From this review in the Irish Times of Virginia Woolf's Essays (Volume 6) that has just gone out on the Woolf listserv:
[Woolf] rarely matched the best of her contemporaries: George Orwell, with his seamless connections carrying the reader cheerfully along all kinds of unexpected routes, or Rebecca West, with her journalist’s eye for a winning phrase. More conscientious than either of these, Woolf too often simply overwrote, lumbering herself with verbiage she didn’t really need.
Whew. Wow. Huh. OK, maybe. But can I have an example please?
(…) This is the sixth and final annotated volume of Woolf’s complete essays, edited (as was volume 5) by Stuart Clarke. It covers the 1930s, a decade in which Woolf wrote fewer essays while worrying more about how to write them. Could she invent a “new critical method”? Should she experiment with a “diary” mode? “The old problem, how to keep the flight of the mind, yet be exact,” she mused in 1940. As in her later novels, from The Years to Between the Acts , she seemed troubled by self-consciousness about her technique, unable, stylistically, to settle down.
Hm. What does that mean, I wonder, "stylistically"? Does it mean generically? Can I have an example please? no? not here either?
(…) ["The Leaning Tower"]'s rhetoric may sound passionate, but as an essay does it convince? And why does it go on and on, even to the point of windbaggery?
Windbaggery? Really? I mean, "The Leaning Tower" convinces me, but then I'm not impartial when it comes to Woolf. But I'm willing to entertain alternate readings! Can I have an example, please, just to know what you mean by that? At what point does Woolf become a windbag?… no? no example?
There are four more paragraphs to the review and I just don't care to read them. In an attempt not to freight the reader down with verbiage, the reviewer has chosen simply to unsubstantiate the better part of her claims. B-.