# Reading > Forum Book Club >  June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

## Scheherazade

*

In June we will be reading Women in Love by DH Lawrence:



Novel by D.H. Lawrence, privately printed in 1920 and published commercially in 1921. Following the characters Lawrence had created for The Rainbow (1915), Women in Love examines the ill effects of industrialization on the human psyche, resolving that individual and collective rebirth is possible only through human intensity and passion. Women in Love contrasts the love affair of Rupert Birkin and Ursula Brangwen with that of Gudrun, Ursula's artistic sister, and Gerald Crich, a domineering industrialist. Birkin, an introspective misanthrope, struggles to reconcile his metaphysical drive for self-fulfillment with Ursula's practical view of sentimental passion. Their love affair and eventual marriage are set as a positive antithesis to the destructive relationship of Gudrun and Crich. The novel also explores the relationship between Birkin and Crich. According to critics, Birkin is a self-portrait of Lawrence, and Ursula represents Lawrence's wife, Frieda.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...0742461&sr=1-1

Online Copy*




Book Club Regulations

----------


## ladymacbeth

Hi. I believe that Women in Love is a sequel to The Rainbow, so does it matter if I have never read that one? Does anyone know if I'll be missing anything by starting with Women in Love?

----------


## Janine

> Hi. I believe that Women in Love is a sequel to The Rainbow, so does it matter if I have never read that one? Does anyone know if I'll be missing anything by starting with Women in Love?


Hi ladymacbeth, I read "Women in Love" when I was in my late 20's and had not read the Rainbow. I really loved it and was quite impressed with L. Later I read "The Rainbow" - actually much later. It really made no difference to me. "Women in Love" is a very complete story all it's own. You won't miss a thing by not having read the other book. If you like WIL you can always go back and read "The Rainbow" as a prequel. 

Hope this answered your question. By the way, I read that Lawrence felt WIL was his finest novel. I read this recently on Wikipedia, or perhaps on this site (see the biography section for Lawrence). It is beneficial to read a short biography of L online, before reading the book.

----------


## Schokokeks

I got my copy from the library yesterday. Luckily it's not long  :Rolleyes: . I finished the first chapter last night and so far I find it very helpful that my edition has explanatory notes.
This is my first impression after the first few pages only, but to me his style seems very thought ladden, which helps me a lot to paint all the characters in my mind, since their attitudes and ideas are explained in between the action.

----------


## Janine

> I got my copy from the library yesterday. Luckily it's not long . I finished the first chapter last night and so far I find it very helpful that my edition has explanatory notes.
> This is my first impression after the first few pages only, but to me his style seems very thought ladden, which helps me a lot to paint all the characters in my mind, since their attitudes and ideas are explained in between the action.


Hi *Schokokeks*, I finished the first chapter, too. I just started the chapter -"Shortlands". I like what you said about 'thought ladden' - yes, very well put. Indeed Lawrence paints the characters and the places in his books, as you indicated you 'paint' them in your mind. He did actually draw and paint, in fact and so he perceives in that sort of way in my belief; with that sort of keen sensitivity and perception into everything - even the character's minds. His colors are always vivid and easy to see; as we go on you will undertand what I mean. Lawrence also had a great knowledge of botany and so incorporates much about flowers and plants into his writing and as metaphors, symbols, color. Glad you brought up the word 'paint', because note how much Lawrence uses color and paints with it to mean different things and symbolise certain moods, feelings, etc. 
If you want to discuss anything specific, read so far, I would be glad to start. I am reading a short book I should finish up tonight; then I will go on with chapter two, but we could disguss chapter one now.

I actually am waiting for a version of WIL to arrive, that I purchased from Amazon, with the explanatory notes. Glad you said it is helpful. Currently I am reading the novel out of my collection (one huge book), which is hard to handle. This will be a second reading of the novel for me, but I read is so long ago - hate to admit it - but more than 30 yrs ago.

----------


## manolia

I just finished the first chapter. So far so good. My copy doesn't have any notes in the end..is it going to be a problem?

----------


## Schokokeks

Hi Janine !



> Lawrence also had a great knowledge of botany and so incorporates much about flowers and plants into his writing and as metaphors, symbols, color.


Good to know that, I'll watch out it then while reading along  :Nod: .

I finished the second chapter yesterday evening, and so far I found it more interesting than the first. Some new characters were introduced, and I found the discussion at the dining table after the wedding on whether race and nationality are congruent very intriguing. But at the moment I don't know what to think of it as yet, just found it a very appetising passage  :Smile: . The same goes for the hint of homosexuality between Gerald and Birkin at the very end of the chapter. Or at least I take it as a hint to homosexual attraction.
I shall collect my thoughts as I read on  :Smile: .

Oh, one thing about the first chapter, though, about one of the girls' names being Gudrun. I was reminded of the Gudrun (Norse name) of the Germanic Nibelungen legend, where she is called Kriemhild (German name). The story has it that she took a devastating revenge for the murder of her husband, inciting a battle that killed thousands of her countrymen. Not at all a pleasant figure. 
I'm curious as to how Lawrence's Gudrun will turn out  :Smile: .




> My copy doesn't have any notes in the end..is it going to be a problem?


No, I don't think so. My edition explained some words in the first chapter, which was helpful to me as a non-native speaker of English, but I noticed that in the second chapter the notes were fewer and mostly related to differences in Lawrence's manuscripts concerning this and that passage. Not of a lot of importance for just a casual read, I think  :Smile: .
Nice you're reading with us  :Nod: .

----------


## Janine

*Hi Schokokeks*, 




> Hi Janine !
> 
> Good to know that, I'll watch out it then while reading along .
> 
> I finished the second chapter yesterday evening, and so far I found it more interesting than the first. Some new characters were introduced, and I found the discussion at the dining table after the wedding on whether race and nationality are congruent very intriguing. But at the moment I don't know what to think of it as yet, just found it a very appetising passage . The same goes for the hint of homosexuality between Gerald and Birkin at the very end of the chapter. Or at least I take it as a hint to homosexual attraction.
> I shall collect my thoughts as I read on .


So glad you are enjoying the book, since Lawrence is my favorite author, besides Thomas Hardy. I really find his characters so alive and so vivid. I think this is because Lawrence took so many of his characters directly from real 'life' and 'real' people he knew; he fashioned them into his book. Like Hermione, who is fashioned after a real person in Lawrence's life...a Lady-somebody. I have a poor memory on details, so let me look it up. I know of two people it may have been, and I don't want to quote it incorrectly. 

Is that the discussion at the dinner table (at Ursula and Gundruns or at Gerald's house) or was it at the ourdoor dinner? I have not gotten to that part yet in the book - just to chapter 2 and will read that hopefully tonight. I want to catch up so badly to you people who have gone past me already. I was busy last night reading the ending to another book, which was short. I can now totally concentrate on WIL.

As far as the 'homosexuality' or the "homosexual attraction' between the two men is concerned, the further you get into the book, you will see it in different ways. It is definitely a highly debated topic to this day. I think that Virgil will have much to add to this idea in L's writings. I have read some biographers that felt Lawrence had some of his own tendencies, and others that disputed the idea altogether. He believed in 'monogomy' in his personal life, staying married and faithful to one women, but there were rumors(?) he had some attractions to some men at some periods of his life. Who knows what is really true? 
The fun of his books is not knowing all, but wondering just what Lawrence was getting at, at least it is so to me. He was a very complex enigmatic man; his writings as much so.




> Oh, one thing about the first chapter, though, about one of the girls' names being Gudrun. I was reminded of the Gudrun (Norse name) of the Germanic Nibelungen legend, where she is called Kriemhild (German name). The story has it that she took a devastating revenge for the murder of her husband, inciting a battle that killed thousands of her countrymen. Not at all a pleasant figure. 
> I'm curious as to how Lawrence's Gudrun will turn out .


I never heard this theory or connection about the meaning of the name, but it is absolutely fascinating. Thanks so much for looking that up. It might definitely have some bit of significance. I will have to think on it a while. Gundrun is certainly the more spunky, assertive of the two sisters -fiercer in a way. Perhaps Lawrence knew this name referred back to this legend. Interesting. Also, interesting that it traces to the Germanic. L's wife was German; however, I believe, Ursula is suppose to be the fashioned after his wife, Frieda. 




> No, I don't think so. My edition explained some words in the first chapter, which was helpful to me as a non-native speaker of English, but I noticed that in the second chapter the notes were fewer and mostly related to differences in Lawrence's manuscripts concerning this and that passage. Not of a lot of importance for just a casual read, I think .
> Nice you're reading with us .


Hi, *manolia* - Yes, I agree with this. I don't think it matters at all. I actually did order, from Amazon, the Cambridge addition with notations, but that is because I would be interested in it's relationship to other L books. 
For you, a first time reader of L, it would not matter at all and in fact, may make your reading more pleasurable without the notes to distract you. The book I am reading right now does not have any. I may just use the other book when it comes to refer back to.
By the way, *manolia* - glad you can join in this discussion.

----------


## Virgil

Of all of Lawrence's novels, this one is the most classical. The themes are introduced up front and then get expanded and developed as it moves along. It's almost like a symphony. Let it suffice to say that the themes of the novel are introduced in the openning dialogue between Ursula and Gudrun: Marriage, experience, and the relationship between men and women. No need to elaborate on that. You'll see it as the novel progresses. The writing is really worth commenting on. It's marvelous.

Wasn't the wedding party scene of chapter two so beautifully portrayed? 




> The women wandered about in a little confusion, chased hither and thither by the three married daughters of the house. All the while there could be heard the characteristic, imperious voice of one Crich woman or another calling `Helen, come here a minute,' `Marjory, I want you -- here.' `Oh, I say, Mrs Witham --.' There was a great rustling of skirts, swift glimpses of smartly-dressed women, a child danced through the hall and back again, a maidservant came and went hurriedly.
> 
> Meanwhile the men stood in calm little groups, chatting, smoking, pretending to pay no heed to the rustling animation of the women's world. But they could not really talk, because of the glassy ravel of women's excited, cold laughter and running voices. They waited, uneasy, suspended, rather bored. But Gerald remained as if genial and happy, unaware that he was waiting or unoccupied, knowing himself the very pivot of the occasion.
> 
> Suddenly Mrs Crich came noiselessly into the room, peering about with her strong, clear face. She was still wearing her hat, and her sac coat of blue silk.
> 
> `What is it, mother?' said Gerald.
> 
> `Nothing, nothing!' she answered vaguely. And she went straight towards Birkin, who was talking to a Crich brother-in-law.
> ...


 and



> There was a moment's lull, as everybody looked at the bors d'oeuvres that were being handed round. And out of this lull, a girl of thirteen or fourteen, with her long hair down her back, said in a calm, self-possessed voice:
> 
> `Gerald, you forget father, when you make that unearthly noise.'
> 
> `Do I?' he answered. And then, to the company, `Father is lying down, he is not quite well.'
> 
> `How is he, really?' called one of the married daughters, peeping round the immense wedding cake that towered up in the middle of the table shedding its artificial flowers.
> 
> `He has no pain, but he feels tired,' replied Winifred, the girl with the hair down her back.
> ...


And so on as conversation develops. And such strange conversation. So far I've read three chapters and ecah chapter has characters in some sort of dialectic dialogue. It caused me to remember what my teacher said about this novel (I think it was twenty-five years ago) that it's structure was sort of like a Platonic dialogue. Ideas are constantly being drawn out and ruminated as the events and action takes place around the characters. But the characters are three dimensional, *not* allegories. Here's a particularly interesting bit of dialogue between Rupert and Gerald:



> `You don't believe in having any standard of behaviour at all, do you?' he challenged Birkin, censoriously.
> 
> `Standard -- no. I hate standards. But they're necessary for the common ruck. Anybody who is anything can just be himself and do as he likes.'
> 
> `But what do you mean by being himself?' said Gerald. `Is that an aphorism or a cliche?'
> 
> `I mean just doing what you want to do. I think it was perfect good form in Laura to bolt from Lupton to the church door. It was almost a masterpiece in good form. It's the hardest thing in the world to act spontaneously on one's impulses -- and it's the only really gentlemanly thing to do -- provided you're fit to do it.'
> 
> `You don't expect me to take you seriously, do you?' asked Gerald.
> ...

----------


## Janine

> Of all of Lawrence's novels, this one is the most classical. The themes are introduced up front and then get expanded and developed as it moves along. It's almost like a symphony. Let it suffice to say that the themes of the novel are introduced in the openning dialogue between Ursula and Gudrun: Marriage, experience, and the relationship between men and women. No need to elaborate on that. You'll see it as the novel progresses. The writing is really worth commenting on. It's marvelous.


Yes, it is classical isn't it? I just got up to chapter 3 tonight; was reading this just now as I was eating my dinner - the passages you have quoted. Yes, I can see what you mean about the first chapter and the opening conversation with Ursula and Gudrun - about the themes and the essence of what is going to come. Isn't it wonderfully expressed and debated between them? This book in particular does move gracefully like a "symphony" with intrigal parts all making up a whole. "Symphony" is a good way of putting it. I think by now in WIL, Lawrence came to a pinacle of completeness in his writing. I know you loved "The Rainbow", but I think Lawrence was at the stage of still hashing around his thoughts and that shows up in "The Rainbow". At that point, he was not as definite about them as he is in WIL. To me WIL is the more complete of the two novels. That is why I said to several people who asked about the sequence to read them, that I felt it did not matter that they did not read "The Rainbow" first. It later could be read as a prequel. 
Yes, the writing is wonderful to talk about and the book and style of writing is marvelous, I so much agree. I really just want now to sit and read the book all evening. I am hooked once again; it has been 30 yrs since I read it!




> Wasn't the wedding party scene of chapter two so beautifully portrayed?


I loved that scene and the way the groom chased after the bride - so spontaneous and fun. Later though if you notice Birkin thinks it just that - spontaneous and Gerald is annoyed by lack of control. This is a key scene in understanding their opposed views on life. Also, the whole scene describing the characters - vivid with color and made one feel like you were right there as one of the wedding guests, like the two sisters, but on the outskirts looking in.




> and
> And so on as conversation develops. And such strange conversation. So far I've read three chapters and ecah chapter has characters in some sort of dialectic dialogue. It caused me to remember what my teacher said about this novel (I think it was twenty-five years ago) that it's structure was sort of like a Platonic dialogue. Ideas are constantly being drawn out and ruminated as the events and action takes place around the characters. But the characters are three dimensional, allegories. Here's a particularly interesting bit of dialogue between Rupert and Gerald:


*Schokokeks* brought up the table scene and says "and I found the discussion at the dining table after the wedding on whether race and nationality are congruent very intriguing." Yes, that whole discussion ends up being intriguing, I think. The conversation was marvelous and even had a bit of wit, I thought. Birkin at times came across rather amusing with his quiet comments and his way of being amused. The part with the hat is really funny, I think. Also, each character is set up now with their separate attitudes and distinct characters. Gerald's mother is well portrayed in this passage, as well. I believe she is becoming senile or has Alzhemirs, since her memory goes in and out at times, if you notice. 

Well, onto Chapter 3! After 30 yrs I can say this about the book. First time around I loved it, and I really think this book changed my life. Second time around I am seeing things I missed before and appreciating the book in a different way, a sort of fresh new perspective, which is great. The writing, in fact, feels very "fresh" to me as I am reading and I am liking it so far emensely.

I like what you said about "Ideas are constantly being drawn out and ruminated as the events and action takes place around the characters. But the characters are three dimensional, allegories." Interesting the way you put that. I agree but not sure what you exactly mean about "allegories". Do you mean to present the ideas/ideals of Lawrence?

----------


## Virgil

No, no I botched that Janine. That was a typo. I meant to say that characters are three dimensional, *NOT* allegories. I'm sorry; I am such a poor typist. :Blush:  I'll go back and fix that before anyone else gets confused.

----------


## manolia

I just finished chapter two. It gets even better. I agree with what Virgil said that the main topics are introduced in the first chapter and developed in the rest. One can see some topics developing in this chapter

I like the irony and the comic scenes described, including the conversation between Birkin and the half crazy, half senile Mrs Crich.
I particularly like this paragraph 




> Then he remembered, with a slight shock, that that was Cain's cry. And Gerald was Cain, if anybody. Not that he was Cain, either, although he had slain his brother. There was such a thing as pure accident, and the consequences did not attach to one, even though one had killed one's brother in such wise. Gerald as a boy had accidentally killed his brother. What then? Why seek to draw a brand and a curse across the life that had caused the accident? A man can live by accident, and die by accident. Or can he not? Is every man's life subject to pure accident, is it only the race, the genus, the species, that has a universal reference? Or is this not true, is there no such thing as pure accident? Has everything that happens a universal significance? Has it? Birkin, pondering as he stood there, had forgotten Mrs Crich, as she had forgotten him.


I like the biblical reference. The whole paragraph made me wonder about Lawrence's beliefs concerning religion. Although Birkin is determined that there are no such things as accidents, i can't help but wonder whether he speaks Lawrence's opinion or whether this is part of the subtle irony.

I also liked this one





> `No man,' said Birkin, `cuts another man's throat unless he wants to cut it, and unless the other man wants it cutting. This is a complete truth. It takes two people to make a murder: a murderer and a murderee. And a murderee is a man who is murderable. And a man who is murderable is a man who in a profound if hidden lust desires to be murdered.


A very bold opinion, don't you think? I already like Birkin's character very much..i have spotted some very interesting "contradictions" in him (the way he is ready to please other people and pays attention to anyone but deep inside he has an antipathy for large congegations of people), he seems quite a philosopher.

----------


## Schokokeks

> I never heard this theory or connection about the meaning of the name [Gudrun], but it is absolutely fascinating. Thanks so much for looking that up.


No need to look it up, it's the German national epic, after all (like _Beowulf_ for the English), and every child gets to know it at school here  :Smile: . There's even another reference to the legend: When Ursula and Gudrun go for a walk (at the very beginning of the 4th chapter), they watch Gerald Crich swimming in the lake, and Ursula calls him a "Nibelung", which are the dwarfs that feature in, of course, the _Nibelungenlied_  :Smile: . Very interesting comparison.




> It caused me to remember what my teacher said about this novel (I think it was twenty-five years ago) that it's structure was sort of like a Platonic dialogue. Ideas are constantly being drawn out and ruminated as the events and action takes place around the characters.


That's exactly what I wrote on my note-card I keep beside the book to remember the things about the book I want to mention here  :Smile: . In my words: Having read the first seven chapters now (couldn't stop  :Smile: ), I feel the book is so very ... dense, in a way. The dialogues are very intellectualised, with all the characters starting off with talking about something rather casual, but the discussion very soon turns into statements about the general nature of things, e.g. of love, knowledge (Hermione and Birkin in the third chapter, starting with hazels), or the purpose of life (Gerald and Birkin on the train to London). Reminds me a bit of Oscar Wilde's aphorisms, only that Lawrence's are not satirical, but deeper and interwoven with an individual character.
It felt to me a bit unnatural at first, but I'm beginning to see that these are Lawrence's personal spectacles  :Smile: .




> Gerald's mother is well portrayed in this passage, as well. I believe she is becoming senile or has Alzhemirs, since her memory goes in and out at times, if you notice.


Yes, Mrs. Crich is cool  :Biggrin: . She strongly reminds me of a horrible xenophobe aunt I have  :Biggrin: .

----------


## Virgil

> No need to look it up, it's the German national epic, after all (like _Beowulf_ for the English), and every child gets to know it at school here . There's even another reference to the legend: When Ursula and Gudrun go for a walk (at the very beginning of the 4th chapter), they watch Gerald Crich swimming in the lake, and Ursula calls him a "Nibelung", which are the dwarfs that feature in, of course, the _Nibelungenlied_ . Very interesting comparison.


I don't believe it's accidental. Throughout the novel Lawrence sets up symbols of northern and southern, ice and heat, and others. I don't claim to understand it all. At least not yet.  :Wink:  




> That's exactly what I wrote on my note-card I keep beside the book to remember the things about the book I want to mention here . In my words: Having read the first seven chapters now (couldn't stop ), I feel the book is so very ... dense, in a way. The dialogues are very intellectualised, with all the characters starting off with talking about something rather casual, but the discussion very soon turns into statements about the general nature of things, e.g. of love, knowledge (Hermione and Birkin in the third chapter, starting with hazels), or the purpose of life (Gerald and Birkin on the train to London). Reminds me a bit of Oscar Wilde's aphorisms, only that Lawrence's are not satirical, but deeper and interwoven with an individual character.
> It felt to me a bit unnatural at first, but I'm beginning to see that these are Lawrence's personal spectacles .


I think it is unnatural but it seems to work in this novel very well. The characters are very real and if they weren't, if they came across as two dimensional, I think it would have failed. Lawrence is to have said that he writes for his sake (to communicate his ideas) not for art's sake. In his lesser novels, this comes across as awkward and stilted, but here it works very well.

----------


## Janine

*manolia, Schokokeks, and Virgil*,
Great observations, everyone! I am up to chapter 5; I am like you Schokokeks when you said about not being able to put it down, I had trouble stopping last night - but unfortunately it was 4:00AM! And I have read the book before, but it is even more fascinating to me second time around. 
*manolia*, I thought the Cain reference very interesting. I had forgotten that about Gerald and the brother and the childhood accident. This explains so much about Gerald and his personality. You will see as you read what I mean. Very often Lawrence uses biblical references in his works. It is interesting because I think at this point in his life, he knows the bible well, but more as a piece of literature and mythology. His ideas of religion are not of the conventional. He draws on biblical references as images, examples and allegories. I think probably Virgil could explain this more clearly. 
I have asked myself countless times if L believed in God or one god and I think it is a hard question to answer precisely. He is not an atheist, as Hardy claimed to be. I think his religious views varied over his lifespan. Towards the end of his life, if you read his poetry, he writes some beautiful poems speaking of his impending death and the hereafter and God; but as I said not in a 'conventional' way, more universal. There is nothing about Lawrence that is ever truly conventional. Am I right about this, *Virgil*?

The quote about "a murderer and a murderee" is quite interesing, isn't it, *manolia*?
In fact, we just discussed a short story by Lawrence - "The Prussian Officer" - and this passage recalled me to that story. Last night I quoted it in one of the final posts in the discussion thread. In fact it clarifies Lawrence's view and philosophy of this topic of murder and the short story's deeper meaning, in one simple paragraph. I was thrilled to come across this paragraph and if there are 'no coincidences' in life - truly this came at the right time - just when we were wrapping up the discussion on the short story thread. We have been struggling with that story's theme, I believe, for weeks. This makes Lawrence's thoughts on the subject so plain to me, finally.

*Schokokeks*, thanks for pointing out the reference - "Nibelung" and the Nibelungenlied. This did go way over my head when I was reading, since I am not at all knowlegable about the mythology. This is fascinating. It also explains so much to me about Gudrun and her personality.




> That's exactly what I wrote on my note-card I keep beside the book to remember the things about the book I want to mention here . In my words: Having read the first seven chapters now (couldn't stop), I feel the book is so very ... dense, in a way. The dialogues are very intellectualised, with all the characters starting off with talking about something rather casual, but the discussion very soon turns into statements about the general nature of things, e.g. of love, knowledge (Hermione and Birkin in the third chapter, starting with hazels), or the purpose of life (Gerald and Birkin on the train to London). Reminds me a bit of Oscar Wilde's aphorisms, only that Lawrence's are not satirical, but deeper and interwoven with an individual character.
> It felt to me a bit unnatural at first, but I'm beginning to see that these are Lawrence's personal spectacles .


*Schokokeks*, I need to keep one of those note-cards beside my book, too. I am very forgetful of what I read specifically - great idea. All of L's work is just that - "dense" and complex, too. There are no simple characters, as real people in life are not simplistic. There are never easy answers to why they are as they are. Like Wilde, Lawrence had a deeply sensitive and keen sense of people's minds and personalities; he portrayed them far below the surface. Your closing lines are right on - his writing becomes natural and definitely all is seen "though the spectacles of Lawrence". Birkin is suppose to be the representation of Lawrence and his view. In the book Birkin is struggling, I believe, at this point to find himself and his philosophy on life. He is like a trapped being trying to burst out of convention. I think he mentions a number of times hating 'convention'. In chapter two, with his confrontation with Hermione (starting with the botony lesson, hazel nut), then advancing to the true meaning of 'sensuality', Birkin is desperately trying to be heard and understood. If you notice, he differenciates between "sensuality" and "sensuous" - I found that very interesting in that passage.




> Yes, Mrs. Crich is cool . She strongly reminds me of a horrible xenophobe aunt I have


Actually, she comes off rather comical, at first, but later you will see that she is really such a poignant, sad character, and I believe fierce and mean, as well. Was your aunt like that? Her effect is greatly felt by Gerald, who apparently cannot deal with with his mother's illness/insanity/anger. I don't know if she has always been a bit 'off' or unstable, but the book seemed to indicate or suggest that to me. Perhaps when she lost her other son, to the accident, she went crazy in the head. Who could not have been effected? How disturbing to know that your other son pulled the trigger, even though a supposed accident. What a horrible thing to live with, for the entire family.




> I don't believe it's accidental. Throughout the novel Lawrence sets up symbols of northern and southern, ice and heat, and others. I don't claim to understand it all. At least not yet.


*Virgil*, this is very good and I agree. It is good to note many contrasts/opposites like the 'ice and heat' throughout the novel. Lawrence uses opposites like these often, as you well know, and as symbols of greater and deeper meanings. 
I don't understand it all either, who could? I recall that even at the end of this novel, I had many questions lingering in my mind. I think this is what I like about Lawrence's novels/stories. I once read, years ago, that he leaves his novel's and story's endings like this on purpose. I believe they are 'unsolved' to mimic real life, and truly it makes the novels more believable and real. This is 'no accident', do you think? It is always quite 'intentional' to make the reader think and contemplate. I recall the story we disgused - "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" - I am still questioning the ending and what will happen afterwards. But I think in this novel you will see a lot of loose ends take meaning by the end. However, eternal questions will always remain.




> I think it is unnatural but it seems to work in this novel very well. The characters are very real and if they weren't, if they came across as two dimensional, I think it would have failed. Lawrence is to have said that he writes for his sake (to communicate his ideas) not for art's sake. In his lesser novels, this comes across as awkward and stilted, but here it works very well.


I think that passage goes on pretty long; Birkin is emphatic about his views. In some ways he pushes the limits on this discussion. I read that often editors and critics felt Lawrence too preachy. I think in this discussion of the sensuality Birkin goes out on a limb and goes to extremes, and is a bit preachy at time; to me reading it, it seemed a bit unnatural, especially with Ursula witnessing the whole confrontation. It is as though Birkin definitely wants Ursula to hear his views, don't you think? In someways, Hermione does not even get his 'point', but apparently it does penetrate Ursulas mind at some deeper level. The closing scene, with her alone, bursting into tears, indicates this to me. This is not to say the passage does not work. I found it totally captivating and also feel that I am in accordance with Birkin's ideas, at this point. It works spendidly.

----------


## Virgil

> I have asked myself countless times if L believed in God or one god and I think it is a hard question to answer precisely. He is not an atheist, as Hardy claimed to be. I think his religious views varied over his lifespan. Towards the end of his life, if you read his poetry, he writes some beautiful poems speaking of his impending death and the hereafter and God; but as I said not in a 'conventional' way, more universal. There is nothing about Lawrence that is ever truly conventional. Am I right about this, *Virgil*?


Oh there is no question Lawrence is not an atheist. I think most of his works are a striving to understand how religion (his personal unconventional beliefs) relates to our mortal lives. The understanding of marriage as the central theme of this book (and of The Rainbow) is a religious link to marriage. There are many aspects of Lawrence's ideas that I don't personally agree with, but the idea that so much of our lives are interconnected with spituality is something that attracts me to his writing. Whether Lawrence's ideas about religion evolve is something I've grappled with too. I'm going to say that it does not that much but the way he expresses it evolves. Plus he adds layers to it, but the central ideas seem the same.




> *Virgil*, this is very good and I agree. It is good to note many contrasts/opposites like the 'ice and heat' throughout the novel. Lawrence uses opposites like these often, as you well know, and as symbols of greater and deeper meanings.


Lawence was dualist, meaning he believed that the world worked in opposites, light and dark, hot and cold, man and woman. Whenever I get stuck understanding a particular passage, I always look for what opposites Lawrence is setting up and what meaning seems to come from that contrast. Notice as you read how many opposites and contrasts he sets up in this novel.





> I don't understand it all either, who could? I recall that even at the end of this novel, I had many questions lingering in my mind. I think this is what I like about Lawrence's novels/stories. I once read, years ago, that he leaves his novel's and story's endings like this on purpose. I believe they are 'unsolved' to mimic real life, and truly it makes the novels more believable and real. This is 'no accident', do you think? It is always quite 'intentional' to make the reader think and contemplate. I recall the story we disgused - "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" - I am still questioning the ending and what will happen afterwards. But I think in this novel you will see a lot of loose ends take meaning by the end. However, eternal questions will always remain.


Lawrence hated the pat conclusion. There is almost always a new issue to come up at the end that projects a continuation of further life.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* for once we totally agree  :Biggrin:  
....now onto more reading..........
I will try not to stay up till 4:00AM tonight.....  :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

I finished chapter 5 last night and found this to be a very important passage. Key words/concepts within this passage: "experiences," "finality," "love." And earlier in the chapter is the word "religion" is also introduced.




> Suddenly Birkins eyes looked straight and overpowering into those of the other man.
> 
> What do you think is the aim and object of your life, Gerald? he asked.
> 
> Again Gerald was taken aback. He could not think what his friend was getting at. Was he poking fun, or not?
> 
> At this moment, I couldnt say offhand, he replied, with faintly ironic humour.
> 
> Do you think love is the beall and the endall of life? Birkin asked, with direct, attentive seriousness.
> ...

----------


## grace86

Okay guys...I'm going to attempt to do something I've never personally done. That is, read three books at one time. I really want to participate in the book club as much as I can...so wish me luck!

Women in Love doesn't seem horribly long either. I am looking forward to starting Lawrence (here I come Janine!). I will be reading chapters one and two today.

----------


## Janine

> Okay guys...I'm going to attempt to do something I've never personally done. That is, read three books at one time. I really want to participate in the book club as much as I can...so wish me luck!
> 
> Women in Love doesn't seem horribly long either. I am looking forward to starting Lawrence (here I come Janine!). I will be reading chapters one and two today.


 :Wave:  Hi *Grace*, depending on what the other books are and the length of them, and if they also have a deadline, I think you can do it. I don't like reading that many books myself, all at once (being a slow-poke reader), but have done it occasionally and kept each story straight in my mind. I am glad to see you here and I think you will find WIL goes quickly reading-wise, and as you said, the book is not very long. I am shocked that I am as far already in my reading, because, in-between I read 4 of Lawrence's short stories; I am trying to determine a good one for the SS thread - my turn to pick. Stop in there if you have the time, but if not catch it next month maybe(?). I am picking a shorter story this month, since so much D.H.L. discussion is going on elsewhere. 
*Grace*, enjoy your reading! :Thumbs Up:  Janine

----------


## Janine

> I finished chapter 5 last night and found this to be a very important passage. Key words/concepts within this passage: "experiences," "finality," "love." And earlier in the chapter is the word "religion" is also introduced.


*Virgil,* I read this part last night, also. I am maybe a little further than you in my reading now. But this part on the train particularly struck me as "key" moments of very significant conversation between Birkin and Gerald. At one point I almost see their attitudes as complete opposites, how about you? They seem to represent L's idea of "dualities" and complementing each other; in a way they balance each other out, I believe. In order to let Birkin's (Lawrence's own ideas) shine forth this difference enhances the ideas of Birkin. It is like a comedy team where there is a funny man and a straightman; thus making the joke even funnier by contast. In our case the two of course are serious but at opposite ends of the pole. It also sets up this picture of how ingrained Gerald's set conventional ideas are and how much Birkin wants to break loose of these conventions in life. He also wants it for Gerald, which is later very significant. 
When Birkin gets to the part about wanting to love one women in the "finality of love", if you notice this particularly throws off Gerald. He sees it quite differently, truly opposite to Birkin's views. Also "centre and core" are major words of significance in Lawrence's ideas. You may have quoted some of this before.




> `And do you want to?' said Birkin.
> 
> Gerald looked with a long, twinkling, almost sardonic look into the eyes of the other man.
> 
> `I don't know,' he said.
> 
> `I do -- I want to love,' said Birkin.
> 
> `You do?'
> ...


Then this a short while, later on, toward the end of the conversation:




> Gerald was held unconsciously by the other man. He wanted to be near him, he wanted to be within his sphere of influence. There was something very congenial to him in Birkin. But yet, beyond this, he did not take much notice. He felt that he, himself, Gerald, had harder and more durable truths than any the other man knew. He felt himself older, more knowing. It was the quick-changing warmth and venality and brilliant warm utterance he loved in his friend. It was the rich play of words and quick interchange of feelings he enjoyed. The real content of the words he never really considered: he himself knew better.
> 
> Birkin knew this. He knew that Gerald wanted to be fond of him without taking him seriously. And this made him go hard and cold. As the train ran on, he sat looking at the land, and Gerald fell away, became as nothing to him.


Here we see their inner feelings reflecting what as just transpired between them. I feel keenly the "duality" and attraction to each other. Somehow the two men need each other to be whole - yet they are at odds - in their basic vie/philosophy of life. Thus, sets up a tention between Birkin and Gerald.

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,*I read this part last night, also. I am maybe a little further than you in my reading now. But this part on the train particularly struck me as "key" moments of very significant conversation between Birkin and Gerald. At one point I almost see their attitudes as complete opposites, how about you? They seem to represent L's idea of "dualities" and complementing each other; in a way they balance each other out, I believe.


Absolutely, they are opposites. The question I have then that i have not resolved is whether Ursula and Gudrun are opposites? I don't see that yet, although they seem different.




> In order to let Birkin's (Lawrence's own ideas) shine forth this difference enhances the ideas of Birkin. It is like a comedy team where there is a funny man and a straightman; thus making the joke even funnier by contast.


Yes, they have great chemistry together, don't they? 




> In our case the two of course are serious but at opposite ends of the pole. It also sets up this picture of how ingrained Gerald's set conventional ideas are and how much Birkin wants to break loose of these conventions in life. He also wants it for Gerald, which is later very significant.


Yes of course. I think also it's more than Gerald being set in conventional ideas. I think we'll see in the next few chapters that he is what makes society the way it is.

The "finality of love" is such a great phrase. I think it may be the core of the book.

----------


## Janine

> Absolutely, they are opposites. The question I have then that i have not resolved is whether Ursula and Gudrun are opposites? I don't see that yet, although they seem different.


*Virgil*, I have been thinking the same thing and I read this book before, so I have thought on it for a long time. I am still not sure, but they are extremely different. I think that Gundrun is more adventuresome than Ursula. Gundrun is also much more unconventional which is odd since Birkin is attracted to Ursula, not Gundrun. However - again, Usuala may be the opposite and Birkin does want the 'upperhand' even though he he wants the compliment of man/woman and of being loved in "finality". I believe it was so with Lawrence, too. This may be why many feminists do not like Lawrence. He wanted always to be the one to lead the woman. He has said it many times over in life, and in his novels and stories. I can already detect this in Birkin. He would be too agressive for Gundrun - they would repell each other, being to much alike. Gundrun is the artist and she has lived outside convention, even though now she comes back home to it. Ursula has not yet been 'awakened' or had her eyes opened to it. She is still fighting it - thus the scene when she burst into tears.




> Yes, they have great chemistry together, don't they?


They do have chemistry, definitely..... and so do the sisters. They are all closely drawn to each other because of what each character lacks. They make up for it in the reunion of closeness and friendship. 





> Yes of course. I think also it's more than Gerald being set in conventional ideas. I think we'll see in the next few chapters that he is what makes society the way it is.


That definitely will become increasingly clear to us as the novel unfolds.




> The "finality of love" is such a great phrase. I think it may be the core of the book.


It is the "core" of the book - absolutely! Here is the main theme in one simple conversation, but was it simple? Not really, I contradict myself. The conversation was quite complex and revealing of both men's attitudes towards life. The phrase "the finality of love" is however, simply and beautifully stated by Birkin, don't you think?

Yes, religion was mentioned, but it was said kind of "off the cuff", I thought - "Well, pretty well that -- seeing there's no God". Birkin really did not explain that statement at all and I felt it was said casually; and perhaps later explored in a much deeper way. He doesn't sound too definite starting the statement with "Well, pretty well that".

----------


## Virgil

I just read chapters six and seven and what writing!! Minette and Halloday and Maxim are incredibly drawn out characters in a great bar scene. That was sooo enjoyable. "Wupert" with the lisp is a stroke of characterizational genius. So real and yet so funny without two dimensionalized, cartoonish characters. That is not easy to do. [Schoky, just compare the writing of chapter six with anything in Owen Meany and you can see the difference.] Let me just quote a few passages:



> The girl looked at Gerald with steady, calm curiosity. He laughed, hearing himself described. He felt proud too, full of male strength. His blue, keen eyes were lit up with laughter, his ruddy face, with its sharp fair hair, was full of satisfaction, and glowing with life. He piqued her.
> 
> `How long are you staying?' she asked him.
> 
> `A day or two,' he replied. `But there is no particular hurry.'
> 
> Still she stared into his face with that slow, full gaze which was so curious and so exciting to him. He was acutely and delightfully conscious of himself, of his own attractiveness. He felt full of strength, able to give off a sort of electric power. And he was aware of her dark, hot-looking eyes upon him. She had beautiful eyes, dark, fully-opened, hot, naked in their looking at him. And on them there seemed to float a film of disintegration, a sort of misery and sullenness, like oil on water. She wore no hat in the heated cafe, her loose, simple jumper was strung on a string round her neck. But it was made of rich peach-coloured crepe-de-chine, that hung heavily and softly from her young throat and her slender wrists. Her appearance was simple and complete, really beautiful, because of her regularity and form, her soft dark hair falling full and level on either side of her head, her straight, small, softened features, Egyptian in the slight fulness of their curves, her slender neck and the simple, rich-coloured smock hanging on her slender shoulders. She was very still, almost null, in her manner, apart and watchful.





> `There's Julius!' and he half rose to his feet, motioning to the newcomer. The girl, with a curious, almost evil motion, looked round over her shoulder without moving her body. Gerald watched her dark, soft hair swing over her ears. He felt her watching intensely the man who was approaching, so he looked too. He saw a pale, full-built young man with rather long, solid fair hair hanging from under his black hat, moving cumbrously down the room, his face lit up with a smile at once naive and warm, and vapid. He approached towards Birkin, with a haste of welcome.
> 
> It was not till he was quite close that he perceived the girl. He recoiled, went pale, and said, in a high squealing voice:
> 
> `Pussum, what are you doing here?'
> 
> The cafe looked up like animals when they hear a cry. Halliday hung motionless, an almost imbecile smile flickering palely on his face. The girl only stared at him with a black look in which flared an unfathomable hell of knowledge, and a certain impotence. She was limited by him.
> 
> `Why have you come back?' repeated Halliday, in the same high, hysterical voice. `I told you not to come back.'
> ...





> Halliday took no notice, until the little plate was set before her. Then suddenly he cried:
> 
> `Pussum, you can't eat oysters when you're drinking brandy.'
> 
> `What has it go to do with you?' she asked.
> 
> `Nothing, nothing,' he cried. `But you can't eat oysters when you're drinking brandy.'
> 
> `I'm not drinking brandy,' she replied, and she sprinkled the last drops of her liqueur over his face. He gave an odd squeal. She sat looking at him, as if indifferent.
> ...


Isn't that great. And then notice how the drowning motif keps surfacing at the end of chapter six and into chapter seven:



> She turned and was gone again. She had been wearing a loose dressing-gown of purple silk, tied round her waist. She looked so small and childish and vulnerable, almost pitiful. And yet the black looks of her eyes made Gerald feel drowned in some potent darkness that almost frightened him.


and



> The Pussum lay in her bed, motionless, her round, dark eyes like black, unhappy pools. He could only see the black, bottomless pools of her eyes. Perhaps she suffered. The sensation of her inchoate suffering roused the old sharp flame in him, a mordant pity, a passion almost of cruelty.

----------


## Janine

> I just read chapters six and seven and what writing!! Minette and Halloday and Maxim are incredibly drawn out characters in a great bar scene. That was sooo enjoyable. "Wupert" with the lisp is a stroke of characterizational genius. So real and yet so funny without two dimensionalized, cartoonish characters. That is not easy to do. [Schoky, just compare the writing of chapter six with anything in Owen Meany and you can see the difference.] Let me just quote a few passages:


*Virgil*, I have been thinking exactly the same things, about the writing and the fully fleshed out characters. I suppose though, we should not compare apples to oranges. Maybe Irving meant his characters to be less cerebral and left us their inner thoughts unknown, except Johnny's and therefore more for our individual interpretation, more left to out imaginations. We never are revealed the inner thoughs of other characters besides Johnny, if you think about it; only what Johnny relates to us that they say or do. Here we are constantly given all the information of each key character. I am just being fair to those people faithful to Irving. Lawrence is considered the 4th greatest English novelist, according to Cambridge, in the 20th Century, so how can one compare, really? Different type books and authors, I think, but reading them, back to back, one tends to do this comparing. 

Yes, the slight 'put on' lisp the woman had was quite ingenius. The whole scene felt quite real to me. I liked the way that started with the description of the room being smokey and like a fog reflected in the mirrors behind the bar. Interesting since the whole scene is sort of unreal or articifial - seen through a veil. The way the next day goes is also interesting, how the tide seems to turn with the woman and how Gerald knows that she was only trying to get the boyfriend back by using him. It does not seem earth shattering to him. The whole atmosphere with the quests that day changes so from the other day though - don't you think? What did you think of the male nude scene and the statue or the pregnant woman giving birth? Interesting, don't you think? 




> Isn't that great. And then notice how the drowning motif keeps surfacing at the end of chapter six and into chapter seven:


It is brilliant. Drowning is very significant in this novel. Water and ice, also. I had not noticed how many times the word 'drowning' was mentioned in the tavern scene, but I will go back and review it tonight.

I just started chapter 7. If *Pensive* is around, I wanted to tell her that in my opening page to my Cambridge WIL (that came today) it states that "The Rainbow" was suppressed, and that Lawrence was three years finding a publisher for WIL. His books were quite the outrage!

----------


## Virgil

One last thing on that bar scene. It felt just like a something out of college. I can swear I knew people just like that. I can swear I sat in a conversation just like that. We all knew girls like Minette and guys like Halloday. I'm talking about back in college.

----------


## Janine

> One last thing on that bar scene. It felt just like a something out of college. I can swear I knew people just like that. I can swear I sat in a conversation just like that. We all knew girls like Minette and guys like Halloday. I'm talking about back in college.


*Virgil*, You know, I felt this same way, but more so after college days, in my late 20's to early 30's. Guess I was a late bloomer. I really felt like I knew this scene. In going to an art school I am not sure I was exposed to these types, yet you would think I would be. I was kind of the serious type then, working on my degree. But the whole mechanics of attraction and making someone else jealous definitely is something I was explosed to and experienced years later among an adopted bunch of friends that were a best friend's crazy free-spirited group. I could definitely relate to just what was going on here and especially the feelings that Gerald was having. I found this scene very interesting indeed and I had truly forgotten it, completely, from my first reading...strange.

I posted the short story. J

----------


## _Shannon_

Okay....for the mushy-mommy-mided among us....

How do you pronounce the name Gudrun...Gud-run or Goo-drin or Goo-drun or Gewd-rin or Gewd-run???

-we can all tell at this point what an asset I'll be to the conversation  :Biggrin: -

----------


## Virgil

> Okay....for the mushy-mommy-mided among us....
> 
> How do you pronounce the name Gudrun...Gud-run or Goo-drin or Goo-drun or Gewd-rin or Gewd-run???
> 
> -we can all tell at this point what an asset I'll be to the conversation -


I'm listening to an audio book of Women In Love as I read. I enjoy having both at the same time, a paper version in front to read as the audio speaks the words. Anyway, the reader of the aduiobook pronouces it Good-run, with the accent on Good.

----------


## _Shannon_

Thanks Virgil!! It's very distracting to me to think to myself everytime I encounter a name, "How am I supposed to pronounce this!?"

----------


## Janine

> Thanks Virgil!! It's very distracting to me to think to myself everytime I encounter a name, "How am I supposed to pronounce this!?"


Hi *Shannon*, I do the exact same thing. I sometimes skip right over a word in my mind (bad habit actually) or just slur it if I don't know how to pronounce it. I could never read aloud when I was in grade-school or even high school, which was a real problem, apparently for my teachers. They enhanced my whole stigma of reading by their impatient attitudes. I think now it is probably just a right-brain/left brain thing. 
I think it depends on who is pronouncing the name Gudrum. The woman on Virgil's audio may pronounce it Good - run but I have heard it pronounced Gu-drun, (or like Gou-drun) in the film version I own, so who knows? I have heard some of the audiobook people pronounce things pretty differently at times. I have never heard it pronounced Good - like in the work good...interesting. Does it really matter at all?..."A rose by any other name...."

----------


## manolia

Nice posts Janine and Virgil. Reading your posts clarify many things for me (i am convinced that Lawrence's writting is very complicated and that there are many things between the lines). What you already said about duality makes perfect sense (and in the two sisters too). 
One thing i want to comment is L's references to paintings (the chinese painting in chapter 7(?) for instance and in other chapters as well). It seems that he knows very well what he is talking about. Was he a painter as well? I remember having read something to that effect (if i am not mistaking him with somebody elsle).
Another thing i didn't quite get was Gerald's obsession to give money to the Pussum after the night they spend together? Why?

----------


## Janine

> Nice posts Janine and Virgil. Reading your posts clarify many things for me (i am convinced that Lawrence's writting is very complicated and that there are many things between the lines). What you already said about duality makes perfect sense (and in the two sisters too).



Hi *manolia,* so nice to see you here and that you are also reading along. Thank you for reading the post and for your compliments. I am glad they are clarifying many things for you about the book. Virgil first got me looking more deeply into the 'opposites/duality' themes in Lawrence's books. I had not entirely thought that out prior to this forum and now I notice so much more when I read. Thanks, *Virgil*! 
We have also run into this theme in Lawrence's short stories over and over again. 

Yes, your are quite right - the writing is very complicated and one must read between the lines. There are a lot of nuances in the character studies, don't you think? It is similiar to viewing performances in a film, when one sees a very nuanced performance. In that case one must read the expressions, etc. I see it in Lawrence's writing, as well; for instance, in the posturing and body language of the characters there is much more than what they actually say. It is very apparent and almost exaggerated in Hermione. He often says she is "looking at him with leering eyes 'along her cheeks' " - I thought this of particular interest in the way he describes how she gazes or looks at a person. It is repeated several times throughout and noteworthy. It seems to indicate to me that she is not an honest or direct person and one who is sort of sneering at others; she holds her head high in an attitude of contempt and snobbery and suspicion.




> One thing i want to comment is L's references to paintings (the chinese painting in chapter 7(?) for instance and in other chapters as well). It seems that he knows very well what he is talking about. Was he a painter as well? I remember having read something to that effect (if i am not mistaking him with somebody elsle).
> Another thing i didn't quite get was Gerald's obsession to give money to the Pussum after the night they spend together? Why?



*Manolia,* excellent observation! Yes, Lawrence painted when he was a youth and a young man; later and from time to time he picked it up again; and near the end of his life he even had a showing in London, which did not go over too well. His paintings from this period were quite provocative and London was no way ready at that time to accept them....many in fact were confiscated by the police. I believe he never got some of those back, but I am not sure of that fact. 

His paintings are somewhat primative and sketchy and some can be viewed online, but they are hard to locate. There is a book for sale on Amazon, but rather expensive of his paintings/drawings. Virgil and I have come up with a few online and I have some in my picture file. Neither of us truly like them but it depends on your taste and I can only say I am glad his writing was better than his art; I feel his art was only mediocre, but interesting in some ways. 

But Lawrence did very much enjoy art and artists and had a number of artist friends. He copied a lot when he was younger such as is depicted of Birkin in WIL. I read that and knew right away Birkin to be Lawrence, and I liked his explaination to Hermoine as to why he copied. That attitude was all Lawrence. On the cover of Lawrence's first novel, "The White Peacock', is a copy/watercolor painting by Lawrence, of "Idyll" by Maurice Griffenhagen. It is kept in the collection of the Nottingham University Library. He often copied this painting, since he loved it so much; in fact he was kind of obsessed with it. 

In the current story for 'Short Story thread' there is a mention of watercolors he has left behind with his former girlfriend. I picked right up on the mention of a watercolor painting on the wall of her house, that he had done as a youth. I knew that Lawrence did indeed give some paintings to Jessie, his first love interest and his character of Miriam in "Sons and Lovers". He depicted Paul (the image of himself) in "Sons and Lovers" as a young aspiring artist.

Often in Lawrence's writing he speaks of art and artists. He also speaks much in WIL of Gudrun's art and of art in general. You may have read about the statue in the house of one of Birkin's friends. Art seems extremely significant to Lawrence. I think that Lawrence writes as though he is painting, what do you think? I believe that is why I am so drawn to his prose and poetry.

Lawrence once said that, when he painted, he did not write and when he wrote, he stopped painting. He alternated all his life with each, and of course, became famous/known for his writing alone, which was the more dominent.

----------


## manolia

Janine thank you very much for your explanation and all the interesting information. Yes i agree his style of writing is like he is painting. Interesting what you say about Hermione..i also believe that she is a very sly person and i think that she has already realised (i am in the beginning of ch 8) that something is going on between Birkin and Ursula. I have read in a post in another thread that L's books need a Freudian approach in order to understand them better. This might actually be true. I get the impression that many things revolve around the "male-female" eternal conflict..the game of power between the two sexes.. etc (of course there are more things than these for example the idea of marriage vs freedom - Birkin says something to Hermione implying that she wants to get married)..What do you think?

----------


## Janine

*manolia,* First, I forgot for answer this part of your last post. You had this question:




> Another thing i didn't quite get was Gerald's obsession to give money to the Pussum after the night they spend together? Why?


The answer to this question is made clear in Chapter 8; since you did not read that chapter yet, I won't comment on it. It is in the scene when Birkin and Gerald go upstairs to sleep - they have ajoining rooms and Gerald comes in to talk to Birkin about the evening and the Brangwen sisters. Birkin will mention the Pussum and the money issue and Birkin comes directly to the point as to why Gerald wants to pay her. Birkin is very perceptive.




> Janine thank you very much for your explanation and all the interesting information. Yes i agree his style of writing is like he is painting. Interesting what you say about Hermione..i also believe that she is a very sly person and i think that she has already realised (i am in the beginning of ch 8) that something is going on between Birkin and Ursula. I have read in a post in another thread that L's books need a Freudian approach in order to understand them better. This might actually be true. I get the impression that many things revolve around the "male-female" eternal conflict..the game of power between the two sexes.. etc (of course there are more things than these for example the idea of marriage vs freedom - Birkin says something to Hermione implying that she wants to get married)..What do you think?


*manolia*, so glad this helped. It is very interesting, isn't it? I can't get enough information about Lawrence's life - it all fascinates me so. Glad you agree that his writing is like painting in words. I very much think it is. If you participate in the Short Story thread - it is a short one this time - you will see just how graphically beautiful Lawrence can write, he describes the woodland and flowers like it is painting on the page...the vivid images jump out at you. In WIL, when you come to the scene when Birkin runs out into the woodland and fields, you will also see how sensual and beautiful is his writing - like a luminous painting.

Always, yes, the Freudian is there - Lawrence discovered Freud and books about the Id during his early years of marriage - mid 20's. He was quite enamoured with the new ideas of the day on the subconscious. I think that Virgil will have more to say on this. He probably knows more about Lawrence's views, than I, on the subject. If you check the posts at the near end of the last short story - PO, Virgil makes his views quite clear on his thoughts on Lawrence and the subconscious. 
I don't always agree on Lawrence's views of the subconcious, either, or the theories he developed of his own on these subjects, but I do believe in the subconsious affecting people's actions. 

In some ways, Lawrence wanted to be the dominent one, when it came to women. I think this comes through in his books. The man leads and the woman follows in his footsteps. It was true in Lawrence's own life. He traveled almost his entire life, and his wife faithfully went where he wanted to go. In one way Lawrence (and his character of Birkin) craves balance and equality, but in another way he contradicts this with wanting to be dominent, as the man and the leader. In my own opinion, Lawrence struggled with this idea his entire life. His marriage to Frieda was reported, time and time again, as far from "a marriage made in heaven". There were periods of turmoil and struggle, between he and his wife, and then as he saw it, supreme happiness. Lawrence could be very domineering and cynical and opinionated at times. That is not to say he was not well liked and even loved, but he was a difficult man to befriend and to live with. He was very attractive to people, but many friends disowned him as a friend. He offended a lot of people, especially by using them in his books and stories. I know that Hermoine was based on a woman who Lawrence befriended and then she recognised herself in Hermoine, of course exaggerated, and she dropped their friendship; wouldn't anyone be offended being described as Hermoine? 

Yes, I think you are absolutely right about this novel and your "impression that many things revolve around 'the male-female' eternal conflict..the game of power between the two sexes.. etc". That is very well expressed and true. The whole novel is based on it and the outcome as well. Perhaps as you said it is good to think of L's novels from a Freudian point of view, but I don't think it is totally necessary to know of Freud's theories, since oft time Lawrence alters them to suit his own theories on the subconscious and life. Lawrence was very much an idealist.

----------


## Virgil

> Another thing i didn't quite get was Gerald's obsession to give money to the Pussum after the night they spend together? Why?


Well, there are men who at the hint of possible sex will go to great lengths, including spendng lots of their money, in getting it. I think the point is that Gerald can be captivated with that possibility.

----------


## Janine

> Well, there are men who at the hint of possible sex will go to great lengths, including spendng lots of their money, in getting it. I think the point is that Gerald can be captivated with that possibility.


*Virgil*, how true, how true :FRlol: ! However, there is a lot more going on here in Lawrence's multi-layered text: Note the conversation between Gerald and Birkin, Chapter 8: 




> Gerald looked at his watch, and at length rose off the bed, and went to his room. But he returned in a few minutes, in his shirt. 
> `One thing,' he said, seating himself on the bed again. `We finished up rather stormily, and I never had time to give her anything.'
> 
> `Money?' said Birkin. `She'll get what she wants from Halliday or from one of her acquaintances.'
> 
> `But then,' said Gerald, `I'd rather give her her dues and settle the account.'
> 
> `She doesn't care.'
> 
> ...


I emphasis this particular line which is very important: 




> `Oh God!' said Birkin, `don't be so matter-of-fact. Close the account in your own soul, if you like. It is there you can't close it.'


It is not to help this woman (Birkin says she does not want money or need it), or to even try to get more sex from her, that Gerald wants to pay, he wants rather to wash his hands of the whole encounter/affair, therefore be free of her in his own mind. He is selfishly thinking only of himself. Birkin knows his friend and how he thinks by now. Also, Gerald relates greatly to money, whereas Birkin does not.

----------


## Virgil

Very good Janine. Yes, he wants to settle the situation and end it. When I made my statement I was thinking of chapter six where he's buying her drinks and oysters and whatever else.

----------


## Janine

> Very good Janine. Yes, he wants to settle the situation and end it. When I made my statement I was thinking of chapter six where he's buying her drinks and oysters and whatever else.


Thanks! Yes, he was indulging her in chapter 6, your are right; that was prior to him spending the night with her. He would have given her the moon at that point - he's a man isn't he?  :FRlol:  

*Virgil*, did you read manolia and my posts to each other? If you noticed, my post (right before your last one that brought up this whole issue on the payment to the Possum) approximately in the middle I mentioned that you might expound on the Freudian ideas in Lawrence's work and give manolia a better understanding than I did. Also, see the question that manolia asks first. Can you comment on this and the struggle between the sexes in Lawrence's works and especially in WIL so far? I thought it might also relate to your thesis in some way - the Freud issues, etc.

----------


## Virgil

> Thanks! Yes, he was indulging her in chapter 6, your are right; that was prior to him spending the night with her. He would have given her the moon at that point - he's a man isn't he?  
> 
> *Virgil*, did you read manolia and my posts to each other? If you noticed, my post (right before your last one that brought up this whole issue on the payment to the Possum) approximately in the middle I mentioned that you might expound on the Freudian ideas in Lawrence's work and give manolia a better understanding than I did. Also, see the question that manolia asks first. Can you comment on this and the struggle between the sexes in Lawrence's works and especially in WIL so far? I thought it might also relate to your thesis in some way - the Freud issues, etc.


Yes, he's a man.  :FRlol:  But Birkin doesn't go for that. I think there's a point there.

As to the Freudian ideas in lawrence. There is no question he was fascinated with Freud and inspired him to think his own ideas through and even wrote a book or two on the sub-conscious. I think Lawrence would consider himself not a Freudian. However I am not knowledgable enough to understand the distinctions between L's own idas and Freud's. The early Lawrence seems very much Freudian to me. The latter Lawrence, from the mid 1920's on to his death, seems much more a Jungian. The middle Lawrence, which Women In Love is, seems fairly distinct. I don't really know. You know I consider it all a crock (sorry if you get mad at me for that  :Wink:  ) so I'm not able to really understand nor care about the distinctions. I think it would suffice to say that Lawrence believes in sub-conscious forces that are more powerful than our conscious will and which rule our personalities and actions.

----------


## Janine

> Yes, he's a man.  But Birkin doesn't go for that. I think there's a point there.


I don't mean Birkin is a man, although he is  :FRlol:  I meant Gerald , you know what kind of man, I mean. No not Birkin - he is different; he would not buy a woman's affections.




> As to the Freudian ideas in lawrence. There is no question he was fascinated with Freud and inspired him to think his own ideas through and even wrote a book or two on the sub-conscious. I think Lawrence would consider himself not a Freudian. However I am not knowledgable enough to understand the distinctions between L's own idas and Freud's. The early Lawrence seems very much Freudian to me. The latter Lawrence, from the mid 1920's on to his death, seems much more a Jungian. The middle Lawrence, which Women In Love is, seems fairly distinct. I don't really know. You know I consider it all a crock (sorry if you get mad at me for that  ) so I'm not able to really understand nor care about the distinctions. I think it would suffice to say that Lawrence believes in sub-conscious forces that are more powerful than our conscious will and which rule our personalities and actions.


*Virgil*, good work on this post. You explained it well in relation to the stages of Lawrence's life and writing. He did change or evolve his attitudes and ideas over the years. There are no absolutes here. 
I hope *manolia* reads this and it helps explain things better for her. I am not sure of WIL, either and just where L was in his thinking as far as Freud is concerned. How about "The Rainbow"; did Freud and the Id come into play more than in WIL? He would have been in an earlier stage then, maybe just discovering Freud.

----------


## kandaurov

Oh, good, Freud has been brought about to this discussion as well! I've accomplished to get through my WiL oral presentation and I did mention a few places in WiL in which where Freud's shadow seems to lurk uncannily  :Wink: 

FREUD
•	Sexuality and violence as driving forces of the being; propensity to violence in all human beings
•	The importance of unconsciousness (omnipresent in the novel), drives, instincts and the being's physic instance
•	Notion of the Other (words like 'intruder' and 'outsider' are pervasive)
•	"All her surpressed, subconscious fear sprang into being"

*Virgil* pretty much said everything right. I too don't think DHL was a freudian in the full sense of the notion, but Freud sure had a great influence on his work. And DHL does seem to abandon these ideas a bit later on, I've started _Lady Chatterley's Lover_ and so far I can't see any instance of freudian thought.

----------


## Anthony Furze

I have only read a poem by Lawrence- "Bavarian Gentians"- which I studied with my students for the O level Literature paper.

Unfortunately Im a very slow reader at present, and I ve only managed Chap 1 of Women in Love. However I was intrigued to find refs from the poem:

the underground (Plutos kingdom) in reference to the miners

a strong emphasis on colours

I did hear a lecture on Lawrence on the radio, on Lawrence and "The Philosophy of the Blood" That too is obvious here in the depth of emotions felt by the characters.

----------


## Virgil

> I have only read a poem by Lawrence- "Bavarian Gentians"- which I studied with my students for the O level Literature paper.
> 
> Unfortunately Im a very slow reader at present, and I ve only managed Chap 1 of Women in Love. However I was intrigued to find refs from the poem:
> 
> the underground (Plutos kingdom) in reference to the miners
> 
> a strong emphasis on colours
> 
> I did hear a lecture on Lawrence on the radio, on Lawrence and "The Philosophy of the Blood" That too is obvious here in the depth of emotions felt by the characters.


Those are recurring motifs that go through a lot of Lawrence. That "Bavarian Gentians" poem is excellent!!




> I don't mean Birkin is a man, although he is  I meant Gerald , you know what kind of man, I mean. No not Birkin - he is different; he would not buy a woman's affections.


No I think you misunderstood me. I meant Gerald is acting like a typical man. I was trying to point out that Birkin does not act that way.

----------


## Janine

> No I think you misunderstood me. I meant Gerald is acting like a typical man. I was trying to point out that Birkin does not act that way.


Hi *Virgil,* Yes, I think I must have read that wrong. I get your drift. No, Birkin certainly does not fit that norm or the "he is a man" expression. Gerald is what my friend calls a "man's man", I think.
How come you are not further discussing and expounding on 'blood philosophy" with Anthony Furze? He mentions hearing a lecture on it once on the radio. Your thesis would fit right in here. You know more about it than I do. It certainly relates to this book, don't you think? 

*Anthony,* I have a photo of a wonderful statue of Lawrence holding a Gentian in the palm of his hands. I will try to post it here. I found it online the other day. You will all love it. That poem is so lovely.

----------


## Virgil

Oh the last line of his post didn't sink in my brain. I will have to locate what I've written here on lit net to remind everyone. I think it was in that elephant poem thread. I'll find it tonight.

----------


## manolia

> It is not to help this woman (Birkin says she does not want money or need it), or to even try to get more sex from her, that Gerald wants to pay, he wants rather to wash his hands of the whole encounter/affair, therefore be free of her in his own mind. He is selfishly thinking only of himself. Birkin knows his friend and how he thinks by now. Also, Gerald relates greatly to money, whereas Birkin does not.


Thanx Janine. As you already said, the answer was on chapter 8. I was perplexed because Pussum never asks for money (she is just a woman with loose morals not a prostitute) but Gerald insists. What you say here makes sense (about washing his hands of the whole encounter).
Have you noticed the referances to greek mythology? Lawrence mentions Cassandra (the prophetes), the greek oracle (he means Pytheia the prophetes of Delfi), the god Dionysos (god of wine among other things). If i spot anything else i will post it.
He also uses a few greek words like "pathos" (πάθος = passion) and "panacea" (πανάκεια = false medicine, medicine which has no effect).





> As to the Freudian ideas in lawrence. There is no question he was fascinated with Freud and inspired him to think his own ideas through and even wrote a book or two on the sub-conscious. I think Lawrence would consider himself not a Freudian. However I am not knowledgable enough to understand the distinctions between L's own idas and Freud's. The early Lawrence seems very much Freudian to me. The latter Lawrence, from the mid 1920's on to his death, seems much more a Jungian. The middle Lawrence, which Women In Love is, seems fairly distinct. I don't really know. You know I consider it all a crock (sorry if you get mad at me for that  ) so I'm not able to really understand nor care about the distinctions. I think it would suffice to say that Lawrence believes in sub-conscious forces that are more powerful than our conscious will and which rule our personalities and actions.



Nice to know that deep knowledge of Freud is not needed, since i am not that informed concerning Freud (i have only read a few things on his interpretation of dreams).

