throw in a little sass somewhere, it’s all for the better. Truly, Mr. Bennet’s transparency stands as one of the most undeniable truths of the novel.

Chapter 61, Lydia to Lizzy

Once again, Lydia demonstrates that her selfishness isn’t purely a surface matter, but a deep characteristic of her most basic form. Even when her older sister is about to me married, Lydia’s letter focuses more on her own life and husband than congratulations for her dear sister.

War-Torn Poet

More than just representing the physical pain of a soldier wounded in battle, the poem “Disabled,” by Wilfred Owen, describes quite accurately the mental and emotional pain one experiences after losing something vitally important in one’s life.

The speaker describes the subject as having, “waiting for dark, and shivered in his ghastly suit of grey,” using potent figurative language through the use of the color words “dark” and “grey” to elucidate something more than just the colors themselves (567). Black and grey often associate themselves with emptiness, a lack of presence of one or more things. In this case, the subject of the poem (a fallen soldier) lost not only his physical might and ability, but also his mental awareness and desire. That the soldier not only sees these colors, but in fact waits for and wears them demonstrates his complete emptiness. Waiting for the dark has become easier than simply looking into it; one might even say the soldier welcomes the emptiness. The soldier has lost the desire to fight the darkness he feels from losing his physical capabilities.

For soldiers with tour-ending injuries, I would submit that often the hardest part of recovery is the mental one. Evidently, this soldier signed on very young, just out of high school, and feels he lost his youth when he was injured in the war. Because Wilfred Owen only lived 25 years, and the poem is about a wounded soldier, and Owen himself was a soldier in the British Army during WWI, it’s safe to assume that the subject of the poem is Owen himself, and the poem deals with his depression and shell-shock following his first tour in the Army. He feels that he lost his youth in the blood of war, saying, “There was an artist silly for his face, for it was younger than his youth, last year” (568). The alliterative sound of “younger than his youth last year” emphasizes the fleeting youth Owen feels he had; at only 23 years of age he was institutionalized for what we now call PTSD, and he quickly lost all the illusions and dreams that often come with a youthful spirit. Though he hasn’t been significantly physically broken, the war truly broke something fundamental about Owen’s being, and sometimes it simply isn’t possible to recover from a break that big.

With his broken spirit, I don’t think Owen ever really recovered, or was able to tape together the salvageable pieces of himself after his first few years of war. He says, “Tonight he noticed how the women’s eyes passed from him to the strong men who were whole” (569). Now, clearly the poem doesn’t refer to any major and lasting physical deficiency, as Owen wasn’t permanently injured physically, but an important point on the topic of psychological wellbeing and wholeness comes up. He feels as if even psychological scars are evident and telling, and feels set apart from the other men because of his mental scars. Because he can very clearly see his injuries, Owen believes that others can as well. I think he completely loses his will to do anything but meekly exist until someone or something comes to take him away. He asks, “Why don’t they come and put him into bed? Why don’t they come?” (569). I think this is extremely indicative of the severity mental injuries can have on a person. Owen, when he was injured, was completely capable of taking care of himself, but he was so far gone mentally that he couldn’t really bring himself to complete even the simplest task. In essence, I think the poem may be asking more about why someone won’t come and put the soldier from the poem out of his misery, rather than just “to bed.”

Overall, this poem brings up important questions about being mentally broken, and how much it really takes to completely de-commission someone just through psychological injuries. The human brain tends to be pretty resilient, so for Owen to be so damaged that he essentially wrote a poem describing his want for the pain to be all over, I think he really must have had too many pieces to be able to tape them all together and come out looking like a normal person ever again. I even wonder if maybe he wasn’t too upset about dying – some think he sought out a position on the front lines in 1918 to imitate one of his admired friends, but I think maybe he wanted something to validate all that pain: either victory or death. 

"The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and its Ties to Lucifer

We spent Wednesday in class talking about the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Coleridge, and after the class discussion I spent a lot of time thinking about it. After some careful consideration and re-reading the poem, I came to a rather interesting conclusion.

Throughout the poem, the action seems to bounce between good and evil, the Mariner never sure exactly which side he lies on. The very beginning of the Mariner’s story talks about the beauty of the sun, how “he shone bright,” for all the men on his ship (378). However, the story takes a dark turn when the Mariner shoots and kills a good omen, the albatross.

