Podcasts about woolfs

Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) är en av den litterära modernismens portalfigurer. Med sina djärva berättargrepp och nyskapande perspektivskiften bidrog Woolfs böcker starkt till skapandet av den moderna romanen. Men som för många kvinnliga författare i historien har biografin ibland ställts i vägen för författarskapet. Om Woolf berättas lika ofta om hennes psykiska ohälsa och slutliga självmord som om hennes banbrytande litteratur, trots att Woolf själv insisterade på litteraturens frihet. Hur blev det så? Bildningspodden diskuterar mytbildningen kring Virginia Woolf och närläser hennes viktigaste böcker. Gäst i studion är litteraturvetaren Maria Trejling. Samtalsledare: Hedvig Ljungar Klippning: Lars in de Betou. Producent: Magnus Bremmer

Virginia Woolfs endagsroman Mrs Dalloway är en verklig klassiker. Men vad är det som gör den så bra? Karin Nykvist funderar över sin favorit. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Vad är det med Mrs Dalloway? Hur kommer det sig att jag bara måste återvända till henne gång på gång, år efter år, att jag tvingar alla mina studenter att läsa om henne och aldrig kan hålla litteraturvetarens förväntade distans utan bara måste förklara för alla som vill eller inte kan undgå att lyssna att hon finns i min absoluta favoritroman?Boken om henne handlar ju inte alls om något häpnadsväckande: en dam promenerar runt i London och ordnar en fest, samtidigt som en krigsveteran, skadad av första världskrigets skyttegravshelvete långsamt rör sig mot sitt självmord i samma stad. Och Mrs Dalloway är inte alls som jag – hoppas jag! Hon är snobbig, konservativ, dömande, arrogant – och inte helt lätt att tycka om. Trots att andra möjligheter fanns har hon valt det säkra livet och gift sig med en lagom ointressant man som gett henne en trygg position i samhällets societet. Själv broderar hon, handlar blommor, arrangerar fester och är – som hennes gamla kärlek Peter syrligt säger – en perfekt värdinna. Ytlig och lätt att glömma, med andra ord.Så varför gör jag inte det?Ja, grejen med Clarissa Dalloway är väl just att hon påminner mig om att den sorts människor som jag just beskrev faktiskt inte existerar: de ytliga, ointressanta, de som inte lämnar några spår. Vi bara tror att de finns. Virginia Woolfs mästerskap ligger i hur hon skriver fram den mänskliga erfarenheten, i all dess komplexitet. I Clarissa Dalloway får jag tillgång till en hel människa – på ett sätt som jag faktiskt inte kan få i verkliga livet. För porträttet av Clarissa tecknas inte bara genom hennes eget medvetande utan genom alla dem hon möter, de som känner henne väl och ser henne genom alla hennes tidigare, yngre versioner, och de som flyktigt korsar hennes väg på gatan.Virginia Woolf struntade blankt i sin samtids förväntningar på hur en roman skulle skrivas. I stället gjorde hon som Clarissa själv: kastade sig ut i den vackra Londonmorgonen och lät läsaren följa med i livet som ständigt pågår – överallt. Så byter romanen perspektiv utan förvarningar, från den promenerande Mrs Dalloway till hennes gamla pojkvän Peter Walsh – som just kommit tillbaka till London från att ganska mediokert ha tjänat det brittiska imperiet i Indien – till ungdomskärleken Sally Seton som blivit Lady och fembarnsmor, till butiksinnehavare, gatuförsäljare och nyfikna flanörer. Och så ger den perspektivet till den svårt sjuke Septimus Smith och hans förtvivlade fru Lucrezia, för att låta det gå tillbaka till Clarissa – och vidare igen. Hon tänker på dem alla och på sig själv – medan de i sin tur betraktar henne – och tänker på sig själva.Allt är relativt: tid, plats, minne, identitet – och människans sinnen och psykologi gör en objektiv upplevelse av världen omöjlig. ”Hon ville inte längre säga om någon människa i världen att hon eller han var det eller det [.…] ville inte säga om sig själv: jagär det eller det” tänker Clarissa. För dum är hon inte, hon vet: allt är i flux. Det enda vi verkligen har är ögonblicket, vårt här och nu. Berättelserna, före och efter-tankarna, den skenbara logiken skapar vi själva. Men det är ögonblicken vi minns, synintrycken, dofterna, ljuden, mötet med den andre.Ögonblick. Ordet återkommer genom romanen – i Eva Åsefeldts översättning hela femtiofyra gånger. För Woolf är det nämligen inte ett ord bland andra, inte en neutral beskrivning av en flyktig stund, utan centralt för hela hennes förståelse av livet. Hon kallar dem ”moments of being” – de ögonblick när livet plötsligt fylls av akut härvaro. De kommer sällan och oväntat. För Clarissa sker det till exempel när hon mitt på förmiddagen lägger av sig sin brosch i sitt sovrum. Woolf skriver att Clarissa: ”kastade sig […] ut i ögonblickets själva kärna, naglade fast det, där – ögonblicket denna förmiddag i juni som vilade under trycket av alla de andra förmiddagarna. Hon såg spegeln, toalettbordet och flaskorna som för första gången, samlade hela sitt jag till en enda punkt (med blicken mot spegeln), såg det späda rosa ansiktet hos den kvinna som samma kväll skulle hålla sin fest; Clarissa Dalloway, hon själv.”Ögonblick som dessa kan, som Runeberg skrev, ”bli hos oss evigt”. Som en annan morgon, mer än trettio år tidigare, när Sally plötsligt kysste henne på en terrass: ”det mest fulländade ögonblicket i hennes liv”.Clarissa återkommer ständigt till denna stund och till den hon var då. Då när alla dörrar till livet fortfarande stod öppna. Då, när hon gjorde slut med Peter Walsh – och kysste Sally. Sedan dess har livets dörrar stängts, en efter en. Har hon valt rätt? Var det rätt att tacka nej till allt det osäkra och otippade - och i stället bli fru Dalloway?Virginia Woolf hade hunnit bli fyrtio när hon skapade sin Clarissa. Hon bodde då tillfälligt i Richmond, där hon och hennes man Leonard hade startat Hogarth Press, mycket för att Virginia skulle ha något att göra – hon led sedan barndomen av bräcklig mental hälsa.Många läsare har funderat på hur mycket av författaren som finns i Mrs Dalloway. Det är lite roligt, för Woolf var knappast någon borgerlig societetsdam som gav fester för konservativa premiärministrar och andra noggrant utvalda medlemmar av societeten. Hon var ju bohem, ganska så fattig, gift med en socialist och uppslukad av konst och litteratur. Mrs Dalloway broderar – Virginia Woolf läste James Joyce. Mrs Dalloway planerar menyer – Virginia Woolf satte texten till T.S. Eliots ”Det öde landet” – som gavs ut som bok på paret Woolfs lilla förlag 1923, samtidigt som Virginia skrev på sin roman.Men jag förstår tanken - för visst finns likheterna där. Clarissa ser och noterar det mesta som har med samtidens sociala spel att göra. Men till skillnad från sin skapare Virginia väljer hon bara att spela med. Kanske är Clarissa Dalloway allt det som Woolf själv hade kunnat bli, om hon inte gjort uppror mot det viktorianska samhälle hennes samtid och stränga far uppfostrade henne till.Och det är väl just i det att vara människa i världen, bland andra människor, som jag och Clarissa – och för den delen Virginia Woolf – möts och är lika varandra. Upptagna med vardagens små planer, fasta i oss själva och våra sinnens och tankars begränsningar medan livet pågår och pågår – och plötsligt slår oss med sin storslagenhet, skönhet och korthet – i varats utsträckta ögonblick.Och alla har vi väl våra egna varianter av Sally Seton-kyssar där någonstans längst inne: minnen som vi vårdar och som kommer att försvinna med oss.En av litteraturens främsta egenskaper är att den får oss att känna igen människor vi aldrig mött. Jag känner igen Clarissa Dalloway – trots att hon är hundra år äldre än jag och bara ett stycke text, en uppfinning. För någonstans är det ju ändå så, att Clarissa Dalloway, ja, det är ju jag.Och du.Karin Nykvistlitteraturvetare och kritikerLitteraturVirginia Woolf: Mrs Dalloway. Översättning: Eva Åsefeldt. Albert Bonniers förlag, 2025.

Da Hans Petter Blad ble innlagt på Ullevål for en operasjon sommeren for ett år siden, valgte han å ta med seg en roman av Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) som lesestoff og eneste reisefølge. Det viste seg å være et klokt valg, for Til fyret (1927) var den perfekte lektyren for å vinne tilbake «troen på livet.»På tross av at teksten på mangae måter er en ekstremt voldelig tekst, og helt annerledes enn man forestiller seg ved synet av fotografier av Virgina Woolf og hennes krets, alle tandre og snobbete. Woolf er selve sinnbildet på både modernismen og feminismen i litteraturen. Hennes grensesprengende essay, Et eget rom (1929), er et av de viktigste og mest velskrevne litterære essay noen gang. Det kom to år etter Til fyret og fire år etter hennes kanskje mest kjente romen, Mrs. Dalloway (1925). Men hva betyr forfatterskapet hennes i dag? Hvordan har det seg at spesielt Til fyret oppleves som både livsnødvendig og urovekkende nær? Ved siden av å trekke veksler på sammenhengen mellom levde liv, romankunsten og tanker om det å skrive, står den umiddelbare opplevelsen av Woolfs bøker i sentrum for dette foredraget. Og, i det kollektive rommet biblioteket utgjør, vil naturligvis også Virginia Woolfs «krets», Bloomsbury-kretsen, ses på som interessant, som bilde på hvordan politikk, historie og geografi, og andre kunstformer som malerkunsten er så viktige for en romans mangetydige form. Se mindrehttp://drammensbiblioteket.noFacebook: http://facebook.com/DrammensbiblioteketInstagram: http://instagram.com/drammensbiblioteket

