Week 2 — The Window, Sections 8-16

[Susan]

Week 2 — The Window, Sections 8-16

The Ramsays and their guests continue their evening activities. Mrs Ramsay reads a fairy tale to James. William Bankes and Lily Briscoe discuss the Ramsays, and he looks at Lily’s picture. Minta Doyle and Paul Rayley are late getting back from a long walk with Andrew and Nancy Ramsay as reluctant chaperones. Mrs Ramsay has some time to herself, but gives it up to go for a walk with her husband. A proposal is made, and a brooch is lost. The gong rings for dinner.

Some Questions to Start:

1) Why is Mrs Ramsay a matchmaker? Is she a good one?

2). Why doesn’t Lily want anyone to look at her painting?


Info/Links:

The Fisherman and His Wife: https://sites.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm019....

“Best and brightest come away!” is the first line of a poem by Shelley, “To Jane: The Invitation.”
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem...


List of Characters (so far)

The Ramsay Family
—Mr Ramsay, a philosopher, 60+ years old
—Mrs Ramsay, still beautiful, 50 years old
—Rose, good with her hands
—Prue, the Fair
—Andrew, the Just, good at mathematics
—Jasper, going through a phase
—Roger
—Nancy
—Cam, the Wicked, the youngest daughter
—James, the Ruthless, the youngest, 6 years old

Guests of the Ramsays
—Charles Tansley, a young protege of Mr Ramsay
—Augustus Carmichael, should have been a great philosopher, married
—Lily Briscoe, paints, a friend of Mrs Ramsay, 33 years old
—William Bankes, a botanist, an old friend of Mr Ramsay, 60 years old
—Minta Doyle, a friend of Mrs Ramsay, 24 years old
—Paul Rayley, a “good fellow,” a friend of Mrs Ramsay

Others
—Marie, the Swiss girl (household staff)
—Mildred, the cook (household staff)
—Ellen (household staff)
—Kennedy, the gardener

—Mary and Joseph, a pair of rooks

—Mr Pauncefort, a painter

[Tamara]

There were so many beautiful passages in this section. One of my favorite passages is Mrs. Ramsay's description of her children (section x):

She heard them stamping and crowing on the floor above her head the moment they woke. They came bustling along the passage. Then the door sprang open and in they came, fresh as roses, staring, wide awake, as if this coming into the dining room after breakfast, which they did every day of their lives, was a positive event to them, and so on, with one thing after another, all day long, until she went up to say good-night to them, and found them netted in their cots like birds among cherries and raspberries, still making up stories about some little bit of rubbish--something they had heard, something they had picked up in the garden.

I love the way she captures the hustle and bustle and freshness and energy and vitality and general rambunctiousness of children. Most of the passage is one long sentence to give the sense of a breathless exuberance.

[Tamara]

It strikes me that what Lily Briscoe says in this passage (section ix) could describe Woolf's style of writing:

. . . how life, from being made up of little separate incidents which one lived one by one, became curled and whole like a wave which bore one up with it and threw one down with it, there, with a dash on the beach.

Woolf's writing is "wave-like" in that it flows seamlessly from one character to the next, from spoken dialogue to monologues, and sometimes the shifts happen within the same paragraph so it is challenging to figure out who is thinking what and/or who is saying what to whom. It's as if she is intentionally merging "separate little incidents" to convey the free-flowing movement of waves.

[Mike]

Love the wave-like metaphor Tamara! I agree. I keep finding myself thinking, who is this, it is like everyone is connected together and their thoughts and actions are just flowing and rolling together.

[Susan]

Tamara wrote: "It strikes me that what Lily Briscoe says in this passage (section ix) could describe Woolf's style of writing:

. . . how life, from being made up of little separate incidents which one lived one..."

Great description, Tamara. And the “wave-like” writing is apt for a novel set by the ocean. Reading this section, it seemed to me that the ocean has become more of a presence than it was initially.

[Susan]

Tamara wrote: "There were so many beautiful passages in this section. One of my favorite passages is Mrs. Ramsay's description of her children (section x):

She heard them stamping and crowing on the floor above ..."

A lovely passage, Tamara.

[Susan]

I’m enjoying the flashes of humor. Mrs Ramsay on Mr Ramsay [12]: “His understanding often astonished her. But did he notice the flowers? No. Did he notice the view? No. Did he even notice his own daughter’s beauty, or whether there was pudding on his plate or roast beef? He would sit at table with them like a person in a dream. And his habit of talking aloud, or saying poetry aloud, was growing on him, she was afraid; for sometimes it was awkward—“Best and brightest come away!” poor Miss Giddings, when he shouted that at her, almost jumped out of her skin.”