I would submit that the entire first half of the poem, if not the whole thing, is a telling of Lucifer’s fall, and God’s punishment afterwards. Now, going on this analysis there are two distinct alternatives for how the telling plays out. The first option is that the Albatross represents Lucifer, and the Mariner represents God; shooting the albatross with the crossbow is a physical representation of the angel Lucifer falling from grace, and his punishment is to not be present in the world to see humanity take its shape. While this is a very good argument, I’m much more partial to the second option. The second (and more probable) option is that the Mariner is Lucifer, and the Albatross a representation of God. The mariner, “with [his] crossbow” shoots the Albatross from the sky, killing it (380). The use of a crossbow in killing the Albatross is instrumental, because of its relationship with the cross. Lucifer, when he was cast to Hell, believed he fell because he loved God too much. The Mariner kills the physical representation of God with an item of significant religious imagery, physically demonstrating Lucifer’s overwhelming love for his Father, so much so that it hurts God.

Moreover, when the Mariner thinks all is lost, and he’ll never find home, he sees life, and says:

“Beyond the shadow of the ship,

I watched the water-snakes:

They moved in tracks of shining white,

And when they reared, the elfish light

Fell off in hoary flakes.

Within the shadow of the ship

I watched their rich attire:

Blue, glossy green, and velvet black,

They coiled and swam; and every track

Was a flash of golden fire” (386).

That the Mariner welcomes the snakes and fire is no hallucination, or “just happy to see something” attitude. In essence, this can be seen as Lucifer accepting his place in Hell, and welcoming the gates to him, because he realizes that his power is indeed great enough to bring the gates of Hell to him. The Mariner delights in seeing these signs of evil, instead of cowering away, which greatly supports the hypothesis that the Mariner represents Lucifer, and the poem is a loose telling of his fall from grace.

Furthermore, the Mariner’s ultimate fate is to live in agony, so people know his story. He says, “That agony returns:/ And till my ghastly take is told,/ This heart within me burns” (396). This, really, would be Lucifer’s Hell on Earth. Rather than being allowed to rule his domain in Hell, no matter how dislikeable that really is, God forces Lucifer to live on the planet among those whom he refused to love in the first place (Lucifer told God that he could not love man more than God because they were violent creatures who didn’t deserve the love Lucifer had to give), and teach them of his Father, try to make them see why God is great. Because, Lucifer believes he still loves God, that God is great no matter the situation, or what he did to Lucifer. The Mariner even says, “For the dear God who loveth us,/ He made and loveth all” (397). Even in his greatest punishment, Lucifer sees how much God loves, and yet still refuses to love humanity with all the strength and conviction with which he loved God, and that is why he is doomed to his Hell, teaching those he hates about God and his love.

In a nutshell: the mariner is Lucifer (not Satan/the Devil, but Lucifer. Important distinction, because Lucifer is the archangel that fell from grace, Satan and Devil are the names we give to him to embody the evil we believe is in his soul) and the Albatross a physical representation of Lucifer’s betrayal of God and fall from grace. 

Revisiting Brave New World

In my last blog, I talked about Huxley’s persuading that individual thought is like a cancer for the proverbial “social body” of Brave New World. In this post, I’d take that both forwards and backwards, and propose that Huxley persuades not that individual thought acts as this cancer, but individuality in a much broader sense. Additionally, the social body of the World State must do whatever is required to ensure the survival of the body.

The Director most adequately describes the danger to the World State which comes from individuality, stating, “’Unorthodoxy threatens more than the life of a mere individual; it strikes at society itself’” (137). Most slyly, Huxley places in the metaphor of the snake, in saying that unorthodoxy “strikes” society. This metaphor plays a key role in the understanding of how much this society relies upon uniformity. The proverbial snake of individuality can, at times, slither in unnoticed, and wreak havoc on the World State, first causing the body to panic, then, if the snake is allowed to “bite” the metaphorical body, causing widespread damage. Because of the immense danger individuality poses to the society as a whole.

Due to the danger associated with individuality, those in power within this society must act quickly and swiftly to remove anyone whose independence of thought and action may pose a threat to the stability of the society. Because of this, the Director quickly acts when he sees Bernard becoming too independent, and states that “’In Iceland he will have small opportunity to lead others astray by his unfordly example”’ (139). Bernard’s punishment is to be removed, so much like the cancer he could be to this social body, and placed somewhere else, in a sterile container full of others like him, where the cancer can’t spread to “civilized” society. That society removes Bernard as opposed to just killing him says a lot – the stability is so fragile, they have to make everything seem well and good for the lower castes, going to Iceland to them just seems like a change of location, not the punishment it’s intended to be. They must, at all costs, maintain the outward appearance of being completely stable in ideals and the human makeup of the upper division of humanity, lest the lower division become restless and follow those with ideas contrary to the hypnopædic teachings of the Conditioning Centre.

