Since its first publication in 1978, Roger Poole's The Unknown Virginia Woolf has achieved recognition as one of the classic studies of Woolf's life and work. Poole revised the conventional view of Woolf as 'mad' by treating her breakdown as socially intelligible. The theme of madness was reconceived in order to provide an intellectual biography that traced Woolf's fear and resentment to her childhood and adolescence. Poole uses the phenomenological concept of embodiment to address the concealed intentionality that lies behind apparently deviant behaviour. He shows how Woolf's challenge to accepted conventions of communication, in both her life and work, is an appeal for meaning. Long considered radical and iconoclastic, this book now occupies a central place in Woolf, gender, and modernist studies. This new edition includes a specially written preface evaluating recent developments in Woolf studies, literary theory and contemporary feminist criticism.
Very interesting take on Virginia's life, slighty opposing the biography of Mr. Bell and biographies by Leonard Woolf. Central theme revolves around the before mentioned men calling Virginia 'mad' or 'insane'. The Author provides reasons, supported by multitude of literature, of falsity of those claims, offering an overview of her condition through the years of her life.
My fascination with the life and circumstances of Virginia Woolf continues to haunt my subconscious thirst for knowledge. It is that fascination that led me once again to the 820-ish section of my local library, where I stumbled upon The Unknown Virginia Woolf by Roger Poole.
Like many Woolf biographers, Mr. Poole seeks to answer the fabled "was Virginia Woolf insane" question. However, he begins with a preconceived conception that insanity did not exist in the mind of Virginia Woolf, and sets out to prove this point by referencing Woolf's texts. I understand that this book was meant to be a biography and not a scientific research paper... but something rubbed me the wrong way about the author's determination to prove Virginia Woolf's sanity by referencing her work, as opposed to the other way around. Instead of beginning with the theory and hand-picking evidence to support it, shouldn't Mr. Poole rather emerge himself in the works of Woolf and draw conclusions from the evidence?
So while I enjoyed the concept of him applying the correlating periods of Virginia Woolf's life to her writings (example, the unconsummated engagement of The Voyage Out which parallels Virginia Woolf's inability to embrace her role as both wife and lover), the twisting and omission of multiple facts rendered the book a failure in my opinion.