Clare Carlisle's biography of George Eliot, The Marriage Question, is one of my favourite modern biographies, so I was really pleased to interview Clare. We talked about George Eliot as a feminist, the imperfections of her “marriage” to George Henry Lewes, what she learned from Spinoza, having sympathy for Casaubon, contradictions in Eliot's narrative method, her use of negatives, psychoanalysis, Middlemarch, and more. We also talked about biographies of philosophers, Kierkegaard, and Somerset Maugham. I was especially pleased by Clare's answer about the reported decline in student attention spans. Overall I thought this was a great discussion. Many thanks to Clare! Full transcript below. Here is an extract from our discussion about Eliot's narrative ideas.Clare: Yes, that's right. The didactic thing, George Eliot is sometimes criticized for this didacticism because what's most effective in the novel is not the narrator coming and telling us we should actually feel sorry for Casaubon and we should sympathize with him. We'd be better people if we sympathize with Casaubon. There's a moralizing lecture about, you should feel sympathy for this unlikable person. What is more effective is the subtle way she portrays this character and, as I say, lets us into his vulnerabilities in some obvious ways, as you say, by pointing things out, but also in some more subtle ways of drawing his character and hinting at, as I say, his vulnerabilities.Henry: Doesn't she know, though, that a lot of readers won't actually be very moved by the subtle things and that she does need to put in a lecture to say, "I should tell you that I am very personally sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon and that if you leave this novel hating him, that's not--"? Isn't that why she does it? Because she knows that a lot of readers will say, "I don't care. He's a baddie."Clare: Yes I don't know, that's a good question.Henry: I'm interested because, in The Natural History of German Life, she goes to all these efforts to say abstract arguments and philosophy and statistics and such, these things don't change the world. Stories change the world. A picture of life from a great artist. Then when she's doing her picture of life from a great artist she constantly butts in with her philosophical abstractions because it's, she can't quite trust that the reader will get it right as it were.Clare: Yes, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. You could say that or maybe does she have enough confidence in her ability to make us feel with these characters. That would be another way of looking at it. Whether her lack of confidence and lack of trust is in the reader or in her own power as an artist is probably an open question.TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to Clare Carlisle, a philosopher at King's College London and a biographer. I am a big fan of George Eliot's Double Life: The Marriage Question. I've said the title backwards, but I'm sure you'll find the book either way. Clare, welcome.Clare Carlisle: Hi, Henry. Nice to be here.Henry: Is George Eliot a disappointing feminist?Clare: Obviously disappointment is relative to expectations, isn't it? It depends on what we expect of feminism, and in particular, a 19th-century woman. I personally don't find her a disappointing feminist. Other readers have done, and I can understand why that's the case for all sorts of reasons. She took on a male identity in order to be an artist, be a philosopher in a way that she thought was to her advantage, and she's sometimes been criticized for creating heroines who have quite a conventional sort of fulfillment. Not all of them, but Dorothea in Middlemarch, for example, at the end of the novel, we look back on her life as a wife and a mother with some sort of poignancy.Yes, she's been criticized for, in a way, giving her heroines and therefore offering other women a more conventional feminine ideal than the life she managed to create and carve out for herself as obviously a very remarkable thinker and artist. I also think you can read in the novels a really bracing critique of patriarchy, actually, and a very nuanced exploration of power dynamics between men and women, which isn't simplistic. Eliot is aware that women can oppress men, just as men can oppress women. Particularly in Middlemarch, actually, there's an exploration of marital violence that overcomes the more gendered portrayal of it, perhaps in Eliot's own earlier works where, in a couple of her earlier stories, she portrayed abused wives who were victims of their husband's betrayal, violence, and so on.Whereas in Middlemarch, it's interestingly, the women are as controlling, not necessarily in a nasty way, but just that that's the way human beings navigate their relations with each other. It seems to be part of what she's exploring in Middlemarch. No, I don't find her a disappointing feminist. We should be careful about the kind of expectations we, in the 21st century project onto Eliot.Henry: Was George Henry Lewes too controlling?Clare: I think one of the claims of this book is that there was more darkness in that relationship than has been acknowledged by other biographers, let's put it that way. When I set out to write the book, I'd read two or three other biographies of Eliot by this point. One thing that's really striking is this very wonderfully supportive husbands that, in the form of Lewes, George Eliot has, and a very cheerful account of that relationship and how marvelous he was. A real celebration of this relationship where the husband is, in many ways, putting his wife's career before his own, supporting her.Lewes acted as her agent, as her editor informally. He opened her mail for her. He really put himself at the service of her work in ways that are undoubtedly admirable. Actually, when I embarked on writing this book, I just accepted that narrative myself and was interested in this very positive portrayal of the relationship, found it attractive, as other writers have obviously done. Then, as I wrote the book, I was obviously reading more of the primary sources, the letters Eliot was writing and diary entries. I started to just have a bit of a feeling about this relationship, that it was light and dark, it wasn't just light.The ambiguity there was what really interested me, of, how do you draw the line between a husband or a wife who's protective, even sheltering the spouse from things that might upset them and supportive of their career and helpful in practical ways. How do you draw the line between that and someone who's being controlling? I think there were points where Lewes crossed that line. In a way, what's more interesting is, how do you draw that line. How do partners draw that line together? Not only how would we draw the line as spectators on that relationship, obviously only seeing glimpses of the inner life between the two people, but how do the partners themselves both draw those lines and then navigate them?Yes, I do suggest in the book that Lewes could be controlling and in ways that I think Eliot herself felt ambivalent about. I think she partly enjoyed that feeling of being protected. Actually, there was something about the conventional gendered roles of that, that made her feel more feminine and wifely and submissive, In a way, to some extent, I think she bought into that ideal, but also she felt its difficulties and its tensions. I also think for Lewes, this is a man who is himself conditioned by patriarchal norms with the expectation that the husband should be the successful one, the husband should be the provider, the one who's earning the money.He had to navigate a situation. That was the situation when they first got together. When they first got together, he was more successful writer. He was the man of the world who was supporting Eliot, who was more at the beginning of her career to some extent and helping her make connections. He had that role at the beginning. Then, within a few years, it had shifted and suddenly he had this celebrated best-selling novelist on his hands, which was, even though he supported her success, partly for his own financial interests, it wasn't necessarily what he'd bargained for when he got into the relationship.I think we can also see Lewes navigating the difficulties of that role, of being, to some extent, maybe even disempowered in that relationship and possibly reacting to that vulnerability with some controlling behavior. It's maybe something we also see in the Dorothea-Casaubon relationship where they get together. Not that I think that at all Casaubon was modeled on Lewes, not at all, but something of the dynamic there where they get together and the young woman is in awe of this learned man and she's quite subservient to him and looking up to him and wanting him to help her make her way in the world and teach her things.Then it turns out that his insecurity about his own work starts to come through. He reacts, and the marriage brings out his own insecurity about his work. Then he becomes quite controlling of Dorothea, perhaps again as a reaction to his own sense of vulnerability and insecurity. The point of my interpretation is not to portray Lewes as some villain, but rather to see these dynamics and as I say, ambivalences, ambiguities that play themselves out in couples, between couples.Henry: I came away from the book feeling like it was a great study of talent management in a way, and that the both of them were very lucky to find someone who was so well-matched to their particular sorts of talents. There are very few literary marriages where that is the case, or where that is successfully the case. The other one, the closest parallel I came up with was the Woolfs. Leonard is often said he's too controlling, which I find a very unsympathetic reading of a man who looked after a woman who nearly died. I think he was doing what he felt she required. In a way, I agree, Lewes clearly steps over the line several times. In a way, he was doing what she required to become George Eliot, as it were.Clare: Yes, absolutely.Henry: Which is quite remarkable in a way.Clare: Yes. I don't think Mary Ann Evans would have become George Eliot without that partnership with Lewes. I think that's quite clear. That's not because he did the work, but just that there was something about that, the partnership between them, that enabled that creativity…Henry: He knew all the people and he knew the literary society and all the editors, and therefore he knew how to take her into that world without it overwhelming her, giving her crippling headaches, sending her into a depression.Clare: Yes.Henry: In a way, I came away more impressed with them from the traditional, isn't it angelic and blah, blah, blah.Clare: Oh, that's good.Henry: What did George Eliot learn from Spinoza?Clare: I think she learned an awful lot from Spinoza. She translated Spinoza in the 1850s. She translated Spinoza's Ethics, which is Spinoza's philosophical masterpiece. That's really the last major project that Eliot did before she started to write fiction. It has, I think, quite an important place in her career. It's there at that pivotal point, just before she becomes an artist, as she puts it, as a fiction writer. Because she didn't just read The Ethics, but she translated it, she read it very, very closely, and I think was really quite deeply formed by a particular Spinozist ethical vision.Spinoza thinks that human beings are not self-sufficient. He puts that in very metaphysical terms. A more traditional philosophical view is to say that individual things are substances. I'm a substance, you're a substance. What it means to be a substance is to be self-sufficient, independent. For example, I would be a substance, but my feeling of happiness on this sunny morning would be a more accidental feature of my being.Henry: Sure.Clare: Something that depends on my substance, and then these other features come and go. They're passing, they're just modes of substance, like a passing mood or whatever, or some kind of characteristic I might have. That's the more traditional view, whereas Spinoza said that there's only one substance, and that's God or nature, which is just this infinite totality. We're all modes of that one substance. That means that we don't have ontological independence, self-sufficiency. We're more like a wave on the ocean that's passing through. One ethical consequence of that way of thinking is that we are interconnected.We're all interconnected. We're not substances that then become connected and related to other substances, rather we emerge as beings through this, our place in this wider whole. That interconnectedness of all things and the idea that individuals are really constituted by their relations is, I think, a Spinoza's insight that George Eliot drew on very deeply and dramatized in her fiction. I think it's there all through her fiction, but it becomes quite explicit in Middlemarch where she talks about, she has this master metaphor of the web.Henry: The web. Right.Clare: In Middlemarch, where everything is part of a web. You put pressure on a bit of it and something changes in another part of the web. That interconnectedness can be understood on multiple levels. Biologically, the idea that tissues are formed in this organic holistic way, rather than we're not composed of parts, like machines, but we're these organic holes. There's a biological idea of the web, which she explores. Also, the economic system of exchange that holds a community together. Then I suppose, perhaps most interestingly, the more emotional and moral features of the web, the way one person's life is bound up with and shaped by their encounters with all the other lives that it comes into contact with.In a way, it's a way of thinking that really, it questions any idea of self-sufficiency, but it also questions traditional ideas of what it is to be an individual. You could see a counterpart to this way of thinking in a prominent 19th-century view of history, which sees history as made by heroic men, basically. There's this book by Carlyle, Thomas Carlyle, called The Heroic in History, or something like that.Henry: Sure. On heroes and the heroic, yes.Clare: Yes. That's a really great example of this way of thinking about history as made by heroes. Emerson wrote this book called Representative Men. These books were published, I think, in the early 1850s. Representative Men. Again, he identifies these certain men, these heroic figures, which represent history in a way. Then a final example of this is Auguste Comte's Positivist Calendar, which, he's a humanist, secularist thinker who wants to basically recreate culture and replace our calendar with this lunar calendar, which, anyway, it's a different calendar, has 13 months.Each month is named after a great man. There's Shakespeare, and there's Dante, and there's-- I don't know, I can't remember. Anyway, there's this parade of heroic men. Napoleon. Anyway, that's the view of history that Eliot grew up with. She was reading, she was really influenced by Carlisle and Emerson and Comte. In that landscape, she is creating this alternative Spinozist vision of what an exemplar can be like and who gets to be an exemplar. Dorothea was a really interesting exemplar because she's unhistoric. At the very end of Middlemarch, she describes Dorothea's unhistoric life that comes to rest in an unvisited tomb.She's obscure. She's not visible on the world stage. She's forgotten once she dies. She's obscure. She's ordinary. She's a provincial woman, upper middle-class provincial woman, who makes some bad choices. She has high ideals but ends up living a life that from the outside is not really an extraordinary life at all. Also, she is constituted by her relations with others in both directions. Her own life is really shaped by her milieu, by her relationships with the people. Also, at the end of the novel, Eliot leaves us with a vision of the way Dorothea's life has touched other lives and in ways that can't be calculated, can't really be recognized. Yet, she has these effects that are diffused.She uses this word, diffusion or diffuseness. The diffuseness of the effects of Dorothea's life, which seep into the world. Of course, she's a woman. She's not a great hero in this Carlyle or Emerson sense. In all these ways, I think this is a very different way of thinking about individuality, but also history and the way the world is made, that history and the world is made by, in this more Spinozist kind of way, rather than by these heroic representative men who stand on the world stage. That's not Spinoza's, that's Eliot's original thinking. She's taking a Spinozist ontology, a Spinozist metaphysics, but really she's creating her own vision with that, that's, of course, located in that 19th-century context.Henry: How sympathetic should we be to Mr. Casaubon?Clare: I feel very sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon because he is so vulnerable. He's a really very vulnerable person. Of course, in the novel, we are encouraged to look at it from Dorothea's point of view, and so when we look at it from Dorothea's point of view, Casaubon is a bad thing. The best way to think about it is the view of Dorothea's sister Celia, her younger sister, who is a very clear-eyed observer, who knows that Dorothea is making a terrible mistake in marrying this man. She's quite disdainful of Casaubon's, well, his unattractive looks.He's only about 40, but he's portrayed as this dried-up, pale-faced scholar, academic, who is incapable of genuine emotional connection with another person, which is quite tragic, really. The hints are that he's not able to have a sexual relationship. He's so buttoned up and repressed, in a way. When we look at it from Dorothea's perspective, we say, "No, he's terrible, he's bad for you, he's not going to be good for you," which of course is right. I think Eliot herself had a lot of sympathy for Casaubon. There's an anecdote which said that when someone asked who Casaubon was based on, she pointed to herself.I think she saw something of herself in him. On an emotional level, I think he's just a fascinating character, isn't he, in a way, from an aesthetic point of view? The point is not do we like Casaubon or do we not like him? I think we are encouraged to feel sympathy with him, even as, on the one, it's so clever because we're taken along, we're encouraged to feel as Celia feels, where we dislike him, we don't sympathize with him. Then Eliot is also showing us how that view is quite limited, I think, because we do occasionally see the world from Casaubon's point of view and see how fearful Casaubon is.Henry: She's also explicit and didactic about the need to sympathize with him, right? It's often in asides, but at one point, she gives over most of a chapter to saying, "Poor Mr. Casaubon. He didn't think he'd end up like this." Things have actually gone very badly for him as well.Clare: Yes, that's right. The didactic thing, George Eliot is sometimes criticized for this didacticism because what's most effective in the novel is not the narrator coming and telling us we should actually feel sorry for Casaubon and we should sympathize with him. We'd be better people if we sympathize with Casaubon. There's a moralizing lecture about, you should feel sympathy for this unlikable person. What is more effective is the subtle way she portrays this character and, as I say, lets us into his vulnerabilities in some obvious ways, as you say, by pointing things out, but also in some more subtle ways of drawing his character and hinting at, as I say, his vulnerabilities.Henry: Doesn't she know, though, that a lot of readers won't actually be very moved by the subtle things and that she does need to put in a lecture to say, "I should tell you that I am very personally sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon and that if you leave this novel hating him, that's not--"? Isn't that why she does it? Because she knows that a lot of readers will say, "I don't care. He's a baddie."Clare: Yes I don't know, that's a good question.Henry: I'm interested because, in The Natural History of German Life, she goes to all these efforts to say abstract arguments and philosophy and statistics and such, these things don't change the world. Stories change the world. A picture of life from a great artist. Then when she's doing her picture of life from a great artist she constantly