----------


## Janine

> Have you noticed the referances to greek mythology? Lawrence mentions Cassandra (the prophetes), the greek oracle (he means Pytheia the prophetes of Delfi), the god Dionysos (god of wine among other things). If i spot anything else i will post it.
> He also uses a few greek words like "pathos" (πάθος = passion) and "panacea" (πανάκεια = false medicine, medicine which has no effect).


*Manolia,* I have noticed these throughout, but I did not know what they meant. Thanks for writing this and explaining. I will want to learn more. I am not too well versed or knowlegable in Greek Mythology, so you can help me if, you would. Please do post any more you find and the meanings. I will keep notes on this to put with my text. I am sure the text will make more sense to me now. The words seems to be highly significant. If L added them in, they mean something important.




> Nice to know that deep knowledge of Freud is not needed, since i am not that informed concerning Freud (i have only read a few things on his interpretation of dreams).


If you go to the 'Lawrence / June Reading Poll thread', you will see a few posts towards the end that are discussing this aspect of Lawrence. You don't need the knowledge of Freud in depth, to understand L.

----------


## Virgil

> Thanx Janine. As you already said, the answer was on chapter 8. I was perplexed because Pussum never asks for money (she is just a woman with loose morals not a prostitute) but Gerald insists. What you say here makes sense (about washing his hands of the whole encounter).
> Have you noticed the referances to greek mythology? Lawrence mentions Cassandra (the prophetes), the greek oracle (he means Pytheia the prophetes of Delfi), the god Dionysos (god of wine among other things). If i spot anything else i will post it.
> He also uses a few greek words like "pathos" (πάθος = passion) and "panacea" (πανάκεια = false medicine, medicine which has no effect).


Yes this novel is laden with greek classical allusions. In a way this is the opposite of The Rainbow. The Rainbow has heavy allusions to Genesis of the Old Testament; in fact I've said somewhere that The Rainbow is a re-writing of Genesis. That might be a stretch but not by much. Women In Love is a re-writing of Greek classical myth. I think you'll see that by the end of the novel, when you reduce the story to its basics, it will appear to be a myth.

----------


## _Shannon_

Ugh...I think I know why I gave up on this book the first time I tried it. I have the hardest time reading a book in which I loathe all of the main characters. They are such an unlikeable group of people...

*shannon goes back to her book muttering*

----------


## papayahed

Can we go back to chap 3 for a minute?

So I understand how Birkin would show up to the school, but how does Hermoine fit in? Does she work at the same school?




> Ugh...I think I know why I gave up on this book the first time I tried it. I have the hardest time reading a book in which I loathe all of the main characters. They are such an unlikeable group of people...
> 
> *shannon goes back to her book muttering*


I thought my dislike of the 2 sisters had to do with the fact that I was in a foul mood when I started the book, but maybe my dislike is real. :Frown:

----------


## manolia

> Yes this novel is laden with greek classical allusions. In a way this is the opposite of The Rainbow. The Rainbow has heavy allusions to Genesis of the Old Testament; in fact I've said somewhere that The Rainbow is a re-writing of Genesis. That might be a stretch but not by much. Women In Love is a re-writing of Greek classical myth. I think you'll see that by the end of the novel, when you reduce the story to its basics, it will appear to be a myth.


Hmmm.."The Rainbow" sounds interesting too.

I promised *Janine* that i will spot the references. In the end of ch 9 we have a reference to Daphne (who was transformed to a tree) and the sirens (who maddened Odysseus's comrades with their song).

----------


## Janine

> Hmmm.."The Rainbow" sounds interesting too.



*manolia,* Virgil loves "The Rainbow". I read it also, years ago, but I felt a struggle getting through it. I do recall enjoying it though, but at the time it seemed long. Of course all this means nothing really, since I do believe it to be equally as interesting as this book. It is definitely a book I want to read again, now that I am older. I will someday soon, having acquired new knowledge of Lawrence's personal life, ideas and other writings. I think I would definitely appreciate it much more. 





> I promised *Janine* that i will spot the references. In the end of ch 9 we have a reference to Daphne (who was transformed to a tree) and the sirens (who maddened Odysseus's comrades with their song).


Thank you *manolia*! this is great! I will review those parts of the text to see how these mythological references apply. Very helpful indeed. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## manolia

> *manolia,* Virgil loves "The Rainbow". I read it also, years ago, but I felt a struggle getting through it. I do recall enjoying it though, but at the time it seemed long. Of course all this means nothing really, since I do believe it to be equally as interesting as this book. It is definitely a book I want to read again, now that I am older. I will someday soon, having acquired new knowledge of Lawrence's personal life, ideas and other writings. I think I would definitely appreciate it much more.


I intend to read it too (i intend to read most of L books) but i will surely choose a more convenient period (maybe my summer break. I have understood that L's books require piece of mind  :Wink:  ).

----------


## Janine

> Can we go back to chap 3 for a minute?
> 
> So I understand how Birkin would show up to the school, but how does Hermoine fit in? Does she work at the same school?


*Hi Papayahed,* Glad to see you in the discussion. In answer to your question, I think Hermoine simply stopped in to see Birkin. If you read back, she says that in the beginning of her visit. She wanted to see just what he did at school. 
Hermonine work - are you kidding? She is rich! She would not be caught dead lowering herself to work.




> I thought my dislike of the 2 sisters had to do with the fact that I was in a foul mood when I started the book, but maybe my dislike is real.


I don't know how far into the book you are, but I think to make an assessment of 'like' or 'dislike' this early on, is a dire mistake. The characters are so multilayered and you have to see them in the light of the day they lived and in the social context. They are presented here as 'real' people with mysteries and complex workings in their mind and not 'perfect' people, but all with flaws and weaknesses. I don't think you have to like the characters to enjoy or understand the book. Sometimes we relate better to people with human weaknesses better, than we do to totally sunny dispositions and fairytale like worlds where everyone is nice and sweet and likable. Is this not like real life, encountering all types of personalities?




> I intend to read it too (i intend to read most of L books) but i will surely choose a more convenient period (maybe my summer break. I have understood that L's books require piece of mind  ).


*manolia,* you know that is really true - L's books do require piece of mind. They would make excellent summer reading. So glad you are enjoying this book and will read his others. I don't think you will regret it. Funny, I first read L (WIL) at your age and I was quite affected by it. 
I intend to do the same, with the summer reading. I want to read a few I have not read yet, some of the less noted novels (which are short reads), Lawrence's personal letters, which by the way, are fascinating, and another biography. On top of all of this I hoped to repeat a few of his shorter novels that I love like "Love Among the Haystakes" and "The Fox". You might also be interested in those stories. Both are excellent and very short. It has been years since I read them and have a nostalgic desire to do so again. 
Well, it is all part of my ongoing study and love of DHL.




> Ugh...I think I know why I gave up on this book the first time I tried it. I have the hardest time reading a book in which I loathe all of the main characters. They are such an unlikeable group of people...
> 
> *shannon goes back to her book muttering*


Hi *muttering* *Shannon,* Please read how I feel about this - my post to Papayahed and then let me add: if you are not enjoying this book - why read it? There are zillions of books you might prefer with more likable characters. Why waste your time on this one if truly you don't care for it?

----------


## _Shannon_

> Hi *muttering* *Shannon,* Please read how I feel about this - my post to Papayahed and then let me add: if you are not enjoying this book - why read it? There are zillions of books you might prefer with more likable characters. Why waste your time on this one if truly you don't care for it?


Well- because I am not really that kind of person  :Smile:  I hated _Catch 22_ throughout most of the book- but turned out to like it very much. I hated all the characters in _Crime and Punishment_-- but thought it was a great book.

I agree with you- that there is a multifaceted aspect that makes the characters be flawed humanity...and that can be a great thing when the story is all over and done, you know??? 

I have this reaction to Austen, too...I feel like I ought to down a couple beers before I pick up my book so I can endure to just wait and see where the night goes...

----------


## Janine

> Well- because I am not really that kind of person  I hated _Catch 22_ throughout most of the book- but turned out to like it very much. I hated all the characters in _Crime and Punishment_-- but thought it was a great book.
> 
> I agree with you- that there is a multifaceted aspect that makes the characters be flawed humanity...and that can be a great thing when the story is all over and done, you know??? 
> 
> I have this reaction to Austen, too...I feel like I ought to down a couple beers before I pick up my book so I can endure to just wait and see where the night goes...


Hi again*Shannon*, very honest assessment of how you read. Everyone reads differently; maybe you like to suffer :FRlol:  - just kidding but actually, I love tragedies and one suffers with those quit a bit...I thrive on Hamlet. I eat up the suffering at the end of tragedies...really relish it. 
I think you're right in that 'the 'flawed humanity' can certainly be a 'great thing' when the story is over and done with. Yes, so much for nice guys! I think they are more interesting each having flaws and being hard to understand and sometimes to actually despise. Have you ever read Othello? He is the villian one loves to hate. He takes over the show. Villians are always more interesting than regular nice folk. I actually despise Hermoine but I do find her fascinating. I think, by the time WIL comes full circle and is completed at the end, you will see that each character goes through transitions and changes, You may very well perceive them differently by the ending. If nothing else, I can guarantee you will be thinking about this book, the characters and the ideas presented, long after you close the book. Lawrence's books and imagery tend to stay with us.
I am glad you were not offended by me saying you could quit the book for others you would like better. I was just trying to be straightforward and honest with you. But happy now to know you will stick with it, and make a fuller assessment at the end. I don't think you will regret it. Any comments along the way are always enlightening as well.

Well, maybe some beer would help :Wink: , hey, whatever works for you personally is cool. I find, like *manolia* pointed out, Lawrence is best absorbed slowly and in times of peace. One really needs to comtemplate each line and each chapter before rushing onward. Good luck with your reading and don't get drunk!

----------


## quasimodo1

D.H.Lawrence's ranch in New Mexico...http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ranium/lawrence/brown1.html In case there is need to know, D.H. spent two years(?) in this state near Taos. quasimodo1

----------


## papayahed

Are we able to delete posts?

----------


## Virgil

Chapter eight is in a way a flip side of chapters six and seven. In the previous two chapters we see the sterility of city life with its loose sexual mores. In chapter eight we get the sterility of intellectualism and devotees of high culture. Hermione is the opposite of Minette. But both are dead ends to that "completeness" that Birkin is longing for. Here's an important passage (Birkin is in the middle of talking to Gerald about how Gerald's soul feels the need to close the Minette affair):



> The morning was again sunny. The maid had been in and brought the water, and had drawn the curtains. Birkin, sitting up in bed, looked lazily and pleasantly out on the park, that was so green and deserted, romantic, belonging to the past. He was thinking how lovely, how sure, how formed, how final all the things of the past were -- the lovely accomplished past -- this house, so still and golden, the park slumbering its centuries of peace. And then, what a snare and a delusion, this beauty of static things -- what a horrible, dead prison Breadalby really was, what an intolerable confinement, the peace! Yet it was better than the sordid scrambling conflict of the present. If only one might create the future after one's own heart -- for a little pure truth, a little unflinching application of simple truth to life, the heart cried out ceaselessly.


And then this exchange:



> `What am I to do at all, then?' came Gerald's voice.
> 
> `What you like. What am I to do myself?'
> 
> In the silence Birkin could feel Gerald musing this fact.
> 
> `I'm blest if I know,' came the good-humoured answer.
> 
> `You see,' said Birkin, `part of you wants the Pussum, and nothing but the Pussum, part of you wants the mines, the business, and nothing but the business -- and there you are -- all in bits --'
> ...


We see that Gerald's life is fragmented ("all in bits"), incomplete.

The same can be said for Hermione in her life of high culture and searching for knowledge. Notice this echange between Hermione and Birkin when she finds him alone in his room and she finds Rupert's copy of a picture:



> `But why do you copy it?' she asked, casual and sing-song. `Why not do something original?'
> 
> `I want to know it,' he replied. `One gets more of China, copying this picture, than reading all the books.'
> 
> `And what do you get?'
> 
> She was at once roused, she laid as it were violent hands on him, to extract his secrets from him. She must know. It was a dreadful tyranny, an obsession in her, to know all he knew. For some time he was silent, hating to answer her. Then, compelled, he began:
> 
> `I know what centres they live from -- what they perceive and feel -- the hot, stinging centrality of a goose in the flux of cold water and mud -- the curious bitter stinging heat of a goose's blood, entering their own blood like an inoculation of corruptive fire -- fire of the cold-burning mud -- the lotus mystery.'
> ...


"The ghastliness of dissolution" is synonymous with "all in bits." Gerald's way of life and Hermione's way of life are quite different, but they both lead to dead ends. Neither reach that "finality" that Lawrence keeps mentioning.

----------


## Janine

> D.H.Lawrence's ranch in New Mexico...http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ranium/lawrence/brown1.html In case there is need to know, D.H. spent two years(?) in this state near Taos. quasimodo1


Hi *quasimodo*, Virgil and I both know well about Lawrence's time in NM. In fact in the several biographies I read I can say his home there was his favorite and he longed to his dying day to get back there. His ashes are buried there in a little chapel with a memorial to DHL. Interesting, isn't it?
Unfortunately, your link does not work for me but I found some pictures before in Wikipedia of the ranch and also of the memorial. If you go to Nottingham University Library they have an online exhibit of Lawrence artifacts and photos - very nice. Sorry, your link does not work but maybe you could just tell us the site so we can look it up through google search. Thanks anyway.




> Chapter eight is in a way a flip side of chapters six and seven. In the previous two chapters we see the sterility of city life with its loose sexual mores. In chapter eight we get the sterility of intellectualism and devotees of high culture. Hermione is the opposite of Minette. But both are dead ends to that "completeness" that Birkin is longing for. Here's an important passage (Birkin is in the middle of talking to Gerald about how Gerald's soul feels the need to close the Minette affair):


Virgil, Interesting thoughts on opposites - Hermione and Minette. I had not thought of them quite that way. 





> And then this exchange: 
> 
> We see that Gerald's life is fragmented ("all in bits"), incomplete.
> 
> The same can be said for Hermione in her life of high culture and searching for knowledge. Notice this echange between Hermione and Birkin when she finds him alone in his room and she finds Rupert's copy of a picture:
> 
> "The ghastliness of dissolution" is synonymous with "all in bits." Gerald's way of life and Hermione's way of life are quite different, but they both lead to dead ends. Neither reach that "finality" that Lawrence keeps mentioning.


Yes, I can see how "all in bits" does relate to "ghastliness of dissolution" and are synonymous, or at least similiar....interesting....had not thought of the two charcters quite this way. I think as you read, that you will find some confusion in all the characters; no one is truly definite in his/her view or life. Birkin is struggling with his thoughts and his ideas and ideals. Ursula is reacting to Birkin in ways that you would not fully expect, yet she too is struggling with Birkins words and in some ways she is "in bits" also...emotionally speaking. To some degree they all must come apart within themselves to assimulate back into a whole. Eventually, you will begin to see who can and who cannot achieve that wholeness in the end.

----------


## papayahed

> I don't know how far into the book you are, but I think to make an assessment of 'like' or 'dislike' this early on, is a dire mistake. The characters are so multilayered and you have to see them in the light of the day they lived and in the social context. They are presented here as 'real' people with mysteries and complex workings in their mind and not 'perfect' people, but all with flaws and weaknesses. I don't think you have to like the characters to enjoy or understand the book. Sometimes we relate better to people with human weaknesses better, than we do to totally sunny dispositions and fairytale like worlds where everyone is nice and sweet and likable. Is this not like real life, encountering all types of personalities?



What is this a PSA for an after school special?

----------


## Virgil

> What is this a PSA for an after school special?


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I'm sorry Papaya. I'm probably as much to blame. We happen to know a lot about D.H. Lawrence's work and so we really notice the nuances that go on. On top of that, he is not an easy writer to pick up. Even most lit majors really get overwhelmed. Sort of like James Joyce and William Faulkner.

----------


## Gracewings

I'm behind already in reading the book (still in Ch 1) and the posts but hope to catch up to the rest of you over the weekend.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> I'm behind already in reading the book (still in Ch 1) and the posts but hope to catch up to the rest of you over the weekend.


*Hi Gracewings*, Welcome to the discussion. Glad to see a new face here and don't be discouraged. I am usually the one way behind in my reading. Keep on reading - you have lots of time. 
How did you like chapter one? Talk about it if you want. You might want to add to the posts and comments we already made or you might have questions.

Just curious - what kind of a flower is that in your avatar? I think it is unusual and very lovely. Love the color.

----------


## Yorick Jenkins

Hello everybody -this is my first time in these literature network forum. Iam British, 52 years old and live in Colognbe Germany. 


1) I am the member of a small literary society here in Cologne and I am supposed to be giving a talk on DH Lawrence at the end of July and it would help me to read a biography. There are plenty on the market-do members of this forum recommend anyone specially or would warn against any one of them specially?
2) Am I right in thinking that this forum is so far the only one on DH Lawrence or are there other ones here hiding under another name?

Many thanks for your help!

----------


## Janine

> Hello everybody -this is my first time in these literature network forum. Iam British, 52 years old and live in Colognbe Germany. 
> 
> 
> 1) I am the member of a small literary society here in Cologne and I am supposed to be giving a talk on DH Lawrence at the end of July and it would help me to read a biography. There are plenty on the market-do members of this forum recommend anyone specially or would warn against any one of them specially?
> 2) Am I right in thinking that this forum is so far the only one on DH Lawrence or are there other ones here hiding under another name?
> 
> Many thanks for your help!


*Welcome Yorick!* I am a very enthusiasic fan of Lawrences and have read three biographies and am planning a third. I don't have the time right now to list the ones I read but I thought they all were good, of course you always have to sift through the material and decide just what is true and exaggerated or contrived. I certainly can suggest the books to you and reading a book of selected letters is also very good. 

There are several other threads devoted to Lawrence's work. One is on 'Lawrence Short Stories' and quite active - we just posted a new story to read and discuss. Please do come and join that discussion and it would help greatly to read the posts in that thread to get a real sense of Lawrence and his ideas, life and work. Soon I hope to start a 'Lawrence Tortoise Poems' thread, probably on Monday. There is some discussion in 'Sons and Lovers' thread, also and in the original thread of book of the month when we voted. You might want to check out all of these.

I will get back to you on the list of biographies. Virgil may know of some more. He did his thesis on aspects of Lawrence. I am sure he can help you as well.

Online there is another forum on just Lawrence called the Rananim Society. You might want to check that out as well.

*Hi Yorik*, I am back. Here are the books I read:

1. The Intelligent Heart by Harry T. Moore
*The Life of D.H.Lawrence 1954, 1962*

The reason I read this biography was because a good friend, who has studied Lawrence in University, told me his professor highly rated this biography. Although an older book, (I am sure you can find more recent biographers) I thought the book was excellent and very concise. I enjoyed reading it very much. It gave a good overview of the author's complex life and travels. I bought a used copy on Amazon.

2.*D.H.Lawrence* The Story of a Marriage by Brenda Maddox
1994 

This book can easily be found on Amazon and although some will review it and say it is not wholely truthful, I found it to be well-written and very informative. As to whether this account is a little exaggerated, as far as Lawrence and Frieda's marital bliss is concerned, I took everything I read with doubts to absolute truth, at all times. The book will always be tainted with the view of the biographer, that cannot be helped. I found this book very close to the first biography I have listed and yet it expanded much more on Lawrence's life and ways and the marriage and involvements with various people. It was well documented and I liked that very much. I think this biography kept my utmost attention. Also, filled with many pages of excellent photos.

3.*The phoenix and the flame:* D.H. Lawrence; a biography 

Pub Info Viking 1973 by Trease Geoffrey
Edition 1st edition

I picked this book up in my library. It is more symplified than the other biographies I have mentioned. It is a good overview and reads quickly. I believe it to be in accordance with the other biographers but not as involved in all aspects of Lawrence's life and career. 

4. *D.H.Lawrence* The Early Years by John Worthen Cambridge. 1991

I have not read this book yet. I believe this will be the most involved and concise since it is part of a continuing series on Lawrence, coming out of Cambridge. It has the benefit of newly found documents and letters and much more information. I am anxious to read it, but it will be very detailed and the first book is long - 461 pages, plus an additional section of detailed information about his works - tables, lists, apendix's, etc. Also, the book contains a number of wonderful photos in the center section. 

The last book is well-worth purchasing (I bought mine from Amazon) but you would need to read the whole series to get the whole story of Lawrence's life. You won't have time for that now before your lecture. Better to stick with a book that will give you an overview and full biography not weighted down by too many details. There are many fine biographies listed on Amazon, but the first one I mentioned would be my choice of the four I listed, if you are able to find it; being an older book it might be hard to come by.

Hope this helps ~ Janine  :Smile: 




> What is this a PSA for an after school special?


Hi *papayahed*  :FRlol:  duh, I feel dumb.....I know I am not up on abreviations, but what is PSA?

 :Frown:  Sorry if my post overwhelmed you....just was trying to explain.

----------


## Virgil

I couldn't leave chapter eight without commenting on that great scene where Hermione whacks Birkin over the head with a ball of lapis lazuli. First what instigates the conflict is this exchange:



> If,' said Hermione at last, `we could only realise, that in the spirit we are all one, all equal in the spirit, all brothers there -- the rest wouldn't matter, there would be no more of this carping and envy and this struggle for power, which destroys, only destroys.'
> 
> This speech was received in silence, and almost immediately the party rose from the table. But when the others had gone, Birkin turned round in bitter declamation, saying:
> 
> `It is just the opposite, just the contrary, Hermione. We are all different and unequal in spirit -- it is only the social differences that are based on accidental material conditions. We are all abstractly or mathematically equal, if you like. Every man has hunger and thirst, two eyes, one nose and two legs. We're all the same in point of number. But spiritually, there is pure difference and neither equality nor inequality counts. It is upon these two bits of knowledge that you must found a state. Your democracy is an absolute lie -- your brotherhood of man is a pure falsity, if you apply it further than the mathematical abstraction. We all drank milk first, we all eat bread and meat, we all want to ride in motor-cars -- therein lies the beginning and the end of the brotherhood of man. But no equality.


Lawrence does not favor democracy. People are not equal to him. This is somewhat shocking at first to people. Some of his later novels (_The Plumed Serpent_, for instance) seem to suggest facism and he has been accused of being sympathetic to it. 

Another point is that Hermione really wants to kill him. It's not just a her taking a crack at him, but her really trying to murder him, and it comes from her unconscious, deep within her:



> Terribly shocks ran over her body, like shocks of electricity, as if many volts of electricity suddenly struck her down. She was aware of him sitting silently there, an unthinkable evil obstruction. Only this blotted out her mind, pressed out her very breathing, his silent, stooping back, the back of his head.
> 
> A terrible voluptuous thrill ran down her arms -- she was going to know her voluptuous consummation. Her arms quivered and were strong, immeasurably and irresistibly strong. What delight, what delight in strength, what delirium of pleasure! She was going to have her consummation of voluptuous ecstasy at last. It was coming! In utmost terror and agony, she knew it was upon her now, in extremity of bliss. Her hand closed on a blue, beautiful ball of lapis lazuli that stood on her desk for a paper-weight. She rolled it round in her hand as she rose silently. Her heart was a pure flame in her breast, she was purely unconscious in ecstasy. She moved towards him and stood behind him for a moment in ecstasy. He, closed within the spell, remained motionless and unconscious.
> 
> Then swiftly, in a flame that drenched down her body like fluid lightning and gave her a perfect, unutterable consummation, unutterable satisfaction, she brought down the ball of jewel stone with all her force, crash on his head. But her fingers were in the way and deadened the blow. Nevertheless, down went his head on the table on which his book lay, the stone slid aside and over his ear, it was one convulsion of pure bliss for her, lit up by the crushed pain of her fingers. But it was not somehow complete. She lifted her arm high to aim once more, straight down on the head that lay dazed on the table. She must smash it, it must be smashed before her ecstasy was consummated, fulfilled for ever. A thousand lives, a thousand deaths mattered nothing now, only the fulfilment of this perfect ecstasy.


It reminds of what Birkin said to Gerald about taking two to make a murder, both the murderer and the murderee agreeing to it inside their unconsciousness. But the language Lawrence uses to show Birkin's reaction is fascinating:



> He was shattered, but he was not afraid. Twisting round to face her he pushed the table over and got away from her. He was like a flask that is smashed to atoms, he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits. Yet his movements were perfectly coherent and clear, his soul was entire and unsurprised.
> 
> `No you don't, Hermione,' he said in a low voice. `I don't let you.'
> 
> He saw her standing tall and livid and attentive, the stone clenched tense in her hand.
> 
> `Stand away and let me go,' he said, drawing near to her.
> 
> As if pressed back by some hand, she stood away, watching him all the time without changing, like a neutralised angel confronting him.


She has murder inside her soul but he does not have the soul of a murderee. Notice also that "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits." This echoes Gerald's "all in bits" and Hermione's "ghastliness of dissolution" that i mentioned earlier But there is a very important difference. Yes under the stress of being attacked Birkin person is fragmented, but he goes on and reintegrates himself throug nature.



> Yet he wanted something. He was happy in the wet hillside, that was overgrown and obscure with bushes and flowers. He wanted to touch them all, to saturate himself with the touch of them all. He took off his clothes, and sat down naked among the primroses, moving his feet softly among the primroses, his legs, his knees, his arms right up to the arm-pits, lying down and letting them touch his belly, his breasts. It was such a fine, cool, subtle touch all over him, he seemed to saturate himself with their contact.
> 
> But they were too soft. He went through the long grass to a clump of young fir-trees, that were no higher than a man. The soft sharp boughs beat upon him, as he moved in keen pangs against them, threw little cold showers of drops on his belly, and beat his loins with their clusters of soft-sharp needles. There was a thistle which pricked him vividly, but not too much, because all his movements were too discriminate and soft. To lie down and roll in the sticky, cool young hyacinths, to lie on one's belly and cover one's back with handfuls of fine wet grass, soft as a breath, soft and more delicate and more beautiful than the touch of any woman; and then to sting one's thigh against the living dark bristles of the fir-boughs; and then to feel the light whip of the hazel on one's shoulders, stinging, and then to clasp the silvery birch-trunk against one's breast, its smoothness, its hardness, its vital knots and ridges -- this was good, this was all very good, very satisfying. Nothing else would do, nothing else would satisfy, except this coolness and subtlety of vegetation travelling into one's blood. How fortunate he was, that there was this lovely, subtle, responsive vegetation, waiting for him, as he waited for it; how fulfilled he was, how happy!


And so on.

----------


## Janine

> I couldn't leave chapter eight without commenting on that great scene where Hermione whacks Birkin over the head with a ball of lapis lazuli. First what instigates the conflict is this exchange:


Then this part: 



> Another point is that Hermione really wants to kill him. It's not just a her taking a crack at him, but her really trying to murder him, and it comes from her unconscious, deep within her::


*note I did not requote - please read in above orig. post by Virgil

Hi *Virgil,* I could not wait until this scene came up. I kept reading and reading, and wondering when this scene would happen. It is so significant a moment in Birkin's life. Yes, I had not recalled just how violent Hermione is in this scene - it certainly did read as though she actually wanted to kill him; wipe him out of her very existence. It really shocked me. The paperweight of lapis lazuli seemed appropriate a weapon. I don't think I shall look at the mineral quite the same ever again. The scene reminded me of the moment of supreme violence in "The Prussian Officer" when the violence happened (seemingly) suddenly, but was earier provoked, having built up over a period of time of antagonism between the two parties. I think just the fact that Birkin came back in the room and was lounging about, saying little, really added 'insult to injury'. He thought he was being nicer, but it only feed fuel to her fire. The whole scene, and the way both reacted to her action, was so well expressed. Both sets of feelings and reactions were so complex.




> Lawrence does not favor democracy. People are not equal to him. This is somewhat shocking at first to people. Some of his later novels (_The Plumed Serpent_, for instance) seem to suggest facism and he has been accused of being sympathetic to it.


I believe this is due to being influenced by L's reading of Darwin and his theory/observations on 'natural selection'. I saw this Darwin book in the bookstore the other night and had a desire to buy it, just to see various ideas that influenced Lawrence's thinking. I still may purchase the book, since it highly interests me, asside from Lawrence studies. Yes, true many people saw Lawrence as a facist, or sympathetic to that movement (at the time) but he really ended up hating the facists. I don't think Lawrence's political views actually, ever were solidly established. What would be your thoughts on this? 
I don't think I read "The Plumed Serpent". That is another story I hope to read in the coming months.




> It reminds of what Birkin said to Gerald about taking two to make a murder, both the murderer and the murderee agreeing to it inside their unconsciousness. But the language Lawrence uses to show Birkin's reaction is fascinating: 
> 
> She has murder inside her soul but he does not have the soul of a murderee.



Again, this is like what is occurring in "The Prussian Officer" and Birkin's statements to Gerald, earlier in this novel. Yes, good observation and pointing out the difference. Birkin does not have the soul of a murderee, you are right. What an interesting word too -'murderee' - did Lawrence make that word up, or is there actually a word 'murderee'?




> Notice also that "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits." This echoes Gerald's "all in bits" and Hermione's "ghastliness of dissolution" that i mentioned earlier But there is a very important difference. Yes under the stress of being attacked Birkin person is fragmented, but he goes on and reintegrates himself throug nature.


*Virgil,* this is another good observation on the key words and phrases. "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits" does echo Gerald's "all in bits" - interesting. And it seems his "smashed to bits" is worse than Gerald's state, but it certainly gives the men a common bond, doesn't it? As some say "misery loves" company. I think that it makes Birkin now more needy, in is impending periods of illness from the blow, and more vulnerable in Gerald's eyes/perception. It also gives Gerald the role of being more nurturing to his friend. The bond between them grows even stronger after this incident. I won't go too far with this, since you and others may not have reached those chapters, such as "Man to Man", Chapter XVI.

The nature scene is one of my favorites in the book and actually in the film version I have seen many times of the book. It is beautifully depicted, and to me the ultimate in freedom and sensuality. The sense of touch in the field and in the grove of trees is heightened by Birkin's state (soul/mind/spirit, or maybe what Lawrence's terms the deeper 'blood' state). Here he is at a pinacle and longs to free himself from all evils and conventions, and he takes the plunge to do so. It is a kind of death of which he will emerge cleaner and more wholesome. Up until now he has only talked about it. This scene is key to the central theme of the story, I believe. It is a major turning point for Birkin in his freedom and his divorcing himself entirely from Hermione's domination over him. The scene is brilliantly written, don't you agree?

----------


## Virgil

> The scene reminded me of the moment of supreme violence in "The Prussian Officer" when the violence happened (seemingly) suddenly, but was earier provoked, having built up over a period of time of antagonism between the two parties.


I was thinking the same thing. 




> I believe this is due to being influenced by L's reading of Darwin and his theory/observations on 'natural selection'.


I had not thought that was a big influence on Lawrence; at least I had not seen that before. I wouldn't think Lawrence would be big on scientific studies. Did you come across that in your studies? My thought on his anti-democracy was that it was instilled by his mother who was sort of aristocratic pretentious.




> Yes, true many people saw Lawrence as a facist, or sympathetic to that movement (at the time) but he really ended up hating the facists. I don't think Lawrence's political views actually, ever were solidly established. What would be your thoughts on this?


I do think he was sympathetic but he died way before WWII and I don't think he would have been sympathetic by then. 




> Birkin does not have the soul of a murderee, you are right. What an interesting word too -'murderee' - did Lawrence make that word up, or is there actually a word 'murderee'?


Now this is a little off topic, but don't you see why I find these psychology theories rediculous. As if people have a wish to be murdered in their soul, sort of like the Freudian death wish silliness.  :FRlol:  But it makes for interesting characters.




> *Virgil,* this is another good observation on the key words and phrases. "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits" does echo Gerald's "all in bits" - interesting. And it seems his "smashed to bits" is worse than Gerald's state, but it certainly gives the men a common bond, doesn't it? As some say "misery loves" company.


Yes but like I point out there is a big difference in that Birkin reintegrates himself.




> The nature scene is one of my favorites in the book and actually in the film version I have seen many times of the book. It is beautifully depicted, and to me the ultimate in freedom and sensuality. The sense of touch in the field and in the grove of trees is heightened by Birkin's state (soul/mind/spirit, or maybe what Lawrence's terms the deeper 'blood' state). Here he is at a pinacle and longs to free himself from all evils and conventions, and he takes the plunge to do so. It is a kind of death of which he will emerge cleaner and more wholesome. Up until now he has only talked about it. This scene is key to the central theme of the story, I believe. It is a major turning point for Birkin in his freedom and his divorcing himself entirely from Hermione's domination over him. The scene is brilliantly written, don't you agree?


I agree, and very well said Janine.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> I was thinking the same thing.


Virgil, I thought you might be.  :Smile:  The night I read that scene I thought of it right away.




> I had not thought that was a big influence on Lawrence; at least I had not seen that before. I wouldn't think Lawrence would be big on scientific studies. Did you come across that in your studies? My thought on his anti-democracy was that it was instilled by his mother who was sort of aristocratic pretentious.


Yes, I did see it in one of my biographies. I will have to locate just where and who said it. In fact I have run across it, I believe in several of them. I will look under the index at the back - under origin of species and natural selective. I am sure I will come up with something. Possibly, but I don't think his mother being aristocratic and pretentious in her ways was the only influence in his attitude towards democracy. He was also opposed to capitalism.




> I do think he was sympathetic but he died way before WWII and I don't think he would have been sympathetic by then.


I have often thought of this and how he would have changed his mind with that war. 





> Now this is a little off topic, but don't you see why I find these psychology theories rediculous. As if people have a wish to be murdered in their soul, sort of like the Freudian death wish silliness.  But it makes for interesting characters.[


To some extend I do agree with you, like this concept of the 'murderer and the murderee'. Theory is interesting, but I doubt it truly holds up. It does seem a bit ridiculous. It might only happen if the murderee truly wanted to die such as a forced sort of suicide with another carrying it out. 
I think that some psychology is valid; what about dreams at night when we are sleeping? The subconscious plays a role in that, doesn't it? Now next you will tell me dreams don't exist or that you never have them. I feel them strongly and do feel they spring from the subconscious. What about hypnotism and the subconscious? What about suppressing really traumatic events and losing conscious memory of them? These have been proven and well documented. 
We could debate all of this, but it is going off topic, like you already said.




> Yes but like I point out there is a big difference in that Birkin reintegrates himself.


Most definitely and this will determine the outcome of the book and each life. Birkin shares somethings with Gerald and there is a bond, but definitely they still remain separate and at odds in their concepts of life.




> I agree, and very well said Janine.


Thank you. You know working on these posts is not easy. I tend to know what I would like to convey, but I struggle sometimes saying exactly what I mean. It really is taxing, but rewarding, as well. Been a long time since I attended school and actually I did not study Lawrence there at all.
I won't post anymore - I believe I might be ahead of you in reading and maybe others, too. I don't want to spoil any of the book for anyone. 

*Virgil,* let me just say, that beyond Chapter 8, there are some chapters that I think you will find of particular interest - in what Birkin speaks of and proposes. His ideas are distinctly expressed. When you get to a point I need to ask you about the meaning of some of the concepts and words he is using.

----------


## papayahed

> Hi *papayahed*  duh, I feel dumb.....I know I am not up on abreviations, but what is PSA?


Public Service Announcement

----------


## Virgil

> Public Service Announcement


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I thought it was a prostate test:




> What is the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test? 
> 
> Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland. The PSA test measures the level of PSA in the blood. The doctor takes a blood sample, and the amount of PSA is measured in a laboratory. Because PSA is produced by the body and can be used to detect disease, it is sometimes called a biological marker or tumor marker.
> 
> It is normal for men to have low levels of PSA in their blood; however, prostate cancer or benign (not cancerous) conditions can increase PSA levels. As men age, both benign prostate conditions and prostate cancer become more frequent. The most common benign prostate conditions are prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (enlargement of the prostate). There is no evidence that prostatitis or BPH cause cancer, but it is possible for a man to have one or both of these conditions and to develop prostate cancer as well.
> 
> PSA levels alone do not give doctors enough information to distinguish between benign prostate conditions and cancer. However, the doctor will take the result of the PSA test into account when deciding whether to check further for signs of prostate cancer.
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f.../Detection/PSA

I was trying to figure what you meant by that Papaya.  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

*Papayahed,*

Thanks, so this is how it reads: 
"What is this a Public Service Announcement for an after school special?"

I will have to think about that one; I don't really understand it's relationship to what I wrote, but it is no matter really.

----------


## grace86

Wow Janine and Virg, your posts are awfully long ones  :Wink:  

It is rather difficult to get into Lawrence. At first glance I almost thought his work like Austen's (who I cannot read) but the characters seem to be layered a bit more. 

I am not all that far into it right now, I've just finished chapter 3. The conversation between Hermione and Rupert was a tad strange. I know he is a misanthrope but I am not entirely sure I understand Hermione. Was Rupert's anger with her simply because of her being hypocritical in her statements or does it have to do with the fact that he no longer wants the relationship with her?

You know, even though he isn't a very personable character, I think Rupert is my favorite character so far.

(lol I know there is a bunch of symbolism in this novel that I'm not getting!)

----------


## papayahed

Speaking of chapter 3......Does anybody else find it odd that 

1. Hermoine would show up at ruperts job, slightly stalkerish 
2. Rupert would invite her in the classroom
3. Carry on a conversation in front of the whole class


So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?

----------


## caspian

I have not reached that point to admit Lawrence being "mad, bad" yet, but he's definitely very different. 
I,ve no time at all. I've only read 6 ch. huhhhh

----------


## Janine

> Wow Janine and Virg, your posts are awfully long ones


*Hi Grace,* I will try to address and answer each of your questions; probably Virgil will, also. Considering the complexity of the book, long posts can't be helped. Sorry if they seem a bit overwhelming or difficult. Virgil stated that Lawrence is not an easy author to study. I should hope by discussing in some depth, readers would gain some insight and knowledge into the workings of the book and it's characters, and the author. Posts are long also due to quoting certain parts of the text. 




> It is rather difficult to get into Lawrence. At first glance I almost thought his work like Austen's (who I cannot read) but the characters seem to be layered a bit more.


First off you are right - this book is nothing at all like Austen. Austen always ends her books 'happily ever after' for starts. Lawrence's books and characters are very layered - good observation. I actually have a harder time reading Austen, than I do Lawrence. I think Lawrence's writing flows more easily but the characters are very intricate pyschologically. Analysis is not an easy task.




> I am not all that far into it right now, I've just finished chapter 3. The conversation between Hermione and Rupert was a tad strange. I know he is a misanthrope but I am not entirely sure I understand Hermione. Was Rupert's anger with her simply because of her being hypocritical in her statements or does it have to do with the fact that he no longer wants the relationship with her?


They have many strange conversations - Rupert and Hermione. Yes, good he is trying to break free of Hermione - that is a huge part of it; also her way of being hyocritical of everyone really. She is very snooty and acts above everyone, too. He feels trapped in her dominence and control and wants out. Later you will see he does break the ties. Hermione was based on a real person Lawrence knew - Lady Ottoline. When she recognised herself in his novel, she quickly disowned Lawrence as a friend. I can see why. He did exaggerate her character to suit the book. Ursula is based on his real life wife, Frieda. 




> You know, even though he isn't a very personable character, I think Rupert is my favorite character so far.


Most people like Rupert, even with his flaws and faults. At least in the beginning, he has likable traits and that sort of personality that seems to attract people. He is magnetic somehow and they say Lawrence was this way. He represents Lawrence, himself, in that most things he says and believes are Lawrence's personal ideology and thoughts/ideas.




> (lol I know there is a bunch of symbolism in this novel that I'm not getting!)


There is much symbolism, but I don't think it necessary to get it all. First time I read the novel some 30 yrs ago (I was young then) I did not even consider symbolism. I knew nothing of Lawrence's life and I did not even know that any of the characters were based on real people. I loved the book regardless. I loved the imagery. It fascinated me the way all the characters were so complex. But to each his own; you may or may not like this book. It is an easy book to read, but the inner meanings are difficult to understand. There is much said between the lines. 
If there is anything specific you want to ask questions about, fire away. I or Virgil will be happy to try to answer your posts as best we can.

*Grace,* don't be discouraged just because you are on chapter 3. There is still time. We are just a bit ahead. Plenty of others are still in the process of reading. Important thing is to enjoy your reading.




> I have not reached that point to admit Lawrence being "mad, bad" yet, but he's definitely very different. 
> I,ve no time at all. I've only read 6 ch. huhhhh


*hi caspian,* are you referring to the quote on Virgil's signature - "mad, bad, and dangerous to know"? That does not refer to Lawrence, but is a Byron quote. He used to have a picture of Byron in his signature, but changed it recently to the one of the Phoenix, which was very symbolic to Lawrence. Up to chapter 6 is good...you are going along fine. I think Virgil is up to 8, and I am a little further but others are are not as far as you. You have time, don't get discouraged. 
Yes, Lawrence's writing is definitely different. In many ways he is mad, bad...and even dangerous to know. It could fit Lawrence, too.  :FRlol: 




> Speaking of chapter 3......Does anybody else find it odd that 
> 
> 1. Hermoine would show up at ruperts job, slightly stalkerish 
> 2. Rupert would invite her in the classroom
> 3. Carry on a conversation in front of the whole class
> 
> 
> So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?


Hi *papayahed,* I will try to answer your three questions to the best of my own observations of the chapter.

*1.* 


> At that moment another vision was seen through the glass panels of the door. It was Hermione Roddice. Birkin went and opened to her.
> 
> `I saw your car,' she said to him. `Do you mind my coming to find you? I wanted to see you when you were on duty.'
> 
> She looked at him for a long time, intimate and playful, then she gave a short little laugh. And then only she turned to Ursula, who, with all the class, had been watching the little scene between the lovers.


It seems she states here why she stopped in to see Birkin. I think her underlying motive is to exercise her power and control over him. You could call it stalking, except for the fast that Birkin and Hermione have been intimate and are still connected by the fact they have been lovers. Also, by now she realises that Birkin is attracted to Ursula and she is protecting her own interests in her lover. 
*2.* Not sure how to answer this question, except to say that I think Birkin would be curtious; how or why would he tell her to go away? She said she came to visit him and see him when he was on duty. Hermione is very manipulative, don't you think?
3. see comments below quote



> A SCHOOL-DAY was drawing to a close. In the class-room the last lesson was in progress, peaceful and still. It was elementary botany. The desks were littered with catkins, hazel and willow, which the children had been sketching. But the sky had come overdark, as the end of the afternoon approached: there was scarcely light to draw any more. Ursula stood in front of the class, leading the children by questions to understand the structure and the meaning of the catkins.
> 
> A heavy, copper-coloured beam of light came in at the west window, gilding the outlines of the children's heads with red gold, and falling on the wall opposite in a rich, ruddy illumination. Ursula, however, was scarcely conscious of it. She was busy, the end of the day was here, the work went on as a peaceful tide that is at flood, hushed to retire.
>  
> This day had gone by like so many more, in an activity that was like a trance. At the end there was a little haste, to finish what was in hand. She was pressing the children with questions, so that they should know all they were to know, by the time the gong went. She stood in shadow in front of the class, with catkins in her hand, and she leaned towards the children, absorbed in the passion of instruction.


*3.* In the first paragraph it mentions that the "A SCHOOL-DAY was drawing to a close". Also note the phrase "as the end of the afternoon approached". In paragraph two it states that "the end of the day was here.....hushed to retire." In the third paragraph there are further indications of the end of the school day; phrases such as "..day had gone by.." and "At the end.." and "to finish" and especially suggestive of the day ending is the phrase "by the time the gong went." Therefore, I don't believe, that the children are present in the classroom when the full discussion and altercation between Hermione and Ruppert takes place. I personally got the impression the gong was close to sounding and when it did the children had left the classroom, by the time the discussion/argument was in full swing. 
I agree that it was not too explicit on the children exiting the classroom. It is true that shortly after the section I quoted, Birkin requested crayons for the children and then one child was send on a quest to get some by Ursula. Strange that their departure is not definitely stated. But by the end when Ursula lays her head on the desk and weeps it seems she is alone. My thought throughout the passage was why Birkin instigated this confrontation with Hermione in front of Ursula. I came to my own personal conclusion that probably he wanted her to hear his disortation on his philosophy of life and sensuality/passion.

----------


## grace86

Janine/Virg...what is the time setting exactly of this novel? I glanced around for it in the introduction...sorry if you addressed it already in the forum (it's late and I don't want to look back right now). Hermione mentioned something about seeing Birkin's car outside, so I am just trying to put it into context.

Oh...I am not disturbed at being a little behind. I should be able to finish just fine.  :Tongue:  And I was just joking about the long posts, they are actually very informative and helpful.

----------


## manolia

> Speaking of chapter 3......Does anybody else find it odd that 
> 
> 1. Hermoine would show up at ruperts job, slightly stalkerish 
> 2. Rupert would invite her in the classroom
> 3. Carry on a conversation in front of the whole class
> 
> 
> So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?


For the explanations to 1 and 3 i agree with Janine.
To answer the 2 question i've to add to what Janine has already said, that Hermione cunningly asks Ursula if she minds her coming in the classroom. Ursula gladly accepts (more out of awkwardness than real happiness) and so Birkin can actually do no more but accept.

I am on ch 14 "The water party". This is a very interesting chapter.




> Lawrence does not favor democracy. People are not equal to him. This is somewhat shocking at first to people. Some of his later novels (_The Plumed Serpent_, for instance) seem to suggest facism and he has been accused of being sympathetic to it. .


Funny thing Virgil, he didn't strike me as a fascist or a sympathetic to fascism, by saying that. I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book  :Wink:  ), that Birkin is tired of human race. He sounds very bitter and is sick of the degenaration around him. I also thought that he sees life and people this way due to the "perversed" relationship he has with Hermione (a powerful, controling, domineering and oppressing woman who also never comes up to his expectations considering her understanding and her various opinions. One presumes that they don't have much in common). I was a bit surprised when you and Janine said that he (Lawrence) actually was sympathetic towards fascism.

----------


## Virgil

> Janine/Virg...what is the time setting exactly of this novel? I glanced around for it in the introduction...sorry if you addressed it already in the forum (it's late and I don't want to look back right now). Hermione mentioned something about seeing Birkin's car outside, so I am just trying to put it into context.


Grace, novel takes place in present time, which was written around 1917 I think and published in 1921. One important big difference from the present time which is not mentioned and that is that WWI was going on. The novel seems to allude to it but never outright delineates it. Actually the characters seem to act as if it's just prior to the war (which started in 1914). That's why there is such a gloomy and apocolyptic feel to it. 




> Funny thing Virgil, he didn't strike me as a fascist or a sympathetic to fascism, by saying that. I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book  ), that Birkin is tired of human race. He sounds very bitter and is sick of the degenaration around him. I also thought that he sees life and people this way due to the "perversed" relationship he has with Hermione (a powerful, controling, domineering and oppressing woman who also never comes up to his expectations considering her understanding and her various opinions. One presumes that they don't have much in common). I was a bit surprised when you and Janine said that he (Lawrence) actually was sympathetic towards fascism.


This is actually somewhat related to Grace's question in a way. This novel really predates facism. Mussolini, I think the first of the facist dictators, took power in 1922. What you see throughout this novel is the sense that society must be regenerated anew, and fascism promised that. There was a sense in Europe after WWI that democracy had led it astray. Given Lawrence's inherent distaste for democracy he was sympatheitic to fascism, especially in Italy where he went to live right after WWI, and would have known the Mussolini government first hand. Now given, Musollini's first years were actually productive (he made the trains run on time, as they say) I think Lawrence may have been enamored. And he wasn't the only writer to be enamored with fascism. If you check the political sympathies of many writers between the two world wars, you will find quite a few. Getting back to the novel, you can see that Birkin is referred to as a special or chosen person. I think Lawrence saw dictators in this way too.




> You know, even though he isn't a very personable character, I think Rupert is my favorite character so far.


You know, I have never warmed to Birkin. He is so misanthropic that he is somewhat opposite my nature. Frankly I'm not sure what exactly Ursula sees in him. I guess my personal world view is actually closer to Gerald's. Like i've said elsewhere, I love Lawrence as a writer, but his ideas are flakey.




> (lol I know there is a bunch of symbolism in this novel that I'm not getting!)


It is a hard novel, Grace. The imagery, symbolism, and language connotations are really like a long complex poem. I can see why this is ranked above The Rainbow as his finest accomplishment as a novelist. But I still enjoy The Rainbow more.

----------


## nmolive

The nature scene is one of my favorites in the book and actually in the film version I have seen many times of the book. It is beautifully depicted, and to me the ultimate in freedom and sensuality. The sense of touch in the field and in the grove of trees is heightened by Birkin's state (soul/mind/spirit, or maybe what Lawrence's terms the deeper 'blood' state). Here he is at a pinacle and longs to free himself from all evils and conventions, and he takes the plunge to do so. It is a kind of death of which he will emerge cleaner and more wholesome. Up until now he has only talked about it. This scene is key to the central theme of the story, I believe. It is a major turning point for Birkin in his freedom and his divorcing himself entirely from Hermione's domination over him. The scene is brilliantly written, don't you agree?[/QUOTE]

Janine, I loved this scene as well. I, too, thought it was beautifully written. I am so glad that you pointed out the death of the old self, and the divorce he had with the domination that Hermonine had over him. Very well said!!

----------


## manolia

SPOILERS AHEAD (CHAPTER 14)

In ch 14, after Gerald confesses to Gudrun that he is in love with her this paragraph follows. Why Lawrence brings up the accident and the Cain reference again? Any ideas anyone? It seems out of place to me.




> He walked on beside her, a striding, mindless body. But he recovered a little as he went. He suffered badly. He had killed his brother when a boy, and was set apart, like Cain

----------


## grace86

> You know, I have never warmed to Birkin. He is so misanthropic that he is somewhat opposite my nature. Frankly I'm not sure what exactly Ursula sees in him. I guess my personal world view is actually closer to Gerald's. Like i've said elsewhere, I love Lawrence as a writer, but his ideas are flakey.
> 
> 
> It is a hard novel, Grace. The imagery, symbolism, and language connotations are really like a long complex poem. I can see why this is ranked above The Rainbow as his finest accomplishment as a novelist. But I still enjoy The Rainbow more.


Maybe it is just women who warm up to Birkin  :FRlol:  (maybe I should put in an answer in Lote's Why women don't like nice men thread)  :FRlol:  Personally I don't know why I like his character. But Gerald doesn't seem (so far) that much of an optimist either. 

Even though his characters are all very different they aren't hard to like (lol even the misanthropic ones). Actually, I don't like Mrs. Crich. The conversation/thing she had going on with Birkin in the beginning was just kind of weird.

Thanks for letting me know the setting. Now that you mention it, I think I did already know that from somewhere  :Biggrin:  .

----------


## Janine

> Janine/Virg...what is the time setting exactly of this novel? I glanced around for it in the introduction...sorry if you addressed it already in the forum (it's late and I don't want to look back right now). Hermione mentioned something about seeing Birkin's car outside, so I am just trying to put it into context.
> 
> Oh...I am not disturbed at being a little behind. I should be able to finish just fine.  And I was just joking about the long posts, they are actually very informative and helpful.


*Grace,* so glad you are keeping with it. I don't think you will regret it at all. The book is fascinating even if one does not agree with all the ideas. I think everyone is at different parts of the book anyway. I did not read much last night because I seem now to be ahead; last book Owen Meany, I was way behind. I did finally catch up in time.
I know I do tend to expound in much detail - but glad you are reading the posts (everyone's) and have found then 'informative and helpful'. You know, it is not easy to think about all this and then write all this down; so thank you for appreciating it.


manolia's post



> To answer the 2 .......that Hermione cunningly asks Ursula if she minds her coming in the classroom. Ursula gladly accepts (more out of awkwardness than real happiness) and so Birkin can actually do no more but accept.


*manolia,*Thanks for finding this. I posted those answers to the questions so late last night and I was trying to review what I read. I had missed seeing that part. Now this recalls it to me.






> I am on ch 14 "The water party". This is a very interesting chapter.


This is one of my favorite chapters. It is very interesting and there is much there in one chapter. Let us know what you think after you read it.





> Funny thing Virgil, he didn't strike me as a fascist or a sympathetic to fascism, by saying that. I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book ), that Birkin is tired of human race. He sounds very bitter and is sick of the degenaration around him. I also thought that he sees life and people this way due to the "perversed" relationship he has with Hermione (a powerful, controling, domineering and oppressing woman who also never comes up to his expectations considering her understanding and her various opinions. One presumes that they don't have much in common). I was a bit surprised when you and Janine said that he (Lawrence) actually was sympathetic towards fascism.


True and I really like your observations. I feel the same way about all that you wrote. Good observations on your part and I love the way you expressed it. I think you are right about all.
I think the fascism thing was just temporary for Lawrence and he later changed his mind. Mostly from the things he said, people took him as sympathetic to fascism. I really love the post by *Virgil*  :Thumbs Up:  explaining all this about L and fascism and the wars. Excellent explanation, *Virg*! I like what you said "The imagery, symbolism, and language connotations are really like a long complex poem." - this is so true.

manolia's quote:




> I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book ), that Birkin is tired of human race.


*manolia,* Yes, right that Birkin does represent Lawrence himself and I happen to think him the most interesting character in the book. I think one could consider him the central character - what do you think?

nmolive's quote:



> Janine, I loved this scene as well. I, too, thought it was beautifully written. I am so glad that you pointed out the death of the old self, and the divorce he had with the domination that Hermonine had over him. Very well said!!


*Hi nmolive,* Nice to see a new person on here. Yes, I was waiting for this scene to come up since I love it so much. I think this is some of Lawrence's finest writing and description. I find the scene very naturally beautiful. Thanks for your appreciation of my posting remarks and glad you will be discussing. :Smile:  

*Grace* - I agree, not with Virgil, but with you - maybe women are drawn more to Birkin/Lawrence. I know in his real life this was very true, although sometimes he exasperated them.

----------


## Virgil

> Maybe it is just women who warm up to Birkin  (maybe I should put in an answer in Lote's Why women don't like nice men thread)  Personally I don't know why I like his character. But Gerald doesn't seem (so far) that much of an optimist either.





> *Grace* - I agree not with Virgil but with you - maybe women are drawn more to Birkin/Lawrence. I know in his real life this was very true, although sometimes he exasperated them.


 :FRlol:  I guess it is a woman thing.  :Tongue:  When i said I identified more with Gerald, I meant his view of reality and the fact that he's an engineer. But still he's more masculine than Birkin. Birkin seems like a gloomy preacher. I guess even gloomy preachers have their female admirers.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

I especially like gloomy preachers.  :FRlol:  

I even liked Dimesdale in Scarlett Letter - he was pretty gloomy. Well, I liked him best in the film version with Demi Moore - well, I know *now everyone groans*. Well it was probably the actor I liked and that version's sexy scenes. :FRlol:  I know it deviated from the book drastically.

*Virgil,* Seriously, I can see you identifying with Gerald, but not by the end and also - would you beatup on your horse at the railway crossing like he did?

----------


## manolia

> This is one of my favorite chapters. It is very interesting and there is much there in one chapter. Let us know what you think after you read it.


A very nice chapter Janine  :Nod:  I like the conversation between Gudrun and Gerald on the island and i also like how Lawrence changes the scene from a romantic one to a more dramatic (with the accident on the lake).




> I think the fascism thing was just temporary for Lawrence and he later changed his mind. Mostly from the things he said, people took him as sympathetic to fascism. I really love the post by *Virgil*  explaining all this about L and fascism and the wars. Excellent explanation, *Virg*!


You and Virgil both know a lot about Lawrence's life and what Virgil says makes sense, since i know some authors who were indeed sympathetic towards fascism. But i can see, by what you both say, that Lawrence's preferences were more obscure and difficult to determine. It is quite clear to me by now that he underwent many changes in many things throughout his life.




> *manolia,* Yes, right that Birkin does represent Lawrence himself and I happen to think him the most interesting character in the book. I think one could consider him the central character - what do you think?


I prefer Birkin too, but i don't know if i consider him the central character. At least not yet  :Wink:  . One thing is sure, that all the main topics - ideas are introduced mainly by him.

----------


## grace86

We'll see what happens with my admiration for Birkin as the novel goes on. As it so happens, I make fun of misanthropes in real life  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> A very nice chapter Janine  I like the conversation between Gudrun and Gerald on the island and i also like how Lawrence changes the scene from a romantic one to a more dramatic (with the accident on the lake).


*manolia,* I found the conversation on the island quite interesting and really so much to think about. Did you think that Birkin wavered in some parts of that conversation in trying to say exactly what he wanted to say? I felt he was still floundering around with his preaching and ideas and struggling to get it out.
***Sorry I must have mixed this scene up with the other one you were talking about - you might not have come to this chapter yet. This chapter I believe is called "The Island". 
BUT in the "Picnic" chapter, you are right I liked the conversation between Gerald and Gudrun very much. It was also quite revealing and interesting in their interaction to each other. How about when she slapped him. What did you think of that and his reaction?
Yes, I liked the way "The Picnic" changed so suddenly at the end, too. The whole tone of the story took a turn, changed abruptly. It really catches one by surprise and brings everyone back to dire reality. Good way of putting it going "from a romantic one to a more dramatic". I quite agree.

***Again - you might not be up to this scene (below) and this chapter. If not, leave this question till later on.
I have a question about that "Island" chapter - didn't Birkin mention the term 'queen bee' somewhere in the conversation or in his description of Ursuala? I recall it coming up in my writing and I should have marked it, since I can't locate it again. It could be this chapter or another. It came as curious to me since Lawrence referred to his wife Frieda as the QB - queen bee. 
Birkin later, in that same Island scene, does state: 
"She sat like a strange queen, almost supernatural in her glowing smiling richness."





> You and Virgil both know a lot about Lawrence's life and what Virgil says makes sense, since i know some authors who were indeed sympathetic towards fascism. But i can see, by what you both say, that Lawrence's preferences were more obscure and difficult to determine. It is quite clear to me by now that he underwent many changes in many things throughout his life.


Definitely. Good observation on your part. He is hard to study for just that reason. He can seem very obscure at times and very changable. I suppose his basic philosophies stayed constant and his basic themes in the books, but Lawrence, over the space of his lifetime, did go through various stages and did alter his views some, making studying him a real challenge.




> I prefer Birkin too, but i don't know if i consider him the central character. At least not yet  . One thing is sure, that all the main topics - ideas are introduced mainly by him.


I sympathise or identify more with Birkin and his wanting to shed the conventionality of life and the soridness of industrialism, etc. I can feel for his confusion and his being trapped in many ways. He wants to break out and be himself and be whole. I can relate to this and it may be what really attracts me to this book. I felt so far as you do, that Birkin did introduces the main topics of the book, this is why I felt he is the main or central character.
It is true that he tends to be very 'preachy' and they say this of Lawrence; it was often held against him. Publishers suggested to him not to be so "preachy". He was very preachy in his first novel "The White Peacock". I think he felt he was a sort of 'priest' or 'prophet' with his unique ideas and philosophies, and being young he wanted to relay them eagerly. He had a great deal of zest and enthusiasm. I think this book reflects that, also. I don't really see Birkin as a dreay preacher, but rather a being trying to be heard in the wilderness.

*** some editing I did of my post

----------


## manolia

> *manolia,* How about when she slapped him. What did you think of that and his reaction?


I liked the whole scene very much. I even pictured it in my mind like a movie scene (i do this when i read. I choose faces in the beginning of the book and i play certain scenes in my mind while i read - i should have been a director  :FRlol:  ) . Her reaction was very interesting. Gudrun is a wild tiger, is she not? She is very angry with the fact that Gerald is trying to tame her (and she is aware that he is very successful in doing it).
I haven't yet read the island chapter  :Wink:  . I'll come back to the rest of your post when i do  :Wink: 

EDIT chapter 16




> The hot narrow intimacy between man and wife was abhorrent. The way they shut their doors, these married people, and shut themselves in to their own exclusive alliance with each other, even in love, disgusted him. It was a whole community of mistrustful couples insulated in private houses or private rooms, always in couples, and no further life, no further immediate, no disinterested relationship admitted: a kaleidoscope of couples, disjoined, separatist, meaningless entities of married couples. True, he hated promiscuity even worse than marriage, and a liaison was only another kind of coupling, reactionary from the legal marriage. Reaction was a greater bore than action..


Another bold opinion (considering the time the book was published) concerning marriage. I liked this part (not that i necessarily agree). I wonder how the church and religious groups in general reacted to this book. 




> It was intolerable, this possession at the hands of woman. Always a man must be considered as the broken off fragment of a woman, and the sex was the still aching scar of the laceration. Man must be added on to a woman, before he had any real place or wholeness....



I think this paragraph is another biblical reference. It reminds me how Eve was created from the side of Adam (although it seems that Lawrence thinks it was the other way around ).





> And why? Why should we consider ourselves, men and women, as broken fragments of one whole? It is not true. We are not broken fragments of one whole. Rather we are the singling away into purity and clear being, of things that were mixed. Rather the sex is that which remains in us of the mixed, the unresolved. And passion is the further separating of this mixture, that which is manly being taken into the being of the man, that which is womanly passing to the woman, till the two are clear and whole as angels, the admixture of sex in the highest sense surpassed, leaving two single beings constellated together like two stars...


The same biblical reference, but this time it seems that L disagrees completely. Woman and man are different indipendant entities, not pieces of the same body.

----------


## nmolive

How about chapter 14 Water- party??? This was a strangely-filled chapter. I don't even know where to begin. At first, what struck me was all the romantic-erotic scenes, all the implied love between the two couples. It was so real, and yet so fantasized. I loved it!! But then, as you go futher down the chapter you get this paradox, from romantic and airy to deathly. It was soo unusual for me to read this all in one chapter. Why, I wonder, would DHL decide to throw everything right at his readers in one chapter. There is sooo much in this chapter...so much depth. The submissiveness of Gundrun, all the melodramtic scences of women being aggressive to men...and yet it was said that DHL was much of the aggressor toward women. Very intersting. I can't wait to read everyone else's take on the read of this explosive chapter.
(Sorry I am not adding quotes from the story, if need be I will try.)

----------


## Virgil

> How about chapter 14 Water- party??? This was a strangely-filled chapter. I don't even know where to begin. At first, what struck me was all the romantic-erotic scenes, all the implied love between the two couples. It was so real, and yet so fantasized. I loved it!! But then, as you go futher down the chapter you get this paradox, from romantic and airy to deathly. It was soo unusual for me to read this all in one chapter. Why, I wonder, would DHL decide to throw everything right at his readers in one chapter. There is sooo much in this chapter...so much depth. The submissiveness of Gundrun, all the melodramtic scences of women being aggressive to men...and yet it was said that DHL was much of the aggressor toward women. Very intersting. I can't wait to read everyone else's take on the read of this explosive chapter.
> (Sorry I am not adding quotes from the story, if need be I will try.)


Olive, I skimmed the chapter last night. I will read it properly tonight. I remember this chapter from my reading of the novel 25 years ago. It is a great chapter and so much is packed into this. I'm sure I'll be getting into the details in the coming days. 

