Clarissa: A Peculiar Protagonist
Clarissa Dalloway is an interesting protagonist because she does not have many redeeming qualities and is not made to be completely loved by the readers. Although she is not made to be lovable, she does trigger compassion in the reader. Clarissa struggles to fit in with the social standard she is held to as an upper-class individual in England. Although Clarissa detests most upper-class culture, she finds herself identifying with some of the upper-class ways of life. For example, she obsesses over her dinner party, doing everything in her power to ensure it is a success. She also is very materialistic, which can be seen in her high concern of material things while walking the streets of London and peaking in shop windows. Perhaps pretending to fit in with the all of the social class elites has caused her to become part of what she despises. She triggers sympathy in the reader because she struggles internally and never acts on her complex thoughts that the reader is exposed to. After reading this novel, some readers might understand the concept of depression, and that it can affect anyone, no matter what social class they are. Clarissa is upper-class and lives a life of luxury, but through her memories to the past and deep struggle with her identity the reader can see that depression can affect anyone and that those feelings are valid.
Camille,
ReplyDeleteI myself find Clarissa to be a difficult character to sympathize with, at times, as well. Mostly, I find Clarissa's (or perhaps Virginia Woolf's) indifference and occasional contempt for naive and altruist characters to be a sign of lacking compassion, detachment, and cynicism. Clarissa has little to no affection for her daughter, Elisabeth, and although she considers buying Elisabeth things, she remembers her daughter's lacking interest in clothes and shopping with contempt, thinking instead of her daughter's dubious relationship with Ms. Kilman. Clarissa isn't concerned for her daughter, she dislikes her. Furthermore, Clarissa regards her husband's signs of affection, and the more egalitarian approach he has to marriage (considering the times), with similar apathy. She seems to relish her apathetic relationship with her own husband. (I'm thinking of her almost pity for Richard when he presents her with flowers). Now naturally, if Clarissa's feelings for Sally or Peter or even Hugh explained the wedge between herself and her life of domestic obedience and almost cruel apathy, perhaps it would be a different novel. But, Clarissa harbors no feelings for any of her past lovers. Instead, she is simply discontent, or at least distant from life itself. Ironically, Clarissa's somewhat depressed state and self-discontent never manifests into action or will; Clarissa simply endures under the burden of obedience she chose (due to its obvious comfort and utility as a well-off hostess).
Personally, I don't think I'd give up the freedom to do what I willed or the passion I had for my own course of life, or the love of another, for the comforts of Mrs. Dalloway. That is why she strikes me so strangely, for she recognizes the conflict present in her life, sees the possibility of radical solutions (loving Sally, killing herself like Septimus, simply being more adamant and strong) but forsakes her own desires nevertheless. Clarissa chooses to be the "perfect hostess" during a time, admittedly, where a woman who did not conform to such an archetype would be judged. Clarissa is complex and yet still hard to like.
Camille, (I wrote this comment already but I don't think it posted) I really enjoyed your interpretation and analysis of Clarissa. You touched every base in understanding the meaning of Clarissa's actions, past, or feelings. I agree with you that Clarissa was depressed and that this was apparent throughout various part of the novel. I think that Clarissa is a very complex character. I also think that some readers may find comfort in the fact the an upper-class member of society is also depressed or unhappy with their life even though they have it all.
ReplyDeleteCamille, I found your take on Clarissa Dalloway to be very thought-provoking, and while I agree with your analysis of her, I drew a different conclusion on how commonly characters of her mold are found throughout literature and media. While Mrs. Dalloway's subversion of typical character typecasts may have been peculiar and innovative when she wrote it (I'm unaware of whether it was or not as I haven't read too many books from the early 1900's), in the modern-day media environment more characters than ever are morally dubious and hard to root for. Creating a controversial and flawed character allows writers to add a complexity and level of depth previously unattainable via more character progression and the moral questions it will inevitably raise (bonus points if the villain can be considered "good"). Because material that is subversive and pushes new boundaries almost always becomes "mainstream" eventually, perhaps Mrs. Dalloway was influential enough to help change the way future writers view the specific roles each of their characters fit into.
ReplyDelete