Woolf and Threads of Communication

Success of Manipulating Invisible Threads is Short-Lived: Communication will Break Down Once More

We all wear our own costumes, and they are not the clothes we wear, but rather the costumes we don’t see and other people recognize. The costumes are the parts we play in this world, and they are not changed easily. People do not like to step out of them, as if they know the part they play in the grand tapestry: but that knowledge is an illusion. People do, however, like to put on costumes that are not their own, perhaps, because they are ashamed of the insignificance of their parts. We see all of these threads of other people in the tapestry, but our own are invisible, for we don’t know how we are connected to the whole.

Virginia Woolf illustrates this throughout Between the Acts, for the references to clothing, costumes, and threads are used to describe connections and parts played by each of the characters, and how they fit into the whole story. The play that Miss La Trobe presents throughout the bulk of the novel, focused on stories from English history, from beginning to present time, so that the audience might see the whole tapestry that they were each a part of. They are all connected, but they fail to see it, or, maybe, just deny that fact. I will show, using three verses of the text, that Woolf intends to let the reader see how communication breaks down time and again, with only short-lived success in recapturing the beauty of the overall tapestry we are all a apart of.

One metaphorical thread, denoting a breakdown in communication, occurs before the play starts, and a group of characters are sitting at a table, drinking coffee.

“The wild child, afloat once more on the tide of the old man’s benignity, looked over her coffee cup at Giles, with whom she felt in conspiracy. A thread united them—visible, invisible, like those threads, now seen, now not, that unite trembling grass blades in autumn before the sun rises. She had met him once only, at a cricket match. And then had been spun between them an early morning thread before the twigs and leaves of real friendship emerge. She looked before she drank. Looking was part of drinking. Why waste sensation, seemed to ask, why waste a single drop that can be pressed out of this ripe, this melting, this adorable world? Then she drank. And the air round her became threaded with sensation. Bartholomew felt it; Giles felt it. Had he been a horse, the thin brown skin would have twitched, as if a fly had settled, Isabella twitched too. Jealousy, anger, pierced her skin.” (p. 55-56)

Metaphors of threads and nature are interspersed throughout this narration to denote connections between the characters. This communication between the characters is unspoken, and the reader can see the connection and interplay of their emotions. However, they are disconnected in their thoughts toward one another, each only thinking what might benefit or discomfort him/her. They don’t see how they are connected.

Primarily, it is the connection between Mr. Giles and Mrs. Manresa that is discussed. This is a mere sip of her coffee, and there wasn’t much action, except in Mrs. Manresa’s reminiscing about when she first met Mr. Giles. And those threads, “like those threads, now seen, now not, that unite trembling grass blades in autumn before the sun rises,” denotes the morning dew that the grass must accept in the early morning. There is not one of the “trembling grass blades”, which was not affected by it. The “early morning thread,” which was spun, was not one of a mature friendship, based on specific knowledge about one another, for as the metaphor of the unsprouted tree illustrated, there was not time for such interrogation. The act of drinking coffee is also Mrs. Manresa’s attempt at fantasizing about how beautiful the world really is, as she focuses on her potential lover, who is not the real Mr. Giles, but rather a work of her vivid imagination. After she takes that sweet drink, the real world comes crashing back, as if the other characters, her audience, know her intentions, her fantasies. This thread, which she can not see, pulls against all of their skins, inciting much tension from mere fantasies. Bart is amused by this wild child, and Giles is aroused by her attention, however tainted it was. The reference to the fly describes something dirty, as if she is a pest, which tickles the skin with arousal just the same. Isabella is disgusted by these adulterous thoughts of Mrs. Manresa, as if they are spoken aloud. The reference to the fly, I believe, is the beginning of a shift to the thoughts of Isabella. It is not like Giles to think of himself as a horse that flies nest around, but the thought is worthy of his wife, whom he had been unfaithful to in the past.

Another twinge of pain for Isabella is that Mrs. Manresa doesn’t try to hide who she was, nor did she deny herself. Isabella, unlike the wild child, feels she is trapped in a loveless marriage and can’t express herself freely. There is more than one type of jealously going on between these two. There is the jealousy of Mrs. Manresa’s attention to Giles, but there is also the painful jealously Isabella feels because of the flamboyant woman’s free expression.

In a later verse in the story, threads of dialogue which do not belong to any one character in the audience show another breakdown in this communication; another failure to recognize the invisible threads that make us all more alike than different. These snippets, or small threads of words, are spoken out loud, unlike the first verse. There is also no identification of the speakers of these words, also unlike the first verse. Each speaker’s identity is somehow lost in the crowd, just as we all tend to be when crying out for help.

“’They’re not ready…I hear ‘em laughing’” (they were saying). “’…Dressing up. That’s the great thing, dressing up. And it’s pleasant now, the sun’s not so hot…That’s one good the war brought us—longer days…Where did we leave off? D’you remember? The Elizabethans…Perhaps she’ll reach the present, if she skips…D’you think people change? Their clothes, of course…But I meant ourselves…Clearing out a cupboard, I found my father’s old top hat…But ourselves—do we change?’”(p. 120-121)

This broken-up conversation is not just about the play, but about the parts they play in their separate realities. Putting on clothes of fantasy, or “dressing up,” is a great thing. They know that they get recognized when they stand out in a crowd because of their costumes, but that is not always what they want, for they all dress in like fashion with one another. When they hide their true selves under ball gowns and suits, the world is pleasant, and forgetting the dread of war makes the day longer in imaginative avoidance. They all look the same, and they can now fit into the tapestry, where they feel they belong. They start talking about the play and where in history Miss La Trobe had left off, hoping that she may skip to the present, for they feel disconnected from the past and from each other. They would be better able to place themselves in the present, than in the past. As it was written before this, they were dispersed, even though they were gathered together (p. 95-97). The words of this conversation are printed with trailed-off sentences and unanswered questions, as if they are a whirlwind scattered ideas

