1922 was a good time to be a person who read books written in English. Ulysses and The Waste Land both appeared that year, though you might have had trouble getting your hands on the former because it was banned in various places for obscenity. However, if you wanted cutting edge fiction but couldn’t get your hands on Joyce’s work, then luckily there was another great writer ready and waiting. Virginia Woolf is a wonderful writer, and every time I have returned to her I am grateful for it. My wanderings within the pages of the first of her “experimental” novels, 1922’s Jacob’s Room, was no different. This is a novel about a man where his role as plot actor is very much secondary, his voice muffled. It’s a Bildungsroman with very little Bildung. Most of all, though, it’s a frolic, a joyous exploration of what literature and language can do.
But also, however, what they cannot. Jacob’s Room concerns the short life of a young man in Edwardian England, Jacob Flanders, yet from the title alone there’s already a hint of a problem – for the title refers to his lodgings, and not to the man himself. This problem is what makes the work so fascinating – I interpret Jacob’s Room as a work that’s both determined to shake off old ideas of characterisation and literary creation, while at the same time trying to defend itself against the kind of total narrative collapse that rejecting old forms entirely might lead to or imply. It’s this strange mix of past and future, a kind of conservative modernism, that makes the work so fascinating. Compared to Ulysses, it’s really a kind of anxious battleground about what the future of literature might look like – and what it should not.
Out With The Old
Somewhere or other I remember reading that literary modernism began with a growing scepticism of the idea of character. Perhaps the best way to explain how this works is by reference to a work by one of my favourite German writers of the 19th century, Theodore Fontane, No Way Back. In that novel, our main character, Count Holk, has an affair while away from his wife. His letters home, naturally, reveal none of this. But we, readers, know the truth. And eventually his wife finds out too. Fontane uses letters as a way of exploring the communication difficulties two people can have, all the while Holk’s character remains known to us and his wife’s remains knowable too – that Holk ultimately does not understand her, leading to the novel’s tragedy, is a fault of his character, not a statement about character in general.
Letters and other writings dot the pages of Jacob’s Room as well, and as with No Way Back they are places for concealment more than communication. Jacob writes home, revealing nothing of his loves or his thoughts. His mother is delighted, “he seems to be having… a very gay time.” But what separates the treatment of writing in both works is that in Jacob’s Room there comes no revelation of the truth, no contradiction to the apparent world of the letter. The final scene sees his mother and Bonamy, the man who loved him, standing in Jacob’s empty room with “all his letters strewn about for anyone to read.” The dispersal of the letters indicates a similar dispersal of character. Who is Jacob? One person to his mother, another to Bonamy. Putting all the letters together, or the two people talking, would only be to court chaos. It’s not that character is changeable; rather, that there may be nothing solid about it all.
Other letters and writings are similarly undermined. Those of well-bred Clara are “those of a child”, and even when she writes in her diary, there’s nothing more there than air – she writes “how the weather was fine, the children demons, and Jacob Flanders unworldly.” There’s a sense that even when characters in Jacob’s Room try to express themselves, they cannot. We readers only have what we can see of them, hear of them, and that is rarely enough. “It is no use trying to sum people up. One must follow hints, not exactly what is said, not yet entirely what is done.” This phrase is repeated, word for word, twice in Jacob’s Room. What pessimism, really, lies in it – “hints,” “not exactly,” “not yet entirely”. If character is so diffuse that this is how we trap it, then clearly what we can trap will be far from the real thing.
Elsewhere that pessimism is more clear, as we can see from this description of men on a bus: “Each had his past shut in him like the leaves of a book known to him by heart; and his friends could only read the title, James Spalding, or Charles Budgeon, and the passengers going the opposite way could read nothing at all–save “a man with a red moustache,” “a young man in grey smoking a pipe.”” Traditionally, by focusing on individuals, we might get a past. This does not work here. Jacob’s father has a grave that may not be his, while the scenes of Jacob’s childhood are mere flashes of impressions with as much attention on the other characters and their thoughts as on Jacob himself.
Finally, we might hope that impersonal forces would provide a key to character. Instetten, in Fontane’s Effi Briest, decries this “society-thing” that forces him to kill a man he does not hate because of an idea of honour he is powerless to reject. What are the forces in Jacob’s Room?“The incessant commerce of banks, laboratories, chancelleries, and houses of business”, “the men in clubs and Cabinets”. Woolf explicitly names this “unseizable force” that drives men to their deaths. But whether the forces of her novel match those of, for example, Fontane’s, is another matter.
On the one hand, Jacob is shaped into seeming conventionality by a usual society – the artistically-inclined former graduates of Cambridge and Oxford. He stands for the Greeks (despite knowing the language poorly) and for Shakespeare, neither a particularly radical opinion. He has other views, such as his ideas of women, that are still more clearly conditioned by society. However, though ultimately his society does kill him – for the Great War is coming – it seems fair to say that Woolf suggests we cannot just turn to impersonal forces to describe character either. Since Jacob is hard to fix down to begin with, he is too uncertain to be moulded by external forces.
All this is to say that the novel looks to the sources of character from fiction of previous centuries – what is revealed in letters, or the forces of an impersonal society, and says these are not adequate. Even dialogue itself is typically disconnected, disjointed words floating on the page, with Jacob rarely speaking. The old ways do not work, but how does Woolf innovate and experiment to build an alternative idea of character – and what are the limits?
In With The New
If I try to think of how this novel works, what makes it modern in its depiction of character, the answer is simple – the fragmentary flashes of prose that make up the bulk of the text. Jacob’s Room is told in snatches, sometimes only a single short paragraph long. It is true that every biography is broken into events and key moments, for lives are long. But in Jacob’s Room the moments chosen are less obviously important, even when contextualised. We might read symbolic importance into them, such as by analysing the significance of the sheep’s skull he finds on the beach as a child or the image of the moth, but it’s not necessarily the case that any of the characters joins us in such narrativizing work.