What I wanted to let you know from your last parenthetical statement is that we take the quotes write off the electronic version of the novel here on lit net. I'm not sure if you realized that. You can find it here: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_...women_in_love/

----------


## Janine

> I liked the whole scene very much. I even pictured it in my mind like a movie scene (i do this when i read. I choose faces in the beginning of the book and i play certain scenes in my mind while i read - i should have been a director  ) . Her reaction was very interesting. Gudrun is a wild tiger, is she not? She is very angry with the fact that Gerald is trying to tame her (and she is aware that he is very successful in doing it).
> I haven't yet read the island chapter  . I'll come back to the rest of your post when i do


So funny,* manolia*, I do the same thing - the conjuring up of movie scenes in my mind. Well, especially easy to do is this book, since I read the book, then saw the film version years ago. I also bought this British film version on DVD (directed by Ken Russell) last year, and have watched it three times. I see now that much has been left out, however the film stays true to the essense and characters of the book. It is a very good film, if you can get a chance to view it, but only after you finish the book. 
Back to the book itself. Yes, I too see Gudrun as a sort of tigress, definitely. Also, there have been reference's before to her unique name and to Teutonic Legend. In my book, in the Explanatory Notes is says: "the 'white armed' Gudrun of Teutonic legend (re-told by Wagner and William Morris), daughter of the kind of the Nibelungs, eventually murdered her husband Atli." Interesting. I think that Gudrun is a deliberate name Lawrence chose to suggest the fierce temperment of Gudrun. Gerald has a boldness as well and they both want to be tamed (?) in a way by each other, do you think? Or do they simply want to dominate each other? I think this meeting at the tree, showed to Gerald how somewhat alike they are in their natures. They both have very strong wills. Do you recall the railroad/horse scene when Ursuala was appalled, but Gudrun rather had moments of being thrilled or stimulated by it? 




> Another bold opinion (considering the time the book was published) concerning marriage. I liked this part (not that i necessarily agree). I wonder how the church and religious groups in general reacted to this book.


I can't imagine that the church would like Lawrence's book very well; but many writers of the day offended the church(s). Lawrence's books were often banned and he had a hard time getting them published, especially in his native country, England. In fact, most were published through a New York publisher in the US. Some revision was done to many or all novels; of recent years original texts have been recovered. You can imagine what the book would have been like before revisions. Also, you can imagine what the reaction must have been like when these novels first came out in that time period. It did cause quite a stir to say the least. Interesing to note is that it was not unusual for L to re-write books from scratch 2 and 3 times. Amazing, isn't it, considering the complexity of his texts?





> I think this paragraph is another biblical reference. It reminds me how Eve was created from the side of Adam (although it seems that Lawrence thinks it was the other way around ).


I thought so, too, when first reading it. I read in several of my biographies that Lawrence actually had a 'fear of women' due to his overbearing mother and his childhood. Although he deeply loved his mother, she was extremely controlling in his life as an adolescent, especially. In many of his books men are frightened of women's control. It is an interesting thing to consider. Therefore, this might be why he writes the biblical references in reverse. 





> The same biblical reference, but this time it seems that L disagrees completely. Woman and man are different indipendant entities, not pieces of the same body.


I actually like this last passage, you have quoted, best of all. I do think it is taught about the two halves of a whole, but I also think there is individuality in a good marriage. I think basically this is what L is getting at but hope that Virgil comments further on these passages, so that I can learn more about Lawrence's thoughts on this and marriage. I think he could site instances from "The Rainbow" that are similiar to this passage and it's ideal.




> How about chapter 14 Water- party??? This was a strangely-filled chapter. I don't even know where to begin. At first, what struck me was all the romantic-erotic scenes, all the implied love between the two couples. It was so real, and yet so fantasized. I loved it!! But then, as you go futher down the chapter you get this paradox, from romantic and airy to deathly. It was soo unusual for me to read this all in one chapter. Why, I wonder, would DHL decide to throw everything right at his readers in one chapter. There is sooo much in this chapter...so much depth. The submissiveness of Gundrun, all the melodramtic scences of women being aggressive to men...and yet it was said that DHL was much of the aggressor toward women. Very intersting. I can't wait to read everyone else's take on the read of this explosive chapter.
> (Sorry I am not adding quotes from the story, if need be I will try.)


Spoiler if you have not read chapter "The Water Party" 

*Hi Olive,* 

manolia earlier cited this abrupt change in mood in one of her posts. I agree that this chapter is full of much to think about, so much meaning, deep meaning and suggestions of things to come, as well. I was waiting for this chapter to emerge, since I knew it as a memorable part in book, having read this book 30 yrs back (I beat Virgil by 5 yrs). This chapter always stood out for me starkly with the disasterous ending. I think it quite brilliant that Lawrence put all of this into one chapter - the picnic on the hill with emotions running taunt and magnetic and then the stark reality of death emerging again to bring all characters back into the present and reality. It seems to be a sort of see-saw effect emotionally, don't you think? Just when something significant might occur romantically between the two couples they are interrupted and drawn back to the main throng of the party-goers and the desperate circumstances and then back into reality and not a dream world of idealism. I think this is all contained in one chapter since the entire day is devoted to "The Water Party" and the day has this stark contrast of light and dark, day and night. The drowning takes place at night with murky/muddy water as the vehicle of death. The lanterns lend a romantic air to the scenes at first, but then if you notice, all are extinquished to aid in the search. The search is very dark and black. The closing scenes with the young man and woman entwined and Gerald's comment that 'she killed him' would also go along with my last post to manolia and the idea of man being frightened by the control of women. Certainly we have seen this control in Hermione before and she could be deadly in her wrathful (deadly) actions towards Birkin. 

I have an added answer about Lawrence's real way with women, but I must think about it to word it correctly. I will quote your posting remark later and expound on that idea. The answer is not at all simple.

**Of interest might be something I just read - that the drowning was actually based on a real event of a child drowning (at a similiar water party)with an adoescent boy trying to save her, also drowning. The teenage boy was the son of a prominent doctor. Apparently Lawrence got into some trouble for writing this. It did not go over well with the actual parents of the deceased.

----------


## manolia

> So funny,* manolia*, I do the same thing - the conjuring up of movie scenes in my mind. Well, especially easy to do is this book, since I read the book, then saw the film version years ago. I also bought this British film version on DVD (directed by Ken Russell) last year, and have watched it three times. I see now that much has been left out, however the film stays true to the essense and characters of the book. It is a very good film, if you can get a chance to view it, but only after you finish the book.


Hehehe Janine, i was sure that you had already watched at least two adaptations of the book  :FRlol:  . Thanx for the info. I'll watch it.




> Back to the book itself. Yes, I too see Gudrun as a sort of tigress, definitely. Also, there have been reference's before to her unique name and to Teutonic Legend. In my book, in the Explanatory Notes is says: "the 'white armed' Gudrun of Teutonic legend (re-told by Wagner and William Morris), daughter of the kind of the Nibelungs, eventually murdered her husband Atli." Interesting. I think that Gudrun is a deliberate name Lawrence chose to suggest the fierce temperment of Gudrun. Gerald has a boldness as well and they both want to be tamed (?) in a way by each other, do you think? Or do they simply want to dominate each other? I think this meeting at the tree, showed to Gerald how somewhat alike they are in their natures. They both have very strong wills. Do you recall the railroad/horse scene when Ursuala was appalled, but Gudrun rather had moments of being thrilled or stimulated by it?


I agree with what you say about the choice of the name (Gudrun). This can't be a coincidence. Gudrun (in the book) is a very 'lethal' character  :Wink:  . I won't be much surprised if she does something really bad till the end of the book.
It seems that Lawrence was very fond of mythology (by the way i have spotted more references. He mentions Aphrodite in ch 14, the godess of beauty).
I believe that both Gudrun and Gerald want to dominate and be tamed. It is a very powerful and wierd combination and i prefer this couple to the other one.
I remember the scene with the horse. Was it me or L was making a parallel between the horse and Gudrun (that somehow they will have the same fate, both tamed by Gerald. That's why Gudrun was angry in the end of the scene, right?)





> I can't imagine that the church would like Lawrence's book very well; but many writers of the day offended the church(s). Lawrence's books were often banned and he had a hard time getting them published, especially in his native country, England. In fact, most were published through a New York publisher in the US. Some revision was done to many or all novels; of recent years original texts have been recovered. You can imagine what the book would have been like before revisions. Also, you can imagine what the reaction must have been like when these novels first came out in that time period. It did cause quite a stir to say the least. Interesing to note is that it was not unusual for L to re-write books from scratch 2 and 3 times. Amazing, isn't it, considering the complexity of his texts?.


I was sure that this would be the case.What he says in this book (his opinions on pretty much everything) must have been a shock to his contemporaries. Thanx again for the info. He was 'forced' to rewrite the book?? I didn't know that.

----------


## Virgil

Wow, I can't keep up with you guys. I can't respond to everything but since you bring up the horses i found this exchange in chapter 12 on the horses even more interesting than the actual scene where Gerald spurrs her:




> And Ursula, recovering from her ill- humour, turned to Gerald saying:
> 
> `Oh, I hated you so much the other day, Mr Crich,' 
> 
> `What for?' said Gerald, wincing slightly away.
> 
> `For treating your horse so badly. Oh, I hated you so much!' 
> 
> `What did he do?' sang Hermione.
> ...


OK, that's fair enough, and somewhat conventional logic. But notice this after:




> `Quite,' said Birkin sharply. `Nothing is so detestable as the maudlin attributing of human feelings and consciousness to animals.' 
> 
> `Yes,' said Hermione, wearily, `we must really take a position. Either we are going to use the animals, or they will use us.' 
> 
> `That's a fact,' said Gerald. `A horse has got a will like a man, though it has no mind strictly. And if your will isn't master, then the horse is master of you. And this is a thing I can't help. I can't help being master of the horse.' 
> 
> `If only we could learn how to use our will,' said Hermione, `we could do anything. The will can cure anything, and put anything right. That I am convinced of -- if only we use the will properly, intelligibly.' 
> 
> `What do you mean by using the will properly?' said Birkin.
> ...


OK this is rather interesting but it too signals how Hermione is a very "willful" person. And we know that already. But notice this:




> `It is fatal to use the will like that,' cried Birkin harshly, `disgusting. Such a will is an obscenity.'
> 
> Hermione looked at him for a long time, with her shadowed, heavy eyes. Her face was soft and pale and thin, almost phosphorescent, her jaw was lean.
> 
> `I'm sure it isn't,' she said at length. There always seemed an interval, a strange split between what she seemed to feel and experience, and what she actually said and thought. She seemed to catch her thoughts at length from off the surface of a maelstrom of chaotic black emotions and reactions, and Birkin was always filled with repulsion, she caught so infallibly, her will never failed her. Her voice was always dispassionate and tense, and perfectly confident. Yet she shuddered with a sense of nausea, a sort of seasickness that always threatened to overwhelm her mind. But her mind remained unbroken, her will was still perfect. It almost sent Birkin mad. But he would never, never dare to break her will, and let loose the maelstrom of her subconsciousness, and see her in her ultimate madness. Yet he was always striking at her.
> 
> `And of course,' he said to Gerald, `horses haven't got a complete will, like human beings. A horse has no one will. Every horse, strictly, has two wills. With one will, it wants to put itself in the human power completely -- and with the other, it wants to be free, wild. The two wills sometimes lock -- you know that, if ever you've felt a horse bolt, while you've been driving it.'
> 
> `I have felt a horse bolt while I was driving it,' said Gerald, `but it didn't make me know it had two wills. I only knew it was frightened.'
> ...


First i think it's somewhat clear that Lawrence supports the breaking of the horse's will. At least that's how i read it. Second, he associates women's will to a horse's will. The concept of two wills, one as subjected and the other as free and wild, is incredibly imaginative and I think new. The fact that a woman's will is also of two wills (both subjected and free) here is not surprising for Lawrence. He seems to be saying that woman's wills must be controlled like that of a horse by men. Hermione represents what is wrong with modern women (this is Lawrence not me,  :Tongue:  ), willful and uncontrolled. Needless to say Lawrence was not a feminist.  :Wink:  I think the relationship between Gudrun and Gerald is an acting out of this attempt to controll the free and wild female.

----------


## Janine

> Hehehe Janine, i was sure that you had already watched at least two adaptations of the book  . Thanx for the info. I'll watch it.


Hi *Manolia*, Hahaha! You know me so well. I knew you could relate, seeing we both see so many films. No, only one version of WIL, and I actually saw it years ago (after reading the book, mind you) at an art theater in Philadelphia on South St. TLA. They would show unusual and foreign films there. It was fantastic on a big screen and back then they actually had big screens! I was blown away by the film. I only bought the DVD a year ago and was thrilled to find this rare film out on DVD. 
 :FRlol:  Only "Hamlet" that I have seen 4, or is it 5, adaptations of by now...I own four, one courtesy of Virgil. :Smile:  Hope you can find the film WIL to watch sometime... :Wink:  




> I agree with what you say about the choice of the name (Gudrun). This can't be a coincidence. Gudrun (in the book) is a very 'lethal' character  . I won't be much surprised if she does something really bad till the end of the book.
> It seems that Lawrence was very fond of mythology (by the way i have spotted more references. He mentions Aphrodite in ch 14, the godess of beauty).


ch 14 - so it was in the 'Water-Party' scene? I do recall it's reference, but somehow I thought it was in 'An Island' scene. I was wondering what you made of that scene; when Birkin takes Ursula over to the little island. He goes on quite extensively about his thoughts and philosophies; but towards the end I get the feeling he is not totally definite about his beliefs yet. What did you think? I found that scene highly interesting. 




> I believe that both Gudrun and Gerald want to dominate and be tamed. It is a very powerful and weird combination and i prefer this couple to the other one.
> I remember the scene with the horse. Was it me or L was making a parallel between the horse and Gudrun (that somehow they will have the same fate, both tamed by Gerald. That's why Gudrun was angry in the end of the scene, right?)


Well, I find them more definite or more defined than Birkin and Ursula, especially Ursula. I think by the end of the book both Birkin and Ursula will emerge more definite and with more clarity. Gundrun has been more subjected to the outside world than Ursula has and so has Gerald as you will find out in ch.17, therefore they share more in common. Ursuala has been more sheltered, don't you think? 

For *Virgil* mostly but read if you don't mind knowing something about the ending.
*Note - this part of paragraph could be spoiler for "The Rainbow" - tells the ending - sorry) Or having read "The Rainbow", do you think she has experienced much in her past? In my explanatory notes in this book it refers to her name and a person in history/lore: "St. Ursula led 1,000 virgins on an embassy to the Huns, who murdered them near Cologne - but DHL's Ursula would overcome the near tragedy of The Rainbow, at whose end she is recovering from breakdown and learning to wait for a 'son of god' to appear in her life."

Also, in the notes is this reference: "Artemis...Hebe... Virgin goddess of chastity (Diana to the Romans), daughter of Zeus...youthful cup-bearer to the gods, harnesser of horses, generally useful about the gods' abode."

What do you make of that? harnesser of horses...humm. I am not sure where it came up in the text nor to which sister it is referring to. Do you? Also it relates directly to what Virgil has to say in his post about horses and their relationship to women.






> I was sure that this would be the case.What he says in this book (his opinions on pretty much everything) must have been a shock to his contemporaries. Thanx again for the info. He was 'forced' to rewrite the book?? I didn't know that.


Quite a shock indeed! Yes, apparently he did have to edit - but that is not unusual, is it? - most great writer's of anything remotely contraversial have to edit out text. My book Penquin Cambridge edition, I recently bought from Amazon, claims to have two addition chapters. I have counted one, but in the back the book has 2 more chapters one with additions ('Wedding') and one is the very beginning of the book, not titled 'Sisters', but rather it is titled 'Chapter 1 Prologue'. Apparently and originally Lawrence intented to start the book this way and it was edited out or he was made to edit the entire chapter. I only briefly read the beginning of this chapter, to see what it entailed, and it seems to be about Gerald and Birkin and their close relationship. I have not read it yet out of fairness to all that do not own this edition. I will certainly read it at the finish of the book. 

This should be of interest to *Virgil* particularly, since he knows the history of L's life. Lawrence's good friend, John Middleton Murry, thought himself the model for Gerald, but actually the book says not wholly, although Lawrence did draw on certain characteristics of Murry and his wife Katherine Mansfield. Murry also claimed that the idea of a relationship between men addtional to marriage 'is more or less what Lawrence said to me' (Between Two Worlds 1935, pg 412). 
Further reference can be linked to Katherine Mansfield in this quote from my book notes:
"Although Gudrun (and her relationship with Gerald) was in the first "Sisters", finished before DHL met Katherine Mansfield, the final characterization was influenced by having known her: e.g. the striking looks and the stylish dress, the art of carving in miniature (analogous to the art of the short story), the habitual irony, sharpness of tongue and liking to pin people down in a phrase, and Lawrence's perception of an uncertainty of self behind the apparent confidence and sophistication."
*Virgil,* I don't know about you, but I find all of this significant and fascinating.

*Virgil,* I read your post and you bring up some great points. I will answer it later tonight. J

----------


## Janine

> Wow, I can't keep up with you guys. I can't respond to everything but since you bring up the horses i found this exchange in chapter 12 on the horses even more interesting than the actual scene where Gerald spurrs her:


*Virgil*, You can keep up! I probaby won't read as much tonight; watching a movie instead. Take your time to respond to things you might have missed. I like to hear your take on the points we covered last night. The horse references in that conversation between Hermoine, Ursula, Gerald, and Birkin were very interesting. Seemed to me like a followup to just what Gerald's intentions were at the railroad crossing. But at the time he did act this way with the horse, I also felt he was acting it out to demonstrate his dominence over the horse (more significantly representative of Gerald's dominence (consider his dominence as an employer in the mines), but especially his dominence towards a women. He was aware of Ursula and Gudrun viewing his behavior before he acted that way with the horse - am I correct? This part you are now quoting fully clarifies his motives. Remember in "The Prussian Officer", how when the officer was mounted high upon his horse, it symbolised his dominince of power over his soldiers and especially his abused orderly.




> OK, that's fair enough, and somewhat conventional logic. But notice this after:


True.




> OK this is rather interesting but it too signals how Hermione is a very "willful" person. And we know that already. But notice this:


It does do that. I agree. 




> First i think it's somewhat clear that Lawrence supports the breaking of the horse's will. At least that's how i read it. Second, he associates women's will to a horse's will. The concept of two wills, one as subjected and the other as free and wild, is incredibly imaginative and I think new. The fact that a woman's will is also of two wills (both subjected and free) here is not surprising for Lawrence. He seems to be saying that woman's wills must be controlled like that of a horse by men. Hermione represents what is wrong with modern women (this is Lawrence not me,  ), willful and uncontrolled. Needless to say Lawrence was not a feminist.  I think the relationship between Gudrun and Gerald is an acting out of this attempt to controll the free and wild female.


Does Lawrence support that - do you really think so? I am not sure about it. He seems to show both sides of the issue. He definitely does associate women's will to the horse's will. Birkin blantantly states so doesn't he? Yet he goes a step further in my opinion. 
'And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition.'
This seems to clarify what you said and also note the duality within the woman herself.
Why does Birkin say earlier in that passage: 'It is fatal to use the will like that,' cried Birkin harshly, `disgusting. Such a will is an obscenity.' Isn't he opposing Gerald's blantant cruelity towards the animal in this statement. Birkin seemed to be agreeing with Gerald at first but now I get the impression he is not in total agreement.

----------


## Virgil

> He was aware of Ursula and Gudrun viewing his behavior before he acted that way with the horse - am I correct?


For some reason I thought he wasn't. I could be wrong. 




> Does Lawrence support that - do you really think so? I am not sure about it. He seems to show both sides of the issue. He definitely does associate women's will to the horse's will. Birkin blantantly states so doesn't he? Yet he goes a step further in my opinion. 
> 'And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition.'
> This seems to clarify what you said and also note the duality within the woman herself.
> Why does Birkin say earlier in that passage: 'It is fatal to use the will like that,' cried Birkin harshly, `disgusting. Such a will is an obscenity.' Isn't he opposing Gerald's blantant cruelity towards the animal in this statement. Birkin seemed to be agreeing with Gerald at first but now I get the impression he is not in total agreement.


I seemed to think he was supporting Gerald but opposing Hermione. It is perplexing. I can't resolve the two statements.




> For *Virgil* mostly but read if you don't mind knowing something about the ending.
> *Note - this part of paragraph could be spoiler for "The Rainbow" - tells the ending - sorry) Or having read "The Rainbow", do you think she has experienced much in her past? In my explanatory notes in this book it refers to her name and a person in history/lore: "St. Ursula led 1,000 virgins on an embassy to the Huns, who murdered them near Cologne - but DHL's Ursula would overcome the near tragedy of The Rainbow, at whose end she is recovering from breakdown and learning to wait for a 'son of god' to appear in her life."


Ursula is a major character in The Rainbow, but Gudrun is only a minor character. I'm not sure i understand the significance of Ursula's name. That is an interesting legend.




> Also, in the notes is this reference: "Artemis...Hebe... Virgin goddess of chastity (Diana to the Romans), daughter of Zeus...youthful cup-bearer to the gods, harnesser of horses, generally useful about the gods' abode."
> 
> What do you make of that? harnesser of horses...humm. I am not sure where it came up in the text nor to which sister it is referring to. Do you? Also it relates directly to what Virgil has to say in his post about horses and their relationship to women.


There might be an association of the sisters with Diana/Artemis. I think there is a case to make for both sisters.




> This should be of interest to *Virgil* particularly, since he knows the history of L's life. Lawrence's good friend, John Middleton Murry, thought himself the model for Gerald, but actually the book says not wholly, although Lawrence did draw on certain characteristics of Murry and his wife Katherine Mansfield. Murry also claimed that the idea of a relationship between men addtional to marriage 'is more or less what Lawrence said to me' (Between Two Worlds 1935, pg 412). 
> Further reference can be linked to Katherine Mansfield in this quote from my book notes:
> "Although Gudrun (and her relationship with Gerald) was in the first "Sisters", finished before DHL met Katherine Mansfield, the final characterization was influenced by having known her: e.g. the striking looks and the stylish dress, the art of carving in miniature (analogous to the art of the short story), the habitual irony, sharpness of tongue and liking to pin people down in a phrase, and Lawrence's perception of an uncertainty of self behind the apparent confidence and sophistication."
> *Virgil,* I don't know about you, but I find all of this significant and fascinating.


There is no doubt that Gerald and Gudrun are modeled on Murry and Mansfield. It may be fascinating to those who study Lawrence's biography but I don't think it has any significance to the novel.

----------


## manolia

> ch 14 - so it was in the 'Water-Party' scene? I do recall it's reference, but somehow I thought it was in 'An Island' scene. I was wondering what you made of that scene; when Birkin takes Ursula over to the little island. He goes on quite extensively about his thoughts and philosophies; but towards the end I get the feeling he is not totally definite about his beliefs yet. What did you think? I found that scene highly interesting.



I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).




> Well, I find them more definite or more defined than Birkin and Ursula, especially Ursula. I think by the end of the book both Birkin and Ursula will emerge more definite and with more clarity. Gundrun has been more subjected to the outside world than Ursula has and so has Gerald as you will find out in ch.17, therefore they share more in common. Ursuala has been more sheltered, don't you think?


I just read ch 17. So far it's my favourite chapter. You get to see L opinions on industrial revolution, marxism (the colliers' being dissappointed end revolting against the system- here Mr Crich, is definately an allusion to marxism). This chapter reinforces *Virgil's* opinion that Lawrence was sympathetic to fascism.




> Also, in the notes is this reference: "Artemis...Hebe... Virgin goddess of chastity (Diana to the Romans), daughter of Zeus...youthful cup-bearer to the gods, harnesser of horses, generally useful about the gods' abode."
> 
> What do you make of that? harnesser of horses...humm. I am not sure where it came up in the text nor to which sister it is referring to. Do you? Also it relates directly to what Virgil has to say in his post about horses and their relationship to women.


In ancient greek mythology (the roman gods were derived directly from the ancient greek gods. Only the names change, in most cases) Artemis was the godess of hunt. She was a virgin and was very hostile towards men (sometimes she killed the men that came near her, to flirt her). Hebe ("Ηβη"), the other name means "young" or "youth" . The english word "eve" was derived from this word. If i remember correctly, the lady that was drowned (Gerald's sister) was named Diana. So this allusion was for that girl. If you remember, she has also drowned the doctor's son (her arms were round his neck). That's why L calls her Diana (Artemis). She eventually kills the man who approaches her.

----------


## Virgil

> I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).


You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.

----------


## Janine

> I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).


*manolia,* yes, then we do agree about how she was feeling at the time. I felt them both at odds with each other and also a confusion in both their minds. When you get to "Moony" let me know because again we have a scene with Birkin and Ursula alone, this time at night, by the pond. I want to see how you feel about the two in comparison. I just read it this morning in part; I have not finished that chapter yet.




> I just read ch 17. So far it's my favourite chapter. You get to see L opinions on industrial revolution, marxism (the colliers' being dissappointed end revolting against the system- here Mr Crich, is definately an allusion to marxism). This chapter reinforces *Virgil's* opinion that Lawrence was sympathetic to fascism.


Go *manolia,* go! I am starting 19. You know I did not find ch. 17 to be my favorite chapter, in fact I had a hard time getting through that one, being a long chapter. However, it certainly did reveal and clarify much about Gerald and his family and their background and his own ideas of life and work, didn't it? You are right in noticing the political connotations with the Marxism. Could he also be called a socialist in his benevolence to the poor? 
Did you notice all the religious references and submissions of guilt on the father's part, about the lowly worker being entitled to a place in heaven, whereas he, being rich, doubted his own admission past the pearly gates? This reminds me of another book I read, which explored this idea even more extensively, "Brideshead Revisited". It seems that in both books the character acts out of 'charity' with the basic goal of saving their own soul. 




> In ancient greek mythology (the roman gods were derived directly from the ancient greek gods. Only the names change, in most cases) Artemis was the godess of hunt. She was a virgin and was very hostile towards men (sometimes she killed the men that came near her, to flirt her). Hebe ("Ηβη"), the other name means "young" or "youth" . The english word "eve" was derived from this word. If i remember correctly, the lady that was drowned (Gerald's sister) was named Diana. So this allusion was for that girl. If you remember, she has also drowned the doctor's son (her arms were round his neck). That's why L calls her Diana (Artemis). She eventually kills the man who approaches her.


This is excellent. I had a feeling you would know this background and be able to expound on what I had copied from my book notes. This is great and reveals so much about the characters. Fascinating! Also, so interesting is the fact that Diana was the drowned sister's name and so this makes perfect sense in the way they found them - her arms around his neck; as Gerald observed "She killed him." It is now so great to know each name picked for the characters has definite meaning. I wonder about Hermione's name. Do you think it also has roots in mythology? Eve being derived from Hebe - now that is definitely interesting, don't you think?

----------


## manolia

> You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.


Thanx Virgil for the explanation. You are right. Too much water and people drowning or feel like they are drowning (haven't you already said something to that effect in a previous post?). I have also noticed that he mentions the stars often..any ideas?




> *manolia,* You are right in noticing the political connotations with the Marxism. Could he also be called a socialist in his benevolence to the poor?


No i don't think so. The way he describes the poor colliers (i don't remember the exact words but he gives the impression that they are slightly deformed) and the way he mentions how ungrateful they were towards their benevolent benefactor (Mr Crich) makes clear that Lawrence doesn't approve their actions and their claim that all men are equal. 
Gerald strikes me as a capitalist (and you know capitalism - considering the era the book was written was a rather progressive idea).





> This is excellent. I had a feeling you would know this background and be able to expound on what I had copied from my book notes. This is great and reveals so much about the characters. Fascinating! Also, so interesting is the fact that Diana was the drowned sister's name and so this makes perfect sense in the way they found them - her arms around his neck; as Gerald observed "She killed him." It is now so great to know each name picked for the characters has definite meaning. I wonder about Hermione's name. Do you think it also has roots in mythology? Eve being derived from Hebe - now that is definitely interesting, don't you think?


Hermione is a greek name Janine (i think). But i admit that i don't remember anything concerning that name. I'll have a look in the net and i'll tell you  :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

> Thanx Virgil for the explanation. You are right. Too much water and people drowning or feel like they are drowning (haven't you already said something to that effect in a previous post?). I have also noticed that he mentions the stars often..any ideas?


Yes actually. The stars are another allusion to greek myths. Constellations are represented as greek heroes or gods or legends. In a way it is a method of taking a hero and permanently fixing him in heaven or in the heavens. I believe this will be an important symbol for Birkin's and Ursula's relationship toward the end of the novel.

----------


## Janine

> For some reason I thought he wasn't. I could be wrong.


*Hi Manny,* do you recall which chapter that was from - the part with the railroad crossing and the horse? I just flipped through my book but I can't seem to recall the name of that chapter. I thought at the time he had seen them and in a way he was putting on a show for their behalf partly. But I may have read that incorrectly and assumed it. 




> I seemed to think he was supporting Gerald but opposing Hermione. It is perplexing. I can't resolve the two statements.


Oh, good point. Do you think then he said so as a 'man thing' opposing the controlling female, who he was greatly at odds with by now? So he aligned himself with Gerald. I can't picture Birkin taking the same action towards an animal but then again there is much animal abuse in many of Lawrence's novels and man does seem to be held supreme always in relationship to animals. When you read the chapter "Rabbit" you will again encounter this. In 'The White Peacock", Lawrence's first novel, begun when he was only 22, I was amazed at all the blantant animal cruelity, not instigated by the Lawrence/Cyril character, but by the boy on the neighboring farm and others. 




> Ursula is a major character in The Rainbow, but Gudrun is only a minor character. I'm not sure i understand the significance of Ursula's name. That is an interesting legend.


I am not entirely clear on the significance of Ursula's name but manolia shed some enligthening facts on names and their references today. I found the Hebe or Eve reference quite interesting.




> There might be an association of the sisters with Diana/Artemis. I think there is a case to make for both sisters.


manolia cites the connection with Diana who drowned, Gerald's sister. I think you could be right though about it meaning more that that. The drowning may only represent the graphic idea of the role Diana plays and may fortell other outcomes to the story. I think there more direct reference to the two sisters, especially Gudrun.




> There is no doubt that Gerald and Gudrun are modeled on Murry and Mansfield. It may be fascinating to those who study Lawrence's biography but I don't think it has any significance to the novel.


Well, I wrote this primarily for your interest, but I do think it has some significance in fact. 
The reference I refer to says to some degree Murry and Katherine were based on these real-life friends, but surely not entirely. Murry's book actually is not that substianted, from what I have read about it. Murry at one time tried to have an affair with Lawrene's wife (some say successfully) after the death of Katherine Mansfield (early to TB). I don't think L and Murry exactly ended well. But most definitely L took characteristics from various real people and sometimes painted them as one character. Ursula's character is believed to be mostly drawn from Frieda, and Gudrun is suppose to represent his wife, Freida's real sister, Else. You know, the mention of the colored stockings that seem to reappear often in the book? Lawrence liked Freida to wear these thick woolen stocking in bright colors. Odd guy :Brow:  

Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia 



> I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).






> You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.


No, not mixing up scenes, if that was meant to be a question. Just went back to discuss "An Island" scene; a few things we missed. I can see the progression of the water scenes as you have pointed out; wonderful observation; quite brilliant of Lawrence, isn't it? He keeps building and building the novel in such fine layers and intricate weavings of characters with nature, much like real life, I think; nothing is simple or beyond the complex. Someone today mentioned reading the posts and said he was amazed at Lawrence's 'intensity'. 
I did not recall "The Rainbow" having the recurring moon scenes, but I don't recall much about that book, for some odd reason. Seems I really do need to re-read it soon. I am sure it will take on a whole new world of significance for me. Did you come up to ch. 19, "Moony"? I am sure you will find that of great interest, now that you mentioned the moon element in "The Rainbow." Now that I think about it, as the novel progresses, it seems so much of the story revolves around that lake/water on the Crich property. The drowning gave it great significance and seems in my mind to centralise the lake as representative of the theme(s) of the book. I like the last part you wrote especially about "going deeper and deeper into the subconscious of the characters". Interesting idea of the novels acting as long poems or what you term 'Poem-Novels'. Not sure I entirely agree with that idea, but I do find it a unique way of writing in prose and with all the imagery I do think it seems to be "poetic", definitely.

----------


## manolia

Here is who Hermione was (i feel really ashamed that i didn't remember this..but ancient greek myths are endless..one can't possibly remember all this by heart)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermione_%28mythology%29

----------


## Janine

> Here is who Hermione was (i feel really ashamed that i didn't remember this..but ancient greek myths are endless..one can't possibly remember all this by heart)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermione_&#37;28mythology%29


*manolia,* I quite agree - how could one be expected to learn all that and remember it, too. It is so complicated. I hardly recall any mythology, not that I had very in-depth studies of it at all. Thanks for looking that up. I could not access that link, so I had to look it up in Wikipedia, no problem. It was quite interesting, I thought, the fact Hermoine was, in Greek Legend/Mythology, a daughter of Menelaus and Helen, of Troy. Lawrence keeps describing Hermione as beautiful in physical appearance. Wasn't Helen suppose to be the most beautiful woman in the world? She was 'dangerous' too, since they waged a war in her behalf. 

The early mythology you looked up is excellent and quite revealing as well. *manolia,* you will have to be our official mythology research expert!  :FRlol:  It is good you are aboard this time. 

 :Smile:  *Virgil,* I liked your paragraph and reference (mythologically) to the star constellations and the significance they have to the story. Yes, I would imagine at the end, they will shine forth prominently. I think I recall a certain star of great importance in one of the closing scenes.

----------


## nmolive

> You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.


Yes, I believe you are right on with this. He even does this with his choice of diction. He uses the same word over and over within the same paragraph. I knew it must be for a reason, so thanks for noting all that you did about this. Very interesting!!

----------


## Virgil

> *Hi Manny,* do you recall which chapter that was from - the part with the railroad crossing and the horse? I just flipped through my book but I can't seem to recall the name of that chapter. I thought at the time he had seen them and in a way he was putting on a show for their behalf partly. But I may have read that incorrectly and assumed it.


It's in the first few pages of chapter 9. Let me know what the verdict is if you re-read it.




> Oh, good point. Do you think then he said so as a 'man thing' opposing the controlling female, who he was greatly at odds with by now? So he aligned himself with Gerald. I can't picture Birkin taking the same action towards an animal but then again there is much animal abuse in many of Lawrence's novels and man does seem to be held supreme always in relationship to animals. When you read the chapter "Rabbit" you will again encounter this. In 'The White Peacock", Lawrence's first novel, begun when he was only 22, I was amazed at all the blantant animal cruelity, not instigated by the Lawrence/Cyril character, but by the boy on the neighboring farm and others.


It could be a male thing. That crossed my mind too. Quite interesting about the animal cruelty thing. I seem to remember a fox is hunted in his short novel The Fox.




> Yes, I believe you are right on with this. He even does this with his choice of diction. He uses the same word over and over within the same paragraph. I knew it must be for a reason, so thanks for noting all that you did about this. Very interesting!!


Oh no problem. You are definitely right about the diction repetitions. It creates a web of meaning. This is why I consider this more of a poem-novel.

Thanks manolia for the Hermione allusion to greek myth. I had never known that and I thought I knew greek mythology fairly well. 
Now here is something else that is interesting that I wish to point out. It's the flower imagery and smbolism of flowers that runs through the novel. It relates to what Lawrence means as being "complete" of "final." In chapter eleven Birkin and Ursula are talking about whether they are happy.



> `I do enjoy things -- don't you?' she asked.
> 
> `Oh yes! But it infuriates me that I can't get right, at the really growing part of me. I feel all tangled and messed up, and I can't get straight anyhow. I don't know what really to do. One must do something somewhere.'
> 
> `Why should you always be doing?' she retorted. `It is so plebeian. I think it is much better to be really patrician, and to do nothing but just be oneself, like a walking flower.'
> 
> `I quite agree,' he said, `if one has burst into blossom. But I can't get my flower to blossom anyhow. Either it is blighted in the bud, or has got the smother-fly, or it isn't nourished. Curse it, it isn't even a bud. It is a contravened knot.'


A walking flower, burst into blossom. And then in chapter 12 they talk about love and Birkin says his notable statement that love is not the final conclusion:



> `Yes, it does. At the very last, one is alone, beyond the influence of love. There is a real impersonal me, that is beyond love, beyond any emotional relationship. So it is with you. But we want to delude ourselves that love is the root. It isn't. It is only the branches. The root is beyond love, a naked kind of isolation, an isolated me, that does not meet and mingle, and never can.'


Notice the flower metaphor in there. And then a little furthere down;



> `There is,' he said, in a voice of pure abstraction; `a final me which is stark and impersonal and beyond responsibility. So there is a final you. And it is there I would want to meet you -- not in the emotional, loving plane -- but there beyond, where there is no speech and no terms of agreement. There we are two stark, unknown beings, two utterly strange creatures, I would want to approach you, and you me. And there could be no obligation, because there is no standard for action there, because no understanding has been reaped from that plane. It is quite inhuman, -- so there can be no calling to book, in any form whatsoever -- because one is outside the pale of all that is accepted, and nothing known applies. One can only follow the impulse, taking that which lies in front, and responsible for nothing, asked for nothing, giving nothing, only each taking according to the primal desire.'


And then in chapter 14:



> `Do you smell this little marsh?' he said, sniffing the air. He was very sensitive to scents, and quick in understanding them.
> 
> `It's rather nice,' she said.
> 
> `No,' he replied, `alarming.'
> 
> `Why alarming?' she laughed.
> 
> `It seethes and seethes, a river of darkness,' he said, `putting forth lilies and snakes, and the ignis fatuus, and rolling all the time onward. That's what we never take into count -- that it rolls onwards.'
> ...


If you can piece those scenes together, I think you will see that Lawrence's understanding of completeness and finale is to be as a flower, without a will, blossomed in the sunshine of nature. That is the ultimate goal of life, the culmination in a heaven as a spiritual being. Flowers do not have wills; horses and humans have wills and they are incomplete. The goal then is to lose that will, to cast it off.

----------


## Janine

> It's in the first few pages of chapter 9. Let me know what the verdict is if you re-read it.


*Virgil,* I found this paragraph 2 of Coal Dust ch.9: 

"Whilst the two girls waited, Gerald Crich trodded up on a Red Arab Mare........(sentence 4) He saluted the two girls, and drew up to the crossing to wait for the gate, looking down the railway for the approaching train.”
So this is what led me to think that maybe Gerald was acting that way for the benefit of the woman, especially Gudrun. He would be showing his male superiority and his dominent will.




> It could be a male thing. That crossed my mind too. Quite interesting about the animal cruelty thing. I seem to remember a fox is hunted in his short novel The Fox.


I think this animal cruelty thing crops up often in Lawrence’s work, oddly enough. Wonder why? Have you any clear ideas on that?




> Oh no problem. Thanks for the Hermione allusion to greek myth. I had never known that and I thought I knew greek mythology fairly well. You are definitely right about the diction repetitions. It creates a web of meaning. This is why I consider this more of a poem-novel.


Yes, magnolia found it online – Wikepedia, I think. Did you read the whole entry – very interesting and I think significant. Funny, the girl in Harry Potter is also named Hermione. manolia, you do great mythology research!




> Now here is something else that is interesting that I wish to point out. It's the flower imagery and smbolism of flowers that runs through the novel. It relates to what Lawrence means as being "complete" of "final." In chapter eleven Birkin and Ursula are talking about whether they are happy.


First off, flower themes run through all of Lawrence’s novels, I have often noticed that and he uses them metaphorically and symbolically, always. As I read this passage, and I have read it twice, I still don’t totally understand what Birkin is getting at, not entirely. I understand most of it, but I find it hard to fully comprehend all the floral/metaphor significance here. Am I the only one who is a little confused? I feel even Birkin is not 100&#37; sure of what he is saying… he sounds preachy again and he seems to be struggling with the whole concept or at least relaying it to Ursula, but maybe it is just my perception of the scene. Was this the scene in “An Island” chapter? 




> A walking flower, burst into blossom. And then in chapter 12 they talk about love and Birkin says his notable statement that love is not the final conclusion:


It is Birkin saying he is no where near what he would like to be, no even a bud.... is that correct? Is it Ursula who feels she is a “walking flower”?




> Notice the flower metaphor in there. And then a little furthere down;


*Virgil,* can you explain to me this metaphor of the flower? I am not real clear on the point he is trying to make...partly I get it but not in totality. 



> And then in chapter 14: 
> 
> If you can piece those scenes together, I think you will see that Lawrence's understanding of completeness and finale is to be as a flower, without a will, blossom 
> in the sunshine of nature. That is the ultimate goal of life, the culmination in a heaven as a spiritual being. Flowers do not have wills; horses and humans have wills and they are incomplete. The goal then is to lose that will, to cast it off.


I like this idea and would like to believe it is what Lawrence means, but I am not sure. Is it just the will Lawrence wants to cast off? Not sure of that either. Seems to me he wants to cast off the whole individual and be as non- beings naked, vulnerable and like nothing they have ever been before – "There we are two stark, unknown beings, two utterly strange creatures, I would want to approach you, and you me." - appart and separate and 'inhuman beings'.

The longest quote you posted, I must think more about. There is a lot going on there. It seems that the two are not in agreement on Birkin's idea. What is meant by 'flower of dissolution'?

*Please bear with me in this post; I could not check back to all the quotes. I am having connection problems tonight with my server or else it is my computer.

----------


## Schokokeks

> Am I the only one who is a little confused?


If I may take that question out of the context you put it in and apply it to a wider one: No, you aren't  :Smile: . "A little confused" pretty well sums up my feelings towards the book as a whole. I'm currently in the middle of Chapter XVII "The Industrial Magnate" and I'm constantly being irritated by the characters and the way their thoughts evolve with the events - I find it so very forced. Papaya has already mentioned the scene in the school room in chapter 3 *. Althought it is explained why Hermione came there, I found the discussion to be "shifted away from the plot" in order for the characters to have space to preach their opinions on life, knowledge, etc
. Of course this serves as a characterisation, but I find the beginnings and the end of these discussions are only very loosely attached to the plot line, which in my eyes makes them forced. It almost seems like Lawrence had a note book with all his collected opinions on all things whatsoever beside his typewriter and tried to stuff them all in at different places via the characters while he was writing. 
It's so much _telling_, and so far I liked the chapters where he is _showing_ a lot better. In fact, I think that Gerald Crich overall is a character (the only ?) more _shown_ than _told_, and I think Lawrence painted him very deftly  :Nod: .

However, it might also be that I'm so irritated by the book because I don't have time at the moment to fully concentrate on it. I've got three mid-term essays looming behing me, and a Homer translation (eh, *Manolia* ?  :Wink: ), which "slightly" keep me from my reading. I hope that I won't be forced to give it up for a certain time altogether... Meanwhile I'll read a page or two every evening and see how I get along  :Nod: .




*Another passage for me was the end of chapter XV - Ursula being "possessed" by a fit of hatred against Birkin (whom she's kind of in love with, or did I get that wrong ?). Here it is said that she herself doesn't know the reason for her sudden hatred, but why is this passage there in the first place ?

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* I found this paragraph 2 of Coal Dust ch.9: 
> 
> "Whilst the two girls waited, Gerald Crich trodded up on a Red Arab Mare........(sentence 4) He saluted the two girls, and drew up to the crossing to wait for the gate, looking down the railway for the approaching train.
> So this is what led me to think that maybe Gerald was acting that way for the benefit of the woman, especially Gudrun. He would be showing his male superiority and his dominent will.


Oh good find Janine. You're right, he is aware they are watching him. Do you think he's showing off? I take him at his word, that he's training the mare. But I'm not sure now.




> I think this animal cruelty thing crops up often in Lawrences work, oddly enough. Wonder why? Have you any clear ideas on that?


My only thought is that it's part of the natural world. Like my wife likes to say when we watch a nature show and animals hunt and kill or die from starvation or something, "nature is cruel."




> First off, flower themes run through all of Lawrences novels, I have often noticed that and he uses them metaphorically and symbolically, always. As I read this passage, and I have read it twice, I still dont totally understand what Birkin is getting at, not entirely. I understand most of it, but I find it hard to fully comprehend all the floral/metaphor significance here. Am I the only one who is a little confused? I feel even Birkin is not 100% sure of what he is saying he sounds preachy again and he seems to be struggling with the whole concept or at least relaying it to Ursula, but maybe it is just my perception of the scene. Was this the scene in An Island chapter?


and 



> *Virgil,* can you explain to me this metaphor of the flower? I am not real clear on the point he is trying to make...partly I get it but not in totality.


I mention the chapter numbers; I don't have the book handy to find the titles. As to the flower metaphor, think of it this way. When a person dies, a soul lives on, and that soul is like a flower. It has no will. Only a live person has a will. The goal of life is to reach this existence where the soul in whatever heaven Lawrence invisions is blossomed and beautiful. A live person has a will which inhibits the soul. That's why Lawrence stories never end with a finality; live people remain and their wills go on.




> It is Birkin saying he is no where near what he would like to be, no even a bud.... is that correct? Is it Ursula who feels she is a walking flower?


No that is Birkin.




> I like this idea and would like to believe it is what Lawrence means, but I am not sure. Is it just the will Lawrence wants to cast off?


I beleive this is all Lawrence speaking through Birkin.




> The longest quote you posted, I must think more about. There is a lot going on there. It seems that the two are not in agreement on Birkin's idea. What is meant by 'flower of dissolution'?


Actually this is the first time I've ever seen this in Lawrence, so I'm not as sure as above here. But I think he is distinguishing between those that will achieve this spiritual nirvana (Birkin and Ursula) and those that will not (Gerald and Gudrun). They too will lose their wills when they die, but apparantly their souls will have a negative flower, and if I were to stretch the metaphor myself, a flower that is unblossomed, shriveled, and wilted.




> *Please bear with me in this post; I could not check back to all the quotes. I am having connection problems tonight with my server or else it is my computer.


Of course.

----------


## manolia

> [Wasn't Helen suppose to be the most beautiful woman in the world? She was 'dangerous' too, since they waged a war in her behalf.


Yes she was supposed to be very beautiful. Even Aphrodite the godess of beauty was jealous of her.




> The early mythology you looked up is excellent and quite revealing as well. *manolia,* you will have to be our official mythology research expert!  It is good you are aboard this time.


Don't mention it Janine  :Blush:  . If i had a better memory i might be more useful.

EDIT



> . Althought it is explained why Hermione came there, I found the discussion to be "shifted away from the plot" in order for the characters to have space to preach their opinions on life, knowledge, etc . 
> Of course this serves as a characterisation, but I find the beginnings and the end of these discussions are only very loosely attached to the plot line, which in my eyes makes them forced. It almost seems like Lawrence had a note book with all his collected opinions on all things whatsoever beside his typewriter and tried to stuff them all in at different places via the characters while he was writing.


Hehe. I have the same feeling sometimes. I like it though. Each character is like a real person. Each one has his/ hers own theories about everything. We must admit that L is very succesful in describing characters. They are so life-like. But i can see what you mean. In some instances this can be annoying since, as you said, it deviates a lot from the main plot line.




> . 
> It's so much _telling_, and so far I liked the chapters where he is _showing_ a lot better. In fact, I think that Gerald Crich overall is a character (the only ?) more _shown_ than _told_, and I think Lawrence painted him very deftly .


Yes Gerald is more shown than told. He is the more silent character so far. Gudrun also. They are alike don't you think?




> . 
> and a Homer translation (eh, *Manolia* ? ), which "slightly" keep me from my reading.


I'll be glad to help (if i can).




> . 
> *Another passage for me was the end of chapter XV - Ursula being "possessed" by a fit of hatred against Birkin (whom she's kind of in love with, or did I get that wrong ?). Here it is said that she herself doesn't know the reason for her sudden hatred, but why is this passage there in the first place ?


I think that Ursula is very angry because she waits from Birkin to make a move..to come to her..to seek her out. She keeps looking at the door but noone is there. And of course he doesn't do anything (so far, that is). (I am not sure if that is what you asked)

----------


## Virgil

Let me address some of your concerns Schoky, and i'm shifting the order of your comments a bit.



> . Of course this serves as a characterisation, but I find the beginnings and the end of these discussions are only very loosely attached to the plot line, which in my eyes makes them forced. It almost seems like Lawrence had a note book with all his collected opinions on all things whatsoever beside his typewriter and tried to stuff them all in at different places via the characters while he was writing. 
> It's so much _telling_, and so far I liked the chapters where he is _showing_ a lot better. In fact, I think that Gerald Crich overall is a character (the only ?) more _shown_ than _told_, and I think Lawrence painted him very deftly .


Like most great modern novels of the early 20th century, this is not a novel that is heavily plot driven. The significant idea/theory which the early moderns were infatuated with was psychology and especially Freud and the notion of the subconscious. What many moderns (Joyce, Woolf, Conrad, Lawrence, Faulkner Hemingway, etc.) are after is a new understanding of human nature, an understanding of what drives human beings. This requires less plot (which was thought of as very Victorian and therefore old) and more layering of characterization. Joyce took this to the ultimate extreme with Ulysses, where it is mostly about a single day in the life of Bloom. If you get to read Woolf's To The Lighthouse, it is about two days, and two rather insignificant days as far as plot is concerned. Yes, the dialectic banter in almost every chapter of Women In Love can be annoying, especially if you don't understand what's being discussed. I've had the advantage of knowing Lawrence's body of work, and studying him specifically like no other writer I have ever studied. For a first attempt at Lawrence this is probably not the right novel to start with. I would have picked Sons and Lovers or The Rainbow. The greatness of Women In Love is the unique conceptualization of human nature and of life that Lawrence has and how he puts that vision into art (i.e., the characters, the imagery, the symbolism, and the structure of the novel). Also, this has to be the most beautiful english prose that I have ever read. In some parts it is literally breath taking. It is Lawrnce's finest writing and i can't think of a single writer of english prose that has ever matched this for me. I had not remembered it being this beautifully written.




> If I may take that question out of the context you put it in and apply it to a wider one: No, you aren't . "A little confused" pretty well sums up my feelings towards the book as a whole. I'm currently in the middle of Chapter XVII "The Industrial Magnate" and I'm constantly being irritated by the characters and the way their thoughts evolve with the events - I find it so very forced.


I agree, sometimes it is. However, think of the plot in this respect. Instead of the plot heading toward a resolution of conflicting opponents, it is heading toward a resolution of the each character's being, the the conclusion of their natures.




> However, it might also be that I'm so irritated by the book because I don't have time at the moment to fully concentrate on it. I've got three mid-term essays looming behing me, and a Homer translation (eh, *Manolia* ? ), which "slightly" keep me from my reading. I hope that I won't be forced to give it up for a certain time altogether... Meanwhile I'll read a page or two every evening and see how I get along .


Well, your school work is more important. Please ask in this thread for any help I may be able to give. I'm way behind you all in chapter 14. I hope my posts here have been helpful. Lawrence is not an easy writer. He went through most of his career unappreciated and it wasn't until over 20 years after his death that critics really began (and only began) to understand and appreciate him. At the height of his critical reputation, he was the equal of james Joyce in reputation. He has been scaled back a bit in recent years (mostly because the feminist hate him and feminists pretty much rule college universities today) but I still think he's the equal of Joyce and in shear beauty of prose surpasses him.

----------


## grace86

Has anyone else noticed Lawrence's use of the word "inchoate" in describing Hermione and/or her surroundings.

He uses it a lot and it really does justice to describing her character.

*Inchoate:* newly begun, incomplete, not organized

He uses it a lot for Hermione....

The Breadalby Chapter




> "A sort of constraint came over Ursula in the big, strange bedroom. Hermione seemed to be bearing down on her, awful and inchoate, making some appeal."


Lawrence also used this in the previous chapters in describing her demeanor.

Any thoughts on why he would be so repetitious with this one adjective?? Is the redundancy terribly important?

----------


## Janine

> ........
> Like most great modern novels of the early 20th century, this is not a novel that is heavily plot driven. The significant idea/theory which the early moderns were infatuated with was psychology and especially Freud and the notion of the subconscious. What many moderns (Joyce, Woolf, Conrad, Lawrence, Faulkner Hemingway, etc.) are after is a new understanding of human nature, an understanding of what drives human beings. This requires less plot (which was thought of as very Victorian and therefore old) and more layering of characterization. Joyce took this to the ultimate extreme with Ulysses, where it is mostly about a single day in the life of Bloom. If you get to read Woolf's To The Lighthouse, it is about two days, and two rather insignificant days as far as plot is concerned. Yes, the dialectic banter in almost every chapter of Women In Love can be annoying, especially if you don't understand what's being discussed. I've had the advantage of knowing Lawrence's body of work, and studying him specifically like no other writer I have ever studied. For a first attempt at Lawrence this is probably not the right novel to start with. I would have picked Sons and Lovers or The Rainbow. The greatness of Women In Love is the unique conceptualization of human nature and of life that Lawrence has and how he puts that vision into art (i.e., the characters, the imagery, the symbolism, and the structure of the novel). Also, this has to be the most beautiful english prose that I have ever read. In some parts it is literally breath taking. It is Lawrnce's finest writing and i can't think of a single writer of english prose that has ever matched this for me. I had not remembered it being this beautifully written.
> 
> 
> ....... Instead of the plot heading toward a resolution of conflicting opponents, it is heading toward a resolution of the each character's being, the the conclusion of their natures.
> 
> 
> ......Lawrence is not an easy writer. He went through most of his career unappreciated and it wasn't until over 20 years after his death that critics really began (and only began) to understand and appreciate him...........


*Virgil,* Bravo! You could not have answered this any better. It is perfect. I explains all very well. I was trying to formulate a response to *Schokokeks*. I also was thinking that this is not a plot driven book, as you expounded on nicely. You explained that in such concrete and precise terms. You are right in that the other authors you mentioned such as Woolf and Joyce, do not rely on plot, but characterization and inner thoughts of the characters and that Lawrence fits right into this group of 20th century authors. I had not thought of that since his writing is so unique. Of course, the others are unique too....each with their unique ideas on human existence, etc.
I especially liked this line: 



> ....a new understanding of human nature, an understanding of what drives human beings.


Everything else you wrote is beautifully written and insightful and so true. I especially liked what you pointed out about the ending of the book. 

*manolia* has mentioned to me that she would like better to read this book in a peaceful time, such as the summer months, to better absorb the book and it's meaning. I think this is probably true of your situtation, *Schokokeks*, since it would be extremely difficult in my eyes to be learning several other things, especially Greek, when one is trying to understand this novel's deeper meaning, let alone studying for exams. Wow - it overwhelms me to think of it. I am only concentrating on this one writing presently, and I cannot totally understand it either at times; and I have studied Lawrence and also read this book before this. As an introduction to Lawrence's work, this novel is difficult. I read it as my first L book and I loved it, but at the time I was older (late 20's), far after I had to concentrate on other things, such as final exams. At the time I read it very slowly. It is hard to read here for a one month discussion group. I think to myself it needs longer than a month to fully discuss and to understand. Ideally one month of solid reading and then one month of discussion would be preferable but here we must adhere to a monthly schedule. 





> Yes, the dialectic banter in almost every chapter of Women In Love can be annoying, especially if you don't understand what's being discussed. I've had the advantage of knowing Lawrence's body of work, and studying him specifically like no other writer I have ever studied.


*Virgil,* This is very true.

*Schokokeks,* Yes, and even I find it annoying at times, yet I love this book and L's writing. I think it is true that Lawrence was very 'preachy' at times or tended to be that way. I feel Birkin often goes around in circles trying hard to get to his point. He is a great 'explainer' and a 'commenter' as well, but at times I feel he is not 100% sure of what he is trying to say or that it does not come out just as he is intending it to. Of course, this natually confuses Ursula, as well as me. In one ccene (end of ch. 18 Moony; you may have read ch.18 yet) the two sisters verbally say what they think of this aspect of Birkin's personality, speeches...one woman (I think Ursula) even exclaims about his being too 'preachy' and 'exhausting'. It is quite an interesting observation by them; as though Lawrence is actually poking some fun at himself and knows his own faults quite well. He looks at them from a woman's perpective, and there is much truth in this conversation and these observations by the two women.




> Also, this has to be the most beautiful english prose that I have ever read. In some parts it is literally breath taking. It is Lawrnce's finest writing and i can't think of a single writer of english prose that has ever matched this for me. I had not remembered it being this beautifully written.


I fully agree. I think this is Lawrence's masterpiece!




> Yes she was supposed to be very beautiful. Even Aphrodite the godess of beauty was jealous of her.


*Hi manolia,* gee, even Aphrodite was jealous or her...hummm....that is quite interesting. Funny how she is described in the book as so beautiful. Now in the 'film version' (know you can relate to film, manolia - ha!) she is not so outstanding in beauty, in my opinion. How disappointing. I had not picked up on that before, in my reading or the film. Well, anyway, films never get it completely right and the film is much pared down as compared to the intricacy of the book; I see that now. Probably in casting they did not want Hermione to overshadow the two main women leads.




> Don't mention it Janine  . If i had a better memory i might be more useful.


Oh, I'd like you to be our 'mythology advisor' at least - you do such a good job of it. You know more than most of us know. I have to look up everything -early senility and all... :FRlol:  




> Hehe. I have the same feeling sometimes. I like it though. Each character is like a real person. Each one has his/ hers own theories about everything. We must admit that L is very succesful in describing characters. They are so life-like. But i can see what you mean. In some instances this can be annoying since, as you said, it deviates a lot from the main plot line.


I know, I see each person as 'a real person', too. I see the struggles within themselves and with others and I don't just see it written on the page - I feel as I read that I am going through it with them - even their confusions and doubts. At times this is where I can fully relate to these characters and many of their feelings and innner-workings of their minds and souls. I can feel their longings and their yearning for something more, something finer and better. I think this is the real magic of reading Lawrence's work. One does not merely read but absorb what is being written. It does go deeper, much deeper and more into the blood/the core, even beyond the heart and seniment, as he described his own writing and philosophy. Not sure I described that correctly, but hoping Virgil can comment and expound on this idea of Lawrence's and the 'blood' philosophy. I think the characters were described so lifelike since most were fashioned in L's mind after read live people. This is a fact and obviously he copied what he saw and did a fine job of it. He was a master at prose and description, don't you think?




> Yes, Gerald is more shown than told. He is the more silent character so far. Gudrun also. They are alike don't you think?


This is true and it is almost like Birkin is a narrator of the story taking on Lawrence's persona and his (sometimes random) thoughts/philosophies. I think Gudrun and Gerald are much alike - but as they say 'like' repells 'like' - as magnets do. So in someways they also have components in their being that are distinctively unalike - maybe even opposite. I am not sure yet, I need to read more.





> I think that Ursula is very angry because she waits from Birkin to make a move..to come to her..to seek her out. She keeps looking at the door but noone is there. And of course he doesn't do anything (so far, that is). (I am not sure if that is what you asked)


Good answer to her question. He leaves her for quite sometime also and Ursula feels lost.

----------


## Virgil

OK Janine has been pushing me to explain th blood consciousness idea of Lawrence's. I posted this in a thread on one of Lawrence's poems, "The Elephant is Slow to Mate". You can find that discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...light=elephant. But I will post the entire post that explains blood consciousness.




> Let me provide a little background on Lawrence's ideas. In a letter to Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, Lawrence put forth the central thesis of his ideas. I think if you understand this paragragh, you understand 50% of D.H. Lawrence. Please excuse any typos, I had to type this out myself.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> From 8 December 1915 letter to Bertrand Russell, 
> page 470 of The Letters of D.H. Lawrence: June 1913-October 1916.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So Lawrence understands experience between mental consciousness and blood consciousness. It comes across in the novel in several places.

----------


## Janine

> OK Janine has been pushing me to explain th blood consciousness idea of Lawrence's. I posted this in a thread on one of Lawrence's poems, "The Elephant is Slow to Mate". You can find that discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...light=elephant. But I will post the entire post that explains blood consciousness.


*Virgil,* great idea posting this letter. I actually recently read this letter in my selected book of DHL letters. He was quite young when he wrote this, wasn't he? It should explain much about how Lawrence thought and perceived things and formed his own ideas on what he meant by "blood consciousness". Why did Russell take this so personally and disown Lawrence as a friend, I wonder? Did he think Lawrence was insane?




> So Lawrence understands experience between mental consciousness and blood consciousness. It comes across in the novel in several places.


Very good and helpful. Thanks for typing all of that out for us.




> Has anyone else noticed Lawrence's use of the word "inchoate" in describing Hermione and/or her surroundings.
> 
> He uses it a lot and it really does justice to describing her character. 
> 
> *Inchoate:* newly begun, incomplete, not organized
> 
> Lawrence also used this in the previous chapters in describing her demeanor.
> 
> Any thoughts on why he would be so repetitious with this one adjective?? Is the redundancy terribly important?


*Hi Grace,* glad to see you back with comments, questions. I noticed the use of the word 'Inchoate' quite often, as you did. If you read back to one of Virgil's posts he remarks that he feels Lawrence does word repetition often and in this style, the novel reads very much like poetry. The definition you posted really seems to fit Hermione, yes, I think it, too. Hermione is 'incomplete' as a person and in ways she is 'newly begun'. She seems like someone 'not organised' in her own mind and soul. I don't know for sure, but she seems to like to intimidate Ursula and to bear down on her or close in on her in her overbearing way, such as in your quote:

"A sort of constraint came over Ursula in the big, strange bedroom. Hermione seemed to be bearing down on her, awful and inchoate, making some appeal." 

Perhaps *Virgil* will have more to say concerning this use of the word. It is an interesting word indeed and makes perfect sense in the context of the story. It has to be very significant, in the mere fact that Lawrence repeats it so often.

----------


## manolia

> *Virgil,* great idea posting this letter. I actually recently read this letter in my selected book of DHL letters. He was quite young when he wrote this, wasn't he? It should explain much about how Lawrence thought and perceived things and formed his own ideas on what he meant by "blood consciousness". Why did Russell take this so personally and disown Lawrence as a friend, I wonder? Did he think Lawrence was insane?


I don't know why Russell turned Lawrence down, but i'd bet my money that he thought him pervert or vulgar or both.

I think the blood theory (lets call it like this in absence of a better term) is better understood when one pays attention at the description of the african figurines in one of the first chapters of the book. It has something to do with sexual union, procreation, fertility etc (at least i perceived it that way). It has to do with our primal instincts i think.
*Virgil* nice post  :Wink:  

*EDIT* Cybele (Κυβέλη) is mentioned in the book. For anyone who is interested to learn who Cybele was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele

*Janine* remember our talk about Birkin not having clear ideas. These passages were quite revealing for me. If you have read chapter 21, read the following quote. You get to see what each one of the 4 main characters think about love and marriage.

SPOILERS Chapter 21

*EDIT* Gudrun and Gerald are talking about Birkin





> `Exactly! But that is his trouble, exactly! Instead of wanting a woman for herself, he wants his ideas fulfilled. Which, when it comes to actual practice, is not good enough.'
> 
> `Oh no. Best go slap for what's womanly in woman, like a bull at a gate.' Then he seemed to glimmer in himself. `You think love is the ticket, do you?' he asked.
> 
> `Certainly, while it lasts -- you only can't insist on permanency,' came Gudrun's voice, strident above the noise.
> 
> `Marriage or no marriage, ultimate or penultimate or just so-so? -- take the love as you find it.'
> 
> `As you please, or as you don't please,' she echoed. `Marriage is a social arrangement, I take it, and has nothing to do with the question of love.'
> ...

----------


## Janine

> I don't know why Russell turned Lawrence down, but i'd bet my money that he thought him pervert or vulgar or both.


*manolia,* I wondered that, also. I suppose it would come off as being perverted or vulgar. I think I shall have to investigate my "Selected Letters" book, I purchased recently, and find this letter and see if there is additonal correspondense between Russell and Lawrence; also will check my biographies on the point. Now I am curious.





