Alfred Romero
10/1/2022
Professor Frank
Introduction to Literary Theory & Criticism
Applications #3
This applications essay is centered around Canadian writer Graham Fraser from Mount Saint Vincent University, and his essay Solid Objects/Ghosts of Chairs: Virginia Woolf and the Afterlife of Things from the Journal of Modern Literature (Volume 43, Number 2). In his essay, Fraser describes the relationship between inanimate objects and the humans who are associated with these “inanimate souls” (Fraser 80). The question at hand revolves around how these objects may reflect what can be seen about the humans who are associated with them. From this relationship, Fraser claims that an object’s transformation from their human service to their phase in the afterlife is ultimately reflected back as they forget about the humans who had forgotten about them. Fraser concludes his essay with the perception of a lonesome kitchen table and through that perception, also comes the idea of “not only the remaining table, but also our own absence” (Fraser 94-95).
Fraser approaches describing this relationship by analyzing its progress through three of English modernist writer Virginia Woolf’s texts, which are To the Lighthouse, “The Lady in the Looking Glass”, and “Solid Objects”. First, Fraser introduces the concept of inanimate objects essentially being alive by alluding to the first two texts. In “The Lady in the Looking Glass”, Fraser references the narrator’s perception of being in a “depopulated drawing room” (Fraser 81). Although the room doesn’t appear to be containing any living being, the narrator describes the experience as being like “one of those naturalists who, covered with grass and leaves, lie watching the shyest animals” (“Lady” 221). Transitioning from the inanimate object’s life stage, Fraser goes on to describe their phase of death. Just as objects have a life relative to their relationship with the people around them, they also go through the phase of death just as humans do. In To the Lighthouse, Woolf explores what happens to furniture “when human attention is fully withdrawn and domesticated objects are left to their own devices” (Fraser 84). Fraser exemplifies this concept by referring to the narrator’s remarks that what clothing people leave indicates “how once they were filled and animated” (Lighthouse 106). Fraser concludes his essay by discussing the afterlife phase of inanimate objects through “Solid Objects”. A specific example from the odd story comes from John, the main character, slipping beach glass into his pocket. John explains how the beach glass had pleased and puzzled him, how “it was so hard, so concentrated, so definite an object compared with the vague sea and the hazy shore” (“Solid” 103).
Concluding from these three phases, Fraser finishes off his essay by explaining what all of this means for the perception of humans by answering Andrew Ramsey’s challenge. By humans always having the presence of their own race when discussing anything, such as how inanimate objects go through their phases of life, Fraser implies that everything humans think about has this underlying intent for their race’s prosperity. This gives the audience a chance to reflect about not only their own individuality in terms of their perception around themselves, but around how humans as a whole think about their race in contrast to their surroundings. By not observing this relationship between humans and inanimate objects within the texts, readers may miss out on being able to understand this bigger picture, which is that humans almost always put themselves before anything around them. By understanding this, readers may begin to realize their race’s role and impact towards the universe around them.
Fraser’s analysis throughout Woolf’s three texts was very well put together. By having each text be the main focus of a body paragraph which would outline the phases of an inanimate object’s life, I thought the analysis was well supported in concluding the real meaning behind the relationship between humans and inanimate objects. However, I still have a slight reservation. Although I do believe in the argument that every action humankind makes is for their own race’s benefit, I just find it kind of hard to tie this all together by the phases of an inanimate object’s life. While what Fraser is discussing in his essay does make sense to me, I can’t help but find the concept to be sort of a stretch. I feel like to further support this underlying claim, analysis should be directed towards larger actions created by humans. One could possibly dissect actions created by humans that are supposed to benefit their surroundings and try to detect an underlying motive that may be present.
Works Cited:
Fraser, Graham. 2020. “Solid Objects/Ghosts of Chairs: Virginia Woolf and the Afterlife of Things. Journal of Modern Literature. 43(2): 80-97.