I think I would have jumped, too

[Tamara]

Susan wrote: "I’m enjoying the flashes of humor. Mrs Ramsay on Mr Ramsay [12]: “His understanding often astonished her. But did he notice the flowers? No. Did he notice the view? No. Did he even notice his own d..."

Mr. Ramsay does not “see” the little details in life. He is aloof or maybe even oblivious to the ordinary. His mind is focused on philosophy, on abstract thinking. As Mrs. Ramsay says of him,

Indeed he seemed to her sometimes made differently from other people, born blind, deaf, and dumb, to the ordinary things, but to the extraordinary things, with an eye like the eagle’s.

I would argue he wasn’t “born” that way; instead, he has been socialized to be blind to "details" because women traditionally handled the nitty gritty details of life.

Mrs. Ramsay, on the other hand, has been socialized in the opposite direction. She is attuned to the details. She is sensitive to her natural environment, the people around her, who is walking with/talking to whom, running a household, taking care of the children, fretting about what needs fixing around the house, when dinner will be served, etc. etc.

All this has traditionally been designated as “woman’s work.” Maybe that’s why she undervalues her contribution and deems her husband’s work to be of greater value. But the fact is that because Mrs. Ramsay handles the details, she frees Mr. Ramsay to focus his energies on his work. She provides him with the support structure that enables him to do what he does. Who is to say which type of "work" is more important?

Lily Briscoe seems to me to straddle between the two. Like Mr. Ramsay, she is capable of abstract thinking; and like Mrs. Ramsay, she is sensitive to her natural environment and to the people around her.

[Gary]

Perhaps I shouldn't confess this, but for many years, for reasons I don't actually remember, I've avoided reading Virginia Woolf. This reading prompted me to open myself to her work. It has been a revelation. To the Lighthouse is a beautiful word of art. I am overwhelmed by its accomplished use of language, and its capture how of we think and feel, that is to say, outside the strictures of form and so-called logic. She writes of the internal and external experiences we feel and consider, even if only briefly. I am loving this so far ... and am very much looking forward to what's ahead.

[Gerard]

Nancy waded out to her own rocks and searched her own pools and let that couple look after themselves. She crouched low down and touched the smooth rubber-like sea anemones, who were stuck like lumps of jelly to the side of the rock. Brooding, she changed the pool into the sea, and made the minnows into sharks and whales, and cast vast clouds over this tiny world by holding her hand against the sun, and so brought darkness and desolation, like God himself, to millions of ignorant creatures, and then took her hand away suddenly and let the sun stream down. Out on the pale criss-crossed sand, high-stepping, fringed, gauntleted, stalked some fantastic leviathan (she was still enlarging the pool), and slipped into the vast fissures of the mountain side. And then, letting her eyes slide imperceptibly above the pool and rest on that waverling line of sea and sky, on the tree trunks which the smoke of steamers made waver upon the horizon, she became with all that dower sweeping savagely in and inevitably withdrawing, hypnotized, and the two senses of that vastness and tininess (the pool had diminished again) flowering within it made her feel that she was bound hand and foot and unable to move by the intensity of feelings which reduced her own body, her own life, and the lives of all the people in the world, for ever, to nothingness. So listening to the waves, crouched over the pool, she brooded" (Chapter XIV).

One of my favorite passages not only in "To the Lighthouse," but in literature in general. She explores so much about existence, the transient nature of human life, the significance of imagination which relates to us as a synthesis of a dialectic between consciousness and physical reality, anxieties of modernity, the merging between spirituality and aesthetic processes, and how we as humans need artistic creation not only as an escape from hard realities, but as a way of envisioning better worlds to help us cope with the monotony, strife and trivialities of human connection.

[Roger]

Gary wrote: "Perhaps I shouldn't confess this, but for many years, for reasons I don't actually remember, I've avoided reading Virginia Woolf. This reading prompted me to open myself to her work. It has been a ..."

I followed the same path. But what has been revealed to me is that I was on the right track to begin with. Hey Ginnie, if you want to tell a story, can you just tell the darn story? At least provide clear indications of who is thinking what and who is saying what, instead of making it a dreary puzzle. If I wanted to solve a puzzle I'd do a crossword.

