Writing Like Speaking: Never the Opposite in Mrs. Dalloway

Mrs. Dalloway, by Virginia Wolff is a powerful testament to the flexibility of language. I will present three points, which should lend weight to my assertion that: speech-like texts can reach a broader audience because of their ability to communicate more indirectly.

Firstly, speech and writing are vastly different. As Roland Barthes suggested throughout his career, speech and writing are separate processes (WDZ 13). There is a plurality in speech that I will argue, far surpasses the plurality in writing for the fact that speaking is an act that doesn't suffer the consequence of dissemination, and examination. Speech acts are not timeless; hence, they cannot endure the rigor of endless scrutinization.

Speech, unlike writing, is allowed to evolve on its page; it is oftentimes negated, withdrawn by the speaker, or compromised by a reactionary speaker. Writing, with its final destination - the last word, is a closed discussion. There is no possibility for compromise; the reader is forced to manipulate the signs within the structure, to reflect his or her own personal connotation of each sign, resulting in a closed interpretation of the text. Speech, on the other hand, allows the listener to engage in dialogical discourse. Writing is a closed form, not open to discussion; it is open to interpretation, but not compromise or discourse. I use the word discourse in this case to mean: the challenging of facts and ideas asserted in writing.

In his essay, The Death of the Author, Barthes makes the point that "To give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing" (Richter, 256). As we know, speech can never have this result; it is an organic mechanism of the thought process.

Secondly, writing exists because of speech, not vice-versa.The action of speech has a natural counterpart, reactionary speech - someone responding. It is like a book with changing words - a book that floats on the air, has no starting points and no end meaning. It is written by anyone and everyone.

It is my opinion that authors partake in the act of writing because of an initial desire for creation through verbalization; this is why early poems in Old and Middle English were composed in some sort of meter. The mnemonic devices of iambic and trochaic rise-and-fall were not used for mere novelty; they were used because at the time, speech was the medium. It seems to be true that speech is still the more widely used form of communication. More Americans watch television than read books. They would rather have words hit their ears, than their eyes. This primal desire for creation and communication through spoken language is the basis of writing. It's no surprise that the line between writing and speaking is often blurred in literature.

Thirdly, Speech-like texts can reach a broader audience because of their ability to communicate more indirectly. There are several examples in Dalloway when Wolff seems to willingly leave the diction and strict syntax of her early twentieth century London, and abandon it for a less archaic, speech-like style. Halfway through the novel, when Septimus and Rezia are visited by Dr. William Bradshaw, a startling passage ensues after the doctor asks Rezia if Septimus has threatened to kill himself,

Oh, he did, she cried. But he did not mean it, she said. Of course not. It was
merely a question of rest, said Sir William; of rest, rest, rest; a long rest in bed.
There was a delightful home down in the country where her husband would be
perfectly looked after. Away from her? she asked. Unfortunately, yes; the people
we care for most are not good for us when we are ill. But he was mad, was he? Sir
William said he never spoke of "madness"; he called it not having a sense of
proportion. But her husband did not like the doctors (94).

The disjointed nature of this passage is an example of writing that crosses paths with speech and inner dialogue. It is important to note the lack of quotation marks. The passage is written as if it were a monologue - as if it were pulled from the blank space between the two character's heads. The thoughts, words and ideas of the doctor and Rezia are delivered seamlessly, much like it would be delivered had it been spoken aloud, or much like the situational dialogue would occur in a person's own mind. The doctor's seemingly "good advice" of staying away from loved ones when they are ill, is written into the passage like a vein of silver is woven into a rock; it is part of the landscape. The statement is not made by the doctor directly, rather by an omniscient narrator who is overseeing the thoughts and words of the characters. There is no clear demarcation of speaker, and this profound judgment is skimmed over by the reader. The created effect is that the reader can momentarily enter the psyche of Rezia. Clearly the doctor's words are auxiliary while she tries to come to terms with Septimus' imminent hospitalization. Wolff asserts herself as a profound modernist author with this technique. It is this raw approach at writing that allows wider interpretational value, due to its lack of a proper syntax, and quotational reference. It is a more "organic" paragraph - a mosaic of thoughts and movements which creates a more "horizontal" text - a more speech-like text (Barthes, WDZ 13).

By describing events and observations loosely, as Wolff does in Dalloway, the author is more or less stifled, and not so much "killed." When events, characters and observations are loosely described, a broader array of readers are allowed room for interpretation. When the structures of definition are less obvious, and images are tied together ambiguously, readers from different backgrounds can find their own terms for deciphering the images. This touches at Barthes idea that, what is written is inherently detached from its author when the reader engages in the text. When the reader begins to decipher the text according to his own connotations, all authorial intent is washed away.

This style of writing hits at the very heart of Barthes ideology when he says, "Hence, for the writer, the language is nothing but a human horizon which provides a distant setting of familiarity..." (WDZ 10). If a writer's tool, (language) is merely a device for creating familiarity, then speech rather than writing must be the means for this familiarization, because Barthes goes on to say in Writing Degree Zero,

All writing will therefore contain the ambiguity of an object which is both
language and coercion: there exists fundamentally in writing a 'circumstance'
foreign to language, there is, as it were, the weight of a gaze conveying an
intention which is no longer linguistic (20).

I will extend this movement by saying that writing which exemplifies speech is allowed broader interpretation due to its lack of syntactical, cultural and descriptive constraints. Authors tend to want to explain everything very clearly by the use of description and perfect syntax; the clearer the author's intent however, the less-likely a reader will be able to attain a unique reading of the text-- the less likely the reader will be hindered by the "weight of a gaze."

In appraisal, speech and writing are separate entities, the latter owing its existence to the former, which is why speech-like writing is given more room for contemporary connotational interpretation, regardless of the work's time-period. Successfully implanting vernacular tendencies into writing is an old-hat, for good reasons. Perhaps it is for the same reason that Mrs. Dalloway is an applicable work, that the work of Shakespeare is still widely read, and acclaimed. The use of speech in writing is something authors have always used, purposefully or not. It makes perfect sense that "an easy read" is a piece of writing that adheres to the human linguistic tendency of the reader; that is to say, the reader will get along smoothly when the writing takes the shape of a conversation in the reader's mind.

Mrs. Dalloway is one of many great works which are allowed to continue on in canonical fortitude because of Wolff's ability to intermingle the diction and syntax of her time, with timeless colloquial dialogue. It is this coupling of the formal and vernacular which make the reading more universally applicable.

Referenced Works

Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." In Richter 253-257

Barthes, Roland. Writing Degree Zero. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968.

Richter, David H. Ed. Falling Into Theory: Conflicting Views on Reading Literature. 2^nd
Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.

Wolff, Virginia. Mrs. Dalloway. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc., 2005