Virginia Woolf Books

I bought this because I keep on getting flashbacks of the play I watched, with the Kathleen Turner and gang revival. Nothing like watching this powerful, brutal and extremely clever play by this master of metaphors - bravo to Albee - on stage...and feel yourself squirming in your seat, yet enjoying every gut-wrenching moment of it. Not for the faint-hearted this. A play written ahead of its time. This is a keeper on my shelves.

If you ever get the chance to see a live production of this classic American drama, run and get your tickets. You will not be disappointed. Edward Albee's drama stands the test of time. George and Martha are in the throes of marriage abyss where the lies, unhappiness and frustration rules the relationship. Theirs is a game not to be played by amateurs, enter Nick and Honey, a young married couple about to get stuck in the web of deceit. The booze flows, the barbs fly and the game is on. This is above all else one of the great dramas of American theatre. I was in a production of this great play a few years back, playing Nick. It was probaly the most challenging play I was ever a part of. To totally divest yourself in it by night's end I was wiped out, emotionally and physically. Awesome experience.

I was shocked to see that the new revision omits the end of Act II, "Walpurgisnacht". George and Honey have a key confrontation. George says "How to you make your secret little murders stud-boy doesn't know about, hunh? Pills? PILLS? You got a secret supply of pills? Or what? Apple-jelly? WILL POWER?"

Several pages are omitted; perhaps Albee wanted to decrease the run-time of the play. I have no idea. The shortening and the omission of key speeches are not worth the addition of the "F" word. Honey and Nick become a less complex and nuanced couple; her participation in secrets and her ambivalence about child-birth and motherhood are, essentially, removed from the text.

It's an unkind cut.

I won't bother to go into how terrific a play this is (the five stars should indicate that), but having just seen the touring production with Kathleen Turner and Bill Irwin, I have to wonder which version has been published here. The current touring production "is based upon the revised text of 2004" and differs from the original in several significant aspects. Perhaps the most significant change is that the new version never makes it explicit that George is the same character who accidentally killed his own parents--a crucial plot point in the original. Nor do we any longer hear Honey admit that she doesn't want to have children. There are other changes, with several other significant cuts and some rewritten lines here and there. But is this book, which was published in 2006, the "revised" text of 2004 or not? It would be nice to know.

We've all been there: writhing with discomfort as guests in someone's home because the host couple can't seem to stop arguing. That's the predicament Nick and Honey find themselves in after stopping over at George and Martha's house for drinks following a party for the college Nick and George teach at (and which Martha's father owns and operates). But this is no petty disagreement that George and Martha are having; Nick and Honey have become unwitting accomplices in the psychological warfare that George and Martha have engaged in after years of bitter disappointment and rivalry. Where it started is left open for interpretation, although it seems that when George and Martha were married George had his eyes on following in his father-in-law's footsteps, and instead found himself hopelessly stuck after failing to move up in his department (to which Martha nastily insinuates that he just didn't have "the STUFF," a multi-pronged jab at George's career, intelligence, and ability to satisfy his wife). But the depths of their unhappiness -- and other possible explanations for it -- are only revealed in layers, with the biggest twist saved for the final minutes of Edward Albee's diabolical gem of a play. And what of the hapless guests, the newlyweds Nick and Honey? They turn out to have some secrets and disappointments of their own that come out in the course of the evening, but it is George and Martha's pathos that claim the spotlight. Their manipulations, lies, insults, and betrayals may be difficult to watch, but "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is spellbinding drama at its best, and luckily for those of you who haven't seen it performed, the play reads just as well as it plays. I would, however, recommend watching it after you have read it -- even if only as a point of interest, because the roles of George and Martha have inspired many great performances. Kathleen Turner captivated Broadway with her rendition of Martha in 2005, but if you can't get access to a showing the 1966 movie with the inimitable pairing of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor (with George Segal and Sandy Dennis supporting) is far and away the definitive version. This is not to detract from the written play, of course, just to point out that "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" is that rare play that excells in both formats, and should be experienced accordingly.

The one star rating refers not to Woolf's novel--which receives a five-star rating--but to this particular edition. There are less expensive editions of this novel. The "annotations" of this edition are not new--and the editor makes no secret that the annotations are available elsewhere. The "introduction" is interesting, but it also offers nothing particularly new for Woolf scholars and nothing particularly enlightening for non-academic readers that they could not easily find on any number of online sources.

A good read if you understand Virginia Woolf writing style. I found it introspective and thought provoking to get into the heads of the characters as Ms Woolf is way ahead of her time for using psychological and personality issues to convy thoughts and ideas of her characters. The book is one of her shortest so it gives the reader the chance to enjoy her style without commiting to a 600+ page book. She is not for everyone, but I am one of her following.

Our book club in Cancun read it for April. We can be a critical group, but this one received nothing but praise from those of us who actually FINISHED it. Through the night the message was "It's well worth it! Stick with it!" It is confusing at the beginning for those of us who've been reading best sellers awhile, and it was hard to learn to pace your reading. (Some advice: don't tackle it for less than 30 minutes at a time, and do some biographical research on Woolf before or while you read it).
I'd love to give some of our group's analyses, but that might ruin it for some of you. I'll limit that to just saying that we had a very fine conversation that night, full of thoughtful speculation. And many of us have been commenting that meeting for days afterward. We're a very small community here, and culture is hard to come by. Woolf brought it to us on the waves (sorry). The Waves is prose; it's a work of art. What a pleasure! You can expect conversation about this novel to be of a higher literary level. It's a great book club read because it creates lots of thoughts to share.