[Tamara]

Gary wrote: "Perhaps I shouldn't confess this, but for many years, for reasons I don't actually remember, I've avoided reading Virginia Woolf. This reading prompted me to open myself to her work. It has been a ..."

It's lovely to hear from you, Gary. I'm so glad you're enjoying this. I, too, am finding the quality of her writing amazing. I read it decades ago, but I don't ever remember being as awestruck with it as I am this time around.

[Tamara]

Gerard wrote: " Nancy waded out to her own rocks and searched her own pools and let that couple look after themselves. She crouched low down and touched the smooth rubber-like sea anemones, who were stuck like lu..."

A beautiful passage. I love what you say about it.

[Borum]

Susan wrote: "Week 2 — The Window, Sections 8-16

The Ramsays and their guests continue their evening activities. Mrs Ramsay reads a fairy tale to James. William Bankes and Lily Briscoe discuss the Ramsays, and ...
1) Why is Mrs Ramsay a matchmaker? Is she a good one?"

I wouldn't say that she's a 'good' one for I think matchmaking is something like the stock market - more based on luck than intuition and skill. Also, I think that she's picked the wrong people for matchmaking, because both Lily and Mr. Bankes is completeley 'raptured' by the matchmaker. I thought Lily's emotion towards Mrs Ramsay was like a love toward her absent mother at first (and I saw lots of similarities with Virginia Woolf's own mother) but some parts in chapter IX gave glimpses of both Lily's sapphic desire AND Mrs. Ramsay's highhandedness and willful denial to recognize what Lily really wanted (she doesn't want to be married to a man yet she wants unity with Mrs. Ramsay).

Lily would urge her own exemption from the universal law ... she was not made for that and she laughed almost hysterically at the thought of Mrs. Ramsay presiding with immutable calm over destinies which she completely failed to understand.

However, I do think that Mr. Bankes is the right man to become Lily's friend, albeit nothing romantic. I saw how he honestly admits that he doesn't understand her painting and shows interest at the way she reduced 'the mother and child' to a 'purple shadow without irreverence' He doesn't 'mansplain' like Tansley or Mr. Ramsay. He accepts how we can have different views and different areas of expertise.

He was interested. He took it scientifically in complete good faith. The truth was that all his prejudices were on the other side, he explained.

I think Mrs. Ramsay is 'driven on, too quickly she knew, almost as if it were an escape for her too, to say that people must marry; people must have children.' She is realistic and can only see the reality which is in front of her right now. She cannot imagine what lies beyond that reality like Lily or Mr. Ramsay. Yet she is also honest enough to face the harsh cruel realities of life and its transient moments that fly off to never return again. Unlike Mr Ramsay, who 'always has his work to fall back on' she has to be 'exposed to human worries' and think of the bill for the greenhouse or other transactions between herself and life.

[Borum]

I was also interested in the way Lily's painting was described as well.
Mother and child then - objects of universal veneration, and in this case the mother was famous for her beauty - might be reduced, he pondered, to a purple shadow without irreverence

There were other senses too in which one might reverence them.

I am not so good with art history and I wonder if abstract and less representational art was already starting back in the 19th century? Even now the mother and her child is something held up to almost a sacred object of reverence and Lily's way of expressing them must have been shocking back then.

A light here required a shadow there.

This also reminded me of an earlier sentence :
'....and there was Mrs. Ramsay, unwitting entirely what had caused her laughter, still presiding, but now with every trace of wilfulness abolished, and in its stead, something clear as the space which the clouds at last uncover - the little space of sky which sleeps beside the moon.'

Sometimes we need to accept our limit of ignorance and let go of our willfulness that lets the light lying beside the dark shadow of space shine even more brightly.

[Borum]

Susan wrote: "Week 2 — The Window, Sections 8-16

The Ramsays and their guests continue their evening activities. Mrs Ramsay reads a fairy tale to James. William Bankes and Lily Briscoe discuss the Ramsays, and ...

2). Why doesn’t Lily want anyone to look at her painting?"



I think that she was oppressed not just by the fact that men like Tansley and women like Mrs. Ramsay thought her work was insignificant, but also by how the radical difference of her expression might be misunderstood and rejected. She must have been moving away from the pastel blotches of impressionism to a less representational and more expressionist and abstract form of expression. She reminds me of the Swedish artist Hilma af Klint, who is considered among the first abstract works known in Western art history.
She started automatic drawing as early as 1896 but her first series of abstract paintings began at the age of 44 in 1906.