> I think the blood theory (lets call it like this in absence of a better term) is better understood when one pays attention at the description of the african figurines in one of the first chapters of the book. It has something to do with sexual union, procreation, fertility etc (at least i perceived it that way). It has to do with our primal instincts i think.
> *Virgil* nice post


I think usually Virgil calls it blood theory too. That is fine. I fully agree about the importance/significance of those figurines. Yes, I too think Lawrence/Birkin are trying to express the idea of 'primal instincts'. Remember that Lawrence lived in a time of great intellectual learning and study. King Tut's tomb was opened and the world encompassed this great understanding of ancient cultures and learning. This event, along with other great discoveries sparked much travel and intellectualism. Travel and communication had improved in the past 20 or so years, and now the railway, ships, phones, etc. made travel easier and one went to visit cultures to be educated. It was quite posh to think of one's self as all knowledgable and intellectual. It raised the person with means even higher in their own self-esteem. I think of Hermione representing the masses of people feeling they must encompass all this learning; but the problem is that they felt it was their their total ultimate goal in life. Hermione envisions herself as a kind of high priestess of learning and culture. She is really a phony and only uses her emense body of knowledge to distinguish herself from others in condenscending ways, such as the use of the Italian to shut Ursula out and align herself with Birkin. She is interested, firstly, in the 'power' she believes it give her over others. In the end her true core/being is empty and without real substance. During this time period that Lawrence is writing this book, much emphasis was placed on the mind and not on the senses. I always think Lawrence is striving back to the basic and core idea of sensuality and the senses, and yes, you are quite right - from a primal sense. I see this 'blood philosophy' as the basic and simple truth that Lawrence longs to embrace. When all masks are removed and one is 'naked and vulnerable' and 'mindless' they can truly meet on a 'sensual' plane. He wants this with Ursula. He does love her deeply, but he wants this and not the clinging type love he has seen and experienced before, because he knows that type love is destructive. He wants both he and she to meet in the middle and maintain their separate selves. I have to agree with this part of L's philosophy. Many people feel they must give over and be lost in the other person. I think that Ursula took Birkins ideas wrongly at first and that he really wants the union without the possessiveness. With Hermoine she would serve him and give herself up to his evey whim, but she would cling to him as if he were a possession, not a human being or a man. He knows that Ursula is sensitive and will be able to eventually comprehend his true meaning, at least to some degree. Since Birkin is sensitive also I think he picks up on Ursula's deep craving for something better in life.




> *EDIT* Cybele (Κυβέλη) is mentioned in the book. For anyone who is interested to learn who Cybele was
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele


I am very interested and will check the thread. Which of the characters was referred to as Cybele? Thanks for looking it up.




> *Janine* remember our talk about Birkin not having clear ideas. These passages were quite revealing for me. If you have read chapter 21, read the following quote. You get to see what each one of the 4 main characters think about love and marriage.
> 
> SPOILERS Chapter 21
> 
> *EDIT* Gudrun and Gerald are talking about Birkin


Yes, I read this last night and I found it of great interest, too. It is strange that now the alignment is with Gudrun and Gerald. Do you believe his agreeing with Gudrun is true and honest? I feel always as though Gerald does not know what he craves or wants in life. 
Ok, you must have come to ch.20, and what did you think of that scene? It is a very significant scene, I believe. I felt at the beginning of that scene as though Gerald was lost and knew not what he craved from his life. Birkin seemed to lead him and then to give him contact and comfort and establish the closeness Birkin wants of Gerald, temporarily at least; it seems also in this scene that Gerald wants that closeness, as well. Therefore it is curious to me that in chapter 21, while riding in the car sitting behind Birkin, he is agreeing with Gudrun. Obviously Birkin does not hear the conversation, due to the noise of the motor car. Is Gerald merely placating Gudrun by agreeing? Also, is he influenced by his magnetism towards her, his great desire in wanting her physically, at this point? 

Also, earlier the scene between Gudrun and her sister when they discuss Birkin and his preaching, I found this seems to question all of Birkin's theories/ideas. I feel that this novel is so totally balanced and Lawrence shows all sides of the coin to us, even going as far as showing us that all Birkin says may be not quite accurate, but still developing and vague and difficult to comprehend at certain points...perhaps even half-baked at this point, when the women talk about him. 

SPOILERS Chapter 21

In retrospect, after completing ch. 24, I think that all of the characters go through a transformation from the beginning of this book to the end, even Birkin, who seems so sure of his theories. In ch. 23 you will encounter this and his own words about his own ideas/philosophy. Ursuala and Birkin have it out and their heated discussion is beneficial to the end results. It is a going through a 'darkness' in order to come back out into the 'light'. I think not only does Ursula learn from Birkin, but Birkin learns from Ursula. It is a mutual exchange in finality and this in actuality is what Birkin really has wanted all along, that they each come to one another and meet on equal ground. One small part of me thinks Birkin may have compromised to some extend, but I prefer to think that he modified his ideas and the result is what he wanted to begin with.

----------


## Virgil

> I don't know why Russell turned Lawrence down, but i'd bet my money that he thought him pervert or vulgar or both.


You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

----------


## Janine

> You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.


*Virgil,* So did Lawrence break the friendship off or did Russell? I would like to read those other letters involving the quarrel. I will have to see if my book contains them. I have read of one account of a suspected laisson with a man in Cornwall, I believe that is where it took place. I will try to find it in my book, but it is still only conjecture on that biographer's part. I don't know if he is alluding to homosexuality in his books or not; I have never concluded in my own mind if he was talking about the closeness of man to man, as in this novel, as homosexual or just primal closeness. Have you come to the wrestling match? I think I feel this was in this scene, that it was not a homosexual encounter, but rather something much different/more meaningful to Lawrence. Let me know what you think after reading it. 

*Virgil,* did you read manolia's and my last posts? Wondered what you thought of our observations/discussion on the blood philosophy, etc?

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* So did Lawrence break the friendship off or did Russell? I would like to read those other letters involving the quarrel. I will have to see if my book contains them. I have read of one account of a suspected laisson with a man in Cornwall, I believe that is where it took place. I will try to find it in my book, but it is still only conjecture on that biographer's part. I don't know if he is alluding to homosexuality in his books or not; I have never concluded in my own mind if he was talking about the closeness of man to man, as in this novel, as homosexual or just primal closeness. Have you come to the wrestling match? I think I feel this was in this scene, that it was not a homosexual encounter, but rather something much different/more meaningful to Lawrence. Let me know what you think after reading it.


No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships. 




> *Virgil,* did you read manolia's and my last posts? Wondered what you thought of our observations/discussion on the blood philosophy, etc?


I think you guys got it. I didn't think there was anything for me to comment on.

----------


## Janine

> No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.


You know this is an excellent way of putting it. I agree with these thoughts on the issue. My view is he was not a homosexual or even had tendencies towards it. Good way of thinking - '...was not afraid to put himself out there.......clear about it". That's a good point.




> I think you guys got it. I didn't think there was anything for me to comment on.


Good; so you think we do understand the blood theory and the primal instinct that ties in with it? Were we accurate in our assessments/comments? 

I have also been discussing "Sons and Lovers" with Pensive. Drop by if you can. She completed the book and liked it very much.
Been fun.... but going to bed now - tired of writing :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

> You know this is an excellent way of putting it. I agree with these thoughts on the issue. My view is he was not a homosexual or even had tendencies towards it. Good way of thinking - '...was not afraid to put himself out there.......clear about it". That's a good point.


Just finished this chapter earlier. I got to say that it is very suggestive of homosexuaity. I just don't know what Lawrence is trying to say with it. I have given up trying to understand where he's at with this. If anyone has any good ideas, let me know.




> Good; so you think we do understand the blood theory and the primal instinct that ties in with it? Were we accurate in our assessments/comments?


I think so.




> I have also been discussing "Sons and Lovers" with Pensive. Drop by if you can. She completed the book and liked it very much.
> Been fun.... but going to bed now - tired of writing


Yes I go and look. A really fine novel.

----------


## caspian

good discussion, guys. I avoid reading the last 3 pages, I should come back after reading those chapters. 
so, I,ve finished 8 ch. and here's my opinion for now. I still find Lawrence very different. but honestly i'm not impressed so much. he's very good, and very different at describing feelings and I liked it. but when it comes on his narrating in general, he's kind of boring. especially that entertainment part with dancing and swimming at hermione's place was awful- of course for me. ready for stones!  :Biggrin:  there's still the rest of the book, hopefully my opinion is not gonna be same. :Smile:  

hi, janine. nice to see you here, you're so friendly encouraging.  :Smile:  Actually I bazed on Schok.'s post from previous thread. 



> Don't worry, caspian, I'm equally ignorant as to Lawrence . I had only heard his name before.
> I read his wikipedia entry the other day in order to get at least some ideas on him before we start reading, and I must say it only made me hungrier to read one of his works. It seems Lawrence is _mad, bad, and dangerous to know_ , and who can help being interested in the bad guys .





> So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?


and there's a woman sharing a small place with several men. that's quite typical for paris than for london.

----------


## Virgil

Well, to each his own caspian. Lawrence is not for everyone.

I can't point out stuff in every chapter. But there is something important in chapter 17, The Industrial Magnate I should point out. I think most can see that Lawrence is establishing here the modern social order, based on industry, and how each level of society fits in and the pressure to reach equality.



> The men were not against him, but they were against the masters. It was war, and willy nilly he found himself on the wrong side, in his own conscience. Seething masses of miners met daily, carried away by a new religious impulse. The idea flew through them: `All men are equal on earth,' and they would carry the idea to its material fulfilment. After all, is it not the teaching of Christ? And what is an idea, if not the germ of action in the material world. `All men are equal in spirit, they are all sons of God. Whence then this obvious disquality?' It was a religious creed pushed to its material conclusion. Thomas Crich at least had no answer. He could but admit, according to his sincere tenets, that the disquality was wrong. But he could not give up his goods, which were the stuff of disquality. So the men would fight for their rights. The last impulses of the last religious passion left on earth, the passion for equality, inspired them.


Notice how Lawence sees society in terms of religious integration. And the Godhead in modern life is integrated with the machine:



> Seething mobs of men marched about, their faces lighted up as for holy war, with a smoke of cupidity. How disentangle the passion for equality from the passion of cupidity, when begins the fight for equality of possessions? But the God was the machine. Each man claimed equality in the Godhead of the great productive machine. Every man equally was part of this Godhead. But somehow, somewhere, Thomas Crich knew this was false. When the machine is the Godhead, and production or work is worship, then the most mechanical mind is purest and highest, the representative of God on earth. And the rest are subordinate, each according to his degree.


Lawrence's problem with the modern world is what it has done to religion:



> Immediately he saw the firm, he realised what he could do. He had a fight to fight with Matter, with the earth and the coal it enclosed. This was the sole idea, to turn upon the inanimate matter of the underground, and reduce it to his will. And for this fight with matter, one must have perfect instruments in perfect organisation, a mechanism so subtle and harmonious in its workings that it represents the single mind of man, and by its relentless repetition of given movement, will accomplish a purpose irresistibly, inhumanly. It was this inhuman principle in the mechanism he wanted to construct that inspired Gerald with an almost religious exaltation. He, the man, could interpose a perfect, changeless, godlike medium between himself and the Matter he had to subjugate. There were two opposites, his will and the resistant Matter of the earth. And between these he could establish the very expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical repetition, repetition ad infinitum, hence eternal and infinite. He found his eternal and his infinite in the pure machine-principle of perfect co-ordination into one pure, complex, infinitely repeated motion, like the spinning of a wheel; but a productive spinning, as the revolving of the universe may be called a productive spinning, a productive repetition through eternity, to infinity. And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.


To be even more specific, the problem with the modern world is that the "machine-prnciple" is a repetittive loop which mankind is trapped in. The Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence out of repetition. 



> But they submitted to it all. The joy went out of their lives, the hope seemed to perish as they became more and more mechanised. And yet they accepted the new conditions. They even got a further satisfaction out of them. At first they hated Gerald Crich, they swore to do something to him, to murder him. But as time went on, they accepted everything with some fatal satisfaction. Gerald was their high priest, he represented the religion they really felt. His father was forgotten already. There was a new world, a new order, strict, terrible, inhuman, but satisfying in its very destructiveness. The men were satisfied to belong to the great and wonderful machine, even whilst it destroyed them. It was what they wanted. It was the highest that man had produced, the most wonderful and superhuman. They were exalted by belonging to this great and superhuman system which was beyond feeling or reason, something really godlike. Their hearts died within them, but their souls were satisfied. It was what they wanted. Otherwise Gerald could never have done what he did. He was just ahead of them in giving them what they wanted, this participation in a great and perfect system that subjected life to pure mathematical principles. This was a sort of freedom, the sort they really wanted. It was the first great step in undoing, the first great phase of chaos, the substitution of the mechanical principle for the organic, the destruction of the organic purpose, the organic unity, and the subordination of every organic unit to the great mechanical purpose. It was pure organic disintegration and pure mechanical organisation. This is the first and finest state of chaos.


The real Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence, a breaking free of the repetetive cycle of mankind. There are many natural cycles to life (eating, sleeping, seasons, menstruation, planting, harvesting, day, night birth, death, etc.), and these are to be trascended as well. These are natural and there is a certain satisfaction, if not completeness, to be achieved. But the machine has accentuated this further, a degeneration. Completeness is a breaking free of the cycles of life, a religious experience. It is sort of like the breaking free of reincarnation, the wheel of life, that Hindu religious men strive for. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was aware of Hindu religious ideas. 

So notice the structure of the novel, cycles of recurring scenes. The central premise of the novel is which characters are able to transcend and which are caught in the cycles forever repeating life. Remember the opening scene where Ursula and Gudrun are talking about marriage and experience. The marriage that will climax this novel is a marraige of transcending religion (not the formal church marriage of the openning chapters) and the experience will be to transcend beyond the cycles to a "star" existence in the beyond.

I hope that makes sense.  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

*Hi Virgil,* I read your post and I will comment tomorrow. There is so much here and I am so tired now and can't think clearly. I was out all day today and need rest now. 

*Hi caspian,* nice to see you on here also and thanks for your nice compliment. I really do try to be helpful to everyone. Sorry the book is not to your liking. It is a very deep and difficult book to comprehend. You may have been bored with the chapter seeing it with difference eyes; we have been exposed to more of Lawrence and are well aquainted with his style of writing, his symbolism and his theories. Of course this helps one to understand better what is going on in the story and what Lawrence is getting at. As Virgil, said 'Lawrence is not for everyone'; and some other authors come to mind as well, such as James Joyce and William Faukner, Virginia Wolfe - Virgil mentioned these sometime back, since he pointed out that this book is not plot driven. That is not to say it is 'plotless', far from it, nor pure 'stream-of-consciousness' style either, but it incorporates both in a very unique way. I hope this gives you some insite, but if you do not care for this book or understand it fully it is quite understandable. This is why we are having such indepth discussions. Lawrence is not easy to understand or explain. Remember we all have our separate tastes in literature; I respect that.

----------


## manolia

> You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.


Oh so it was Russell who turned L down? I thought that Russell was "disqusted" by L's blood theory (maybe he misunderstood it). But if it is the other way around..it seems that i misunderstood your previous post  :FRlol: (you were talking both about blood theory and their friendship coming to an end and i connected the two facts) anyway you know better  :Wink: 




> No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.





> Just finished this chapter earlier. I got to say that it is very suggestive of homosexuaity. I just don't know what Lawrence is trying to say with it. I have given up trying to understand where he's at with this. If anyone has any good ideas, let me know.


Homosexuallity is implied in this part i think (and in other parts of the book), but one can't be sure. Maybe L was doing it on purpose (to let different groups of people read this book and come to their own conclusions). Maybe he was "experimenting" with the idea (having, as you said an homosexual friend) maybe he was trying to figure homosexuallity out (to understand better what leads to it *- back then there was no idea that one might be born a homosexual-scientists are not sure even as we speak). What i am trying to say is, that his not putting himself out there, wasn't out of fear of censorship (i agree with you, he has proved that he didn't much care) but merely because he himself didn't have a clear, formed opinion on the matter.

*It gave me the impression, that while describing the scene where the two men fight naked, that maybe he was pondering with the idea if the spectacle of a perfect naked male body can attract another male who is in direct proximity with it. In many instances it is obvious that Birkin admires Gerald's body and appearance in general.




> I am very interested and will check the thread. Which of the characters was referred to as Cybele? Thanks for looking it up.


If i remember correctly it is Ursula (Cybele is mentioned by Birkin. He might be reffering to all women-Cybele was the mother of all the gods- but we know which particular woman he has in his mind)





> Yes, I read this last night and I found it of great interest, too. It is strange that now the alignment is with Gudrun and Gerald. Do you believe his agreeing with Gudrun is true and honest? I feel always as though Gerald does not know what he craves or wants in life.


Hmmm i wouldn't put it like that (that he doesn't know what he wants). I'd say that Gerald is the character who undergoes a big change (due to his father's illness and his fear of death..in ch 24 his mother who knows him better, admits that he isn't made for that kind of things..being subjected to the gruesome spectacle of his father slowly dying, that is). Moreover Gerald being successful as a bussinessman, which was his first goal in life and having nothing more to achieve in this aspect of his life, is suffering from boredom and feels empty. That's were Gudrun steps in.





> Ok, you must have come to ch.20, and what did you think of that scene? It is a very significant scene, I believe. I felt at the beginning of that scene as though Gerald was lost and knew not what he craved from his life. Birkin seemed to lead him and then to give him contact and comfort and establish the closeness Birkin wants of Gerald, temporarily at least; it seems also in this scene that Gerald wants that closeness, as well. Therefore it is curious to me that in chapter 21, while riding in the car sitting behind Birkin, he is agreeing with Gudrun. Obviously Birkin does not hear the conversation, due to the noise of the motor car. Is Gerald merely placating Gudrun by agreeing? Also, is he influenced by his magnetism towards her, his great desire in wanting her physically, at this point? .


I think that it's clear by the glimering of his eyes (L says something to that effect) that he actually agrees 100% with Gudrun. As for the scene between the two men in ch 20, i believe that we never get to know what Gerald really thinks about many things. For Birkin we have endless passages..but for Gerald not! As schokokeks has already mentioned, Gerald is more shown than told. That was pretty accurate. We never get to know what Gerald is actually thinking. We have his body language described, the expession of his eyes and of course his words (but he doesn't talk much either).

I just finished chapter 24

*EDIT*
Another referance in mythology. Gerald is called Hermes (don't remember in which chapter. In greek mythology Hermes was the messanger of gods and also the god of commerce and of thieves!!)

There is another reference to Damocles. We have this expression in greek "Δαμόκλειος σπάθη" (Sword of Damocles). We use it in every day speech as well and it indicates "imminent danger" (like a sword which is hanging over your head and is ready to fall).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

----------


## Janine

> Oh so it was Russell who turned L down? I thought that Russell was "disqusted" by L's blood theory (maybe he misunderstood it). But if it is the other way around..it seems that i misunderstood your previous post (you were talking both about blood theory and their friendship coming to an end and i connected the two facts) anyway you know better


*manolia,* I am so glad you jumped in here; I was feeling rather spent and talked out (yes, actually me saying that - ha!). Anyway, I want others to have their say and hear their opinions, too. You are doing a good job in reading and thinking hard on the meanings. I always enjoy hearing your take on the scenes, etc.

Yes, I too am still not completely clear on whether Lawrence dropped Russell or visa versa. I thought I read now several times that it was Russell that broke with Lawrence. Perhaps he felt he was about to be exposed to the world in someway if he indeed was homosexual himself of had homosexual friends. He may have thought Lawrence was referring somehow to homosexualtiy as well as heterosexuality.
I agree that another issue is his understanding it. Lawrence was venturing in untrod territory. He may have felt it 'so far out there' to want to be associated anymore with L.




> Homosexuallity is implied in this part i think (and in other parts of the book), but one can't be sure. Maybe L was doing it on purpose (to let different groups of people read this book and come to their own conclusions). Maybe he was "experimenting" with the idea (having, as you said an homosexual friend) maybe he was trying to figure homosexuallity out (to understand better what leads to it *- back then there was no idea that one might be born a homosexual-scientists are not sure even as we speak). What i am trying to say is, that his not putting himself out there, wasn't out of fear of censorship (i agree with you, he has proved that he didn't much care) but merely because he himself didn't have a clear, formed opinion on the matter.
> 
> *It gave me the impression, that while describing the scene where the two men fight naked, that maybe he was pondering with the idea if the spectacle of a perfect naked male body can attract another male who is in direct proximity with it. In many instances it is obvious that Birkin admires Gerald's body and appearance in general.


I agree about the attractiveness of the man's body to Birkin and probably visa versa. I address that more extensively later in this post. Here and there it does seem that homosexual ideas are implied, but I have never thought it really was a truly homosexual scene - the naked wrestling match in particular. If you notice Birkin speaks of cultures where this type of naked contact/closeness is quite natural and acceptable, renewing the body and spirit of a man. What I might want to ask is pretty outspoked. Do you envision his man to man closeness and 'full complete relationship' that Birkin speaks of as one with the potential for actual sexual intercourse between the two? This I could never really see happening, knowing the two men are so very much attracted to women, but maybe I am being naive. I have seen it more brotherly, but deeply so, and with no fear of actual touching and being physically close, as with children; no inhibitions. There is one instance in WIL when Birkin says to Ursula something to do with going away and even to a place where they would not need clothing and could feel free, totally free. 
There are other authors who you many not have read who posed similar questions about their characters, making the reader wonder if certain passages referred to homosexuality or friendship. One author I think of is Evelyn Waugh, in "Brideshead Revisited". You may not have read the book, but Virgil has. In this book, two men are extremely close, love each other, but one wonders at times if the magnetism is homosexual, especially when they were younger. With Charles, I feel he is basically heterosexual, but would it be so unusual to have homosexual desires at a certain time in ones life being a man, or a greater pure love for a man, than he did for the woman? As far as Sebastian is concerned, I have stronger feelings about him being homosexual. Waugh himself finally admitted to his own homosexualtiy. I only cite this as an example and parallel case. 
Actually, though Lawrence never came off in real life as homosexual, being married faithfully to one woman for his entire life. Yes, there have been biographers who tried to cite evidence that he had a male encounter or perhaps more than one. He certainly was very close to one man well depicted in his novel, "Sons and Lovers", also in his first novel "The White Peacock". Both prominent characters in these books in actuality was based on one of the Chamber's sons (I forget which one), brother to Jessie Chambers (his friend and first love/girlfriend). She was Miriam in "Sons and Lovers". This young man was very close to Lawrence in his youth. 

*From Introduction to “The White Peacock” c.1911



> *Cyril knows ‘the unending miseries of the poor’ too well affected by ideas of ending them. Again, it has been pointed out how Cyril’s reaction to George in the chapter ‘A Poem of Friendship’ is similar to that of Birkin towards Gerald in the *‘Prologue’ to “Woman in Love,” with the same insistence upon a man’s love for a man as superior to that for a woman and accompanies a stress upon the ways in which women ‘undermine man’s hold on life.’……….


Here this commentator cited several examples of this from various Lawrence stories and novels with certain key characters, including “Women in Love”;...it was too long to type from the book....
then it goes on to say:



> Significantly, Lawrence wrote to Jessie Chambers while finishing the final version of the novel (White Peacock), to say ‘ “I have always believed it was the woman who paid the price in life. But I’ve made a discover. It is the man who pays, not the woman”’


*began writing novel 1906-8 (21 to 23 yrs of age) completed, published when he was 26yrs of age)
*main narrative character in White Peacock
* which chapter does your book begin with? In my edition the “Prologue” is included in the back of the book, being a chapter that was originally cut for publication of the book.

From "The White Peacock" c.1911



> “We stood and looked at each other as we rubbed ourselves dry. He was well proportioned, natuarally of handsome physique, heavily limbed. He laughed at me, telling me I was like one of Audrey Beardsley’s long, lean ugly fellows. I referred to him to many classic examples of slenderness, declaring myself more exquisite than his grossness, which amused him. 
> But I had to give in, and bow to him, and he took on an indulgent, gentle manner. I laughed and submitted. For he knew how I admired the noble, white fruitfulness of his form. As I watched him, he stood in white relief against the mass of green. He polished his arm, holding it out straight and solid; he rubbed his hair into curls, while I watched the deep muscles of his shoulders, and the bands stand out in this neck as he held it firm; I remember the story of Annable.
> He saw I had forgotten to continue my rubbing, and laughing he took hold of me and began to rub me briskly, as if I were a child, or rather, a woman he loved and did not fear. I left myself quite limply in his hands, and, to get a better grip of me, he put his arm round me and pressed me against him, and the sweetness of the touch of our naked bodies one against the other was superb. It satisfied in some measure the vague, indecipherable yearning of my soul; and it was the same with him. When he had rubbed me all warm, he let me go, and we looked at each other with eyes of still laughter, and our love was perfect for a moment, and more perfect than any love I have known since, either for man or woman.”


This passage would certainly indicate a closeness to man was perhaps more desirable to Lawrence at the time and obviously he was still considering it in “Women in Love”. In “The White Peacock” George’s bodily description reminds me of his description of Gerald, Cyril's of Birkin. They seem to correspond to some degree. You know I have been plagued for the entire time I have read Lawrence concerning this homosexual question. I have even discussed it with friends who feel that it was not truly what Lawrence was getting at. But as I have plunged deeper into Lawrence’s early works and his life I am even more miffed. My actually personal conclusion is that Lawrence and his male characters are not homosexual, yet they do prefer the closeness of men. It seems that the damaging effects of Lawrence’s own overbearing mother helped form some of these ideas of perfect love and woman just did not seem to fit the bill entirely. It seems that Lawrence felt he could not be totally furfilled in woman and so he has portrayed this in his characters. That is just my own opinion having done the research. There is a recurring theme of woman as 'all devouring' of the male. It is evident in his first somewhat flawed novel, acting as a prelude to what is to come in more complete novels. In WIL it is very prominent an idea with the symbolism referring often to the women more than the man. Gudrun as the all powerful woman warrior, Hermoine, and Ursula with their connections to strong Greek mythological woman and gods. 




> If i remember correctly it is Ursula (Cybele is mentioned by Birkin. He might be reffering to all women-Cybele was the mother of all the gods- but we know which particular woman he has in his mind)


This is good and further supports the ideas I have layed out previously. I also think in the scene when Gerald comes to Gurdrun in the night at her house there are womb references back to a mother. This too is very significant considering Lawrence’s own life and his own mother relationship and how he felt about her smothering ways. 




> Hmmm i wouldn't put it like that (that he doesn't know what he wants). I'd say that Gerald is the character who undergoes a big change (due to his father's illness and his fear of death..in ch 24 his mother who knows him better, admits that he isn't made for that kind of things..being subjected to the gruesome spectacle of his father slowly dying, that is). Moreover Gerald being successful as a bussinessman, which was his first goal in life and having nothing more to achieve in this aspect of his life, is suffering from boredom and feels empty. That's were Gudrun steps in.


True, what you wrote here. I did not put it quite right, yet still there are passages where Gerald seems to be looking down an abyss or void. I will try to find them. He is bored and feels empty. This is so true. He knows not how to proceed with his life at this point. I feel he is ‘lost’ in some great way and I think by the end of the novel you will understand this better. Gerald seems drawn to seeing his father’s 'eyes of death' and wanting to experience the death; he does not seem to be able to help himself. This too is very prophetic and one will eventually see where it leads. Gerald has been surrounded his whole life by death – his young brother, his sister, his father and now it seems his mother is like a dead person, as well. Even though he reviles it he seems drawn to it as inevitable. Only Winifred seems to me to be of life and light in that family. Sad, isn’t it? Did you come to the part when Gerald visits Gudrun to spend the night in her house? I will comment on that part later. I have some insight into something one biographer/analysis pointed out about this scene and others that correspond to it in other L novels.




> I think that it's clear by the glimering of his eyes (L says something to that effect) that he actually agrees 100&#37; with Gudrun. As for the scene between the two men in ch 20, i believe that we never get to know what Gerald really thinks about many things. For Birkin we have endless passages..but for Gerald not! As schokokeks has already mentioned, Gerald is more shown than told. That was pretty accurate. We never get to know what Gerald is actually thinking. We have his body language described, the expession of his eyes and of course his words (but he doesn't talk much either).


I am still not completely sure if he is in total accord with what Gudrun states, but to most of it he may be. His 'sparkling eyes' also seem to indicate to me that he is aligning himself with Gudrun in a kind of secretive union and it is drawing them closer. This scene is very much of a flirtation between them as well, don’t you think? Both her body language and his is obvious and indicate much more than what they are saying in words. It certainly gives us a clearer idea of how Gudrun feels about marriage, if in fact she is being truthful about those feelings. 




> I just finished chapter 24
> *EDIT*
> Another referance in mythology. Gerald is called Hermes (don't remember in which chapter. In greek mythology Hermes was the messanger of gods and also the god of commerce and of thieves!!) 
> 
> There is another reference to Damocles. We have this expression in greek "Δαμόκλειος σπάθη" (Sword of Damocles). We use it in every day speech as well and it indicates "imminent danger" (like a sword which is hanging over your head and is ready to fall).
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles


Good work again, *magnolia.* I will read the wikipedia entry. Hermes is very significant and also I had noticed Damocles mentioned and something about a sword. These references are very interesting, don't you think?

----------


## manolia

> . If you notice Birkin speaks of cultures where this type of naked contact/closeness is quite natural and acceptable, renewing the body and spirit of a man.


Yes you are right. But fighting naked is not a part of Gerald's and Birkin's culture (they are both englishmen, right?)




> What I might want to ask is pretty outspoked. Do you envision his man to man closeness and 'full complete relationship' that Birkin speaks of as one with the potential for actual sexual intercourse between the two? This I could never really see happening, knowing the two men are so very much attracted to women, but maybe I am being naive. I have seen it more brotherly, but deeply so, and with no fear of actual touching and being physically close, as with children; no inhibitions.


No i don't think that in their case it is a proof of homosexuality. I believe that Birkin and especially Gerald were meant to be heterosexuals. But i also believe, like i said in the previous post, that L was 'experimenting" with the idea of homosexuality. Not necessarily in his real life (the only things i know about his real life is what i have read in your posts and Virgil's). As for their being brotherly and all, i agree since it is said earlier in the book that Birkin wanted to be brothers by blood with Gerald (a 'ritual' where each one cuts his hand and they join the two wounds).




> * which chapter does your book begin with? In my edition the Prologue is included in the back of the book, being a chapter that was originally cut for publication of the book.


I am afraid that my copy doesn't have this 'extra' chapter  :Frown:  . I'll have a look if it can be found here in litnet.




> From "The White Peacock" c.1911
> 
> 
> It seems that the damaging effects of Lawrences own overbearing mother helped form some of these ideas of perfect love and woman just did not seem to fit the bill entirely. It seems that Lawrence felt he could not be totally furfilled in woman and so he has portrayed this in his characters. That is just my own opinion having done the research. There is a recurring theme of woman as 'all devouring' of the male. It is evident in his first somewhat flawed novel, acting as a prelude to what is to come in more complete novels. In WIL it is very prominent an idea with the symbolism referring often to the women more than the man. Gudrun as the all powerful woman warrior, Hermoine, and Ursula with their connections to strong Greek mythological woman and gods.


I have a copy of "The white peacock". I have a book with L's short stories (some of them) but i haven't read it yet  :Blush:  .
Anyway what you say about L's mother sounds plausible. After all an oppressing mother (parents in general) and perhaps an unhappy childhood account for many things.





> True, what you wrote here. I did not put it quite right, yet still there are passages where Gerald seems to be looking down an abyss or void. I will try to find them. He is bored and feels empty. This is so true. He knows not how to proceed with his life at this point. I feel he is lost in some great way and I think by the end of the novel you will understand this better. Gerald seems drawn to seeing his fathers 'eyes of death' and wanting to experience the death; he does not seem to be able to help himself. This too is very prophetic and one will eventually see where it leads.


Yep. I noticed the abyss and void references. It made me think that maybe Gerald won't have a happy ending..So actually it is prophetic, eh? Don't answer now, i'll see in a few chapters  :Wink:  




> This scene is very much of a flirtation between them as well, dont you think? Both her body language and his is obvious and indicate much more than what they are saying in words. It certainly gives us a clearer idea of how Gudrun feels about marriage, if in fact she is being truthful about those feelings.


Yes i agree. They start talking about Birkin but what they actually do is letting each other know their views about love and marriage  :Wink:  . So you might say that this is actually a flirtation scene.

----------


## Janine

*manolia,* I want to address each thing you wrote later tonight, but for now let me say that you won't find the "Prologue" on this site. I believe I already looked. I bought a paperback Penquin Camridge edition, recently from Amazon which did cost me nearly $10 new. It contains some extra material which was not published, and is suppose to actually have two full chapters that are not in most of the published volumes. I have counted one in the body of the book. These chapters apparently were in L's orginal manuscripts and his publishers took these out or made L do so. 
Apparently L would have had the book start with this "Prologue" chapter. I only read a small portion of it, but when I complete the book I will read it entirely and then reveal what I have read. Perhaps I can even scan the pages for you. It is too long to retype. I did not want to read it now, because I thought it might change some of my views on the book or clarify things like the Gerald/Birkin relationship issue and I felt it unfair that I would have this additional chapter and others would not. There are two additions at the end of the book that are revealed to have been included in L's original manuscripts: this "Prologue" and part of another chapter (that being in the published book). I also want to read the preface when I complete the book and then I may have more comments on all the things we have been discussing. We can always go back and review certain scenes, chapters, etc.
The other thing I wanted to tell you now is that in the short stories there is a story called "Wintery Peacock". That is not the same as "The White Peacock", the full-length novel. I only found out about it in my biography research and had to track down a used copy on Amazon. I was glad I did, since it has much that is prophetic of the novels to follow, and my being so into studying Lawrence, I found his first novel fascinating. It contains the seeds of his later more developed work.




> I can't point out stuff in every chapter. But there is something important in chapter 17, The Industrial Magnate I should point out. I think most can see that Lawrence is establishing here the modern social order, based on industry, and how each level of society fits in and the pressure to reach equality.


*Virgil,* yes, can't point out everything although I would love to. We would be here a year! 
In this first paragraph is presented the idea of the religion being exploited as the banner for the workers to use to justify their want of equality. In other words they carry this 'religious impulse' whose proclaimation is 'All men are created equal', this being the teaching of Christ, to promote their own welfare. Gerald's father, Thomas Crich 'could but admit, according to his sincere tenets, that the disquality was wrong'. Then, does this mean that he felt equality was justified, but if he then truly admits this, even to himself, he would have to 'give up his goods, which were the stuff of disquality'? This he cannot do; therefore, he at last had no answer.' I envision him having this inner turmoil and 'no win' struggle within himself, concerning his moral behavior and beliefs. Thus there is another inner conflict set up, which can never be resolved. This recalls me to Sebastian's mother/s similiar dilema in "Brideshead Revisited." She had to be charitable out of her quilty conscious in having so much weath and power. I am reminded of the part where she speaks of the bibilical verse about the eye of the needle, the camel and admittence into heaven, creating inner turmoil. I think later we see the same dilemma set up for Gerald's father. In this case, Thomas Crich and management of the company and 'the machine' represent the Godhead in concept- is that accurate to say? 



> Notice how Lawence sees society in terms of religious integration. And the Godhead in modern life is integrated with the machine:


(see Virgil's previous quote)
Yes, and no wonder he was friends with Huxley who saw the world turning unnatural and machine driven. This particular paragraph reminds me of The Crusades, the way the mob reacts in their holy war. In this instance, however the end result is that the Godhead cannot be a thing shared by the masses but must stand alone and rule the workers in order that the machine would function efficiently. Is this correct? Thomas Crich knows this. 




> Lawrence's problem with the modern world is what it has done to religion:


(see V's previous quote)

So, now the concentration is on Gerald running the company and his own ideas and concepts on running it, which differ some from his fathers and he sees as his religion. 




> He had a fight to fight with Matter, with the earth and the coal it enclosed.......................................... ............................................
> It was this inhuman principle in the mechanism he wanted to construct that inspired Gerald with an almost religious exaltation. He, the man, could interpose a perfect, changeless, godlike medium between himself and the Matter he had to subjugate. There were two opposites, his will and the resistant Matter of the earth. And between these he could establish the very expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical repetition, repetition ad infinitum, hence eternal and infinite...................................And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.





> To be even more specific, the problem with the modern world is that the "machine-principle" is a repetittive loop which mankind is trapped in. The Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence out of repetition.


Ok, now I see - this is a good way of summing it up. Yes, now I can understand the 'transcendence out of repetition' idea Lawrence is presenting here and in other parts of the book. That makes it a lot clearer.





> The real Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence, a breaking free of the repetetive cycle of mankind. There are many natural cycles to life (eating, sleeping, seasons, menstruation, planting, harvesting, day, night birth, death, etc.), and these are to be trascended as well. These are natural and there is a certain satisfaction, if not completeness, to be achieved. But the machine has accentuated this further, a degeneration. Completeness is a breaking free of the cycles of life, a religious experience. It is sort of like the breaking free of reincarnation, the wheel of life, that Hindu religious men strive for. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was aware of Hindu religious ideas.


This is good, citing the natural cycles in life. These directly relate to the cycles in the book and the repetitions/rhythms, as well. I found a short preface, that Lawrence wrote himself to "Women in Love" in my book. Does your volume have this preface? He mentions his use of repetition and why it exists in the book. The preface is too long to type, but I will try to scan this preface if you do not have it. It is very interesting and somewhat revealing of Lawrence's intentions. 
I like your final references to Hindu religion and the breaking free of the wheel of life and reincarnation. I am sure L was aware of the Hindu religious ideas, among many others. He was well read on word religions, etc.




> So notice the structure of the novel, cycles of recurring scenes. The central premise of the novel is which characters are able to transcend and which are caught in the cycles forever repeating life. Remember the opening scene where Ursula and Gudrun are talking about marriage and experience. The marriage that will climax this novel is a marraige of transcending religion (not the formal church marriage of the openning chapters) and the experience will be to transcend beyond the cycles to a "star" existence in the beyond. 
> 
> I hope that makes sense.


You make perfect sense. Thanks for such a great post - I learned much here. I am going to call you the "Philosopher Laurette" (sp?) of the discussion group. :Thumbs Up:  You really have it down now, from doing your thesis, I believe. Hey, Virgil, you could do a second thesis on Lawrence. Then I might have to call you Dr.Virgil  :FRlol: .

Your last line about the marriage is excellent and accurate. Makes the "star" existence clearer to me.




> Yes you are right. But fighting naked is not a part of Gerald's and Birkin's culture (they are both englishmen, right?)


Hi again *manolia*, 
This is true, but Gerald seemed to have no qualms about stripping and swimming nude in the lake. I don't think in this era, it was that unusual. The woman also went swimming nude in the scene of the Water-Party, when they are quite isolated. I think the way Lawrence presents these scenes does not indicate to me that he means them to be homosexual. I feel the 'knowledge' of each other and other deeper/primal feelings go far beyond the physical/sexual ideas or possibilities. In the wrestling scene I don't feel sexual tension in that sense. If it were truly homosexual, I feel we would see and feel it in that scene. I felt the scene to be quite pure and beautiful.




> No i don't think that in their case it is a proof of homosexuality. I believe that Birkin and especially Gerald were meant to be heterosexuals. But i also believe, like i said in the previous post, that L was 'experimenting" with the idea of homosexuality. Not necessarily in his real life (the only things i know about his real life is what i have read in your posts and Virgil's). As for their being brotherly and all, i agree since it is said earlier in the book that Birkin wanted to be brothers by blood with Gerald (a 'ritual' where each one cuts his hand and they join the two wounds).


This experimenting is something I am not too sure about. I say this because it feels like Lawrence is pretty sure of his ideas, and not experimenting with any of them. His writing seems definite and I don't feel he would hide this from us, nor would he be experimenting with homosexual ideas in this novel. He may have written more specifically and the publishers made him cut it from his book, who knows? But I feel it is unlikely. I definitely think he wrote from a deep personal well within himself and he would never just throw in the homosexual issue for the benefit of his readers. He believed his books to be art. Everything written in WIL is meant to be there and is either revealing or symbolic, etc. and always intentional. He would not write just to appease his readers either, so this does not settle quite right with me. Also, the 'blood brother' idea is mentioned again, I believe, in the scene of the wrestling match. In this way it further emphasised the point.

Don't worry, I have not read all of Lawrence's short stories, either....probably not even one third of them. I am working on it since we started that thread. 




> Anyway what you say about L's mother sounds plausible. After all an oppressing mother (parents in general) and perhaps an unhappy childhood account for many things.


Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life. In "The White Peacock" he meets a man, a landowner/keeper from a neighboring farm who tells him about how women consume men and ruin them. I don't know the exact words, but he feels this strange fear of women in this novel. Now comes WIL and women are depicted as the ones to be somewhat feared/controlling/fatal to men, don't you think it? He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly. I also read something in one of my biographies that substantiates this idea in refernce to L's novels. It is certainly clear in his novel "Sons and Lovers", and in WIL I feel that Birkin is wanting his relationship to be different and not all comsuming. He does not want to be controlled by the woman/comsumed by her. This he knows to be fatal. So in WIL he goes a step further than his other novels and finds a way to break out of convention and be as 'two stars' - equal and opposite each other.





> Yep. I noticed the abyss and void references. It made me think that maybe Gerald won't have a happy ending..So actually it is prophetic, eh? Don't answer now, i'll see in a few chapters


I won't say anymore... but yes, very significant. Are you nearly done the book? I have about 5 more chapters, I think.




> Yes i agree. They start talking about Birkin but what they actually do is letting each other know their views about love and marriage  . So you might say that this is actually a flirtation scene.


I think it is a fliration and a way to share an intimacy in which they are attracted and drawn to each other in a sexual tension. This scene recalls me to the earlier scene when Gerald is drawn to the woman in the pub, but of course Gudrun is more of an intellectual match for Gerald. Now here, I do feel sexual tension exists between Gerald and Gudrun, that I don't feel this exists between Birkin and Gerald in the wrestling match scene. In this car scene I do admit it is interesting the way they do reveal their ideas on Birkin's philosophy and his opinions, but mostly doesn't Gudrun do the talking or commenting and then Gerald agrees? It made me laugh a little or raise my eyebrows reading this scene.

*manolia,* hope this makes sense. If it does not let me know. I was struggling to express some parts of it. Getting tired now.

----------


## Virgil

Just a quick thought about the two men wrestling naked and the two sisters swiming naked. On the surface it again recalls classical allusions. Male wrestlers in ancient greece wrestled nude. The two sisters swimming naked recalls greek nymphs, lesser dieties, although I think this is not as strong an idea as the wrestlers. I say on the surface, because lawrence takes the wrestlers to a point of homosexuality.




> You make perfect sense. Thanks for such a great post - I learned much here. I am going to call you the "Philosopher Laurette" (sp?) of the discussion group. You really have it down now, from doing your thesis, I believe. Hey, Virgil, you could do a second thesis on Lawrence. Then I might have to call you Dr.Virgil .
> 
> Your last line about the marriage is excellent and accurate. Makes the "star" existence clearer to me.


 :Blush:  Oh, thank you Janine. Yes I really learned Lawrence by studying for my thesis. If I can package all my lit net Lawrence posts into a thesis and it would be acceptable than what the heck i would do it.  :FRlol:  
Janine you said:



> In this first paragraph is presented the idea of the religion being exploited as the banner for the workers to use to justify their want of equality.


I don't think that Lawrence would use the word "exploited." I think he sees the religion as integrated with their state of existence, as if there is a psychological connection between what the people believe and their state of existence. It is a relationship between their subconscious and their actions, decisions, and life.

----------


## Janine

> Oh, thank you Janine. Yes I really learned Lawrence by studying for my thesis. If I can package all my lit net Lawrence posts into a thesis and it would be acceptable than what the heck i would do it. [QUOTE 
> 
> Yeah, really I think we have nearly written a book by now between us. Hey, maybe I could do the same thing and get a masters, what do you think Dr. Virg?
> 
> 
> Janine you said:
> 
> 
> I don't think that Lawrence would use the word "exploited." I think he sees the religion as integrated with their state of existence, as if there is a psychological connection between what the people believe and their state of existence. It is a relationship between their subconscious and their actions, decisions, and life.


*Virgil,* You are absolutely right. 'Integrated' is the perfect word to use. I was struggling with that whole reply to your very long and complex post. It was taxing my feeble little brain and now I have 'brain freeze-up'. It was not easy writing all that and somethings may not be quite clear. I hope some of what I wrote does make sense, for all my labored effort. 
You are correct, about this statement; I did not feel I was wording that at all right, sorry. Let me say I meant more or less what you were saying, like with the Crusades, the way throngs of men/soldiers went to the Holy Lands. Their motivation was deeply ingrained in their religious subconscious that told them it was the right/holy thing to do. Just an example.
'subsconscious' - hey you actually used that word - what subconscious? :FRlol:  

I was thinking how all of this chapter probably is much like "Kangaroo" - that dealt also with the machine, the workers, the Godhead and the mob. I am now quite anxious to read that book. It might prove very interesting after reading WIL.

Hey all, was just internet browsing and found this. Thought the statements by others and Lawrence of interest. One goes along with Virgil's idea of the book being a long narrative poem or poem/novel; I thought that was particularly interesting. 

Women in Love
With an Introduction by Joyce Carol Oates
foreword by the author
Commentary by Carl van Doren, Rebecca West,
Aldous Huxley, and Henry Miller

It is . . . the world of the poets and the preponderance of the poet in [Lawrence] that is the key to his work. He magnified and deepened experience in the manner of a poet," wrote Anaïs Nin in 1934.
Privately printed in 1920 and published commercially in 1921, Women in Love is the novel Lawrence himself considered his masterpiece. Set in the English Midlands, the novel traces the lives of two sisters, Ursula and Gudrun, and the men with whom they fall in love. All four yearn for fufillment in their romantic lives, yet struggle in a world that is increasingly violent and destructive. Commenting on the novel, which was composed in the midst of the First World War in 1916, Lawrence wrote, "The bitterness of the war may be taken for granted in the characters." Rich in symbolism and lyrical prose, Women in Love is a complex meditation on the meaning of love in the modern world.
To the critic Alfred Kazin, "No other writer of [Lawrence's] imaginative standing has in our time written books that are so open to life."

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* You are absolutely right. 'Integrated' is the perfect word to use. I was struggling with that whole reply to your very long and complex post. It was taxing my feeble little brain and now I have 'brain freeze-up'. It was not easy writing all that and somethings may not be quite clear. I hope some of what I wrote does make sense, for all my labored effort.


I know. It's not easy writing long posts. And don't be so humble, your brain is not feeble.  :FRlol:  Your effort makes a lot of sense. 




> You are correct, about this statement; I did not feel I was wording that at all right, sorry. Let me say I meant more or less what you were saying, like with the Crusades, the way throngs of men/soldiers went to the Holy Lands. Their motivation was deeply ingrained in their religious subconscious that told them it was the right/holy thing to do. Just an example.
> 'subsconscious' - hey you actually used that word - what subconscious?


 :FRlol:  Yes, indeed, what subconcious? I was presenting Lawrence's view on the subject.  :Wink:

----------


## manolia

> *manolia,* I want to address each thing you wrote later tonight, but for now let me say that you won't find the "Prologue" on this site. I believe I already looked. .


Yes i looked too. They don't have it  :Frown:  




> Apparently L would have had the book start with this "Prologue" chapter. I only read a small portion of it, but when I complete the book I will read it entirely and then reveal what I have read. Perhaps I can even scan the pages for you. .


Thank you very much Janine. You can of course e-mail me any time you like  :Smile:  






> Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life.............................................. .............
> He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly.


We definately agree on this one. I've just read ch 28 (or was it 29?) and it has again the same idea introduced somewhere  :Wink:  




> I won't say anymore... but yes, very significant. Are you nearly done the book? I have about 5 more chapters, I think.


I've read ch 28 (or 29?) but i just realised that ch 30 is huge!!





> Just a quick thought about the two men wrestling naked and the two sisters swiming naked. On the surface it again recalls classical allusions. Male wrestlers in ancient greece wrestled nude. The two sisters swimming naked recalls greek nymphs, lesser dieties, although I think this is not as strong an idea as the wrestlers. I say on the surface, because lawrence takes the wrestlers to a point of homosexuality.



I haven't thought about that, but it is quite true  :Wink:  .The nymph theme is introduced in the book (i don't remember where right now but both nymphs and dryads are mentioned). The same for the wrestlers theme.

----------


## Janine

> Yes i looked too. They don't have it  
> Thank you very much Janine. You can of course e-mail me any time you like


Yes,* manolia,* pity they don't have the extras, but I figured they would not include them on here. I bought my new book primarily for the extras, since my WIL book was in a collection which was heavy, a large hardback. This paperback is much more portable and I like reading the extra pages of commentary. I will read those when I complete the book, and the extras in the back of the book. Sort of like getting into the 'Special Features' on a DVD :FRlol:  Yes, I can email them to you if they scan ok. Did you get my last email? Hope they are not floating off into cyberspace :Frown:  




> We definately agree on this one. I've just read ch 28 (or was it 29?) and it has again the same idea introduced somewhere


Oh good, we are in agreement. I did read that other reference as well, plus considering the material from the other novel I think it clearly indicates Lawrence's own fears in this respect. The women's names further emphasis the idea. One has to take several sources and sort of form an opinion/concept from that. Add it all together.

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book. 




> I've read ch 28 (or 29?) but i just realised that ch 30 is huge!!


I think that I recall that chapter, and it taking me awhile to get through. I don't like the long chapters. I read one or so a night and when one is long it seems it goes on forever. I would rather read 2 short ones than one long one...silly really but it paces you,...plus this is such concentrated writing hard to comprehend so much text at one time.




> I haven't thought about that, but it is quite true  .The nymph theme is introduced in the book (i don't remember where right now but both nymphs and dryads are mentioned). The same for the wrestlers theme.


Yes, very good *Virgil,* I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out.  :FRlol: 




> I know. It's not easy writing long posts. And don't be so humble, your brain is not feeble.  Your effort makes a lot of sense.


Duh, well that is good to know. I guess senility is still a few years away. I am glad much of what I said makes sense. Thanks for reading it. Yes, these posts on Lawrence are particularly involved and taxing. I was exhausted last night from writing so much.




> Yes, indeed, what subconcious? I was presenting Lawrence's view on the subject.


I knew you would appreciate this one. :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> Yes i looked too. They don't have it


I don't have a Prologue in my Penguin edition, I have a Forward written by Lawrence. Is this the same thing? The first sentence of the Forward is "This novel was written in its first form in the Tyrol." Sad to say I will have to buy a new book. This one has fallen apart. It is twenty-five years old. I'll have to look into the edition you have janine. Only problem is all these notes I've taken in here.  :Bawling:  I will have to keep this together with a rubber band for reference. 




> Oh good, we are in agreement. I did read that other reference as well, plus considering the material from the other novel I think it clearly indicates Lawrence's own fears in this respect. The women's names further emphasis the idea. One has to take several sources and sort of form an opinion/concept from that. Add it all together.
> 
> I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.


Chapter 34? I only have 31 chapters in the entire novel. I'm up to chapter 22.




> Yes, very good *Virgil,* I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out.


It may be a very long pursuit and one that will never be completely resolved.  :Wink:  But I wish you luck.  :Smile: 




> Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life. In "The White Peacock" he meets a man, a landowner/keeper from a neighboring farm who tells him about how women consume men and ruin them. I don't know the exact words, but he feels this strange fear of women in this novel. Now comes WIL and women are depicted as the ones to be somewhat feared/controlling/fatal to men, don't you think it? He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly. I also read something in one of my biographies that substantiates this idea in refernce to L's novels. It is certainly clear in his novel "Sons and Lovers", and in WIL I feel that Birkin is wanting his relationship to be different and not all comsuming. He does not want to be controlled by the woman/comsumed by her. This he knows to be fatal. So in WIL he goes a step further than his other novels and finds a way to break out of convention and be as 'two stars' - equal and opposite each other.


I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said.  :Tongue:  It kind of sticks in your head.  :Biggrin:  I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me  :Tongue:  but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

----------


## manolia

> Sort of like getting into the 'Special Features' on a DVD Yes, I can email them to you if they scan ok. Did you get my last email? Hope they are not floating off into cyberspace


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I really like it when you talk in film terms  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Yes it is exactly like watching the special features.




> I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.





> Chapter 34? I only have 31 chapters in the entire novel. I'm up to chapter 22.


My book has 31 chapters too  :Eek2:  Why??




> I think that I recall that chapter, and it taking me awhile to get through. I don't like the long chapters. I read one or so a night and when one is long it seems it goes on forever. I would rather read 2 short ones than one long one...silly really but it paces you,...plus this is such concentrated writing hard to comprehend so much text at one time.


I prefer short chapters too..i usually read before i sleep (no insomnia problems anymore :Wink:  ) and when i encounter long chapters i am forced to read them till a certain point and then continue the next day.





> Yes, very good *Virgil,* I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out.


 :FRlol:  You don't have to agree with us on this one or to be convinced. That's the nice thing with a work of art (like a painting or a good book like this one), they create different thoughts and feelings to different persons.




> I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said.  It kind of sticks in your head.  I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me  but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.


That seems like a valid theory to me. After all a lot can be explained when one considers the subconscious ehhmmm thingy.

----------


## Janine

> I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said.  It kind of sticks in your head.  I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me  but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.


*Virgil,* Yes, that about sums it up. Sometimes we do have to be specific and I am not offended one bit. It is too sketchy to beat around the bush. How interesting your professor talked about this in college. Back in my college days, I also had a professor who was very much into pyschologoy and the Id concept and the 'returning to the safety of the womb ideas. However, it seems to be reversed in Lawrence's mind of the being swallowed up and the act being fatal to the male. Perhaps that stemmed from his clinging mother who tried to control his life. Mostly the other theory was getting back to the safety of the womb, as I said. I don't recall much about those studies and they were just discussions in college - actually the professor was kind of kooky - he was my Literature professor. Well, it was art school so you can imagine how way out that got. I can imagine you in those classes telling them you thought anything psychological and subscious was a bunch of hooey. :FRlol:  

If somehow you could read "The White Peacock", you would see more clearly some of these blantant ideas of Lawrence's. I will see if I can scan the pages referring directly to this idea. It was rather shocking to me at first. This first novel was quite revealing and surprising at times. The only part I don't see in that book is any empathy for the woman getting hurt. In this book, WIL, I probably do. I think you will come to a scene with Gundrun on the excursion to the snowy mountains where she is speaking her mind to Gerald about his effect on her sexually. It should tie right in with this idea, I believe.




> I really like it when you talk in film terms   Yes it is exactly like watching the special features.


*manolia,* I knew you could relate. It is so funny, I don't think in terms of chapters either, but in terms of scenes and scenarios. We should be film directors! :FRlol:  




> My book has 31 chapters too  Why??


I went to check and I was thinking 37, sorry I meant to write 27. My book has 32 chapters....I still haven't figured out which chapter was added to this newer edition. There is suppose to be two actually - but the one is the 'Prologue' which they placed at the end of this book in 'extra features' :Wink:  stuff. Hey, I will have to read a whole chapter more than you and Virgil, and everyone else, so reading the book will take me longer.  :Bawling:  What chapter are you reading presently? I may take a break tonight from reading or just finish up this chapter 31, I am currently on. I have a good movie to watch - you know how that goes :Wink:  




> I prefer short chapters too..i usually read before i sleep (no insomnia problems anymore ) and when i encounter long chapters i am forced to read them till a certain point and then continue the next day.


Oh so glad that insomnia left you at last. Yes, we read on the same schedule in different time zones! Haha. I stop reading the chapter when my eyes will no longer remain open. Happens a lot. With audiobooks I wake up with the headphones still on hours later.





> You don't have to agree with us on this one or to be convinced. That's the nice thing with a work of art (like a painting or a good book like this one), they create different thoughts and feelings to different persons.


I know. It just does not settle well with me. I will probably read more biographies and be convinced one way or the other. It is just that in "Women in Love" if Birkin were homosexual I don't think he would concentrate on his relationship developing with Ursula. I suppose the only way to really know is if Lawrence were here now resurrected and we could ask him - "hey, what is the meaning of all this?"




> That seems like a valid theory to me. After all a lot can be explained when one considers the subconscious ehhmmm thingy.


Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to. :FRlol:  

Hey, are we having fun yet?  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* Yes, that about sums it up. Sometimes we do have to be specific and I am not offended one bit. It is too sketchy to beat around the bush. How interesting your professor talked about this in college. Back in my college days, I also had a professor who was very much into pyschologoy and the Id concept and the 'returning to the safety of the womb ideas.


Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb.  :FRlol:  We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in.  :FRlol:  So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex :Tongue:  ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense.  :FRlol:  




> However, it seems to be reversed in Lawrence's mind of the being swallowed up and the act being fatal to the male. Perhaps that stemmed from his clinging mother who tried to control his life. Mostly the other theory was getting back to the safety of the womb, as I said. I don't recall much about those studies and they were just discussions in college - actually the professor was kind of kooky - he was my Literature professor. Well, it was art school so you can imagine how way out that got.


How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians?  :FRlol:  Now I'm starting to get way out myself.  :Biggrin:  




> I can imagine you in those classes telling them you thought anything psychological and subscious was a bunch of hooey.


Oh I was young and gullable in those days and believed whatever my teachers told me.




> If somehow you could read "The White Peacock", you would see more clearly some of these blantant ideas of Lawrence's. I will see if I can scan the pages referring directly to this idea. It was rather shocking to me at first. This first novel was quite revealing and surprising at times. The only part I don't see in that book is any empathy for the woman getting hurt.


Well perhaps some day.




> Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to. 
> 
> Hey, are we having fun yet?


I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too.  :Biggrin:  I'm having fun.  :Smile:

----------


## manolia

> I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too.  I'm having fun.





> Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to. 
> 
> Hey, are we having fun yet?


Hehehe i use the word thingy when i am too lazy to think of the correct word  :FRlol:  . I can't even imagine what you guys thought i meant  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :Tongue:

----------


## Janine

> Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb.  We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in.  So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense.


*Virgil,* How funny, well it was the era. My professor was suppose to be teaching us literature. I can only recalling read some contemporary poetry and Herman Hesse; he must have been big on Hesse. I did actually enjoy Hesse, but you know - all that 'psychobabble'  :FRlol:  stuff you abhore. Mostly, my crazy professor played his guitar with some other guy; they jammed some days. They played classical flamingo; pretty good stuff. I think most likely they both were high on something or should I say some 'thingie'. :FRlol:  




> How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians?  Now I'm starting to get way out myself.


No, they talked from both sides - men/women. In fact it was not just men wanting to return to the womb. You are looking at it too literally. It was only symbolic and they sited how many people die in the fetal position or sleep that way - and so it is in the womb. They long for the comfort and security of the womb. I don't know I am a sleeper so maybe I want to go back to that too. Somedays I don't feel like being conscious and somedays on here I am only partically conscious I believe.  :Eek:  




> Oh I was young and gullable in those days and believed whatever my teachers told me.


Well, I listened and believed some, but always with a suspicious eye. Often though I viewed it as quite extraordinary and unigue having come from a very conservative background. I suppose for awhile I believed much of it, too and felt I had my eyes open or exposed to things foreign to me prior to this time. I am glad I did study those books, ideas, etc. I think in a way it did change my life or influence it. It all adds into the mix of life experience.




> Well perhaps some day.


Ok, good. I just think you would find some parts extremely interesting. Of course the book is not as mature as his others but I found it to hold many of the seeds of what would eventually be fullblown in his other novels. I looked at the book more analytical but it was an enjoyable read actually...more pastoral in a sense since he was exploring different styles of writing. The woodlands/fields/flowers are magnificently portrayed in that book. Many of the flower passages have much symbolism as well. You would notice so much symbolism in this first book.




> I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too.  I'm having fun.


Funny, *manolia*, I use that word all the time, too. Maybe we heard it on a movie Special Features - haha :FRlol:  Yes, lets not touch on what manolia meant in this context referring to "thingie".

*Virgil and manolia,* do you have a chapter 30 called "Snow"? I found out this one is apparently the additional chapter. I also have chapter 31"Snowed Up"...one chapter after that, making 32 chapters in my book. How many do you two have?
Odd, I have been investigating this, and apparently in my book they divided up the chapter "Snowed Up" into two chapters. I have compared some of the text and it seems to be the same. I am still not sure if something is added. Will let you know if I find it.

----------


## manolia

> I went to check and I was thinking 37, sorry I meant to write 27. My book has 32 chapters....I still haven't figured out which chapter was added to this newer edition. There is suppose to be two actually - but the one is the 'Prologue' which they placed at the end of this book in 'extra features' stuff. Hey, I will have to read a whole chapter more than you and Virgil, and everyone else, so reading the book will take me longer.  What chapter are you reading presently? I may take a break tonight from reading or just finish up this chapter 31, I am currently on. I have a good movie to watch - you know how that goes


I am relieved (i thought that my copy was a few chapters short). I am reading ch 29 now. This is the huge chapter i was telling you about. It is the one with the trip to Germany. I have read a few pages only.

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?




> Oh so glad that insomnia left you at last. Yes, we read on the same schedule in different time zones! Haha. I stop reading the chapter when my eyes will no longer remain open. Happens a lot. With audiobooks I wake up with the headphones still on hours later.


Thanx for your concern Janine  :Smile:  




> Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to. 
> Hey, are we having fun yet?


I was looking for a word with the meaning of "decoding" or "further study" but not quite..i am still missing that word  :FRlol: 





> Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb.  We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in.   So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense.  
> 
> 
> How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians?  Now I'm starting to get way out myself.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  That was very funny




> *Virgil and manolia,* do you have a chapter 30 called "Snow"? I found out this one is apparently the additional chapter. I also have chapter 31"Snowed Up"...one chapter after that, making 32 chapters in my book. How many do you two have?
> Odd, I have been investigating this, and apparently in my book they divided up the chapter "Snowed Up" into two chapters. I have compared some of the text and it seems to be the same. I am still not sure if something is added. Will let you know if I find it.


I am not sure.. but i don't remember a chapter with that name.

*EDIT*
I just checked. I have the "Snowed up" chapter but not the "Snow" chapter. Total number of chapters 31

----------


## Janine

> I am relieved (i thought that my copy was a few chapters short). I am reading ch 29 now. This is the huge chapter i was telling you about. It is the one with the trip to Germany. I have read a few pages only.


*Hi manolia!* I am on 29 and it is called "Continental" - my chapter is not long at all. They must have combined this chapter with "Snow" in your version/volume. It is quite curious but not unusal to have some differences in L books. I read two versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I think there are actually 3. It seems these Cambridge scholars got together, retrieved some material that had been cut when WIL was originally published and now published it with parts re-established in the text. So far I have not found any differences, but maybe they are subtle ones. Like I said I will let you know if I notice anything particularly different or revealing. I am sure your book is fine.



> This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?


Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world. She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships. 
*A note of interest: Frieda's sister ran off and left her husband for her lover, a psychologist who studied with Freud, I believe, or was a colleague of his. (Now Virgil is going to love this part :FRlol:  ) The lover later went insane and committed suicide. Don't quote me on this - it is in my memory of what I read from one biography, but I will recheck the details tonight.


Thanx for your concern Janine  :Smile:  

I was concerned. I felt badly for you; not good to have insomnia for so long. Probably your allergy meds that did it, right? You need to find that natural suppliment I told you about. It really helped me.




> I was looking for a word with the meaning of "decoding" or "further study" but not quite..i am still missing that word


manolia, you are a riot!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  




> That was very funny


 :FRlol:  Yes, wasn't it? Especially the part where he wonders if it means they are Lesbians. :FRlol:  *Virgil,* you are too much!!! Yes, you were getting a little too far 'out there'.





> I am not sure.. but i don't remember a chapter with that name.
> 
> *EDIT*
> I just checked. I have the "Snowed up" chapter but not the "Snow" chapter. Total number of chapters 31


Thanks, like I said - I think they are just separated in my volume. Good, shorter chapters for me, that way. I can't wait to get to "Snow" tonight. You are there now with "Continental" with "Snow" part your chapter. We are running neck to neck now. We will all be finished reading the book soon enough, but of course there is still much to talk about...endless really.....

----------


## Virgil

> This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?