English speakers everywhere should thank whatever higher power allowed for Virginia Woolf to write in their native tongue. They should, at the same time, thank her for gracing the world with books like "The Waves." Difficult? Of course, but so is existence, and no one, in any tradition, has been better at expressing the tumultuous inner space of being. This book, told as a series of interior monologues told by six characters, broken into chapters by brief descriptions of a beach at different times of day, is not an easy read, there is no doubt about that, but it is not obscure or pedantic. Its difficultness lies in its idiosyncrasies, in its subjective view toward reality, in its fragmentation, in its personality: its difficulty lies in how well it parallels individual experience and existence. By allowing each character to speak exclusively from its own private and self-serving platform, it makes a noble attempt at rectifying the artificiality of the text with the unknowableness of life, even if it fails to truly rectify the rift (which is impossible anyway). Perhaps, however, it would be better appreciated if other works are used as an introduction to Woolf's style; not to say that To the Lighthouse or Mrs. Dalloway are easy books, but they are easier for the novice to Woolf's style to warp her/his mind around. Reading it requires concentration and effort, but like trying to truly know a person, all the travail is worth it at the end. Immerse yourself in the book, and feel how great literature truly can be.

Considered by many who should know (e.g., E. M. Forester)to be Woolf's most brilliant work of genius, The Waves is a challenging book to read for many reasons, not the least of which is the style she has adopted. More like an extended Greek chorus than anything else, the six characters, whose "voices" sound identical to one another, speak their life stories in short, alternating monologues. Although the writing is very poetic, it is also very dense and very distancing. We never really warm up to any of the characters or get involved in their stories.

I had to read this book for a class and, though I'm glad I made it through to the end, it was difficult going and I know I never would have finished it (or even gotten through ten pages of it) if I hadn't had the carrot of a grade hanging over it. We had to read the whole thing in a week which is really not a good way to tackle this book. Best read in small segments, leisurely, absorbing each moment Woolf choses to highlight. Definitely not a plane or beach book!

If you haven't read Woolf before, this is not the book to start with. Mrs. Dalloway is, in my opinion, the best and most accessible of Woolf's experimental fictions and a good starting place for access into this great 20th century author's works. Then, if your brave, move onto "To the Lighthouse" and then, shudder, "The Waves."

By far the greatest virtue of this book is Woolf's deviation from adopting a traditional narrative structure. Although Jacob is the main character of the story, the narration does not solely focus on him, or anything remotely connected to him, or for that matter proceed in a straight chronological order. At least once in the course of the story, the narration goes backwards, forward, digresses, ends abruptly, unfinished, omits transitions, constantly switches what is being narrated, addresses the reader, frequently alternates between different characters point of views, and ends ambiguously.

On the other hand, the content, of what is being narrated, falls woefully short of matching the innovative narration style Woolf adopts. Nothing of any kind of significance occurs in the book; to be quite honest, the events are rather mundane. Two incidents that happened in Jacob's childhood are described, he goes off to college, attends a couple social events, has a couple relationships with girls, travels to France and Italy, and gets into a couple of fights with his friend Bonamy.

So, since one aspect of the novel (the structure) speaks in its favor, and another aspect (the content) speaks against it, is this a book you should read? To be fair, I should mention that there is actually more content in the book, it just happens to be implicitly implied throughout most of the book, but becomes apparent towards the book's end.

Buried within the story's unspectacular content, is Woolf's discontent with society. She ridicules the writing of letters, the leaving of calling cards, gossip, and women's obsession with fashion. Jacob calls people beastly, feels disgusted at social gatherings he attends, the describes the happiest moment of his life as be completely isolated from humanity and society atop a mountain, has an interest in politics because he wants to change the world, and as war descend upon the world, he leaves his possessions behind and bids society adieu. And perhaps the most important thing to point out is that pretty much everyone that sees Jacob, comments that he is beautiful. I think that his outer appearance is a reflection of his inner self; he is beautiful because by being aloof and critical of society, he has not been tainted by it.

All this can be read as Woolf agreeing with Rousseau about the corrosive affects society has on man. Society instead of ennobling and enlightening man has quite the opposite effect; society corrupts man.

So, if breaking with tradition and discontentment are your cup of tea, then this is the book for you.

i'm sorry, but i couldn't even finish this book. i bought it used only because i thought oh, virginia is so famous! she must be wonderful! but was astonished at the lack of human thought that showed up, the lack of sense. i really had no idea of what was happening, even though i made it to pg. 100. jacob just runs on and on about sophocles, about greek philosophy--oh he's so deep. deep enough to make you regret getting this book.

Virginia Woolf (1882 - 1941) was a well known writer, critic, feminist, and publisher. This was her third novel.

As background information, I read her first novel "The Voyage Out" published in 1915, skipped her second novel - which is considered to be a flop, Night and Day from 1919 - and then read "Jacob's Room," her third, then went on and read "Mrs. Dalloway," her fourth, and next read "To The Lighthouse," etc. Also, I read some of Woolf's non-fiction.