butts in with her philosophical abstractions because it's, she can't quite trust that the reader will get it right as it were.Clare: Yes, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. You could say that or maybe does she have enough confidence in her ability to make us feel with these characters. That would be another way of looking at it. Whether her lack of confidence and lack of trust is in the reader or in her own power as an artist is probably an open question.Henry: There's a good book by Debra Gettelman about the way that novelists like Eliot knew what readers expected because they were all reading so many cheap romance novels and circulating library novels. There are a lot of negations and arguments with the reader to say, "I know what you want this story to do and I know how you want this character to turn out, but I'm not going to do that. You must go with me with what I'm doing.Clare: Yes. You mean this new book that's come out called Imagining Otherwise?Henry: That's right, yes.Clare: I've actually not read it yet, I've ordered it, but funnily enough, as you said at the beginning, I'm a philosopher so I'm not trained at all as a reader of literary texts or as a literary scholar by any means, and so I perhaps foolishly embarked on this book on George Eliot thinking, "Oh, next I'm going to write a book about George Eliot." Anyway, I ended up going to a couple of conferences on George Eliot, which was interestingly like stepping into a different world. The academic world of literary studies is really different from the world of academic philosophy, interestingly.It's run by women for a start. You go to a conference and it's very female-dominated. There's all these very eminent senior women or at least at this conference I went to there was these distinguished women who were running the show. Then there were a few men in that mix, which is the inverse of often what it can be like in a philosophy conference, which is still quite a male-dominated discipline. The etiquette is different. Philosophers like to criticize each other's arguments. That's the way we show love is to criticize and take down another philosopher's argument.Whereas the academics at this George Eliot conference were much more into acknowledging what they'd learned from other people's work and referencing. Anyway, it's really interestingly different. Debra Gettelman was at this conference.Henry: Oh, great.Clare: She had a book on Middlemarch. I think it was 2019 because it was the bicentenary of Eliot's birth, that's why there was this big conference. Debra, who I'd never met before or heard of, as I just didn't really know this world, gave this amazing talk on Middlemarch and on these negations in Middlemarch. It really influenced me, it really inspired me. The way she did these close readings of the sentences, this is what literary scholars are trained to do, but I haven't had that training and the close reading of the sentences, which didn't just yield interesting insights into the way George Eliot uses language but yielded this really interesting philosophical work where Eliot is using forms of the sentence to explore ontological questions about negation and possibility and modality.This was just so fascinating and really, it was a small paper in one of those parallel sessions. It wasn't one of the big presentations at the conference, but it was that talk that most inspired me at the conference. It's a lot of the insights that I got from Debra Gettelman I ended up drawing on in my own chapter on Middlemarch. I situated it a bit more in the history of philosophy and thinking about negation as a theme.Henry: This is where you link it to Hegel.Clare: Yes, to Hegel, exactly. I was so pleased to see that the book is out because I think I must have gone up to her after the talk and said, "Oh, it's really amazing." Was like, "Oh, thank you." I was like, "Is it published? Can I cite it?" She said, "No. I'm working on this project." It seemed like she felt like it was going to be a long time in the making. Then a few weeks ago, I saw a review of the book in the TLS. I thought, "Oh, amazing, the book is out. It just sounds brilliant." I can't wait to read that book. Yes, she talks about Eliot alongside, I think, Dickens and another.Henry: And Jane Austen.Clare: Jane Austen, amazing. Yes. I think it's to do with, as you say, writing in response to readerly expectation and forming readerly expectations. Partly thanks to Debra Gettelman, I can see how Eliot does that. It'd be really interesting to learn how she sees Jane Austen and Dickens also doing that.Henry: It's a brilliant book. You're in for a treat.Clare: Yes, I'm sure it is. That doesn't surprise me at all.Henry: Now, you say more than once in your book, that Eliot anticipates some of the insights of psychotherapy.Clare: Psychoanalysis.Henry: Yes. What do you think she would have made of Freud or of our general therapy culture? I think you're right, but she has very different aims and understandings of these things. What would she make of it now?Clare: It seems that Freud was probably influenced by Eliot. That's a historical question. He certainly read and admired Eliot. I suspect, yes, was influenced by some of her insights, which in turn, she's drawing on other stuff. What do you have in mind? Your question suggests that you think she might have disapproved of therapy culture.Henry: I think novelists in general are quite ambivalent about psychoanalysis and therapy. Yes.Clare: For what reason?Henry: If you read someone like Iris Murdoch, who's quite Eliotic in many ways, she would say, "Do these therapists ever actually help anyone?"Clare: Ah.Henry: A lot of her characters are sent on these slightly dizzying journeys. They're often given advice from therapists or priests or philosophers, and obviously, Murdoch Is a philosopher. The advice from the therapists and the philosophers always ends these characters up in appalling situations. It's art and literature. As you were saying before, a more diffusive understanding and a way of integrating yourself with other things rather than looking back into your head and dwelling on it.Clare: Of course. Yes.Henry: I see more continuity between Eliot and that kind of thinking. I wonder if you felt that the talking cure that you identified at the end of Middlemarch is quite sound common sense and no-nonsense. It's not lie on the couch and tell me how you feel, is it?Clare: I don't know. That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Another way to look at it would be to see Eliot and Freud is located in this broadly Socratic tradition of one, the idea that if you understand yourself better, then that is a route to a certain qualified kind of happiness or fulfillment or liberation. The best kind of human life there could be is one where we gain insight into our own natures. We bring to light what is hidden from us, whether those are desires that are hidden away in the shadows and they're actually motivating our behavior, but we don't realize it, and so we are therefore enslaved to them.That's a very old idea that you find in ancient philosophy. Then the question is, by what methods do we bring these things to light? Is it through Socratic questioning? Is it through art? Eliot's art is an art that I think encourages us to see ourselves in the characters. As we come to understand the characters, and in particular to go back to what I said before about Spinozism, to see their embeddedness and their interconnectedness in these wider webs, but also in a sense of that embeddedness in psychic forces that they're not fully aware of. Part of what you could argue is being exposed there, and this would be a Spinozist insight, is the delusion of free will.The idea that we act freely with these autonomous agents who have access to and control over our desires, and we pick the thing that's in our interest and we act on that. That's a view that I think Spinoza is very critical. He famously denies free will. He says we're determined, we just don't understand how we're determined. When we understand better how we're determined, then perhaps paradoxically we actually do become relatively empowered through our understanding. I think there's something of that in Eliot too, and arguably there's something of that in Freud as well. I know you weren't actually so much asking about Freud's theory and practice, and more about a therapy culture.Henry: All of it.Clare: You're also asking about that. As I say, the difference would be the method for accomplishing this process of a kind of enlightenment. Of course, Freud's techniques medicalizes that project basically. It's the patient and the doctor in dialogue, and depends a lot on the skills of the doctor, doesn't it? How successful, and who is also a human being, who is also another human being, who isn't of course outside of the web, but is themselves in it, and ideally has themselves already undergone this process of making themselves more transparent to their own understanding, but of course, is going to be liable to their own blind spots, and so on.Henry: Which of her novels do you love the most? Just on a personal level, it doesn't have to be which one you think is the most impressive or whatever.Clare: I'm trying to think how to answer that question. I was thinking if I had to reread one of them next week, which one would I choose? If I was going on holiday and I wanted a beach read for pure enjoyment, which of the novels would I pick up? Probably Middlemarch. I think it's probably the most enjoyable, the most fun to read of her novels, basically.Henry: Sure.Clare: There'd be other reasons for picking other books. I really think Daniel Deronda is amazing because of what she's trying to do in that book. Its ambition, it doesn't always succeed in giving us the reading experience that is the most enjoyable. In terms of just the staggering philosophical and artistic achievement, what she's attempting to do, and what she does to a large extent achieve in that book, I think is just incredible. As a friend of Eliot, I have a real love for Daniel Deronda because I just think that what an amazing thing she did in writing that book. Then I've got a soft spot for Silas Marner, which is short and sweet.Henry: I think I'd take The Mill on the Floss. That's my favorite.Clare: Oh, would you?Henry: I love that book.Clare: That also did pop into my mind as another contender. Yes, because it's so personal in a way, The Mill on the Floss. It's personal to her, it's also personal to me in that, it's the first book by Eliot I read because I studied it for A-Level. I remember thinking when we were at the beginning of that two-year period when I'd chosen my English literature A-Level and we got the list of texts we were going to read, I remember seeing The Mill on the Floss and thinking, "Oh God, that sounds so boring." The title, something about the title, it just sounded awful. I remember being a bit disappointed that it wasn't a Jane Austen or something more fun.I thought, "Oh, The Mill on the Floss." Then I don't have a very strong memory of the book, but I remember thinking, actually, it was better than I expected. I did think, actually, it wasn't as awful and boring as I thought it would be. It's a personal book to Eliot. I think that exploring the life of a mind of a young woman who has no access to proper education, very limited access to art and culture, she's stuck in this little village near a provincial town full of narrow-minded conservative people. That's Eliot's experience herself. It was a bit my experience, too, as, again, not that I even would have seen it this way at the time, but a girl with intellectual appetites and not finding those appetites very easily satisfied in, again, a provincial, ordinary family and the world and so on.Henry: What sort of reader were you at school?Clare: What sort of reader?Henry: Were you reading lots of Plato, lots of novels?Clare: No. I'm always really surprised when I meet people who say things like they were reading Kierkegaard and Plato when they were 15 or 16. No, not at all. No, I loved reading, so I just read lots and lots of novels. I loved Jane Eyre. That was probably one of the first proper novels, as with many people, that I remember reading that when I was about 12 and partly feeling quite proud of myself for having read this grown-up book, but also really loving the book. I reread that probably several times before I was 25. Jane Austen and just reading.Then also I used to go to the library, just completely gripped by some boredom and restlessness and finding something to read. I read a lot and scanning the shelves and picking things out. That way I read more contemporary fiction. Just things like, I don't know, Julian Barnes or, Armistead Maupin, or just finding stuff on the shelves of the library that looked interesting, or Anita Brookner or Somerset Maugham. I really love Somerset Maugham.Henry: Which ones do you like?Clare: I remember reading, I think I read The Razor's Edge first.Henry: That's a great book.Clare: Yes, and just knowing nothing about it, just picking it off the shelf and thinking, "Oh, this looks interesting." I've always liked a nice short, small paperback. That would always appeal. Then once I found a book I liked, I'd then obviously read other stuff by that writer. I then read, so The Razor's Edge and-- Oh, I can't remember.Henry: The Moon and Sixpence, maybe?Clare: Yes, The Moon and Sixpence, and-Henry: Painted Veils?Clare: -Human Bondage.Henry: Of Human Bondage, right.Clare: Human Bondage, which is, actually, he took the title from Spinoza's Ethics. That's the title. Cluelessly, as a teenager, I was like, "Ooh, this book is interesting." Actually, when I look back, I can see that those writers, like Maugham, for example, he was really interested in philosophy. He was really interested in art and philosophy, and travel, and culture, and religion, all the things I am actually interested in. I wouldn't have known that that was why I loved the book. I just liked the book and found it gripping. It spoke to me, and I wanted to just read more other stuff like that.I was the first person in my family to go to university, so we didn't have a lot of books in the house. We had one bookcase. There were a few decent things in there along with the Jeffrey Archers in there. I read everything on that bookshelf. I read the Jeffrey Archers, I read the True Crime, I read the In Cold Blood, just this somewhat random-- I think there was probably a couple of George Eliots on there. A few classics, I would, again, grip by boredom on a Sunday afternoon, just stare at this shelf and think, "Oh, is there anything?" Maybe I'll end up with a Thomas Hardy or something. It was quite limited. I didn't really know anything about philosophy. I didn't think of doing philosophy at university, for example. I actually decided to do history.I went to Cambridge to do history. Then, after a couple of weeks, just happened to meet someone who was doing philosophy. I was like, "Oh, that's what I want to do." I only recognized it when I saw it. I hadn't really seen it because I went to the local state school, it wasn't full of teachers who knew about philosophy and stuff like that.Henry: You graduated in theology and philosophy, is that right?Clare: Yes. Cambridge, the degrees are in two parts. I did Part 1, theology, and then I did Part 2, philosophy. I graduated in philosophy, but I studied theology in my first year at Cambridge.Henry: What are your favorite Victorian biographies?Clare: You mean biographies of Victorians?Henry: Of Victorians, by Victorians, whatever.Clare: I don't really read many biographies.Henry: Oh, really?Clare: [laughs] The first biography I wrote was a biography of Kierkegaard. I remember thinking, when I started to write the book, "I'd better read some biographies." I always tend to read fiction. I'm not a big reader of history, which is so ironic. I don't know what possessed me to go and study history at university. These are not books I read for pleasure. I suppose I am quite hedonistic in my choice of reading, I like to read for pleasure.Henry: Sure. Of course.Clare: I don't tend to read nonfiction. Obviously, I do sometimes read nonfiction for pleasure, but it's not the thing I'm most drawn to. Anyway. I remember asking my editor, I probably didn't mention that I didn't know very much about biography, but I did ask him to recommend some. I'd already got the book contract. I said, "What do you think is a really good biography that I should read?" He recommended, I think, who is it who wrote The Life of Gibbon? Really famous biography of Gibbon.Henry: I don't know.Clare: That one. I read it. It is really good. My mind is going blank. I read many biographies of George Eliot before I wrote mine.Henry: They're not all wonderful, are they?Clare: I really liked Catherine Hughes's book because it brought her down from her pedestal.Henry: Exactly. Yes.Clare: Talking about hedonism, I would read anything that Catherine Hughes writes just for enjoyment because she's such a good writer. She's a very intellectual woman, but she's also very entertaining. She writes to entertain, which I like and appreciate as a reader. There's a couple of big archival biographies of George Eliot by Gordon Haight and by Rosemary Ashton, for example, which are both just invaluable. One of the great things about that kind of book is that it frees you to write a different kind of biography that can be more interpretive and more selective. Once those kinds of books have been published, there's no point doing another one. You can do something more creative, potentially, or more partial.I really like Catherine Hughes's. She was good at seeing through Eliot sometimes, and making fun of her, even though it's still a very respectful book. There's also this brilliant book about Eliot by Rosemary Bodenheimer called The Real Life of Mary Ann Evans. It's a biographical book, but it's written through the letters. She sees Eliot's life through her letters. Again, it's really good at seeing through Eliot. What Eliot says is not always what she means. She can be quite defensive and boastful. These are things that really come out in her letters. Anyway, that's a brilliant book, which again, really helped me to read Eliot critically. Not unsympathetically, but critically, because I tend to fall in love with thinkers that I'm reading. I'm not instinctively critical. I want to just show how amazing they are, but of course, you also need to be critical. Those books were--Henry: Or realistic.Clare: Yes, realistic and just like, "This is a human being," and having a sense of humor about it as well. That's what's great about Catherine Hughes's book, is that she's got a really good sense of humor. That makes for a fun reading experience.Henry: Why do you think more philosophers don't write biographies? It's an unphilosophical activity, isn't it?Clare: That's a very interesting question. Just a week or so ago, I was talking to Clare Mac Cumhaill I'm not quite sure how you pronounce her name, but anyway, so there's--Henry: Oh, who did the four women in Oxford?Clare: Yes. Exactly.Henry: That was a great book.Clare: Yes. Clare MacCumhaill co-wrote this book with Rachael Wiseman. They're both philosophers. They wrote this group biography of Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Mary Midgley. I happened to be having dinner with a group of philosophers and sitting opposite her. Had never met her before. It was just a delight to talk to another philosopher who'd written biography. We both felt that there was a real philosophical potential in biography, that thinking about a shape of a human life, what it is to know another person, the connection between a person's life and their philosophy. Even to put it that way implies that philosophy is something that isn't part of life, that you've got philosophy over here and you've got life over there. Then you think about the connection between them.That, when you think about it, is quite a questionable way of looking at philosophy as if it's somehow separate from life or detachment life. We had a really interesting conversation about this. There's Ray Monk's brilliant biography of Wittgenstein, The Duty of Genius. He's another philosopher who's written biography, and then went on to reflect, interestingly, on the relationship between philosophy and biography.I think on the one hand, I'd want to question