In John Kunat’s article “The Function of Augustus Carmichael in Virginia Woolf’s To The Lighthouse,” he investigates Carmichael’s structural role in the story. It appears that Carmichael acts as a catalyst as he precipitates Mrs. Ramsay’s “moment of transcendence” and Lily’s vision at the end of the novel (48). The reader is first introduced to Mr. Carmichael through the eyes of Mrs. Ramsay who seeks his friendship, adoration, consideration, anything; but he refuses to give it to her. She asks him if he wants anything on her way into town, and he replies that he wants nothing. The phrase is repeated at the end of the same paragraph. Kunat insists that in repeating this line Woolf multiplies rather than limits the interpretative possibilities of Mr. Carmichael murmuring the words “No, nothing” (49). Kunat continues to dissect the relationship (or non-existent relationship) with Mrs. Ramsay. She relates to Tansley about Carmichael's failed marriage, and Mrs. Ramsay posits that it is this reason as to why Carmichael is not a successful writer intimating that that is why Mr. Ramsay is so successful because of his supportive wife, namely her. Kunat continues to explain that Mrs. Ramsay claims that worries of money also ruined Carmichael’s chances. And doesn’t Mrs. Ramsay withhold the information about the repair cost of the greenhouse from Mr. Ramsay? Carmichael upsets Mrs. Ramsay’s equilibrium because he “represents a threat to or an implied criticism of her world” (50). In discussing Carmichael’s failed marriage, Mrs. Ramsay reflects that Mr. Ramsay’s last book was not as successful; therefore, Carmichael forces her to question her uncertainty. Kunat relates that in the dinner scene, Carmichael assists Mrs. Ramsay into a moment of transcendence. They both ponder the arrangement of fruit, and she believes that this shared moment that “the arrangement of fruit becomes a moment of order within the flux of sensation and experience” (54). She finally accepts Carmichael’s indifference to her world.
Next he deciphers Augustus Carmichael’s effect on Lily’s “vision” at the end of the novel. Kunat believes that Lily’s painting is trying to capture moments: the moments that Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay united in love, the moment Mr. Ramsay leaps onto the island and becomes a young man again, and the moment when Mrs. Ramsay is knitting at the window. In her painting Mrs. Ramsay is the triangular mass, but Kunat doesn’t explain what part of the painting he believes Mr. Ramsay to be; however, the line that Lily draws a line in the center of the painting is supposed to connect the Ramsays. Kunat feels that “the tension that is created throughout the novel by the Ramsays’ relationship is finally resolved” by drawing that line and finishing the painting (58). Lily has also resolved her fascination with Mrs. Ramsay by creating this work of art, just like Virginia Woolf did in writing this story.
In summation, I can follow Kunat’s argument about Carmichael’s effect on Mrs. Ramsay, but I don’t feel that he quite supported his case with his second argument; therefore, I do find the article to be worthwhile. I suppose a second reading of To the Lighthouse might be beneficial for me to understand his reasoning with the painting capturing these special moments.
Work Cited:
Kunat, John. “The Function of Augustus Carmichael in Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse.” Xanadu, 13 (1990) 48-59. PDF from Illiad.
No comments:
Post a Comment