"The Voyage Out" is simple and straightforward work and it might remind the reader of a Jane Austen novel, but it set on a ship and then at a remote location. It is over 400 pages long, and has an Austen theme. After her second novel - which did not do very well - Woolf decided to be more risky and creative with the next book. She changed her style and approach to the novel and Woolf uses the stream of consciousness technique to bring a sense of the chaos and shortness of a young man's life around the time of World War I, Jacob's life, i.e.: from the pandemonium of Jacob's life as portrayed by Woolf through the use of the stream of the consciousness technique, we eventually have clarity in the novel. She carries this writing style on into the similarly chaotic story in the novel "Mrs. Dalloway."

The present story is about a young man Jacob Flanders who goes to Cambridge as a student, then he goes on a trip to Italy and Greece, and then returns and goes on to fight in World War I. Without giving away any of the critical plot elements and possibly ruining the enjoyment of reading the book, one can say that this is a bit of an odd book. It starts slowly; the reader is not certain what Woolf is trying to accomplish and where she is going with the story. But if you stay with the read one gets into the stream of consciousness feel and rythm which gives a strong feeling or sensation to what Woolf is trying to achieve.

This is an excellent novel written by Woolf at her prime and is similar to Mrs.Dalloway but covers a different subject matter. Her approach lends itself to the subject and it is quite effective as in "Mrs. Dalloway." If you want to read a conventional novel by Woolf, then I recommend her first novel, "The Voyage Out."

In any case, I enjoyed the read and recommend it as a good example of Virginia Woolf's writing.

"Jacob's Room" was Woolf's third novel, but the first where she felt free to trace "the flight of the mind" and discard any dead conventions which did not help convey her vision. Nor is there any elaborate stream-of-consciousness, in the late Henry James or Proustian manner: the real world is set before us with effervescent sensory detail, in that terse, suggestive, and witty style which makes her letters and essays so engaging. We are shown what life was like for Jacob Flanders, his adventures, friendships, travels, loves, right up to its abrupt ending: "It's not catastrophes, murders, deaths, diseases, that age and kill us; it's the way people look and laugh, and run up the steps of omnibuses." There isn't a dull page, and it reads as fresh and fast as if it had been written tomorrow morning.

The special feature of this Signet Classic is the introduction by Regina Marler, which offers one pertinent quotation or observation after another to orient the first-time reader, or refresh a return visitor. Her short course in the varied achievements of the Bloomsbury Group, those friends central to Woolf's development, is both assured and nuanced. Her placement of "Jacob's Room" in Woolf's career and the literary temper of the times shows how it anticipates the novel of the future while reflecting the recent painful past---the Great War that had ended just four years before it was published in 1922. Signet has given the text a very handsome presentation, and the up-to-date suggestions for further reading make one itch to visit the library. Woolf tempts us to "Think of a book as a very dangerous and exciting game which it takes two to play at"---and Marler furnishes the context we need to play along.

I'm taking a Virginia Woolf class this summer and Jacob's Room is the first book we read. I have to admit it was tough to get through and I didn't really like it on first glance, although every few pages there would be a line or phrase I enjoyed. However, the class discussion of the book was VERY interesting, and once the professor provided some background info and some reading tips that helped me understand the book and what Woolf was attempting to do with it, I found that I enjoyed it tons more. Elevated it from a two star book to a four star one..who knows, with a bit more cogitation, I might end up ranking it five stars!

Anyway, as a means of seeing Virginia Woolf's development as a writer, Jacob's Room is invaluable. It's also a powerful book about the nature of consciousness and relationships, as well as a moving anti-war statement. If you're not a Woolf scholar, or at least familiar with her style, you'll probably get more out of it if you read it in a classroom setting lead by an informed guide. A cornerstone of 20th Century Lit, this book is definitely worth the effort.

Fascinating book especially if you enjoy these authors. Aside from their attachments to their dogs, I loved learning more about their lives. Highly recommend it.

This was a very interesting new look at some famous authors. Who would have thought Emily Dickenson would love a huge Newfounland? Or expected Emily Bronte to have been the inspiration for Heathcliffe, not Cathy? I finished the book in short order and enjoyed going back to have another look at the famous authors' works. As an English teacher, this was a most enriching experience, and could lead to something 'other than the same old, same old' discussions with my students.

This book will long have a place on my bookshelf! Being an avid reader and having just lost the furry love of my life I was immediately drawn to this work. It is not surprising to learn how these celebrated female authors were inspired by their dog friends. These stories bring life to the famous writers in a way one can easily relate to. Shaggy Muses has deepened my appreciation for the novelists themselves and I have gained greater understanding of the therapeutic role beloved pets can play in our lives.

Maureen Adams provides thoughtful insight into the very private lives of these five troubled women authors by exposing and exploring their relationships with their beloved dogs. Through Adams' well researched narrative, we learn about how and why these dogs were so important to each of these women, giving some confidence, others companionship and all of them love. Adams' background in psychology and literature allow her to weave these topics together in an unlikely subject matter to great effect. This is an illuminating and enjoyable read!

I was drawn to this book because I'm a dog lover and the idea of examining the relationship between dogs and humans has always interested me. I have read the works of only a couple of the authors covered in "Shaggy Muses" and thought that might limit the appeal the book would have for me, but quite the opposite.

All five of the biographies are extremely well written and illuminative. Authtor Maureen Adams shows how the relationship between the authors and their dogs influenced their lives and work. These relationships were different for each of the writers. I think the best definition of Keeper's role with Emily Bronte is a protector, while Flush helped Elizabeth Barrett Browning emerge from grief and isolation after the death of her brother.

