What is the essential writing advice from Virginia Woolf?

Ans.

Who wouldn’t love to write like Virginia Woolf? (Well, some people, probably. but I’d wager not many of them are looking at this page.) Woolf was a once-in-a generation mind, and as both a writer and publisher, she had strong opinions about what made a piece of literature great (or, more often, mediocre). Luckily for us, she wrote many of her ideas down, in some of the many essays and letters she penned over the course of her life. Below. I’ve collected a few of Woolf’s thoughts on craft and the art of the novel, as well as inspiring advice for aspiring writers and established writers alike. She is not quite as pithy as others when it comes to doling out advice-but I think her advice is all the better for it.

To write a novel, begin with character: I believe that all novels begin with an old lady in the corner opposite. I believe that all novels, that is to say, deal with character, and that it is express character-not to peach doctrines, sing songs, or celebrate the glories of the British Empire that the form of the novel, so clumsy, verbose, and undramatic, so rich, clastic, and alive, has been evolved.

[From the essay ‘Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Brown’, 1924]

Read as much as you can and then write about somebody other than yourself: The art of writing, and that is perhaps what my malcontent means by ‘beauty”, the art of having at one’s back and call every word in the language, of knowing their weights, colours, sounds, associations, and thus making them, as is so necessary in English, suggest more than they can state, can be learnt of course to some extent by reading-it is impossible to read too much; but much more drastically and effectively by imagining that one is not oneself but somebody different. How can you learn to write if you write only about one single person?

[From ‘A Letter to a Young Poet’, 1932]

Find common ground with the reader: Both in life and in literature it is necessary to have some means of bridging the gulf between the hosters and her unknown guest on the one hand, the writer and his unknown reader on the other. The hostess bethinks her of the weather, for generations of hostesses have established the fact that this is a subject of universal interest in which we all believe. She begins by saying that we are having a wretched May, and, having thus got into touch with her unknown guest, proceeds to matters of greater interest. So it is in literature. The writer must get into touch with his reader by putting before him something which he recognizes, which therefore stimulates his imagination, and makes him willing to cooperate in the far more difficult business of intimacy. And it is of the highest importance that this common meeting-place should be reached easily, almost instinctively, in the dark, with one’s eyes shut.

[From the essay ‘Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Brown’, 1924]

Learn to play with language, in search of truth and beauty: Words, English words, are full of echoes, of memories, of associations-naturally. They have been out and about, on people’s lips, in their houses, in the streets, in the fields, for so many centuries. And that is one of the chief difficulties in writing them today–that they are so stored with meanings, with memories, that they have contracted so many famous marriages. The splendid word ‘incarnadine’, for example, who can use it without remembering also ‘multitudinous seas? In the old days, of course, when English was a new language, writers could invent new words and use them. Nowadays it is easy enough to invent new words they spring to the lips whenever we see a new sigh. of feel a new sensation–but we cannot use them because the language is old. You cannot use a brand new word in an old language because of the very obvious yet mysterious fact that a word is not a single and separate entity, but part of other words. It is not a word indeed until it is part of a sentence. Words belong to each other, although, of course, only a great writer knows that the word ‘incarnadine’ belongs to ‘multitudinous seas”. To combine new words with old words is fatal to the constitution of the sentence. In order to use new words properly you would have to invent a new language; and that, though no doubt we shall come to it, is not at the moment our business. Our business is to see what we can do with the English language as it is. How can we combine the old words in new orders so that they survive, so that they create beauty, so that they tell the truth? That is the question.

[From ‘Craftsmanship’ an essay delivered as a lecture on the BBC. April 20, 1937]

Buck convention: [God writers] attempt to come closer to life, and to preserve more sincerely and exactly what interests and moves them, even if to do so they must discard most of the conventions which are commonly observed by the novelist. Let us record the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall, let us trace the pattern, however disconnected and incoherent in appearance, which each sight or incident scores upon the consciousness. Let us not take it for granted that life exists more fully in what is commonly thought big than in what is commonly thought small.

[From the essay “Modern Fiction’]

Use rhythm to make sense of the world: Summon all your courage, exert all your vigilance, invoke all the gifts that Nature has been induced to bestow. Then let your rhythmical sense wind itself in and out among men and women, omnibuses, sparrows whatever come along the secret-until it has strung them together in one harmonious whole. That perhaps is [the writer’s] task-to find the relation between things that seem incompatible yet have mysterious affinity, to absorb every experience that comes your way fearlessly and saturate it completely so that your poem is a whole, not a fragment; to re-think human life into poetry and so give us tragedy again and comedy by means of characters not spun out at length in the novelist’s way, but condensed and synthesised in the poet’s way-that is what we look to you to do now. But as I do not know what I mean by rhythm nor what I mean by-life, and as most certainly I cannot tell you which objects can properly be combined together in a poem-that is entirely your affair-and as 1 cannot tell a dactyl from an iambic, and am therefore unable to say how you must modify and expand the rites and ceremonies of your ancient and mysterious art-I will move on to safer ground and turn again to these little books themselves.

[From ‘A Letter to a Young Poet’, 1932]

Forget about methodology; do what works for you: In any case it is a mistake to stand outside examining methods. Any method is right, every method is right, that expresses what we wish to express, if we are writers; that brings us closer to the novelist’s intention if we are readers…there is no limit to the horizon…nothing no ‘method’, no experiment, even of the wildest-is forbidden, but only falsity and pretense. ‘The proper stuff of fiction’ does not exist; everything is the proper stuff of fiction, every feeling, every thought; every quality of brain and spirit is drawn upon, no perception comes amiss.