the idea that biography and philosophy are two different things or that a person's life and their thought are two separate questions. On the other hand, we've got these two different literary forms. One of them is a narrative form of writing, and one of them- I don't know what the technical term for it would be- but a more systematic writing where with systematic writing, it's not pinned to a location or a time, and the structure of the text is conceptual rather than narrative. It's not ordered according to events and chronology, and things happening, you've just got a more analytic style of writing.Those two styles of writing are very, very different ways of writing. They're two different literary forms. Contemporary academic philosophers tend to write, almost always-- probably are pretty much forced to write in the systematic analytic style because as soon as you would write a narrative, the critique will be, "Well, that's not philosophy. That's history," or "That's biography," or, "That's anecdote." You might get little bits of narrative in some thought experiment, but by definition, the thought experiment is never pinned to a particular time, place, or context. "Let's imagine a man standing on a bridge. There's a fat man tied to the railway line [crosstalk]." Those are like little narratives, but they're not pinned. There is a sequencing, so I suppose they are narratives. Anyway, as you can tell, they're quite abstracted little narratives.That interests me. Why is it that narrative is seen as unphilosophical? Particularly when you think about the history of philosophy, and we think about Plato's dialogues, which tend to have a narrative form, and the philosophical conversation is often situated within a narrative. The Phaedo, for example, at the beginning of the book, Socrates is sitting in prison, and he's about to drink his poisoned hemlock. He's awaiting execution. His friends, students, and disciples are gathered around him. They're talking about death and how Socrates feels about dying. Then, at the end of the book, he dies, and his friends are upset about it.Think about, I know, Descartes' Meditations, where we begin in the philosopher's study, and he's describing--Henry: With the fire.Clare: He's by the fire, but he's also saying, "I've reached a point in my life where I thought, actually, it's time to question some assumptions." He's sitting by the fire, but he's also locating the scene in his own life trajectory. He's reached a certain point in life. Of course, that may be a rhetorical device. Some readers might want to say, "Well, that's mere ornamentation. We extract the arguments from that. That's where the philosophy is." I think it's interesting to think about why philosophers might choose narrative as a form.Spinoza, certainly not in the Ethics, which is about as un-narrative as you can get, but in some of his other, he experimented with an earlier version of the Ethics, which is actually like Descartes' meditation. He begins by saying, "After experience had taught me to question all the values I'd been taught to pursue, I started to wonder whether there was some other genuine good that was eternal," and so on. He then goes on to narrate his experiments with a different kind of life, giving up certain things and pursuing other things.Then you come to George Eliot. I think these are philosophical books.Henry: Yes.Clare: The challenge lies in saying, "Well, how are they philosophical?" Are they philosophical because there are certain ideas in the books that you could pick out and say, "Oh, here, she's critiquing utilitarianism. These are her claims." You can do that with Eliot's books. There are arguments embedded in the books. I wouldn't want to say that that's where their philosophical interest is exhausted by the fact that you can extract non-narrative arguments from them, but rather there's also something philosophical in her exploration of what a human life is like and how choices get made and how those choices, whether they're free or unfree, shape a life, shape other lives. What human happiness can we realistically hope for? What does a good life look like? What does a bad life look like? Why is the virtue of humility important?These are also, I think, philosophical themes that can perhaps only be treated in a long-form, i.e., in a narrative that doesn't just set a particular scene from a person's life, but that follows the trajectory of a life. That was a very long answer to your question.Henry: No, it was a good answer. I like it.Clare: Just to come back to what you said about biography. When I wrote my first biography on Kierkegaard, I really enjoyed working in this medium of narrative for the first time. I like writing. I'd enjoyed writing my earlier books which were in that more analytic conceptual style where the structure was determined by themes and by concepts rather than by any chronology. I happily worked in that way. I had to learn how to do it. I had to learn how to write. How do you write a narrative?To come back to the Metaphysical Animals, the group biography, writing a narrative about one person's life is complicated enough, but writing a narrative of four lives, it's a real-- from a technical point of view-- Even if you only have one life, lives are not linear. If you think about a particular period in your subject's life, people have lots of different things going on at once that have different timeframes. You're going through a certain period in your relationship, you're working on a book, someone close to you dies, you're reading Hegel. All that stuff is going on. The narrative is not going to be, "Well, on Tuesday this happened, and then on Wednesday--" You can't use pure chronology to structure a narrative. It's not just one thing following another.It's not like, "Well, first I'll talk about the relationship," which is an issue that was maybe stretching over a three-month period. Then in this one week, she was reading Hegel and making these notes that were really important. Then, in the background to this is Carlisle's view of history. You've got these different temporal periods that are all bearing on a single narrative. The challenge to create a narrative from all that, that's difficult, as any biographer knows. To do that with four subjects at once is-- Anyway, they did an amazing job in that book.Henry: It never gets boring, that book.Clare: No. I guess the problem with a biography is often you're stuck with this one person through the whole--Henry: I think the problem with a biography of philosophers is that it can get very boring. They kept the interest for four thinkers. I thought that was very impressive, really.Clare: Yes, absolutely. Yes. There's a really nice balance between the philosophy and the-- I like to hear about Philippa Foot's taste in cushions. Maybe some readers would say, "Oh, no, that's frivolous." It's not the view I would take. For me, it's those apparently frivolous details that really help you to connect with a person. They will deliver a sense of the person that nothing else will. There's no substitute for that.In my book about Kierkegaard, it was reviewed by Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books. It was generally quite a positive review. He was a bit sneering about the fact that it had what he calls "domestic flourishes" in the book. I'd mentioned that Kierkegaard's favorite flower was the lily of the valley. He's like, "Huh." He saw these as frivolities, whereas for me, the fact that Kierkegaard had a favorite flower tells us something about the kind of man he was.Henry: Absolutely.Clare: Actually, his favorite flower had all sorts of symbolism attached to it, Kierkegaard, it had 10 different layers of meaning. It's never straightforward. There's interesting value judgments that get made. There's partly the view that anything biographical is not philosophical. It is in some way frivolous or incidental. That would be perhaps a very austere, purest philosophical on a certain conception of philosophy view.Then you might also have views about what is and isn't interesting, what is and isn't significant. Actually, that's a really interesting question. What is significant about a person's life, and what isn't? Actually, to come back to Eliot, that's a question she is, I think, absolutely preoccupied with, most of all in Middlemarch and in Daniel Deronda. This question about what is trivial and what is significant. Dorothea is frustrated because she feels that her life is trivial. She thinks that Casaubon is preoccupied with really significant questions, the key to all mythologies, and so on.Henry: [chuckles]Clare: There's really a deep irony there because that view of what's significant is really challenged in the novel. Casaubon's project comes to seem really futile, petty, and insignificant. In Daniel Deronda, you've got this amazing question where she shows her heroine, Gwendolyn, who's this selfish 20-year-old girl who's pursuing her own self-interest in a pretty narrow way, about flirting and thinking about her own romantic prospects.Henry: Her income.Clare: She's got this inner world, which is the average preoccupation of a silly 20-year-old girl.Henry: Yes. [laughs]Clare: Then Eliot's narrator asks, "Is there a slenderer, more insignificant thread in human history than this consciousness of a girl who's preoccupied with how to make her own life pleasant?" The question she's asking is-- Well, I think she wants to tell us that slender thread of the girl's consciousness is part of the universe, basically. It's integral. It belongs to a great drama of the struggle between good and evil, which is this mythical, cosmic, religious, archetypal drama that gets played out on the scale of the universe, but also, in this silly girl's consciousness.I think she's got to a point where she was very explicitly thematizing that distinction between the significant and the insignificant and playing with that distinction. It comes back to Dorothea's unhistoric life. It's unhistoric, it's insignificant. Yet, by the end of Middlemarch, by the time we get to that description of Dorothea's unhistoric life, this life has become important to us. We care about Dorothea and how her life turned out. It has this grandeur to it that I think Eliot exposes. It's not the grandeur of historic importance, it's some other human grandeur that I think she wants to find in the silly girls as much as in the great men.Henry: I always find remarks like that quite extraordinary. One of the things I want a biography to tell me is, "How did they come to believe these things?" and, "How did they get the work done?" The flowers that he likes, that's part of that, right? It's like Bertrand Russell going off on his bicycle all the time. That's part of how it all happened. I remember Elizabeth Anscombe in the book about the four philosophers, this question of, "How does she do it all when she's got these six children?" There's this wonderful image of her standing in the doorway to her house smoking. The six children are tumbling around everywhere. The whole place is filthy. I think they don't own a Hoover or she doesn't use it. You just get this wonderful sense of, "This is how she gets it done."Clare: That's how you do it.Henry: Yes. The idea that this is some minor domestic trivial; no, this is very important to understanding Elizabeth Anscombe, right?Clare: Yes, of course.Henry: I want all of this.Clare: Yes. One of the things I really like about her is that she unashamedly brings that domesticity into her philosophical work. She'll use examples like, "I go to buy some potatoes from the grocer's." She'll use that example, whereas that's not the thing that-- Oxford dons don't need to buy any potatoes because they have these quasi-monastic lives where they get cooked for and cleaned for. I like the way she chooses those. Of course, she's not a housewife, but she chooses these housewifely examples to illustrate her philosophy.I don't know enough about Anscombe, but I can imagine that that's a deliberate choice. That's a choice she's making. There's so many different examples she could have thought of. She's choosing that example, which is an example, it shows a woman doing philosophy, basically. Of course, men can buy potatoes too, but in that culture, the buying of the potatoes would be the woman's work.Henry: Yes. She wasn't going to run into AJ Ayre at the grocer's.Clare: Probably not, no.Henry: No. Are you religious in any sense?Clare: I think I am in some sense. Yes, "religious," I think it's a really problematic concept. I've written a bit about this concept of religion and what it might mean. I wrote a book on Spinoza called Spinoza's Religion. Part of what I learned through writing the book was that in order to decide whether or not Spinoza was religious, we have to rethink the very concept of religion, or we have to see that that's what Spinoza was doing.I don't know. Some people are straightforwardly religious and I guess could answer that question, say, "Oh yes, I've always been a Christian," or whatever. My answer is a yes and no answer, where I didn't have a religious upbringing, and I don't have a strong religious affiliation. Sorry, I'm being very evasive.Henry: What do you think of the idea that we're about to live through or we are living through a religious revival? More people going to church, more young people interested in it. Do you see that, or do you think that's a blip?Clare: That's probably a question for the social scientists, isn't it? It just totally depends where you are and what community you're--Henry: Your students, you are not seeing students who are suddenly more religious?Clare: Well, no, but my students are students who've chosen to do philosophy. Some of them are religious and some of them are not. It will be too small a sample to be able to diagnose. I can say that my students are much more likely to be questioning. Many of them are questioning their gender, thinking about how to inhabit gender roles differently.That's something I perceive as a change from 20 years ago, just in the way that my students will dress and present themselves. That's a discernible difference. I can remark on that, but I can't remark on whether they're more religious.Just actually just been teaching a course on philosophy of religion at King's. Some students in the course of having discussions would mention that they were Muslim, Christian, or really into contemplative practices and meditation. Some of the students shared those interests. Others would say, "Oh, well, I'm an atheist, so this is--" There's just a range-Henry: A full range.Clare: -of different religious backgrounds and different interests. There's always been that range. I don't know whether there's an increased interest in religion among those students in particular, but I guess, yes, maybe on a national or global level, statistically-- I don't know. You tell me.Henry: What do you think about all these reports that undergraduates today-- "They have no attention span, they can't read a book, everything is TikTok," do you see this or are you just seeing like, "No, my students are fine actually. This is obviously happening somewhere else"?Clare: Again, it's difficult to say because I see them when they're in their classes, I see them in their seminars, I see them in the lectures. I don't know what their attention spans are like in their--Henry: Some of the other people I've interviewed will say things like, "I'll set reading, and they won't do it, even though it's just not very much reading,"-Clare: Oh, I see. Oh, yes.Henry: -or, "They're on the phone in the--" You know what I mean?Clare: Yes.Henry: The whole experience from 10, 20 years ago, these are just different.Clare: I'm also more distracted by my phone than I was 20 years ago. I didn't have a phone 20 years ago.Henry: Sure.Clare: Having a phone and being on the internet is constantly disrupting my reading and my writing. That's something that I think many of us battle with a bit. I'm sure most of us are addicted to our phones. I wouldn't draw a distinction between myself and my students in that respect. I've been really impressed by my students, pleasantly surprised by the fact they've done their reading because it can be difficult to do reading, I think.Henry: You're not one of these people who says, "Oh students today, it's really very different than it was 20 years ago. You can't get them to do anything. The whole thing is--" Some people are apocalyptic about-- Actually, you're saying no, your students are good?Clare: I like my students. Whether they do the reading or not, I'm not going to sit here and complain about them.Henry: No, sure, sure. I think that's good. What are you working on next?Clare: I've just written a book. It came out of a series of lectures I gave on life writing and philosophy, actually. Connected to what we were talking about earlier. Having written the biographies, I started to reflect a bit more on biography and how it may or may not be a philosophical enterprise, and questions about the shape of a life and what one life can transmit to another life. Something about the devotional labor of the biographer when you're living with this person and you're-- It's devotional, but it's also potentially exploitative because often you're using your subjects, of course, without their consent because they're dead. You're presenting their life to public view and you're selling books, so it's devotional and exploitative. I think that's an interesting pairing.Anyway, so I gave these lectures last year in St Andrews and they're going to be published in September.Henry: Great.Clare: I've finished those really.Henry: That's what's coming.Clare: That's what's coming. Then I've just been writing again about Kierkegaard, actually. I haven't really worked on Kierkegaard for quite a few years. As often happens with these things, I got invited to speak on Kierkegaard and death at a conference in New York in November. My initial thought was like, "Oh, I wish it was Spinoza, I don't want to--" I think I got to the point where I'd worked a lot on Kierkegaard and wanted to do other things. I was a bit like, "Oh, if only I was doing Spinoza, that would be more up my street." I wanted to go to the conference, so I said yes to this invitation. I was really glad I did because I went back and read what Kierkegaard has written about death, which is very interesting because Kierkegaard's this quintessentially death-fixated philosopher, that's his reputation. It's his reputation, he's really about death. His name means churchyard. He's doomy and gloomy. There's the caricature.Then, to actually look at what he says about death and how he approaches the subject, which I'd forgotten or hadn't even read closely in the first place, those particular texts. That turned out to be really interesting, so I'm writing-- It's not a book or anything, it's just an article.Henry: You're not going to do a George Eliot and produce a novel?Clare: No. I'm not a novelist or a writer of fiction. I don't think I have enough imagination to create characters. What I love about biography is that you get given the characters and you get given the plots. Then, of course, it is a creative task to then turn that into a narrative, as I said before. The kinds of biography I like to write are quite creative, they're not just purely about facts. I think facts can be quite boring. Well, they become interesting in the context of questions about meaning interpretations by themselves. Again, probably why I was right to give up on the history degree. For me, facts are not where my heart is.That amount of creativity I think suits me well, but to create a world as you do when you're a novelist and create characters and plots, and so, that doesn't come naturally to me. I guess I like thinking about philosophical questions through real-life stories. It's one way for philosophy to be connected to real life. Philosophy can also be connected to life through fiction, of course, but it's not my own thing. I like to read other people's fiction. I'm not so bothered about reading other biographies.Henry: No. No, no.[laughter]Clare: I'll write the biographies, and I'll read the fiction.Henry: That's probably the best way. Clare Carlisle, author of The Marriage Question, thank you very much.Clare: Oh, thanks, Henry. It's been very fun to talk to you.Henry: Yes. It was a real pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

