I completely support the viewpoint that reading a book is reading oneself. We would inevitably drift off the intention of the author, interpreting the book and ideas within in our own ways. The answer to why classics remains classics lies here. Never could we understand the value of the book to the fullest. The very thought of this awakens me to thinking the role of AI in literature. It collects a constellation of thoughts everywhere, but even all this fails to constitutes an entire system of the author's intention. Maybe this is why AI cannot substitute anyone today. Each of us presents a unique idea though simple sometimes, whereas AI generates the same answer though seems complex.
I had to wait until I was nearly 40 to make it through To the Lighthouse; the sheer magnitude of her vision was beyond my younger mind. I'm so glad I persisted
Love this. It’s like revealing Woolf’s literary DNA under a microscope. The context, the craft, the lineage! A century later, and her sentences are still “alive to their fingers’ ends.”
It never occurred to me to wonder before reading this: did anyone edit Woolf? There's the mention of tremendous self-determination, no push-back from editors. Does this mean she wrote and revised and then the book was typeset and published?
Leonard woolf (in his intro to a posthumously published collection of her essays) said he usually corrected “obvious verbal mistakes” and punctuation in her mss. But I would take that with a grain of salt with regard to the novels
What a great essay, thank you, and the quote from Woolf on Montaigne: “simmer[ing] over our incalculable cauldron, our enthralling confusion, our hotch-potch of impulses, our perpetual miracle.” And yes, 'every time you turn to her (Virginia Woolf's) writing, the cauldron is still simmering.'
I completely support the viewpoint that reading a book is reading oneself. We would inevitably drift off the intention of the author, interpreting the book and ideas within in our own ways. The answer to why classics remains classics lies here. Never could we understand the value of the book to the fullest. The very thought of this awakens me to thinking the role of AI in literature. It collects a constellation of thoughts everywhere, but even all this fails to constitutes an entire system of the author's intention. Maybe this is why AI cannot substitute anyone today. Each of us presents a unique idea though simple sometimes, whereas AI generates the same answer though seems complex.
This is so good and so incredibly moving. Thank you, Donna.
Simply wonderful Donna!
So much good info and context here—thank you!
I had to wait until I was nearly 40 to make it through To the Lighthouse; the sheer magnitude of her vision was beyond my younger mind. I'm so glad I persisted
Love this. It’s like revealing Woolf’s literary DNA under a microscope. The context, the craft, the lineage! A century later, and her sentences are still “alive to their fingers’ ends.”
A fine essay that shines light on the pools of darkness that conceal Woolf's full character. Like her or not, she is now more alive, more real.
Thank you.
It never occurred to me to wonder before reading this: did anyone edit Woolf? There's the mention of tremendous self-determination, no push-back from editors. Does this mean she wrote and revised and then the book was typeset and published?
Leonard woolf (in his intro to a posthumously published collection of her essays) said he usually corrected “obvious verbal mistakes” and punctuation in her mss. But I would take that with a grain of salt with regard to the novels
What a great essay, thank you, and the quote from Woolf on Montaigne: “simmer[ing] over our incalculable cauldron, our enthralling confusion, our hotch-potch of impulses, our perpetual miracle.” And yes, 'every time you turn to her (Virginia Woolf's) writing, the cauldron is still simmering.'
Brilliant! I feel much closer to Woolf because of this.