I would characterize Gudrun's sexual mores as somewhere between Pussom's (you guys catch the sexual suggestion in that name?  :Tongue:  ), who obviously is very loose, and Ursula's, who while not prude but certainly is restraint. Gudrun is a bohemian artist, and that carries certain attitudes. Remember she returned home from living in London and the suggestion is that she hung out with Pussom's type of crowd. But she is disatisfied with that life, and I take it she is dissatisfied with that loose sexuality. Ursula is a country girl, a school ma. I think those details are important. In The Rainbow, Ursula has had her sexual experience and is dissatisfied with it. 

You bring up a good issue Manolia. Sexual mores are a consistant theme in the novel. I wonder how Hermione fits in?




> Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world. She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.


Well, this was written before the 1920s. But every era is probably more sexual than the general perception. Lawrence was banned for really just being honest. I don't see any pornography in any of his writing. Perhaps Lady Chatterly in a spot or two really pushed it. 

I took Frieda, L's wife, that Janine says was the model for Ursula, as being more sexually loose than Ursula. After all she left her husband and three children for Lawrence. I couldn't imagine Ursula doing that. 




> *A note of interest: Frieda's sister ran off and left her husband for her lover, a psychologist who studied with Freud, I believe, or was a colleague of his. (Now Virgil is going to love this part ) The lover later went insane and committed suicide. Don't quote me on this - it is in my memory of what I read from one biography, but I will recheck the details tonight.


Oh I do love that... :FRlol: 

You guys are way ahead of me. I'm in chapter 23. And most of my reading comes on the weekend.

----------


## grace86

I've just finished Chapter 14 Water Party. You all made me feel like that was a terribly important chapter. Feel like I have come over a milestone.  :Wink:  

*****SPOILERS (For those who are slow like me anyhow)****

 :Biggrin:  Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time. 

Interestingly enough I like Birkin more than I like Gudrun. They both seem to have crummy views of humanity though. Birkin's hate of humanity seems more intelligent, striving and needy than does Gudrun's though. She seems hungry for something more but also just kind of stubborn.

Sorry I am just kind of blithering away my thoughts on the chapter  :Biggrin: .

*I am optimistic I will be finished here soon. The novel is kind of taking off with my interest now!

----------


## manolia

> *Hi manolia!* I am on 29 and it is called "Continental" - my chapter is not long at all. They must have combined this chapter with "Snow" in your version/volume. It is quite curious but not unusal to have some differences in L books. I read two versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I think there are actually 3. It seems these Cambridge scholars got together, retrieved some material that had been cut when WIL was originally published and now published it with parts re-established in the text. So far I have not found any differences, but maybe they are subtle ones. Like I said I will let you know if I notice anything particularly different or revealing. I am sure your book is fine.


Oh i see..i haven't checked here in litnet to compare my book and see if it is the same 'version'. There are 3 versions of "Lady Chaterley's lover"?? I wonder which one i have. We can organise a reading of this book too. It would be fun if we could read it and discuss it simultaneously. But not now (i never read books of the same author in a row. I have certain un-written rules while i read and this is rule number 1  :FRlol:  Perhaps next winter?)





> Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. *She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited*.* 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time.* *Remember the Roaring 20's?* Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world.





> *I would characterize Gudrun's sexual mores as somewhere between Pussom's (you guys catch the sexual suggestion in that name?  ), who obviously is very loose, and Ursula's, who while not prude but certainly is restraint.* *Gudrun is a bohemian artist, and that carries certain attitudes.* Remember she returned home from living in London and the suggestion is that she hung out with Pussom's type of crowd. *But she is disatisfied with that life, and I take it she is dissatisfied with that loose sexuality.* Ursula is a country girl, a school ma. I think those details are important. In The Rainbow, Ursula has had her sexual experience and is dissatisfied with it.


 Very helpful comments. I know about the roaring 20's (have seen many films  :FRlol:  ), but i didn't have this in mind when i read those passages, thanx Janine. And of course Gudrun is a bohemian artist, you are right Virgil (and hanging out with people like Pussum (very suggestive name Virgil  :Wink:  ) means that she somehow shared some of their qualities. And yes Ursula is a school ma (more calm and sweet and reserved).




> She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.


Yes, i have read some passages that insinuate that Gudrun is in fact jealous of Birkin's and Ursula's relationship and that she perhaps has begun to think differently concerning marriage..but i guess i'll see the whole picture towards the end.





> I wonder how Hermione fits in?.


That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?





> Well, this was written before the 1920s. But every era is probably more sexual than the general perception. Lawrence was banned for really just being honest.


 :Nod:  Yes i agree. Most authors tend to depict their era as being nicer and purer than it actually is.




> Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.


Hi Grace!
My interpretation for this interesting event is that Gudrun is falling in love with Gerald and her world is turning upside down. Gudrun being a wild tiger revolts to the idea and has these moments of hate towards Gerald. For some further explaination on why Gudrun behaves like that you might want to check a few pages back in the thread and also the above posts of Janine and Virgil. The expanations they gave about Gudrun's morals and the historical background is part of the answer to what you ask.

----------


## Virgil

> I've just finished Chapter 14 Water Party. You all made me feel like that was a terribly important chapter. Feel like I have come over a milestone.


Yes, that chapter is a milesotne.  :Smile:  




> Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.


To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.





> Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.


Well, I think you would have to assume that it comes out from her subconscious. It also symbloizes the self-destructive nature not just of Gudrun but of gerald who I think actually gets turned on by it. 




> *I am optimistic I will be finished here soon. The novel is kind of taking off with my interest now!


Great!




> That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?


Yes, Woman To Woman was the chapter and i found that a great chapter. So intense the conflict between the two ladies! Yes, Hermione believes she would submit, but i think we can tell from her personality that it would never happen. She would dominate and control.

----------


## Janine

*Hi Grace,* welcome back. I am delighted to read your post today. I knew, given enough time, you would be able to get more interested in the book. I am happy to hear you will be finishing it. I think that by the end you will see that many things have changed or developed. For one thing, I have now noticed that Birkin no longer goes on his long tirades or preaching, which is rather refreshing. He has gone through a definite transformation. Also, many of his idea/thoughts have been explored by the others and there are some new opinions on what he has said. I keep thinking that Birkin, who represents Lawrence himself, puts the ideas out there in the first half or so of the book and then he becomes quieter and sits back and allows others to take his words and either criticise or consider them. It is interesting to me that Lawrence had the insight to do this. I think it rather brilliant actually. First one gives the ideas in speeches and then sits back and sees the consequences of his words either be rejected or actualized by the characters. 




> Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.


I answered some of this above. You are right though he falls into Ursula's arms by the end of the chapter, but all is still not right with them. As you said "he's human after all?" I do so agree. Birkin is not always completely definite about his theories or his philosophy on life. One has to understand that in the book he is developing them as he goes along. So at times he is floundering and trying to find the correct words to explain himself. I think this is why he goes on and on and sometimes seems to be going around in circles. He probably bores himself, as much as us with all his conceptualising but out of that comes some wonderful ideas. We may feel frustrated with him at times simply because he is actually feeling so himself, what do you think? Remember that all the characters in the book are not perfect; they are all human with flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths, confusions as well as confirmations. 

*Warning - this may be a SPOILER for you: Ch. 23 

I actually love this chapter when Ursula comes back at Birkin and tells him her mind. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it is quite significant I believe and no one has really addressed that chapter and the way things seem to happen for them. Finally, Birkin is quite speakless when Ursula takes a stand and challenges his ideas and preaching.


To your other questions it seems everyone has answered them so well. 





> Oh i see..i haven't checked here in litnet to compare my book and see if it is the same 'version'. There are 3 versions of "Lady Chaterley's lover"?? I wonder which one i have. We can organise a reading of this book too. It would be fun if we could read it and discuss it simultaneously. But not now (i never read books of the same author in a row. I have certain un-written rules while i read and this is rule number 1  Perhaps next winter?)


*Hi manolia,* I came on to check the threads and said "WOW!", things were really progressing in the posts. Your post is great. Good answers for Grace. 

Yes, I read that there are three versions - full versions - of LCL. I think they actually have different titles. It is funny, years ago I read the book and liked it. Then recently I found another copy and read it and thought - this seems different to me, somehow. I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut. :Wink:   :FRlol:  The book I read second time said this. I am experiencing this with WIL, but I read that book first over 30 yrs ago, so who knows? I may have just forgotten much of the plot. The book seems longer to me and more involved, but that also might be my own perception, since in the past few years I have the vision of the film version in my mind, which is quite trimmed down; even combines dialogue from certain scenes. It is a very good film, but I suppose one has to watch it without the book's plot totally in mind. Most of the ideas are there, but not as developed; a two hour film cannot capture all of this.
*manolia,* yes, definitely we will do LCL - next year would be great! I love the idea! :Biggrin:  




> Very helpful comments. I know about the roaring 20's (have seen many films  ), but i didn't have this in mind when i read those passages, thanx Janine. And of course Gudrun is a bohemian artist, you are right Virgil (and hanging out with people like Pussum (very suggestive name Virgil  ) means that she somehow shared some of their qualities. And yes Ursula is a school ma (more calm and sweet and reserved).


 :FRlol:  I bet you have (referring to the films). Virgil said it is a little ahead of the 20's but I still think women's rights were being explored and people were being exposed to Freud and the Id concepts and Neizthe (sp?) and there was a sort of sexual upheaval at the time for women. Also the fact of Gudrun being a bohemian artist. Definitely that was significant. I am an artist so I know  :Wink:  just what that world encompasses. As Virgil said in his post Ursula has had her affair or relationship. She is wanting something more permanent in life. She is definitely "more calm and sweet and reserved" than Gudrun. The two sisters contrast nicely and realistically I believe. I have two sisters and I can relate to this. No I was not the wild one :Wink:   :FRlol:  




> Yes, i have read some passages that insinuate that Gudrun is in fact jealous of Birkin's and Ursula's relationship and that she perhaps has begun to think differently concerning marriage..but i guess i'll see the whole picture towards the end.


I read this part also, and thought of posting along with my comments, but you know I was too tired to look up the chapter and the quote. :Blush:  Wasn't she at the mill at the time? She had been having tea with Ursula at Birkin's abode and she got domestic feelings and sort of envied her sister. She explored in her mind the possibility of marriage to Gerald, right? Wow, now that I am near the end of the book, that seems like eons ago.





> That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?


Good observation, I agree totally in what you wrote here. Hermoine is such a phony, always pretending to herself and others.





> Yes i agree. Most authors tend to depict their era as being nicer and purer than it actually is.


They do - even as far back as Thomas Hardy, and he told the truth and was chastised for it; for instance in "Jude the Obscure". Also, I have to think that divorce in Hardy's time was pretty much forbidden and in Lawrence's time was still scorned and looked down on. If one could not get a divorce then, they eloped and lived together or else the woman went to lovers to find any bit of human comfort; it was not just sex, I believe. Virgil pointed out that Lawrence, himself, ran off with another man's wife (his professors' to be exact). She had three children and left them behind. All sound terribly cruel but actually the husband would not give her a divorce, she was shunned by society for leaving him, even though it was a dead marriage. Her children, the husband used as pawns, legally keeping them from her. Basically, it was like that. If one happened to fall in love and leave the marriage it was not like today with lawyers and joint-custody and quick divorces. Woman were crucified, if they were the ones to leave. So woman began to seek more equality and rights of their own - even sexual, so to Gundrun she belonged to this newer society of thought. 
Since you came to the chapter where they are spending the holiday at the hostile in the mountains, don't you see a more relaxed atmostphere - the people are much freer and expressive, as compared to the stiff proper society of England. One section they even discuss England and how different it is. The dance seems to be significant to me, in showing how unreserved, unihibited the Europeans are. 




> Hi Grace!
> My interpretation for this interesting event is that Gudrun is falling in love with Gerald and her world is turning upside down. Gudrun being a wild tiger revolts to the idea and has these moments of hate towards Gerald. For some further explaination on why Gudrun behaves like that you might want to check a few pages back in the thread and also the above posts of Janine and Virgil. The expanations they gave about Gudrun's morals and the historical background is part of the answer to what you ask.


I fully agree, and also that she seems to be living up to her names reference and image. Gudrun feels dangerous to me at this point and agressive. Gerald mades a remark that she struck the first blow and he will strike the last - I did not look up the quote, but didn't it go something like that? I think the blow was a sort of signal and 'prophetic' of the challenge, between them, that will most definitely ensue.
Quote by Virgil



> To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.


*Virgil,* I would not expect you to like him. You are a man.  :Wink:  But seriously, you have more the engineering type mind and so why would Birkin appeal to your sensibilites? Maybe by the end you may like him a bit more, who knows? Think you may be outnumbered on this one. This discussion has only your male ideas to counterbalance us - the females. Poor Virg - uneven odds again!  :FRlol:  How do you put up with all us women folk - don't answer that - you know you love it! :Smile:  

But you know I do wonder, do we have to actually 'like' any of the characters in a novel to like the novel? 




> Well, I think you would have to assume that it comes out from her subconscious. It also symbloizes the self-destructive nature not just of Gudrun but of gerald who I think actually gets turned on by it.


Very well stated. I agree. 
But, *Virgil*....what...that word 'subconscious'.... comes up again. You just can't seem to help yourself using that word... :FRlol:  :Wink:   :FRlol:  




> Yes, Woman To Woman was the chapter and i found that a great chapter. So intense the conflict between the two ladies! Yes, Hermione believes she would submit, but i think we can tell from her personality that it would never happen. She would dominate and control.


Definitely!

----------


## grace86

> I fully agree, and also that she seems to be living up to her names reference and image. Gudrun feels dangerous to me at this point and agressive. Gerald mades a remark that she struck the first blow and he will strike the last - I did not look up the quote, but didn't it go something like that? I think the blow was a sort of signal and 'prophetic' of the challenge, between them, that will most definitely ensue.


Gerald didn't say that he would strike the last, in fact Gudrun said she would also strike the last blow. He keeps this from Birkin in Man to Man. It will be interesting to see how that falls into place.

*Janine* I do see how Birkin's ideas are layed out after he presents them for the others to go through or criticize. Lawrence makes it kind of like an infection. I think Rupert brings up the idea of the end of humanity...and more after death, and then Ursula and Gerald contemplate that later on in a sort of way.

----------


## manolia

> To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.


To tell you the truth Virgil, i prefer Gerald now. This happened after the chapter where his fathers's illness was being described..hehehe i know what you might thing..women change their minds easilly  :Tongue:  
I still like Birkin though.





> I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  




> *manolia,* yes, definitely we will do LCL - next year would be great! I love the idea!


 :Smile:  Ok that's settled.  :Smile:  





> I read this part also, and thought of posting along with my comments, but you know I was too tired to look up the chapter and the quote. Wasn't she at the mill at the time? She had been having tea with Ursula at Birkin's abode and she got domestic feelings and sort of envied her sister. She explored in her mind the possibility of marriage to Gerald, right? Wow, now that I am near the end of the book, that seems like eons ago.


I think you are right in what you say. There are more referances to Gudrun's jealousy in the ch "Continental".





> Since you came to the chapter where they are spending the holiday at the hostile in the mountains, don't you see a more relaxed atmostphere - the people are much freer and expressive, as compared to the stiff proper society of England. One section they even discuss England and how different it is. The dance seems to be significant to me, in showing how unreserved, unihibited the Europeans are.


Yes i noticed the relaxed and unreserved atmosphere  :Wink:  . That was a very nice part, with the description of the dances and merriment.

----------


## Virgil

> To tell you the truth Virgil, i prefer Gerald now. This happened after the chapter where his fathers's illness was being described..hehehe i know what you might thing..women change their minds easilly  
> I still like Birkin though.


No, no I wouldn't say that. You're reading it for the first time. I have changed my mind throughout the course of many novels.  :Wink:  By the way Manolia, I like your new avatar. Pretty.  :Smile:  




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Janine 
> I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut.
> 
> 
>  Ok that's settled.


OK, count me in too.  :Biggrin:  As to the different versions, it is rather complicated. First there was a final version of the novel. But Lawrence had that privately published and then if I'm remembering it correctly it got edited for sexual content in public editions. This was called I think the "expurgated edition." But some time later (1960's?) the contents that were taken out were put back in for the original full edition. Now what complicates it further was that Lawrence had two previous full drafts before the final published edition, and these drafts have survived. The earlier drafts were actually substantially different than his final draft, and so scholars have actually published them, or at least the second draft which was more mature than the first. That second draft is called "John Thomas and Lady Jane" which I think was the working title of Lady Chatterly's Lover. I bet john Thomas and Lady Jane" can be found on amazon. I have never read the earlier drafts, but i have seen quotes from them. I hope that helps.

----------


## Schokokeks

Oh boy, I've been away from here for a few busy days, and seeing that you've all added a lot more to the discussion I'm very sorry that I couldn't join in on your points.
But the good news is: I've completed _Women in Love_  :Nod: , though at the expense of lacking the time to post here.

**** Spoiler (tells ending) ****

I liked it better and better towards the ending (maybe that was partly due to the increasing number of references to German and Germany during the party's stay in the snow  :Biggrin: ). I first thought it should have been Birkin, being the one with the most excentric ideas, to die in the end, or at least it should have been him to whom something extraordinary should have happened. But now that it was Gerald, I'm quite satisfied with it as well, since his being on his way to madness on the last few pages was much more interesting to follow.

*** End spoiler ***




> Let me address some of your concerns Schoky (...)Like most great modern novels of the early 20th century, this is not a novel that is heavily plot driven. The significant idea/theory which the early moderns were infatuated with was psychology and (...)


Thank you very much, Virgil, that was succinct. Now that I've given my thoughts on postmodernism in the _Owen Meany_ thread, it seems only right that you should explain modernism here  :Wink: .
This has been a very interesting read, although I still couldn't get used to the forcefulness of the dialogues. I shall remember Lawrence as a fascinating writer, and am looking forward to reading _Sons and Lovers_ one day.
In fact, I think I shall try another modernist novel by another author soon, and will thus vote for _To the Lighthouse_ in the summer reading thread  :Nod: .

Thank you as well, *manolia* and *Virgil*, for your kind offers of help with my uni work !  :Smile:  I shall surely come back to it if desperate need arises  :Smile: .

I think I'll continue to read your ongoing discussions here and add my two cents if I can find a free minute not occupied by translations and essays and the like...

----------


## Janine

> Gerald didn't say that he would strike the last, in fact Gudrun said she would also strike the last blow. He keeps this from Birkin in Man to Man. It will be interesting to see how that falls into place.


*Grace,*Yes, you are perfectly correct. I just read the passages over. Gudrun indeed said she would strike the last. That passage is very significant. Did Gerald later hold back from telling Birkin of the blow, when they were talking in the chapter "Man to Man". He was merely thinking about the incident, correct? This statement is very prophetic.




> *Janine* I do see how Birkin's ideas are layed out after he presents them for the others to go through or criticize. Lawrence makes it kind of like an infection. I think Rupert brings up the idea of the end of humanity...and more after death, and then Ursula and Gerald contemplate that later on in a sort of way.


*Grace,* do you mean an reflection'? 'Infection' does not seem to fit this statement. Yes, and it is also contemplated in other parts of the book. As Ursula and Birkin fall deeper into love, it seems Birkin becomes quieter, more seclusive. Perhaps this is part relects his ideas that he and Ursula need only themselves, and perhaps a few others. Also I do believe that Birkin's behavior is somewhat modified by his consumation of love with Ursula. I do see the second half of the novel with much consideration or criticism of what Rupert previously said or preached.




> To tell you the truth Virgil, i prefer Gerald now. This happened after the chapter where his fathers's illness was being described..hehehe i know what you might thing..women change their minds easilly 
> I still like Birkin though.


manolia, I actually feel more sympathy for Gerald as time goes by in the novel. I don't know if I like Gerald better than Birkin, nor if it truly relevant to me to like either of them. I simply see all the characters as they are, which feels very realistic. I feel deeply involved with all four characters. By the end....hehehe...*manolia*...you may change your mind again - "Changing ones mind is a woman's perogative" - so the saying goes!  :Wink:  




> Ok that's settled.


Yes, and *Virgil* said to count him in. He should make it doubly interesting.  :Wink:   :FRlol:  I think that *Grace* voted for the book also, so she will probably be interesting. How about it *Grace?*





> I think you are right in what you say. There are more referances to Gudrun's jealousy in the ch "Continental".


Yes, several places in the text in different chapters I believe she explores the possibility and thought of being married to Gerald and just exactly how she would envision what type of life that would be.





> Yes i noticed the relaxed and unreserved atmosphere . That was a very nice part, with the description of the dances and merriment.


It is interesting - Lawrence uses this frenzied type of gay, spirited dancing in many of his writings to show a feeling of unrestrained freedom. Biographers claim that his father loved to dance and was quite good at it. I believe that is the root of his use of dancing to show the less restricted mood and the more earthy, unrestrained type of personalities. In "Twilight in Italy" he has a marvelous dance scene. It is very sensual and described in a way that is quite sexual and filled with erotic excitement. When I read this scene in WIL I immediately thought of the other scene which someone once posted on this site in the Lawrence section. You may still be able to find it there. There is also some excellent commentary about the scene. Also, in "Sons and Lovers" I believe there is a very distinctive scene at the Miriam's house when the couples whirl around the floor in frenzied dancing. His first novel, "The White Peacock", has a similiar scene. Both scenes have much significance in the way of symbolism.

manolia, I knew you would appreciate "Director's Cut"  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

*Are we having fun yet?*




> No, no I wouldn't say that. You're reading it for the first time. I have changed my mind throughout the course of many novels.  By the way Manolia, I like your new avatar. Pretty.


*Yes, manolia*, I do also - is it an angel? I cannot fully make it out...but it looks very interesting.




> OK, count me in too.  As to the different versions, it is rather complicated. First there was a final version of the novel. But Lawrence had that privately published and then if I'm remembering it correctly it got edited for sexual content in public editions. This was called I think the "expurgated edition." But some time later (1960's?) the contents that were taken out were put back in for the original full edition. Now what complicates it further was that Lawrence had two previous full drafts before the final published edition, and these drafts have survived. The earlier drafts were actually substantially different than his final draft, and so scholars have actually published them, or at least the second draft which was more mature than the first. That second draft is called "John Thomas and Lady Jane" which I think was the working title of Lady Chatterly's Lover. I bet john Thomas and Lady Jane" can be found on amazon. I have never read the earlier drafts, but i have seen quotes from them. I hope that helps.


*Virgil,* thanks for clearing this up some. I knew about the "John Thomas and Lady Jane" version. I will check Amazon to see if they have all three versions (?). I am curious now. I may also do more research into it. Do we have a copy of LCL here on this site? Nowdays with a resurgence of interest in Lawrence's work, many of the scholars are putting back the original 'cut' parts of the text, therefore restoring them. I know Cambridge is doing much of this work. Let's hope they are exactly what Lawrence intended in his original writings. 

*Schokokeks,* fantastic - you stuck with the book! It is good to see you back to discuss. It is not at all too late to do so. You can easily go back to parts of the book. We have not discussed all yet. I hope to go back as well and review some things that now seem very important and significant. I think the ending appropriate, as well. 

Glad to hear you will go onto other modernists. I read "To the Lighthouse" and also "Mrs. Dalloway" a few years ago. If you need any help or want to discuss them later on let me know; we could start a thread. Both books are quite fascinating. Wolfe's style is more 'stream of consciousness', but so beautifully and brilliantly written. It is even less plot driven that L's work I believe. 

Note: Pensive and a few others are currently discussing "Sons and Lovers" in it's own thread. It is a great book. You will like it. Pensive found it very interesting.

----------


## manolia

> No, no I wouldn't say that. You're reading it for the first time. I have changed my mind throughout the course of many novels.






> manolia, I actually feel more sympathy for Gerald as time goes by in the novel. I don't know if I like Gerald better than Birkin, nor if it truly relevant to me to like either of them. I simply see all the characters as they are, which feels very realistic. I feel deeply involved with all four characters. By the end....hehehe...*manolia*...you may change your mind again - "Changing ones mind is a woman's perogative" - so the saying goes!


Someone has already said (i don't remember who but it is one of you two) that Birkin's presence is stronger at the first half of the book, where he steps in and analyses many of his ideas (which are in fact the themes of the book). I can see now how true this statement is. From a certain chapter and onwards i think that the Gerald-Gudrun pair is more prominent. I guess that's why i prefer Gerald now.




> By the way Manolia, I like your new avatar. Pretty.





> *Yes, manolia*, I do also - is it an angel? I cannot fully make it out...but it looks very interesting.


Thank you both  :Smile:  . It is an angel with a wounded heart




> OK, count me in too.  As to the different versions, it is rather complicated. First there was a final version of the novel. But Lawrence had that privately published and then if I'm remembering it correctly it got edited for sexual content in public editions. This was called I think the "expurgated edition." But some time later (1960's?) the contents that were taken out were put back in for the original full edition. Now what complicates it further was that Lawrence had two previous full drafts before the final published edition, and these drafts have survived. The earlier drafts were actually substantially different than his final draft, and so scholars have actually published them, or at least the second draft which was more mature than the first. That second draft is called "John Thomas and Lady Jane" which I think was the working title of Lady Chatterly's Lover. I bet john Thomas and Lady Jane" can be found on amazon. I have never read the earlier drafts, but i have seen quotes from them. I hope that helps.


We count you in  :Smile:  . Thanx for the explanation concerning LCL.

Have you read ch 29 "Continental"? This is not a spoiler if you haven't, so i'll ask anyway. In this ch there is this guy Loerke whom Birkin (or Gerald) describes with very negative words. The word "Jew" is used with contempt. I wonder if L was an antisemitist (?). I remember what we were discussing about his being friendly towards fascism..so was he speaking his mind or depicting (perhaps) the already present tendency in Europe against jews?




> Yes, and *Virgil* said to count him in. He should make it doubly interesting.   I think that *Grace* voted for the book also, so she will probably be interesting. How about it *Grace?*


 :Nod:  Yes it would be very interesting

----------


## grace86

*Manolia*, hehe I am trying to figure out what Janine meant by that last quote of hers you posted. I must search the thread!!!  :Biggrin:  I seem to be a little lost. What would be interesting?!!! AAAH!!

*Janine* I did mean "infected," I guess it would be better if I had said that Birkin seems like a catalyst: he starts these big soul searching ideas on humanity, and after he says his bit, the other characters are "infected," they start thinking about it unconsciously. I have no idea if that makes any sense.  :Tongue:

----------


## Janine

> *Manolia*, hehe I am trying to figure out what Janine meant by that last quote of hers you posted. I must search the thread!!!  I seem to be a little lost. What would be interesting?!!! AAAH!!
> 
> *Janine* I did mean "infected," I guess it would be better if I had said that Birkin seems like a catalyst: he starts these big soul searching ideas on humanity, and after he says his bit, the other characters are "infected," they start thinking about it unconsciously. I have no idea if that makes any sense.


*Grace,*  :FRlol:  Sorry, I meant to say 'interested' and not 'interesting'. However, I am sure whatever you should add to the discussion would indeed be "interesting'. We are talking about read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" and discussing it; next year would be good for all of us. I thought you had voted on that book for this month, but I might be wrong. You still may be interested in joining our discussion group when we decide to make a thread.

Ok, I understand the "infected" idea. Yes, Birkin certainly did do that with his words. I just thought infection sounded kind of like a disease  :FRlol:  and took on negative conodations.




> Someone has already said (i don't remember who but it is one of you two) that Birkin's presence is stronger at the first half of the book, where he steps in and analyses many of his ideas (which are in fact the themes of the book). I can see now how true this statement is. From a certain chapter and onwards i think that the Gerald-Gudrun pair is more prominent. I guess that's why i prefer Gerald now


*manolia,* yeah - that someone was me! :FRlol:  




> Thank you both . It is an angel with a wounded heart


Ahhh.....how poignant. I like the photo/drawing (?) Hope it is not your broken heart... :Frown:  




> Have you read ch 29 "Continental"? This is not a spoiler if you haven't, so i'll ask anyway. In this ch there is this guy Loerke whom Birkin (or Gerald) describes with very negative words. The word "Jew" is used with contempt. I wonder if L was an antisemitist (?). I remember what we were discussing about his being friendly towards fascism..so was he speaking his mind or depicting (perhaps) the already present tendency in Europe against jews?


Yes, I think the question as to whether Lawrence was truly 'antisemitic' is a difficult one to answer. I know he made a statement, something to do with annilating people in the Crystal Palace, and many people like to quote this, but it is greatly misinterpretted and I have looked it up and some background on the statement and see it was taken out of context and now I understand what he was getting at. 
In WIL in this chapter he says 'Jew' very casually and perhaps sees it in a negative vain; depends on how you look at it. He certainly does not like Loerke, but Loerke has other characteristics that men would definitely find offensive. At that time Jews were looked down on in England and central Europe, I believe. This is taken from what I have read of Germany, for certain. I may be wrong, but from other reading concerning the fascists and the Nazi's I got this impression. I did note when the word was said, and wondered about it, but pretty much took it as the attitude of the day in English society. I hope Virgil comments further on this point.

*GREAT posts everyone!!!*

----------


## grace86

Yes I did vote for Lady Chatterly's Lover. Sorry I just didn't look back in the posts. If you guys are planning on reading it later it sounds like a great idea. I was planning on reading it this summer but as of right now I don't think that will happen.  :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> Yes I did vote for Lady Chatterly's Lover. Sorry I just didn't look back in the posts. If you guys are planning on reading it later it sounds like a great idea. I was planning on reading it this summer but as of right now I don't think that will happen.


How about around the Christmas holidays, after your finals Grace? That will give us some space from this novel. I agree with Manolia; it gets old reading the same writer back to back.

----------


## Virgil

> It is interesting - Lawrence uses this frenzied type of gay, spirited dancing in many of his writings to show a feeling of unrestrained freedom. Biographers claim that his father loved to dance and was quite good at it. I believe that is the root of his use of dancing to show the less restricted mood and the more earthy, unrestrained type of personalities. In "Twilight in Italy" he has a marvelous dance scene. It is very sensual and described in a way that is quite sexual and filled with erotic excitement. When I read this scene in WIL I immediately thought of the other scene which someone once posted on this site in the Lawrence section. You may still be able to find it there. There is also some excellent commentary about the scene. Also, in "Sons and Lovers" I believe there is a very distinctive scene at the Miriam's house when the couples whirl around the floor in frenzied dancing. His first novel, "The White Peacock", has a similiar scene. Both scenes have much significance in the way of symbolism.


 :Idea:  You guys just enlightened me to another recurring motif in Lawrence's work. I had not thought of this.  :Smile:  Thank you. There is a great dance scene in The Plumed Serpent where Kate, the leading character of the novel, an Irish woman in Mexico, is pulled into a native dance with the Mexican Indians. It's probably the best scene in the entire novel. Dance is an important theme for Lawrence. I think some of the comments as to what it suggests are correct. But i have to give it more thought.




> *Virgil,* thanks for clearing this up some. I knew about the "John Thomas and Lady Jane" version. I will check Amazon to see if they have all three versions (?). I am curious now. I may also do more research into it. Do we have a copy of LCL here on this site? Nowdays with a resurgence of interest in Lawrence's work, many of the scholars are putting back the original 'cut' parts of the text, therefore restoring them. I know Cambridge is doing much of this work. Let's hope they are exactly what Lawrence intended in his original writings.


It would nice if Cambridge would put out a single edition encompassing all three draft versions. That would be awesome and I would get it in a heartbeat.




> Glad to hear you will go onto other modernists. I read "To the Lighthouse" and also "Mrs. Dalloway" a few years ago. If you need any help or want to discuss them later on let me know; we could start a thread. Both books are quite fascinating. Wolfe's style is more 'stream of consciousness', but so beautifully and brilliantly written. It is even less plot driven that L's work I believe.


Janine, we will probably be reading To The Lighthouse as a summer read. I hope you can join us. You can vote (*hint, hint*) for it here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=25340




> Note: Pensive and a few others are currently discussing "Sons and Lovers" in it's own thread. It is a great book. You will like it. Pensive found it very interesting.


I've been checking. It's been so long since I read it that I couldn't really add anything to what you and Pensy are saying.




> Have you read ch 29 "Continental"? This is not a spoiler if you haven't, so i'll ask anyway. In this ch there is this guy Loerke whom Birkin (or Gerald) describes with very negative words. The word "Jew" is used with contempt. I wonder if L was an antisemitist (?). I remember what we were discussing about his being friendly towards fascism..so was he speaking his mind or depicting (perhaps) the already present tendency in Europe against jews?





> Yes, I think the question as to whether Lawrence was truly 'antisemitic' is a difficult one to answer. I know he made a statement, something to do with annilating people in the Crystal Palace, and many people like to quote this, but it is greatly misinterpretted and I have looked it up and some background on the statement and see it was taken out of context and now I understand what he was getting at. 
> In WIL in this chapter he says 'Jew' very casually and perhaps sees it in a negative vain; depends on how you look at it. He certainly does not like Loerke, but Loerke has other characteristics that men would definitely find offensive. At that time Jews were looked down on in England and central Europe, I believe. This is taken from what I have read of Germany, for certain. I may be wrong, but from other reading concerning the fascists and the Nazi's I got this impression. I did note when the word was said, and wondered about it, but pretty much took it as the attitude of the day in English society. I hope Virgil comments further on this point.


I haven't reached that yet. But I think Lawrence was mildly anti-semitic by our standards today. I'm not sure it was that much different than people of his time. You can find such comments in Hemingway frequently and other writers of the WWI era. I don't know if it had increased at that time from historical levels, but I certainly come across it in eary 20th century literature (Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot) more frequently than in 19th century literature. This may all be part of the trend that led to Nazism and jewish halocaust. I don't feel it is right to blame Germans solely for anti-semitism of the time; it was across Europe.

----------


## grace86

> How about around the Christmas holidays, after your finals Grace? That will give us some space from this novel. I agree with Manolia; it gets old reading the same writer back to back.


It seems a far way off but I know it will come soon enough, sure I am up for it. At least I will have a reading date attached to one of the many books on my to read list!




> There is a great dance scene in The Plumed Serpent where Kate, the leading character of the novel, an Irish woman in Mexico, is pulled into a native dance with the Mexican Indians.


"Plumed" and "Serpent" along with "Mexico" okay I've just added another Lawrence novel to my list of things to read!!! At least...if it is about what I think the name would suggest!  :Biggrin:  

I noticed there was a conversation going on about Sons and Lovers...hmm so many books to read and so little time!

(Virgil Don Quixote is calling me!)

----------


## Virgil

> It seems a far way off but I know it will come soon enough, sure I am up for it. At least I will have a reading date attached to one of the many books on my to read list!


Great!




> "Plumed" and "Serpent" along with "Mexico" okay I've just added another Lawrence novel to my list of things to read!!! At least...if it is about what I think the name would suggest!


It's not one of his great novels. The great novels are Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly's Lover. If you still want to go beyond that i would recommend some of the short novels and short stories. My, what do you mean you understand what "Plumed" and "Serpent" suggest? :Tongue:   :Blush:  




> (Virgil Don Quixote is calling me!)


Yeah, I know, me too. As soon as I finish WIL. I was looking for my edition of Don Quixote just about two hours ago.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

Wowy, all of you have been super busy today. It is good to see so many enthusiastic posts. This discussion is great! :Thumbs Up:  




> How about around the Christmas holidays, after your finals Grace? That will give us some space from this novel. I agree with Manolia; it gets old reading the same writer back to back.


*Virgil,* you are such a typical male. :FRlol:  This just supports my idea that women do all the work during the holiday season. Who will have time then? Maybe, after Christmas when many have the break from school. Before is so hectic usually for me, I can't even think. Only good thing is LCL's is a much shorter book, and I don't think as complicated as this book is, plus I have read it twice before.

*Grace,* Yes, since I posted that, I checked the poll and you did vote for "LCL". 
*Schokokeks,* you voted for "Sons and Lovers". 
It is nice to see both of your here participating in the story neither of you voted for. Good sportmanship girls. You both have to read the other two novels eventually. You will like them.




> You guys just enlightened me to another recurring motif in Lawrence's work. I had not thought of this.  Thank you. There is a great dance scene in The Plumed Serpent where Kate, the leading character of the novel, an Irish woman in Mexico, is pulled into a native dance with the Mexican Indians. It's probably the best scene in the entire novel. Dance is an important theme for Lawrence. I think some of the comments as to what it suggests are correct. But i have to give it more thought.


Yes, I thought you had recalled that post on the actual Lawrence thread about the dancing. I thought you had particapted in that thread but maybe I am wrong. You should go to the page and read it. I am pretty sure it is still there. It might be under the Travel books or a similiar name. I'll check after I post this. Interesting that in the Plumed Serpent there is also a very significant dance. Dance did crop up often in Lawrence's work. Like I said his father was a proficient dancer. He also liked to sing. Although he was crude at times and lowly in his work as a collier he had a great sense of gaity and liking to have a fun time. 




> It would nice if Cambridge would put out a single edition encompassing all three draft versions. That would be awesome and I would get it in a heartbeat.


Oh wouldn't it though....but I don't think they will. They can make more money selling them separately I believe. But then again I suppose it is in the realm of possibility. Hey, *Virgil,* you should write them and suggest it.  :Idea:  




> Janine, we will probably be reading To The Lighthouse as a summer read. I hope you can join us. You can vote (*hint, hint*) for it here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=25340


No kidding? Then I will definitely participate in that one. I would like to re-read that book. My friend lent it to me so I can borrow it back. I will be voting. When is the deadline?

[QUOTEI've been checking. It's been so long since I read it that I couldn't really add anything to what you and Pensy are saying.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that discussion is going along better than I expected. Now Pensive and Quasimodo are keeping me jumping. Also, our discussion on the Baby Tortoise with ktd222 is wonderful. This is a really stellar month for me, loving Lawrence's work. Best thing is I am learning so much more than I previously knew. This is great!




> "Plumed" and "Serpent" along with "Mexico" okay I've just added another Lawrence novel to my list of things to read!!! At least...if it is about what I think the name would suggest!
> 
> 
> It's not one of his great novels. The great novels are Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly's Lover. If you still want to go beyond that i would recommend some of the short novels and short stories. My, what do you mean you understand what "Plumed" and "Serpent" suggest?


I fully agree with *Virgil*. "The Plumed Serpent" is way too advanced. He wrote that later in his life. I am not even sure if I read it, nor if I would understand it. I might need Virgil's help :Wink:  Virg, doesn't it have a lot of symbolism in it and much of Lawrence's later philosophy? The other novels that Virgil suggested are good and better to start with. I also like the shorter novels such as "The Fox" and "Love Among the Haystakes" and "The Lady Bird"....all really fine writing and not long novels like WIL - quite short actually.

----------


## grace86

*Virgil:* those words remind me of my art history class of Mesoamerica. We talked a lot about the natives' use and meaning of the feathered serpent.

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* you are such a typical male. This just supports my idea that women do all the work during the holiday season. Who will have time then? Maybe, after Christmas when many have the break from school. Before is so hectic usually for me, I can't even think. Only good thing is LCL's is a much shorter book, and I don't think as complicated as this book is, plus I have read it twice before.


 :FRlol:  I guess. I just thought she would be done with school then.




> Yes, I thought you had recalled that post on the actual Lawrence thread about the dancing. I thought you had particapted in that thread but maybe I am wrong. You should go to the page and read it.


Did I? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.




> Oh wouldn't it though....but I don't think they will. They can make more money selling them separately I believe. But then again I suppose it is in the realm of possibility. Hey, *Virgil,* you should write them and suggest it.


Hmm. I'll see if I can find an email address.




> No kidding? Then I will definitely participate in that one. I would like to re-read that book. My friend lent it to me so I can borrow it back. I will be voting. When is the deadline?


Any day now.  :Tongue:  So go... :Wink:  




> I fully agree with *Virgil*. "The Plumed Serpent" is way too advanced. He wrote that later in his life. I am not even sure if I read it, nor if I would understand it. I might need Virgil's help Virg, doesn't it have a lot of symbolism in it and much of Lawrence's later philosophy?


I wouldn't say more advanced. It's a later novel. I would say Women In Love is his hardest novel. Plumed Serpent is just not as interesting. Violence becomes more important and Lawrence regrets it later and reverses back with Lady Chatterly.




> *Virgil:* those words remind me of my art history class of Mesoamerica. We talked a lot about the natives' use and meaning of the feathered serpent.


I'm sorry Grace. You are correct. I thought you were referring to a sexual suggestion of the title, which it does do that too.  :Blush:

----------


## Janine

> I guess. I just thought she would be done with school then.


*Virgil,* I know those were your considerate thoughts. However, it does seems men never do consider all the work at Christmastime we ladies do. :Wink:  To be honest with you I would like to skip it one year; I need a decorating break! 




> Did I? I'm not sure I know what you're talking about.


It must have been that other vivacious guy  :FRlol:  I was thinking of. I just went to hunt for that post and thread and it is gone. Do they delete them after a time? I recall reading it when I first joined up here. That was when... I wonder....a year ago? I remember Christmas on here, so it must nearly be so. Wow, time does fly when you are having fun. Sorry to see that post gone if it really is. I would have liked to copy the passage out. I could investigate the text and see if I could find the passage; we have Twilight in Italy on Lit Net. 

[edition to my post: I just found it on the site - I put it through search Lawrence dance and it came up and yes, Virgil, you did post in there. You had some wonderful things to say.] 
Here is the link if anyone is interested in reading it. http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?





> Hmm. I'll see if I can find an email address.


Go for it! :Thumbs Up:  

[QUOTE]Any day now.  :Tongue:  So go... :Wink: [QUOTE]
I voted for the Lighthouse just now but you know, it was hard - I love "Lord of the Flies", too. Now that is one movie that sticks to the book and is phenomenal. I must watch that again soon, manolia  :FRlol:  Did you ever see it? Anyone?





> I wouldn't say more advanced. It's a later novel. I would say Women In Love is his hardest novel. Plumed Serpent is just not as interesting. Violence becomes more important and Lawrence regrets it later and reverses back with Lady Chatterly.


Not advanced - sorry used wrong word - but different. Do you think WIL is the hardest novel? Interesting since it is the first one I read of Lawrence's, in fact the first bit of work I had ever read of his. I loved it on first reading. So is Plumed Serpent more violent and gutsy? Now you have me curious, but many other novels are first in line so it will take me awhile to get to it. 




> I'm sorry Grace. You are correct. I thought you were referring to a sexual suggestion of the title, which it does do that too.


I did too - sorry* Grace*. Virgil and I have dirty minds. :Blush:  
Poor *Grace* - she was being very pure in her reference.  :FRlol:

----------


## manolia

> *manolia,* yeah - that someone was me!


Yes, it was you Janine. I managed to trace the post and read it again (there are so many posts in this thread!!)




> Ahhh.....how poignant. I like the photo/drawing (?) Hope it is not your broken heart...


No my heart is not broken Janine  :Wink:  don't worry. I just like images with angels.





> Yes, I think the question as to whether Lawrence was truly 'antisemitic' is a difficult one to answer. I know he made a statement, something to do with annilating people in the Crystal Palace, and many people like to quote this, but it is greatly misinterpretted and I have looked it up and some background on the statement and see it was taken out of context and now I understand what he was getting at. 
> In WIL in this chapter he says 'Jew' very casually and perhaps sees it in a negative vain; depends on how you look at it. *He certainly does not like Loerke, but Loerke has other characteristics that men would definitely find offensive.* *At that time Jews were looked down on in England and central Europe, I believe.* This is taken from what I have read of Germany, for certain. I may be wrong, but from other reading concerning the fascists and the Nazi's I got this impression. I did note when the word was said, and wondered about it, but pretty much took it as the attitude of the day in English society. I hope Virgil comments further on this point.





> I haven't reached that yet. * But I think Lawrence was mildly anti-semitic by our standards today*. *I'm not sure it was that much different than people of his time*. You can find such comments in Hemingway frequently and other writers of the WWI era. I don't know if it had increased at that time from historical levels, but I certainly come across it in eary 20th century literature (Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot) more frequently than in 19th century literature. *This may all be part of the trend that led to Nazism and jewish halocaust.* * I don't feel it is right to blame Germans solely for anti-semitism of the time; it was across Europe*.


Yes, i agree with both of you. Certainly Loerke has many "disqusting" qualities in his character. He is rather repulsive as a character, isn't he? And of course Jews were looked down on in Europe in general, not only Germany. They were wealthy people and very successful bussinessmen so one can presume that they were envied by the others. And i agree with Virgil (judging by what i read in this book, after all it is only a slight reference to antisemitism) that L must have been a very mild antisemitic. Thanx for sharing your views.





> Yes I did vote for Lady Chatterly's Lover. Sorry I just didn't look back in the posts. If you guys are planning on reading it later it sounds like a great idea. I was planning on reading it this summer but as of right now I don't think that will happen.





> How about around the Christmas holidays, after your finals Grace? That will give us some space from this novel. I agree with Manolia; it gets old reading the same writer back to back.


Yeppieee another one  :Smile:  . Welcome Grace! Around Christmas time would be fine  :Wink:  





> Yeah, I know, me too. As soon as I finish WIL. I was looking for my edition of Don Quixote just about two hours ago.


*Virgil* and *Grace*, Don Quixote is a very nice book. I read it last year. I found it a bit boring at parts and i had the feeling that in some places the same events were being repeated, but it's style of writing and the downright funny characters make it a worthwhile read.

----------


## grace86

> I guess. I just thought she would be done with school then.


I will be done with school then!  :Biggrin:  I don't mind doing LCL then, I usually am in the middle of reading something, but since I know it is coming, and it isn't too long, it seems like a plan to me.





> I'm sorry Grace. You are correct. I thought you were referring to a sexual suggestion of the title, which it does do that too.





> I did too - sorry Grace. Virgil and I have dirty minds. 
> Poor Grace - she was being very pure in her reference.


Oh my goodness!  :Blush:  I was just thinking of the Aztecs!!  :Bawling:   :Wink:  I think that comes from reading too much Lawrence....condemn all that symbolism!!!

Actually stuck right now on Chapter 17. Hopefully I can get back to it this afternoon.

*Manolia* I think you are right about Don Quixote, I've recently had that feeling that a certain scene has occurred before. I skipped over a few paragraphs because the description of an event just kept the story dragging...I wanted to get back to the story!!

----------


## Janine

> I will be done with school then!  I don't mind doing LCL then, I usually am in the middle of reading something, but since I know it is coming, and it isn't too long, it seems like a plan to me.


*grace, manolia and Virgil,* and *Schkokeks (?),* - Wow, the same great group to discuss LCL! Wonderful! I just might have to skip Christmas this year :FRlol:  - can't miss this great discussion! My smallish paperback in only 375 pgs. long. I recall it being a pretty fast read. 




> Oh my goodness!  I was just thinking of the Aztecs!!   I think that comes from reading too much Lawrence....condemn all that symbolism!!!


 :FRlol:  Yes, *Virgil* and I now have symbolic Lawrencarian minds! We can't think normally anymore. :Brow:   :FRlol:  Stay pure Grace. :Smile:   :FRlol:  




> Actually stuck right now on Chapter 17. Hopefully I can get back to it this afternoon.


*Grace,* I was trying so hard to finish up the chapter that *manolia* called long - the "Snowed UP" one last night. I could not keep my eyes open - very frustrating. Let's see chapter 17 is "Industrial Magnate" - that is a chapter that will reveal much about Gerald, his father and his family, and his work ethics. I too got kind of stuck in that chapter - it seemed so long and technical to me. Manolia and Virgil wrote some very good posts back several pages on this chapter. After finish the chapter you you should check those posts out; they are very helpful for understanding it.

*Grace, manolia,Schokokeks*, after this book is done why don't both of you join us in the short story thread? The one I posted this month, that now is delayed for next month, is an easier story and short. You both have such good insight I am sure you would add much to the discussions. All three of you have great posts and ideas! *Pensive,* who is discussing "Sons and Lovers" will probably join in, too.

I found some commentary on WIL at my library; t is an older book, but brings out some good points. I hope to scan it and either retype from the scan or copy and retype from that. I hate typing from a book. I have some comments later to make on Birkin and his lack of total decisiveness in the first parts of the book. This author also speaks about the contrasts, etc. He also brings up the significance of the moon image which I think Virgil has already mentioned but he goes into it's significane a little more in depth. It is interesting what this critic has to say about many things. I only skimmed the book so far. 
The commentary is an entire book so I hope to read it after finishing WIL and will go back and recap certain parts he is addressing. Should prove interesting. 

Just waiting now for everyone to catch up - so I will take a short break.

----------


## grace86

*Janine* you wanted to skip Christmas one year anyway right?!  :Wink:  

I can't wait now to discuss LCL! Especially if it is all the same bunch. I've learned a lot about Lawrence from everybody's insight.

When I finish WIL, I plan on finishing Don Quixote, but short stories don't seem like a bad idea. I will have to go out and buy Lawrence's short stories, do you have any recommendations?

I like Chapter 17, but it is very descriptive. I am going to finish it at lunch time today. I've already learned a lot about Gerald from the chapter.

How long do you spend on a short story Janine? I found an Everyman copy of short stories at my library. I could use that until I buy a copy. (Hey...and I was going to read short stories during uni. too, I could read Lawrence's)

----------


## Janine

> *Janine* you wanted to skip Christmas one year anyway right?!


Yeah, really I would, you remembered me saying that. I end up doing it all - decorating house, tree and dragging all the stuff up from the basement. It gets to be hardwork sometimes. I always tread it. I just want to run away anymore at Christmas. I always dread it so. Bah humbug, be I feel badly since I used to love Christmas. Guess it just got old for me :Frown:  I just need a change from our usual routine. Like Birkin :FRlol:  , I need to break away and start over again or something! 




> I can't wait now to discuss LCL! Especially if it is all the same bunch. I've learned a lot about Lawrence from everybody's insight.


Me too!!! What a great group! Yes, we have learned tons - everyone has such a great point of view and fine insight.




> When I finish WIL, I plan on finishing Don Quixote, but short stories don't seem like a bad idea. I will have to go out and buy Lawrence's short stories, do you have any recommendations?


*Grace,* we always fit the discussions on the SS's in-between other postings. The present story posted is right here on this site under the main Lawrence page. Mainly we have been sticking with those. Present story is not long so maybe you can try printing it out. What is an 'Everyman' copy? Is it just Lawrence's stories? I had to buy three separate books of his short story series, used ones on Amazon. Some of the editions are hard to find, unfortunately. I have several now that repeat. I have "England my England" collection, which repeats the ones found in the 3 book collection. If your library has it I would go with the library book. I had to get "Sons and Lovers" from my library. 
We don't make the short story thread a pressured group at all, and it takes us at least a month to discuss one story, going along at our pace. You can pop in when you can to post there. I am hoping *Asa* will also be joining us. That will give poor *Virgil*, who is so outnumbered :FRlol:  with the females, a male to balance things out a bit. *Asa* showed great interest in the stories, but could not participate yet - he had some emergency house repairs and was finishing up the school year; exams and all. He is a good discusser, too and knows something already of Lawrence.



> I like Chapter 17, but it is very descriptive. I am going to finish it at lunch time today. I've already learned a lot about Gerald from the chapter.


Yes, I found it so descriptive I had trouble concentrating on that chapter but I did get through it and I learned much about Gerald and the family. The father dying is really revealing of Gerald's inner workings of his mind. This chapter is also quite prophetic, I believe.

*Good news - tried scanning some pages and they came out well - except dummy me deleted it by accident, so have to scan it all over again. It was very readable, too. This is good news and will save me much typing time.

----------


## manolia

> *Manolia* I think you are right about Don Quixote, I've recently had that feeling that a certain scene has occurred before. I skipped over a few paragraphs because the description of an event just kept the story dragging...I wanted to get back to the story!!


I had that feeling many times through out the book, but like i said in the previous post it is worth reading and i am sure that you won't regret it.




> *Grace, manolia,Schokokeks*, after this book is done why don't both of you join us in the short story thread? The one I posted this month, that now is delayed for next month, is an easier story and short. You both have such good insight I am sure you would add much to the discussions. All three of you have great posts and ideas! *Pensive,* who is discussing "Sons and Lovers" will probably join in, too.


I'll try to participate Janine. It sounds like a good idea  :Wink:  

By the way, i finished the book today. I'll wait till everybody else finishes it because i want to discuss the ending.

----------


## Janine

> I had that feeling many times through out the book, but like i said in the previous post it is worth reading and i am sure that you won't regret it.


I have a question about the book. How do you know what translation to get of "Don Quixote"? It was originally written in Spanish, right? I picked up an old edition at my library - would that be ok to read? 





> I'll try to participate Janine. It sounds like a good idea


Oh, *manolia,* I hope you can. You are so smart and so intuitive and I know you will add much to our group. Also, you have a good sense of humor. I like kidding with you about movies! :FRlol:  





> By the way, i finished the book today. I'll wait till everybody else finishes it because i want to discuss the ending.


I was dying last night. I wanted to stay awake to finish it, too, or at least the "Snowed Up" chapter, but I kept falling asleep. Finally I closed the book - 3 AM. :Frown:

----------


## manolia

> I have a question about the book. How do you know what translation to get of "Don Quixote"? It was originally written in Spanish, right? I picked up an old edition at my library - would that be ok to read?


Yes, the original is in spanish. I read an english translation by P.A Motteaux (wordsworth editions). It was fine! There is another one by Tobias George Smollet, but i don't know anything about it. Which one do you have?




> I was dying last night. I wanted to stay awake to finish it, too, or at least the "Snowed Up" chapter, but I kept falling asleep. Finally I closed the book - 3 AM.


So you will probably finish it today? I have some questions to ask when you do  :Wink:  .
Enjoy the last pages. I liked the ending very much  :Nod:

----------


## Janine

> Yes, the original is in spanish. I read an english translation by P.A Motteaux (wordsworth editions). It was fine! There is another one by Tobias George Smollet, but i don't know anything about it. Which one do you have?


*manolia,* Not sure, I will find the book and let you know. Thanks for this information though. This is good to know. 





> So you will probably finish it today? I have some questions to ask when you do  .
> Enjoy the last pages. I liked the ending very much


I hope so - tonight. I know what happens - remember I read it before - also saw the film :Wink:   :FRlol: . I do know that the ending is amazing, isn't it? Thanks, I will enjoy them!

----------


## grace86

Don't know when I am going to finish Women in Love, but I know it will be within the next week! 

Regarding Don Quixote *Janine*, I have an old Penguin copy translated by J.M. Cohen, but when I broke that copy I got a new Penguin translated by John Rutherford. They are both pretty good. I have heard different opinions on the new Edith Grossman (?) translation. I didn't know you planned on participating with Don Quixote Janine!!! Yay!!

Afer WIL and Don Quixote though I am going to of course cover the new HP and then The Count of Monte Cristo....if any of you should feel interested in joining...I leave that all up to you...I've a big summer reading list.

Oh, and Everyman is just a publisher of hardcovers. That is the publisher of the Lawrence stories I will look into at the library.

----------


## Virgil

Last night I read chapter 24, "Death and Love." I was completely captivated. It is a long chapter, so I had not intended to read the entire thing before dozing off. But I couldn't put it down. I read the whole thing. It was so marvelously written, it was beautiful and intense. I didn't want it to end. I could have read that chapter forever if it never finished. I just have post some passage that shows how great a writer Lawrence is. I could have chosen many, but here's one.



> They resumed their strange walk. They were such strangers -- and yet they were so frightfully, unthinkably near. It was like a madness. Yet it was what she wanted, it was what she wanted. They had descended the hill, and now they were coming to the square arch where the road passed under the colliery railway. The arch, Gudrun knew, had walls of squared stone, mossy on one side with water that trickled down, dry on the other side. She had stood under it to hear the train rumble thundering over the logs overhead. And she knew that under this dark and lonely bridge the young colliers stood in the darkness with their sweethearts, in rainy weather. And so she wanted to stand under the bridge with her sweetheart, and be kissed under the bridge in the invisible darkness. Her steps dragged as she drew near.
> 
> So, under the bridge, they came to a standstill, and he lifted her upon his breast. His body vibrated taut and powerful as he closed upon her and crushed her, breathless and dazed and destroyed, crushed her upon his breast. Ah, it was terrible, and perfect. Under this bridge, the colliers pressed their lovers to their breast. And now, under the bridge, the master of them all pressed her to himself? And how much more powerful and terrible was his embrace than theirs, how much more concentrated and supreme his love was, than theirs in the same sort! She felt she would swoon, die, under the vibrating, inhuman tension of his arms and his body -- she would pass away. Then the unthinkable high vibration slackened and became more undulating. He slackened and drew her with him to stand with his back to the wall.
> 
> She was almost unconscious. So the colliers' lovers would stand with their backs to the walls, holding their sweethearts and kissing them as she was being kissed. Ah, but would their kisses be fine and powerful as the kisses of the firm-mouthed master? Even the keen, short-cut moustache -- the colliers would not have that.
> 
> And the colliers' sweethearts would, like herself, hang their heads back limp over their shoulder, and look out from the dark archway, at the close patch of yellow lights on the unseen hill in the distance, or at the vague form of trees, and at the buildings of the colliery wood-yard, in the other direction.
> 
> His arms were fast around her, he seemed to be gathering her into himself, her warmth, her softness, her adorable weight, drinking in the suffusion of her physical being, avidly. He lifted her, and seemed to pour her into himself, like wine into a cup.
> ...


And another later on...




> After dinner, faced with the ultimate experience of his own nothingness, he turned aside. He pulled on his boots, put on his coat, and set out to walk in the night.
> 
> It was dark and misty. He went through the wood, stumbling and feeling his way to the Mill. Birkin was away. Good -- he was half glad. He turned up the hill, and stumbled blindly over the wild slopes, having lost the path in the complete darkness. It was boring. Where was he going? No matter. He stumbled on till he came to a path again. Then he went on through another wood. His mind became dark, he went on automatically. Without thought or sensation, he stumbled unevenly on, out into the open again, fumbling for stiles, losing the path, and going along the hedges of the fields till he came to the outlet.
> 
> And at last he came to the high road. It had distracted him to struggle blindly through the maze of darkness. But now, he must take a direction. And he did not even know where he was. But he must take a direction now. Nothing would be resolved by merely walking, walking away. He had to take a direction.
> 
> He stood still on the road, that was high in the utterly dark night, and he did not know where he was. It was a strange sensation, his heart beating, and ringed round with the utterly unknown darkness. So he stood for some time.
> 
> Then he heard footsteps, and saw a small, swinging light. He immediately went towards this. It was a miner.
> ...


And then that great scene follows where he stumbles in the dark to Gudrun's house and sneaks in to her. This is among the best English prose I have ever read.

----------


## Janine

ahhhh...*Virgil*.....you are a romantic :Smile:  .


I told you this book was great! Those passages are simply breath-taking. They also read like poetry, don't you think? Thanks for quoting those and pointing them out.

----------


## Virgil

> ahhhh...*Virgil*.....you are a romantic .
> 
> 
> I told you this book was great! Those passages are simply breath-taking. They also read like poetry, don't you think? Thanks for quoting those and pointing them out.


I don't know if I'm a romantic  :Wink:  but that was fine writing. The Gerald passages are so much more interesting. I'm getting tired with Rupert's preaching.

----------


## Janine

> Don't know when I am going to finish Women in Love, but I know it will be within the next week! 
> 
> Regarding Don Quixote *Janine*, I have an old Penguin copy translated by J.M. Cohen, but when I broke that copy I got a new Penguin translated by John Rutherford. They are both pretty good. I have heard different opinions on the new Edith Grossman (?) translation. I didn't know you planned on participating with Don Quixote Janine!!! Yay!!
> 
> After WIL and Don Quixote though I am going to of course cover the new HP and then The Count of Monte Cristo....if any of you should feel interested in joining...I leave that all up to you...I've a big summer reading list.
> 
> Oh, and Everyman is just a publisher of hardcovers. That is the publisher of the Lawrence stories I will look into at the library.


*Grace,*  now that I think of it, weren't you reading about 4 books at once or do I have you mixed up with someone else? If so you are doing pretty darn good. I was so slow on "Owen Meany" and barely got the book read by the last day. I had to readly push. What does HP stand for?

Glad that you can get the Lawrence short story book in your library. Mine does not even have it; shamefully it has so little Lawrence.

Thanks for the rundown on the translations of DQ. I don't know; I will have to see about reading it. I don't have a burning desire to and presently I picked up "To the Lighthouse" at the library and after WIL, I will read that through quickly; I read it two years ago, but actually it might take me more time than I care to spend still I don't find Woolf's writing easy going for some reason. I tend to wander off with her 'stream-of-consciousness' style and long sentences. I like the story and the ideas and I know she is a great writer, but I have trouble absorbing her prose. With Lawrence, I always feel there is a certain rhythm I am in tune with; and I think I agree with Virgil that his writing is like a poem/novel. It really flows easily for me. Does anyone else feel the same way?

----------


## manolia

> Afer WIL and Don Quixote though I am going to of course cover the new HP and then The Count of Monte Cristo....if any of you should feel interested in joining...I leave that all up to you...I've a big summer reading list.


Grace "The count of Monte Cristo" is one of my fav books!!! I simply love this book. I read it a few months back and I didn't want it to end. I'll defiantely participate if you open a new thread about this one  :Smile:  




> Last night I read chapter 24, "Death and Love." I was completely captivated. It is a long chapter, so I had not intended to read the entire thing before dozing off. But I couldn't put it down. I read the whole thing. It was so marvelously written, it was beautiful and intense. I didn't want it to end. I could have read that chapter forever if it never finished. I just have post some passage that shows how great a writer Lawrence is. I could have chosen many, but here's one.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that great scene follows where he stumbles in the dark to Gudrun's house and sneaks in to her. This is among the best English prose I have ever read.


Yes Virgil, this was an amazing chapter. The scenes described are so intense. And the dialogues are as they ought to be. Short and meaningful.

*Janine* i bet these were the best scenes in the film  :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

Just finished chapter 28, "Gudrun in the Pompadour." Another delighful chapter. Here's a quick excerpt where the Pussom London crowd reads Birkin's letters.




> `Do you remember,' came the quick voice of the Russian, `the letters he used to send. "Desire is holy--"'
> 
> `Oh yes!' cried Halliday. `Oh, how perfectly splendid. Why, I've got one in my pocket. I'm sure I have.'
> 
> He took out various papers from his pocket book.
> 
> `I'm sure I've -- hic! Oh dear! -- got one.'
> 
> Gerald and Gudrun were watching absorbedly.
> ...



What is fasacinating about this little scene is that Lawrence does so much here simultaneously. First he gets out another batch of Birkin's/Lawrence's philosophy. Second he does it without Birkin once again preaching and boring us  :Wink:  . Third it is incredibly enetertaining, the funny banter. Four, it drives Gudrun and Gerald to oppose that crowd and so creates tension and contrast. Five it has a self-deprecating humor in that the fun they poke at Birkin is indirectly lawrence poking fun at himself.  :FRlol:  I'm not sure lawrence was good at poking fun at himself. I don't see too much of it in his other works (at least I don't recall it) and I know he was not good at taking jokes from his friends and acquaintances. 

A wonderful scene.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

> Geace "The count of Monte Cristo" is one of my fav books!!! I simply love this book. I read it a few months back and I didn't want it to end. I'll defiantely participate if you open a new thread about this one


*Grace* and *manolia*, Oh darn, there never is enought time to do it all. I don't think I can participate in that one and I am sure that book is amazing, too like DQ. I am already feeling so overwhelmed and my poor house has dust 3 inches thick that needs immediate attention. I told *Virgil* I would do "To the Lighthouse"; I figured that was short enough to swing this month coming up.





