A Room Of One's Own By Virginia Woolf

Genius, Instead of Gender

Written as a response to the prompt “women and fiction”, Virginia’s Woolf’s essay A Room of One’s Own (Harcourt edition) presents the thesis “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction”. Woolf begins her essay by introducing the obvious difference in the treatment between men and women when she is shown being kicked off the grass and kicked out the library for her gender, and then suffering a lackluster dinner at the women’s college in comparison to the grand lunch she had at the men’s college. This prompts her to research the reasons for the difference in treatment between the sexes, and how that affected the writing of women. Bringing the reader on a historical journey, she shows how
the status of women and writing changed, starting from the 16th century, when women were given no opportunity to write, through the 18th century, when women were allowed but discouraged to write, to the 20th century, when women were just starting to be free from their past financial and social impediments. She calls this struggle to write “worthwhile”, believing that eventually the modern-day woman would be able to write without the restrictions her forerunners faced and with a freedom of mind that transcends bitterness and depicts reality perfectly. Though the intent of Woolf’s main point, a “woman needs money and a room of her own”, seems to be getting women to write more, I believe she had a higher purpose in mind: to get geniuses to write more. I think this for two reasons. First, she cares not about the writer’s gender, but only whether they had genius. Second, she advocates for the nuturing of said genius. But before explaining these reasons, I will first offer a concession and refutation.
Here’s my concession: yes, the back of the book states that “[Woolf’s] message is a simple one: women must have some money and a room of their own,” (4). And you are quite right, when you say that Woolf says herself, “All I could do was offer you [...] a minor point-- a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction” (4). So how can it be possible that Room’s purpose is anything other than to present this thesis? Here’s my refutation: remember that this essay was “originally given as lectures at Newnham and Girton colleges”, which were women’s colleges (vii). Woolf’s thesis, that “a woman needs money and a room of her own” is a targeted response to this audience. She focuses on women, because that’s how she makes the essay relevant to them. Thus, though her main point for this particular audience is that “a woman needs money and a room of her own”, it doesn’t mean she can’t have a greater purpose for her writing.
So, while Woolf’s main point is that “a women needs money and a room of her own”, I maintain that her purpose was to encourage geniuses to write more.
My first reason for thinking this: she cares not about the writer’s gender, but only whether they had genius. Woolf says outright that she wants more good books: “My motives [...] are partly selfish. I like reading, [and] lately my diet has become monotonous,” and I’m willing to believe her desire for good books outweighed her desire to see more women writing (108). Though the essay appears to be very feminist, and thus, would be expected to be sympathetic to women writers, Woolf is unafraid to criticize Brontë, saying that though “[Brontë] had more genius in her than Jane Austen”, her anger led her to “write foolishly where she should write wisely” (69). On the other hand, Woolf is unafraid to praise Shakespeare, throwing around “Shakespeare’s genius” this, “the genius of Shakespeare” that, three times in one paragraph (48). Indeed, the true similarity between Woolf’s discussions about both of these writers is the presence of commentary on their genius. Woolf can’t help but talk about genius-- even when talking about Mary Carmichael, she says that “she was no ‘genius’-- that was evident” (92). This leads me to believe that Woolf doesn’t actually care about the gender of writers; she only cares if they have genius. Which makes sense-- I mean, if a book is good, who cares if the author was a man or a woman? This desire for more
books and subsequent focus on genius is the reason why Woolf addresses the discrimination of women for the bulk of her essay, which I will address in the next paragraph.
My second reason for believing Woolf’s real purpose was to get geniuses to write more is that she advocates for the nuturing of genius.
After all, if the good books she wants come from geniuses, it would be in her interest that those geniuses get what they need to write. Though her purpose extends farther than getting more women to write, it should be no surprise why Woolf focuses so much on women in her essay. Women historically have had next to no opportunity to create: in the past, they were “all but absent from history, [...] could hardly read, could scarcely spell, and [were] the property of [their] husband,” (44). In fact, because the real, non-fictional details about the lives of women are nonexistent in history, Woolf was forced to invent Judith Shakespeare to illustrate how tragic genius unnutured is. Because she never had the opportunity to express her gifts, Judith commits suicide. Of course Woolf would be upset by the fact that women of genius had historically been discouraged from writing; think about all the good works that could have been! So, Woolf focuses on material things-- because it’s what she believes a writer needs to create. Once a genius is free of wondering how to get by, they are able to focus their talents towards creating great works. Of course, there is the whole “a woman must have money and a room of her own” bit, but men aren’t exempt from this requiring of money, either. Woolf quotes Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch when he talks about how most of
the great male writers were either university-educated or very well off. “A poor child in England has little more hope than had the son of an Athenian slave to be emancipated into that intellectual freedom of which great writings are born.” Additionally, he says: “the poor poet has not [...] a dog’s chance,” (107). Evidently, Woolf knows that genius needs to be nurtured in order for it produce the books she wants so much, and so she advocates that writers need material things; because writers should focus on writing and not working.
In conclusion, as mentioned earlier, it is easy to assume that Woolf’s main purpose for this essay was to get women to write more. I had thought that, earlier, myself-- but after some closer reading, it became clear to me that her real purpose was to encourage both men and women of genius to write more. I think this for two reasons. First, she cares not about the writer’s gender, but only whether they had genius. Second, she advocates for the nuturing of said genius. All along, she had been angry at the lack of opportunities for geniuses to express themselves, and this essay was a challenge to that-- a challenge against the suppression of genius, as well as a statement of what geniuses need to succeed, whether that genius comes in the form of a male author or a female poet.