Truly, the rights of the individual fall under the pressure to keep society stable, which the Director most adequately describes when he says “’It is better one should suffer than that many should be corrupted’” (137). More than characterizing the mindset of the Director, this statement characterizes the society as a whole. Where, especially in our society, the “one” has a high value, especially for those close to the proverbial “one,” this society places stability of the many above the comfort and wellbeing of any one person, or even a small group of individuals, those with differing viewpoints are treated as well as any malignant cancer can be expected to be treated - - with hostility and the intent to remove the tumor as quickly and efficiently as possible. For Linda, the doctors let her drug herself to death on soma, for Helmholtz and Bernard, those in charge shipped them away, to a place where others like them lived, but couldn’t touch the social body.

Truly, more than anything else, this society focuses on smashing down individuality, and making the overall body of people as much like one continuous person as possible. From the very beginning, this is so. The lower castes are made up of so many identical people, hundreds upon hundreds genetically identical, and thousands upon thousands genetically related. Then, all people from each caste are engineered mentally, to have the same thought processes, the same intellectual identity. And, finally, they take away the intellectual free time of each individual in the society, balancing just enough work with just enough play, supplementing that play with soma, so no one has the time or forethought to really even think about why society acts the way it does, or who they are individually. Most certainly, Huxley aims to point out how each individual truly is just a cell in the body, and those with the mentality and thought to act as individuals are the better off for it. They are sent to places where other like them exist, where intellectuality and thought and creativity exist, and where they can be themselves, free of the rigorous hypnopædia and conditioning which takes away the beauty from the world, and replaces it with infantile gratification, instant happiness, and general stagnancy of being. (774 words) 

A Touch of Cancer

Thus far into A Brave New World, major themes are as yet still building, and for the most part the key to the novel has remained elusive. However, the novel seems to be highly interested in the negativity of individuality and personal identity. Social continuity and homogeneity maintain themselves as society’s stability, and individuality threatens the entity which is this World State.

The first instance which begins to explore the instrumentality of stripping society of individuality comes in the very beginning of the novel, when the students tour the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. The new process for fertilizing eggs and then making embryos results in, for all castes other than Alphas and Betas, results in “Making ninety-six human beings grow where only one grew before. Progress” (Huxley 17). Syntactically, these statements represent much of the philosophy of the society. It (the society) does not need to be made up of “complete” individuals, ones with independent mindsets, goals, and outlooks on life. Like these near-sentences, the people of the society can carry out their function without having a full consciousness. This encourages the retraction of individuality, and substitution with hive-minded people, for the sake of a more efficient system. Much like the way Huxley uses only fragments to describe the lack of genetic individuality within the World State, the geneticists and breeders strip the people down to only the necessary elements for their castes. Intelligence, psychological preferences and predispositions, and social mindset are precisely engineered to ensure the human contains only what is exactly necessary to give meaning to the situation, but not enough for any extraneous meanings or opinions to form from the information planted in that person.

Because the society actively puts down individuality, any appearance of difference is heavily ridiculed. Even the individual who appears or thinks differently than the rest of the society notices the difference, and extreme self-consciousness of the difference results. Bernard Marx, while intellectually equal to anyone else of the Alpha-Plus caste, is slightly shorter than the rest of his caste, and as such feels out of place. Because of this difference, “feeling an outsider he behaved like one,” directly characterizing Marx as someone in direct conflict with the goal of the World State society (69). In the case of the type of characterization Huxley employs to expose Marx, the use of direct as opposed to indirect characterization supersedes the importance of the explicit word choice of the statement. Though the others of his caste and his general society have an awareness of the difference between Marx and others conditionately equal to him, Marx has the greatest awareness of this difference. Marx internalizes his difference from others, and even works to make it larger. He consciously separates himself from the rigorous hypnopædia propaganda he was exposed to as a child. He wants to get to know the women he sees, as opposed to having lots of one night stands. His interests directly conflict with the society, and when people see this, they look down on him, more so than they do simply because of his physical “defect,” as it were. Any form of individuality maintains itself as alien to this society.

