Veggy Salsabilla Amijaya 180410160037 Lovewhich Inexpressible; An Analysis of Theme on Woolf’s “ To the Lighthouse” “ Tothe Lighthouse,” by a well-known British stream-consciousness writer, VirginiaWolf and was publish in 1927. She is honored as “ the best female writer of the20th century”. To the Lighthouse is considered as her best work by manycritics, reflecting her successful exploration and creativity in the narrationof modern novels. To the Lighthouse takes on some elements of Woolf’s own life: she felt stifled by her father in much the same way that Mr.
Ramsay squeezesthe life out of his children. And the sudden deaths of her mother and hersister Stella left her in deep mourning (echoes of Mrs. Ramsay and Prue’sdeaths in To the Lighthouse). But, Woolf herself got fed up with critics whoinsisted on reading the Ramsays as direct representations of the Stephens(Stephen was Woolf’s maiden name).
To the Lighthouse is also an extendedmeditation on the relationship between art and life, and on late Victorianfamily structures. (Source: Mark Massey, “ Introduction,” To the Lighthouse. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Books, 2005, xlviii.).
In this essay I am going toanalysis the theme (Love which Inexpressible) using narrative perspective of narratologytheory by Gérard Genette. GérardGenette’s work (1972 and 1983) fits into the German and Anglo-Saxon academictradition, and is intended to serve as both a culmination and a renewal of thisschool of narratological criticism. We should point out that internal analysis, like any semiotic analysis, exhibits two characteristics. Firstly, it isconcerned with narratives as independent linguistic objects, detached fromtheir context of production and reception. Secondly, it aims to reveal anunderlying structure that can be identified in many different narratives. Usinga rigorous typology, Genette has developed a theory of narratological poeticsthat may be used to address the entire inventory of narrative processes in use.
According to Genette, every text discloses traces of narration, which can bestudied in order to understand exactly how the narrative is organized. Theapproach advocated here clearly addresses a level that lies below the thresholdof interpretation, and as such, it constitutes a solid foundation, complementing other research being done in the social sciences, e. g., insociology, literary history, ethnology and psychoanalysis. Adistinction should be made between narrative voice and narrative perspective; the latter is the point of view adopted by the narrator, which Genette callsfocalization.
“ So, by focalization I certainly mean a restriction of’field’ – actually, that is, a selection of narrative information with respectto what was traditionally called omniscience” (1988, p. 74). These arematters of perception: the one who perceives is not necessarily the one whotells, and vice versa. Genettedistinguishes three kinds of focalization: 1. Zerofocalization: The narrator knows more than the characters. He may know thefacts about all of the protagonists, as well as their thoughts and gestures. This is the traditional “ omniscient narrator”. 2.
Internalfocalization: The narrator knows as much as the focal character. This characterfilters the information provided to the reader. He cannot report the thoughtsof other characters. 3. Externalfocalization: The narrator knows less than the characters. He acts a bit like acamera lens, following the protagonists’ actions and gestures from the outside; he is unable to guess their thoughts. Byexamining the characteristics of a narrative instance and the particulars ofthe narrative mood, we can clarify the mechanisms used in the narrative act, and identify exactly what methodological choices the author made in order torender his/her story.
The use of different narratological processes createsdifferent effects for the reader. For example, one could have a hero-narrator(auto diegetic narrator) who uses simultaneous narration and internalfocalization and whose speech is often in reported form. This would undoubtedlyproduce a strong illusion of realism and credibility. The authordescribes Mrs. Ramsay is loves everybody and everybody love Mrs. Ramsay but itdoes not being told, it can be seen from muttered or act the character. In thisnovel there is zero focalization or an omniscient narrator who has wide sightconcerning the character just like gods, who knows everything. According toGerman Narratology Scholar F.
K. Stanzel (1984, p. 89), given the factualpurpose, the omniscient narrator cannot appear all the time in the whole storyin any novel. His vision will sooner or later be confined or will temporarilylose the final direction to the characters or events. At first part of thenovel, the omniscient narrator is tactfully exposed to the readers. We can seefrom this subsequent:” Andwhat then? For she felt that he was still looking at her, but that his look hadchanged. He wanted something—wanted the thing she always found it so difficultto give him; wanted her to tell him that she loved him. And that, no, she couldnot do.