Highly recommended for lovers of dogs and of literature.

Woolf has 16 major works and I think this is one of her funnier works. It would be a good place to start reading Woolf's works.

Virginia Woolf (1882 - 1941) was a well known writer, critic, feminist, and publisher. As background information, I read most of her work starting with her first novel "The Voyage Out" published in 1915, skipped her second novel - which is considered to be a flop, Night and Day from 1919 - and then read "Jacob's Room," her third, then went on and read "Mrs. Dalloway," her fourth, and next read "To The Lighthouse," etc. Also, I read some of Woolf's non-fiction and put together a Listmania list on Virginia Woolf.

What is her best work? That is a hard question to answer, but overall one I think her novel "To The Lighthouse" is a masterpiece. Her best non-fiction is "A Room of One's Own." I like the Oxford version of the latter published along with "Three Guineas."

But, the present novel or novella is fascinating and a fun way to get to know Woolf. Books to do not have to be long to be a great story or novel, and I point to Tolstoy's "Death of Ivan Ilych" as an example. Is the present book equal to that? Of, course not but the present work is very entertaining. It is a fun read which takes about two hours. Most will be impressed and appreciate Woolf's writing ability.

It is a first person fictional narrative by a dog called Flush, a real dog that was owned by Elizabeth Barrett-Robert Browning. The real dog was stolen three times, but in the novella it is compressed into a story of one theft.

Woolf opens the novel sounding as if the book is non-fiction. After a few pages, it slips into the narrative form with the dog describing his life. She explores the dog's relation to the owner, and tells us what it is like to be a dog. The dog is very sensitive to the moods of the owner, and it is protective and becomes jealous on various occasions. One might say that Woolf gives the dog a soul. Does it all have a deeper meaning? Yes, it tells us about loyalty and love.

This is a fun read.

FLUSH probably gets the least respect of all of Virginia Woolf's books, and many critics at the time of its publication in 1933 (and since) thought she was being more than a bit twee in telling the satory of the Elizabeth Barrett-Robert Browning courtship from the point of view of Barrett's adored cocker spaniel. But this experiment in biography is much more than that: it's an attempt to understand the world from a non-human point of view, and it also is Woolf's most overt look in her fiction at class difference and (more unusually) at the world of crime. It's also a terrific addition to Woolf's extended engagement from an early 20th-c. perspective with the world of genteel Victorian society and its snobberies and hypocrisies.

I really enjoyed this book. I have read a lot of Woolfs work. This little book is easily equal to her more critically acclaimed works like 'To the Lighthouse'. This story allows Woolf to be more playful than in any of the other piece she has done. The mix of fiction/ biography allows her to tell a story filled with heroes and villians that makes the book like an adult fairy tale. By the end I was fully engaged and completely consumed by Flush and his Life. This is a must for any fan of Woolf or anyone who has a love for animals.

A good friend and I have an ongoing discussion about the anthropomorphization of animals in literature. He's agin' it. I'm not.

The beauty of FLUSH is that Woolf extends her technique of anthropomorphization to the humans. She figures out how to put you inside a dog's mind and desires and habits. Then she uses the same techniques on the humans. And while she is not unkind to any of these characters, she's not lenient toward any of them either.

That's the problem with most anthropomorphization. (Egad, do I have to type that word again?) It skins some poor animal to dress up a fictionally perfect human. Bad anthropomorphization (sigh) symbolizes a flat fraction of our human nature and represents it as the whole thing, or the most desirable part. This cheapens the human and disposes of the animal.

I love Woolf. She never cheapens anyone. She never makes cartoons of people (or of dogs). Read her if you're tired of shallow media portraits or snap judgments at the office water cooler. You know the kind. Comments on character that may be superficially correct, and you can't quite put your finger on it, but you feel the judgment's not fair at all... Woolf never does that to you.

Woolf observes her people (and her canine), lets you understand their most subtle good and bad impulses. With Woolf, we don't have to choose between knowing and loving another person. We can do both.

And we can love Flush, not as the idealized human, but as one actually does love a dog. Woolf has given us Flush - not a fantasy human in fake dog form - but a real dog, in print, a trusted and familiar companion. We feel his fur; we know where Flush is by the bed, in the dark; we know his eyes and their expression, and although Woolf tells us what Flush thinks, as with a real dog, there is something hidden, unhuman.

And then she goes and does the same thing with the PEOPLE. Brilliant.

So hang the critics, Virginia. This book may have been only a practice session for you, and a nuisance one at that, but we learn something about love and respect reading it. Now, can you think such a book unimportant?

One of my very favorite reads this year. This is a biography of sorts - and a fiction of sorts. It's the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's cocker spanial Flush. An absolute charmer. This is one of those volumes that can truly be read in a single setting - it is possessed of a free flowing lyric quality often absent in this writer's more cerebral fictions. Still, this isn't a slight piece by any means, but a richly detailed work of the imagination by one of the great literary minds of the past century. This is the kind of book you'll want to recommend to all your friends.

I greatly admire Freud, and I have greatly benefited from psychotherapy. But however great his ideas, his writing is ABYSMAL. He writes like a philosopher who has never met a patient. He'd rather write four pages of abstract theory than a single paragraph of concrete example.
We all owe a mighty debt to those disciples who presented his work in a way that others could understand.

The book was delivered to me complete and in the condition that it was sold to me in. I would recommend and use this seller for future transactions.

