I am working with Solid Objects/Ghosts of Chairs: Virginia Woolf and the Afterlife of Things, an article written by Graham Fraser. The problem Fraser identifies is Woolf’s usage of anthropomorphizing objects within a household. Fraser argues that Woolf uses objects to help characterize people within a story. His claim presents itself, “Indeed, the domestication of objects into household decor in this story corresponds to a rising indistinction between Isabella and her room”(Fraser 82). He focuses on the looking glass, and its comparison to the human longing to gaze. By looking at the human gaze through Fraser’s lens, we as readers can decipher how Woolf’s detailed descriptions of her characters’ surroundings are worth analyzing. We gain a tangible sense of how psychoanalysis is present in certain writings. The ability to pay full attention to how objects create perceptions of people would be lost if we didn’t see the work this way. As Fraser writes, “The objects in the Ramsays’ house are already in a kind of afterlife, as objects consigned to summer homes and cottages so often are”(Fraser 84). By giving inanimate objects meaning, we see the true background of a space that has been deemed comfortable by the person who inhabits it. As certain items in a home become dilapidated or rot away, the character rots along with it, which is so interesting as a reader to see in Woolf’s stories. Fraser describes this feeling on page 94, “And yet, as we abandon our things, so do they, in their afterlife, forget us”(Fraser 94). This quote pulls my focus as a reader, to note when Woolf shifts character development through the objects surrounding a protagonist. I find Fraser’s commentary on Woolf’s usage of character development to be very interesting. Specifically, the moments where he describes the souls of objects to have weight and meaning within the story. I don’t particularly have any reservations about Fraser’s critique. Rather, I agree with his idea of a main issue, although maybe he doesn’t consider it an issue, as it is the pinnacle of psychoanalytic writing. Woolf’s choices to describe what we think of as meaningless, “things”, pull together her writing as something that can be looked at as actually advancing the story further than it would be without the detailed descriptions of the belongings’ journey/arc. I would take Fraser’s analysis further into other psychoanalytic writers (although I don’t know of any) and see if they hold as much weight as Woolf does, or if their writing could be used as an example as well. For example, in the poem “First Death in Nova Scotia”, written by Elizabeth Bishop, her usage of objects to describe a dead child’s body, is very similar to Woolf’s anthropomorphization. I wonder if Fraser would agree with my statement. By having Fraser analyze other psychoanalytic work, the genre would gain a merit that it maybe didn’t have before, and create new ways to connect with a character in a piece of media.