> Yes Virgil, this was an amazing chapter. The scenes described are so intense. And the dialogues are as they ought to be. Short and meaningful.
> 
> *Janine* i bet these were the best scenes in the film


Hmmmm, yes, quite something, I liked the scene under the bridge best. I like the other one, but it is not an altogether happy/serene scene when Gerald comes to Gudrun in the night. Of course first time viewing it seeing him sneak in the house is pretty suspenseful. Yes, it is a good scene. Now that I have read the book over, I realise how much of the plot is left out of the movie and one scene is in the film that is not in the book, odd; but that scene is captivating, none-the-less; I keep wondering where the director/screen writer came up with that scene :Confused: . Maybe it is something happened in L's real life, who knows? Also, other scenes are incorporated into one, such as the dialogue from one scene inserted into another scene; that's a bit strange; and the whole story moves along much quicker than in the book. It does get most of the points across. Odd too, is the fact that Gerald is played by Oliver Reed (the film is from the 1980's, not recent) and Oliver Reed has dark brown hair, not fair blond hair, as Gerald is described. In spite of all these descrepancies the film is quite interesting and enjoyable; I think the director could only aim at the essense of the book and the characters and visually it is quite stunning. I always loved the wheatfield, fir grove scene with Birkin. The Water-Party is great, too. 
Other notable actors are Alan Bates (Birkin), Glenda Jackson (Gudrun), Jennie Linden (Ursula). Director Ken Russell.

*Yes, manolia,*...how funny, I think I just wrote a movie review. :FRlol:  
I wish someone would remake it into a miniseries length - that would be so cool, but I doubt it will be done, although I heard there is a new version of LCL coming out on DVD. I have the BBC version and it is quite good and follows the book closely enough. That one is also directed by Ken Russell. *manolia,* :Wink:  Can you think of someone to play the blond haired Gerald? I could not come up with anyone who would fit the bill. Has to be someone blond and tall and handsome and strong. I just could not get an image of who.

OK, finally - great news! I finished the novel last night. I was only going to read to the end of "Snowed Up", but of course, I could not put the book down by then and went on to finish. I think it was about 4 in the morning - birds were singing outside and I could not see straight by then.  :Eek2:  

Now I am reading the "Introduction" to WIL by John Worthen 1995. I also found a book in my library with commentary on WIL which is quite good. They both make clearer many of the elements and the symbolism and ideas in the book. I can probably scan some of the pages, edit and post remarks soon. 

Also, I have been a 'busy beaver' last night and scanned two pictures for *Pensive* of Jessie Chambers, L's friend and first girlfriend, and Louie Burrows, L's finance. But most notable is below this - a letter from Lawrence that explains his complicated family life and his close relationship with his mother. If interested, please check out the thread "Sons and Lovers" and read this very revealing letter. *Pensive* and I have been discussing it and also Virgil pops in occassionally to comment.

Well, I am overwhelmed and my head is spinning with all these threads, this one being the most active. I can hardly keep up. I will probably wait until everyone catches up, unless a few of you want to discuss the ending of the book, but remember put 'Spoiler' before your post; I know *Virgil's* not done yet and maybe others.




> Just finished chapter 28, "Gudrun in the Pompadour." Another delighful chapter.





> What is fasacinating about this little scene is that Lawrence does so much here simultaneously. First he gets out another batch of Birkin's/Lawrence's philosophy. Second he does it without Birkin once again preaching and boring us  . Third it is incredibly enetertaining, the funny banter. Four, it drives Gudrun and Gerald to oppose that crowd and so creates tension and contrast. Five it has a self-deprecating humor in that the fun they poke at Birkin is indirectly lawrence poking fun at himself.  I'm not sure lawrence was good at poking fun at himself. I don't see too much of it in his other works (at least I don't recall it) and I know he was not good at taking jokes from his friends and acquaintances. 
> 
> A wonderful scene.


*Virgil,* I found this scene totally fascinating, too. It is very well paced towards the end of the novel with the recap of Birkin's/Lawrence's philosophy presented again by a altogether different person interpretting it. You have brought out all good points and true about the scene. :Thumbs Up:  
Also, this recalls me to the scene in the car with Gudrun and Gerald discussing Birkin's speeches and the other scene with Gudrun and Ursula criticising Birkin's ego and his preaching. This takes us a step futher and I think it is somewhat like Lawrence looking straight into the face of his enemies - the critics and laughing, in a sense, or saying - I don't care what you say about me, I will continue to write what I please. I think Lawrence was very capable of doing this. Did you know (I just read this last night in one commentary) that at the time Lawrence was writing WIL, he did not have any intentions of getting this book published? I also found reference of this being said by Lawrene in a letter. I will find the letter again and post some quotes from it. He thought it futile to even try for publication. At this time, he was furious and fed-up with the critics, and the police who came to confiscate "The Rainbow", which was banned in England and in America. It took Lawrence 4 years after completion of "Women in Love" to get it published in the US and only privately, then followed another court case. This is from my book Introduction:




> Only weeks after it was published in 1915 "The Rainbow" was charged with obscenity and destroyed, by order of the Bow Street Magistrates Court -- a verdict almost comprehensible now. It was not available in England again until 1926. No publisher would risk "Women in Love" for four years after completion; and when it did come out it was a private edition in America, followed by another court case. Few major novels have had such difficult births.
> What was it that seemed so unacceptable about these books--and not only to reviewers and policemen? Ostensibly it was the subject: sexual relations, treated with what seemed then daring openness. Yet in the late twentieth century, after a revolution in attitudes to sex which Lawrence helped bring about, the novels can still cause almost visceral disturbance. The trouble clearly lay deeper than the subject. What can still disturb is to be shown "civilized" human beings as by no means fully under their own control, but impelled by forces within them well below the level of their conscious will or choice. Lawrence, in these novels, no longer contained the beginnings of such insight within the definite characterization of "Sons and Lovers", which had been widely admired, but set out to change our very conception of characters.


Interesting, isn't it? I think that in this passage you quoted from WIL Lawrence is basically thumbing his nose at these critics. He said he worked out his frustrations and problems in his novels. This is stated in another letter and I will look it up. I will find the exact quote/letter and post it. It is interesting that Birkin, himself, stays quiet in the second half of the book. I pointed this out earlier. Now others seem to mouth his words. 
I liked it when Gundrun went to retrieve the letter; as you said it put she and Gerald into alliegance with each other, interesting. It also demonstrated her strength of 'will' to Gerald.

----------


## Virgil

> Interesting, isn't it? I think that in this passage you quoted from WIL Lawrence is basically thumbing his nose at these critics.


Good point. So add a sixth accomplishment by that scene.




> He said he worked out his frustrations and problems in his novels. This is stated in another letter and I will look it up. I will find the exact quote/letter and post it. It is interesting that Birkin, himself, stays quiet in the second half of the book. I pointed this out earlier. Now others seem to mouth his words.


Yes, thank God he did publish it.

----------


## manolia

> Five it has a self-deprecating humor in that the fun they poke at Birkin is indirectly lawrence poking fun at himself.  I'm not sure lawrence was good at poking fun at himself. 
> A wonderful scene.


Now you mention it he IS poking fun at himself! It hadn't occured to me while reading this chapter (i was a bit angry with the low lives who were ridiculing Birkin's letter  :FRlol:  ). So the whole part is like L's inside joke?




> *Grace* and *manolia*, Oh darn, there never is enought time to do it all. I don't think I can participate in that one and I am sure that book is amazing, too like DQ. I am already feeling so overwhelmed and my poor house has dust 3 inches thick that needs immediate attention. I told *Virgil* I would do "To the Lighthouse"; I figured that was short enough to swing this month coming up.


 :FRlol:  Janine i have a copy of "To the lighthouse" and having read "Mrs Dalloway" i can safely say that i do like Virginia Woolf very much, but i won't participate in the reading this time. I think that a Woolf book is too much after a Lawrence book. My poor brain needs a rest  :FRlol:  (i have started the "name of the rose". This isn't actually light reading..but it is lighter than Woolf and Lawrence)





> *Yes, manolia,*...how funny, I think I just wrote a movie review.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  
You did and a good one!




> Now I am reading the "Introduction" to WIL by John Worthen 1995. I also found a book in my library with commentary on WIL which is quite good. They both make clearer many of the elements and the symbolism and ideas in the book. I can probably scan some of the pages, edit and post remarks soon.


Yes do scan them Janine. I am too waiting for Virgil to finish so we can all discuss the ending  :Nod:

----------


## Janine

> Now you mention it he IS poking fun at himself! It hadn't occured to me while reading this chapter (i was a bit angry with the low lives who were ridiculing Birkin's letter  ). So the whole part is like L's inside joke?


*Hi manolia,* last night I finished reading the commentary in my book and I have more information on the two scenes when Birkin was being criticised. It is quite interesting, but I did not scan it in yet; I will soon and edit. I might go out today to a park so I may not have time to do it till later. The commentary was quite informative. I will share much of it with you gladly, now that I know I can scan the pages and then transfer to my program easily to edit. No typing - yeah! :Biggrin:  So I can't fully answer this till I do that. Put basically I think L is doing that to a degree - yes, sort of like an 'inside joke', but very intentional in the book and that scene. In other words, not just for his amusement, but appropriate to the book and the plot. More on this later on. 




> Janine i have a copy of "To the lighthouse" and having read "Mrs Dalloway" i can safely say that i do like Virginia Woolf very much, but i won't participate in the reading this time. I think that a Woolf book is too much after a Lawrence book. My poor brain needs a rest  (i have started the "name of the rose". This isn't actually light reading..but it is lighter than Woolf and Lawrence)


Oh my, I know what you mean. :Wink:  My brain feels like it is in a vise just about now (sqeezing out the last bits of knowledge I am capable of :FRlol:  ); I am not altogether sure I can handle Woolf at this point. When I read the book I found it difficult - both books really - and I think to read them again and right after this difficult book, would be an achievement. I took TTLH from my library the other day to look at and review and see if I can read it again, but now I think it might be a bit doubtful. What I might do is read so much during the course of the month and pop in once in awhile to post something, hopefully that makes some sense. I know the book and story well by now - saw the film version a couple of times :FRlol:  ....No I won't give another movie review...not yet.... :Biggrin:   :FRlol:  

Who wrote "name of the rose"...is it lower case letters or are you too lazy to type the uppers? :Wink:  
Anyway, has anyone else, while reading WIL, noticed the 'rose' being mentioned quite often? You know the 'rose' is a symbol in the church for Mary Magdalene and my commentator had a few words to say about that, as well. Too tired out and rushed now to find the passage. Promise it later on.





> You did and a good one!


 :FRlol:  :Biggrin:   :FRlol:  thanks!





> Yes do scan them Janine. I am too waiting for Virgil to finish so we can all discuss the ending


Yes, me, too - hurry up slowpoke. I can't wait to discuss that. In the meantime, I do have this short break to scan this 'Introduction' for everyone. Also, I can explore those other two books of commentary. They are older ones, but still bring out some very interesting points. Maybe your library has access to some commentary too. It really helps out. Of course reading it is like reading a whole other book - ugh. I think I am nearly all read out this month.

How did you like the quote about the book being banned and WIL meeting so much opposition to be published? Hope you read that post. 

*Virgil,* did you read the quote I posted in "Sons and Lovers" from a letter by L and his opinion of one reviewer about psychoanalysis? You will absolutely love it.

----------


## Virgil

> Janine i have a copy of "To the lighthouse" and having read "Mrs Dalloway" i can safely say that i do like Virginia Woolf very much, but i won't participate in the reading this time. I think that a Woolf book is too much after a Lawrence book. My poor brain needs a rest  (i have started the "name of the rose". This isn't actually light reading..but it is lighter than Woolf and Lawrence)


Really? I thought The Name of the Rose was pretty hard. Oh I don't think To The Lighthouse is that hard. I think it would be fun to read it together.




> Yes, me, too - hurry up slowpoke. I can't wait to discuss that.


Oh don't wait on me. I know how it ends. Plus I never get hung up on it being spoiled. I tend to want to know how it ends so i can assess what I'm readng.




> *Virgil,* did you read the quote I posted in "Sons and Lovers" from a letter by L and his opinion of one reviewer about psychoanalysis? You will absolutely love it.


No, not yet. I'll got there in a minute.

----------


## grace86

Please don't wait for me either. Real life has called this past week and a half and I am afraid I might not finish in time. I will jump in the conversation when I can!

Janine...I was reading three books at once for a while. I stopped to read WIL.

----------


## Janine

> Really? I thought The Name of the Rose was pretty hard. Oh I don't think To The Lighthouse is that hard. I think it would be fun to read it together.


*Virgil,* Well, that is true. The book is not that hard to read. I was thinking I can accomplish the reading part, since it is only 200 pages or so long. I will probably try at anyrate. It is true also it would be fun if we all could read it together. This is such a great group!  :Thumbs Up:  
Hey, *Virgil,* you better not neglect the L short story thread next month; I really want to keep that going. And I have been thinking what is happening with Shakespeare thread? Shouldn't we be on a new play by now?




> Oh don't wait on me. I know how it ends. Plus I never get hung up on it being spoiled. I tend to want to know how it ends so i can assess what I'm readng.


*Manny,* Oh, so you must be one of those people who reads the last page before they are done the book or maybe even before they start reading. :FRlol:  
Good, I am sure *manolia* will love to talk about the ending with me. 
I was out tonight to a park and then to a friend's house so just got on to check these threads. Actually I was on earlier at my friend's house trying to convince her to join up, showing her the site, etc. She loves books, movies, and one of her jobs is at a library. I sure hope she joins soon. She is really nice and funny, too.

*Manny,* I saw your got a good laugh out of L's quote. I am sure, in reading my book of selected letters, I will come across other gems.

Thanks *Grace*, your so kind and considerate of us, who have finished the book. We can write 'Spoiler' before our posts, then you will have the option to read it or not. Just keep with the book. You will like how it develops and not regret finishing it. 

*Virgil,* just curious - what did you mean in your earlier post when you said "Good point. So add a sixth accomplishment by that scene." ? :Confused: 
What is a 'sixth accomplishment'?

Here is an interesting fact I found in the chronology of my book, referring to L 



> 1916 - _Writes Women in Love_ between April and October.


Can anyone here imagine writing a book this complex in just 5,6 months? It amazes me. That has to be true genius.

I just looked at the date and we only have about 7 more days to wrap up this discussion. This month went by so quickly. Wow, 'time sure does fly when you are having fun!' Do you realise we have posted nearly 200 posts on this book? Good work everyone  :Thumbs Up:  !

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* Well, that is true. The book is not that hard to read. I was thinking I can accomplish the reading part, since it is only 200 pages or so long. I will probably try at anyrate. It is true also it would be fun if we all could read it together. This is such a great group!  
> Hey, *Virgil,* you better not neglect the L short story thread next month; I really want to keep that going. And I have been thinking what is happening with Shakespeare thread? Shouldn't we be on a new play by now?


Yes, and we have all summer to read To The Lighthouse. Won't you join us manolia? I happen to know that novel fairly well (not like Lawrence but still well) and I can point out stuff you might not catch on your own. 

Let's see DQ, To The Lighhouse, Lawrence S.S., and Shakespeare play. I've got a busy summer.  :Smile:  




> *Manny,* Oh, so you must be one of those people who reads the last page before they are done the book or maybe even before they start reading.


Well, sometimes.  :Wink:  My enjoyment comes not so much from the surprise, but from looking at what the writer is doing paragraph by paragraph, and how he is reaching his climax. Knowing the climax is helpful.




> Good, I am sure *manolia* will love to talk about the ending with me. 
> I was out tonight to a park and then to a friend's house so just got on to check these threads. Actually I was on earlier at my friend's house trying to convince her to join up, showing her the site, etc. She loves books, movies, and one of her jobs is at a library. I sure hope she joins soon. She is really nice and funny, too.


Hey we can always use another person.  :Smile:  




> *Virgil,* just curious - what did you mean in your earlier post when you said "Good point. So add a sixth accomplishment by that scene." ?
> What is a 'sixth accomplishment'?


If you look at the my post before that say that, you will see I list five things that L accomplishes with that scene. Your thought about getting back at his critics is a sixth accomplishment.




> Here is an interesting fact I found in the chronology of my book, referring to L 
> Can anyone here imagine writing a book this complex in just 5,6 months? It amazes me. That has to be true genius.


That is incredible. Now here is something I wanted to bring up. He is writing this in the midst of WWI and in England the Germans are completely hated at this time. So why the scenes in Germany and the sympathetic German characters? Coincidence? Oversight on Lawrence's part because his wife is German and he knew her family? Or is there a political point he's making?




> I just looked at the date and we only have about 7 more days to wrap up this discussion. This month went by so quickly. Wow, 'time sure does fly when you are having fun!' Do you realise we have posted nearly 200 posts on this book? Good work everyone  !


There is no time limit on these discussion Janine. We can come back to this thread and continue all we want.

----------


## manolia

> Who wrote "name of the rose"...is it lower case letters or are you too lazy to type the uppers? 
> Anyway, has anyone else, while reading WIL, noticed the 'rose' being mentioned quite often? You know the 'rose' is a symbol in the church for Mary Magdalene and my commentator had a few words to say about that, as well. Too tired out and rushed now to find the passage. Promise it later on.


The book is called "The Name of the Rose" and is written by Umberto Eco (an italian writer). I have read his other novel "Fucaults's Pendulum" and i liked it very much. This one i am reading now was on my list (and on my shelf  :FRlol:  ) for months.





> How did you like the quote about the book being banned and WIL meeting so much opposition to be published? Hope you read that post.


It was very interesting. I am going to read now what you posted in "Sons and lovers" thread.




> Really? I thought The Name of the Rose was pretty hard. Oh I don't think To The Lighthouse is that hard. I think it would be fun to read it together.


Pretty hard? Well it has many historical references and excerpts from ancient texts but i am already aware of the story (i have seen the movie with Son Connery  :FRlol:  ) and i always enjoy a good conspiracy theory  :FRlol:  when i find one. But i can see what you mean. It surely isn't as light as i expected (lighter than "Fucault's pendulum" but not light enough).




> Yes, and we have all summer to read To The Lighthouse. Won't you join us manolia? I happen to know that novel fairly well (not like Lawrence but still well) and I can point out stuff you might not catch on your own.


I didn't know that we have all summer to read it! I might read it if that's the case (always glad to learn more things from a nice discussion).




> That is incredible. Now here is something I wanted to bring up. He is writing this in the midst of WWI and in England the Germans are completely hated at this time. So why the scenes in Germany and the sympathetic German characters? Coincidence? Oversight on Lawrence's part because his wife is German and he knew her family? Or is there a political point he's making?


Hmmm his wife was german? Maybe he is trying to point out that not all people in Gemany were the same. But i incline to believe that he wanted to make a political point. I mean isn't it ironic all these scenes of merriment while people were being killed in battlefields. Maybe he wanted to point out how fascism managed to take a footing in Germany (the people weren't paying much attention in politics and weren't considering how much harm they are doing in the world). Or quite the contrary (considering that he might have been friendly towards fascism) how good was the system for german people. What do you think? This is actually a hard symbolism..i can't quite grasp its meaning.

----------


## Janine

> The book is called "The Name of the Rose" and is written by Umberto Eco (an italian writer). I have read his other novel "Fucaults's Pendulum" and i liked it very much. This one i am reading now was on my list (and on my shelf  ) for months.


Thanks *manolia*, that clears up that question. The book sounds interesting.




> It was very interesting. I am going to read now what you posted in "Sons and lovers" thread.


Think you will find those posting quite interesting. Go back a page or so and you can see photos of Jesse/Miriam and of Louie Burrows - both former women of Lawrence's from his youthful days. Our discussion in that thread is slower than this one (fine with me) but it is going along great. If you read "Sons and Lovers" you must go back to the thread and read the posts. Many will give you some insight into the book.




> Pretty hard? Well it has many historical references and excerpts from ancient texts but i am already aware of the story (i have seen the movie with Son Connery  ) and i always enjoy a good conspiracy theory  when i find one. But i can see what you mean. It surely isn't as light as i expected (lighter than "Fucault's pendulum" but not light enough).


Funny, I never find Lawrence at all hard to read; I feel his prose flows like poetry. I do, however, struggle with Woolf; my mind tends to wander off with her writing. Conspiracy theories fascinate me, also. But I am sure to discuss her will make me more interested and understand the book much better. I like thrillers and psychological dramas in film  :FRlol:  




> I didn't know that we have all summer to read it! I might read it if that's the case (always glad to learn more things from a nice discussion).


I did not know that either - wonderful news. That should make it simplier and yes, *Virgil*...we have three things to concentrate on but please don't forget the L poem or the short story! So really you have 5 altogether and so do I. What Shakespeare play is up for discussion currently? I have completely lost track of that.





> Hmmm his wife was german? Maybe he is trying to point out that not all people in Gemany were the same. But i incline to believe that he wanted to make a political point. I mean isn't it ironic all these scenes of merriment while people were being killed in battlefields. Maybe he wanted to point out how fascism managed to take a footing in Germany (the people weren't paying much attention in politics and weren't considering how much harm they are doing in the world). Or quite the contrary (considering that he might have been friendly towards fascism) how good was the system for german people. What do you think? This is actually a hard symbolism..i can't quite grasp its meaning.


Ok, this is the complicated issue and questions. I have some very interesting information on thest thoughts, I acquired recently from my commentary readings. I will scan some and extract the best parts and post later, hopefully, tonight. Scanning takes time and I wish to share this with you. Good observation about Lawrence's wife being German. It had a great bearing and significance and shaped many aspects of his writing - most definitely. This will play into the novel, especially the violence and the power issues. 

Also, *manolia,* as we discuss the ending I have some great information on that that I read in the Introduction and in another book of commentary on WIL. Also, brings up points about The Rainbow that will interest *Virgil.* 
Yes, *Virgil,* the war had a great significance on this book.

Be back soon with this valuable and insightful information.

----------


## manolia

> Think you will find those posting quite interesting. Go back a page or so and you can see photos of Jesse/Miriam and of Louie Burrows - both former women of Lawrence's from his youthful days. Our discussion in that thread is slower than this one (fine with me) but it is going along great. If you read "Sons and Lovers" you must go back to the thread and read the posts. Many will give you some insight into the book.


I saw the letter and the pictures. Interesting information  :Nod:   :Nod:  

SPOILERS TELLS ENDING

Janine i admit that i was a bit perplexed reading the last two chapters..both Gudrun and Gerald underwent so many changes..and some of the things they said to each other seemed to be contradicting their actions in previous chapters.
For instance when they have that discussion Gudrun seems sure that Gerald doesn;t love her and won't love her and while Gerald is enraged he doesn't contradict her, deny what she is saying. So was Gerald's interest in Gudrun solely carnal? And if so why does he attempt to strangle her? Is his male pride speaking?

----------


## Janine

> I saw the letter and the pictures. Interesting information   
> 
> SPOILERS TELLS ENDING
> 
> Janine i admit that i was a bit perplexed reading the last two chapters..both Gudrun and Gerald underwent so many changes..and some of the things they said to each other seemed to be contradicting their actions in previous chapters.
> For instance when they have that discussion Gudrun seems sure that Gerald doesn;t love her and won't love her and while Gerald is enraged he doesn't contradict her, deny what she is saying. So was Gerald's interest in Gudrun solely carnal? And if so why does he attempt to strangle her? Is his male pride speaking?


*Manolia,* Glad you enjoyed the pictures and writings in the other post.

You bring up some very good questions here, and you are surely not the only reader who has been perplexed with the last few chapters of WIL. To answer is quite complicated. Yes, things do get very perplexing in the last chapters; I agree. I have just been reading several critics ideas and observations on this aspect of the book. One of these aspects is the total changablily of all the characters in the novel from beginning to end. Think about that aspect. It is quite true and interesting. The other idea is the fact that in showing the contrasting relationships, Lawrence is making his point, that of which type relationship works and triumphs and which is defective and will fail in the end. In concentrating more on the aspects of Gerald and Gudrun's relationship, especially evident in the second half of the book, he is showing us the failure of their relationsip, in order to drive home the whole point of the book. In other words he is saying this is not the way to live and have a relationsip. Their relationship is destructive, whereas the other is not totally correct either, but for the time being the better solution, for the two of the four individuals concerned. As many of you have commented that they felt Gudrun and Gerald's relationship more interesting, also these two characters more enthralling, it is of particular note that this one reviewer fully agrees with that idea. He says in so many words that the more evil aspects usually are and stand out more starkly to us. Therefore when the failure of their relationship is made evident, then Lawrence is stating more graphically what he earlier preached in this novel. That this kind of relationship is of all dissolution and destructive. Gudrun tries to dominate Gerald from the start and feels she can do it. In the end she has succeeded at just that, until Gerald also rejects her and his whole world/existence along with it. So to what expense was Gudrun's love or affection, which was based also on need and not true furfillment? Likewise the powerplay between them also makes their relationship one of total 'inbalance' and utimately brings havoc to each of their worlds, so that in their own way both are now lost, or at least that is how Lawrence sees it and the point he is trying to make in their final parting. 

With Ursula and Birkin there is some compromise on Birkin's part, in loving Ursula, by the end. However they are not altogether happy; this is made evident by the last scene of the novel. A question still exists and can never be fully resolved for Birkin. Lawrence felt this to be how novels should end. I will look up his exact quote. It explains it better than I have and also why he felt this way. Again I have to hunt throught my readings to find that exact passage. Funny, because I read this exact idea of L's somewhere else long ago. 
Also, after I scan some parts of this commentary and Introduction, you will better understand all of what I have written in this post.

To attempt to directly answer your question is difficult. 
First - "So was Gerald's interest in Gudrun solely carnal?" I actually think it was to some degree and he was healing himself through his sexual contact with Gudrun. Remember and note that initially he went after times of deepest diress. First, during the dying of his father and second after his father's death and burial. He was in great need of her, especially at this time. 
In the end, she felt 'used' and I can understand why, although I felt more sorrow and sympathy for Gerald when she seemed to be playing 'mind games' with him. However, I do think it went both ways, with Gerald using Gudrun for the comfort he so desperately needed, and Gundrun using Gerald to weld her power over him. Gundrun perhaps represented the 'womb' and the 'mothering' he did not get from his own cold distant mother. In the end Gudrun was just as cold, ironically. I think when she did show him rejection he could not deal with it without the inherent violence coming out in Gerald, thus the thoughts of killing her and the actual attemped strangling which resulted and surfaced from the depths of his being. In our short story thread we read one story - "The Prussian Officer" - that story deals with this idea of being driven to ones limits and then reacting with violence from a subconscious depth of being. I read something to the effect that Lawrence believed that all people possessed the potenial for violence subconsciouly, and certainly in this novel it is evident in those scenes. 
I also thought in concrete down-to-earth terms that Gerald simply could not handle being shut out of Gudruns life forever. I don't know if it was love or simply male pride. Gerald certainly had a lot of male ego and pride. He forced the horse at the railroad gate showing his male dominence over the horse and over the natural disposition of the horse. He trumphed over nature and so did Gudrun - also evident in the scene "Rabbit" . Both wished to master the animals. There are other instances of the 'nature' being suppressed by Gudrun and Gerald whereas 'nature' is celebrated by Ursula and Birkin. Another thing to think about. I pretty much found this idea in my additional reading and thought it a quite important aspect to consider.

----------


## manolia

Janine this explanation is wonderful! :Nod:   :Nod:  
I'll come back to it later and comment further.

----------


## Virgil

> Janine this explanation is wonderful!  
> I'll come back to it later and comment further.


Janine, I second that. You gave a *great* explanation. When I finish the novel in a day or two, I'll come back to your post to ask a question that may lead to qualifing your answer. But your response was superb.  :Thumbs Up:  

I just finished the Chapter Continental, chapter 29, and I would like to discuss the landscape symbolism of the nothern ice world. What are your thoughts on that? It is a remarkable scene visually and symbolically. I think Manolia expressed some difficulty, and i have some ideas, but nothing definitive yet. I need to ponder it a little more. Two more chapters to finish!! 40 pages. Since I'm traveling for work tomorrow, I should be able to finish it on the plane.

----------


## Janine

> Please don't wait for me either. Real life has called this past week and a half and I am afraid I might not finish in time. I will jump in the conversation when I can!
> 
> Janine...I was reading three books at once for a while. I stopped to read WIL.
> __________________
> "The reason we live is to do what we love" - Ray Bradbury


*Hi Grace,* sorry I skipped over you yesterday; I just realised that. Sorry, you won't finish by end of the month, but I doubt we will be done discussing by then anyway; so don't dispair. I have a feeling this discussion will continue on at least into next month for a time. There is so much to talk about; this being such a complex novel to discuss. 
I thought you were reading 3 books at once. I see you got realistic and stopped to read just one at a time. WIL is about all one can handle - it is so intense.
*Grace,* hope you don't mind I requoted your signature line - I really like that!

I have to post this and answer *Virgil* and *manolia* separate since I just had a power outtage momentarily and I am afraid it will happen again.

----------


## grace86

I don't mind you posting my quote *Janine!* I am glad you like it. Ray Bradbury said it when I went to hear him speak.

I am positive I will join in the conversation before it is too long gone. I should finish sometime soon...the story has really picked up. I was reading for four hours the other day. Not too much left. Conversations for the book club never really end as soon as the month is up though either.

----------


## Janine

> Janine this explanation is wonderful!  
> I'll come back to it later and comment further.


Gee thanks, *manolia,* I did not know if I could get all that written coherently and if it would make sense. My head was bursting with these various things I have been reading both on this book and "Sons and Lovers"; actually studying them simulaneously is quite helpful to understanding both and just how Lawrence conceived of this novel, WIL, and also to see L's development in ideas. It is getting extremely interesting cross-referencing critical analysis, letters, etc. But it is a wonder I can remember it all and then relay it to you. I am hoping to post some of the Introduction to my book. I scanned 9 pages of it last night. 
Hope you do get back soon with some comments on what I have written. Most of the ideas came from the book but now put into my own words.




> Janine, I second that. You gave a *great* explanation. When I finish the novel in a day or two, I'll come back to your post to ask a question that may lead to qualifing your answer. But your response was superb.


*Virgil,* Thanks again! superb - wow I like that! I wish there was an emoticon for a bow. I would take one, for my effort, at least. Yes, hope you can review it all in a day or so. It will make more sense to you then. I want to post more of the Introduction - start with a few pages for you people to read and absorb. It is legal to post that directly from the book, right - I scanned 9 pages so far - paperback size though, so should not be that long. I will post a few pages now at end of this post.





> I just finished the Chapter Continental, chapter 29, and I would like to discuss the landscape symbolism of the nothern ice world. What are your thoughts on that? It is a remarkable scene visually and symbolically. I think Manolia expressed some difficulty, and i have some ideas, but nothing definitive yet. I need to ponder it a little more. Two more chapters to finish!! 40 pages. Since I'm traveling for work tomorrow, I should be able to finish it on the plane.


You know I will have to review that chapter and the landscape symbolism. That was a very complicated chapter and the whole 'white world of snow' concepts and the 'barreness/isolation' of the landscape. If you noticed Ursula could not take it any longer after a point and could not wait to depart from it to a warmer climate. However, Gerald and Gudrun both had a fascination for that deadly cold world. 
*Virgil,* yes, give us some ideas on what you think of the whole thing and the symbolism. I will see what I can dig up about those scenes in the meantime and I will review that chapter, as well..

Enjoy the last two chapters. Will you take you laptop on your trip this time? Have a safe journey and have fun!


*Here is some of the Introduction. I may be repeating some of what I already pointed out in my posts.





> Introduction by John Worthen,1995
> 
> Does _Women in Love_ seem difficult? If so, there are good reasons. Because Lawrence was making a radical break with earlier fiction his major work was met with incomprehension at first, and in some ways we are still learning to read it. Indeed, the novel and its predecessor _The Rainbow_ had been difficult to write. Both emerged from what Lawrence originally thought of as a pot-boiler, 'The Sisters', which grew and grew strangely, at the hands of an exploratory writer who had a long struggle to find his way and understand what he was discovering. It took three years and four quite different versions, along with a challenging effort of criticism and philosophy in the 'Study of Thomas Hardy', before Lawrence got hold of _The Rainbow_. It then took a rewriting of his 'philosophy' into 'The Crown' and another year of struggle (in three versions) to capture the very different sequel _Women in Love_. 
> Both novels may seem disturbing, too - though we ought perhaps to be more willing than some of their first readers to try to understand the nature of the disturbance. Only weeks after it was published in 1915 _The Rainbow_ was charged with obscenity and destroyed, by order of the Bow Street Magistrates Court- a verdict almost incomprehensible now. It was not available in England again until 1926. No publisher would risk _Women in Love_ for four years after its completion; and when it did come out it was in a private edition in America, followed by another court case.3 Few major novels have had such difficult births. 
> What was it that seemed so unacceptable about these books - and not only to reviewers and policemen? (Only one writer, Arnold Bennett, stood up in public for _The Rainbow_.) Ostensibly it was the subject: sexual relations, treated with what then seemed daring openness. Yet in the late twentieth century, after a revolution in attitudes to sex which Lawrence helped bring about, the novels can still cause almost visceral disturbance. The trouble clearly lay deeper than the subject. What can still disturb is to be' shown 'civilized' human beings as by no means fully under their own control, but impelled by forces within them well below the level of their conscious will or choice. Lawrence, in these novels, no longer contained the beginnings of such insight within the definite characterization of _Sons and Lovers,_ which had been widely admired, but set out to change our very conception of character. In a letter about the penultimate version of _The Rainbow_ he had told Edward Garnett not to look any longer in his work for 'the old stable ego of the character'! He wanted to go deeper. Instead of portraying human beings as consciously analysable personalities, as nineteenth-century novels had done, he wanted to get at what we have learned to call the subconscious, the four-fifths of the' iceberg hidden below the ego and the surface of our knowing. That deeper 'being' had somehow to be made visible, like the patterns produced acoustically in fine sand by invisible sound, patterns which moreover change as soon as the note does. So Lawrence wanted also to get rid of the idea of a stable ego, the belief that personality is constant, and find ways, instead, of showing human beings as fluctuating and changeable - like water, which can be ice, steam or liquid, and yet is always the same substance; or like Ursula in _The Rainbow_ and _Women in Love,_ who seems so different in every phase of her life as she reacts to differing pressures, and yet is always Ursula. This makes understanding character much more difficult for both writer and reader, however, since knowledge can no longer be settled or secure. But Lawrence's first readers often strongly resisted the vision of themselves as unstable and governed by subterranean impulse, resisted the idea of flux as a principle of life, which they found much more threatening or even outrageous than mere sexual explicitness. 
> There was a further challenge. Lawrence had to find a language for what had been inexpressible before, and what his people themselves cannot think or say in any articulate awareness. He had also to find new ways of using words to capture rhythms of being, hidden processes of the psyche. But rhythm uses repetition, and 'poetic' prose can seem (and be) overwritten. Moreover, since language and rhythm have to come from the author, there is a danger that the fiction will become too authorial and imprisoning, unless he can partly preserve the autonomy of the characters by dramatizing them and having them speak and act out their inner being in ways readers can respond to for themselves. Dialogue is very important in _Women in Love_ - but must often suggest more than it seems to say. The new insights required, indeed, an art so new that it was liable to seem unintelligible or over-insistent; or, if its tendency were glimpsed, to be resisted and rejected in self-defence, defence, that is, of the old and much more comfortable idea of the self, as consciously self-defining and stable. 
> The effect on Lawrence of that rejection, however - made unmistakable in the destruction of _The Rainbow_ - was traumatic, and permanent. He tried to leave England for America. but without a valid passports could not go, so did the next best thing and isolated himself near the tip of Cornwall. There, in 1916, the most terrible year of the most terrible war mankind had ever seen, he began to write _Women in Love_ with, at first, no idea of publication. From being a writer feeling himself at the height of his powers as he finished _The Rainbow,_ confident that he had lifted his art a dimension above _Sons and Lovers_ (which had got him recognized as among the most promising young novelists), and sure that he had written a great work of religious imagination and struck a blow for women, he became a writer who had lost his audience, and felt totally alienated from his society. He began his sequel about Ursula and Gudrun with only a notional reader in mind and in a state of hostility: 
> ... it is beyond all possibility even to offer it to the world, a putrescent mankind like ours. I feel I cannot touch humanity, even in thought, it is abhorrent to me. But a work of art is an act of faith, as Michael Angelo says, and one goes on writing, to the unseen witnesses. 
> The successive drafts show him struggling to contain and overcome the misanthropy and contempt, the world hatred, for which Birkin served as spokesman in the first writing. Another reason for the book to be disturbing, then, is that it was written by a man who had reason to be disturbed. Yet he had spoken - about _Sons and Lovers_ - of how one might shed one's sicknesses in a book, presenting them in order to get beyond them and come through; but this meant that the author would' be no wise man helping us to share his clear-sightedness, but 'agonistes', inside the conflict he creates, fighting to recover equilibrium in a world he thought (with ample reason) had gone destructively mad. 
> For perhaps the most important point about _Women in Love_ is that it is a war novel, even though its society is apparently at peace and its date left deliberately vague. Uncovered in the depths of all the characters is violence, threatening to destroy the self and others, and this is because the novel was written at a time when all over Europe people had thrown themselves - at first with enthusiasm - into the First World. War, and in that most terrible year of Verdun and the Somme, 1916, when slaughter reached an appalling peak that had never been known before. (We have supped full of horrors since, but no gap is wider and more difficult to imagine historically than that between the summers of 1914 and 1916.) The fate of _The Rainbow_ seemed only another symptom of the destructiveness Lawrence now saw everywhere. He thought of calling the new novel 'Dies frae' (i.e. Day of Wrath and Last Judgement); and though he significantly decided not to, there is something apocalyptic about it. Its world is coming apart; and that creates more difficulty, since the art, in language and form, must be such as can render and explore violence, disintegration, deadly excess - and thus become even more disturbing to readers who like to think of themselves as civilized and self-controlled. This poses, moreover, a crucial question for the critic: is this a destructively violent and excessive work, or is it a diagnosis of violence and excess, enabling its author and its readers to come through the experience with better understanding of themselves?


To be continued. I stopped at this one point about the background of the war and violence basically. Please give me your opinions after you read it.




> I don't mind you posting my quote *Janine!* I am glad you like it. Ray Bradbury said it when I went to hear him speak.
> 
> I am positive I will join in the conversation before it is too long gone. I should finish sometime soon...the story has really picked up. I was reading for four hours the other day. Not too much left. Conversations for the book club never really end as soon as the month is up though either.


Hi *Grace,* fantastic!.....So glad you are progressing so well...wow, 4 hours of reading; your eyes must have looked like these  :Eek:  It will be great to hear your comments. Someone else said the book was picking up at a certain part. Yes, the ending is really something and you will like the last few chapters very much so. It is hard to put the book down at a certain point. Glad you hear that these conversations never truly end. I saw that Virgil posted something the other day in Owen Meany thread. Here Scher had finally finished the book and so she posted. I added something after Virgil. Glad we could go back to it and this thread should get comments for sometime I would think. 

If you read what I posted - the _Introduction_ - to my WIL edition, you will gain a lot of insight into the ideas/intentions of the book. I will post more of that intro - I scanned about 9 pages and there are 9 more. I used up 5 today, so I can probably post the whole thing in about 3, 4 posts. Let me know what you think?

----------


## manolia

Thanx for the post Janine!
So actually the book was written during 1916 where these terrible events took place? That explains a lot about the background of the book (and especially the parts in the snowed mountains-a very spooky atmosphere indeed). Hence the wilderness and desolation and stillness in the mountains and the strange effect it has upon Gudrun and Gerald (they spent a lot of time watching, almost bewitched and terrified out of the window at the vast wilderness of snow.) The descriptions of the landscape gave me a desperate feeling sometimes.
And of course the fact that his other novel , the rainbow, was destroyed by the police and rejected, accounts for Birkin's character (he is very bitter and a misantropist).

EDIT

SPOILERS AHEAD

Now, about your previous post (the one that was an answer to my questions). I liked your explanations about the Gudrun-Gerald realationship and what you say about Lawrence wanting to make a point in which type of realationship he thought was best. Now, how about the last few lines, where Ursula and Birkin talk and Birkin tells bluntly to Ursula (if i am not mistaken) that her love was not enough. Does it have to do with balance (does Birkin need a soul mate, a male soul mate, a good friend to balance his life as much as he needs a woman? Or is it a homosexuality reference?)

----------


## Janine

> Thanx for the post Janine!
> So actually the book was written during 1916 where these terrible events took place? That explains a lot about the background of the book (and especially the parts in the snowed mountains-a very spooky atmosphere indeed). Hence the wilderness and desolation and stillness in the mountains and the strange effect it has upon Gudrun and Gerald (they spent a lot of time watching, almost bewitched and terrified out of the window at the vast wilderness of snow.) The descriptions of the landscape gave me a desperate feeling sometimes.
> And of course the fact that his other novel , the rainbow, was destroyed by the police and rejected, accounts for Birkin's character (he is very bitter and a misantropist).


*manolia,* Yes, yes, doesn't that Introduction explain a lot about the mood and the atmosphere of the entire story, especially the snow and ice scenes that you have pointed out? I read more that said that actually Lawrence was working out the character and his ideas as far as Birkin/himself is concerned. In other words the book is a work in progress and so is Birkin's character. Is there not many changes he goes through by the end of the book? All the characters do so actually, some for good and some not. This line in the Introduction interested me 
"....he had spoken - about _Sons and Lovers_ - of how one might shed one's sicknesses in a book, presenting them in order to get beyond them and come through; but this meant that the author would be no wise man helping us to share his clear-sightedness, but 'agonistes', inside the conflict he creates, fighting to recover equilibrium in a world he thought (with ample reason) had gone destructively mad." 
Yes, therefore Birkin did have ample reason in the first half of the book to be bitter. But as we all have observed, by the end of the book, Birkin is quite changed or transformed. Lawrence used the term transfiguration. Virgil wrote his thesis on this aspect of Lawrence's work. In WIL by the end he is just starting to really grasp it himself. 




> SPOILERS AHEAD
> 
> Now, about your previous post (the one that was an answer to my questions). I liked your explanations about the Gudrun-Gerald realationship and what you say about Lawrence wanting to make a point in which type of realationship he thought was best. Now, how about the last few lines, where Ursula and Birkin talk and Birkin tells bluntly to Ursula (if i am not mistaken) that her love was not enough. Does it have to do with balance (does Birkin need a soul mate, a male soul mate, a good friend to balance his life as much as he needs a woman? Or is it a homosexuality reference?)


Most of what I wrote came from my reading of various commentary, not entirely my own ideas, but in my own words. So thanks for the compliments. That aspect you speak of with the contrasting relationships - if you think in terms of films ( :Wink:   :FRlol: ) and how the most effective films play up the bad guys, they are most prominent and evil is always in the forground - you can relate to this concept. Look at Shakespeare's plays Othello, MacBeth, King Lear, Richard III and many others and the prominent aspects of the play are the evil ones or the characters with the serious flaws. This is the device to show more blantantly that crime does not pay or that evil does not reign supreme. So with Gerald and Gudrun their flaws are of more interest and graphically show what Birkin all along has been saying it wrong with the world. Of course that is a simplified way of putting it.

I know the story ends with that question and this 'disturbs' mostly everyone. No one likes to have a question loom up in the last few lines. I personally, from all my reading of biographies and Lawrence's philosophies, believe it was not a homosexual thing that he is referring to. I don't see it at all sexual. I feel it is just as you have described it, so I would agree with your interpretation. I think in what you said "balance" is the key word, and in Lawrence's mind.

----------


## manolia

> *manolia,* "....he had spoken - about _Sons and Lovers_ - *of how one might shed one's sicknesses in a book*, presenting them in order to get beyond them and come through; but this meant that the author would be no wise man helping us to share his clear-sightedness, but 'agonistes', inside the conflict he creates, fighting to recover equilibrium in a world he thought (with ample reason) had gone destructively mad."


Janine, now you mention it, i remember the word "sickness" in some parts of the book..although i don't quite remember where it was mentioned.





> Most of what I wrote came from my reading of various commentary, not entirely my own ideas, but in my own words. So thanks for the compliments.


Yes i know. But you put together what you read very beautifully  :Smile:  




> That aspect you speak of with the contrasting relationships - if you think in terms of films ( ) and how the most effective films play up the bad guys, they are most prominent and evil is always in the forground - you can relate to this concept.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  It was clear and understood before. Now it is even clearer  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  




> I know the story ends with that question and this 'disturbs' mostly everyone. No one likes to have a question loom up in the last few lines.


It makes the ending more interesting though. It leaves food for thought behind  :Wink:

----------


## Janine

> Janine, now you mention it, i remember the word "sickness" in some parts of the book..although i don't quite remember where it was mentioned.


*manolia,* if you find that word, please quote. I think I recalled it, also. It might have been when Birkin and Ursula were alone on that little island in the pond and he was going on about the world and how sick it was. You know, going back and reading part now might make more sense in the wake of reading the Introduction and the points Worthen brings out about the war being the backdrop of this story, although never specifically mentioned. It might also explain why Birkin wished to whipe out manhind for good, or some of the other passages - about how God did not need man, comparing extinction to the dinasaurs... hummmm....'very inter..esting'.





> Yes i know. But you put together what you read very beautifully


Ahhhhhhh.....how sweet of you to say this. Believe me when I say, usually it is a struggle. I am not a natural born writer; plus my head is so congested now with all this Lawrence data, it is hard to concentrate on just one point, bring it altogether into one post...that is why I write so much at a time. :Wink:  




> It was clear and understood before. Now it is even clearer


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  knew you could relate!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  




> It makes the ending more interesting though. It leaves food for thought behind


Yes, at the end of a novel, you won't find a neatly packaged finalie or satisfying romantic solution, like a Jane Austen novel. Not in Lawrence's work. He invariable keeps one wondering, long after you close the last page. I think that is more fascinating, don't you?

----------


## papayahed

Sheesh, I'm way behind on reading. So here's my question...Is Lawerence purposely making the outfits the women wear sound horribly bad or is it because he's a guy and doesn't know any better? Some of the colors he describe generally look horrible together. ie. yellow dress, pink stocking, and red shoes? Did they get dressed in the dark. Was that the style then? At first I thought it was just the brangwens but the hermoine popped up in something just as bad. Seems strange as he describes all of then being fastideous about their dress.

----------


## Janine

> Sheesh, I'm way behind on reading. So here's my question...Is Lawerence purposely making the outfits the women wear sound horribly bad or is it because he's a guy and doesn't know any better? Some of the colors he describe generally look horrible together. ie. yellow dress, pink stocking, and red shoes? Did they get dressed in the dark. Was that the style then? At first I thought it was just the brangwens but the hermoine popped up in something just as bad. Seems strange as he describes all of then being fastideous about their dress.


*Papayahed,* glad you see you back. You can catch up, disussions no doubt, will go on long after the month is done on this one. Owen Meany discussions just picked up again; Scher just finished reading the book and has many questions to debate. We were all just discussing this fact, that threads never end and we can keep on posting if we care to. 

I have a direct reference to the colored stockings in one of the commentary books I have been reading. I will try to find the exact part and see what the commentator had to say about the dressing styles. They certainly did seem strange and quite gawdy. I know for a fact, that Lawrence liked these thick colored stocking and had his wife wear them all the time. Lawrence could be a 'strange bird' - his wife, Frieda, actually said that about him in a direct quote. In the story descriptions I noticed how badly the colors went together. Somewhere I believe it said that Gudrun was wearing a bright red sash with something that sounded pastel - did not sound pretty at all, nor matching. It is a good observation on your part that Lawrence describes the woman as fasctideous, yet they wear such odd combinations of clothes. Even the sister's coats sound strange at times to me. Maybe that was the style then, I am not sure. It seems Lawrence dressed his male characters better althought Birkin was always dressed a bit roughly or rumpled. I suppose Gerald was the best dresser of all.

----------


## grace86

I noticed Birkin is very contradicting. He was telling Ursula about how he likes the old England of Jane Austen's, but then he contradicts himself when he talks about not liking the old ideas of marriage or when he says:

"You'll never get houses and furniture-or even clothes. Houses and furniture and clothes, they are all terms of an old base world, a detestable society of man."

He is kind of contradicting himself right?

I thought about the introduction you posted, *Janine*, where it talks about Lawrence wanting to create characters that cannot be analyzed and put into such a form as traditional characters of the day. Birkin is definitely so human, it is easy to understand Ursula's frustration with him in the chapter, The Chair.

Just my thoughts.

**I also noticed the odd contrast of colors in the sisters' clothing. Gudrun is always so stark. But then she doesn't nearly come off as so quiet as Ursula. Any thoughts on the specific colors?

----------


## Virgil

> Sheesh, I'm way behind on reading. So here's my question...Is Lawerence purposely making the outfits the women wear sound horribly bad or is it because he's a guy and doesn't know any better? Some of the colors he describe generally look horrible together. ie. yellow dress, pink stocking, and red shoes? Did they get dressed in the dark. Was that the style then? At first I thought it was just the brangwens but the hermoine popped up in something just as bad. Seems strange as he describes all of then being fastideous about their dress.





> *Papayahed,* glad you see you back. You can catch up, disussions no doubt, will go on long after the month is done on this one. Owen Meany discussions just picked up again; Scher just finished reading the book and has many questions to debate. We were all just discussing this fact, that threads never end and we can keep on posting if we care to. 
> 
> I have a direct reference to the colored stockings in one of the commentary books I have been reading. I will try to find the exact part and see what the commentator had to say about the dressing styles. They certainly did seem strange and quite gawdy. I know for a fact, that Lawrence liked these thick colored stocking and had his wife wear them all the time. Lawrence could be a 'strange bird' - his wife, Frieda, actually said that about him in a direct quote. In the story descriptions I noticed how badly the colors went together. Somewhere it believe it said that Gudrun was wearing a bright red sash with something that sounded pastel - did not sound pretty at all, nor matching. It is a good observation on your part that Lawrence describes the woman as fasctideous, yet they wear such odd combinations of clothes. Even the sister's coats sound strange at times to me. Maybe that was the style then, I am not sure. It seems Lawrence dressed his male characters better althought Birkin was always dressed a bit roughly or ruffled. I suppose Gerald was the best dresser of all.


Hmm. I never considered much of the clothing colors other than to characterize Gudrun as artsy. She's the one I think that is always in stark colors. Or am I wrong?




> I noticed Birkin is very contradicting. He was telling Ursula about how he likes the old England of Jane Austen's, but then he contradicts himself when he talks about not liking the old ideas of marriage or when he says:
> 
> "You'll never get houses and furniture-or even clothes. Houses and furniture and clothes, they are all terms of an old base world, a detestable society of man."
> 
> He is kind of contradicting himself right?


There are contradictions in many of the characters, grace, but in this case I think there is an explanation. When he's talking about the world of Jane Austen he's talking about marriage in general. Actually the predecessor novel to this is The Rainbow and The Rainbow is a generational novel, meaning that the story spans three genrations culminating with Ursula. The start of the novel, the first generation, that of Ursula's grandfather, would actually link up with Jane Austen's time. Interesting. When he's talking about unconventional, he still means that the marriage is conventional but that the couple will always be traveling and unsettled in a home.




> Enjoy the last two chapters. Will you take you laptop on your trip this time? Have a safe journey and have fun!


Yes, I have my laptop with me. Unfortunately I did not read on the plane. I sat next to an interesting woman and we talked the flight through. She's a foster care mother, taking in orphans temporarily until either their parents work out their troubles or they can be adopted. She's had over 40 kids in her lifetime and actually adopted six for herself. There are such big hearted people in this world that makes you see the wonder of humanity. She and her husband are jewels of this world.

I did read half of chapter 30, "Snowed Up" and wow!! so far. Another of those incredible chapters. But I'm going to hold off commenting on it until I finish. I wanted to get to the ice world symbolism first.




> It is legal to post that directly from the book, right - I scanned 9 pages so far - paperback size though, so should not be that long. I will post a few pages now at end of this post.


Not sure about the legality of it. It may not be. I think you can quote from it, but to repreoduce the entire thing may be an issue. I don't think the author would mind. He doesn't make much money from that sort of essay. He probably just wants to get his name and ideas out. But the publisher may mind.

----------


## Janine

> I noticed Birkin is very contradicting. He was telling Ursula about how he likes the old England of Jane Austen's, but then he contradicts himself when he talks about not liking the old ideas of marriage or when he says:
> 
> "You'll never get houses and furniture-or even clothes. Houses and furniture and clothes, they are all terms of an old base world, a detestable society of man."
> 
> He is kind of contradicting himself right?


Yes, he is contradicting himself. In fact Birkin contradicts himself all throughout the novel in certain instances. I think the Introduction makes this clearer and I as I post the remaining pages I think this might become clearer. In WIL think of the novel as a work in progress; and so it is Birkin and his opinions. From the beginning to the end he is changing or modifying his ideas and his mode of being. I think I already posted something to this effect to manolia or someone; I have lost track now with so many postings.

The quote is so typical and truthful of Lawrence's life and philosophy. He lived his life pretty much that way, a very basic existence, never owning a house. In fact he was given a ranch and acres of land in New Mexico, and he refused to have the title in his name; it was in his wife, Frieda's name. He owned little in the way of goods or furniture and they were mostly on the move from country to country throught his life. He was far from poor having made money on his novels, short stories, poems, commentaries, etc. - he was quite a prolithic and ambitious author. He made money but not nearly what he would have made today, but sufficent enough to support all the traveling and moving about he and Frieda did. He died in his mid 40's, leaving Frieda with enough money to survive comfortably. 




> I thought about the introduction you posted, *Janine*, where it talks about Lawrence wanting to create characters that cannot be analyzed and put into such a form as traditional characters of the day. Birkin is definitely so human, it is easy to understand Ursula's frustration with him in the chapter, The Chair.


*grace,* I agree about the frustation of Ursula. He was pretty changable even in that one instance - buying the chair and proclaiming how marvelous the old workmanship was on it and then in an instant giving the chair away proclaiming they needed nothing - very unrealistic, don't you think? I think the idea is Lawrence never wanted to be tied down to things. He wanted the ultimate freedom to go 'where the wind blew him' so to speak. If you read the short story in that thread "Things" you will get a sense of what he felt about people owning things. I believe he wrote the piece with a couple he was quite friendly with. The story reflects this idea of things being only things and of no real lasting importance. I read "Sea and Sardinia" and I noticed that, as Lawrence and Frieda traveled through the area once in awhile there was something of local craftsman that interested him in buying. Frieda would love looking and in some instances he poked gentle fun at her, but not at all mean or sarcastic; in fact he sounds pretty typical of a husband watching his wife shop. I found this to be revealing of the type of lifestyle the two lead. He greatly admired the costumes of the locals, but now that I think of it most of what he seemed to appreciate, belonged to the old world of that region. Lawrence also pointed out the clothing vividly of the German people staying at the hostile during the dancing scene.





> **I also noticed the odd contrast of colors in the sisters' clothing. Gudrun is always so stark. But then she doesn't nearly come off as so quiet as Ursula. Any thoughts on the specific colors?


Yes, good point. There is a definite contrast in the clothing between all four main characters, in fact. With the two sisters remember Gudrun is the artist and Ursula the school teacher, therefore most of the time they reflect their attitudes and their positions. Even though Gundrun is stark she comes off more stylish to me and probably more daring, being the artist; whereas Ursula comes off more quiet in her appearance. It seems that they both greatly admire clothes. I picked that up in a couple of the scenes between just them alone speaking. Likewise in the contrast concept; Birkin is more discheveled, carefree, and casual about his appearance whereas Gerald is always more 'put together' and impecibly dressed. Odd that in the scene where he goes to Gudrun he is not so - he is muddy. Had you thought of that as a contrast in his usual controlled look.

Opps did not see you there *Virgil*, hope you had a good trip - it sounds interesting and I liked your comment about good people in this world. It is true and so often we only read about the bad ones in the news, it is refreshing to meet wonderful people like that - as you said 'jewels of this world'.

I think I must have been posting same time as you. I am glad you can post since I will be anxious to hear your ideas on the ice world symbolism, etc. I can't wait till you finish the book and we can discuss that part with you. Wasn't "Snowed Up" something? I can never get that one scene out of my mind. 

Yes, I took that Gudrun was the one with the more progressive clothing - starker colors. I do believe the clothing was very significant in the writing and to Lawrence reflecting the moods and temperments of the characters. 

Well, I think it is ok to post the 'Introduction' to the book, if I do it in segments and put the author's name above it. After all people do use these texts in school assignments, colleges, etc. I am not plagerising (sp?)

Hey, *Virgil,* the short story thread is started and going incredibly well. Lot of participants this time. I think we have encouraged a few Lawrence enthusiasts - so *Grace* tells me. 

This is unfortunate, but I have to forgo the computer now - bad thunderstorms here tonight....just coming in the area - darn!

----------


## grace86

I kind of feel like I am pointing out the obvious with having said something about the characters' contradictions. I know they all do it, but I guess I pay more attention to Birkin doing so.

I am not quite used to the fact of the characters contradicting themselves. In other novels, those types of contradictions were usually errors on the behalf of the author (I am thinking of Sancho's mule in Don Quixote for example), or the authors use their characters as a sort of back drop or platform to present their ideas/theories...coming to mind is Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment. 

At first, Birkin's character actually reminded me of Raskolnikov, until I realized that even though Raskolnikov strayed from his theory, the theory he had was still intact-he suffered from his incapability of putting his theory into proper action, whereas Birkin cannot keep his thoughts concrete.

 :Biggrin:  But I am not trying to be redundant, it is just so obvious to me the differences between Lawrence and other, perhaps older authors... :Tongue:  I will stop the redundancy now.

I hope someone here has read Crime and Punishment, or I will feel kind of silly saying all that up there!

----------


## Janine

> I kind of feel like I am pointing out the obvious with having said something about the characters' contradictions. I know they all do it, but I guess I pay more attention to Birkin doing so.


*Grace,* first off - never feel silly about posting and giving your own ideas. I think it is commendable on your part and helpful to all to point out various things you have observed, even from other books to compare the styles. It is not that obvious that all the characters change throughout the novel. Isn't that like real life? People do change everyday of their life; it may be subtle but one always grows and changes with new experiences and new contacts in life. I think that Lawrence was showing this. I did not mean he was vague and just floundering around aimlessly with his characters. He gave them purpose and had that purpose develop and change or modify by the end of the novel. All the character remain who they originally were. In other words their true self emerge and lead them whatever way they are to go. Much depends on their subconscious and the bringing out of certain behaviors and characteristics.




> I am not quite used to the fact of the characters contradicting themselves. In other novels, those types of contradictions were usually errors on the behalf of the author (I am thinking of Sancho's mule in Don Quixote for example), or the authors use their characters as a sort of back drop or platform to present their ideas/theories...coming to mind is Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment.


I think the contradicting of themselves is much like real life and real people. Lawrence writes quite uniquely and not at all like the authors you describe. He wrote reviews on D's "Crime and Punishment" is mentioned D in his essays. I have only read snatches of these and I know he was critical of the Russian authors, but I can't say specifically why without further research. I think he opposed their old world conventional ideas on morality and religion, but I cannot swear to this. I promised my friend, Downing, to research this aspect, since she read "Crime and Punishment" recently. By doing so I can probably understand why L's characters differ so much from D's. I never thought his writing to be compared to Don Quoixte. For one thing, at what time were both these authors writing? Wasn't it much earlier than Lawrence's time and literature? 




> At first, Birkin's character actually reminded me of Raskolnikov, until I realized that even though Raskolnikov strayed from his theory, the theory he had was still intact-he suffered from his incapability of putting his theory into proper action, whereas Birkin cannot keep his thoughts concrete.


Again, the authors most likely have differing ideas on the consistency factor with their characters. I think if you look at Thomas Hardy characters you will see changes from the beginning of his novels to the end and also many of the characters start out believing one thing and end up changing that belief or modifying it. I think of Angel Clare in "Tess of the D'Orbervilles". His philosophy on life is somewhat vague and Tess tends to be as Ursula, confused somewhat by just what Angel is saying or believes in. He also condradicts himself, all in the same scene, which totally impacts the entire fate of the story from that point on. You may not have read Tess or any Hardy work. Lawrence also wrote a long essay on Hardy - very interesting document. 




> But I am not trying to be redundant, it is just so obvious to me the differences between Lawrence and other, perhaps older authors... I will stop the redundancy now.


No problem; you are not being redundant at all. You are meerly getting your point across. I think it is helpful to compare the styles and the concepts of the various authors. I know that Lawrence himself did this in reviewing some of the authors you and I mentioned in this post.




> I hope someone here has read Crime and Punishment, or I will feel kind of silly saying all that up there!


Actually, I think it quite relevant that you mentioned it since Lawrence had disgussed him in his essay writings. From his work he must have extracted some bits of knowledge and learned by his reading, as all of us do. Yes, I do think these authors were much earlier than Lawrence and therefore the backgrounds of their worlds were different than Lawrence's world of the 20th century. These were different centuries; therefore making a distinct difference between their styles and their writing. If you read the 'Introduction' I posted you can see that during the writing of WIL, there was the background of the war; a terrible upheaval throughout Europe. I am sure this affected the consistency of the characters and the novel. But to me this ebb and flow seems natural and right for the very realistic qualities of the characters. It minmics the ebb and flow of seasons and of nature.

----------


## manolia

> Is Lawerence purposely making the outfits the women wear sound horribly bad or is it because he's a guy and doesn't know any better? Some of the colors he describe generally look horrible together. ie. yellow dress, pink stocking, and red shoes? *Did they get dressed in the dark*. Was that the style then? At first I thought it was just the brangwens but the hermoine popped up in something just as bad. Seems strange as he describes all of then being fastideous about their dress.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  My sides are hurting  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

I agree with Virgil and Janine. But also from what i have gathered from movies fashionable ladies in the 20's were a bit excessive.

EDIT




> Lawrence could be a 'strange bird' - his wife, Frieda, actually said that about him in a direct quote.


He was a fetishist?? The more i learn about his life the more i am interested! He was quite an extraordinary person.

----------


## Janine

> My sides are hurting    
> 
> I agree with Virgil and Janine. But also from what i have gathered from movies fashionable ladies in the 20's were a bit excessive.


*manolia,* you really crack me up! there is those movies again....hahaha..... :FRlol:  yes and in my film version of WIL the clothes are quite interesting actually, even the colored stockings....I don't think they look like the got 'dressed in the dark', but I do think your paragraph. *Papayahed*. is quite humorously written. I got a good laugh reading it, as well. Good to add some humor to this very serious intense discussion. Comic relief is what we have needed! Thanks! :FRlol:  




> He was a fetishist?? The more i learn about his life the more i am interested! He was quite an extraordinary person.


Don't know about the fetishist? What do you mean by that? The stocking thingie? He did certainly have his odd quirps. Most definitely - Lawrence was an extraordinary person. I just read his three travel books and it gave one a very intimate look into Lawrence as a man and person with such astute sensitivity and zest for life. I loved reading those book; they surprised me. The letters also are great - another intimate window into his real personality and being.

Hey, *manolia* - are you going to be participating in the short story thread this month. It is started with *Downing, Pensive, Grace* and me...check it out.

----------


## Virgil

So let's finally look at the ice world symbolism. Some of this is me just thinking out loud because I have not come to any definite conclusion.

Here's a section in Chapter 29 that seems to address it. 



> She [Ursula] was dilated and brilliant, like a flower in the morning sun. She felt Birkin looking at her, as if he were jealous of her, and her breasts thrilled, her veins were all golden. She was as happy as the sun that has just opened above clouds. And everybody seemed so admiring and radiant, it was perfect.
> 
> After dinner she wanted to go out for a minute, to look at the world. The company tried to dissuade her -- it was so terribly cold. But just to look, she said.
> 
> They all four wrapped up warmly, and found themselves in a vague, unsubstantial outdoors of dim snow and ghosts of an upper-world, that made strange shadows before the stars. It was indeed cold, bruisingly, frighteningly, unnaturally cold. Ursula could not believe the air in her nostrils. It seemed conscious, malevolent, purposive in its intense murderous coldness.
> 
> Yet it was wonderful, an intoxication, a silence of dim, unrealised snow, of the invisible intervening between her and the visible, between her and the flashing stars. She could see Orion sloping up. How wonderful he was, wonderful enough to make one cry aloud.
> 
> And all around was this cradle of snow, and there was firm snow underfoot, that struck with heavy cold through her boot-soles. It was night, and silence. She imagined she could hear the stars. She imagined distinctly she could hear the celestial, musical motion of the stars, quite near at hand. She seemed like a bird flying amongst their harmonious motion.
> ...