The wikipedia entry is as follows:

She felt the abstract work and the meaning within were so groundbreaking that the world was not ready to see it, and she wished for the work to remain unseen for 20 years after her death.

Steiner stated that af Klint's contemporaries would not be able to accept and understand their paintings, and it would take another 50 years to decipher them. Of all the paintings shown to him, Steiner paid special attention only to the Primordial Chaos Group, noting them as "the best symbolically".[19] After meeting Steiner, af Klint was devastated by his response and, apparently, stopped painting for 4 years. Interestingly enough, Steiner kept photographs of some of af Klint's artworks, some of them even hand-coloured. Later the same year he met Wassily Kandinsky, who had not yet come to abstract painting. Some art historians assume that Kandinsky could have seen the photographs and perhaps was influenced by them while developing his own abstract path.

Despite the popular belief that Hilma af Klint had chosen to never exhibit her abstract works during her lifetime, in recent years art historians such as Julia Voss uncovered enough evidence of af Klint making an actual effort to show her art to the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilma_a...

[Borum]

Tamara wrote: "It strikes me that what Lily Briscoe says in this passage (section ix) could describe Woolf's style of writing:

. . . how life, from being made up of little separate incidents which one lived one..."

I loved that passage and also the description of the children's energy. However I couldn't help nodding my head in agreement with the beginning of section XI. ;-)

.. it was a relief when they went to bed. .... She could be herself, by herself. And that was what now she often felt the need of - to think; well, not even to think. To be silent; to be alone.

[Susan]

Susanna wrote: "Susan wrote: "I’m enjoying the flashes of humor. Mrs Ramsay on Mr Ramsay [12]: "And his habit of talking aloud, or saying poetry aloud, was growing on him."

As I get older, I am becoming more like..."

*smile*

[Susan]

Tamara wrote: "Susan wrote: "I’m enjoying the flashes of humor. Mrs Ramsay on Mr Ramsay [12]: “His understanding often astonished her. But did he notice the flowers? No. Did he notice the view? No. Did he even no..."

Tamara, I certainly agree that what Mrs Ramsay does is important. and essential to Mr Ramsay’s being able to do his philosophical work. Is it just due to socialization that she is uninterested in philosophy? I’m not so sure.

Incidentally, Mr Ramsay himself seems to rank his wife and children above his work when he thinks:

“It was true; he was for the most part happy; he had his wife; he had his children; he had promised in six weeks’ time to talk “some nonsense” to the young men of Cardiff about Locke, Hume, Berkeley, and the causes of the French Revolution.” (Section 8)

[Susan]

Gary wrote: "Perhaps I shouldn't confess this, but for many years, for reasons I don't actually remember, I've avoided reading Virginia Woolf. This reading prompted me to open myself to her work. It has been a ..."

I’m so glad you decided to take the plunge, Gary, and are enjoying the experience of discovering To the Lighthouse and Virginia Woolf. To the Lighthouse is one of my favorite novels so I’m admittedly biased, but every time I reread it, I find something new to think about and to admire.

[Susan]

Gerard wrote: " Nancy waded out to her own rocks and searched her own pools and let that couple look after themselves. She crouched low down and touched the smooth rubber-like sea anemones, who were stuck like lu..."

An amazing passage. I’m intrigued wondering what the “fantastic leviathan” looks like: “high-stepping, fringed, gauntleted”. And glad Nancy found some escape after all from “the horror of family life” in her imaginative play.

[Susan]

Roger wrote: I followed the same path. But what has been revealed to me is that I was on the right track to begin with. Hey Ginnie, if you want to tell a story, can you just tell the darn story? At least provide clear indications of who is thinking what and who is saying what...

I’m glad you decided to give Woolf and To the Lighthouse a try despite your doubts, Roger. I actually think, with a few exceptions, Woolf is pretty good at indicating who is speaking/thinking, once you get used to her methods.

But what is the story she is telling? Good question. Is there one, or is her novel just a cloud of incidents and impressions, flying thoughts and feelings? It’s definitely not a conventional plot. If you think of her as weaving a piece of cloth, there are hints of the pattern emerging, but the whole pattern won’t become clear until later in the book.

[Susan]

Borum wrote: "I wouldn't say that she's a 'good' one for I think matchmaking is something like the stock market - more based on luck than intuition and skill. Also, I think that she's picked the wrong people for matchmaking, because both Lily and Mr. Bankes is completeley 'raptured' by the matchmaker.

