Book Club 15 July @ 8 PM GMT: Virginia Woolf - Mrs. Dalloway

[Jason L.]

@ChandlerJules, who will be joining us (hurray, traction) found this about its relationship to James Joyce's masterpiece, Ulysses.

Woolf’s Reading of James Joyce’s Ulysses, 1918-1920 – Modernism Lab.

Welcome, Jules!

 

[LJ Beck]

Welcome to the book club shenanigans, @ChandlerJules !

 

[Hannah F]

Article: Virginia Wolf trigger warnings. (Not this book though).

MSN

 

[LJ Beck]

Interesting. I can see how these classics have the potential to offend. But if you don't want to be offended by past times, perhaps don't read the book? I mean by today's standards, this book is offensive to women, but that's just silly to put today's standards on a book like this. No? Instead I think it's interesting to see how much things have changed... thank the saints.

 

[Eva Ulian]

On this occasion I'd like to come along @Jason L. I read this when I was about your age now. Do I need to sign up somewhere?

 

[Peyton Stafford]

I agree about being offended.

Interesting. I can see how these classics have the potential to offend. But if you don't want to be offended by past times, perhaps don't read the book? I mean by today's standards, this book is offensive to women, but that's just silly to put today's standards on a book like this. No? Instead I think it's interesting to see how much things have changed... thank the saints.

That is like saying if you dislike reality and history, ignore it, remain ignorant, and vote Trump, Putin, or that UK wannabe, the one without a comb for his hair.

 

[LJ Beck]

I agree about being offended.

That is like saying if you dislike reality and history, ignore it, remain ignorant, and vote Trump, Putin, or that UK wannabe, the one without a comb for his hair.

Weeeelllll.... depends on if we're talking about being educated to reality and history to make informed choices in our lives, or being entertained by a book, no?

 

[KateESal]

that UK wannabe, the one without a comb for his hair.

Gosh, I wonder who you can possible mean?

 

[AgentPete]

I’m not wild about any form of book labelling. I started to dislike it years ago when age-related children’s labelling filtered over to the UK from the States. Part of the thrill, for me, as a kid, was discovering books that were way beyond my own reading level… I suspect they pulled me up.

But conversely, I can see that perhaps having a “dangerous book” label applied could tempt the transgressive reader, too. The thrill of the forbidden!

 

[Hannah F]

Sales of Edna O'Brien's The Country Girls hugely increased in Ireland after the priests started denouncing it, even though it could only be bought from under the shelf/the back of a lorry (no Amazon etc. in those days) as it was banned from bookshops.

Those days are gone. Ireland now embrace their literary treasure.

 

[Rich.]

@Jason L., could I come along to Saturday's club?

 

[Jason L.]

@Jason L., could I come along to Saturday's club?

Of course!!!!

 

[Pamela Jo]

I’m not wild about any form of book labelling. I started to dislike it years ago when age-related children’s labelling filtered over to the UK from the States. Part of the thrill, for me, as a kid, was discovering books that were way beyond my own reading level… I suspect they pulled me up.

But conversely, I can see that perhaps having a “dangerous book” label applied could tempt the transgressive reader, too. The thrill of the forbidden!

Just discovered Dianna Wynn Jones through a tribute from Neil Gaiman. I had never heard of her before but she wrote the novel that the Japanese anime film, Howls Moving Castle, was based on. Gaiman speculates that she never reached the stardom of Rowling because her books were demanding. Tho published as children's books they were not dumbed down. Any writer Gaiman calls the greatest fantasy writer of the age is someone I am now desperate to read.

 

[Hannah F]

Just discovered Dianna Wynn Jones through a tribute from Neil Gaiman. I had never heard of her before but she wrote the novel that the Japanese anime film, Howls Moving Castle, was based on. Gaiman speculates that she never reached the stardom of Rowling because her books were demanding. Tho published as children's books they were not dumbed down. Any writer Gaiman calls the greatest fantasy writer of the age is someone I am now desperate to read.

