Chapter+1-2+digression

The first two chapters have a great deal of jumping around in time. At one moment, Jacob is young, the next, he's off to Cambridge. Woolf, much to my chagrin, has no concern for linear time. But I think I know why she does this. She does this to show us what the future for characters will be like, and thus aid in their interpretation. Furthermore, Woolf has a habit from jumping from setting to setting. Her intention is to show what all these characters are doing at a given moment, but what I do not like is that there is never a phrase like "meanwhile," which would make my ride through this work smoother. The effect is similar to that of a movie shifting scenes, but guess what? IT DOESN'T WORK IN A BOOK. All it does is make the novel about as lyrical as a broken record, contrary to the back cover's words. Finally, this book is about Jacob (yes, br. tom, I am aware of the title. But the back of the book clearly indicates that this book is about Jacob). My question to you is this: "why does woolf begin the novel by focusing most on Jacob's mother, who is not the protagonist?" My answer is that she wants to show Jacob's background, but please add your own suggestions. JHe ... **Remember yr tildes.**user:brtom

Even ignoring the title of the book, how can you tell that the book is "about Jacob"? What do the book cover blurbers know that we don't? The function of book cover blurbs is to entice a poteential customer to buy the book. Why should we trust them? Don't we have to rely on the book alone, the words VW actually wrote. Does Woolf say at any point that this is a book about Jacob? Maybe it's not. I'm not saying it absolutely isn't, but you seem to have let the book cover determine the main lines of your interpretation. How do we know that Betty Flanders is not the protagonist?1200024451

I think that her scene shifting works fine in a book, its just something you need to learn how read. I think this book has beautiful language even if I can't always understand what she is saying. I really wish I could understand this better without so much outside help. Granted it does get very frustrating trying to read and having no idea what is being said, but that does not make it wrong. I think it was in class that it was mentioned that this book creates "negative space" about Jacob. The Woolf may not write about Jacob, but she writes about his surrounding and situations to teach us about him. I think that is a facinating approach to writing a novel. By describing those that surround him, the situations he's in, his room, we learn so much about Jacob without Jacob even being there. This may be an extremely difficult book to read, and I want to sometimes curse Woolf for it, but I respect it. Woolf wrote a book in HER style. She didn't write through a lens of tradition, she created a novel uniquely hers. If it didn't have so much trouble understanding the book I would be able to say that I have enjoyed reading it so far.

I think the book is about Jacob and not another character like Mrs. Flanders, because we are continuing to follow Jacob. Even though he might not always be on the page, and rarely speaks anything, we learn more and more about //his// life and interactions. 1200099352

Wow, I'm replying to a teacher's post. Anyways, bro. tom, there can be no doubt that the book is about Jacob. as Adi pointed out, now we are following jacob, not the rest of his family, through the course of the next few chapters. furthermore, Jacob is the only character present in all characters thus far. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the book is indeed about Him. Finally, the plot (if we can call this haphazard jumble of events a plot) concerns him the most. It is HE who has to reconcile with the horrors he experienced in the war. Woolf does not say this is a book about jacob, because, quite simply, no author does. In any first chapter, do you see "by the way, this book is about so and so?" No. The author shouldn't have to tell us because it should be obvious, both from what is written and, yes, the title as well. I end by saying that I concluded that the book was about Jacob not simply from the back, but from what I read as well.1200162599

As I continue reading, I can't help but think of something Brother Tom said in class: the prose has a watery movement to it. Has anyone ever looked down at the beach at a shell and tried to follow it wherever it goes as the waves are crashing down on it? It's tricky. I think the point of view of this novel is like a wave. At one point we see a shell, Jacob, but then we sweep past him and see some other shells around him, which may or may not reveal anything about him. And then, the wave stops momentarily then begins to receed into the ocean and we get another glimpse of the Jacob shell. It may have moved a bit because of the currents, but we see him. Then we sweep past him in the opposite direction and become part of another wave. This may be quite an absurd way of looking at the style of Woolf, but I feel like it adequately describes //what I see// while I'm reading. It's actually sort of pretty if you look at it this way as opposed to obnoxious and jumpy.

And to add to the discussion about the protagonist, I believe the introduction said that Jacob's actual room was going to be what everything was anchored in. Is it possible that the room is the protagonist, and Jacob is just the person that aides in everything linking back to it? Who can really say? We have read only a little less than half the book! 1200235022

I think that without Woolf telling us what the book is about through the title, I would not really know. I would say that the novel is about Jacob and his family but without the title I probably would not be able to say that the story is about Jacob's room. I think that this aspect further proves the fact that everything that Woolf does means something. To understand this book, I know that at least I have to pay attention to every detail and ask myself how it fits into the story and why Woolf may have told a particular detail to me the reader. I find this the most challenging part of reading Woolf: I must pay extremely close attention and always be wondering about how events fit together. Because it is so difficult, reading Woolf is a chore for me, it is not enjoyable as it should be.1200261278

I see that her purpose is to give the reader the whole side of the story. In class today, we talked about how we can't really know all there is to know about a person because we are not with them all the time. There will by multiple conversations that the person has throughout the day, meaningless or not, that we won't know about. Woolf jumps around from character to character in this way to show us a realistic way of how we live our lives, in fragments, and to give us insight into all of the characters. I find this to be incredibly counter-productive, however, because she jumps around so often that when I should be spending time learning about a character, I am instead spending my time trying to get my bearings. New people and new scenarios are presented so often that it is very difficult to understand Woolf's train of thought. Several readings would make it much clearer, but frustration may out weigh motivation. 1201222874