Women in Literature: A Comparative Analysis, Book Review Example

Responses

The first response seems to me to express the popular and understandable concept of Woolf needing to establish a defiant tone from the very beginning of her work. The writer is certainly correct in viewing the use of “But” to begin AROOO as radical, and Woolf’s innate feminism then fills in the rest of the blanks. The word represents rebellion in being placed as it is, and rebellion is a keynote of Woolf’s efforts to emancipate women as artists. In my eyes, however, there is another reason for the choice; Woolf is not actually out to defy or confront, but present thought already in place. Using “but” as she does is strategic, for it informs the reader that what is to follow is a reaction. As to the “locked in” sentence, I agree with this interpretation, although I also feel it relies too much on feminist concepts. Woolf is a humanist first, then a feminist.

I am unclear as to the second response, although I think it only requires more clarification. It begins by wondering about the properties of the word in grammar, then goes on to draw from this an element of intentional contrast, and I think this is valid. I also like that the response is seen as anticipating objection, because this works with what we know of Woolf’s ideologies. Regarding the second point, I think the response goes in too literal a direction, apart from the interesting references to Shakespeare. To me, Woolf is far too internally-focused to be concerned with external consequences of being locked in, or out.

I am most in accord with the third response, because this echoes my own feeling that Woolf is out to establish a kind of continuity from the very beginning of her book. I like that this writer senses this ambition; it seems clear to me that Woolf wants to emphasize the reality of an argument with a history, and this opinion then supports my own. Similarly, this writer and I share the same way of thinking about the “locked in” sentence, in that it reflects a very internal state of being. I would only take issue with this writer’s interpretation as being too focused on educational opportunities. In my eyes, Woolf is after a different kind of expansion.

Questions

As noted in my replies to the responses, I do not dismiss the impact of Woolf’s use of “but” as a direct and conscious choice. I do not, however, see this as confrontational at all. If there is any obvious point to it, it strikes me that Woolf is determined to assert that what she has to say addresses an issue long in place. She is literally picking up the threads of a discourse maybe unknown or unheard, but nonetheless very real because it exists in the minds of concerned men and women. The book is not, then, a statement from Woolf so much as it is an acknowledged reply from her.

It is very easy, and perhaps correct, to interpret Woolf’s line about the greater distress of being “locked in” to strictly feminist thinking. This is the greater part of the history of women, after all, in that they have had no access to what lies beyond their homes. At the same time, it must be remembered that AROOO is about the importance of “a room of one’s one,” and the only real confinement Woolf fears and resents, in my mind, is that of the spirit being denied opportunity of expression. It is true, of course, that expression requires learning and external influences to grow. Nonetheless, when she writes of being locked in, it seems a more spiritual imprisonment she is discussing.