Lots of agents say they are looking for the next Diana Wynne Jones. Her books are mainly for the MG age range.

 

[Peyton Stafford]

@Jason L. asked me to put together discussion questions for Mrs. D, since the book was my choice. I found this list, taken from a Houghton Mifflin Harcourt edition. It should do. Certainly, better than anything I could think up.

Discussion Questions - Page 4 - Page #1

Our Reading Guide for Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf includes a Book Club Discussion Guide, Book Review, Plot Summary-Synopsis and Author Bio. - Page #1

www.litlovers.com

Looking forward to spending time with all of you, tomorrow.

 

[CarolMS]

I agree about being offended.

That is like saying if you dislike reality and history, ignore it, remain ignorant, and vote Trump, Putin, or that UK wannabe, the one without a comb for his hair.

Right. And sadly, there's a lot of this affliction going around these days. Maybe always has been, but social media and FOX and friends make it louder than ever before.

 

[CarolMS]

@Jason L. asked me to put together discussion questions for Mrs. D, since the book was my choice. I found this list, taken from a Houghton Mifflin Harcourt edition. It should do. Certainly, better than anything I could think up.

Discussion Questions - Page 4 - Page #1

Our Reading Guide for Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf includes a Book Club Discussion Guide, Book Review, Plot Summary-Synopsis and Author Bio. - Page #1

www.litlovers.com

Looking forward to spending time with all of you, tomorrow.

Thanks, @Peyton Stafford!

 

[Peyton Stafford]

Right. And sadly, there's a lot of this affliction going around these days. Maybe always has been, but social media and FOX and friends make it louder than ever before.

I am curious how you, as a psychotherapist, see this.

 

[CarolMS]

I think I started chatting before I said I want to come tomorrow. I do, I do! I may not yet have finished reading Mrs. Dalloway but I'm eager to be with you all for tomorrow's discussion.

 

[CarolMS]

I am curious how you, as a psychotherapist, see this.

I think it has to do with fear on multiple levels, and also a need to belong and feel validated.

There are the commonly seen fears that have been learned from people's family and cultural influences and which are most often perceived (misperceived) threats from people who appear different (race, religion, politics, sexuality, etc). And there are deeper, unconscious fears that I believe are derived from an individual's need for a core sense of security, what in psychology is called "basic trust." This ability to trust, to greater or lesser degrees, is derived from the quality of a child's experience with the world (especially parents or other caregivers, but also critical medical or cultural circumstances, etc) and is formed in the first two years of life. Further life experiences and gained knowledge over time are important, too, but the sense of basic trust we establish early on remains at the root of our personalities even as adults. Then other childhood and adult experiences wreck havoc with our self-esteem, and if we already have a rather wobbly sense of self--particularly if we're not well educated or perhaps of lower intelligence--it becomes easy to be threatened by what is different, the unknown, what we don't easily understand. Then if our views are rejected or belittled, we feel even more threatened and unstable, as well as embarrassment or shame, and so seek to be a part of a community that will agree with us, make us feel valued and smart. It's a distorted reality, even delusional, but, for those deeply insecure, it makes sense they'd want to live in such a world rather than struggle with a daily menu of shame, fear and confusion in the face of so much that is hard to understand or full of unknowns. That's my take on it anyway. Hope I've made some sense.

 

[CarolMS]

Interesting. I can see how these classics have the potential to offend. But if you don't want to be offended by past times, perhaps don't read the book? I mean by today's standards, this book is offensive to women, but that's just silly to put today's standards on a book like this. No? Instead I think it's interesting to see how much things have changed... thank the saints.

Absolutely, right! "Silly" is an understatement. I think it's important that we understand the differences between 'then' and 'now', that we gain perspective which helps us look at today with more clarity and move forward more constructively. To me, that's a role that literature always has and should play in our lives, and I wish more people understood how much they can benefit from it. Without such perspective, people make the naive and frankly stupid assumptions which lead to the supposed "offense" they're attacking such novels for.