Robertz, Andreas www.deutschlandfunk.de, Kultur heute

Einer der meistrezipierten Texte der Frauenbewegung: Virginia Woolfs "Ein Zimmer für sich allein". Es geht um Feminismus, Geschlechterdifferenz, Poetik und Psychologie. Virginia Woolf schätzte Sigmund Freud. Ziemlich klar also, was mit der riesigen Gartengurke gemeint ist, die das Wachstum aller anderen Pflanzen hemmt.

Något förträngt stiger plötsligt upp och skakar om i hettan. Med avstamp i Sigmund Freud och i fyra romaner sätter Lyra Ekström Lindbäck ljuset på sommarens omvälvande oro. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.1. Bonjour Tristesse och dubbelheten som smyger sig påSommarhuset. Några sysslolösa veckor under årets kulmen, indränkta i idyll och sentimentalitet. Tiden stannar. Det enda som hörs är humlesurr, hängmattans knakande svaj och tjuten av tärnor från viken. Man uppslukas av lättsamma fikastunder i syrenbersån med familjen, strandpromenader och solbad. Äntligen, föreställer man sig, ska man få vila från alla problem.Men oftast smyger sig andra stämningar snart på. Titeln på Françoise Sagans roman, ”Bonjour tristesse” från 1954, är svåröversatt. På engelska har den fått bli ”Hello sadness”. Kanske borde den kallas ”Goddag vemod” på svenska. När Lily Vallquists översättning utkom 1955 hette den först ”Ett moln på min himmel”, men idag ges den ut under originaltiteln. Franskans ”tristesse” motsvaras dock inte av svenskans tristess, utan betyder snarare svårmod eller sorg. Romanen skildrar sommarveckornas kluvenhet genom den 17-åriga Cécile. Hennes rumlare till pappa, ensamt ansvarig för hennes fostran sedan mamman dog, har hyrt ett hus vid Rivieran till dem och hans unga älskarinna. Ytligt sett är den korta berättelsen bräddfull av idyll. ”Nere på havsbottnen fick jag syn på en underbar, rosafärgad och blå snäcka”, minns Cécile; ”jag dök efter den och höll den sedan, ren och rundslipad, gömd i handen ända till lunchen.” Hon bär runt på den som en amulett, en skatt som består in i berättandets presens. ”Jag vet inte hur det kommer sig att jag inte har tappat den”, skriver hon, ”jag som annars brukar tappa allting. Den ligger i min hand idag, rosafärgad och ljum, och när jag ser på den har jag lust att gråta.”Vari består Céciles sorger? Hon sträcker ut sig i en av vilstolarna på terrassen under en himmel översållad av stjärnor, och lyssnar till cikadorna. Hon inleder en romans med den snälla unga mannen Cyril som hon har träffat på stranden. Hon avnjuter sin frukost – en apelsin och en kopp svart kaffe – på hustrappan medan solen stryker bort lakanens avtryck från hennes hud.Men i denna visuellt så njutbara roman finns en konstant dubbelhet. Namnet Cécile kommer från latinets ”caecus”, som betyder blind. Jag vet inte om Sagan valt det med avsikt, men om inte är slumpen lika talande. Cécile tycker själv att hon ser allt. När pappan bjuder hennes döda mors väninna Anne till sommarhuset avkodar hon knivskarpt deras diskreta känslospel. Till hennes och den unga älskarinnans stora förtvivlan inleder pappan och Anne snart en romans.Anne är en seriös person, och med henne följer seriösa saker som en förlovning med pappan och ordning i Céciles eftersatta studier. Sorglösheten som den tonåriga flickan dittills vältrat sig i är därmed hotad. Hon börjar konspirera tillsammans med den ratade älskarinnan för att bryta upp pappans och Annes relation.Istället för att bara glida med i livets skiftningar blir Cécile nu en manipulatör av rang. Insikten om hur påverkbara andra människors känsloliv är har dock ett pris. En kuslig själviakttagelse börjar snart ta form. ”För första gången i mitt liv tycktes detta 'jag' klyva sig”, konstaterar hon, ”och upptäckten av en dylik dubbelhet gjorde mig ytterligt förvånad.” Stolthet blandas med självförakt. Tillsammans med den sanddoftande hettan och de svalkande brisarna från havet uppstår ett nytt rum inom henne, som speglar den konstlade avskildhet de lever i vid sommarhuset.Sagan, som bara var 18 när ”Bonjour tristesse” publicerades, har en mästerlig förmåga att blanda samman det yttre och det inre landskapet, tills vackra utsikter blir till halvblinda självinsikter. Halvslummern i hettan får gradvis något inom Cécile att brista. Men hennes obehag inger mig en paradoxal lättnad under läsningen. Jag har alltid haft svårt för semestern, och Sagan tycks bekräfta att ledigheten inte alls behöver innebära en frid. Snarare kan en särskild typ av obehag växa fram under sommarveckorna, som påminner om Sigmund Freuds beskrivning av das Unheimliche. På svenska översätts das Unheimliche ofta till det kusliga, men det leder i min mening lite fel. Snarare än något skräckfilmsartat är det ohemlika eller ohemliga en upplevelse av något främmande inom det välbekanta och familjära. Det är något man har ansträngt sig för att dölja för sig själv. I Sagans roman uppstår känslan när Cécile upptäcker något omänskligt i sitt eget jag, en empatilöshet som kontrasterar mot hennes roll som vacker och sorglös flicka. Kanske är semestern i själva verket ohemlikhetens främsta högtid. När dagarna mjuknar i sömmarna och de rutinmässiga relationerna till närstående luckras upp kan bortträngda bottensediment stiga mot ytan. Att Anne är en väninna till Céciles döda mor är knappast en detalj i sammanhanget, även om det mest nämns i förbifarten. Vardagen i den stökiga våningen i Paris, dit Cécile och hennes pappa ska återvända efter sommaren, framstår som bräcklig och otillräcklig vid tanken på att den ordentliga Anne skulle kunna flytta in.Men Cécile triumferar i sina manipulationer och bryter upp deras relation. Triumfen surnar dock snabbt. När hon i slutet ställs inför den besegrade Annes ”förstörda ansikte” begriper Cécile något obehagligt. Hon har ”angripit en levande, kännande människa och inte ett väsen”. Anne har en gång varit barn, ”sedan ung flicka, sedan kvinna. Nu var hon fyrtio år, men hon var ensam”. Det är nog inte främst samvetet som skakar Cécile. Livets gång har blivit så konkret för henne att den framstår som avig och banal genom det åldrande kvinnoansiktets tårar. Tiden har inte stått stilla under hennes semester. Tvärtom, vilket berättandets tillbakablickande ständigt påminner läsaren om, har veckorna i sommarhuset tvingat Cécile att börja betrakta livet som en godtycklig samling av förflutna episoder. Även om man kan ta dem i sina egna händer kan man inte ändra dem i efterhand. Därför blir hon illa berörd av den vackra snäckan hon en gång fiskade upp från havsbottnen, vars släthet fortfarande känns likadan mot fingertopparna. Så kan tonårstidens första antydan om semesterns ohemlikhet se ut.  2. Alberte-trilogin och hemmet utanför hemmetVari består det välbekanta och det främmande? Är det bara en vanefråga? Eller finns det ett annat slags djup inom oss, som säger ”på den här platsen, med de här människorna hör jag hemma”? I ordet ”smultronställe” bor en sådan längtan efter en liten glänta på jorden där man rent godtyckligt känner sig hemma. Ett hörn av världen som är ens eget, ett hem utanför hemmet. Där det finns ”humlesurr, stilla fläktar genom lövverket, smultron som man kan nå utan att ändra ställning, någon som kommer och säger till kanske, att klockan är mycket, ropar hem en till en måltid i det fria, under träd”, som Cora Sandel skriver. Som hennes berättare Alberte letar vi efter känslan som gör oss ”på vippen att ropa att här var den plats där de skulle stanna, det ögonblick i tiden de skulle gripa.”I hela sitt liv har Alberte letat förgäves efter den känslan. Som tonåring vantrivs hon i det småborgerliga hemmet i Nordnorge, och senare, som ung kvinna, skapar hon en flyktig bohemtillvaro för sig i Paris. Men kanske består frihetskänslan hon upplever där bara i att ha sluppit ifrån pressen på att hitta sin plats. En frihet från, snarare än till, ett hem. För när Alberte får barn blir bristen tydlig: hon har inte fast mark under fötterna. Hon måste skaffa det, för hennes lilla son behöver det.Om man inte kan ge sina barn ett drömhem vill man åtminstone kunna ta dem till smultronställen på somrarna. Man vill ge dem grönska, stränder och vilda lekar i det fria, se fräknarna breda ut sig på stadsbleka kinder och benen fyllas av skrubbsår.Albertes son är klen och försvagad sedan de fattiga och frusna krigsåren i Paris. Om kvällen lägger hon örat mot hans bröstkorg och hör det lilla hjärtat banka alldeles för fort. Relationen till hans far, skulptören Sivert, är ansträngd, på väg att bli bitter. Men nu ska de på sommarferie under några veckor, tillsammans med några goda vänner i ett litet hus vid Bretagnekusten.Redan på tåget ut hör Alberte ett sus från för länge sedan. ”Det fyllde luften och var överallt, låg bakom och omkring alla andra ljud. Hon kunde inte göra klart för sig vad det var.” Men så stannar de på rälsen en stund. Och med ens ”var luften alldeles fylld av brus, en väldig, monoton sång på två toner. Den steg och sjönk, kom och gick som en andning utifrån rymden någonstans, förde henne många år bakåt i tiden.” Det är havet. Atlanten den här gången, och inte Ishavet som hon vuxit upp vid, men ändå. En livgivande fukt som får dragen att mjukna, ”som om en stramande mask föll av dem”.Vad släpper man fram när man kommer fram, kommer hem? Och varför kan det göra så ont att äntligen lyckas känna det? Alberte har ju kommit fram till ett smultronställe. Äntligen står hon i en slänt full av klöver och groblad som kittlar de nakna fotsulorna. Vännen bredvid gnolar en melodi som drar upp något obestämt ur minnet. Sandel skriver: ”En glimt av något som ligger så långt bakom att det är som en annan människas tillvaro, något man har hört om eller läst. En snabb liten tankekedja: Jag måste ha gått fel, när gick jag fel, var gick jag fel? Jag har kommit till galen plats.” Att komma hem och att inse att man är vilse kan vara samma sak. 1919, strax före sommarferien som skildras i sista delen av Sandels trilogi, skrevs Sigmund Freuds essä om det kusliga, ”Das Unheimliche”. Genom etymologin understryker Freud hur det ohemlika alltid ligger på lur inuti det hemlika: ”Heimlich är alltså ett ord som utvecklar sin betydelse mot ambivalens, tills det slutligen sammanfaller med sin motsats unheimlich.” Det ohemlika eller ohemliga är något som vi har hållit hemligt för oss själva som tränger fram som om det vore främmande. Att hitta sitt smultronställe, ett hem utanför hemmet, är alltså att skapa en perfekt spelplats för det man har förträngt. Ingenting särskilt behöver hända under sommarveckorna. Men det är en bedräglig illusion att vardagen kan sättas på paus. Eller kanske snarare, att en sådan paus inte skulle få några konsekvenser. I den somriga rofylldheten kan blandade känslor breda ut sig. Tillvarons garnnystan vidgas, och pustar av såväl tomhet som liv och verklighet kan slippa igenom.I Sverige registreras idag de flesta skilsmässor i oktober. Kanske är det först då som efterverkningarna från sommarveckorna har hunnit spelas ut. September är den näst vanligaste skilsmässomånaden. Många står liksom Alberte med bara fötter på en gräsmatta i juli och känner en havsbris och tänker: ja, nej, ja, nej, hur hamnade jag egentligen här?En natt smyger hon ut ur huset med sin vän Liesel. De sätter sig i slänten tillsammans, hopkrupna på en regnrock. För en gångs skull lyckas de verkligen prata: dela sin förtvivlan och sin ensamhet. När Alberte blickar tillbaka mot huset ser det annorlunda ut, ”overkligt och som svagt självlysande i skenet från den sneda månskäran.” Därinne sover hennes familj och deras vänner. ”Vilka är de allihop? Finns de egentligen? Är de mer levande än dockan Mimi som blundar så snart man lägger henne?”Ute i Bretagnenattens havsbrusande månljusluft finns det plats för ett främlingskap som Alberte annars försöker tränga undan. Kusliga som dockor blir hennes närmaste medmänniskor. ”Det är som om man satt och såg tillbaka på en tillvaro man lämnat”, tänker hon, ”en dörr som stängts för alltid.” Är det kanske i själva verket där och då den stängs? Det kommer att dröja år och hundratals sidor innan hon till sist lämnar Sivert.Men redan på tåget in till staden känner hon hur den vanliga avdomnade maktlösheten har ändrat karaktär. Bohemsällskapet förbereder sig på att stiga av, säger farväl till sin tillfälligt utvidgade semesterfamilj medan Paris välbekanta hustak och kupoler tornar upp sig utanför fönstret. Längst inne i sinnet har Alberte ”en känsla av att ingenting av det som händer är riktigt verkligt. […] Av att allt som samtliga säger och gör egentligen inte förhåller sig så.”Fast mark under fötterna kan se ut på olika sätt. Det kan bestå i att våga släppa fram sitt eget främlingskap: inför sitt liv, sin partner, till och med inför sina barn. Att hitta sitt smultronställe kan innebära mer än bara en stunds lugn och ro. I hemmet utanför hemmet kan skälvningar mellan det välbekanta och det fördolda uppstå, ibland genom något så enkelt och rent som en havsbris. 3. Det andra stället och verklighetens sanna naturBjuder man in en sommargäst kan det egna hemmet förvandlas till en semesterort. Är gästen dessutom konstnär eller författare hoppas man kanske att denna ska tillföra någon extra magi till platsen. I hundratals år har rika mecenater erbjudit gästhem åt olika konstutövare, särskilt under sommarveckorna. En av dem är den excentriska amerikanska salongsvärdinnan Mabel Dodge Luhan. 