Furthermore, this individuality greatly threatens the society as a whole, whether Marx knows it or not. The society as a whole cannot function properly if a member becomes different enough to challenge the norms, although, as the Director states, “the social body persists although the component cells may change” (95). Marx’s mentality and challenging of the norms and hypnopædia represents something far more dangerous than simply a component cell dying and being exchanged in the metaphorical body of the World State. Newness of thought, innovation of opinion and tradition have the potential to spread like a cancer through this society, destroying it from the inside. Truly, the most dangerous occurrence for this society lies in the possibility that hypnopædia could be overcome, and the past freedom of thought come back. Especially dangerous, because the only people physically capable of this kind of thought are in the upper castes, and as a result, the differences in thought would manifest in the most important parts of the proverbial body, the reproductive system, the brain, the vital organs. A cancer of the support system of the body, the lower castes that keep the infrastructure going, a bone or skin cancer that is slow growing and not quick to metastasize, that can be cut out, cut off, and the body can keep going. But, when a cell in the brain, in the heart, in the major systems of the body becomes cancerous and begins to spread and grow, to overtake the mother organ and then move to others, it takes down the whole body, cannot be removed because as surely as the cancer will kill the body, so would the surgery necessary to remove it. This cancer is fatal. Huxley points out that even when highly conditioned, individuality, social cancerousness exists; to a society completely reliant on uniformity and the stripping of individual identity, the danger this cancer poses is real, and could spread to Stage IV before the body even realizes it’s there. (859 words)

Mr. Ramsay as Seen Through His Children

I am a firm believer that, more often than not, children give the most honest and comprehensive description of people they know. Thus, I find that the best way to truly delve into the fabric of a character lies in dissecting how the children surrounding the character in question indirectly characterize him or her. However, I have found that in looking for his true character through his children and through Lilly, Mr. Ramsay becomes not clearer as a character, but more muddled and confused, such are the contradictory statements which his children give about him.

These contradictory opinions and views become especially clear in the end of the novel, when Mrs. Ramsay is no longer the focus of attention, and isn’t there to buffer the children’s opinions. In the boat on the way to the lighthouse, James thinks that he “kept dreading the moment when he [Mr. Ramsay] would look up and speak sharply to him about something or other” (Woolf 187). The dialectic use of the word “sharp” reinforces the stern nature of Mr. Ramsay; “sharp” in this context could mean that Mr. Ramsay either reproaches James intelligently, with a measure of intellect and high achievement mentally, or with a mean tone, in a way designed to make James feel badly for whatever infraction he made. However, an interesting point about James’s outlook on the possibility of Mr. Ramsay saying something on James’s conduct is that James doesn’t actually do anything to warrant a negative comment. Mr. Ramsay constantly seems to blame James for the slow going of the boat, but, in reality, the wind is to blame for that issue. It seems, that from James’s point of view, Mr. Ramsay is unreasonable and overly critical of situations often outside human control.

On a completely different side of the spectrum, we find Cam’s opinion of Mr. Ramsay. In fact, “she thought... he was not vain, nor a tyrant, and did not wish to make you pity him” (193). This idea directly contradicts most of the opinions of the rest of the novel concerning Mr. Ramsay, and indeed makes a bold statement. Cam, as one of Mr. Ramsay’s youngest children, has only known him as a parent; Mrs. Ramsay died when Cam was not yet seven, so she knew her mother very little. Cam’s statement suggests that Mr. Ramsay, contrary to the stern and military-esque persona James perceives, is rather intellectual and soft as a human. That Mr. Ramsay acts this way to two of his children – both within a year of age – indicates that he must have some secondary feelings towards each of them which would cause him to act differently to each of them.

One very plausible explanation for the distinct disconnect in characterization between James’s and Cam’s ideas of Mr. Ramsay could be explained in their actions towards him, and his reciprocations in action. When James was a young boy, Mr. Ramsay famously said no, they cannot go to the Lighthouse today. In keeping with the norm of the human mind, it became James to only remember the negative of Mr. Ramsay’s actions. Mr. Ramsay didn’t like it when Mrs. Ramsay spoke her mind, Mr. Ramsay didn’t like it when something was done in a fashion he didn’t agree with, and Mr. Ramsay dashed James’s hopes and wouldn’t take them to the Lighthouse. James has a predisposition to only remember the negatives, because so many of his experiences with his father have been rather negative. On the other hand, Cam only remembers good things of her childhood with Mr. Ramsay. She talks extensively about her experiences sitting in the reading room with Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Carmichael, while Mr Carmichael would read The Times and Mr. Ramsay would write in his journal, or read a book. She fondly remembers the sound of the paper turning its page, and when one would make a comment to the other and would start some sort of discussion. Her positive remembrances directly influence the positivity in which she sheds Mr. Ramsay.

