So we know this novel revolves around six characters
and their inner-monologues; Bernard, Susan, Rhoda, Louis, Neville, Jinny, and
Percival. Wait, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7…
It seems weird that Percival is such a big deal. He’s
pretty much the focus of the last half of the section that we read for
tomorrow, yet he is severely restricted: he doesn’t get a voice, and all we
hear about him are the feelings of the other characters towards him
(particularly Neville, if you know what I mean). And it seems like he gets put
on a pedestal by the six actual characters,
who constantly insult each other or insult themselves by comparing themselves
to the outstanding qualities they each have. But they don’t insult, or even compare
themselves to Percival. They do talk about how great he is, but not in
comparison. In the words of Bernard, Percy (I nicknamed him because I can) is “what
indeed his is – a God” (98).
Considering that we read all about Woolf’s deepest
feelings about character development in Character
in Fiction, it seems weird that we have this sort of half character thrown
in here. Not that Percy is at all “poorly” developed in the Edwardian sense (Woolf describes them as “... never interested in character in itself” (44)), he
just seems almost unnecessary. What does he bring to the table up to this point
in the novel? He’s already gone – but why was he there?
Good questions! (But the bad characters, for Woolf, are Edwardian ones, not Georgians.)
ReplyDeleteCrap. I just realized I was quoting Woolf who was quoting Mr. Bennett. But now it's fixed!
ReplyDelete