1917 flyttade hon till Taos i New Mexico, där hon så småningom kom att ingå sitt fjärde äktenskap med en man ur ursprungsbefolkningen och grunda en konstnärskoloni. Luhan skrev själv, men enbart memoarer. Hon var fascinerad av romanförfattares förmåga att förhöja livsnärvaron genom fantasin. ”När han skriver”, sa hon om D.H. Lawrence, ”är erfarenheten mer verklig för honom än när den ägde rum.” Luhan skickar brev efter brev till den engelska författaren för att uppmana honom att komma till hennes enorma, palatsliknande bostad i Taos. Genom hans blick föreställer hon sig att den latenta magin i omgivningarna ska göras rättvisa.Och när han kommer frigörs hon äntligen från ”den hemska känslan av futtighet”. Hon blir ”arg eller sårad eller förbluffad av hans oberäkneligt föränderliga sätt”, men aldrig uttråkad eller deprimerad. Men konstens omvandling av verkligheten stannar inte där. Hennes memoar över deras möte, ”Lorenzo in Taos” från 1932, har idag fått ett extra lager av fiktion. Rachel Cusks roman ”Andra stället” från 2021 är intimt baserad på Luhans återgivning av sina brev, samtal och upplevelser med Lawrence. I denna fantasi om en historisk människas förverkligade fantasi om att en författare ska förhöja hennes livsnärvaro med sin livliga fantasi finns, paradoxalt nog, en hel del längtan efter autenticitet. Cusks berättarjag M – som i Mabel – är bosatt i ett annat märkligt landskap. Tillsammans med sin andra make har hon slagit sig ner i ett isolerat träskmarksområde längs den engelska kusten. Det är kargt, blött och melankoliskt. Hon längtar efter konstnären L:s ögon på det – L som i Lawrence.”Vårt landskap”, skriver hon till honom i ett brev, ”är som en gåta som folk dras till men i slutändan helt missuppfattat. Det är fullt av ödslighet och tröst och mystik och det har ännu inte avslöjat sin hemlighet för någon.” Vad är det för hemlighet som ska avlockas landskapet? Och varför just genom konsten? Freuds begrepp om das Unheimliche syftar på känslan när något som borde ha förblivit dolt uppenbaras. Enligt Freud är det ohemlika mycket rikhaltigare i konsten än i verkligheten, eftersom konsten är undantagen realitetsprövningen. Önsketänkande och vidskeplighet kan alltså breda ut sig utan att behöva motsägas; vi vet ju att vi läser en saga.Den här oroväckande effekten kan förstärkas om författaren leker med verklighetspremisserna, så att vi inte riktigt vet vad ska tro. Freud ger exempel från den tyska romantiska författaren E.T.A. Hoffmann, som ”till en början inte låter oss veta om han tänker föra in oss i den reella världen eller i en av honom fritt vald fantasivärld.” Cusk gör samma sak i ”Andra stället”. Romanen inleds med att M påstår sig ha mött självaste djävulen på ett tåg.Det demoniska återkommer sedan i beskrivningarna av L:s blick, som M hoppas på så mycket från. Mycket riktigt får hon tillgång till ett annat perspektiv i hans sällskap, men det beskrivs som en ”fruktansvärd objektivitet”. Att se saker ”som de egentligen [är]” skapar ett främlingskap i hennes kärleksfulla vardagsliv med maken Tony och den vuxna dottern Justine. Cusk beskriver det som en sorts illojalitetskänslor: ”till och med där, mitt bland det jag älskade mest hade han förmågan att få mig att tvivla och blottlägga det i mig själv som annars var dolt”. Det ohemlika blir en ögonblicklig uppenbarelse om ett hemligt, kanske till och med hotfullt, hem. Mabel Dodge Luhan skriver att hon kände sig som D.H. Lawrences syster. Redan från den första stunden när de möts känner hon en fulländad kontakt, som dock förblir outgrundlig. Det låter nästan infantilt, som när spädbarnet föds in i en värld av bottenlösa och givna relationer. Konstnärens närvaro chockar henne tillbaka in i en varseblivning som varken kan sortera eller konstruera.För Cusks M är det den sköra känslan av mening och sammanhang i vardagen som står på spel. I mötet med L börjar hon frukta att allt hon har byggt upp ska rasa ihop, som det gjorde efter hennes första skilsmässa. Nu är hon plågsamt medveten om vad en sådan förstörelse kan kosta. Men suget efter konstnärgästens magiska närvaro släpper inte taget. M får till sist vad Mabel Dodge Luhan förgäves suktade efter: ett oblandat skönt sommarögonblick.En kväll går M och hennes dotter Justine ner för att bada i månljuset. De har glömt badkläderna, och ljuvheten får en anstrykning av tabu när de bestämmer sig för att bada nakna. Träffsäkert beskriver Cusk den särskilda kroppsliga obekvämhet som växer fram mellan vuxna barn och föräldrar, som är så underlig med tanke på relationens ursprungliga köttslighet. De lovar varandra att inte titta, och simmar sedan ”stillsamt genom vattnet som i månskenet såg ogenomskinligt och ljust ut, som mjölk” medan marelden glittrar över deras armar.I nästa stund märker de att någon iakttar dem. Det är L, såklart, som skyndar iväg över stigen för att måla vad han har sett. Efter hans död finner M en abstrakt tavla, där hon och Justine bara blivit till suddiga ljusfläckar i mörkret. Nakenheten är fångad och oskadliggjord på samma gång. Något som borde ha förblivit fördolt har framträtt, men bara nästan.Cusks roman lämnar Luhans verklighet för att istället döda sin konstnär och låta hans verk fullborda berättarens sommarvärld. Det är vackert, men det klingar lite falskt. I den riktiga historien tvingades Luhan leva vidare med insikten om att ”det inte finns ett enda stabilt element i universum, vare sig inom eller utanför min egen hjärna”. Lawrences semestervistelse tog slut, men ohemlikheten som hans närvaro hade öppnat för fortsatte att mala inom henne. Frågan är om det är Mabel eller M som har hittat hem i verkligheten.  4. Mot fyren och sommarens möjlighetSolen flödar in i huset. Den lyser klart ”på cricketträn, flanellbyxor, stråhattar, bläckhorn, färgkoppar, skalbaggar och kranier av småfåglar, och kom[mer] de långa, fransiga tångrankorna som [sitter] fastspikade på väggen att utdunsta en doft av salt och sjögräs – samma doft som f[i]nns i handdukarna, fulla av sand efter all badning”. Idyllen framstår som ett orubbligt faktum i inledningen av Virginia Woolfs roman ”Mot fyren”. Men vartenda bräddfullt ögonblick präglas samtidigt av en hotande frånvaro, en kommande tomhet.I centrum av sommartillvaron på den skotska ön Skye finns Mrs Ramsay, åttabarnsmor och familjens givna mittpunkt, värdinna för en handfull medbjudna gäster. Hon är den sortens åldrande kvinna som säger ”nu ska vi ha det trevligt” och menar det. När yngste sonen frågar om de kan segla ut till fyren imorgon muttrar fadern, den kylige filosofen, att det troligen inte blir vackert väder. Jo, insisterar Mrs Ramsay. Det blir säkert vackert väder.Mrs Ramsay genomskådar inte, hon insisterar inte på alltings komplexitet. Men hon är mycket väl medveten om trivselns avigsida. Inunder den gemytliga samvaron finns ett spöklikt fluidum. En kväll när hon serverar soppan känner hon sig för en stund som om hon står ”utanför strömvirveln; eller att en skugga hade fallit och frånvaron av färg kom henne att se tingen i deras rätta dager.” Rummet saknar plötsligt charm. Alla människor tycks avskurna från sina bordsgrannar. Det finns en underliggande ångest, som Heidegger efter Freud kallar unheimlich. För Heidegger är det ohemlika den föremålslösa uppenbarelsen av att den mänskliga tillvaron är godtycklig i relation till världen. Det ohemlika är ett främlingskap, en oförmåga att känna sig hemma i livet som ytterst påminner oss om att vi alla ska dö. Mrs Ramsay, som är baserad på Woolfs egen mamma, har tagit på sig att avvärja denna ångest från alla i sin omgivning. Hon är, kan man säga, det hemlikas arbeterska. Så fort hon försvinner iväg ”råkar de [andra] i ett slags upplösning”. Utan någon fientlighet begrundar hon männens sterilitet i detta avseende, de klarar inte av att få den mellanmänskliga samvaron att pulsera naturligt igen. ”Och hela mödan att smälta samman allting och få det att flyta, mödan att skapa, vilade på henne.”Att just sommarveckorna har valts för att rama in Mrs Ramsays förmågor är ingen slump. Ingenting annat, vare sig skola eller jobb, håller ju samman tillvaron då. Varje dag är en blank sida av förströelser. Det händer inte särskilt mycket annat i romanen. Man frestas att, som författaren Margaret Atwood gjorde när hon läste den som nittonåring, utbrista: Vad handlar den ens om? Några sommargäster överväger att segla ut till fyren, men vädret blir för dåligt och resan får skjutas upp. Men Atwood plockar upp romanen igen mer än fyra decennier senare, när hon är över sextio. ”Vid nitton hade jag aldrig känt någon som hade dött”, tänker hon då. ”Jag begrep ingenting om den sortens förlust – om söndersmulningen av de levda livens fysiska texturer”. För tiden går. Två somrar skildras i ”Mot fyren”, före och efter Första världskriget. Emellan dem finns ett eget kapitel som bara handlar om husets förfall. Vinddragen nafsar i tapeter, träet mörknar och spricker. Inom parentes får vi veta att Mrs Ramsay har dött plötsligt en natt, att äldsta sonen har fallit på slagfältet och äldsta dottern dukat under i barnsäng. Så dyker två gamla kvinnor från byn plötsligt upp med skurhinkar; de har fått i uppdrag att ställa i ordning huset inför sommaren igen, familjen med gäster är på väg tillbaka.”Så meningslöst det var, så kaotiskt”, tänker konstnären Lily, som var gäst hos Ramsays både då och nu. ”Mrs Ramsay är död, Andrew stupad, Prue död hon också – hur ofta hon upprepade det väckte det ingen känsla hos henne.” Lily stirrar ut genom fönstret och reflekterar stumt: ”Och vi samlas alla i ett hus som det här, en morgon som denna”. Som semesterläsning är ”Mot fyren” lika underbar som oroväckande. Mrs Ramsays livsverk och bortgång både belyser och förkastar frågan om det ”egentligen” finns någon mening med tillvaron. Hon har ingen särskild bildning och inte ens någon allmänt fängslande karisma. Hon är borgerlig, tänker en av gästerna, dominant och fåfäng, tänker en annan. Hennes förmåga att skapa en känsla av sammanhang består inte i någon intellektuell insikt – för att understryka detta ställs den gång på gång mot hennes mans, filosofiprofessorns, arbete. Men kanske är den en viktigare begåvning.Genomskådandets sanning är inte den enda. Som författaren och filosofen Iris Murdoch skriver bör en författare snarare likna den Buddhistiska läromästare ”som sa att han som ung trodde att berg var berg och floder var floder”, men ”efter många års studier avgjorde att berg inte var berg och floder inte var floder” och till slut när han var gammal och vis ”kom till insikt om att berg är berg och floder är floder.” Emot det ohemlikas skrämmande godtycke har Mrs Ramsay vävt en kokong av trivsel och gemenskap. Däri faller solskenet över frukostens kaffekoppar, filtar läggs ut på gräsmattan, man går på en tur till stranden. Så blir sommaren till sommar igen, och när hon reflekterar över den döda kvinnan är det som om Lily får ett bättre grepp om penseln i sin hand. ”Man måste, tänkte hon, medan hon betänksamt doppade penselspetsen, vara öppen för den vardagliga verkligheten, man måste helt enkelt känna att detta är en stol, detta är ett bord, och ändå: Det är ett under, det är extas.”Trots tidens obönhörliga gång och dödens slutliga upplösning har Mrs Ramsay varje dag insisterat på sommarens idyll. Hon har vågat tro på att det finns en poäng med alla dessa flyktiga ögonblick av skönhet och trivsel. Kanske borde vi liksom hon ändå värna om våra naiva drömmar om sommaren. Livsnärvaron Mrs Ramsay har skapat dröjer sig ju kvar, också efter hennes död. Att säga ”vilken trevlig dag vi ska ha, det blir säkert vackert väder” behöver inte vara korkat och ytligt. Inunder trivseln lurar visserligen det ohemlika. Men sommarhuset kan ändå vara sommarhuset. Lyra Ekström Lindbäckförfattare, filosof och kritikerLitteraturFrançoise Sagan: Bonjour tristesse. 1954. Lilly Vallquists svenska översättning utkom 1955 på Wahlström & Widstrand.Cora Sandel: Alberte-serien – Alberte og Jakob (1926), Alberte og friheten (1931) och Bare Alberte (1939). Böckerna utkom åren efter på svenska med olika översättare på Bonniers.Rachel Cusk: Second place. Faber & Faber, 2021. Översatt till svenska som Andra stället samma år av Niclas Hval och utgiven på Albert Bonniers förlag. Mabel Dodge Luhan: Lorenzo in Taos. Knopf, 1932.Virginia Woolfs: To the Lighthouse, 1927. På svenska som Mot fyren 1953, i översättning av Ingalisa Munck och Sonja Bergvall. Margareta Backgårds nyöversättning utkom på H:ström text & kultur 2019.Sigmund Freuds essä Das Unheimliche publicerades 1919 och finns i svensk översättning i band 11 av Freuds samlade verk, utgivet på Natur och kultur, 2007.Musik i programmet (kronologiskt)Låten i Insensatez komponerad av Antonio Carlos Jobim, portugisisk text av Vinicius De Moraes och engelsk text av Norman Gimbel i olika utföranden:1. Antonio Carlos Jobim (piano), 1963.João Gilberto (gitarr och sång) , 1961.Ben Street (kontrabas), Ethan Iverson (piano), Albert Heath (trummor), 2013.Nummer 1 igen.Astrud Gilberto (sång), 1965.