The people in the audience, however, start to recognize one another other, although, not by name, and we do not know who is listening to who, nor how well. Knowledgeable characters do not answer the posed questions, nor are all of the thoughts finished ones. The only person who makes this a true two-way conversation is the reader, for it is only words that are written, but communication implies a listener. Without the reader, these are only words cried out, rather written, in vain. They ask introspective questions, such as the changing of clothes: rather the changing of themselves and the people around them. It is no longer “myself,” but “we.” It is no longer one character to himself/herself, but rather the collective, who recognizes people’s inability to get out of the costumes, they believe they have to wear. The father’s old top hat being found in an old cupboard represented the thrown-away past, which was now presented to them, in the form of this play. They are recognizing the similar necessity for dressing up, even in the past. Their ancestors were not so different from them afterall. That final thought about the top hat is not finished, and the question of whether they are connected to the past is unanswered.

On the other hand, though, there is triumph in successful communication, however short-lived it may be. It is the artist, being “a twitcher of strings,” who brings about this success (p. 153). One character, Mrs. Swithin, just told Miss La Trobe that she felt as if she were a great actor in this play she presented, even though she was just a part of the bigger audience. This verse is similar to the first verse in that it is not a spoken communication. It is different, however, because the below thoughts of Miss La Trobe are not shared with the other actors. This is a private conversation with herself, focusing on her identity, and how successful she is at pulling the invisible threads in at least one of the members of her audience. The only drawback to this private conversation, is that it would have been more productive to speak this aloud to Mrs. Swithin, although Miss La Trobe probably had doubts that any member of her audience would truly understand her intentions. Perhaps the artist is prejudging her audience a little bit, on that account.

“Mrs. Rogers stood grotesque in her black stockings. Miss La Trobe pulled the voluminous flounces of the Victorian age over her head. She tied the tapes. “’You’ve twitched the invisible strings,’ was what the old lady meant; and revealed—of all people—Cleopatra! Glory possessed her. Ah, but she was not merely a twitcher of strings; she was one who seethes wandering bodies and floating voices in a cauldron, and makes them rise up from it amorphous mass a re-created world. Her moment was on her—her glory.” (p. 153)

Miss La Trobe dresses Mrs. Rogers, an actress in the play, not only in a gown, but also in the Victorian age itself, and secures the costume, transforming the woman into a relic from the past. Mrs. Swithin had just spoken with her and told her she knew that her part in the audience was a small one, but even that part made her feel like the royal Cleopatra (p. 153). Even though Miss La Trobe can not understand this old woman’s fantasy world, she can find her role in it as an instigator. Trying to make these people feel like they are extravagant threads in an elaborate tapestry, even though they can’t see it, was what she had intended to do with her art. Glory is personified here, as possessing her, knowing that, to at least one person, she had made her point. To make someone realize his/her importance, no matter how fantastical it is, makes her heart soar.

Her first thought of being a “twitcher of invisible strings,” doesn’t, however, completely explain her role. Miss La Trobe, as narrator, pointed out that she “seethes,” rather boils and foams up the dispersed bodies. She gathers the voices, belonging to unrecognizable people, and brings them out to be heard, if only for a short moment. She shapes this disillusionment into a shaped re-creation of reality, where everyone can see their importance and how connected they really are in this world, or rather in this England.

Together, these three verses from Between the Acts show a breakdown in communication of some sort, with very little success in reaching unity with self or with the collected whole, no matter how hard one tries to do so. In the first passage, Mrs. Manresa feels she is alone, and thought her fantasies to be insignificant to the other characters, but of course, she was wrong. In the second passage, there are no names mentioned, as if each individual identity is lost in the collective audience, or tapestry. This is the start of what Miss La Trobe wanted to accomplish, but the unanswered questions and trailed-off phrases still left the listener, or reader, as the only one who is truly seeing the entire tapestry of threads. This was not Miss La Trobe’s intention, though, that the reader would be the only one to understand this audience, but rather they would understand one another. The second passage can also be applied to the real world, as one might ask a stranger a question, and never bother to ask the most important question of identity: what is your name? The third passage, denoting the artist’s role, maps out what she is trying to accomplish. The audience recognizing one another wasn’t enough, but recognizing their individual threads in the grand tapestry, and how each person had the power to overcome their circumstances is what she strived for. People must see where they fit in, and how they connect to other people, and how other people connect to them. Only when they can make this realization, will they find their plights petty and frivolous, when compared to the plight of the world.

In conclusion, this grand tapestry that Miss La Trobe is trying to make the audience see, allows the reader to recognize his/her role in the story. It is the reader who realizes that he/she is actually looking behind the scenes of a story that is only preparing to start. The curtains open, and we know the actors, and we imagine that we know their roles and how they are connected to what we just read. Even though the characters themselves do not feel they are intimately connected with one another from the beginning, the reader learns that they are, through the process of this play within the story, and through the sharing of the characters' fantasies, thoughts, motives and speech. Suppressed thoughts and fantasies are revealed to the reader, as well as the ones verbally expressed by the characters. Now that the reader knows his/her part in understanding how the characters are connected, the story can begin, at the end. The cycle of miscommunication will begin again, and the threads must be manipulated again before they completely unravel.





REFERENCE:
Woolf, Virginia. Between the Acts. Harcourt, Inc. San Diego, CA. Copyright 1941.