Like a flower in the sun, that is Lawrence's perfect state, suggesting of nirvana, if you will. Then notice this paragraph:



> And they turned home again. They saw the golden lights of the hotel glowing out in the night of snow-silence, small in the hollow, like a cluster of yellow berries. It seemed like a bunch of sun-sparks, tiny and orange in the midst of the snow-darkness. Behind, was a high shadow of a peak, blotting out the stars, like a ghost.


What is interesting here is that ice world is placed in direct opposition to the star symbolism, the snow peak blotting out the stars. We know that the star symbolism is associated with Ursula and Birkin's relationship, and so we understand the the snow/ice symbolism is associated with Gudrun and Gerald. But is it diametrically opposite? How would stars be diametrically opposite snow and ice? Heat? Source of energy? Lawrence is big on the sun as a symbol for positive things. Lawrence loves to use the metaphor of people melting. Ice would be the opposite, the crystalization, and Lawrence loves that metaphor as well. People are hard, crystal, and then melt from the sun or something. Ursual is now out of that perfect "flower" state. Is it because of the cold? The section continues:



> They drew near to their home. They saw a man come from the dark building, with a lighted lantern which swung golden, and made that his dark feet walked in a halo of snow. He was a small, dark figure in the darkened snow. He unlatched the door of an outhouse. A smell of cows, hot, animal, almost like beef, came out on the heavily cold air. There was a glimpse of two cattle in their dark stalls, then the door was shut again, and not a chink of light showed. It had reminded Ursula again of home, of the Marsh, of her childhood, and of the journey to Brussels, and, strangely, of Anton Skrebensky.
> 
> Oh, God, could one bear it, this past which was gone down the abyss? Could she bear, that it ever had been! She looked round this silent, upper world of snow and stars and powerful cold. There was another world, like views on a magic lantern; The Marsh, Cossethay, Ilkeston, lit up with a common, unreal light. There was a shadowy unreal Ursula, a whole shadow-play of an unreal life. It was as unreal, and circumscribed, as a magic-lantern show. She wished the slides could all be broken. She wished it could be gone for ever, like a lantern-slide which was broken. She wanted to have no past. She wanted to have come down from the slopes of heaven to this place, with Birkin, not to have toiled out of the murk of her childhood and her upbringing, slowly, all soiled. She felt that memory was a dirty trick played upon her. What was this decree, that she should `remember'! Why not a bath of pure oblivion, a new birth, without any recollections or blemish of a past life. She was with Birkin, she had just come into life, here in the high snow, against the stars. What had she to do with parents and antecedents? She knew herself new and unbegotten, she had no father, no mother, no anterior connections, she was herself, pure and silvery, she belonged only to the oneness with Birkin, a oneness that struck deeper notes, sounding into the heart of the universe, the heart of reality, where she had never existed before.


"Views of a magic lantern" is I think how movie pictures were referred to back then. So Ursula is getting flashback pictures of her prior life. Why is this a bad thing? Because I think it fragments Birkin out. They are no longer those two stars that have formed a constellation. The cold drives the person to his inner core self. The passage continues further:



> Even Gudrun was a separate unit, separate, separate, having nothing to do with this self, this Ursula, in her new world of reality. That old shadow- world, the actuality of the past -- ah, let it go! She rose free on the wings of her new condition.
> 
> Gudrun and Gerald had not come in. They had walked up the valley straight in front of the house, not like Ursula and Birkin, on to the little hill at the right. Gudrun was driven by a strange desire. She wanted to plunge on and on, till she came to the end of the valley of snow. Then she wanted to climb the wall of white finality, climb over, into the peaks that sprang up like sharp petals in the heart of the frozen, mysterious navel of the world. She felt that there, over the strange blind, terrible wall of rocky snow, there in the navel of the mystic world, among the final cluster of peaks, there, in the infolded navel of it all, was her consummation. If she could but come there, alone, and pass into the infolded navel of eternal snow and of uprising, immortal peaks of snow and rock, she would be a oneness with all, she would be herself the eternal, infinite silence, the sleeping, timeless, frozen centre of the All.


Gudrun wants to experince the cold, learn it, gather its knowledge. But the cold she thinks is the "navel of the mystic world" the end of experience, the eternal infinite. She too wants the state of nirvana, but she thinks she can find it in the ice world. And then much later in the chapter, Gudrun and Gerald go tobagganing.



> For Gudrun herself, she seemed to pass altogether into the whiteness of the snow, she became a pure, thoughtless crystal. When she reached the top of the slope, in the wind, she looked round, and saw peak beyond peak of rock and snow, bluish, transcendent in heaven. And it seemed to her like a garden, with the peaks for pure flowers, and her heart gathering them. She had no separate consciousness for Gerald.
> 
> She held on to him as they went sheering down over the keen slope. She felt as if her senses were being whetted on some fine grindstone, that was keen as flame. The snow sprinted on either side, like sparks from a blade that is being sharpened, the whiteness round about ran swifter, swifter, in pure flame the white slope flew against her, and she fused like one molten, dancing globule, rushed through a white intensity. Then there was a great swerve at the bottom, when they swung as it were in a fall to earth, in the diminishing motion.
> 
> They came to rest. But when she rose to her feet, she could not stand. She gave a strange cry, turned and clung to him, sinking her face on his breast, fainting in him. Utter oblivion came over her, as she lay for a few moments abandoned against him.
> 
> `What is it?' he was saying. `Was it too much for you?'
> 
> But she heard nothing.
> ...


To Gudrun the snow is completeness but it is an illusion. She climbs to the peak thinking she has reached the navel of the world, but she sees there are peaks upon peaks beyond. It is not the end, and she will have to go through cycles of climbing, cycles of redoing the same mechanical thing, and ultimately there is no end to the ice world. It is another eternal cycle. Later still Urusla decides she must leave.



> Ursula went out alone into the world of pure, new snow. But the dazzling whiteness seemed to beat upon her till it hurt her, she felt the cold was slowly strangling her soul. Her head felt dazed and numb.
> 
> Suddenly she wanted to go away. It occurred to her, like a miracle, that she might go away into another world. She had felt so doomed up here in the eternal snow, as if there were no beyond.


And



> `I hate it,' she said. `I hate the snow, and the unnaturalness of it, the unnatural light it throws on everybody, the ghastly glamour, the unnatural feelings it makes everybody have.'


And then she tells her feeling about the snow and her urgency to leave to her sister:



> But Gudrun read the unconscious brightness on her sister's face, rather than the uncertain tones of her speech.
> 
> `But don't you think you'll want the old connection with the world -- father and the rest of us, and all that it means, England and the world of thought -- don't you think you'll need that, really to make a world?'
> 
> Ursula was silent, trying to imagine.
> 
> `I think,' she said at length, involuntarily, `that Rupert is right -- one wants a new space to be in, and one falls away from the old.'
> 
> Gudrun watched her sister with impassive face and steady eyes.
> ...


So what can we make of all this. The ice world separates the self and drives each to its indivudual core. To reach nirvana one has to eliminate this idividual self, melt that crystalized self to a new static being. The cold is another endless cycle, an illusion of finality, like the will is an illusion of self.

I don't know if I made any sense. There is some good thoughts there but overall just babbling I think. Perhaps I confused myself and everyone.  :Sick:

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* what you babbled  :Wink:  makes perfect sense to me. I will comment on it further, later on, but you seem to have covered much of the symbolism of the snow. Did you finish the book? Good job on your post!

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* what you babbled  makes perfect sense to me. I will comment on it further, later on, but you seem to have covered much of the symbolism of the snow. Did you finish the book? Good job on your post!


Thanks Janine. No I've got about 25 pages left. Hopefully tonight.

----------


## manolia

> Don't know about the fetishist? What do you mean by that? The stocking thingie? He did certainly have his odd quirps.


Yes i mean the stocking thingie  :Wink:  




> Hey, *manolia* - are you going to be participating in the short story thread this month. It is started with *Downing, Pensive, Grace* and me...check it out.


I don't know yet Janine. I am reading "The name of the rose", as i have already told you and i can't put it down...very interesting book...i am actually reading it in a great speed..i don't recognise myself  :FRlol:  




> Like a flower in the sun, that is Lawrence's perfect state, suggesting of nirvana, if you will.


Yes it looks like a nirvana state  :Thumbs Up:  




> What is interesting here is that ice world is placed in direct opposition to the star symbolism, the snow peak blotting out the stars. We know that the star symbolism is associated with Ursula and Birkin's relationship, and so we understand the the snow/ice symbolism is associated with Gudrun and Gerald. But is it diametrically opposite? How would stars be diametrically opposite snow and ice? Heat? Source of energy? Lawrence is big on the sun as a symbol for positive things. Lawrence loves to use the metaphor of people melting. Ice would be the opposite, the crystalization, and Lawrence loves that metaphor as well. People are hard, crystal, and then melt from the sun or something. Ursual is now out of that perfect "flower" state. Is it because of the cold? 
> 
> (....)
> 
> So what can we make of all this. The ice world separates the self and drives each to its indivudual core. To reach nirvana one has to eliminate this idividual self, melt that crystalized self to a new static being. The cold is another endless cycle, an illusion of finality, like the will is an illusion of self.


Excelent explanation Virgil. It makes sense  :Nod:  
But how about the war?? You mentioned something in a previous post about the war and the happy and energetic germans with their dancing. It is a great contrast to the nirvana state of the ice world. How does this fit in?

----------


## Janine

> Yes i mean the stocking thingie


He may have had a few other odd fetishes, as well - not just the stocking thingie. :FRlol:  I was reading a very interesting book introduction last night to Lawrence's last posthumeously published book "Apocalyse". It is a letter to Frieda, his wife, from Richard Aldington, and he keeps stressing the point of what a truly nice and sweet person Lawrence was. He points out his faults and others that were most unfairly fabricated by his enemies, but Aldington's genuine love and respect of the man came through strongly. 




> I don't know yet Janine. I am reading "The name of the rose", as i have already told you and i can't put it down...very interesting book...i am actually reading it in a great speed..i don't recognise myself


*
Manolia,* How funny - you are joining the fast readers group now. I am still back in the slowpoke readers club, but so funny, I think I was the first one to finish up WIL or was it you? "The Name of the Rose" must be a good book if you can't put it down. Well, if you can fit in the short story I hope you do come on the thread, at least once in awhile; we need you there with your great posts. To tell you the truth, last few days, I have been totally 'burned out' myself. I think I need a short break.




> Yes it looks like a nirvana state


Yes, *Virgil,* Interesting idea about nirvana state. I know that L was fascinated with the 'sun' in the travel books. He also contrasted the cold snowy mountains and great glistening peaks rising up into the clouds. I distinctly recall thinking about the last scenes in WIL when reading it recently. I will have to look up some of the references in the books - some of the passages are wonderfully written and expressed.






> Excelent explanation, *Virgil.* It makes sense  
> But how about the war?? You mentioned something in a previous post about the war and the happy and energetic germans with their dancing. It is a great contrast to the nirvana state of the ice world. How does this fit in?


Yes, :Thumbs Up:  on the explanation, *V,* I second that! Yes, interesting thought - can we talk about that contrast. You are good at siting contrasts, *Virgil,* so what do you think? Surely it is warmer and more friendly inside the lodge than outside. They are such distinct separate worlds the way they are depicted in the book.

----------


## Virgil

> I don't know yet Janine. I am reading "The name of the rose", as i have already told you and i can't put it down...very interesting book...i am actually reading it in a great speed..i don't recognise myself


That is a great read. I loved that novel.




> Excelent explanation Virgil. It makes sense  
> But how about the war?? You mentioned something in a previous post about the war and the happy and energetic germans with their dancing. It is a great contrast to the nirvana state of the ice world. How does this fit in?


Thank you. I'm even less sure on the war. The only thing I can suggest is that the conflict between Gerald and Loerke is symbolic for the apocalyptic catastrophy between England and Germany. Even the ice world is suggestive of the desolation of trench warfare that occurred during WWI. The happy scenes are just a realistic portrayal a gathering at such a hotel.




> Yes, *Virgil,* Interesting idea about nirvana state. I know that L was fascinated with the 'sun' in the travel books. He also contrasted the cold snowy mountains and great glistening peaks rising up into the clouds. I distinctly recall thinking about the last scenes in WIL when reading it recently. I will have to look up some of the references in the books - some of the passages are wonderfully written and expressed.


Something else occurred to me. Remember in chapter 8 after Hermione clobbers Birkin on the head and Birkin takes off for the woods. Here:



> Yet he wanted something. He was happy in the wet hillside, that was overgrown and obscure with bushes and flowers. He wanted to touch them all, to saturate himself with the touch of them all. He took off his clothes, and sat down naked among the primroses, moving his feet softly among the primroses, his legs, his knees, his arms right up to the arm-pits, lying down and letting them touch his belly, his breasts. It was such a fine, cool, subtle touch all over him, he seemed to saturate himself with their contact.
> 
> But they were too soft. He went through the long grass to a clump of young fir-trees, that were no higher than a man. The soft sharp boughs beat upon him, as he moved in keen pangs against them, threw little cold showers of drops on his belly, and beat his loins with their clusters of soft-sharp needles. There was a thistle which pricked him vividly, but not too much, because all his movements were too discriminate and soft. To lie down and roll in the sticky, cool young hyacinths, to lie on one's belly and cover one's back with handfuls of fine wet grass, soft as a breath, soft and more delicate and more beautiful than the touch of any woman; and then to sting one's thigh against the living dark bristles of the fir-boughs; and then to feel the light whip of the hazel on one's shoulders, stinging, and then to clasp the silvery birch-trunk against one's breast, its smoothness, its hardness, its vital knots and ridges -- this was good, this was all very good, very satisfying. Nothing else would do, nothing else would satisfy, except this coolness and subtlety of vegetation travelling into one's blood. How fortunate he was, that there was this lovely, subtle, responsive vegetation, waiting for him, as he waited for it; how fulfilled he was, how happy!


This is the complete opposite of the ice world. Vegetation does not grow in the ice world, at least most kinds. I'm not sure i copied it into this quote above, but he takes his clothes off and becomes one with nature, a nirvanic type of state. But his is real nirvana. This is an end, not a completion of a cycle that will continue on.




> Yes, on the explanation, *V,* I second that! Yes, interesting thought - can we talk about that contrast. You are good at siting contrasts, *Virgil,* so what do you think? Surely it is warmer and more friendly inside the lodge than outside. They are such distinct separate worlds the way they are depicted in the book.


Thanks Janine. Hey I finished last night!! I will have to say something about the climax and that great chapter "Snowed Up."

----------


## caspian

Reading lawrence is like climbing up a mountain.it's crazy,difficult and exciting. I see him a little awkward, almost hate his endless philosophy, his charachters are not lovable, the aura of his story is heavy, ....but he's excellent. I'm still a little far from last chapter, so there's no complete opinion on the book yet.So far I like him, i usually don't try to read or understand complicated "writers". (I think bad experience with hesse at 6th grade is the reason.that was too soon for hesse.) but it worked with lawrence. I'm interested in him so much.His biography alone is so interesting. I'm looking forward to read his other works. i hardly find time for reading, though i had a lot to ask or share with u I couldn't make it, but i did my best follow the forum, almost read everything. that was really interesting and helpful.  :Thumbs Up:  
i've to stay this month with lawrence, finish WIL , then start reading Irving which I couldn't make last month.I hope u've nice Irving forum here too.I'm gonna need it.  :Smile:   :Biggrin:  
I loved "industrial magnat" most

----------


## Janine

> Reading lawrence is like climbing up a mountain.it's crazy,difficult and exciting. I see him a little awkward, almost hate his endless philosophy, his charachters are not lovable, the aura of his story is heavy, ....but he's excellent. I'm still a little far from last chapter, so there's no complete opinion on the book yet.So far I like him, i usually don't try to read or understand complicated "writers". (I think bad experience with hesse at 6th grade is the reason.that was too soon for hesse.) but it worked with lawrence. I'm interested in him so much.His biography alone is so interesting. I'm looking forward to read his other works. i hardly find time for reading, though i had a lot to ask or share with u I couldn't make it, but i did my best follow the forum, almost read everything. that was really interesting and helpful.  
> i've to stay this month with lawrence, finish WIL , then start reading Irving which I couldn't make last month.I hope u've nice Irving forum here too.I'm gonna need it.   
> I loved "industrial magnat" most


 :Thumbs Up:  Hi *Caspian,* I am so happy to hear that you persisted and 'climbed the mountain' staying with this book. Wonderful that you have been reading all our posts as you go along. It is so good to know that they were interesting to you and helpful, as well. It certainly has been an intense study and 'heavy' month of reading; by our extensive disgussions we have all learned much. The 'Industrial Magnate' was a great chapter.
Lawrence is one of my favorite authors. There are many good biographies on the author, but also there are many more great books he wrote that are wonderful, and as I always quote 'so many book, so little time'. 
I personally, think that "Women in Love' is Lawrence's masterpiece, but Virgil likes the "Rainbow" and I like almost anything I read of his. Currently we are reading his short stories and that thread is quite active. You might like his short novel "The Fox" . I really liked it when I read it years back. Basically, Virgil and I agree that we don't agree completely with Lawrence's philosophy/ideas but we admire the author and feel he was truly great. Also one cannot help having a fascination with his characters/imagery/poetic prose/ideas. His books are highly complex and therefore I think the questions they evoke make the books very appealing.

Yes, the Irving discussion went well and there is much information in that thread. 

Enjoy your reading! :Smile:   :Smile: 




> Thank you. I'm even less sure on the war. The only thing I can suggest is that the conflict between Gerald and Loerke is symbolic for the apocalyptic catastrophy between England and Germany. Even the ice world is suggestive of the desolation of trench warfare that occurred during WWI. The happy scenes are just a realistic portrayal a gathering at such a hotel.


*Virgil,* you are welcome! Well, I think the way I have heard it spoken of is that the war is only under the surface like an atmosphere hanging over the mood of the book. It is part of what makes Birkin so bitter in the beginning and perhaps wishing to wipe out mankind altogether. Think about it - countries slaughtering each other and mayhem at the time this was being written. It had to have an effect on the mood and the story. Through the conflicts of the characters is the confusion and uncertainty of war, I believe. You idea or Gerald and Loerke as symbolic is quite interesting. I had not thought of that. And your idea of the ice world relating to desolution of the trench warfare that too is quite an interesting though. Perhaps the way in which the book ends with Gerald is also warlike if you think of it. 
I feel the happy scenes are there for several reasons. They contrast nicely with the outside cold unreal unnatural feel of the start ice world. The inside is all life and gaity while the outside is all death and destruction. This too is much like war. 




> Something else occurred to me. Remember in chapter 8 after Hermione clobbers Birkin on the head and Birkin takes off for the woods.






> This is the complete opposite of the ice world. Vegetation does not grow in the ice world, at least most kinds. I'm not sure i copied it into this quote above, but he takes his clothes off and becomes one with nature, a nirvanic type of state. But his is real nirvana. This is an end, not a completion of a cycle that will continue on.


Yes, this scene with Birkin is such a contrast to the closing scenes with Gerald, but both are linked to nature - two sides of nature do you think? Two seasons and two environments, both in opposition. I agree about the nirvanic type state. What are you referring to when you say "But his is real nirvana"? Also can you explain more precisely your last line in that paragraph. Is this a transfiguration in a sense?





> Thanks Janine. Hey I finished last night!! I will have to say something about the climax and that great chapter "Snowed Up."


Wasn't the book wonderful? So glad you finished so that we can discuss the end and "Snowed Up" especially. That scene's ending is so amazing.

----------


## grace86

*Janine* I have a sweatshirt that says "so many books, so little time"  :Tongue:  

As I mentioned in my PM to you, I have not finished the novel yet. Almost finished with the longest chapter in the book, Continental.

I too have been following a long with the discussion, avoiding the spoilers of course, and I have really come to admire Lawrence.

*Virgil,* did you ever get the PM I sent you about the questions I have in the back of my book?

It is nice to see you in the discussion *Caspian.*

----------


## Janine

> *Janine* I have a sweatshirt that says "so many books, so little time"  
> 
> As I mentioned in my PM to you, I have not finished the novel yet. Almost finished with the longest chapter in the book, Continental.
> 
> I too have been following a long with the discussion, avoiding the spoilers of course, and I have really come to admire Lawrence.
> 
> *Virgil,* did you ever get the PM I sent you about the questions I have in the back of my book?
> 
> It is nice to see you in the discussion *Caspian.*


*Grace,* I will have to make this post 'short and sweet' - now you don't have a t-shirt that says that, do you? I need one that says the other expression; I say that all the time! They probably sell it at the bookstores, right? *Grace,* wear it with pride; you deserve it! Anyone who can attempt to read 4 books at once definitely does  :Wink:  
I am so pleased that you come to admire Lawrence. I suppose my own enthusisam is infectious, or at least I hoped it would be, but the books speak for themselves and one can't read one without admiring the greatness within the pages. The books are unique and as someone said (believe it was manolia) like nothing they ever read before. I know because, I was hooked the first time, reading WIL. Some of the imagery in the book never left my mind and that was 30 yrs ago. That says much for an author. Also, there is a kind of distinct beauty with the natural world in this book one does not forget easily, an exquisite sensitivity and sensuality.

I have confidence you will finish up soon. I know you can do it *Grace*. :Nod:  The last part of the book is hard to resist and it is nearly impossible at one point to put it down. The book grabs you that way. 

I am thrilled you are reading along with the post, as well as *Caspian*. I was surprised to see *C* return to comment. I hope others return after reading the book; there may be many invisible people still reading the book. A woman in "To The Lighthouse" thread, fairly new to the site, told me she is reading the L threads and she said some very complimentary things about the postings, which was really nice to hear. 

I did find your PM; read it several times now. I was going to answer it tomorrow, when I can think clearer. Then I saw this and thought of making it brief, but already 'long-winded' me has written too much. Please forgive. 
Do have fun finishing the book and I hope you can fit the short story in soon. We need discussers in the thread. It would be wonderful to see you over there! :Smile:

----------


## manolia

> He points out his faults and others that were most unfairly fabricated by his enemies,


Such as? That sounds very interesting..does he mention anything in particular?? And why did he have enemies? Were his daring books the cause which created enemies?




> *
> Manolia,* How funny - you are joining the fast readers group now.


Bah! I will never be a fast reader. There is no point in doing that  :Wink:  I am just reading faster than usual.




> I am still back in the slowpoke readers club, but so funny, I think I was the first one to finish up WIL or was it you?


I don't remember. But maybe it was you. You were ahead of us all in your reading.




> That is a great read. I loved that novel.


It is indeed. Have you read "Fucault's pendulum" ? I have and i liked it immensely.




> Thank you. I'm even less sure on the war. The only thing I can suggest is that the conflict between Gerald and Loerke is symbolic for the apocalyptic catastrophy between England and Germany. Even the ice world is suggestive of the desolation of trench warfare that occurred during WWI.


Yes, that's sounds accurate.




> The happy scenes are just a realistic portrayal a gathering at such a hotel.


You maybe right (after all we shouldn't search for a hidden meaning in everything).





> Hey I finished last night!! I will have to say something about the climax and that great chapter "Snowed Up."


Hehe, i am waiting for your interpretation of the ending..you have read Janine's i presume.





> Reading lawrence is like climbing up a mountain.


I liked that phrase  :Smile:  




> I loved "industrial magnat" most


Great chapter. It was my favourite till i read "Snowed Up" and "Continental"




> *Janine* I have a sweatshirt that says "so many books, so little time"


I might need one of those  :FRlol:  With all those books i buy (i really can't help it) i keep wondering if i ever find time to read them all.

----------


## Virgil

> Yes, this scene with Birkin is such a contrast to the closing scenes with Gerald, but both are linked to nature - two sides of nature do you think? Two seasons and two environments, both in opposition. I agree about the nirvanic type state. What are you referring to when you say "But his is real nirvana"? Also can you explain more precisely your last line in that paragraph. Is this a transfiguration in a sense?


No, I don't think that Birkin has a sort of transfiguration like we saw in The Horse Dealer's Daughter. Lawrecne resorted to that sort of transfiguration after Women In Love I think, his later fiction. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't recall a transfiguration like in The Horse Dealer's Daughter in anything prior to WIL.

----------


## Janine

> Such as? That sounds very interesting..does he mention anything in particular?? And why did he have enemies? Were his daring books the cause which created enemies?


You know *manolia,* this Introduction to "Apogalyse" is fascinating; another window into Lawrence's life and world. Here I go again; I probably will have to scan it, so you can read it, too. I can send it to you in an email, if you want. When I refer to enemies, YES, various - mostly his critics and of course, others who criticised him endlessly and persistently. He was crucified by the press, and his work even banned and confiscated. I layed out some of this background information in the 'Tortoise Poems' thread; if you go there you can find the post. The 'press' percecution is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If Lawrence had any bitterness or hostility, it is no wonder, the way his work was discredited and unacceptable in his day. It is truly sad. It was only after he was dead, that the public and scholars realised how great his writing truly was. I think this Introduction/letter I read last night is revealing of one man, Richard Aldington - surely a friend of L's - taking a stand for Lawrence. It was touching to read. 

I began reading the book and likewise that is quite interesting, so far. I will let you know. It is non-fiction and states exactly what Lawrence had come to believe in in the later years of his life; obviously late years since he died before publication. It is a dying man's vision of life and it's greater meaning. 




> Bah! I will never be a fast reader. There is no point in doing that  I am just reading faster than usual.


Niether will I, ever. Actually, in school I think that posed a problem for me; I rejected pressure of having to read in a time frame. Now I can read some faster and better using my own pace, with no actual time restriction. On here for the group, there is some pressure to try and finish, but as Caspian pointed out, one can read and finish later and then still gather good information from the posts.





> I don't remember. But maybe it was you. You were ahead of us all in your reading.


If it was me, it will be a first.





> It is indeed. Have you read "Fucault's pendulum" ? I have and i liked it immensely.


That sounds interesting. Is Facault the author or is that part of the title? What is it about? 





> You maybe right (after all we shouldn't search for a hidden meaning in everything).


Yeah, but it is Lawrence afterall  :Wink:  (groan, groan) and he liked hidden meanings, symbolism, metaphors, etc. I have a quote from this book I am reading, that applies to how he felt about a novel; how he thought a book should not be solved for the reader, if it was then it was done for....well, something like that, but of course, L says it more articulately than I can and more accurately. I will try to scan or type it out. *Manolia,* you will find it quite interesting. So will everyone else. Virgil advise me back awhile ago to get Lawrence's book of Letters - I did buy the Selected ones. He said they were so revealing of L's life and philosophy and the workings of his mind. I don't know if you are aware of it, but L was a prolithic letter writter. With all the work he turned out, I can't figure out how he could have had any time left over for the zillions of letters he wrote yearly. Just reading his letters compiled is like reading another complete novel or several of them.





> Hehe, i am waiting for your interpretation of the ending..you have read Janine's i presume.


Yes, I am too....but let's be patient with our beloved Virgil....shall we? He's a busy guy these days. Unfortunately he does have to work sometimes. *Again real world is beckoning me as well.* ugh, more fun on here! I am losing it..... 





> I liked that phrase


Yes, Caspian - that one is a true 'gem'!




> Great chapter. It was my favourite till i read "Snowed Up" and "Continental"


Yes, undoubtably many people will like "Snowed Up" best. Do you feel that, in that chapter, is the true climax of the book? I did think it. It seemed the most dramatic, asside from "Water-Party". I think both of those were my favorite chapters. I liked "Excurse" and "Moony" very much, too. Oh heck, I liked the whole book really!




> I might need one of those  With all those books i buy (i really can't help it) i keep wondering if i ever find time to read them all.


Hey *manolia,* maybe we can get them manufactured and sell on Lit Net! haha :FRlol:   :FRlol:  You are right and we think alike; I think will I be white haired, on my deathbed and in a nursing home, and I will be saying "no can't die yet, give me one more of my books off my stack!" By then my stack will be a mountain.  :FRlol:  maybe Caspian's mountain.... :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* did you ever get the PM I sent you about the questions I have in the back of my book?


No I don't think so.  :Confused:  When did you send it? Oh I started Don Quixote by the way. I'll start a new thread for that tonight or tomorrow.




> It is indeed. Have you read "Fucault's pendulum" ? I have and i liked it immensely.


No, unfortunately The Name of the Rose is the only Ecco I have read. I keep buying his books, I must have two others but never seem to get to them. I will try to read Foucault's Pendulum if that is one that I have. Not sure.




> You know *manolia,* this Introduction to "Apogalyse" is fascinating; another window into Lawrence's life and world. Here I go again; I probably will have to scan it, so you can read it, too. I can send it to you in an email, if you want.


Apocalypse is an interesting read, but I think one needs to have read a bit of Lawrence's fiction in order to find it interesting I think. It's like listening to Birkin pontificate.  :Tongue:   :Biggrin:  




> Yes, I am too....but let's be patient with our beloved Virgil....shall we? He's a busy guy these days. Unfortunately he does have to work sometimes. *Again real world is beckoning me as well.* ugh, more fun on here! I am losing it....


Thanks. Life does call. Actually today is my 16th wedding aniversary.  :Smile:  We'll be going out into the city tonight.  :Smile:  I will definitely say something about that fabulous conclusion.

----------


## grace86

> No I don't think so.  When did you send it? Oh I started Don Quixote by the way. I'll start a new thread for that tonight or tomorrow.



Uh oh...I wonder who received that PM?! I think I sent it maybe a week and a half, or two weeks ago. Haha I was just letting you know I have the Barnes and Noble edition of WIL and it has some questions in the back for book club purposes, I thought they might be kind of interesting to post...the ones that haven't already been answered that is!

Don Quixote is waiting. I should probably get off the computer and start reading!!!!

***********************

In the same copy of WIL, Virginia Woolf makes a comment about Lawrence. Seeing as so many of us are going to go on and read her next...why not post it?

"Comparing (Lawrence) with Proust, one feels that he echoes nobody, continues no tradition, is unaware of the past, of the present save as it affects the future. As a writer, this lack of tradition affects him immensely...One feels that not a single word has been chosen for its beauty, or its effect upon the architect of the sentence."

A question about WIL from my copy of the book...

Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?

----------


## Janine

> Uh oh...I wonder who received that PM?! I think I sent it maybe a week and a half, or two weeks ago. Haha I was just letting you know I have the Barnes and Noble edition of WIL and it has some questions in the back for book club purposes, I thought they might be kind of interesting to post...the ones that haven't already been answered that is!


*Hi Grace,* by the way, I have read your PM you sent to me and was going to answer tonight or tomorrow. Real life is beckoning me today - trying to organise and clean a little for now - in dire need of it. I spend too much time on this computer! :Frown:  
Oh, glad you have those questions in your book. I would love to hear all of them. Can you either type them or scan the page? 




> Don Quixote is waiting. I should probably get off the computer and start reading!!!!


How will you two, you and *Virgil,* read "Don Quixote" and "To the Lighthouse" same time? Here you go again, Grace, with multiple books. :Wink:  
Also, *Virgil,* did you forget the short story thread  :Confused:  It's well underway. ktd is wondering when you will pop back into the Tortoise poetry thread, also. Anyone else interested please pop over there. We need discussers.
***********************




> In the same copy of WIL, Virginia Woolf makes a comment about Lawrence. Seeing as so many of us are going to go on and read her next...why not post it?
> 
> "Comparing (Lawrence) with Proust, one feels that he echoes nobody, continues no tradition, is unaware of the past, of the present save as it affects the future. As a writer, this lack of tradition affects him immensely...One feels that not a single word has been chosen for its beauty, or its effect upon the architect of the sentence."


I find this a rather strange statement coming from Woolf, especially the part about "lack of tradition" and then the part about "not a single word has been chosen for its beauty, or its effect upon the architect of the sentence." 

It is a curious statement considering Woolf did not seem to follow any traditional form of writing that I am aware of; so why is she criticising L for that? How does this affect him immensely? Is she saying it is a bad thing or only, that because of this and his manner of writing, his critics see him as lacking? or does she think so herself? I am totally in opposition to the last statement. I can't understand her saying that at all.





> A question about WIL from my copy of the book... 
> 
> Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?


I don't really think, in finality, that Birkin is against love, the concept, - he is very much for it. He just does not think it can be labeled as a word - a mere word. He thinks it encompasses much more, actually too much for words to express, than the word "love" implies. He feels the word "love" is conventional and implies aspects he does not believe in, such as being possessive or all devouring of ones mate. His ideas are much broader and more infinite and free, therefore he says he does not like the word. It is the word he objects to and not the concept. He is merely redefining it and therefore sheds the word. I did not understand this idea until recently and it dawned on me, became clear.

----------


## grace86

Okay here comes a bit of a Janine and Virgil post!

*Janine* you can PM me whenever you like, I am always waiting on someone to get around to it!  :Wink:  




> How will you two, you and Virgil, read "Don Quixote" and "To the Lighthouse" same time? Here you go again, Grace, with multiple books.


Ahhh!!! You sound kind of like my mom!  :FRlol:  I think you are keeping an eye out for my better health! It will work somehow, "To the Lighthouse" has all summer anyway.

I've never read any of Woolf's work so I can take the quote apart like you have started to *Janine*, but I cannot say I particularly agree with her much. Lawrence, may not be "traditional" in the traditional sense of the word (haha) but I don't agree with, "One feels that not a single word has been chosen for its beauty." You mentioned earlier on that some of the scenes from WIL have managed to stay with you years after having read them!

The quote seems kind of funny being placed in Lawrence's work. The end of the book just has a lot of free standing quotes from other authors, critics, or what have you. To put her criticism in there seems a bit odd. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Just finished reading Continental, and that chapter has a lot to take in. Now that you guys know where I am standing in the remainder of the novel...I have some thoughts on it.

I didn't like Loerke. Nor do I think Gudrun really felt that art and the world have nothing to do with one another. Otherwise, why would you create art? I think she was trying to gain some points with Loerke but I am not too sure why other than he is her type of creature in the world.

What surprised me is how Gerald aided in alienating Ursula while he himself did not like Loerke. Goodness this book is just so human.

It seems like a chapter foreshadowing doom. It seems to show a lot of finality and I think that Gudrun, Gerald and Birkin all felt it when they parted. 

***********
As for the question I posted, I agree with you *Janine*. Birkin does love regardless of whether he wants to or not. I do think that he feels there is more beyond it. At first Ursula didn't agree, but again in Continental, she was explaining it to Gudrun. I like the end of the chapter where Birkin tells Gerald:

"I've loved you, as well as Gudrun, don't forget"

I think Gerald kind of calls Birkin out (because Gerald has always been used to Birkin's unconventional way of thinking about love) when he responds:

"Have you?...Or do you think you have?"

Slightly unrelated to the question, I kind of think Gerald and Birkin switched places in their philosophy when that conversation takes place. Birkin seems so simplistic, but then maybe he is putting his philosophy into action. After all, he did think it silly to have love be something strictly between one man and one woman. I don't know, my brain is farting.

But in that instance, I seemed to like Birkin more so than Gerald.


The rest of the questions:

1. In a foreword to Women in Love, D.H. Lawrence wrote, "In point of style, fault is often found with the continual, slightly modified repetition. The only answer is that it is natual to the author; and that every natual crisis in emotion or passion or understanding comes from this pulsing, frictional to-and-fro which works up to culmination." In the light of these remarks, what do you think of Lawrence's prose style? Is _how_ he writes as significant as _what_ he writes? Do you think Lawrence even cared about syle?

2. Does the novel convince the reader that people have to reinvent love, that relations between men and women have gone radically awry, or that industrialism is to blame?

3. Beyond surface squabbles, why is it that Gudrun and Gerald cannot establish a relationship that is life-enhancing rather than destructive?

4. (question posed earlier) Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?

******

That is it for now, I will post more when I finish the last two chapters.

I forgot to mention that I found a new signature.  :Biggrin:  

From the last pages of Continental:




> "All right?" he said. "I never know what those common words mean. All right and all wrong, don't they become synonymous, somewhere?"


When Gerald said that, I laughed just a little bit...How true!

----------


## Janine

> Okay here comes a bit of a Janine and Virgil post!


 :FRlol:  
Yes, and *Grace* you have accomplished one, definitely by the sheer length of this post. :Wink:   :FRlol:  




> *Janine* you can PM me whenever you like, I am always waiting on someone to get around to it! !


Good, thanks for understanding; if I could get away from all these fascinating posts and threads, I might be able to accomplish an answer tonight. I don't want to keep you waiting too long. Of course, my vacumn cleaner is still calling to me from real life. One room was accomplished, so far; always a slow process....too many distractions.




> Ahhh!!! You sound kind of like my mom!  I think you are keeping an eye out for my better health! It will work somehow, "To the Lighthouse" has all summer anyway.


Oh great! Now I am not even an aunt, I am a mom on Lit Net! Next you will be calling me the 'house mother.'  :Frown:   :FRlol:  Well, sorry I had not even thought of your health; purely selfish on my part, I am afraid; I was wondering if you and *Virgil* would neglect the one I am going to do, the one he talked me into voting for - "To the Lighthouse".




> I've never read any of Woolf's work so I can take the quote apart like you have started to *Janine*, but I cannot say I particularly agree with her much. Lawrence, may not be "traditional" in the traditional sense of the word (haha) but I don't agree with, "One feels that not a single word has been chosen for its beauty." You mentioned earlier on that some of the scenes from WIL have managed to stay with you years after having read them!


I read two or Woolfs books - "To the Lighthouse" and "Mrs. Dalloway" - personally, I do find her style of writing harder to follow than Lawrence's. She strings words together beautifully, but I have problems paying attention to her long run-on sentences and the stream-of-consciousness style. My mind tends to wander off somewhere away from the book. Yes, the 'traditional' reference rather makes me laugh, unless I am not understanding her correctly. I just can't understand what she means about the words being not "choosen for beauty". That one really miffs me. I think Lawrence uses beautiful words and combines them in order to paint a very graphic scene. If you read the short story we are doing currently his descriptions of the woodlands are marvelous - makes one want to got to England and smell those flowers in the fields. What about the scene when Birkin goes off into the fir grove and the field naked. Is that not beautifully written. Maybe she objected to his sensuality, who knows?




> The quote seems kind of funny being placed in Lawrence's work. The end of the book just has a lot of free standing quotes from other authors, critics, or what have you. To put her criticism in there seems a bit odd. Anyone have any thoughts on that?


It is odd they would include this critique, in the back of the book, since they would be trying to sell the book, not turn people away. Perhaps they put her quote in to balance out any good quotes and give a fairer assessment - not my thinking but maybe the publishers - publishers do some very odd things to books. Lawrence knew this all too well. :Frown:  
You know L wrote comments and critiques of his own and I don't think he entirely liked certain authors, and he may have downright hated some for all I know; of couse, eveyone is entitled to their opinion. L wrote whole books on his analysis. One essay is on Thomas Hardy; this I have read, but I don't remember too much of it now. It is quite interesting though. He wrote another on Melville. These authors I believe he did like to a great degree. Now in reference to Proust, who is mentioned in that quote, I believe he did not care for him. He felt he spend too many hours on the miniscule details such as describing an inanimate object such as a chair. You can imagine why that would turn L off. 




> Just finished reading Continental, and that chapter has a lot to take in. Now that you guys know where I am standing in the remainder of the novel...I have some thoughts on it.


Is that the chapter when they first embark on the vacation in the mountains? Boy, I might have to read the book again, already I have forgotten.  :FRlol:  Is senility setting in?




> I didn't like Loerke. Nor do I think Gudrun really felt that art and the world have nothing to do with one another. Otherwise, why would you create art? I think she was trying to gain some points with Loerke but I am not too sure why other than he is her type of creature in the world.


We'll, I don't think we are meant to particularly like Loerke. He is described by Birkin and Gerald in rather low terms, dispicable terms such as rat, etc. - far from pleasant references. He is also physically described sort of sleazy, don't you think, and unattractive? Ursula is fascinated at first, but then she does not like him at all. Most of the characters, except Gudrun, abhore him. Not even sure if Gundrun truly likes Loerke. I think the idea is if 'Art can serve Industry' - I am not as up on this concept; Virgil may be able to answer better than I can. We will have to turn this one over to him. I certainly can see how Birkin and Ursula would turn away from this concept. It does seem that Gudrun sculpted small animals and such and was more connected to the earth than to industry. I think she is simply enmoured by Loerke's mystique and talent. She is in awe of him and his work and significance as an artist. Also, Loerke may be sleazy, but he is straight-forward with Gundrun, whereas she is caught in a power struggle with Gerald, which by now is playing itself out. That was inevitable. They are burning down to nothing in their relationship - Gerald and Gudrun - so she simply looks to someone else for comfort and understanding, even if he is not a good choice for Gudrun. He still fills a gap for her in some weird way.




> What surprised me is how Gerald aided in alienating Ursula while he himself did not like Loerke. Goodness this book is just so human.


Love that last statement of yours - yes, soooo human! In this statement do you mean Gerald aided in alienating Gudrun; you said Ursula....if it is Ursula...I don't understand the question.




> It seems like a chapter foreshadowing doom. It seems to show a lot of finality and I think that Gudrun, Gerald and Birkin all felt it when they parted.


Definitely, good observation, *Grace*. Now you are percieving the clues as to what is to come. I think they all felt it as well, as you pointed out. Interesting you picked that up since no one mentioned it yet. See, everyone sees something different or picks up on things others miss.
***********



> As for the question I posted, I agree with you *Janine*. Birkin does love regardless of whether he wants to or not. I do think that he feels there is more beyond it. At first Ursula didn't agree, but again in Continental, she was explaining it to Gudrun. I like the end of the chapter where Birkin tells Gerald:
> 
> "I've loved you, as well as Gudrun, don't forget"
> 
> I think Gerald kind of calls Birkin out (because Gerald has always been used to Birkin's unconventional way of thinking about love) when he responds:
> 
> "Have you?...Or do you think you have?"
> 
> Slightly unrelated to the question, I kind of think Gerald and Birkin switched places in their philosophy when that conversation takes place. Birkin seems so simplistic, but then maybe he is putting his philosophy into action. After all, he did think it silly to have love be something strictly between one man and one woman. I don't know, my brain is farting.
> ...


Interesting idea. I am not sure I quite understand yet - can you expound on it a bit and help me know what you mean "switched places in their philosophy"? Can you site any quotes to better illustrate that point or that feeling? Is must be your brain condition - you might try an antacid.... :FRlol:  No serously write more - I am listening to your concept. Yes, I find (new, quiet) Birkin to be the stronger of the two men now in character. 
Why do you think Gerald questions Birkin's declaration of love towards him?





> The rest of the questions:
> 
> 1. In a foreword to Women in Love, D.H. Lawrence wrote, "In point of style, fault is often found with the continual, slightly modified repetition. The only answer is that it is natual to the author; and that every natual crisis in emotion or passion or understanding comes from this pulsing, frictional to-and-fro which works up to culmination." In the light of these remarks, what do you think of Lawrence's prose style? Is _how_ he writes as significant as _what_ he writes? Do you think Lawrence even cared about syle?


Wow, I must be pretty well read on Lawrence. I just read this quote in a book. I thought it was marvelous, that he would admit that he uses repetition and explains it is natural to the author (himself). Also, the last part seemed to express just what we have been saying about the rhythms in the book "pulsing, frictional the to-and-fro" ....and Woolf thought Lawrence lacked a way with words...hummm....
I did read something about the fact that L did not care to worry about style or correctness in his writing. Often you may notice he uses words like 'whitey' or 'bluey or similiar ones and combinations that he, no doubt, took the liberty to make up. Someone on another L thread pointed out how incorrect L was, in doing this, and how no publisher would accept this type of writing. I differed in opinion on that matter and said it was 'poetic license' to do so, that he was more than justified - he is the author, afterall. Lawrence's prose is so close to poetry and I think it totally acceptable that he wrote as he felt inclined to write - that was his unique quality. e.e cummings - now do you think he worried about form? He did not even use capital letters. Shakespeare made up zillions of words, that were finally added into our dictionaries, which include the same exact words we commonly use today. 'Big deal' is my reply - I don't think L cared on morsal about the idea of form. He wrote naturally, as he said, what was natural to himself. Yet inspite of this, he wrote beautifully and I think it is important to his writing and his stories. Is it as significant as his themes and his ideas? I don't know - how can one separate them and why would one want to? 



> 2. Does the novel convince the reader that people have to reinvent love, that relations between men and women have gone radically awry, or that industrialism is to blame?


I think that it does. I think that is the intention of L in the book. He did feel that things had gone radically awry with the world and much was caused by industrialism. I don't know if you are aware of this but L was great friends to the very last days of his life with Aldoux Huxley who wrote "Brave New World". Have you ever read the book? I just recently went back to re-read it since I found in one of my biographies references to it and one said that Huxley fashioned the main character from Lawrence. Interesting and I did most definitely see paralells between the two men. Brave New World deals with a world that has gone awry by mass production and industralism, capitalism. It is a very good book and brings out some of the same ideas that Birkin/Lawrence is fortelling in this book.




> 3. Beyond surface squabbles, why is it that Gudrun and Gerald cannot establish a relationship that is life-enhancing rather than destructive?


They are too much in oppostion from the start. Although drawn to each other physically - their relationship is based on false values. They both want power over each other. This I have already addressed in prior posts.




> 4. (question posed earlier) Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?


This I answerd in my other post.
******




> That is it for now, I will post more when I finish the last two chapters.


Take your time I need a break - I am all burned out by now! Long involved post and all. I am nearly 'brain dead'.




> I forgot to mention that I found a new signature.  
> 
> Quote:
> "All right?" he said. "I never know what those common words mean. All right and all wrong, don't they become synonymous, somewhere?" 
> 
> When Gerald said that, I laughed just a little bit...How true!


Go for it!  :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

> Uh oh...I wonder who received that PM?! I think I sent it maybe a week and a half, or two weeks ago. Haha I was just letting you know I have the Barnes and Noble edition of WIL and it has some questions in the back for book club purposes, I thought they might be kind of interesting to post...the ones that haven't already been answered that is!


Oh wait. I do remember now Grace. You did send it. I recently cleaned out my posts because by mail box was near full. I'm sorry if i didn't reply. I must have set it aside with the thought of getting back to it and forgot.  :Blush:  




> A question about WIL from my copy of the book...
> 
> Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?


That is not an easy answer. The short answer is that he/Lawrence feels that there is something more important than love, related to his off beat religious ideas.

----------


## manolia

> Yes, undoubtably many people will like "Snowed Up" best. Do you feel that, in that chapter, is the true climax of the book? I did think it. It seemed the most dramatic, asside from "Water-Party". I think both of those were my favorite chapters. I liked "Excurse" and "Moony" very much, too. Oh heck, I liked the whole book really!


Yes Janine, those chapters ("Moony" and "Excurse") are nice too. But "Snowed Up" is the best for me. I think it is the climax (you know climax is a greek word and it means "Stairway"  :FRlol:  - hence caspian's feelings of climbing a mountain)




> Hey *manolia,* maybe we can get them manufactured and sell on Lit Net! haha  You are right and we think alike; I think will I be white haired, on my deathbed and in a nursing home, and I will be saying "no can't die yet, give me one more of my books off my stack!" By then my stack will be a mountain.  *maybe Caspian's mountain*....


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Especially the last phrase. So witty  :FRlol:   :FRlol:  




> Apocalypse is an interesting read, but I think one needs to have read a bit of Lawrence's fiction in order to find it interesting I think. It's like listening to Birkin pontificate.


I agree with this. One must read his works first and then start to read biographies, letters etc.




> Thanks. Life does call. Actually today is my 16th wedding aniversary.  We'll be going out into the city tonight.  I will definitely say something about that fabulous conclusion.


What does one wish in this occasion? Have a happy anniversary!




> A question about WIL from my copy of the book...
> 
> Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?


I think he dislikes the meaning that ordinary people give to this word. That most people tend to dominate their partners, like Hermione did and that one can't retain himself/herself and is merely swallowed up and loses his/hers individuality in a relationship.

EDIT




> 2. Does the novel convince the reader that people have to reinvent love, that relations between men and women have gone radically awry, or that industrialism is to blame?


I don't know if the novel convinces the reader..this depends on the reader i guess and how willing he/she is to be convinced but i agree that one of the main points of the book is to show that relations between men and women have gone radically awry. The way i took it, industrialism is to be blamed (according to L always) for many things that are bad. He seems to have a liking for the ages past (can;t recall right now where he actually says that). It is evident that he (through Birkin always) has a strong dislike for some new radical ideas (in the chapter the "Industrial magnet" i got the feeling, i am almost sure by now, that he was refering to marxism as well..where he explains how the colliers rebelled against the authority of Mr Crich, Gerald's father). It seems that L was a bit of a "conservative" person (with the political meaning of the word)..by that i mean that i agree with Virgil's opinion that he was friendly towards fascism. I can't be sure though since it is his only novel i have read. I believe that Janine and Virgil will explain that better.

----------


## grace86

I have finished the book! I stayed up last night and read the last few pages! I must say that I was very sad  :Frown: . You know, at first I thought this book was about Gudrun and Ursula, but now, I think it was more about Rupert and Birkin.

So sad none of them had a happy ending. Sounds like even Birkin gave up in the end.




> Originally Posted by *Virgil*
> Oh wait. I do remember now Grace. You did send it. I recently cleaned out my posts because by mail box was near full. I'm sorry if i didn't reply. I must have set it aside with the thought of getting back to it and forgot.


No problem there, at least I know the right person received it. I just had to clear out my PM box as well.




> Originally posted by *Janine*
> Oh great! Now I am not even an aunt, I am a mom on Lit Net! Next you will be calling me the 'house mother.' Well, sorry I had not even thought of your health; purely selfish on my part, I am afraid; I was wondering if you and Virgil would neglect the one I am going to do, the one he talked me into voting for - "To the Lighthouse".


Hmm aparently we have heard that before, no??  :Biggrin:  Well I guess it would be bad of both of us not to read To the Lighthouse!




> Originally posted by *Janine*
> Love that last statement of yours - yes, soooo human! In this statement do you mean Gerald aided in alienating Gudrun; you said Ursula....if it is Ursula...I don't understand the question.


No! Ursula and Gudrun were speaking to Loerke, and then Gerald comes up while Ursula is pointing out that art and the real world have everything to do with each other. Gerald sides with Gudrun's opinions on it and so Ursula walked away, three to one. Unless I have it mixed up. I had thought that weird of Gerald considering how much he disliked Loerke.




> Originally posted by *Janine*
> Interesting idea. I am not sure I quite understand yet - can you expound on it a bit and help me know what you mean "switched places in their philosophy"? Can you site any quotes to better illustrate that point or that feeling? Is must be your brain condition - you might try an antacid.... No serously write more - I am listening to your concept. Yes, I find (new, quiet) Birkin to be the stronger of the two men now in character. 
> Why do you think Gerald questions Birkin's declaration of love towards him?


I am not sure exactly what was going on between Gerald and Birkin at the end of that chapter, the brain fart went away, but Gerald seemed to play more of the sceptic regarding love. To me it seemed that he was always trying to convince Birkin that love was all there is, kind of like Birkin was making life harder than it was...but then when Birkin finally comes out and admits it, Gerald questions it. I would kind of expect that having known Birkin, he would understand Birkin's truthfulness.

Birkin seems more human and loving in that scene than Gerald. 

*****SPOILER??**********

By the end of the book though, Birkin admits to Ursula his feelings toward Gerald...did he ever really surpass love? He was always looking for what was beyond it, but did him and Ursula ever reach it? He didn't reach it with Gerald either right? I don't think that he realized that love is ALL there is.

I don't particularly like how Ursula treated Birkin at the end either.

All for now, off to the short story!

----------


## Virgil

> How will you two, you and *Virgil,* read "Don Quixote" and "To the Lighthouse" same time? Here you go again, Grace, with multiple books.


I will read Don Quixote first until I have reached a couple of hundred pages and then switch to To The lighthouse. I'll probably start Woolf at the beginning of August.




> Also, *Virgil,* did you forget the short story thread  It's well underway. ktd is wondering when you will pop back into the Tortoise poetry thread, also. Anyone else interested please pop over there. We need discussers.


I know. I just haven't had the time. I'll try this week. Sorry. It's hard.




> I find this a rather strange statement coming from Woolf, especially the part about "lack of tradition" and then the part about "not a single word has been chosen for its beauty, or its effect upon the architect of the sentence."


Well, I'm pretty sure she did not like Lawrence. It is a little strange. We assume that other writers understand each other's works, but I doubt Woolf understood Lawrence at all. I brought out a number of Lawrence's ideas but my understanding came out of critical commentary which was built up by several decades of commentary by many critics. You know the first 25 years of lawrence criticism after his death is mostly wrong. It took until the 1960s for critics to finally begin to understand him. Woolf is wrong. Lawrence comes out out of the tradition of Wordsworth, Shelley, Whitman, Geore Elliot, and Thomas Hardy. Of course he's got his own ideas and he's definitely a modernist in style and attitude.




> I didn't like Loerke.


I absolutely hated him. I was just reading some commentary and the critic referred to Loerke as homosexual. Did I miss that? I knew he was different but I did not see him as homosexual. But then he was with that other guy at the beginning of the chapter.




> Nor do I think Gudrun really felt that art and the world have nothing to do with one another. Otherwise, why would you create art? I think she was trying to gain some points with Loerke but I am not too sure why other than he is her type of creature in the world.


That is interesting, and I think Gudrun contradicts her art philosophy from what she described earlier in the novel, especially when she is teaching Gerald's sister.




> Slightly unrelated to the question, I kind of think Gerald and Birkin switched places in their philosophy when that conversation takes place. Birkin seems so simplistic, but then maybe he is putting his philosophy into action. After all, he did think it silly to have love be something strictly between one man and one woman. I don't know, my brain is farting.


Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I never understand what Lawrence is saying when he's referring to man/man friendship.




> 1. In a foreword to Women in Love, D.H. Lawrence wrote, "In point of style, fault is often found with the continual, slightly modified repetition. The only answer is that it is natual to the author; and that every natual crisis in emotion or passion or understanding comes from this pulsing, frictional to-and-fro which works up to culmination." In the light of these remarks, what do you think of Lawrence's prose style? Is _how_ he writes as significant as _what_ he writes? Do you think Lawrence even cared about syle?


Yes I do. I think very highly of his prose style, to me the best English stylist of all the fiction writers of the 20th century. Now he broke a lot of rules and was somewhat careless, but to me no one writing in English in the 20th century captures intensity, mood, conflict, character so smoothly and beautifully. His "to-and-fro" style may seem repetitive, but each repetion brings a higher intensity to the moment.




> 2. Does the novel convince the reader that people have to reinvent love, that relations between men and women have gone radically awry, or that industrialism is to blame?


It makes a good argument, but convincing people is not the aim of fiction. The aim of fiction is to present a vision (hey we'll see that in To The Lighthouse!) and present a comprehensive world that works to the author's rules of life and ultimately dramatises human xperience. Lawrence does this for sure. Whether you agree with those rules doesn't matter. It's the author's originality and consistentancy of that world that matters.




> 3. Beyond surface squabbles, why is it that Gudrun and Gerald cannot establish a relationship that is life-enhancing rather than destructive?


Complicated question. I would need a term paper to answer that completely. I would say that they cannot break the cycles of modern life (sex, work, relationship, art, experience) and reach the spiritual awareness that transcends life. Lawrence is ultimately a religous writer, albeit his own unconventional religion.




> 4. (question posed earlier) Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?


I think that love is a human thing and Birkin is trying to transcend humanity. I think he fears it will be another cycle. Remember nirvana is a vegetative type of existence, and plants and flowers don't experience love. But Birkin learns at the end that he is ultimately human (this learning goes on in several of Lawrence's other works) and that he is not a flower, at least in this world. So he fears love but I think accepts it in the end. I hope that makes sense.

Sorry for all these posts in a row, but i'm trying to catch up.  :Wink:  





> We'll, I don't think we are meant to particularly like Loerke. He is described by Birkin and Gerald in rather low terms, dispicable terms such as rat, etc. - far from pleasant references. He is also physically described sort of sleazy, don't you think, and unattractive? Ursula is fascinated at first, but then she does not like him at all. Most of the characters, except Gudrun, abhore him. Not even sure if Gundrun truly likes Loerke. I think the idea is if 'Art can serve Industry' - I am not as up on this concept; Virgil may be able to answer better than I can. We will have to turn this one over to him.


I think that Loerke supports the Futurists art philosophy that was going around at the beginning of the 20th century. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(art). It would go against what Lawrence believes art is. A good comparison would be Birkin's drawing of that anmal that Hermione tries to analyze. I forget what chapter that is. Remember that?




> I certainly can see how Birkin and Ursula would turn away from this concept. It does seem that Gudrun sculpted small animals and such and was more connected to the earth than to industry.


Yes I think she contradicts her own art style and philosophy.




> I think she is simply enmoured by Loerke's mystique and talent. She is in awe of him and his work and significance as an artist. Also, Loerke may be sleazy, but he is straight-forward with Gundrun, whereas she is caught in a power struggle with Gerald, which by now is playing itself out. That was inevitable. They are burning down to nothing in their relationship - Gerald and Gudrun - so she simply looks to someone else for comfort and understanding, even if he is not a good choice for Gudrun. He still fills a gap for her in some weird way.


She does feel some strange sexual desire for Loerke, in a low sort of way. She is undergoing another cycle of lust and searching for experience. I think that is the key. It is a new experience, the climbing of another ice world mountain. And you can see how these mountains are endless.




> Wow, I must be pretty well read on Lawrence. I just read this quote in a book. I thought it was marvelous, that he would admit that he uses repetition and explains it is natural to the author (himself). Also, the last part seemed to express just what we have been saying about the rhythms in the book "pulsing, frictional the to-and-fro" ....and Woolf thought Lawrence lacked a way with words...hummm....
> I did read something about the fact that L did not care to worry about style or correctness in his writing.


He was naturally gifted, and i don't think he spent an overwhelming amount of time cleaning up his writing, but form and structure is very carefully developed in his great works. He definitely gives form a lot of thought. Look at how carefull and perfectly WIL is structured. The same goes for his short stoies and poems. 




> They are too much in oppostion from the start. Although drawn to each other physically - their relationship is based on false values. They both want power over each other. This I have already addressed in prior posts.


I tend to disagree, janine. I think they are very similar, both searching for a new intense experience, this lover or that lover, and both can never be satisfied.

----------


## Janine

> Yes Janine, those chapters ("Moony" and "Excurse") are nice too. But "Snowed Up" is the best for me. I think it is the climax (you know climax is a greek word and it means "Stairway"  - hence caspian's feelings of climbing a mountain)


Wow, look what happens when you abandon your computer for a day and an evening. So many posts here to answer. I needed a rest and thought maybe it would be nice also, to give someone else a chance to post today. :FRlol:  You all did brilliantly without me.


*Hi manolia,* our official translator and word origin consultant. No, I did not know 'climax' was Greek; see you are teaching me all the time. That is interesting that it means "Stairway"....just think, in the song "Stairway to Heaven" they just might be talking about something else...hmmm :Wink: ...or have I misinterpreted that song wrong all these years...hummm  :FRlol:  





> Especially the last phrase. So witty


Thanks, always happy to be at your service! Comes from years of watching those witty films.... :FRlol: ....or was it from reading Owen Meany? :FRlol:  




> I agree with this. One must read his works first and then start to read biographies, letters etc.


This is more than true indeed, although a brief biography is beneficial in understanding Lawrence. Since "Sons and Lovers" is basically autobiographical, although fiction, I usually prescribe that as a good direction to begin with to learn about his early years, formative years. Now that you can see L's beliefs taking form, having read WIL, it is great to go back and see how they originated in this book. His later works and his very first early novels, such as "The White Peacock" and "The Trespasser" also I would recomment only for those well read in Lawrence, who simply want to investigate his beginnings and early work.




> What does one wish in this occasion? Have a happy anniversary!


*Virgil,* I second that, although I am afraid I am a little late; please forgive. Hope you and your wife had a nice evening out and a lovely anniversary dinner together. 




> I think he dislikes the meaning that ordinary people give to this word. That most people tend to dominate their partners, like Hermione did and that one can't retain himself/herself and is merely swallowed up and loses his/hers individuality in a relationship.


Way back several posts ago, I wrote an answer to this question, too and basically agreed with all you say, especially your first line. Yes, Birkin hated the way Hermione twisted that word, love, to suit her. Yes, with Hermione love represented power over Birkin. I like everything you put in this paragraph and agree completely - very well put, *manolia.*




> I don't know if the novel convinces the reader..this depends on the reader i guess and how willing he/she is to be convinced but i agree that one of the main points of the book is to show that relations between men and women have gone radically awry. The way i took it, industrialism is to be blamed (according to L always) for many things that are bad. He seems to have a liking for the ages past (can;t recall right now where he actually says that). It is evident that he (through Birkin always) has a strong dislike for some new radical ideas (in the chapter the "Industrial magnet" i got the feeling, i am almost sure by now, that he was refering to marxism as well..where he explains how the colliers rebelled against the authority of Mr Crich, Gerald's father). It seems that L was a bit of a "conservative" person (with the political meaning of the word)..by that i mean that i agree with Virgil's opinion that he was friendly towards fascism. I can't be sure though since it is his only novel i have read. I believe that Janine and Virgil will explain that better.


I agree with most of your post and it is well stated. When we get to the political part I am not that versed on the terms and the labels. I don't know if L was actually friendly towards fascism. I think he was against capitalism and he wanted a new order to things, a new idea. I am doubtful fascism would fit the bill. Probably Virgil knows a lot more about this than I do. I can't hardly think of another book that deals with this type political subject matter. I can only think of "Kangaroo", which I did not read, but I saw the BBC film version -very good. It also dealt with the workers and unions and an eminent overthrow of authority, and it is based on some bit of truth. Interesting film and I will read the book soon, out of sheer curiostiy. But there again that represents only a brief time in L's life. He was very changable throughout his life and I am not too sure he had such a definite vision of what exactly he did believe in the final analysis. I will let you know after reading "Apogalypse". As far as the political terms I need to do more research on those, which would certainly be beneficial to me anyway. I am not too political minded, I admit. 

Quote by Grace



> I have finished the book! I stayed up last night and read the last few pages! I must say that I was very sad . You know, at first I thought this book was about Gudrun and Ursula, but now, I think it was more about Rupert and Birkin.


*Grace,* good for you! I am really proud of you sticking with it. Glad you found it interesting and got so envolved in the story. It will be a book that will stay with you for a long time and continue to create conjecture in your mind. Personally I like books like that when one never fully figures them out. So human, don't you think? You used that word and phrase before, but it is true that many times we really cannot fully figure out another human being.

How interesting that now you think it is more about Rupert and Birkin. I think you have come up with something very interesting and important. Also, of interest is the fact of L giving the book the title "Women in Love" and not "Men in Love"; actually Lawrence wanted to call it "The Sisters" to begin with. He also, had a few other names in mind. Often publishers came up with his titles or suggested them. Maybe he intentionally started the book with the two women/sisters and then the emphasis shifts by the last few lines to the relationship of the men. Interesting turn around it is not?




> So sad none of them had a happy ending. Sounds like even Birkin gave up in the end.