And it's certainly not just the classics or most controversial of novels that seem to generate such responses. I don't know if it's some distorted application of "political correctness" or just plain ignorance, but the cries of offense seem to be across the board. And speaking of things being offensive, some of the attitudes some people's feedback comes couched in can fit that description as well. As one who is writing a novel that takes place in the 1960s, I can tell you that such feedback can be annoying, to say the least, especially because I feel the difference between then and now is an important means by which I'm conveying aspects of the overarching theme of my story. I intend for my readers to learn from it.

 

[Jason L.]

I think it has to do with fear on multiple levels, and also a need to belong and feel validated.

There are the commonly seen fears that have been learned from people's family and cultural influences and which are most often perceived (misperceived) threats from people who appear different (race, religion, politics, sexuality, etc). And there are deeper, unconscious fears that I believe are derived from an individual's need for a core sense of security, what in psychology is called "basic trust." This ability to trust, to greater or lesser degrees, is derived from the quality of a child's experience with the world (especially parents or other caregivers, but also critical medical or cultural circumstances, etc) and is formed in the first two years of life. Further life experiences and gained knowledge over time are important, too, but the sense of basic trust we establish early on remains at the root of our personalities even as adults. Then other childhood and adult experiences wreck havoc with our self-esteem, and if we already have a rather wobbly sense of self--particularly if we're not well educated or perhaps of lower intelligence--it becomes easy to be threatened by what is different, the unknown, what we don't easily understand. Then if our views are rejected or belittled, we feel even more threatened and unstable, as well as embarrassment or shame, and so seek to be a part of a community that will agree with us, make us feel valued and smart. It's a distorted reality, even delusional, but, for those deeply insecure, it makes sense they'd want to live in such a world rather than struggle with a daily menu of shame, fear and confusion in the face of so much that is hard to understand or full of unknowns. That's my take on it anyway. Hope I've made some sense.

I think that a sense of victimhood makes people more vulnerable to manipulation. And, to be fair, I have been seeing this on both sides. I will quote something I read earlier:

“The combination of the digital age constantly exposing us to new outrages and cultural elites constantly creating new outrages out of nothing has skyrocketed the number of outrages we now face.In a world prickling with provocations, we cannot let our sensitivities roam free. If we allow ourselves to be goaded by every visible indignation, we'll be endlessly distracted from our goals, and easily controlled by emotional manipulators like trolls, disinformation agents, and demagogues.I block the easily outraged because they’re the foot-soldiers of the mob, who in the old days would’ve lynched people over neighbourhood rumours.Those without self-control are soon controlled by others; they’re the useful idiots of ideologues, the tools of tyranny.” @G_S_Bhogal

Right now the conversation on this thread is mostly about how awful the rightists are, but to be honest, I've found many on the left just as terrible. I've watched people and ideas I admire descend into name-calling and indignant snits when confronted by questions that they need to work out, and I've seen people I admired (past tense) lean back on lazy and faulty reasoning: "This is happening because YOU ARE RACIST" rather than "Actually, this is happening because of the complex economic processes that you had nothing to do with shaping, which has created endemic poverty that affect people of every color for this reason, but we pity certain groups more than others, and we are designing half-baked ideas that will do nothing but make us feel a little bit better (so long as we ignore the harm we are doing to the people we decided deserve to be poor and miserable)." I remember watching a BBC interview with a climate change activist in the UK who was insisting the country needed vast environmental agendas that would have caused a great deal of deindustrialization, and when the presenter asked her how much the UK contributed to global carbon emissions (2%) rather than respond with a well-balanced answer about why that 2% matters on the local level (something like "Let's talk about that: yes, we only produce 2% globally. But let's look at the air quality in X place and it's knock-on effect for the NHS. When we look at the cancer rates in London and Manchester we are seeing that these carbon emissions, which are often mixed in with other dangerous pollutants and heavy metals, are posing local health risks. In addition, while we might be only contributing 2% to the overall global number, it's largely because we've offshored our demand for certain products which are made in Indonesia or China with inefficient and wasteful technologies. Therefore, to have a meaningful impact upon climate change, we can either start to reshore those factories to the UK on the proviso that they are made more sustainable, or exert pressure on UK companies to force their suppliers in Asia to modernize." Like, that would have had me respecting her) she snapped "Grow up! Grow up!" repeatedly. And she got even more unhinged.