I started reading this again and I can't believe how fresh and relevant Freud remains. The text is clear and considering how much the world has changed it remains as useful as it always has been. I suppose that it is not an accident that his writings are the foundation of an entire discipline.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. In 1923, Freud introduced new terms in his book "The Ego and the Id," to describe the division between the conscious and unconscious: 'id,' 'ego,' and 'super-ego.' He thought these terms offered a more compelling description of the dynamic relations between the conscious and the unconscious. The "id" (fully unconscious) contains the drives and those things repressed by consciousness; the "ego" (mostly conscious) deals with external reality; and the "super ego" (partly conscious) is the conscience or the internal moral judge.

The id is the source of our drives and Freud considered it to be the reservoir of libido. 'The libido' or simply 'libido', is the form of energy cathected upon objects or an effect received from objects, predominantly sexual, which underlies all mental processes. Our drives (Freud had very theoretically specific "-drives" such as the death-drive, but drives can often be equated to 'instincts') surge forth from the id and apply libidinal energy to objects, which may result in aggressive or erotic attachments/actions upon chosen objects. The drives of the id are considered to be inborn, operating within the primary psychical processes (those of the unconscious) and are absolutely determined according to the pleasure principle. It is said that the id behaves as though it were unconscious, the reason thought to be is that our ego and our super-ego's ideals and pressures are often in conflict with the id's, causing repression, as the gratification of the id's drives would often be devastating in terms of social- and self-image. The word "id" is taken from the nominative single neuter Latin demonstrative pronoun (is, ea, id) meaning "it" or "that thing."

In Freud's theory, the ego mediates among the id, the super-ego and the external world. Its task is to find a balance between primitive drives, morals, and reality while satisfying the id and superego. Its main concern is with the individual's safety and allows some of the id's desires to be expressed, but only when consequences of these actions are marginal. Ego defense mechanisms are often used by the ego when id behavior conflicts with reality and either society's morals, norms, and taboos or the individual's expectations as a result of the internalization of these morals, norms, and taboos. Although in his early writings Freud equated the ego with the sense of self, he later began to portray it more as a set of psychic functions such as reality-testing, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory. The word ego is taken directly from Latin where it is the nominative of the first person singular personal pronoun and is translated as "I myself" to express emphasis. Ego is the English translation for Freud's German term "Das Ich."

Freud's theory says that the super-ego is a symbolic internalization of the father figure and cultural regulations. The super-ego tends to stand in opposition to the desires of the id because of their conflicting objectives, and is aggressive towards the ego. The super-ego acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality and the prohibition of taboos. Its formation takes place during the dissolution of the Oedipus complex and is formed by an identification with and internalization of the father figure after the little boy cannot successfully hold the mother as a love-object out of fear of castration. "The super-ego retains the character of the father, while the more powerful the Oedipus complex was and the more rapidly it succumbed to repression (under the influence of authority, religious teaching, schooling and reading), the stricter will be the domination of the super-ego over the ego later on -- in the form of conscience or perhaps of an unconscious sense of guilt" (The Ego and the Id, 1923). In Sigmund Freud's work Civilization and Its Discontents (1930) he also discusses the concept of a "cultural super-ego". The concept of super-ego and the Oedipus complex is subject to criticism for its sexism. Women, who are considered to be already castrated, do not identify with the father, and therefore form a weak super-ego, apparently leaving them susceptible to immorality and sexual identity complications.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy.

This work presents one of Freud's major theoretical models for understanding human personality. The three- fold division into ego- id- super-ego in some sense parallels the three fold division in Plato's thought. For Freud the Id is the unconscious instinctual animal element in us. It is our ' drives our hungers our lusts, our sexual lust centrally. The ego is the social self, the construct with which we meet the world. It is our rational self, our self as we present ourselves to the world through. The superego is the conscience, the what we should be. For Freud it is the voice of others, and especially of our parents telling and teaching us the difference between right and wrong. As Freud understood these three aspects of self are in constant interaction, and the kind of personality we are is determined by which of these faculties is predominant.
It is possible to regard this theory as insight and useful and draw conclusions from it.Or it is possible to simply put it aside as one more human construction aimed at understanding what must be understood in many different ways.
The book is small but not easy to read. A great mind is at work making order out of the minds of all of us. Whether he succeeds for you , you alone must judge.

I first read this book in 1998 or 1999, and since have lost my copy, but I remember enjoying every page of it. I also remember identifying myself as a "Freud" - creating a new domain. Would recommend this to anyone who is interested in clarifying and expanding their consciousness, educational realm, and creating a rich learning context.

Howard Gardner gives us an excellent and accessible introduction to his work with this book. Though small, it contains several gems for those of us who would like to emulate the lives and practices of extraordinary individuals.

I am continually amazed at how Gardner always puts out original and thought-provoking books. This is such a great book for anyone who wants to know what makes leaders and creators extraordinary. Gardner discovers that most great people are not great in many areas, but know their skills and have worked hard to develop those skills way beyond their contemporaries. Those who enjoy this book would also enjoy Creating Minds and Leading Minds (my favorite Gardner book). Like this one, they are packed full of useful information on great men and women.

An interesting analysis of what an extraodinary mind is and does. Through presenting 4 types of extraordinary minds : Master, Maker, Introspector, and Influencer, and then providing an example for each (Mozart, Freud, Woolf, and Gandhi respectively) insight is gained. It is a quick, but knowledgable read, and I reccomend it for those interested in seeing what makes a mind higher than the average individual. Overall, intriguing in the fact that Gardner is able to pick out traits and then term them on the path to extraoridinariness.