I like your analogy between matchmaking and the stock market! You’ve identified something important in her approach to Lily Briscoe and William Bankes; she’s right to see the compatibility and friendliness between them, but wrong to see it as leading to marriage. You may be right, but I’m not sure it’s because they are both in love with Mrs Ramsay; Lily’s love seems to encompass all the Ramsays, including Mr Ramsay.

As for the other match we see Mrs Ramsay actively promoting between Minta Doyle and Paul Rayley, the descriptions of Minta’s character and Paul’s expectations “he always leading her, and she pressing close to his side (as she did now)” seem out of synch.

[Susan]

Borum wrote: "I was also interested in the way Lily's painting was described as well.
Mother and child then - objects of universal veneration, and in this case the mother was famous for her beauty - might be r..."

There’s a sense in which Lily’s art subverts the picture of mother and child which Mr Bankes so admired and which Mrs Ramsay advocates for, but it is not irreverent toward them. And there’s the word “reverence” again, which keeps popping up.

[Susan]

Borum wrote: "I think that she was oppressed not just by the fact that men like Tansley and women like Mrs. Ramsay thought her work was insignificant, but also by how the radical difference of her expression might be misunderstood and rejected. She must have been moving away from the pastel blotches of impressionism to a less representational and more expressionist and abstract form of expression. She reminds me of the Swedish artist Hilma af Klint, "

Lily also seems unsure herself about what she is doing. Maybe that comes from doing something radically different from what has come before. Thanks for the info on Hilma af Klint, who is new to me

[Sam]

the little space of sky which sleeps beside the moon

[Lily]

@13 Roger wrote: "...But what has been revealed to me is that I was on the right track to begin with. ..."

(Grin.) You remind me of this group reading The Pilgrim's Progress -- and I can't really tell you why... other than that's the way my mind "traveled" when I read your comments. For me, I am fascinated by the careful way Woolf is able to document the zig zag path human thought often takes. At least many minds, according to recent studies on human thought, seem to indicate it is often not obvious why one idea/observation follows another. So, for me, much of Woolf's writing seems meticulous observation. Of course, it does often seem that the stream of thoughts she captures do reflect the experiences of her own life, with many familial experiences that would probably be labelled abusive. But on a broader scale, she touches on the sensitivities of an England that lost so many of its men in the trenches of Verdun.

[Thomas]

Susan wrote: "1) Why is Mrs Ramsay a matchmaker? Is she a good one?
."

It sounds very strange when Paul reflects that "It had been far and away the worst moment of his life when he asked Minta to marry him. He would go straight to Mrs. Ramsay, because he felt somehow that she was the person who had made him do it."

But earlier Mrs. Ramsay admits to herself that she does have this power: " And here she was, she reflected, feeling life rather sinister again, making Minta marry Paul Rayley... Had she not laughed about it? Was she not forgetting again how strongly she influenced people?" At one point in this passage she suggests that it is an escape for her "to say that people must marry; people must have children."

Maybe matchmaking is for her an escape from her naturally gloomy disposition? Or an opportunity to exert power -- she "brandishes her sword at life." A kind of rebelliousness maybe?

2). Why doesn’t Lily want anyone to look at her painting?

When Mr. Bankes sees her painting, she says, "But it had been seen; it had been taken from her. This man had shared with her something profoundly intimate." It is frightening to her, and "immensely exciting" to share her painting with another, and despite Mr. Bankes' somewhat literal and mechanistic interpretation, he is honest and kind, so it turns out to be a good experience. But it requires her to open herself to the vulnerability of criticism.

[Susan]

Sam wrote: "the little space of sky which sleeps beside the moon"

That is a lovely image

[Susan]

Thomas wrote: ". Maybe matchmaking is for her an escape from her naturally gloomy disposition? Or an opportunity to exert power -- she "brandishes her sword at life." A kind of rebelliousness maybe?

These all sound plausible. It may be an endorsement of her own marriage and motherhood to advocate that others should marry, but she seems to go well beyond advocating to actively planning and promoting matches, with varied success. Perhaps it’s an extension of her activity in the family, looking out for everyone’s interests and mediating between them. I’m not sure why she does but you raise some interesting possibilities to consider.

[Susan]

Thomas wrote: "Why doesn’t Lily want anyone to look at her painting?