Even I, who support environmental research, gay rights, labor unions, and universal health care, find that many people on the left are capitalizing on rage and vitriol. Their scorn for others is deeply unsettling. I believe that people should be treated with respect. Even if I disagree with them. Period. There are plenty of people I find appalling on the right and left, and, to be honest, academia is filled with absolutely toxic and intolerant leftists who have been emboldened to ridicule and mock conservatives. This is something that I absolutely will not do. And for the record, yes, I am old enough to remember the days when the Conservatives were in the same position of faux moral superiority, and sneered openly. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

Yes, there is fear. There is also a Puritanical mentality of scarcity tat has become especially resonant. Puritans of 18th century Boston were especially vulnerable to radicalization in a way that the Quakers of Philadelphia were not, simply because of their religious practices. Puritans went to churches wherein they were told by their pastors that there is scarcity. Of God's love. Of places in Heaven. Of land. Of freedom. With the Devil knocking at the gates of every home, it programs these people to tap into that existential fear and interpret everything that they disagree with as a threat to everything they hold dear. This mentality of scarcity, of lack, is showing up on both sides, and motivating the "foot soldiers" to conceive the world in binary and reductive terms: either you are pro-economic growth or pro-environment. Pro-gun or pro-abortion rights. None of these are helpful dichotomies.

In this debate, "centrism" seems to have become a means of deriding people who "caved" to one side or the other, so I don't call myself that. I am an independent who truly believes that neither side has an agenda that has my best interests at heart. And for the record, Peyton, I could not bring myself to vote for Mr. Biden, nor will I vote for him in the future. Mine was a protest vote: the candidates whom I really loved had already been eliminated by fiat, and I will continue to protest an establishment that forces me to choose between two people who are fundamentally unfit for the office on the basis that "so and so is the lesser of two evils."

Sincerely,
Jason Locke,
The Indignant Independent

 

[Jason L.]

Here is the link for today's meeting!

Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting

Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board...

kirtland.zoom.us

I look forward to seeing you there!

 

[Pamela Jo]

I think that a sense of victimhood makes people more vulnerable to manipulation. And, to be fair, I have been seeing this on both sides. I will quote something I read earlier:

“The combination of the digital age constantly exposing us to new outrages and cultural elites constantly creating new outrages out of nothing has skyrocketed the number of outrages we now face.In a world prickling with provocations, we cannot let our sensitivities roam free. If we allow ourselves to be goaded by every visible indignation, we'll be endlessly distracted from our goals, and easily controlled by emotional manipulators like trolls, disinformation agents, and demagogues.I block the easily outraged because they’re the foot-soldiers of the mob, who in the old days would’ve lynched people over neighbourhood rumours.Those without self-control are soon controlled by others; they’re the useful idiots of ideologues, the tools of tyranny.” @G_S_Bhogal