[From the essay ‘Modern Fiction”]

Don’t take yourself too seriously: For the first time in history there are readers-a large body of people, occupied in business, in sport, in nursing their grandfathers, in tying up parcels behind counters-they all read now; and they want to be told how to read and what to read; and their teachers-the reviewers, the lecturers, the broadcasters-must in all humanity make reading easy for them; assure them that literature is violent and exciting, full of heroes and villains; of hostile forces perpetually in conflict; of fields strewn with bones; of solitary victors riding off on white horses wrapped in black cloaks to meet their death at the turn of the road. A pistol shot rings out. “The age of romance was over. The age of realism had begun”-you know the sort of thing. Now of course writers themselves know very well that there is not a word of truth in all this-there are no battles, and no murders and no defeats and no victories. But as it is of the utmost importance that readers should be amused, writers acquiesce. They dress themselves up. They act their parts. One leads; the other follows. One is romantic, the other realist. One is advanced, the other out of date. There is no harm in it, so long as you take it as a joke, but once you believe in it, once you begin to take yourself seriously as a leader or as a follower, as a modern or as a conservative, then you become a self-conscious, biting, and scratching little animal whose work is not of the slightest value or importance to anybody. Think of yourself rather as something much humbler and less spectacular, but to my mind, far more interesting-a poet in whom live all the poets of the past, from whom all poets in time to come will spring. You have a touch of Chaucer in you, and something of Shakespeare; Dryden, Pope, Tennyson-to mention only the respectable among your ancestors-stir in your blood and sometimes move your pen a little to the right or to the left. In short you are an immensely ancient, complex, and continuous character, for which reason please treat yourself with respect and think twice before you dress up as Guy Fawkes and spring out upon timid old ladies at street corners, threatening death and demanding two pence-half penny.

[From ‘A Letter to a Young Poet, 1932]

But take literature seriously: In England at any rate the novel is not a work of art. There are none to be stood beside War and Peace, The Brother Karamazov, or Ala Recherche du Temps Perdu. But while we accept the fact, we cannot suppress one last conjecture. In France and Russia they take fiction seriously. Flaubert spends a month seeking a phrase to describe a cabbage. Tolstoy writes War and Peace seven times over. Something of their preeminence may be due to the pains they take, something to the severity with which they are judged. If the English critic were less domestic, less assiduous to protect the rights of what it pleases him to call life, the novelist might be bolder too. He might cut a drift from the eternal tea-table and the plausible and preposterous formulas which are supposed to represent the whole of our human adventure. But then the story might wobble; the plot might crumble; ruin might seize upon the characters. The novel, in short, might become a work of art.

[From The Art of Fiction’, a response to E. M. Forster’s Aspects of the Novel, 2917]

Don’t rush to publish: For heaven’s sake, publish nothing before you are thirty. That, I am sure, is of very great importance. Most of the faults in the poem I have been reading can be explained, I think, by the fact that they have been exposed to the fierce light of publicity while they were still too young to stand the strain. It has shrivelled them into a skeleton austerity, both emotional and verbal, which should not be characteristic of youth. The poet writes very well; he writes for the eye of a severe and intelligent public: but how much better he would have written if for ten years he had written for no eye but his own! After all, the years from twenty to thirty are years (let me refer to your letter again) of emotional excitement. The rain dripping, a wing flashing. someone passing-the commonest sounds and sights have power to fling one, as I seem to remember, from the heights of rapture to the depths of despair. And if the actual life is thus extreme, the visionary life should be free to follow. Write then, now that you are young, nonsense by the ream. Be silly, be sentimental, imitate Shelley, imitate Samuel Smiles; give the rein to every impulse; commit every fault of style, grammar, taste, and syntax; pour out; tumble over; loose anger, love, satire, in whatever words you can catch. coerce or create, in whatever metre, prose, poetry, or gibberish that comes to hand. Thus you will learn to write. But if you publish, your freedom will be checked; you will be thinking what people will say: you will write for others. When you ought only to be writing for yourself. And what point can there be in curbing the wild torrent of spontaneous nonsense which is now. for a few years only, your divine gift in order to publish prim little books of experimental verses ? To make money? That, we both know, is out of the question. To get criticism? But your friends will pepper your manuscripts with far more serious and searching criticism than any you will get from the reviewers. As for fame, look I implore you at famous people; see how the waters of dullness spread around them as they enter; observe their pomposity, their prophetic airs; reflect that the greatest poets were anonymous; think how Shakespeare cared nothing for fame; how Donne tossed his poems into the waste-paper basket; write an essay giving a single instance of any modern English writer who has survived the disciples and the admirers, the autograph hunters and the interviewers, the dinners and the luncheons, the celebrations and the commemorations with which English society so effectively stops the mouths of its singers and silences their songs.

[From ‘A Letter to a Young Poet’. 1932]

And last but not least, find a room of your own: The title women and fiction might mean, and you may have meant it to mean, women and what they are like, or it might mean women and the fiction that they write; or it might mean women and the fiction that is written about them, or it might mean that somehow all three are inextricably mixed together and you want me to consider them in the light. But when I began to consider the subject in this last way, which seemed the most interesting, I soon saw that it had one fatal drawback. I should never be able to come to a conclusion. I should never be able to fulfil what is, I understand, the first duty of a lecturer to hand you after an hour’s discourse a nugget of pure truth to wrap up between the pages of your notebooks and keep on the mantelpiece for ever. All I could do was to offer you an opinion upon one minor point-a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction; and that, as you will see, leaves the great problem of the true nature of woman and the true nature of fiction is solved. I have shirked the duty of coming to a conclusion upon these two questions-women and fiction remain. so far as I am concerned, unsolved problems.

[From A Room of One’s Own’, 1929]