Howard Gardner, famous for his Multiple Intelligences theory (see "Frames of Mind") continues his research into patterns of intelligences with this analysis of 4 extraordinary individuals: Mozart, Freud, Virginia Woolf and Gandhi. The biographies of these people, which take up only half of the book, were interesting. Less fascinating (but still interesting) were Gardner's categories of extraordinariness - Maker, Influencer, Master, Introspector. Least interesting and convincing was where Gardner attempts to find patterns that might be helpful for the rest of us: "Varieties of Extraordinariess" and "Lessons" (the final two sections) were rather heavy and finally unconvincing, and the (short) paragraphs on gurus and "spiritual leaders" were particularly uninformative and infelicitous.

Gardner writes well, as might be expected of a professor in Harvard's school of education, and knowledgeably. I sometimes felt, though, that one purpose of the book was to illustrate Gardner's own brilliance. The author's name and the book's title take up equal space on the cover.

An interesting book, and it certainly made me want to read more of Gardner's work, as well as learn more about the extraordinary people he writes about.

MITZ compares favourably (in both skill and intent) to FLUSH, Virginia Woolf's own "biography" of Elizabeth Barrett Browning's spaniel. A small but compelling literary tradition continues.... Does Ms. Nunez have a pet?

No, I am not talking about Ross' monkey Marcel from Friends. This Marmoset is Mizt, adopted by the literary giants Virginia and Leonard Woolfe. Through there richness, elegence and love for one another (and Mitz) we read a book detailing the biography (life) of Mitz. Via trips, memoirs and entries of diaries detailed by the authors in the written work. This is a delightful little book where we find that Mitz has a personality and is not just a monkey.
It is a charming, witty fun read, well worth a second or third read. Definetly a must for all.

I'd read writings of Virginia Woolf and writing about Virginia Woolf but after reading MITZ I feel like I know Virginia Woolf better than ever before. To say nothing of MITZ who became so real to me....Unique and a delightful read.

Her prose is elegant and pleasurable, her scholarship particular, and her imagination delicate. After I read this book I wanted to rush out and read more Woolf and Nunez (and did). Please read to the end, it's so simple and resonant.

I was on vacation and came upon this book the day before leaving Santa Cruz. I picked it up and something said "buy me" (had read no reviews, author interviews, been 'told to' 'she's hot' etc.). As my friend drove us back to L.A. I began reading Nunez's book aloud. I kept on doing so. I read for 4.5 hours until finishing. My throat hurt and I developed pains from talking aloud so long but... I could not stop, nor did my driving partner want me to (I read past the point where we were to switch!). MITZ is an inventive, intelligent, throuroughly researched and alive creation. Unlike Kirkus, I felt the historical positioning and the awareness of the times deepened the tale and made it, at times, an absolutely miraculous achievement of intellectual imagination. And can I say, that Nunez babe can write write write. Clean, pure, prose. I got on Amazon to write this and to order every other thing she's written. Nunez you are great! and HarperCollins put together a great looking book as well, a too often neglected part of the modern reading experience. Viva MITZ!

history of Virginia Woolf. So much has been written about VW (her life and her works), there is no need to add anything here. This book is written by VW's nephew, and is impressively comprehensive in scope. This is a two-volume biography, but it is sold as a single volume. Chapters are divided by years (e.g., Volume I, Chapter eight, is simply titled "1909"). The eight appendices include: Clive Bell and the Writing of "The Voyage Out"; The Dreadnought Hoax; and, Virginia Woolf and Julian Bell.

It is perhaps a truism that Virginia Woolf's life has overshadowed her fiction, or at least stands a good chance of doing so. Much has been made lately of the fact that we almost cannot read Woolf without seeing her works through the lens of her life. That said, there is something interesting in the fact that she has become such a household name; that her personality DOES compete with her oeuvre for attention. People are fascinated by Virginia Woolf, for various reasons. Quentin Bell's biography is, I think, generally regarded as the classic work on Woolf's life. It is an incredible achievement, and the fact that Mr. Bell is Virginia Woolf's nephew makes it all the more fascinating and compelling. When he chooses to, he brings an intimacy to his subject that the reader knows is genuine. His remarks regarding his aunt's personality, her voice and looks, are vivid because of their first-handedness. That Bell's biography is not a family "tell-all" is, then, nothing short of astonishing, and is a tribute to Mr. Bell's intelligence and good sense. The Stephens family certainly has enough material in their closets to make quite an interesting read - and Mr. Bell does not skip over potentially "embarrassing" aspects of Virginia's, Leonard's or his mother Vanessa's lives. Nor does he present them in the sensationalist manner that a lesser writer might have scooped to. He is unfailingly honest; he is also respectful and fair. The deep love he has for his subject is evident; however it does not overwhelm the work. The biography is more a piece of scholarship than a memoir. However it is this delicious mean that makes "Virginia Woolf" such a compelling and interesting work. It does not indulge in literary criticism intentionally, however knowing the state of Woolf's life and mind at the time she was writing various novels cannot help but inform a reading of them. That said, it is not for the purpose of examining his aunt's books that Quentin Bell seeks to chronicle her life, I think. Rather, it is the force of Woolf's own personality; her intelligence and the world she moved in (for there is no better place to begin a study of the Modernist writers in general and the Bloomsbury Folk in particular than Bell's books). Besides being perhaps the most complete and evenly tempered account of Woolf's life, Quentin Bell's biography is well written, well documented and, as the best biographies should, puts us as close as we can perhaps get to the subject. We may not feel at the end that we "know" Virginia Woolf - what a ridiculous assumption to make under any circumstance! - but we have been in the presence of one who did, and who has allowed himself to step back far enough to see her and her life objectively. It is this simultaneous distance and intimacy that gives "Virginia Woolf" its authority and it's heart.