When Mr. Bankes sees her painting, she says, "But it had been seen; it had been taken from her. This man had shared with her something profoundly intimate." It is frightening to her, and "immensely exciting" to share her painting with another, and despite Mr. Bankes' somewhat literal and mechanistic interpretation, he is honest and kind, so it turns out to be a good experience. But it requires her to open herself to the vulnerability of criticism.."

I keep thinking this reluctance tells us something about Lily and the nature of her art. She seems to have the impulse to create more strongly than the impulse to share her work or have it be seen. This may be a purer creative impulse than just doing it for show, but nonetheless, what good is your vision if it isn’t shared? But perhaps her reluctance is because her painting is a work in progress and incomplete so still susceptible to others’ influence, especially others less open and kind than Mr Bankes

[Susan]

Borum wrote: I wonder if abstract and less representational art was already starting back in the 19th century? Even now the mother and her child is something held up to almost a sacred object of reverence and Lily's way of expressing them must have been shocking back then.

Although Woolf is careful to give us the month and time of day in this section, she doesn’t give us the year. But you are right, Borum, that Lily’s art is a good clue, and after a little research, I think we can say the date is early twentieth century, after 1910, based on Lily’s art which seems to reflect the influence of the Post-Impressionists.

Here’s why. Roger Fry was an English critic, artist, and friend of Virginia Woolf. He organized a very influential and controversial art exhibit in late 1910 in London — 'Manet and the Post-Impressionists'.

From Wikipedia’s article on Roger Fry: “This exhibition was the first to prominently feature Gauguin, Cézanne, Matisse, and Van Gogh in England and brought their art to the public. While the exhibition would eventually be widely celebrated, the sentiments at the time were much less favourable.”

The article goes on to say: “Fry was not immune to the backlash. Desmond MacCarthy, the secretary of the exhibition stated that "by introducing the works of Cézanne, Matisse, Seurat, Van Gogh, Gauguin and Picasso to the British public, he smashed for a long time his reputation as an art critic. Kind people called him mad, and reminded others that his wife was in an asylum. The majority declared him to be a subverter of morals and art, and a blatant self-advertiser."” No wonder Lily was nervous about people looking at her picture…

Wikipedia adds: “the foreignness of "post-impressionism" would inevitably disappear and eventually the exhibition would be regarded as a critical moment for art and culture. Virginia Woolf later said, "On or about December 1910 human character changed", referring to the effect this exhibit had on the world. Fry followed it up with the Second Post-Impressionist Exhibition in 1912.”

Woolf will give us more evidence of the dates later in the novel. I’m wondering why Woolf withholds this information until halfway through. Did she assume the reader would know? Was it withheld for another reason?

[Sam]

And we have not yet gotten to the bombshell ending!

[Susan]

Emil wrote: "Susan wrote: "Why doesn’t Lily want anyone to look at her painting? ..."

Look:

But that any other eyes should see the residue of her
thirty-three years, the deposit of each day's living mixed wit..."

Good point! But there are indications Lily would prefer that people view her picture —at least when it’s done. One of the phrases that discourages her concerns the picture being rolled up and stuck under a bed or in a closet or hung in a servant’s room, where it wouldn’t be seen by anyone or by anyone who Lily thinks would appreciate it (a somewhat snobby assumption).

[Susan]

Sam wrote: "I could just be typing up passages all day, commenting on all of it in my mind. It is so rich.
Lily's painting. It could not be that she doesn't want anyone to see it since she is painting practica..."

Sam, Great stuff, but did you mean to post under Week 5, as there are some spoilers here?

[Emil]

@Sam, I haven't finished "The Window" section, but your comments are so intriguing, i need more time to digest them.

@Susan I wouldn't call Sam's comments "spoilers" ... maybe "teasers", dont be harsh on him :)

[Susan]

Emil wrote: "Sam, I haven't finished "The Window" section, but your comments are so intriguing, i need more time to digest them"

Sam, Would it be possible for you to move the parts with spoilers in your long comment above to Week 5, please? If you need technical assistance, just let me know.

NOTE: This post was moved to the Week 5 discussion due to spoilers.

[Tamara]

Emil wrote: "@Sam, I haven't finished "The Window" section, but your comments are so intriguing, i need more time to digest them.

@Susan I wouldn't call Sam's comments "spoilers" ... maybe "teasers", dont be h..."

Actually, they are spoilers because they refer to events that appear later in the book.