In conclusion, it would be wise to say that Mr. Ramsay never actually has his character really fleshed out and discovered, because none of the accounts of his character are from people who can separate their personal interactions with Mr. Ramsay from the man himself. His character is extremely subjective, dependent upon how the other characters feel about certain moments in time, where he happened to factor in. His children’s opinions, then, are of the most importance, because in each child’s different opinion, we see not necessarily how Mr. Ramsay acts as a character, but who the child is as a character.

James is the sad and lonely boy who lost his loving mother, and was left with a bitter, mean man to care for him in her place. Cam is loving, girlish, probably the utmost stereotype of the man-pleasing woman. She remembers her father’s intelligence, how he used to make her feel at peace, and so even when she wants to see something bad, see Mr. Ramsay form James’s point of view, she can’t because the positivity of her own life makes the negativity in James’s viewpoint alien to her. The children’s judgments of Mr. Ramsay are of more use in telling who the child is than who the man behind the judgments is. 

Mrs. Ramsay - A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma, Squeezed Into a Book That's Just a Little Too... Tight.

Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse holds a myriad of characters, the most interesting and enigmatic of whom would probably be Mrs. Ramsay. The mother of eight and wife to a rather dry intellectual, Mrs. Ramsay consistently contradicts herself. She finds ways to belittle herself next to her husband, and in the same chapter raise herself up as a beautiful, almost goddess-like woman. She both feels powerful and powerless, in an interesting mix of feelings which, if anything, makes her more difficult to understand, rather than shedding light on her personality.

When she reads to her child, James, Mrs. Ramsay contemplates her relationship with her husband, and concludes that “she did not like, even for a second, to feel finer than her husband” (Woolf 42). Interestingly, she even feels that she can’t trust the truth of her thoughts around her husband, as if having true thoughts would make her better than her husband, who prides himself on his intellectualism. That she doesn’t like to feel as if she’s better than her husband points to a classic ideal of the nineteenth century (and even into the twentieth and sometimes today) that the woman was less than the man in a relationship – property for the man to do with as he pleases. It would appear that Mrs. Ramsay conforms to this ideal, that she must always be lesser than her husband – the greater of the two parts of the marriage. However, this represents only one side of Mrs. Ramsay’s proverbial coin. When she isn’t in close proximity to her husband (in either body or mind), she has a very different view of herself. When Mr. Carmichael is over, she admits that, “She bore about with her, she could not help knowing it, the torch of her beauty,” and goes on to describe her own beauty in a very positive sense (44). This first person description, coming again directly from Mrs. Ramsay, depicts the startling foil within Mrs. Ramsay herself. On one side, she adamantly wishes to be lesser than her husband, on the other she clearly knows she’s a very fine, beautiful woman. That she feels two extremes of the spectrum indicates that she really doesn’t know how to feel about herself, and as allows others to define her self-image.

Once more, when Mrs. Ramsay plays with James and thinks about his later life, she thinks how he won’t ever be as happy later as he was when he was a child, but , she “stopped herself, remembering how it angered her husband that she should say that” (62). Even in thought, Mrs. Ramsay has a sense of apprehension towards doing something which might make her husband upset – in this moment, she’s fully incapable of having an independent thought. Society and a very, very long marriage have indoctrinated her to completely accept her husband’s values, even when they are completely different from her own. This Mrs. Ramsay has a completely different outlook from the one who flaunted and openly acknowledged the bright torch that is her beauty. And yet, when Mr. Ramsay leaves her mind, she asserts, “No happiness lasted; she knew that” (67). It would seem that her only encumbrance to being able to form her own thoughts and ideas is her cynical, dry, and even childish husband. As Mrs. Ramsay features prominently in the novel (one could even say her character is the most important), clearly her relationship with Mr. Ramsay is also pivotal. Mr. Ramsay drives her character to be so enigmatic, and quite paradoxical, even. Mrs. Ramsay’s twistedness of character provides an un-grounding point for the rest of the characters. Where everyone else has a set of characteristics that do not seem to change, Mrs. Ramsay finds herself in a constant state of flux depending upon whom she surrounds herself with. As the main character, how, then, can she become dynamic if she already changes her state of mind and being just because of the people she surrounds herself with??

I’d propose (and I’m going out on a limb here, because I’ve never read Woolf before), that she may find a state of steadiness – she can no longer change her mind every so often, but comes to a point where she must choose something and stay with it, thus making a reverse in the world of dynamic characters, and coming to rest in one place rather than finding many new ideas to change her perspective. But, that last bit we’ll have to leave to the novel and each one’s own imagination!