I read VIRGINIA WOLFE: A BIOGRAPHY by Quentin Bell after I had read several other books about Wolfe. I was pleased to discover that Bell included some of the more unsavory aspects of Woolfe's life even though he was a blood relative and wrote his book in an age that frowned on revealing "dirty" family secrets. I am referring to the presumed incestuous behavior of Woolfe's brothers towards Virginia and Vanessa.

Quentin Bell was the son of Virginia's sister the artist Venessa Bell. Virginia and Vanessa were the daughters of the very prominent English Victorian Leslie Stephen. Stephen married Virginia's mother Julia after her first husband Herbert Duckworth died. The brothers accused of incest were sons from the first marriage and much older than Virginia who was the next to the youngest child of Julia and Leslie.

Much has been written about the end of Virgina's life, how she placed several heavy stones in her pockets and walked into the river Ouse near her home and drowned herself in the early 1940s. As recently as last week on Garrison Keilior's "Writer's Almanack" on NPR on the anniversary of her birth this event was mentioned again as if it was the only thing she ever did of interest.

But Virginia did not take her life easily. She had survived some horrific events including the death of her beloved brother Thoby--her closest sibling, and the deaths of many other loved persons during WWI, as well as the death of Lytton Strachey her best friend. Moreover, at the time of her death, her London home in Bloomsbury had been bombed and Hitler was threatening to invade England. Virginia's husband Leonard was Jewish and they were both aware of what Hitler was doing to the Jews.

The most wonderful aspect of Bell's book is that he tells the complete story of Virgina's life--how she coped with sorrow and used her life experiences to frame her art. She was probably the most original writer of the 20th Century, and much of the glory that went to James Joyce should have gone to her. At the very least, she was his equal. She wrote in a 'stream of consciousness subjective voice' before James, but she wrote in an era when women writers found it difficult to become published. In fact, Virginia and Leonard started their own publishing press to deal with this deficiency. Even so, Virginia's work remained relatively obscure until it was "discovered" during the women's movement of the 1960's.

This is an illuminating, sad, and reflective book written by a man who knew and loved her. If you want to know more about Virginia Wolfe this is the place to begin.

Well, after reading this exhaustive biography I think with more or less reason several things. Virginia Woolf was a woman of great intelligence but unbalanced and at the cost of her instinctive life, I think not homosexual as it's said, but mostly uninterested in the sexual part of life. She has the drive to justify this and she said a real artist needed to be nor man nor woman in order to avoid prejudices and to possess a clear vision of the real facts of life, a doubtful point of view because there are great artist with strong sexual drive straight or not. I believe she was surely not primarily so ill at the mental sphere, because all these medications as digital, symptoms as palpitations and physical exhaustion, faints, etc, are symptoms of physical or even social diseases, yes, with repercussion in the psychic life, added to the extremely exigent work of writing his works. For all that I believe V. Woolf was no so mad as it's commonly said and could be saved by a more scientific and modern medicine. Certainly, personal and historical contingences as the death of friends and familiars, WWI and over all WWII with the fear to the Nazi invasion of England and repression against Jews as her husband and intellectuals as herself could not be avoided although I believe by 1941 these fears were objectively less probable. I can' avoid a pity for this woman.

An amazing and unique look at the life of Virginia Woolf, through the thoughts and studies of her own nephew--Quentin Bell. Filled with history, quotes, parts of letters and diary entries, this makes a wonderful and educational read. A peek into the society of Bloomsbury and beyond. This biography follows Virginia and all who were close to her through turbulent times and the happiness and stress of new households.

For sixty prolific years, the "Academy" has virtually ignored Virginia Woolf's THE YEARS. Average readers assume that critics would have picked up on the novel's generational gaps, its complicated plotline, or the fact that it's written by Virginia (freaking) Woolf, but they are sadly mistaken. Nobody in academic circles reads this novel, and it sits lonely on library shelves next to irregular printings of TO THE LIGHTHOUSE and ketchup-stained folios of Woolf's forgotten biography, ROGER FRY.

That fact, of course, wasn't enough to deter this huge Virginia fan. The "Academy" isn't always correct - as many Lacanian readings of Chaucer have verified - and THE YEAR's wonderful cover was enough of a sell for this bored college student with an extra weekend. I read the novel once over a spaghetti dinner, and twice over the next day while moving the lawn. Then I devoured it for a final time before writing a review on it. The novel wasn't an awful work, I felt, but it had never really begun: the motor of narrative hadn't started, and the lawn, fecund and fresh, had yet to be mowed. That's not to say I didn't try. I kept a list of characters to kick-start the motor. Here I am, I would say to myself on any given year. I'm following Rose. She's the young feminist, right? Here she is throwing a brick. And she's married, right? No, a little voice in the back of my head would ring. And so would come down the pencil, marking off my list. I made these lists, kept flow-charts, and tried to trace everything into an end. The filmic end came, with its sun shining, but it felt as if I was ready to send the novel away to a publisher, rather than relish it. The experience of reading it was like what writing it must have felt like.

