Who Was Virginia Woolf? A Look at Two Biographies

The intriguing yet perplexing life of Virginia Woolf has been so analyzed and deciphered that there are multiple biographies in circulation today.  Each miraculously manages to contrast another, branching away from one interpretation of the facts, and hindering the existence of a common consensus as to what truly was in Virginia’s life.  As the nephew and first biographer of Virginia Woolf, Quentin Bell managed to become a catalyst to the world’s interest in Virginia Woolf with his biography, Virginia Woolf: A Biography.  Providing the opposite pole in the pursuit to define Virginia’s past, Roger Poole presented his biography, The Unknown Virginia Woolf.  Whereas both works were intended to further enlighten the world’s understanding of Virginia Woolf, they in turn succeed in complicating what is to be understood.

Part of why Bell and Poole came about to their separate and different conclusions lies in their method of analysis.  Bell’s reliance on Leonard Woolf’s journal to portray Virginia’s state is complemented and reinforced by many letters which friends, family, and even Virginia herself wrote during the time period of 1912-1915.  Poole, on the other hand believed that in order to understand Virginia he would have to understand “what Virginia herself thought, felt, or meant.”  Therefore, Poole analyzed Virginia’s novels to further “understand her own subjectivity.”  Unfortunately in both instances this forced each biographer in a position to piece together truth out of opinionated documents.

In perhaps one of the most contrasting parts of the two biographies, Poole is critical of Leonard’s alarming reaction to take “the initiative in going to consult psychiatrists … without telling [Virginia].”   Poole emphasizes that “Leonard was the last person to be able to understand or to help, since he was himself a major element in the problem.”  On the contrary, Bell exonerates Leonard for his effort and endurance by stating that “[Leonard] does not pause in order to indulge in self-pity.”  He later continues to praise Leonard by saying that “[He] had undertaken the care of a woman who had twice been mad and had once attempted suicide without…any serious and wholly inequivocal warning of what he was letting himself in for.”

The two biographers also slightly differ in their opinions of the effects that George Duckworth had had on Virginia.  Whereas Poole postulates that part of Virginia’s strain and “collapse … must have been caused by sexual molestation by George Duckworth,” Bell wonders if “perhaps [George] did no more than … confirm Virginia in her disposition to shrink from the crudities of sex.”  In this instance, Bell downplays his earlier acknowledgement that “George certainly had left Virginia with a deep aversion to lust.”  Through George Duckworth it is possible to see that both biographers recognize that some cognitive effects were suffered because of George’s relationship with Virginia in her past.

In arguing what the main cause behind Virginia’s 1913 breakdown which strengthened her “illness,” both Bell and Poole once more find different causes as to what the reason may be.  Poole argues that the pressures of the marriage had a critical effect upon Virginia as he states that there is “the striking fact that all this takes place almost immediately after the marriage and the honeymoon.”  Belle on the other hand takes a less criticizing stand by suggesting that the upcoming release of Virginia’s new book let her “anxiety for its fate [to become] acute.”  This in turned started a chain effect which would lead to her collapse.  In this case, they each recognize that some sort of critical event played a crucial role in changing Virginia’s overt behavior.

Yet in writing their biographies on Virginia Woolf, Bell and Poole maintain distinct attitudes towards their writing’s goal.  Poole, to some extent, lashes out and blames personal ties such as Leonard, George, and even Virginia’s marriage as the reasons to her problems.  This could be parallel with Virginia’s own opinions as seen in a letter written in which a friend, June Vanessa, reported that Virginia “[wouldn’t] see Leonard at all & has taken against all men.”  If so is the case, it may have been due to the idea that Poole could slowly had become less open-minded when he analyzed Virginia’s work.  Bell, on the other hand, tried to maintain a more positive stance throughout his biography of Virginia.  His attitude toward Leonard was most praiseworthy, and was cautiously restrictive against George Duckworth.  Bell even tried to invoke a sense of empathy in his argument of book release anxiety by saying that, “almost anyone who has attempted to create a work of art will have an inkling of what she then felt.”  What this does in itself is to prevent any means of alienation between the reader and Virginia regarding the event.  With all the deep contrast in mind between the two biographers, it is difficult to imagine if it’s even possible to ever truly understand Virginia Woolf’s life.