All memory is fragmentary. When I try to think back to yesterday, an ordinary day, there’s scant solidity to it. I recall a few images, the food I cooked for dinner, but little more. Woolf enjoys noting vibrant colours, and drifting between her characters’ consciousnesses, as if they are already looking back from some moment a little ahead. This gives the text a kind of blurred feeling. Even its characters seem themselves a little like names on whirling sticks, because none is quite embodied, pinned down and described like a beetle in the previous century would be. Really, like certain paintings, while we may appreciate the texture of Woolf’s prose up close, it’s only when we retreat a little that we see the overall effect – the mood, the shifting shapes settling into scenes.
Such fragmentation puts action into the background and overall reflects that pessimism about getting to the heart of character which I mentioned earlier. Solidity, perhaps, comes from the novel’s interest in architecture and buildings, which, suggested by its very title provides the clearest example of this. Yet Jacob’s own room, when we first encounter it at Cambridge, gives no clue to his personality. “Jacob’s room had a round table and two low chairs.” For the first mention of the title, its lack of force is its force. He has books and the detritus recognisable to anyone who has gone to Oxbridge – “a photograph of his mother; cards from societies with little raised crescents, coats of arms, and initials.” A piece of writing in his own hand is titled “Does History consist of the Biographies of Great Men?” – a normal assignment then, as if to highlight that Jacob is really only an average Edwardian, nothing special.
We often think of Woolf as a writer of the inner world, someone who lived in the marginal thoughts of men and women. Jacob’s Room certainly shows her moving between her characters, but of them, Jacob is probably the one inhabited least. When we hear a voice, like his room it almost seems to tell us we were fools for expecting anything more of him – “I’m twenty-two. It’s nearly the end of October. Life is thoroughly pleasant, although unfortunately there are a great number of fools about. One must apply oneself to something or other–God knows what. Everything is really very jolly–except getting up in the morning and wearing a tail coat.” Here is the gentle delusion of superiority of the untested, but does this show Jacob to be any different to a hundred thousand other young men? Certainly not.
At the beginning I mentioned a kind of anxiety to the prose. Woolf read avidly among her modernist contemporaries such as Katherine Mansfield and knew through Eliot what Joyce was up to with Ulysses, so she had a keen awareness of the options for advancing prose which were being worked upon by others. One thing I found curious was that in her revisions of the novel Woolf primarily worked to reduce instances of interiority. It was as if, while retreating from the scenes and structures of 19th century fiction – the genealogies and letters, the carefully orchestrated scenes and overheard gossip – she did not want to commit wholly to something from the 20th century, that totally absorbing, egotistical monologic stream of consciousness of the sort we read from Molly Bloom at the end of Ulysses. Something that is both extraordinary, yet at the same time a kind of dead end, for it denies the soul of every other living being.
All this is to say that it’s as if Woolf were experimenting here with trying to find a third way of characterisation, neither the pure continuous interiority of the stream of consciousness, nor the lifeless puppetry of the realist novel. A characterisation through fragments, through assembling snatched moments of life, and of consciousness, into a kind of whole. Except, if that is the goal, it is a failure. I have no idea who Jacob is, and I am not sure that any truth on that score really lurks within the novel. We may have escaped the madness of stream of consciousness and run out onto the street, but now cars are hurtling past us, and all is disorientation.
Yet if the goal is not to create a character, but to paint a world, to load readers with the impressions and thoughts of a society, then by contrast Jacob’s Room is a great success. We learn as much about Jacob in five pages as we do in fifty – giving us more is only like putting another thin sheet of coloured glass upon a heap, and indeed the effect of colouring is diminished as more and more is added. The first sheet is when things are most striking. So it is that in a single one of Woolf’s fragments she has more than enough opportunity to create her effects.
The one that sticks in my mind comes from early on, a tiny story of four pages, in which Jacob’s mother receives a letter from his tutor proposing marriage, considers it, and decides to remain independent. In this section Woolf’s total technical mastery is evident. Mrs Flanders receives the letter and, expecting nothing but remarks related to her son’s work, reads it while continuing her own business. Thus do we see her, divided: ““Yes, enough for fish-cakes tomorrow certainly – Perhaps Captain Barfoot—” she had come to the word “love.”” A few sentences on she rages at her children, not truly out of anger towards them, but because she is angry at the letter and cannot control it. This is all wonderful, delicate writing. Her emotions, a world of them, are covered in a few pages. Completeness stretches even to time – we get a little epilogue, in which some years later Mr Floyd sees Jacob by chance in London, but thinks he “had grown such a fine young man that Mr Floyd did not like to stop him in the street.”
What I am trying to say, perhaps, is that Woolf comes up against the limits of biography within this approach. She can create characters through her experimentation, certainly. But with her reluctance to travel too deep and stay too long inside their heads, as she does in her later novels, that characterisation can only go so far. That is why Jacob remains a blur, while those other characters, whose internal worlds are clearer to us, are themselves are much clearer – Mrs Dalloway or Mrs Ramsay, for example. Overall, Jacob’s Room is a book of wonderful prose, challenging forms, and experiments which remain relevant to writing even today. I did not love it as I do To the Lighthouse, but that is no matter. Woolf was such a prolific writer – of letters and diaries as well as her novels – that as readers we get a view of nearly-unmatched privilege compared to other writers. We see not just the brilliance of her experiments when they succeed, but also the many false-starts and sites of practice she needed to prepare for them. That, for anyone interested in the craft of fiction, will never not be exciting.