I det tjugoandra avsnittet av ”Har du inte läst den?” står Virginia Woolfs modernistiska verk Vågorna från 1931 i fokus, en roman som beskrivits som ”så nära poesi man kan komma utan att skriva poesi”. Hedvig har läst originalet med Google translate på högvarv, Lydia har valt översättningens enklare (och, visar det sig, mindre tillfredsställande) väg. Hedvig är begeistrad, Lydia snarast utmattad. Hur stort är egentligen glappet mellan The Waves och Vågorna? Hur ska man läsa den här boken? Var Virginia Woolfs rädsla för att hennes böcker skulle uppfattas som uttryck för galenskap befogad? Dessutom visar det sig att Woolfs biografi är ett veritabelt kaninhål - trillar man ner där är det stor risk att man inte lyckas ta sig upp.  Litteratur:  The Waves respektive Vågorna av Virginia Woolf, den sistnämnda översatt av Jane Lundblad Virginia Woolf - ett diktarliv av Quentin Bell Virginia Woolf av Hermione Lee Musik av Linus Lahti

Virginia Woolfs "Jacob's Room" betraktas ofta som en förstudie till hennes verkliga storverk. Det är dags att ändra på den uppfattningen, säger litteraturvetaren Karin Nykvist. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Vem är Jacob? Var är Jacob? Jag läser Virginia Woolfs roman Jacobs Room och frågorna kommer till mig, gång på gång. För jag får liksom inte kläm på honom, han glider hela tiden undan.Jag är inte ensam om att känna så. Redan på romanens första sida frågar sig hans mamma: var är den där besvärlige lille pojken? och skickar iväg hans bror för att leta. Ja-cob! Ja-cob! ropar brodern så som så många fler ska göra innan den korta berättelsen är slut.För inte är det mycket vi reda på om Jacob. Istället får vi veta vad andra tänker:  när de betraktar honom, förälskar sig i honom, skriver brev om honom och skvallrar om honom. Huvudpersonen själv förblir ett slags gäckande frånvaro, även om vi följer tätt i hans spår: från en dag på stranden i den tidiga barndomen, till studierna i Cambridge, till rummet i London, till le grand tour i Italien och Grekland, och sist till det slutgiltiga försvinnandet, i det första världskrigets stora anonyma död.Så blir romanen till ett slag antibiografi: den tecknar fram ett liv som förblir preludier och skisser; den är en bildningsroman som inte går i mål.Och just däri ligger förstås dess storhet. För vad kan vi veta om en annan människa, eller ens om oss själva? Och hur kan vi fånga det där som är människans mest grundläggande begränsning och samtidigt hennes största och enda möjlighet: livet självt?Romanen är Virginia Woolfs tredje. Den kom ut under det år som ofta blir kallat vidunderligt när litteraturhistoria ska skrivas: 1922. Ur ett engelskspråkigt perspektiv är det nästan Året med stort Å. I februari gav James Joyce ut sin tegelsten Ulysses med hjälp av den modiga Sylvia Beach i Paris. I oktober publicerade T.S Eliot The Waste Land i sin egen tidskrift The Criterion. Och senare samma månad lät paret Woolf trycka upp Jacobs Room på det egna förlaget Hogarth Press.Virginia Woolf kallade själv Jacobs Room för ett experiment, och möjligen är det detta uttalande som får författaren Lawrence Norfolk att i förordet till min engelska utgåva utbrista att romanen saknar det självförtroende som kännetecknar Joyces och Eliots böcker. Självklart har han fel. För det första har en roman inga känslor alls. För det andra och så klart är detta viktigare kräver experimentet en stark och trygg självkänsla. Och det verkar inte som om Woolf skulle darrat på pennan någonstans eller på något sätt valt en försiktig väg här. Några år tidigare - 1919 hade hon skrivit så här om litteraturens nya uppgift: Låt oss skriva ner atomerna så som de dyker upp i vårt sinne, i den ordning de kommer, låt oss följa mönstret, hur osammanhängande och motsägelsefullt det än ter sig, som varje syn eller händelse ristar på medvetandet.Om Virginia Woolfs romaner saknade intrig var det för att livet självt saknar det: bättre då att registrera sinnenas intryck, som bildkonstnären.Woolf menade att litteraturen befann sig vid en skiljeväg, då, i början av tjugotalet. Själv stod hon för det nya, det som mer autentiskt och ärligt förmådde gestalta tillvaron. På andra sidan placerade hon författare som John Galsworthy han som skrev Forsytesagan och som snart skulle få Nobelpriset eller den framgångsrika Arnold Bennett, som skrev böcker i en traditionellt realistisk stil med tydliga huvudpersoner och en allvetande berättare och som till skillnad från Woolf sålde i drivor.Bennett var för övrigt en av alla dem som sågade Jacobs Room. Han menade att romanens gestalter omöjligt kunde få liv hos läsaren eftersom författaren, som han syrligt skrev var besatt av originalitet och smarthet.Woolf skulle snart hämnas och formulera sitt förslag på en ny estetik för romanen: i essän Mrs Brown and Mr Bennett från 1923 skriver hon om hur en tänkt kvinna på ett tåg, Mrs Brown, kan skildras litterärt på olika sätt beroende på författarens övertygelser. Woolf låter där  den daterade Mr Bennett och hans gelikar tynga ner den stackars Mrs Brown till oigenkännlighet med en omständlig prosa, trots att hon förtjänar att gestaltas på ett helt annat sätt. Vi måste lära oss att stå ut med det krampaktiga, det obscena, det fragmentariska, misslyckandet, skriver Virginia Woolf. Något annat skulle vara att svika Mrs Brown.Här finns alltså en litteratursyn som bygger på en helt ny människosyn. I Virginia Woolfs värld kan ingen kan längre fångas in, paketeras, eller ges prydlig gestaltning. För att lyckas måste litteraturen misslyckas. Så kan världen skildras sant.Många kritiker har i efterhand betraktat Jacobs room som en förövning till de verkligt stora verken i Woolfs författarskap: hon skulle snart komma att skriva Mrs Dalloway och To the Lighthouse, Mot fyren..Men Jacobs Room är en storartad roman i sin egen rätt Och faktiskt är det den enda av Woolfs romaner som översattes till svenska medan hon själv levde bara en sån sak.Romanens grundtes är att även om vi i sällsynta ögonblick kan uppleva att vi verkligen ser och känner någon så är dessa stunder av absolut närvaro oerhört sällsynta. Istället är det frånvaron som kännetecknar våra liv och våra mänskliga mellanhavanden. Vi skriver, ringer, talar med, till och om varandra, utan att riktigt nå fram. Våra intryck av den rikt myllrande världen är flyktiga och övergående, även om de är fyllda av aldrig så mycket akut skönhet och känsla. Så kan de här stunderna skildras litterärt på samma sätt som impressionisterna tecknade solens förflyttningar över vatten: bara ögonblicket kan fångas, det undflyende.Den som vill filmatisera Jacobs Room borde ha ett lätt jobb: texten består av korta scener som avlöser varandra: vi är på stranden, så - klipp -vid Piccadilly, och klipp - på ett tåg på väg till Cambridge. Och så klipp på Akropolis i Aten.Och överallt alla dessa människor. Inte mindre än 156 namngivna personer befolkar Woolfs roman. Flera av dem får inte ens en halv sida. Alla dessa liv, som vi inte vet någonting om. Och där nånstans, ibland, Jacob, med en bok under armen.1922 var ett storartat litterärt år. Men alla de storverk som skrevs då gick de flesta förbi: både Woolf och Eliot ägnade sig ju åt egenutgivning i små upplagor, och Joyces Ulysses kom ut på ett litet och okänt förlag långt från den engelskspråkiga sfären.  Jag läser vidare om Jacob. Och tänker på dagens litterära utgivning. Vilka böcker kommer att vara framtidens omistliga klassiker vilka författare den framtida historieskrivningens fixstjärnor? Ges de också ut på egna och obskyra förlag?Det enda vi säkert vet är att vi har absolut ingen aning. Men jag är allt lite avundsjuk på dem som i framtiden får läsa årets bästa böcker. Vår tids Jacobs Room.Karin Nykvist, litteraturvetare och kritikerFotnot: Jacob's Room finns översatt till svenska som Jacobs Rum av Siri Thorngren-Olin.

Einer der meistrezipierten Texte der Frauenbewegung: Virginia Woolfs "Ein Zimmer für sich allein". Es geht um Feminismus, Geschlechterdifferenz, Poetik und Psychologie. Virginia Woolf schätzte Sigmund Freud. Ziemlich klar also, was mit der riesigen Gartengurke gemeint ist, die das Wachstum aller anderen Pflanzen hemmt.

Die britische Verlegerin und Schriftstellerin Virginia Woolf veröffentlichte 1925 jenen Roman, der bis heute stellvertretend für die Gesellschaft einer ganzen Epoche steht: „Mrs. Dalloway“. Er spielt im Jahr 1923. Die Londoner Hausherrin Clarissa Dalloway bereitet sich für ihr Fest am Abend vor, dessen Gastgeberin sie ist. Gerade noch wütete ein schrecklicher Krieg, doch jetzt ist die Zeit für ausgelassene Partys. Der Tod ist aber auch am Abend präsent, als eine Freundin Mrs. Dalloways über den Suizid eines Soldaten berichtet. Bahnt sich schon die nächste Bedrohung an? "Dieser Roman ist auch heute noch aktuell", sagt Furche Feuilleton-Chefin und Bachmannpreisjurorin Brigitte Schwens-Harrant. Sie hat „Mrs. Dalloway“ in der aktuellen Furche eine Seite gewidmet und bespricht das große Werk mit FURCHE-Redakteurin Manuela Tomic.

In our last episode, we looked at the decision by Virginia Woolf and her husband Leonard to purchase a printing press and run it out of their home. What began as a hobby - a relief from the strains of writing - soon turned into a genuine business, as The Hogarth Press met with success. And when Virginia published one of her most famous stories "Kew Gardens," the dam burst, and the Woolfs and their press had to prepare for a dramatic increase in sales. In this episode, Jacke continues and concludes the story of the Hogarth Press, including a close look at the story that changed the press's fortunes. Additional listening suggestions: 387 Loving Virginia Woolf | Fashion in Literature (with Lauren S. Cardon) 334 Katherine Mansfield 165 Ezra Pound Help support the show at patreon.com/literature or historyofliterature.com/shop. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at www.thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Woolf has long been celebrated as a supremely gifted novelist and essayist. Less well known, but important to understanding her life and contributions to literature, are her efforts as a publisher. In the decades that she and her husband operated the Hogarth Press - starting with a hand-operated printer they ran on their dining room table, cranking out one page at a time - they published some Modernist classics, including works by Virginia and The Waste Land by T.S. Eliot. In this episode, Jacke takes a look at the decision to buy the press, the effect it had on Virginia's life and writing career, and the very first book the Woolfs put out: Two Stories, featuring Leonard's short story "Three Jews" and Virginia's "The Mark on the Wall." Additional listening suggestions: 69 Virginia Woolf and Her Enemies (with Andrea Zemgulys) Virginia Woolf (with Gillian Gill) T.S. Eliot | The Waste Land Help support the show at patreon.com/literature or historyofliterature.com/shop. The History of Literature Podcast is a member of Lit Hub Radio and the Podglomerate Network. Learn more at www.thepodglomerate.com/historyofliterature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Den engelske forfatter, Virginia Woolf foregreb veteran-diagnosen, PTSD i sin roman fra 1925, 'Mrs. Dalloway'. Her møder læseren den unge mand, Septimus, der er blevet mentalt syg af at deltage i 1. Verdenskrig. I dagens program giver to gæster deres bud på en læsning af Woolfs mesterværk, og de diskuterer, hvordan moderne krigslitteratur ser ud. Forfatter, Anne-Catherine Riebnitzsky er selv uddannet sprogofficer og har selv været udsendt i krig. Det har professor og litteraturforsker, Anders Engberg-Pedersen ikke. Til gengæld kan han fortælle om det amerikanske militærs brug af skønlitteraturen. Vært: Nanna Mogensen. (Sendt første gang 27. april).

Virginia Woolf er en av de viktigste forfatterne i nyere litteraturhistorie. Særlig romanen «Til fyret» fra 1927 har blitt stående som et sentralt verk i den modernistiske kanon, og har påvirket talløse forfattere frem til i dag. Vi har invitert litteraturprofessor Tone Selboe (UiO) til å ta et dypdykk i Woolfs roman. Vi diskuterer narrativet, den litteraturhistoriske konteksten, skrivestilen, og betydningen verket har hatt for senere forfattere. Samtalen ledes av bibliotekets litteraturformidler Robin Van de Walle. Månedens klassiker er en podkast- og arrangementsserie hvor vi løfter frem og diskuterer klassiske litterære verk. Serien er delvis støttet av Fritt Ord.

SLAA en De Nieuwe Garde presenteren: Het essay. In deze nieuwe podcast ontvangt Roos van Rijswijk iedere aflevering een gast die een bijzonder essay meeneemt. Ze praten over het gekozen stuk, essayistiek in het algemeen en eigen werk. Waarom is dit essay relevant, of belangrijk voor het werk van de gast? Wat kan het essay brengen dat andere vormen niet kunnen? Na het gesprek wordt het gekozen essay voorgelezen. Roos ontvangt in de eerste aflevering Jan Postma, schrijver en redacteur van De Groene Amsterdammer. Na het succes van Vroege werken verscheen onlangs een nieuwe essaybundel van zijn hand: Is dit alles?. Beide bundels verschenen bij Uitgeverij Das Mag. Jan koos ‘The Death of the Moth', een essay van Virginia Woolf. Dit essay werd een jaar na Woolfs dood gepubliceerd maar is nu nog net zo relevant als in 1942. Jan vertaalde het essay speciaal voor deze podcast naar het Nederlands. Naast presentator is Roos van Rijswijk schrijver en recensent. Haar laatste bundel, De dwaler, verscheen in 2021 bij Uitgeverij Querido. Het Essay is een podcast van SLAA en De Nieuwe Garde. Stemacteur: Barbara Knapper Opnames: Jasper Schonewille Muziek: ‘Passover Dinner Alternate' door Gabriel Saban en Anne-Sophie Versnaeyen Montage: Ruth Kief Illustratie: Kay Brugmans Meer podcasts van SLAA vind je bij SLAAcast, in je favoriete podcastapp. Kijk op slaa.nl/het-essay/essaytips-janpostma/ voor drie bonus-essaytips van Jan Postma! Links: ‘De dood van de mot' door Virginia Woolf in vertaling van Jan Postma: slaa.nl/online-lezen/virginiawoolf-janpostma/ ‘Malfunctioning Sex Robot' door Patricia Lockwood: bit.ly/3obpSea Alle artikelen voor LRB door Jenny Diski: lrb.co.uk/contributors/jenny-diski ‘The Death of the Moth' door Virginia Woolf: bit.ly/3ANGRbO Is dit alles door Jan Postma: dasmag.nl/shop/jan-postma-is-dit-alles

Kender du det med at sidde til et middagsselskab og pludselig falder snakken på litterære værker. Og rundt om middagsbordet kan den ene gæst efter den anden komme med analyser af klassikere som Forbrydelse og Straf eller Don Quixote. Klassikere, du kender, burde have læst, men IKKE har læst.Vi er din redning. Vi gennemgår Virginia Woolfs udødelige klassiker Mrs Dalloway, så du kan tale med forfatterens komplekse psyke og bogens mange temaer om feminisme, moderskab, seksualitet, psykiske lidelser og civilisationskritik.Gæst:Lise-Lotte Frederiksen, forfatterVært: Frederik WestergaardTilrettelægger:Cecilie DumanskiProducer: Cecilie DumanskiRedaktør: Toke With

Weltliteratur · Ein Tag am Meer der jungen Witwe Betty Flanders und ihrer Söhnen Archer, John und Jacob: Jacob entdeckt am Strand ein Liebespaar und findet einen Schafsschädel. Blicke, Gedanken- und Gesprächsfetzen in Virginia Woolfs Meisterwerk - als blättere man staunend durch das Fotoalbum eines Fremden.