Ultimately, that stylistic complaint is my only major criticism of the novel. Woolf was never a Dickens-esque plotter, but the characters in this novel simply feel like names on the page - and there are a lot of them! We can follow them, but we never feel the desire to. We carry conversations with Mrs. Dalloway because we want to; we talk to Mrs. Ramsay because she perplexes us (and herself); and we yell at Mr. A because he's a jerk. There's a little of that here, but it feels more like a metaphysical trace than a collection. Woolf imprints her face on the glass, rather than waiting for us.

If my experience isn't enough to deter you, I think you should really read it. In a Kaufman-esque moment, you might feel as I did - like the writer on the other side of the page, looking at the reader. I didn't have fun, but I did learn a lot about Woolf. Her hang-ups, frustrations, and impending suicide all mark this novel, and it ranks slightly above average only by feeling like her imaginery autobiography did: honest in its weakness, and weak for its strength.

This is one of Woolf's best, if not THE best. It follows a family through decades, showing the changes in them and the changes in the world around them. That stream-of-consciousness style that she is so famous for runs smoothly in The Years, and just flows over the reader. It was hard for me to tear myself away from this book. . . I had to simply shut the book, often in mid-sentance, to make myself stop reading. This comes highly recommended.

If an immortal were to ask me what is is like to be mortal, and live with a family and with time and with age, I would hand him this book, and feel confident that he would get a grasp of our experience. Mrs. Woolf has gathered the dimension of time in this novel through simple passages of conversation that left my heart sinking and rising. What an achievement!

I read this after reading Jacob's Room, Mrs. Dalloway, To the Lighthouse, Orlando, A Room of One's Own, and The Waves. In this novel she was trying to cut her style back, making it more concise, and moving away from experimentation. Yet, she produced a most unique novel.

Eleanor felt that the poor enjoyed themselves more than they did. They were stuck at home too much. In 1891 Eleanor Pargiter was a social worker. It is now 1907 and Edward Pargiter, brother of Eleanor, has produced an English translation of Sophocles's Antigone.

Moving forward, it is 1908 and Martin Pargiter has visited his father and his sister, Eleanor. 1911 produces a scene of Rose with her cousins Sarah and Maggie, daughters of Sir Digby. Maggie has married a Frenchman later on.

There is a meeting of Kitty, Lady Lasswade, and Eleanor. Following the meeting Kitty was going to the opera and so she was dressed in formal clothes. Eleanor thought that Kitty had the great lady's manner. Eleanor felt dowdy compared with Kitty. Edward Pargiter was present at the opera. Lucy Craddock had been Kitty's tutor at Oxford.

Eleanor is found at the country place of her brother Morris's mother in law. Her father died. She had no attachments at the moment. Her sister in law Celia told her there was to be a village fete. Eleanor met Sir William Whatney there. She had not seen him since he had been to India. Peggy and North, her niece and nephew, came in. She thought her growing interest in birds was a sign of old age.

Eleanor sold the family house and made arrangements for Crosby, the servant, to depart. She left with the family dog who soon had to be put down because it was aged, disabled, and suffering. Martin, called Captain Pargiter, did not marry. He encountered Kitty who introduced him to Ann Hillier. Martin said to Kitty that Eleanor was a queer old bird.

During the war Eleanor at one point dined with Maggie and her husband. Maggie felt that Eleanor looked like an abbess. The story shifts to the present day and Eleanor is shown having returned from India. It is noted by one of the characters that Edward and Kitty had been very much in love but that Kitty had married another man. Pleasure is increased by sharing it.

This book is a pleasure to have and to read. Is there a pattern, a theme? Virginia Woolf was a pattern maker. This work anticipates THREE GUINEAS and BETWEEN THE ACTS. It is in a new manner for Virginia Woolf. Leonard Woolf wrote that he did not care for it but stifled his displeasure to spare his wife agony.

I refer to the Penguin edition of this book with an introduction and notes by Jeri Johnson.

This is not my favourite Virginia Woolf novel. It is too shapeless for me - perhaps that's what Virginia Woolf was trying to demonstrate - that life is shapeless in its continuation from generation to generation. But to show any meaningful drift to sameness and change I believe we need a much greater perspective than we get from the Pargiters. And when there isn't much direction, much sense of approaching a climax, then, for me anyway, all Virginia Woolf's fine detail and acute observation becomes a tedious reiteration of the ennui of life which I prefer to avoid in literature rather than be reminded of over and over again.

The notes to this novel are quite comprehensive but I was uncommonly annoyed at one point. There is a novel by Philip Dick that I remember reading in which the author explains the correct pronunciation of the main character's name half-way through the novel. Murphy's Law almost guaranteed that I had selected the incorrect pronunciation and had to resound the character's name from that point on. This was a bit annoying. But not half as annoying as when Virginia Woolf tells us that the character North - again half way through the novel - was having his name pronounced incorrectly as if it were a point of the compass. This, of course, is exactly how I pronounced it in my mind. But what other way is there? Neither Virgina Woolf nor Jeri Johnson tell me. I am still mystified.

And perhaps this is the nub of my disenchantment with this novel. Perceptive as the writing might be, I feel an alien in this company, out of my depth amongst a batch of people who know the proper way to pronounce North.