A Wallet of One's Own

Virginia Woolf's "A Room of One's Own" speaks to the questions of "women and fiction," and grapples with the different ways in which these two entities can coexist. In the very first chapter of the work, Woolf claims that a woman cannot realize her literary potential unless she has money and a room of one's own. Only when these two requirements are fulfilled can a woman really have the space and comfort to express herself through prose or poetry, whatever her preference. It is after all, her room. . .but is it her money?

Woolf really has hit on something by noting that a woman during the turn of the century really did need money to sustain herself in her writing. She, after all, should not have any distractions from her writing. A real job, which, first of all would be difficult to secure, is only something set to carry her away from her artistic inclinations. And, of course, a job fit for a woman would occupy far too much of her time with little compensation for her labor.

It seems that, although Woolf speaks to an audience of aspiring woman writers, she seems to limit the demographic by income. When we imagine a woman having money during this time period, we can only assume that she comes from an affluent family or has had the pleasure of being wed to a wealthy gentleman.

So perhaps Woolf is actually only speaking to the women who never have to worry about financial stability. This doesn't seem like that hopeful, encouraging speech that we would expect from a female author. We easily forget that Virginia Woolf came from a very well-off family and did not really "work" until she opened up a printing press with her husband. She, also, certainly didn't have to worry about using the money generated from her writing to buy "necessities." In fact, I read once that Woolf used the paycheck from her first article to buy a Siberian cat.

In a foreward by Mary Gordon in my own copy of "A Room of One's Own," Woolf's prejudice is described in this way:

"Woolf is concerned with the fate of women of genius, not with that or ordinary women; her plea is that we create a world in which Shakespeare's sister might survive her gift, not one in which a miner's wife can have her rights to property; her passion is for literature, not for universal justice."

Is this fair? In the interest of literature, it probably is. In the interest of equality between the classes, it certainly is not.

I wonder if Virginia Woolf would have the same thesis in today's culture. We certainly are different, however, money will always remain an issue in accomplishing that which is not instantly lucrative.