Weltliteratur · "Die Tür aus Glas" - Die zehnköpfige Familie Ramsay im Feriendomizil auf Isle of Skye, um 1910: Der kleine James will zum Leuchtturm segeln, der Vater lehnt ab. Für erfüllte Augenblicke sorgt nur die Mutter, Mrs Ramsay. Virginia Woolf taucht in ihrem wichtigsten Werk in ihre eigene Kindheit ein. // Mit Zoe Hutmacher, Wiebke Puls, Irina Wanka, Walter Hess, Caroline Ebner, Sven Gey u.a. / Aus dem Englischen von Gaby Hartel / Bearbeitung: Gaby Hartel / Komposition: Ulrike Haage / Regie: Katja Langenbach / BR 2016// Mehr Hörspiele unter www.hörspielpool.de

In the debut episode of Queers in Your Ears' second season, Jamie and Austin discuss two queer icons from history: Hans Christian Anderson and Virginia Woolf, both literati to the gods!

Nyhetssändning från kulturredaktionen P1, med reportage, nyheter och recensioner.

Slightly Foxed Editors Gail and Hazel take us between the pages of the magazine, bookmarking articles along the way. Crack the spine of the quarterly to discover T. H. White taking flying lessons, smutty book titles, a passion for romantic ruins, John Berger shadowing a remarkable GP, a rebellious Mitford ‘rescued’ by a destroyer, a night to remember on the Titanic and much more besides. From correcting proofs to welcoming writers with a host of experiences, the story of putting together an issue of enthusiasms unfolds. And in this month’s reading from the archives, a hapless apprentice at the Hogarth Press recounts his disastrous stint with the Woolfs. Please find links to books, articles, and further reading listed below. The digits in brackets following each listing refer to the minute and second they are mentioned. (Episode duration: 36 minutes; 33 seconds) Books Mentioned We may be able to get hold of second-hand copies of the out-of-print titles listed below. Please get in touch (mailto:anna@foxedquarterly.com) with Anna in the Slightly Foxed office for more information. - Slightly Foxed Issue 66 (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/slightly-foxed-issue-66-published-1-jun-2020/) - Basil Street Blues (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/michael-holroyd-basil-street-blues/) , Michael Holroyd: Slightly Foxed Edition No. 29 (6:00) - England Have My Bones, T. H. White is out of print (6:47) - Inside of a Dog (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/alexandra-horowitz-inside-of-a-dog/) , Alexandra Horowitz (11:04) - The Letters of Charles and Mary Lamb is out of print (13:04) - No Voice from the Hall, John Harris is out of print (14:33) - The Family from One End Street (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/eve-garnett-the-family-from-one-end-street/) , Eve Garnett (15:15) - A Taste of Paris, Theodora FitzGibbon is out of print (15:33) - A Fortunate Man (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/john-berger-a-fortunate-man/) , John Berger (19:38) - Rosemary Sutcliff’s Roman novels (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/a-set-of-rosemary-sutcliffs-roman-novels/) : Slightly Foxed Cubs (21:15) - Hons and Rebels (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/jessica-mitford-hons-and-rebels/) , Jessica Mitford: Slightly Foxed Edition No. 52, published 1 September 2020 (21:53) - A Night to Remember (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/walter-lord-a-night-to-remember/) , Walter Lord (23:50) - A Boy at the Hogarth Press (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/hogarth-press-richard-kennedy-plain-foxed/) , Richard Kennedy: Plain Foxed Edition (24:55) - House of Glass (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/hadley-freeman-house-of-glass/) , Hadley Freeman (31:47) - All the Light We Cannot See (https://foxedquarterly.com/shop/anthony-doerr-all-the-light-we-cannot-see/) , Anthony Doerr (34:00) Related Slightly Foxed Articles - Underwater Heaven (https://foxedquarterly.com/maragret-drabble-charles-kingsley-water-babies-literary-review/) , Margaret Drabble on Charles Kingsley, The Water-Babies in Issue 66 (5:45) - Harvey Learns the Ropes (https://foxedquarterly.com/rudyard-kipling-captains-courageous-literary-review/) , Andrew Joynes on Rudyard Kipling, Captains Courageous in Issue 56 (6:24) - On the Shoulders of Giants (https://foxedquarterly.com/andrew-joynes-t-h-white-england-have-my-bones-literary-review/) , Andrew Joynes on T. H. White, England Have My Bones in Issue 66 (6:30) - Sarah Crowden on smut: Something for the Weekend (https://foxedquarterly.com/sarah-crowden-smut-book-titles-literary-review/) in Issue 32 and All in the Mind? (https://foxedquarterly.com/sarah-crowden-smut-literary-review/) in Issue 44 (7:57) - Unsung Heroes (https://foxedquarterly.com/alastair-glegg-childrens-books-literary-review/) , Alastair Glegg on learning to read at prep school in Issue 60 (9:59) - Dog’s-eye View (https://foxedquarterly.com/alexandra-horowitz-inside-of-a-dog-literary-review/) , Rebecca Willis on Alexandra Horowitz, Inside of a Dog in Issue 65 (11:04) - In Praise of Pratchett (https://foxedquarterly.com/terry-pratchett-small-gods-literary-review/) , Amanda Theunissen on Terry Pratchett, Small Gods in Issue 33 (11:33) - Streets, Streets, Streets (https://foxedquarterly.com/felicity-james-the-letters-of-charles-and-mary-lamb-literary-review/) , Felicity James on the letters of Charles and Mary Lamb in Issue 65 (13:06) - These Fragments (https://foxedquarterly.com/jon-woolcott-john-harris-no-voice-from-the-hall-literary-review/) , Jon Woolcott on John Harris, No Voice from the Hall in Issue 66 (14:33) - Keeping up Appearances (https://foxedquarterly.com/kate-tyte-eve-garnett-the-family-from-one-end-street-literary-review/) , Kate Tyte on Eve Garnett, The Family from One End Street in Issue 66 (15:15) - Simply Delicious (https://foxedquarterly.com/clive-unger-hamilton-theodora-fitzgibbon-a-taste-of-paris-literary-review/) , Clive Unger-Hamilton on Theodora FitzGibbon, A Taste of Paris in Issue 66 (15:33) - An Early-Flowering Climber (https://foxedquarterly.com/ursula-buchan-reginald-farrer-garden-writing-literary-review/) , Ursula Buchan on the plant-hunting and garden writings of Reginald Farrer in Issue 66 (16:01) - A Well-tempered Gardener (https://foxedquarterly.com/christopher-lloyd-well-tempered-gardener/) , Michael Leapman on the garden writings of Christopher Lloyd in Issue 59 (17:00) - Putting up Useful Shelves (https://foxedquarterly.com/richard-kennedy-a-boy-at-the-hogarth-press-plain-foxed-editions/) , Sue Gee on Richard Kennedy, A Boy at the Hogarth Press in Issue 20 (24:55) Other Links - Slightly Foxed Editors’ Diary (https://foxedquarterly.com/category/from-the-slightly-foxed-editors/) (0:28) - Sign up to the free Slightly Foxed email newsletter here (http://eepurl.com/dmxw1T)   - Slightly Foxed articles by Christopher Rush (https://foxedquarterly.com/contributors/rush-christopher-slightly-foxed-literary-review-magazine/) (12:46) - Little Toller Books (https://www.littletoller.co.uk/) (14:18) Opening music: Preludio from Violin Partita No.3 in E Major by Bach Reading music: Dark Hallway, written and performed by Kevin MacLeod courtesy of incompetech.filmmusic.io (https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/) The Slightly Foxed Podcast is hosted by Philippa Lamb and produced by Podcastable (https://www.podcastable.co.uk/)

Eine Frau am Abgrund: Michael Kumpfmüller begleitet Virginia Woolf in den letzten Wochen ihres Lebens, erforscht ihre Zweifel und Ängste, rückt aber vor allem Woolfs existentielle Einsamkeit in den Mittelpunkt. Ein Wagnis.

In this episode of Travels Through Time the biographer Francesca Wade takes us to the fringes of London’s Bloomsbury, to explore a fascinating generation of poets, writers and publishers who passed through Mecklenburgh Square. In the early decades of the twentieth century the streets and squares of Bloomsbury in inner London were home to a pioneering and provocative generation of writers, poets and artists. Many of these figures would later be celebrated and cherished, but at the time their fortunes were not quite so settled. The transience and fragility of Bloomsbury was captured in a quote by the English novelist Margery Allingham. She called the area, ‘a sort of halfway house. If you lived here you were either going up or coming down.’ This description was particularly appropriate for Mecklenburgh Square, a large residential square on the north eastern edge of inner London. Here, at various important junctures in their lives, lodged five great women: Hilda Doolittle (H.D), Dorothy L Sayers, Jayne Ellen Harrison, Eileen Power and Virginia Woolf. These women and this square are at the heart of Francesca Wade’s new book Square Haunting. In this episode she guides us to Mecklenburgh Square in the year 1917 to meet the poet H.D, the writer Virginia Woolf and her husband Leonard. They were all busy with projects and all contending with the fevered atmosphere of the wartime capital, a 'ghastly inferno which thinks and breathes and lives air raids, nothing else.' As DH Lawrence put it, London had ‘perished from being a heart of the world, and became a vortex of broken passions, lusts, hopes, fears and horrors.’ Francesca Wade is the author of Square Haunting: Five Women, Freedom and London Between the Wars (Faber) Scene One: 44 Mecklenburgh Square, November 1917 - H. D. and D. H. Lawrence in the room while others are out. Or perhaps an evening with them while they're playing charades. Scene Two: Hogarth House, Richmond, April 1917 - to watch the Woolfs bring home their printing press. Scene Three: 4 Gerrard Street, Soho, December 1917. The inaugural meeting of the 1917 Club, founded by Leonard Woolf. Memento: The suitcase of letters from Richard Aldington and D.H. Lawrence to H. D. during the war that was left in the cellar of 44 Mecklenburgh Square and then destroyed --- People / Social Presenter: Peter Moore Guest: Francesca Wade Producers: Maria Nolan/John Hillman Titles: Jon O.

Our #POETRYSLOWDOWN always says we are the news you need, the news you heed, the news “without which men die miserably every day” (Wm. Carlos Williams).  We are the news between the headlines, fast-breaking, late-breaking, heart-breaking news; we are the heart-making news. Here … Continue reading → The post In Memory of Anthony Bourdain THE POETIC CHEF: Stewing Those Lyric Chops– Tolstoys, Woolfs, Dantes in the Kitchen first appeared on Dr. Barbara Mossberg » Poetry Slowdown.

Tid utgjør et sentralt element i Virginia Woolfs tekster, både på form- og innholdssiden. Woolf var opptatt av skillet mellom vår oppfattelse av tid, og tid som objektiv størrelse. Hun jobbet utrettelig med å utfordre kronologi og linearitet som grunnleggende prinsipper i litterær fremstillingsmåte. Dessuten hadde hun et uttalt ønske om å endre romanen i sin egen samtid og således skrive seg inn i tiden. Vi bruker tid som nøkkel inn til noen av Woolfs mest sentrale verker. Kvelden vil ha form som et innledende miniforedrag av litteraturviter med bakgrunn i Woolf-studier Siren Hole, etterfulgt av en samtale mellom Hole og forfatter og Woolf-entusiast Vigdis Hjorth. Ordstyrer er Litteratur på Blås Andreas Tandberg. "Mrs Woolf has experimented with time passing in To the Lighthouse and in Orlando. In The Waves she passes beyond experiment to mature accomplishment, so that I venture the verdict that better than any other novelist she has solved one of the major problems of fiction, and has actually given the reader a full realization of the time element. . ." - Earl Daniels, Saturday Review of Literature - 5 December 1931

En professor må overholde de akademiske former, og gå til sitt pliktarbeid med alvor. Litteraturhuset har ryddet en lekegrind der professorene kan være ustrukturert begeistret over akkurat hva de vil, og fortelle det slik de vil. Litteraturprofessor Ellen Mortensen gjester huset for å snakke om Virginia Woolf og hennes roman Bølgene. Professoren skriver: Vi skal fortape oss i Virginia Woolfs mest eksperimentelle modernistiske roman fra 1931, «The Waves», der forfatteren i sin flytende stil utforsker de subtile båndene som eksisterer mellom naturen og menneskesinnet. Leseren har tidvis følelsen av å drukne i Woolfs enigmatiske fiksjonsunivers, for så i neste øyeblikk å oppleve et sjeldent klarsyn, manet frem av Woolfs stilsikre penn.

En professor må overholde de akademiske former, og gå til sitt pliktarbeid med alvor. Litteraturhuset har ryddet en lekegrind der professorene kan være ustrukturert begeistret over akkurat hva de vil, og fortelle det slik de vil. Litteraturprofessor Ellen Mortensen gjester huset for å snakke om Virginia Woolf og hennes roman Bølgene. Professoren skriver: Vi skal fortape oss i Virginia Woolfs mest eksperimentelle modernistiske roman fra 1931, «The Waves», der forfatteren i sin flytende stil utforsker de subtile båndene som eksisterer mellom naturen og menneskesinnet. Leseren har tidvis følelsen av å drukne i Woolfs enigmatiske fiksjonsunivers, for så i neste øyeblikk å oppleve et sjeldent klarsyn, manet frem av Woolfs stilsikre penn.

Den svenske regissören Simon Kaijser gjorde succé med TV-serien Torka aldrig tårar utan handskar av Jonas Gardell. Nu har han blivit rekryterad av BBC och har precis spelat in miniserien Life in squares om Bloomsburygruppen, ett ämne lika engelskt som trekantsmackor och vänstertrafik. Bloomsburygruppen var konstnärskollektivet som bland annat bestod av intellektuella giganter som författarna Virginia Woolf och C.M. Forster och ekonomen John Maynard Keynes. Kinos Karin Svensson har vandrat genom London med regissören och besökt inspelningsplatser och suttit vid porten till paret Woolfs bostad och också pratat med seriens producent Lucy Bedford om varför hon ville att just Simon Kaijser skulle regissera. Kino får också besök av skaparna av det som har kallats en svensk House of Cards, SVT-produktionen Blå ögon - en politisk thriller med manus av Alex Haridi och regisserad av Fredrik Edström och Henrik Georgsson. Blå ögon är kanske den första svenska dramaproduktion som skriver in ett främlingsfientligt parti i handlingen. Alex Haridi kommer till studion liksom två av skådespelarna: Louise Peterhoff och Karin Franz Körlof. Vi tar också upp det faktum att hälften av våra videobutiker lagt ner de senaste fem åren. Philip Norén har träffat både de som har dött streamingdöden och fått slå igen butiken och de som överlevt tack vare stammisar eller extrastora godishyllor. Dessutom blir det en klassiker om Ingmar Bergmans film ”Nattvardsgästerna” från 1963 som lägligt nog utspelas i ett jämngrått novemberljus, en utmaning för mästerfotografen Sven Nykvist. Klassikern är gjord av filmkritikern och författaren Mårten Blomkvist. Programledare: Saman Bakhtiari Producent: Nina Asarnoj