He found talking so much easier than she did. He could say things—shenever could. So naturally it was always he that said the things, and then forsome reason he would mind this suddenly, and would reproach her.
A heartlesswoman he called her; she never told him that she loved him. But it was not so—itwas not so. It was only that she never could say what she felt. Was there nocrumb on his coat? Nothing she could do for him? Getting up, she stood at thewindow with the reddish-brown stocking in her hands, partly to turn away fromhim, partly because she remembered how beautiful it often is—the sea at night. But she knew that he had turned his head as she turned; he was watching her.
She knew that he was thinking, you are more beautiful than ever. And she feltherself very beautiful. Will you not tell me just for once that you love me? Hewas thinking that, for he was roused, what with Minta and his book, and itsbeing the end of the day and their having quarreled about going to theLighthouse. But she could not do it; she could not say it. Then, knowing thathe was watching her, instead of saying anything she turned, holding herstocking, and looked at him. And as she looked at him she began to smile, forthough she had not said a word, he knew, of course he knew, that she loved him.
He could not deny it. And smiling she looked out of the window and said(thinking to herself, nothing on earth can equal this happiness)—” Yes, you were right. It’s going to be wet tomorrow. You won’t be able to go.” And she looked at him smiling. For she had triumphed again.
She had not saidit: yet he knew.” (Virginia, 1989, p. 99) Thisis the part where there are only Mr. Ramsay and Mrs.
Ramsay. Evidently, thedescription is not from Mrs. Ramsay, but from the nearby omniscient narrator.
Thenarrator can describe into the Mr. Ramsay’ heart, dig deep his thoughts andemotions, and then give comments from a certain point of opinion. Such commentsare whole control of character’ state of mind, which endue the readers to lookout of the characters’ sincere emotion and psychic states in learning so thatthey can better interpret the mental object and the meaning of the novel.
Likewise, from above, we can see that Mrs. Ramsay, who actually loves herhusband, but inexpressible with words and show that however her love does notneed to be pressed out in words but can be seen by her married man. Anotherexample from the theme is how Lily who was Mrs. Ramsay best friend loves Mrs. Ramsay, but love in means that Lily adore with the way of life and personalityof Mrs. Ramsay. Can be seen from this:” Andit was then too, in that chill and windy way, as she began to paint, that thereforced themselves upon her other things, her own inadequacy, herinsignificance, keeping house for her father off the Brompton Road, and hadmuch ado to control her impulse to fling herself (thank Heaven she had alwaysresisted so far) at Mrs. Ramsay’s knee and say to her—but what could one say toher? “ I’m in love with you?” No, that was not true.
“ I’m in lovewith this all,” waving her hand at the hedge, at the house, at thechildren. It was absurd, it was impossible.” (Virginia, 1989, p. 17) From thatcan be seen Lily love the way Mrs. Ramsay life but confused how to tell her. Inaddition, love not just about want to marry somebody. Lily and Mrs. Ramsay showsa love between a friendship relationship.
So fromwhat that have been analyzed, the conclusion is in “ To the Lighthouse”, Virginia Wolf the author described love which inexpressible from character ofMrs. Ramsay who is the wife of Mr. Ramsay and character of Lily as best friendof Mrs.
Ramsay. They are not telling “ Ilove you” to them doesn’t mean the were not, they just don’t know how to say it. Bibliography: GENETTE, G.
, Figures III, Paris: Seuil, 1972. GENETTE, G., Narrative Discourse: AnEssay in Method, trans. Jane Lewin, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. GENETTE, G.
, Nouveau discours durécit, Paris: Seuil, 1983. GENETTE, G., Narrative DiscourseRevisited, trans.
J. Lewin, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980. ANGELET, C.
and J. HERMAN,” Narratologie”, in M. Delcroix and F. Hallyn (dir.
), Introduction auxétudes littéraires, Paris: Duculot, 1987 (consulted but not cited). REUTER, Y., L’analyse du récit, Paris: Dunod, 1987 (consulted but not cited).