Right now the conversation on this thread is mostly about how awful the rightists are, but to be honest, I've found many on the left just as terrible. I've watched people and ideas I admire descend into name-calling and indignant snits when confronted by questions that they need to work out, and I've seen people I admired (past tense) lean back on lazy and faulty reasoning: "This is happening because YOU ARE RACIST" rather than "Actually, this is happening because of the complex economic processes that you had nothing to do with shaping, which has created endemic poverty that affect people of every color for this reason, but we pity certain groups more than others, and we are designing half-baked ideas that will do nothing but make us feel a little bit better (so long as we ignore the harm we are doing to the people we decided deserve to be poor and miserable)." I remember watching a BBC interview with a climate change activist in the UK who was insisting the country needed vast environmental agendas that would have caused a great deal of deindustrialization, and when the presenter asked her how much the UK contributed to global carbon emissions (2%) rather than respond with a well-balanced answer about why that 2% matters on the local level (something like "Let's talk about that: yes, we only produce 2% globally. But let's look at the air quality in X place and it's knock-on effect for the NHS. When we look at the cancer rates in London and Manchester we are seeing that these carbon emissions, which are often mixed in with other dangerous pollutants and heavy metals, are posing local health risks. In addition, while we might be only contributing 2% to the overall global number, it's largely because we've offshored our demand for certain products which are made in Indonesia or China with inefficient and wasteful technologies. Therefore, to have a meaningful impact upon climate change, we can either start to reshore those factories to the UK on the proviso that they are made more sustainable, or exert pressure on UK companies to force their suppliers in Asia to modernize." Like, that would have had me respecting her) she snapped "Grow up! Grow up!" repeatedly. And she got even more unhinged.

Even I, who support environmental research, gay rights, labor unions, and universal health care, find that many people on the left are capitalizing on rage and vitriol. Their scorn for others is deeply unsettling. I believe that people should be treated with respect. Even if I disagree with them. Period. There are plenty of people I find appalling on the right and left, and, to be honest, academia is filled with absolutely toxic and intolerant leftists who have been emboldened to ridicule and mock conservatives. This is something that I absolutely will not do. And for the record, yes, I am old enough to remember the days when the Conservatives were in the same position of faux moral superiority, and sneered openly. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now.

Yes, there is fear. There is also a Puritanical mentality of scarcity tat has become especially resonant. Puritans of 18th century Boston were especially vulnerable to radicalization in a way that the Quakers of Philadelphia were not, simply because of their religious practices. Puritans went to churches wherein they were told by their pastors that there is scarcity. Of God's love. Of places in Heaven. Of land. Of freedom. With the Devil knocking at the gates of every home, it programs these people to tap into that existential fear and interpret everything that they disagree with as a threat to everything they hold dear. This mentality of scarcity, of lack, is showing up on both sides, and motivating the "foot soldiers" to conceive the world in binary and reductive terms: either you are pro-economic growth or pro-environment. Pro-gun or pro-abortion rights. None of these are helpful dichotomies.

In this debate, "centrism" seems to have become a means of deriding people who "caved" to one side or the other, so I don't call myself that. I am an independent who truly believes that neither side has an agenda that has my best interests at heart. And for the record, Peyton, I could not bring myself to vote for Mr. Biden, nor will I vote for him in the future. Mine was a protest vote: the candidates whom I really loved had already been eliminated by fiat, and I will continue to protest an establishment that forces me to choose between two people who are fundamentally unfit for the office on the basis that "so and so is the lesser of two evils."

Sincerely,
Jason Locke,
The Indignant Independent

There are 2 kinds of people in the world. Those who divide people into 2 kinds and those who dont. Stolen from someone, somewhere.

 

[Rich.]

15 July @ 8 PM GMT

GMT or British Summer Time? I'm guessing BST, but I' thought I'd check to make sure I'm not going to connect an hour early!

 

[Jason L.]

GMT or British Summer Time? I'm guessing BST, but I' thought I'd check to make sure I'm not going to connect an hour early!

I am on EST so... now?

 

[Jason L.]

@Eva Ulian Are you coming? Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting

 

[Eva Ulian]

I would if I could but I am not able- where's the flipping link?

 

[Jason L.]

@ChandlerJules You okay?

 

[Jason L.]

Join our Cloud HD Video Meeting

Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board...

kirtland.zoom.us