Customer Reviews

Bloomsbury Pie: The Making of the Bloomsbury Boom

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This superb book sparkles with both scholarship and wit. Much like Thomas Kuhn did in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," Ms. Marler describes the external determinants of acceptance and repute. Ms. Marler traces the beginnings of the circle of writers, painters, designers, and other intellectuals (including John Maynard Keynes, Vanessa Bell, Lytton Strachey, E.M. Forster, and Roger Fry) known as Bloomsbury and, especially, its most famous literary member, Virginia Woolf. Bloomsbury and Woolf go in and out of fashion, sometimes together, sometimes separately, as various critical camps interpret the "real" meaning of her work.

Passing through a decades-long literary gauntlet, Virginia Woolf's works are rudely characterized and discarded, rediscovered and reinterpreted, revived and revered (although some form of backlash seems never far away). Marler traces how Woolf's writing is subjugated to various forms of literary criticism and theory: Structuralism, post-structuralism, feminism, new criticism, psycho-biography, and, one is tempted to say, pseudobiography. In fact, after reading "Bloomsbury Pie" the reader may ponder what biography can realistically achieve. Marler also brings fresh insight into how familiarity may color a critic's evaluation of a subject, and how familial and proprietary considerations may clash with needs of scholars and sellers.

While the author refers to Woolf's genius, the book's primary purpose is not to critique Woolf's literature or place in history, but rather to trace how literary history is forged within social, cultural, and financial contexts. It is to the author's enormous credit that she applies the same high rigorous standards to all Woolfian critics. (Perhaps it is this objectivity and specific purpose that irked some Amazon reviewers here.) In direct contradiction to many of these scholars, Marler seems to have no axe to grind, no theory to which the facts must fit. In the final section, she traces, with measured cynicism, the intersection of art and commerce, showing who benefits from Bloomsbury's ever-changing meanings. (As Clive Bell observed, reporters could not decide whether the term referred to "a point of view, a period, a gang of conspirators or an infectious disease." p. 275).

If these sorts of ideas and issues appeal to you, or if you have some curiosity about "The Group," I strongly recommend this excellent volume. "Bloomsbury Pie" is well-researched, evenhanded, and particularly well written. Marler writes incisively and with great humor; commenting on one critic's smug, vitriolic dismissal of Bloomsbury, she observes: "It is easy to pick apart this sort of review, which lays its writer open like a filleted fish (p. 32)." Although not necessary, some familiarity with the group's works will help the reader fully appreciate the many rewards of this brilliant, insightful, and entertaining book. Definitely worth looking for!

Your remarks about white males and radical feminism made me doublecheck the isbn on my copy. And I'm still not sure we read the same book. Bloomsbury Pie is easily the most engaging, down-to-earth study of the subject I've ever seen. Not only pro-feminist and thoroughly thoughtful, Marler's writing is full of wit and fun, which no doubt upsets readers who prefer their feminism-- and not their humor--very dry.

...Or at least a 3-book contract. She's pulled off the miracle of lucid scholarly assessment that entertains as it enlightens. And she's freed a bound subject from its constraints. The prose is beautiful--stinging--and X-Acto knife sharp. The book itself is also beautiful--a slim little curio book made to fit the hand. Marler's clarity and balance will no doubt alienate readers with agendas--but with any luck she'll offend all such readers (who need most to be offended); to this purpose she serves humanity and literature. Her perspective is welcome and her wit to be savored.

When I first encountered Bloomsbury Pie I was afraid that its appeals would be limited to scholars buried in a narrow niche of literary history. While it's critical insight and literary, social and historical merit will appease that crowd, as a new-comer to Bloomsbury history I found Bloomsbury Pie to be an insightful and capturing read. Marler's thorough research, passion for the subject and expert writing craft intertwine to make Bloomsbury Pie a tasty treat.

It seems that Regina Marler wants to side with white males, particularly those white males who are afraid of the great courageous achievements of radical feminist criticism. Her tiresome remarks concerning the radical interpretations of Bloomsbury only expose her own conservatism. The rest of us take joy and pleasure in the fearless work of radical feminists; Regina Marler apparently has chosen to remain backwards.

Regina Marler's admiration for and knowledge of Virginia Woolf's work inform this text.

With respect to the reader from Brown University, to disagree with Jane Marcus is NOT to disparage Virginia Woolf.

One of my favorite sentences (of many in the book) is on page 127--"Trying to out-write Virginia Woolf must feel like trying to outwit Oscar Wilde." If this is an example of an author who wants to (and I quote the Brown University reader) "dismiss the great achievements of Bloomsbury leader, Virginia Woolf," then I have happily misunderstood Ms. Marler and joyously misread BLOOMSBURY PIE.

Well, what do you know... apparently the wonderfully courageous radical voices of contemporary feminism are to be dismissed out of hand by neo-conservatives like Marler. Virginia Woolf challenged the assumptions of white male patriarchy with such brilliance that they are still reeling from her extraordinary voice. What is interesting about this book is not that Marler fails to appreciate the great Jane Marcus, it is that she can not or will not articulate her reasons why she wants to read Woolf as a dusty old classic as white males want us to do. Well, perhaps she will someday figure it all out; then again, probably not!