*SPOILER*
Yes, there is a certain sadness in the ending with the death of Gerald. I was especially torn up when Birkin sat viewing the frozen body. That was truly heartwretching. I felt so badly for him at that moment when he broke down and wept. I do think of all the relationships in the book he and Gerald were two of the closest and most honest with each other. They definitely had a bond that went beyond mere words.
But Gerald's actual death scene I feel is so very devastating and tragic. One cannot express it in words.
I never really have gotten the idea or the thought that Birkin would give up though by that ending. I always thought they would go onto be happy and work it all out in the end. I did not feel the ending hopeles in the least. I only felt that Birkin would forever have the sorrow of losing one person he dearly loved and as one knows who has lost any loved one you cannot fill that gap. It does not mean you can't go on and have a furfilled life and love beyond that. Perhaps I derrive this belief now in knowing that Lawrence and his own wife worked throught their differences and came through to a better life. Lawrence even wrote "Coming Through" a series of poems on their struggle in their marriage. So I may be influenced by that. But I think first time I read the ending I did not know anything about L's personal life and I still did not see it as hopeless since Birkin's ideas were so strongly imbedded in the book and the themes.



> :
> Originally Posted by Virgil
> Oh wait. I do remember now Grace. You did send it. I recently cleaned out my posts because by mail box was near full. I'm sorry if i didn't reply. I must have set it aside with the thought of getting back to it and forgot.


Hey, *Grace,* he has been doing this with my emails, too. I don't know Virg, you are not losing it are you?...hummm.... like early senility...haha :FRlol:  




> :
> Originally posted by Janine:
> Oh great! Now I am not even an aunt, I am a mom on Lit Net! Next you will be calling me the 'house mother.' 
> Quote by Grace:
> Hmm aparently we have heard that before, no?? Well I guess it would be bad of both of us not to read To the Lighthouse!


 :FRlol:  Well, yes, once on another thread, the young people said - oh we can call you Aunt Janine. I said that's ok. Janine is just fine! Good - you recalled the "....Lighthouse" - yes, would be bad of you after talking me into re-reading it and joining the group.




> No! Ursula and Gudrun were speaking to Loerke, and then Gerald comes up while Ursula is pointing out that art and the real world have everything to do with each other. Gerald sides with Gudrun's opinions on it and so Ursula walked away, three to one. Unless I have it mixed up. I had thought that weird of Gerald considering how much he disliked Loerke.


That refreshes my memory. Yes, I was mixing and matching scenes. I need a re-read already...yikes! Yes, Gerald did seem to do that. He seemed to want to get Ursula out of the way, didn't he? Maybe he wanted Gudrun all to himself and just was aligning himself with her. Wasn't Loerke present in that scene? If not he did not have to deal with him, at least temporarily.




> I am not sure exactly what was going on between Gerald and Birkin at the end of that chapter, the brain fart went away, but Gerald seemed to play more of the sceptic regarding love. To me it seemed that he was always trying to convince Birkin that love was all there is, kind of like Birkin was making life harder than it was...but then when Birkin finally comes out and admits it, Gerald questions it. I would kind of expect that having known Birkin, he would understand Birkin's truthfulness.


Ok, now I think I pretty much understand what you mean. That makes more sense and is more specific to a scene and a conversation.




> Birkin seems more human and loving in that scene than Gerald.


I think this too; Gerald seems to have closed life off from himself and is not really able to love in the deep sense of the word the way Birkin has defined it. I think Birkin is more whole in his life now and Gerald is so lacking and inert by the end of the novel. 




> *****SPOILER??**********
> 
> By the end of the book though, Birkin admits to Ursula his feelings toward Gerald...did he ever really surpass love? He was always looking for what was beyond it, but did him and Ursula ever reach it? He didn't reach it with Gerald either right? I don't think that he realized that love is ALL there is.
> 
> I don't particularly like how Ursula treated Birkin at the end either.


Two hard things to comment on. I am not sure how I felt about whether he never found what he was looking for. I think he did with Ursula but not yet. That would take more time. Remember they are newly weds and just starting their life together. I think their own bonding would take time. He might be looking for what was beyond it and this is probably true of Lawrence's own life. He was a very restless man and moved about always on some quest for the answers; whether he found it is very questionable. I believe scholars have been trying to figure that one out for years now. I think then it is reflected in these last statements in the book.
No, I don't know what she was at the end; was she surprised, appalled, jealous, unsure of their relationship? I think it would be something each of us would interpret differently. I felt her eyes only reflected the question at the end of the book.




> All for now, off to the short story!


Go for it *Grace*! We need you over there in the short story thread. Pensive and Downing are doing great - but more oppinions/commentary would be wonderful.

I will answer Virgil's three posts in the next post. He got a head of me already; and I don't want to lose this long post in cyberspace so I had better hit the submit button.




> I will read Don Quixote first until I have reached a couple of hundred pages and then switch to To The lighthouse. I'll probably start Woolf at the beginning of August.


Good plan! However once you get there it will be well underway I am sure. There is much enthusiasm in that thread and some have read it already. It is not a long book but I think it is more difficult to read like Joyce is, well at least to me they are. It is a more concentrated text, not as easy as Lawrence to read. Lawrence is just hard to interpret, don't you think?




> I know. I just haven't had the time. I'll try this week. Sorry. It's hard.


Ok, well us girls are doing fine without you, but I thought you would rally in the midst of the women-folk. You know you love that! :Wink:  It is such a short short short story...moan moan....




> Well, I'm pretty sure she did not like Lawrence. It is a little strange. We assume that other writers understand each other's works, but I doubt Woolf understood Lawrence at all. I brought out a number of Lawrence's ideas but my understanding came out of critical commentary which was built up by several decades of commentary by many critics. You know the first 25 years of lawrence criticism after his death is mostly wrong. It took until the 1960s for critics to finally begin to understand him. Woolf is wrong. Lawrence comes out out of the tradition of Wordsworth, Shelley, Whitman, Geore Elliot, and Thomas Hardy. Of course he's got his own ideas and he's definitely a modernist in style and attitude.


This is great and clarifies it all for me. I doubt she would like him at all. I doubt he liked her either. Well, wonder why they would quote her in this edition of the novel. Odd.




> I absolutely hated him. I was just reading some commentary and the critic referred to Loerke as homosexual. Did I miss that? I knew he was different but I did not see him as homosexual. But then he was with that other guy at the beginning of the chapter.


Hello *Virgil*, yes, he definitely was a homosexual. I believe it even states this clearly in the text, using the term, not just suggesting it. He had the young partner, definitely his boyfriend, from the beginning. There was a passage where it stated that their relationship had played itself out. They definitely had had a relationship. I believe actually Loerke was capable of being bisexual, as well; was certainly physically attracted to Gudrun. I think with him anything could be possible. He was a sleezy person. Gudrun notes he could not get any lower, somewhere in the book. People like this have a strange allure sometimes for women. It is similiar to the way so many women write to prison inmates and fall in love with them, knowing they are low-life and even guilty of their crimes. I found Loerke repulsive as well.




> That is interesting, and I think Gudrun contradicts her art philosophy from what she described earlier in the novel, especially when she is teaching Gerald's sister.


I thought she shifted her position in order to align herself with Lorke in order to hurt Gerald or lord her consumate power over him. I don't think Gudrun cared two pins for Loerke. I think of Loerke as a diversion and a kind of pawn in her game or power with Gerald. Loerke happened to be there and fit the bill and created the wedge Gudrun needed to alienate Gerald finally from her. Loerke was the last straw - the cataylist to disaster.





> Like I said elsewhere in this thread, I never understand what Lawrence is saying when he's referring to man/man friendship.


Very hard to fathom exactly what. Maybe we just don't have enough information to really 'know' definitively.

Quote by Grace:



> 1. In a foreword to Women in Love, D.H. Lawrence wrote, "In point of style, fault is often found with the continual, slightly modified repetition. The only answer is that it is natual to the author; and that every natual crisis in emotion or passion or understanding comes from this pulsing, frictional to-and-fro which works up to culmination." In the light of these remarks, what do you think of Lawrence's prose style? Is how he writes as significant as what he writes? Do you think Lawrence even cared about syle?
> 
> 
> Yes I do. I think very highly of his prose style, to me the best English stylist of all the fiction writers of the 20th century. Now he broke a lot of rules and was somewhat careless, but to me no one writing in English in the 20th century captures intensity, mood, conflict, character so smoothly and beautifully. His "to-and-fro" style may seem repetitive, but each repetion brings a higher intensity to the moment.


That "to-and-fro" style is like a staircase....
Very eloquently put, *Virgil*, and I am in full agreement. This is why I love Lawrence's work. I can accept what faults he had and some confusion or my own lack of understanding him. His faults were only human and actually make me like him even more. It shows a 'man' wrote this book and not some unattainable 'god'. He gets right into ones head and infiltrates your whole being when you are reading him. It is 'in the blood', as he put it. One has access to the workings of the man himself. I admire this 'revealing' quality. 

Quote:



> 2. Does the novel convince the reader that people have to reinvent love, that relations between men and women have gone radically awry, or that industrialism is to blame?
> 
> 
> It makes a good argument, but convincing people is not the aim of fiction. The aim of fiction is to present a vision (hey we'll see that in To The Lighthouse!) and present a comprehensive world that works to the author's rules of life and ultimately dramatises human xperience. Lawrence does this for sure. Whether you agree with those rules doesn't matter. It's the author's originality and consistentancy of that world that matters.


Another eloquently phrased post. I agree with every word of what you say. It explains that so well.




> 3. Beyond surface squabbles, why is it that Gudrun and Gerald cannot establish a relationship that is life-enhancing rather than destructive?
> 
> 
> Complicated question. I would need a term paper to answer that completely. I would say that they cannot break the cycles of modern life (sex, work, relationship, art, experience) and reach the spiritual awareness that transcends life. Lawrence is ultimately a religous writer, albeit his own unconventional religion.


*Virgil* - really, perfect answer to a difficult question!





> 4. (question posed earlier) Why does Birkin so dislike the word "love"?
> 
> 
> I think that love is a human thing and Birkin is trying to transcend humanity. I think he fears it will be another cycle. Remember nirvana is a vegetative type of existence, and plants and flowers don't experience love. But Birkin learns at the end that he is ultimately human (this learning goes on in several of Lawrence's other works) and that he is not a flower, at least in this world. So he fears love but I think accepts it in the end. I hope that makes sense.


That is an interesting theory. I like it and it satisfies me, at least for the time being. Like Lawrence, I might change my mind tomorrow. :Wink: 




> Sorry for all these posts in a row, but i'm trying to catch up.


We must have been posting similiar time tonight. I was working on one and then saw you had answered ones I asked earlier.
Virgil, now it is my turn to neglect an email. I am just too tired now to respond. I was tired last night too and busy. I will respond tomorrow, promise.





> I think that Loerke supports the Futurists art philosophy that was going around at the beginning of the 20th century. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(art). It would go against what Lawrence believes art is. A good comparison would be Birkin's drawing of that anmal that Hermione tries to analyze. I forget what chapter that is. Remember that?


Excellent - thanks for the link. I will definitely read up on that, but again - will have to be tomorrow - too late now. I am curious. I don't recall much about that movement in college. I was basically interested in different eras of art.




> Yes I think she contradicts her own art style and philosophy.


I thought so but was not sure entirely; glad you answered this one. Also it seems that Gudrun is still in that experimental stage that all artist's go through, not really settled on any set or established style yet.





> She does feel some strange sexual desire for Loerke, in a low sort of way. She is undergoing another cycle of lust and searching for experience. I think that is the key. It is a new experience, the climbing of another ice world mountain. And you can see how these mountains are endless.


Great last line and fine post. I fully agree with this idea. 





> He was naturally gifted, and i don't think he spent an overwhelming amount of time cleaning up his writing, but form and structure is very carefully developed in his great works. He definitely gives form a lot of thought. Look at how carefull and perfectly WIL is structured. The same goes for his short stoies and poems.


You know, *Virgil,* I read he would start a re-write of a novel from scratch. He must have had a photographic mind to recall it all. He also wrote most things at least 3 times. How did he find the time to do it all, not to mention all the letters? He was truly amazing. I feel the same; this book is so well structured and thought out. I think he had it all in his head before he even put a word down on paper. If this was the second or third rewrite he might have known just what to change and how he wanted it constructed. He had a 'basic' plan and he followed it. I can relate to this in art and in being an artist; sometimes one starts with a vision which is layed out within your mind's eye, but you know when you are into the work that you can deviate somewhat within the structure, actually that is when the subscious take over and creates the real art. This is exactly what Lawrence did. He wrote like an artist, alowing things to emerge from the basic forms subconsciously. This is his talent and his gift. It prevents the work from ever being static. It flows and it weaves and it layers and it is 'art' and it's 'free', but never aimless.





> I tend to disagree, janine. I think they are very similar, both searching for a new intense experience, this lover or that lover, and both can never be satisfied.


After I wrote this, I felt it was not correct or completely accurate. I agree that they were much alike. Too alike can oft times be bad and repelling, not attracting. There relationship was merely of the distructive type. It consumed itself, or imploded upon itself. They canceled each other out in the end.

----------


## manolia

> Thanks, always happy to be at your service! Comes from years of watching those witty films........or was it from reading Owen Meany?


Is Owen Meany funny ?..i intend to read it someday





> This is more than true indeed, although a brief biography is beneficial in understanding Lawrence. Since "Sons and Lovers" is basically autobiographical, although fiction, I usually prescribe that as a good direction to begin with to learn about his early years, formative years. Now that you can see L's beliefs taking form, having read WIL, it is great to go back and see how they originated in this book. His later works and his very first early novels, such as "The White Peacock" and "The Trespasser" also I would recomment only for those well read in Lawrence, who simply want to investigate his beginnings and early work.


Hmmmm.."Sons and lovers" is biographical? I have a copy of this book and i want to read it someday..geez there are so many books i want to read!





> I agree with most of your post and it is well stated. When we get to the political part I am not that versed on the terms and the labels. I don't know if L was actually friendly towards fascism. I think he was against capitalism and he wanted a new order to things, a new idea. I am doubtful fascism would fit the bill. Probably Virgil knows a lot more about this than I do. I can't hardly think of another book that deals with this type political subject matter. I can only think of "Kangaroo", which I did not read, but I saw the BBC film version -very good. It also dealt with the workers and unions and an eminent overthrow of authority, and it is based on some bit of truth. Interesting film and I will read the book soon, out of sheer curiostiy. But there again that represents only a brief time in L's life. He was very changable throughout his life and I am not too sure he had such a definite vision of what exactly he did believe in the final analysis. I will let you know after reading "Apogalypse". As far as the political terms I need to do more research on those, which would certainly be beneficial to me anyway. I am not too political minded, I admit.


Janine i am not that sure about my interpretation of the chapter either..it just gave me these feelings (according to what i know concerning the historical events of the era in question). But the constant mention of industrialism in this book and the machines and men who are paralleled to machines (can't find quotes right now) brought those thoughts to my mind.

Nice posts everyone!

----------


## Janine

> Is Owen Meany funny ?..i intend to read it someday


*manolia,* yes, we just discussed Owen Meany. He is humorous at times and quirky, but basically the book is a serious one. If you ask *Virgil* he might tell you not to waste your time, or ask him for yourself; although both of us keep popping back into that thread to discuss it further with Scher, who just finished reading it about a week ago. I am not sure if I would read another Irving book. If you think Birkin is bad preaching, you will hate Johnny, who is probably the 'mouthpiece' for Irving; sometimes he rambles on forever about his political/religious views....ho hum....it does get tiresome....what can I say....also the book if mega long....Irving does not believe contemporary authors should write short books. I was planning on other books by him; in fact I picked a few up 'free' from my library's 'give-away-shelf'....I like his style of writing and there is wit to it and I may like those books better....so we will see.....I also have a ton of books, remember, to get to before I am senile.  :Eek2:  



> Hmmmm.."Sons and lovers" is biographical? I have a copy of this book and i want to read it someday..geez there are so many books i want to read!


Yes, "Sons and Lovers" is basically Lawrence's story depicting his youth and 'coming of age' and his family background. It is not 100&#37; truth, but basically it is, with the names changed. It is marvelous book and written when L was younger. Oddly enough I could not read it when I was younger and then later I picked it up and loved it a few years ago. 
*Pensive* and I have been discussing it (slowly) on it's own thread - "Sons and Lovers". You can find some background information there in the beginnings of the posting. If you read too far along you will spoil the book for yourself. I think you will like it very much. 





> Janine i am not that sure about my interpretation of the chapter either..it just gave me these feelings (according to what i know concerning the historical events of the era in question). But the constant mention of industrialism in this book and the machines and men who are paralleled to machines (can't find quotes right now) brought those thoughts to my mind.
> 
> Nice posts everyone!


*manolia,* thanks for admitting this, but I think you probably layed it out pretty accurately. Your observations seem to be correct as far as what I do know. I admit when it comes to political topics, I am not that well read. I don't really know the terminology or the theories behind; My knowledge and concept is somewhat vague. I will go to Wikipedia or other sources and read about facism and Maxism, etc. and then I can get a clearer sense of what we have been talking about, hopefully.

I found this online one day and I thought I would share it with all of you. I just found it in my file while looking for something else, isn't that always the way? Here goes. I think it explains something more about L.




> T. H. McCabe (essay date summer 1987)
> SOURCE: McCabe, T. H. “The Otherness of D. H. Lawrence's ‘Odour of Chrysanthemums’.” The D. H. Lawrence Review 19, no. 2 (summer 1987): 149-56.
> [In the following essay, McCabe traces the concept of Otherness in Lawrence's work, finding *“Odour of Chrysanthemums” to be the earliest examination of the issue.]
> “The central law of all organic life is that each organism is intrinsically isolate and single in itself” (Studies in Classic American Literature 66). This is a basic Lawrencean idea: all living things are essentially strangers, outsiders, other. “Otherness” for Lawrence means the self's perception of that life beyond the self and inside all other living things. We can never know the exact sensation of life in another the way we know it in ourselves. But we assume that others feel life just as we do and that our idea or image of them is actually the way they feel their own...


I thought it was a very interesting thought and way to describe his 'otherness' which Birkin speaks of. I particularly like the last line. I think it trails off since I did not belong to the site and you would have to pay to hear the entire essay. I think it valuable and one gets the general idea anyway.

*short story by L.

----------


## Janine

Sorry to post right after my other post, but I am posting some more of the commentary by Worthen from my book Introduction:




> Perhaps it would be useful to try to establish a wavelength by looking at a chapter. The book's structure seems to work by isolating two or three characters, often in the presence of some catalyst that brings out their inner being, and then every so often collecting a whole party together, so that we are led to compare and contrast more widely and see what is happening as a dimension of society. So chapter XIV, 'Water-Party', refocuses what has gone before and prepares for what is to come. What we see is a society apparently at peace and at play. Since this is class-ridden England, there are signs of social tension: the Crich estate may be thrown 'open' for the day, but there is none the less a policeman at their gate, so not everyone can come in. Will Brangwen, not a gentleman, is ill at ease. His daughters, though they too have entrees as teacher and artist, show different kinds of defence and aggression about their situations as women - as has grown ever clearer since the opening scene. Hermione the aristocrat feels free simply to inspect other people. Birkin the more diplomatic school inspector is never quite right, socially. Gudrun both despises 'the crowd', and remembers with horror her boat trip up the Thames, with fat bourgeois men throwing coins for ragged urchins to scrabble over in the appalling mud. So tensions in the body politic are registered, yet may seem containable within the festivity over which Gerald Crich presides. It is a scene, so far, whose art Jane Austen, George Eliot or Henry James might have recognized. Just at one or two points they would have been taken aback, however: the conflict between what the clothes of the two sisters 'say' and the involuntary expressions on their faces and how they move, which suggest conditions of their 'being'; or the way that Gudrun with Gerald (for all her sophistication) both becomes child-like and seems to make 'the blood stir in his veins, the subtle way she turned to him and infused her gratitude into his body' (163:12-14, my italics). There the new subterranean language is at work, showing how being impacts on being sexually, without touch and below conscious awareness, in a mode of seductive female submission to male power - apparently. 
> 
> Having been trusted with a canoe, the sisters escape into a private world where they can be themselves, naked and free (as Gudrun complained in chapter IV, 'Diver', women couldn't be). When Ursula begins to sing, the differences which have been emerging since the beginning become suddenly clearer: Ursula for all her uncertainty lives 'at the centre of her own universe' (165:28-(), while Gudrun always has to demand that the other be aware of her. As Gudrun begins to dance, she un-inhibits and reveals her inner self in an unconsciously suggestive exposure: her urge first to free herself from repression, then to express herself, and then unmistakably (with the arrival of the highland bulls) to define and assert herself _against_ the other, the male. Behind her apparent submission to the attractively, dominating male lies a strongly reactive female counter-aggression. Previous hints gather into revelation: her first fascination with Gerald (' "His totem is the wolf'" - 14:40); the taking to herself of his forcible mastery of the delicate mare (113:29&#172;36); but also her ambivalent high gull-scream "'I should think you're proud'" (112:35); the impulse to be childlike and suppliant, but the sense now that this is also a mode of power, and can swiftly turn into aggression. When Gerald substitutes himself for the bulls, the hidden violence in this pattern of submission/aggression spurts out in spite of herself, in an instantaneous blow across his face, and the prophetic dialogue that shows them both shocked into sudden awareness of their sex-relation as a kind of war. '''Why _are_ you behaving in this _impossible_ and ridiculous fashion'" is the reaction of her conscious mind (171:11-12) - but the Gudrunness of Gudrun has unmistakably come out on a deeper level, as has the question of whether the man or the woman will ultimately prove the stronger. 
> 
> - Yet 'love' as sex-war, in terms of domination or submission, defeat or victory, is not the only possibility open to Gerald and Gudrun. As they set out on the lake together in the frail canoe, the mode of their love suddenly becomes quite different. There is space between them - and with that they seem able both to be themselves, balancing each other, and to see a magical beauty in the other without wanting to possess or to dominate. Gudrun may feel -at first that she has Gerald at her mercy, but she is soon overcome by the beauty and mystery of his otherness, his maleness now a wonder not a threat. And he, who always keeps so tight a grip on himself, begins for the first time to let go, to become 'lapsed out' (I78:II) into his surroundings, not trying to control or impose himself on them. Now there is extraordinary new peace, and beauty. For this couple there are two quite different ways of being 'in love'. Which way will they go? 
> 
> Meanwhile Birkin has danced his sardonic dance, which Ursula doesn't like because it combines self-abandon, which attracts her, with mockery suggesting distance. (The novel is structuring itself also by constant parallels and comparisons.) Later he preaches a sermon, drawn directly from 'The Crown'. We think of life as a creative process; but there are times such as now, when the cycle of creation seems to have come to an end and everything is given over to a death process, a dark river of corruption. Birkin feels that it is _fin de siecle_, and they are all _fleurs du mal_ (flowers of dissolution). But though Birkin voices ideas that were Lawrence's, he is only part of 'D. H. Lawrence' now. For Ursula argues. She will have none of his acceptance of deathliness (however necessary before new creation can come about). _She_ isn't a flower of dissolution, but feels herself a rose, warm and flamy with life. She detects a death-wish in him, a sickness, which she must fight. Sermon is taken up into drama. Do we take sides? 
> 
> It is time to light the lanterns, and see deeper. They are rose and primrose, or blue; they suggest a life above the surface and below, a cool, dark. vitality and a warmer, flamier life. The greatest beauty appears when they set each other off, in contrast and balance. Yet Gudrun is afraid of the underworld of the cuttlefish and makes Ursula take that lantern. We shall see that white writhing sea-creature again; but the question now is what might be involved in rejecting it. Was Blake right, for instance, that everything that lives is holy, all energy eternal delight? Or are there subhuman modes of being that should be rejected and denied? 
> ...

----------


## Janine

*Hello, Hello.....*am I all alone over here ---- how fickle you guys are ---- everyone has run off to other books! If anyone has read my last two posts (before this one) please nod. :Nod:  Really trying to get this thread back on page one so we don't forget it altogether.

----------


## manolia

Hehehehe you are not alone Janine!
I read both your posts  :Nod:  
Are there more of these pages..you seem to have many books about L and his works  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Janine

*Manolia,* thanks so much. Now at least we are back on the first page, when I put Lawrence into search. Yes, I have more pages of this "Introduction"/commendary to my particular version of the novel to post. I have to scan some of it yet. Interesting, isn't it? I think it recaps everything well and also gives us a little more to think about, like we don't have enough already to think about on here presently. hahaha. 
Enjoy your 'Rose' book! and thanks again....J

----------


## manolia

Janine you haven't voted yet in the poll above
(although i am pretty sure what your vote will be  :Biggrin:  )

----------


## Virgil

I admit I have not read those posts, Janine. But you wanted me to comment on the Tortoise poem and the short story. Well, I only have two hands, and one brain.  :Tongue:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Janine

> I admit I have not read those posts, Janine. But you wanted me to comment on the Tortoise poem and the short story. Well, I only have two hands, and one brain.


*manolia,* Yes, I imagine you would know. I just voted and Yeah! It has 6 votes - way ahead!

Well, *Virgil* - only one brain...really? I was sure you had a 'duality' of brain. Well, I know what you mean. I need about 4 of me for this site and PMs, emails, and IM's. I have been going crazy lately! 
About your post in the Tortoise thread - I read it today and it is excellent! I will comment later. Thanks for posting so much. It was quite long too, and really summed things up in the poem. 
The short story thread is well underway, with most of the posting by *Grace, Pensive and Downing* and some by me, too. I stayed a little subdued there, wanting them to think out the story and discuss it first. They are doing great! They tease me and call me the "Leader". It is fun and as I told you before, we girls are doing fine on this story without you, so take a short story break if you want to, you deserve it. Maybe this month is an all girl's session!  :Wink:  Hey, best thing is they are all interested now in Lawrence's work. Asa would be pleased, since he was trying desperately to interest his class in L and they just would not respond. 

Yes, just wanted to remind everyone I was still here and hoping for a few more comments.... eventually  :Wink:  . I did not think we fully discussed those closing scenes so important to the book, but maybe I am wrong. At any rate, if you can just try and read the parts of the 'Introduction' I am posting, since it does take a bit of time to scan all that text and correct some, I would appreciate it. It is quite good, I think.

----------


## manolia

> Well, *Virgil* - only one brain...really? I was sure you had a 'duality' of brain.



 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

See, Janine? I am bringing the thread on top  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

*Hey manolia,* is this becoming a contest - trying to save WIL from obscuity? hahehe haha  :FRlol: 

I will scan some more pages soon and post them. 'Food for thought' for all of you diehards  :Biggrin:  

Going out this evening and I only have 'one brain and two hands!'  :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

Once again getting my precious WIL discussion on the first page of the Lawrence search. Ok, found this map in my book and scanned it for everyone to see.

Lawrence's area in WIL. If you notice near the top is Willey Spring Wood; a little below this is a body of water with a boat house at the bottom - I believe this is Willey-Water. The rest can be related to the story using the key. 
 Hope it is of interest to you:

----------


## manolia

Thanx for the map Janine (for an engineer it's always easier when a map is provided  :FRlol:  )

I keep bringing the page on top  :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

Thanks for the map Janine. I wish I had while reading. As an engineer, I too love maps. Whenever I read a Faulkner novel, I always open up a map of his fictional county. I'm going to re read the Snowed Up chapter and then comment on it.

----------


## Janine

> Thanks for the map Janine. I wish I had while reading. As an engineer, I too love maps. Whenever I read a Faulkner novel, I always open up a map of his fictional county. I'm going to re read the Snowed Up chapter and then comment on it.


*manolia and Virgil*, I somehow thought you engineers would appreciate this map. :Wink:  I like them too, being a visual thinker. 
The map also depicts places in some of L's other novels I believe, and in the short story we are currently discussing. I guess the 'apple does not fall far from the tree'...so they say. Memory takes us back to where we first came from, and so it was with Lawrence.

*Virgil*, I will be anxious to hear your 'take' on "Snowed Up", but will patiently await your posting, so don't stress out.

----------


## Gracewings

I am sorry I had to miss out on the discussion as well as the reading. My mother passed away last month.

I reverted to some short reads since then and have just picked up Women in Love again. Never got too far in it... off to check out the other group reads now.

----------


## grace86

> I am sorry I had to miss out on the discussion as well as the reading. My mother passed away last month.
> 
> I reverted to some short reads since then and have just picked up Women in Love again. Never got too far in it... off to check out the other group reads now.



I am sorry to hear that. Well wishes and blessings to you and yours.

The discussions for book club never really go away. So whenever you finish you can make any comment you have, there are many here who would like to carry on the conversation.

----------


## Janine

*Gracewings,* I am so sorry and sad to hear this bad news, too. I second what Grace86 has said. Take your time now and take care. You can post anytime later on in this thread. I will always be here.

----------


## grace86

*Janine* thanks for posting the map by the way. I just got around to seeing it, and it helps put things into perspective a bit more.

Kudos to you for keeping the thread going!

----------


## Janine

Thanks *grace86* - I don't want to give it up yet. haha....*keep me hangin on*...need music notes.  :FRlol:  Seriously I think we kind of trailed off at the end without discussing fully the climax scene "Snowed Up" and the final scene....so I keep hoping. Virgil said he wanted to comment definitely on "Snowed Up" but I realise he has been busy, me too - we both are overwhelmed a bit.

Hey, *grace86,* I found too goodies at my library - two huge volumes on Understanding Literature - over 1000 pages each - textbooks and look like they never were even used or opened. They are in the freeby give-away bin. I was so thrilled to get them. Bad news is not too much L in them but a wealth of other information on zillions of authors, plus tons of short stories, poetry, commentary, etc. How cool is that and all free?

Glad to see you over there in Tortoise poems. I laughed to see you there. Yes, I am really stimulating your brain about L's works. I have just been researching online some ideas I have on the poem. Wow, I get deeper and deeper into it.

Glad the map helped. I like maps and it interested me about Lawrence's area/plus how they relate to his novels/stories. I found some direct references to the "The Shades of Spring" in my book today - the fact that indeed, Syson is Lawrence's alter-ego. I can't wait to post in there tonight, but first I have to scan that part of the book - too much to type, I think.

----------


## Virgil

I wanted to look more closely on chapter 30, "Snowed Up", the climatic chapter. Look at the first few paragraphs:



> WHEN URSULA and Birkin were gone, Gudrun felt herself free in her contest with Gerald. As they grew more used to each other, he seemed to press upon her more and more. At first she could manage him, so that her own will was always left free. But very soon, he began to ignore her female tactics, he dropped his respect for her whims and her privacies, he began to exert his own will blindly, without submitting to hers.


So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."




> When Ursula had gone, Gudrun felt her own existence had become stark and elemental. She went and crouched alone in her bedroom, looking out of the window at the big, flashing stars. In front was the faint shadow of the mountain-knot. That was the pivot. She felt strange and inevitable, as if she were centred upon the pivot of all existence, there was no further reality.


Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

And they shortly have their first battle:



> `Are you alone in the dark?' he said. And she could tell by his tone he resented it, he resented this isolation she had drawn round herself. Yet, feeling static and inevitable, she was kind towards him.
> 
> `Would you like to light the candle?' she asked.
> 
> He did not answer, but came and stood behind her, in the darkness.
> 
> `Look,' she said, `at that lovely star up there. Do you know its name?'
> 
> He crouched beside her, to look through the low window.
> ...


She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.



> `I don't know what you mean by the word `love,' he replied.
> 
> `Yes, you do. You know all right that you have never loved me. Have you, do you think?'
> 
> `No,' he said, prompted by some barren spirit of truthfulness and obstinacy.
> 
> `And you never will love me,' she said finally, `will you?'
> 
> There was a diabolic coldness in her, too much to bear.
> ...


Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

----------


## Janine

> I wanted to look more closely on chapter 30, "Snowed Up", the climatic chapter. Look at the first few paragraphs:
> 
> So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."


Hi *Virgil,*glad to see you back. This is good. Yes, it is very much a "contest of wills" they are actively engaged in. 




> Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.


This is excellent! Your explanation seems accurate to me. I had been wondering what the significance of the "mountain-knot" and the word "pivot" was and this is perfect. It clears up many questions in my mind. Interesting observation "unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied." I must think about this line more.





> And they shortly have their first battle: (see Virgil's post for dialogues/quote)
> 
> She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.
> 
> Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.
> 
> And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.


Terrific! I had not thought of this either. It makes perfect sense to me now. Again the whole idea of a knot. How interesting.
I will wait to hear what you add to this. It is all very enlightening to me.

----------


## Virgil

> I am sorry I had to miss out on the discussion as well as the reading. My mother passed away last month.
> 
> I reverted to some short reads since then and have just picked up Women in Love again. Never got too far in it... off to check out the other group reads now.


My deepest sympathy, Gracewings. I lost my father in September, and it was not easy. I know how you feel. May she be in a better place.






> Hi *Virgil,*glad to see you back. This is good.


Thank you for your encouragement Janine.  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* Another thought on the knot. Does it not mimic the couple who drown in the lake - were they not intertwined like a knot, causing death?

----------


## Virgil

> *Virgil,* Another thought on the knot. Does it not mimic the couple who drown in the lake - were they not intertwined like a knot, causing death?


 :Idea:  Great thought Janine. There are lots of interconnections like that throughout the novel.

----------


## grace86

What I noticed in "Snowed Up" was how self destructive and selfish Gudrun was. Gerald did love her, so when she twisted the logic up and made him admit that he didn't, I was like "what the heck is going on?"

Why would she be so self destructive?

That whole chapter was filled with tension...I think definitely it was the climactic chapter in the book...things just kind of rupture.

Help me out guys, I think it was in "Woman to Woman" or the previous chapter to "Snowed Up," but I think Ursula and Gudrun were having a conversation and Ursula had the thought that Gudrun would never experience love....it was something like that...I can't remember exactly.

----------


## Janine

> Great thought Janine. There are lots of interconnections like that throughout the novel.


*Virgil,* Yes, I agree there are 'interconnections throughout the novel'. You know, the more I read other Lawrence work, as well, the more I see the same the same sort of images running throught them, such as this knot, moon, sun, flower references, mythical symbolism, etc. many seemingly 'set' images in the authors mind/subscious ( :Wink:  ) perhaps. 

*Grace,* I think Gudrun intentionally begins to distance Gerald and sabatoge/undermine their relationship, then make it seem, even to herself and her own satisfaction, that Gerald is the one at fault. Why would she act this way? It is life - people do act this way. They don't always do the logical thing. I think from the beginning Gudrun had the potennial for this sort of behavior, perhaps passive aggressive. I did not feel shocked by it; rather I felt it destined to take place that she would be the one to reject him and in such a cruel way. I think she had it in her all the time to be strong-willed and dominent - just look at the scene when she gives him the back-handed slap and the comments she makes. As, *Virgil,* pointed out with the this couple, Gudrun and Gerald, from the start, it has been a 'war of wills' and a test for each at whole would hold out longer. I think part of the reason Gudrun was so drawn to Gerald was the challenge to beat him at his own game of 'will'. When he first came to her in the night he was willful, don't you think? I think always they go back and forth lording the power over each other. As *Virgil* said they have not accomplished the magnificence/beauty of love and a relationship that works such as Birkin and Ursula have.
*Grace,* 'rupture' is a good word to use at the climax.
I will look up that chapter. I think it was further back in the book or maybe even the very first conversation the women had when coming out of their house, in the chapter "The Sisters".

----------


## Virgil

> Help me out guys, I think it was in "Woman to Woman" or the previous chapter to "Snowed Up," but I think Ursula and Gudrun were having a conversation and Ursula had the thought that Gudrun would never experience love....it was something like that...I can't remember exactly.


I'm afraid I don't recall, Grace.




> What I noticed in "Snowed Up" was how self destructive and selfish Gudrun was. Gerald did love her, so when she twisted the logic up and made him admit that he didn't, I was like "what the heck is going on?"
> 
> Why would she be so self destructive?


But Grace Gerald is just as self destructive. Once Gudrun has shut him out (or was it a smultaneous shutting of each other?) Gerlad goes through these cycle of thoughts. Some more from "Snowed Up," chapter 30:



> It seemed to him that Gudrun was sufficient unto herself, closed round and completed, like a thing in a case. In the calm, static reason of his soul, he recognised this, and admitted it was her right, to be closed round upon herself, self-complete, without desire. He realised it, he admitted it, it only needed one last effort on his own part, to win for himself the same completeness. He knew that it only needed one convulsion of his will for him to be able to turn upon himself also, to close upon himself as a stone fixes upon itself, and is impervious, self-completed, a thing isolated.


"In the calm, static reason of his soul" he realizes that she is not dependant on him. Remember Ursula and Birkin are in static opposition, autonomous but in love. Those caught in the cycle of love require dependence, actually interdependence. (This is all Lawrentian thought, so take it as not reality, unless of course you buy into Lawrence's world view.) Interdependence brings us back to that knot, the wrapping of each lover's subconscious with each other. Notice the metaphor. They are both going static not in perfect star love, but as a stone, impervious and isolated.




> This knowledge threw him into a terrible chaos. Because, however much he might mentally will to be immune and self-complete, the desire for this state was lacking, and he could not create it. He could see that, to exist at all, he must be perfectly free of Gudrun, leave her if she wanted to be left, demand nothing of her, have no claim upon her.


This affects his very soul, his subconscious starts to affect his person.




> But then, to have no claim upon her, he must stand by himself, in sheer nothingness. And his brain turned to nought at the idea. It was a state of nothingness. On the other hand, he might give in, and fawn to her. Or, finally, he might kill her. Or he might become just indifferent, purposeless, dissipated, momentaneous. But his nature was too serious, not gay enough or subtle enough for mocking licentiousness.


It brings out in him what was deep inside, the will to kill. He killed his brother in childhood, and the chaos has brought that nature out. 

And then a great paragraph:



> A strange rent had been torn in him; like a victim that is torn open and given to the heavens, so he had been torn apart and given to Gudrun. How should he close again? This wound, this strange, infinitely-sensitive opening of his soul, where he was exposed, like an open flower, to all the universe, and in which he was given to his complement, the other, the unknown, this wound, this disclosure, this unfolding of his own covering, leaving him incomplete, limited, unfinished, like an open flower under the sky, this was his cruellest joy. Why then should he forego it? Why should he close up and become impervious, immune, like a partial thing in a sheath, when he had broken forth, like a seed that has germinated, to issue forth in being, embracing the unrealised heavens.


"Rent," "torn" - remember earlier in the novel he was described as fragmented, broken. I forget where that was, but I pointed it out in an ealier post. He cannot give in to her and lose his individuality. He must also press his will on her.

----------


## Janine

*Virgil,* good post. I will comment on it tomorrow. I am too tired out now. I quite agree with most of what you have said. Question - which chapter did you take the last quote from - about how far into the chaper? I don't recall reading that part - maybe I was a half asleep when I read it. It is a great passage.

----------


## manolia

> So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."
> 
> 
> Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.
> 
> And they shortly have their first battle:
> 
> She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. * She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.*
> Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.
> ...





> *Grace,* *I think Gudrun intentionally begins to distance Gerald and sabatoge/undermine their relationship, then make it seem, even to herself and her own satisfaction, that Gerald is the one at fault*. Why would she act this way? It is life - people do act this way. They don't always do the logical thing. I think from the beginning Gudrun had the potennial for this sort of behavior, perhaps passive aggressive. I did not feel shocked by it; rather I felt it destined to take place that she would be the one to reject him and in such a cruel way. I think she had it in her all the time to be strong-willed and dominent - just look at the scene when she gives him the back-handed slap and the comments she makes. As, *Virgil,* pointed out with the this couple, Gudrun and Gerald, from the start, it has been a 'war of wills' and a test for each at whole would hold out longer. I think part of the reason Gudrun was so drawn to Gerald was the challenge to beat him at his own game of 'will'. When he first came to her in the night he was willful, don't you think? I think always they go back and forth lording the power over each other. As *Virgil* said they have not accomplished the magnificence/beauty of love and a relationship that works such as Birkin and Ursula have.


 :Nod:  Nice and helpful posts.  :Nod:  I agree with both of you concerning the fact that Gerald actually loved Gudrun and she was the one who was trying to convince him that he didn't. She was literally puting words in his mouth, wasn't she???

----------


## Janine

Hi *manolia* and *Virgil*, nice to see you here again. I keep popping in periodically. Glad these posts have been helpful to you. 

Yes, perhaps by Gundrun 'putting the words in his mouth', as you say *manolia*, she was playing the ultimate power-game with Gerald, for she was controlling his actual responses to her. At this point I see both individuals going into a non-logical state. They are tied up in a 'web' or 'knot' of emotions with no solution. By additional reading I have gathered some new ideas or cleared up some thoughts in my own mind. I have ideas on the Gudrun/Gerald relationship. In Lawrence's book "Apogalypse", which is much later than WIL, Lawrence's expresses clearly his deepest thoughts on mankind and relationships, towards the end of this book. Lawrence believed there were two modes of being in man - the 'collective' and the 'individual'. I believe WIL with the two relationships demonstrates his idea. Ursula and Birkin are both separate yet part of the collective universe and orbiting like stars in perfect harmony with each other. The follow text is part of his concept, but to understand his whole meaning, I may have to quote additional text, some parts leading up to this. For now this is his conclusion on the individual and love. He states that individuals cannot exist in love relationships thus:




> Chapter Twenty-Three
> 6.To have an ideal for the individual which regards only his individual self and ignores his collective self is in the long run fatal. To have a creed of individuality which denies the reality of the hierarchy makes at last for more anarchy. Democratic man lives by cohesion and resistence, the cohesive force of 'love' and the resistent force of the individual 'freedom'. To yield entirely to love would be to be absorbed, which is the death of the individual: for the individual must hold his own, or he ceases to be 'free' and individual. So that we see, what our age has proved to its astonishment and dismay, that the individual _cannot_ love. The individual cannot love: let that be an axiom. And the modern man or woman cannot conceive of himself, herself, save as an individual. And the individual in man or woman is _bound_ to kill, at last, the lover in himself or herself. It is not that each man kills the thing he loves, but each man, by insisting on his own individuality, kills the lover in himself, as the woman kills the lover in herself.


Later in the passage he concludes:




> Or when he loves, when she loves, he must take it back, she must take it back.


This is the way in which Lawrence views the whole love concept in 'individuals'. These ideas are purely his and of course much more complicated in the full text of the book. Ofcourse, it benefits to read the whole chapter these came from to see just how Lawrence thought or came to this conclusion. I figure this much will give you all something to think about. 

This is what has come to me. Gerald and Gurdrun both want to love and do love truly but wish to maintain their own individuality and power at the same time. Therefore this fits in with what Lawrence has said in his "Apogalypse". 

Also, I find the last line particularly interesting since 'love is given and then taken back'. So in my eyes now, I would say both did truly love each other, but then withdrew that love out of maintaining their own individuality and sense of power. This was a destructive type of love that could only end tragically.

It also struck me that Loerke represents the individual who will never truly 'love' but keep separate and free in his individuality. Did he not mention often to Gudrun the idea of maintaining her individuality, or is this just a sense I get from him? Also I get the impression that Loerke can never have a full and complete relationship with anyone and will always remain appart and individual throughout his life. Therefore, he does not threaten Gundrun with the same type relationship - this love tug of war - she is now rejecting in Gerald and herself. Loerke is a free-spirit and cares little for others, his main concern is his own art and his individuality, or am I reading him wrong? It seems to me at the end that Gudrun will go the same route now as Loerke has gone with her own sense of free individuality minus responsibilites to another human being.

PS: *manolia,* guess what film I took out of the library on Friday?

----------


## papayahed

18 pages???? How the heck am I suppossed to keep up with 18 pages???? I'm almost done I'm on XXVIII. Have we already taked about Geralds reaction to the statues way back in VI?

----------


## manolia

> Also, I find the last line particularly interesting since 'love is given and then taken back'. So in my eyes now, I would say both did truly love each other, but then withdrew that love out of maintaining their own individuality and sense of power. This was a destructive type of love that could only end tragically.
> 
> It also struck me that Loerke represents the individual who will never truly 'love' but keep separate and free in his individuality. Did he not mention often to Gudrun the idea of maintaining her individuality, or is this just a sense I get from him? Also I get the impression that Loerke can never have a full and complete relationship with anyone and will always remain appart and individual throughout his life. Therefore, he does not threaten Gundrun with the same type relationship - this love tug of war - she is now rejecting in Gerald and herself. Loerke is a free-spirit and cares little for others, his main concern is his own art and his individuality, or am I reading him wrong? It seems to me at the end that Gudrun will go the same route now as Loerke has gone with her own sense of free individuality minus responsibilites to another human being.


Wonderful explanation Janine! Thanx! 
On a side note, i believe that you are reading Loerke correctly! After all, it is clearly stated in the book that he is a "free spirit" and he is very like Gudrun, so i believe your explanation is correct.




> PS: *manolia,* guess what film I took out of the library on Friday?


Hmmmm.. let me see..Was it "Mulholland Drive"?  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> 18 pages???? How the heck am I suppossed to keep up with 18 pages???? I'm almost done I'm on XXVIII. Have we already taked about Geralds reaction to the statues way back in VI?


*papayahed*, I am glad to see you are nearly done the book, that you stayed with it. Everyone finished at a different time, which is just fine. Yikes, are there really 16 pages? We sure were ambitious this past month! As *Virgil* told me, these threads never close or end. A few of us seem to be trying to keep this one going and *Virgil* still has some things to discuss on the chapter "Snowed Up" I believe. I don't totally recall Gerald's reactions, but vaguely I do, so if you have questions or want to discuss it, I am totally open to reviewing that part of the book and talking more about it. It is quite significant and there are some posts, if I recall correctly, referring to that part of the story and chapter. Quite a number of times the idea of the primative art was brought up - just to recap our discussions. *Virgil* knows much about this total concept and what was in Lawrence's mind concerning the art, and I posted a 'Introduction' to my book, which is a good commentary; I believe there it also mentions the idea behind the art pieces/statues in chapter VI. I am going out now, but will look all of this up for you later on tonight and direct you to those specific references. Hope to be of some help to you. Yes, 16 pages is too much to wade through.

*manolia,* glad you liked the explanation and agreed with it. Of course in quoting from the other book and of Lawrence's philosophical ideas this is only a portion of it taken out of complete context, but it is the essense of what he is saying and getting at in WIL, in my opinion. Glad I was accurate about Loerke or at least those were both our impressions of the way he was.

Yes, the movie just might be that one! :FRlol:

----------


## Janine

> Gerald looked round the room. It was an ordinary London sitting-room in a flat, evidently taken furnished, rather common and ugly. But there were several negro statues, wood-carvings from West Africa, strange and disturbing, the carved negroes looked almost like the foetus of a human being. One was a woman sitting naked in a strange posture, and looking tortured, her abdomen stuck out. The young Russian explained that she was sitting in child-birth, clutching the ends of the band that hung from her neck, one in each hand, so that she could bear down, and help labour. The strange, transfixed, rudimentary face of the woman again reminded Gerald of a foetus, it was also rather wonderful, conveying the suggestion of the extreme of physical sensation, beyond the limits of mental consciousness.
> 
> `Aren't they rather obscene?' he asked, disapproving.
> 
> `I don't know,' murmured the other rapidly. `I have never defined the obscene. I think they are very good.'
> 
> Gerald turned away. There were one or two new pictures in the room, in the Futurist manner; there was a large piano. And these, with some ordinary London lodging-house furniture of the better sort, completed the whole.


*Papayahed,* is this that part you are referring to in Chapter VI?

Ok, for the last hour or so I have been searching through the text and postings for references to the figurines and I come up with some discussions starting at post #117, about Lawrence's 'blood philosophy' which is first layed out and explained by Virgil. If you continue on through post #120, and maybe even a little further on you will see the discussion about the African figures and how they relate to this philosophy or idea. I hope this helps some. You might have to skip over some unnecessary parts of the postings.

----------


## Virgil

Of course as part of looking closely at chapter 30 we should discuss Gudrun and Loerke's relationship.




> She had a curious sort of allegiance with Loerke, all the while, now, something insidious and traitorous. Gerald knew of it. But in the unnatural state of patience, and the unwillingness to harden himself against her, in which he found himself, he took no notice, although her soft kindliness to the other man, whom he hated as a noxious insect, made him shiver again with an access of the strange shuddering that came over him repeatedly.


They have their art in common:




> They were almost of the same ideas. He hated Mestrovic, was not satisfied with the Futurists, he liked the West African wooden figures, the Aztec art, Mexican and Central American. He saw the grotesque, and a curious sort of mechanical motion intoxicated him, a confusion in nature. They had a curious game with each other, Gudrun and Loerke, of infinite suggestivity, strange and leering, as if they had some esoteric understanding of life, that they alone were initiated into the fearful central secrets, that the world dared not know. Their whole correspondence was in a strange, barely comprehensible suggestivity, they kindled themselves at the subtle lust of the Egyptians or the Mexicans. The whole game was one of subtle inter-suggestivity, and they wanted to keep it on the plane of suggestion. From their verbal and physical nuances they got the highest satisfaction in the nerves, from a queer interchange of half-suggested ideas, looks, expressions and gestures, which were quite intolerable, though incomprehensible, to Gerald. He had no terms in which to think of their commerce, his terms were much too gross.
> 
> The suggestion of primitive art was their refuge, and the inner mysteries of sensation their object of worship. Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality.
> 
> `Of course,' said Gudrun, `life doesn't really matter -- it is one's art which is central. What one does in one's life has peu de rapport, it doesn't signify much.'
> 
> `Yes, that is so, exactly,' replied the sculptor. `What one does in one's art, that is the breath of one's being. What one does in one's life, that is a bagatelle for the outsiders to fuss about.'
> 
> It was curious what a sense of elation and freedom Gudrun found in this communication. She felt established for ever. Of course Gerald was bagatelle. Love was one of the temporal things in her life, except in so far as she was an artist. She thought of Cleopatra -- Cleopatra must have been an artist; she reaped the essential from a man, she harvested the ultimate sensation, and threw away the husk; and Mary Stuart, and the great Rachel, panting with her lovers after the theatre, these were the exoteric exponents of love. After all, what was the lover but fuel for the transport of this subtle knowledge, for a female art, the art of pure, perfect knowledge in sensuous understanding.


"Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality." Much is made of how Lawrence puts down industrialism in the novel, but he also puts down aesthecism. Art is another diversion, another repetitive cycle to take you away from the spiritual connection. Gudrun seems to be absorbed into Loerke:



> `Yes. You cannot go back to the teaching. No --' he shrugged his shoulders -- `that is impossible. Leave that to the canaille who can do nothing else. You, for your part -- you know, you are a remarkable woman, eine seltsame Frau. Why deny it -- why make any question of it? You are an extraordinary woman, why should you follow the ordinary course, the ordinary life?'
> 
> Gudrun sat looking at her hands, flushed. She was pleased that he said, so simply, that she was a remarkable woman. He would not say that to flatter her - - he was far too self-opinionated and objective by nature. He said it as he would say a piece of sculpture was remarkable, because he knew it was so.
> 
> And it gratified her to hear it from him. Other people had such a passion to make everything of one degree, of one pattern. In England it was chic to be perfectly ordinary. And it was a relief to her to be acknowledged extraordinary. Then she need not fret about the common standards.


And they are very European. They have been to many cities, cycles of cities, as if each city was a work of art to be evaluated:



> `Paris, no!' he said. `Between the religion d'amour, and the latest 'ism, and the new turning to Jesus, one had better ride on a carrousel all day. But come to Dresden. I have a studio there -- I can give you work, -- oh, that would be easy enough. I haven't seen any of your things, but I believe in you. Come to Dresden -- that is a fine town to be in, and as good a life as you can expect of a town. You have everything there, without the foolishness of Paris or the beer of Munich.'


And Loerke manipulates her and she is willing to be manipulated:



> `A bore,' he repeated. `What does it matter whether I wear this hat or another. So love. I needn't wear a hat at all, only for convenience. Neither need I love except for convenience. I tell you what, gnadige Frau --' and he leaned towards her -- then he made a quick, odd gesture, as of striking something aside -- `gnadige Fraulein, never mind -- I tell you what, I would give everything, everything, all your love, for a little companionship in intelligence --' his eyes flickered darkly, evilly at her. `You understand?' he asked, with a faint smile. `It wouldn't matter if she were a hundred years old, a thousand -- it would be all the same to me, so that she can understand.' He shut his eyes with a little snap.
> 
> Again Gudrun was rather offended. Did he not think her good looking, then? Suddenly she laughed.
> 
> `I shall have to wait about eighty years to suit you, at that!' she said. `I am ugly enough, aren't I?'
> 
> He looked at her with an artist's sudden, critical, estimating eye.
> 
> `You are beautiful,' he said, `and I am glad of it. But it isn't that -- it isn't that,' he cried, with emphasis that flattered her. `It is that you have a certain wit, it is the kind of understanding. For me, I am little, chetif, insignificant. Good! Do not ask me to be strong and handsome, then. But it is the me --' he put his fingers to his mouth, oddly -- `it is the me that is looking for a mistress, and my me is waiting for the thee of the mistress, for the match to my particular intelligence. You understand?'


And Gerald at one point wants to know what it is that Gudrun sees in Lorke:



> Gerald was gradually overcome with a revulsion of loathing for Loerke. He did not take the man seriously, he despised him merely, except as he felt in Gudrun's veins the influence of the little creature. It was this that drove Gerald wild, the feeling in Gudrun's veins of Loerke's presence, Loerke's being, flowing dominant through her.
> 
> `What makes you so smitten with that little vermin?' he asked, really puzzled. For he, man-like, could not see anything attractive or important at all in Loerke. Gerald expected to find some handsomeness or nobleness, to account for a woman's subjection. But he saw none here, only an insect-like repulsiveness.
> 
> Gudrun flushed deeply. It was these attacks she would never forgive.
> 
> `What do you mean?' she replied. `My God, what a mercy I am not married to you!'
> 
> Her voice of flouting and contempt scotched him. He was brought up short. But he recovered himself.
> ...


She doesn't answer Gerald here, but she does answer it later to us the reader in a moment of her rationalizing to herself:



> `As for Loerke, there is a thousand times more in him than in a Gerald. Gerald is so limited, there is a dead end to him. He would grind on at the old mills forever. And really, there is no corn between the millstones any more. They grind on and on, when there is nothing to grind -- saying the same things, believing the same things, acting the same things. Oh, my God, it would wear out the patience of a stone.
> 
> `I don't worship Loerke, but at any rate, he is a free individual. He is not stiff with conceit of his own maleness. He is not grinding dutifully at the old mills. Oh God, when I think of Gerald, and his work -- those offices at Beldover, and the mines -- it makes my heart sick. What have I to do with it -- and him thinking he can be a lover to a woman! One might as well ask it of a self-satisfied lamp-post. These men, with their eternal jobs -- and their eternal mills of God that keep on grinding at nothing! It is too boring, just boring. However did I come to take him seriously at all!
> 
> `At least in Dresden, one will have one's back to it all. And there will be amusing things to do. It will be amusing to go to these eurythmic displays, and the German opera, the German theatre. It will be amusing to take part in German Bohemian life. And Loerke is an artist, he is a free individual. One will escape from so much, that is the chief thing, escape so much hideous boring repetition of vulgar actions, vulgar phrases, vulgar postures. I don't delude myself that I shall find an elixir of life in Dresden. I know I shan't. But I shall get away from people who have their own homes and their own children and their own acquaintances and their own this and their own that. I shall be among people who don't own things and who haven't got a home and a domestic servant in the background, who haven't got a standing and a status and a degree and a circle of friends of the same. Oh God, the wheels within wheels of people, it makes one's head tick like a clock, with a very madness of dead mechanical monotony and meaninglessness. How I hate life, how I hate it. How I hate the Geralds, that they can offer one nothing else.


Gerald is the macho man, Loerke the homosexual. Gerald the industrialist; Loerke the aesthete. Gerald the rich man; Loerke the poor man. Gerald the Englishman; Loerke the German. She has tried one and is now bored with it; it is time to try something different, another thing that may bring happiness, another promise of satisfaction. It is a new mountain to climb, having climbed and done with the previous.

----------


## Virgil

I wanted to also wanted to discuss the climax in chapter 30, so be forewarned:
*********************SPOILER**********************

I want to start just before Gerald comes upon Gudrun and Leorke. Gudrun and Leorke are enjoying themselves on the mountain. Loerke takes out biscuits and Schnapps and the two find the moment in the snowy, silvery twilight perfect.



> She could feel their voices, hers and his, ringing silvery like bells in the frozen, motionless air of the first twilight. How perfect it was, how very perfect it was, this silvery isolation and interplay.
> 
> She sipped the hot coffee, whose fragrance flew around them like bees murmuring around flowers, in the snowy air, she drank tiny sips of the Heidelbeerwasser, she ate the cold, sweet, creamy wafers. How good everything was! How perfect everything tasted and smelled and sounded, here in this utter stillness of snow and falling twilight.
> 
> `You are going away tomorrow?' his voice came at last.
> 
> `Yes.'
> 
> There was a pause, when the evening seemed to rise in its silent, ringing pallor infinitely high, to the infinite which was near at hand.
> ...


"Whither," a very important Lawentian word. The moment of pleasure, escatasy has come, a potential moment at the point of transcendence. But instead of transfiguring or transcending, the emotion is whither - what next? Here we are but where do we go now? We have reached the end of this cycle of emotion, and so where is the next.

Then Gerald shows up suddenly and smacks Loerke to the ground. But Gudrun still has her pluck:



> But Gudrun moved forward. She raised her clenched hand high, and brought it down, with a great downward stroke on to the face and on to the breast of Gerald.


Here we recall that scene Gudrun strikes that blow at Gerald back at the water-party scene. And as before Gerald is shocked.



> A great astonishment burst upon him, as if the air had broken. Wide, wide his soul opened, in wonder, feeling the pain. Then it laughed, turning, with strong hands outstretched, at last to take the apple of his desire. At last he could finish his desire.


Again we have the imagery of Gerald fragmented, openned up. The blow has reached down into his subconscious and that desire to kill comes out:



> He took the throat of Gudrun between his hands, that were hard and indomitably powerful. And her throat was beautifully, so beautifully soft, save that, within, he could feel the slippery chords of her life. And this he crushed, this he could crush. What bliss! Oh what bliss, at last, what satisfaction, at last! The pure zest of satisfaction filled his soul. He was watching the unconsciousness come unto her swollen face, watching the eyes roll back. How ugly she was! What a fulfilment, what a satisfaction! How good this was, oh how good it was, what a God-given gratification, at last! He was unconscious of her fighting and struggling. The struggling was her reciprocal lustful passion in this embrace, the more violent it became, the greater the frenzy of delight, till the zenith was reached, the crisis, the struggle was overborne, her movement became softer, appeased.


He is reaching his moment of satisfaction, his bliss. Strangling her will achieve his moment of satisfaction. But he doesn't complete it. I think this is very important. He has the power and ability to kill her and he doesn't go through with it. Why?



> Loerke roused himself on the snow, too dazed and hurt to get up. Only his eyes were conscious.
> 
> `Monsieur!' he said, in his thin, roused voice: `Quand vous aurez fini --'
> 
> A revulsion of contempt and disgust came over Gerald's soul. The disgust went to the very bottom of him, a nausea. Ah, what was he doing, to what depths was he letting himself go! As if he cared about her enough to kill her, to have her life on his hands!
> 
> A weakness ran over his body, a terrible relaxing, a thaw, a decay of strength. Without knowing, he had let go his grip, and Gudrun had fallen to her knees. Must he see, must he know?
> 
> A fearful weakness possessed him, his joints were turned to water. He drifted, as on a wind, veered, and went drifting away.
> ...


I can't help but see it as a moment of transcendence over the will of his subconscious. "'I didn't want it, really'" and "'Ive had enough.'" It is as if he realizes that after he kills her, "whither?" "What next?"  What would it have accomplished. Everything we have seen and read is his desire and propensity for him to kill her and he overcomes it. I can't quite call it heroic, but some measure of noblity should be given him. And then he is broken inside and goes off and accepts his death. He is tired of the cycles and his only way to stop them is to end himself.

----------


## Janine

Two excellent posts, *Virgil*, lots to think about here. I will answer later tonight.

----------


## Virgil

I have one more analytic post on Women In Love. There is an interesting passage in the last chapter "Exeunt" (chapter 31). Birkin returns to the mountains to help Gudrun after Gerald has died. He goes to investigte the the death scene:



> Gerald might have found this rope. He might have hauled himself up to the crest. He might have heard the dogs in the Marienhutte, and found shelter. He might have gone on, down the steep, steep fall of the south-side, down into the dark valley with its pines, on to the great Imperial road leading south to Italy.
> 
> He might! And what then? The Imperial road! The south? Italy? What then? Was it a way out? It was only a way in again. Birkin stood high in the painful air, looking at the peaks, and the way south. Was it any good going south, to Italy? Down the old, old Imperial road?


Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald. 




> He turned away. Either the heart would break, or cease to care. Best cease to care. Whatever the mystery which has brought forth man and the universe, it is a non-human mystery, it has its own great ends, man is not the criterion. Best leave it all to the vast, creative, non-human mystery. Best strive with oneself only, not with the universe.


And from Gerald he begins to contemplate the religious significance of life. 




> `God cannot do without man.' It was a saying of some great French religious teacher. But surely this is false. God can do without man. God could do without the ichthyosauri and the mastodon. These monsters failed creatively to develop, so God, the creative mystery, dispensed with them. In the same way the mystery could dispense with man, should he too fail creatively to change and develop. The eternal creative mystery could dispose of man, and replace him with a finer created being. Just as the horse has taken the place of the mastodon.


I find this an interesting religious notion. God is essentially uncaring about man and his predicament in the universe. That is not original. Hardy and other late 19th century thinkers may have shared this. But here I think is where it is only Lawrence's conceptualization:




> It was very consoling to Birkin, to think this. If humanity ran into a cul de sac and expended itself, the timeless creative mystery would bring forth some other being, finer, more wonderful, some new, more lovely race, to carry on the embodiment of creation. The game was never up. The mystery of creation was fathomless, infallible, inexhaustible, forever. Races came and went, species passed away, but ever new species arose, more lovely, or equally lovely, always surpassing wonder. The fountain-head was incorruptible and unsearchable. It had no limits. It could bring forth miracles, create utter new races and new species, in its own hour, new forms of consciousness, new forms of body, new units of being. To be man was as nothing compared to the possibilities of the creative mystery. To have one's pulse beating direct from the mystery, this was perfection, unutterable satisfaction. Human or inhuman mattered nothing. The perfect pulse throbbed with indescribable being, miraculous unborn species.


It is up to man to put himself in contact with the divinity. This is where Birkin and Ursula in their polar star relationship will be. As you can grasp, the ideal relationship with this divinity is as a plant, basking in the glory of this fountainhead. In other works, the fountainhead tends to be the sun.



*One last thing. Now that I have studied Women In Love in real detail, perhaps it is as great or greater than Lawrence's The Rainbow. I encourage everyone to read The Rainbow and let me know which is the greater work. I now have a hard time deciding. This was a real pleasure. *

----------


## Janine

Ok, I think it is about time for me to answer *Virgil's* remarks and 3 posts; I am taking them one at a time. When you encounter a : please see his quoted text from his post 7/14/07 10:16PM. Sorry it took me so long to get to these additional comments. Here goes:




> Of course as part of looking closely at chapter 30 we should discuss Gudrun and Loerke's relationship.
> 
> They have their art in common:


Yes, I think that is a big factor. The art draws them together and they can understand each other, both being artists. I think too, that Gundrun is mesmerized and bedazzled with Loerke and his art. She is impressed with his art and him; so she feels associating with him, can lift her own 'statis' as an artist in the art community. She must feel flattered as well, seeing that Loerke has such artistic talent, and has taken an avid interest in her. I think also his directness is attractive to her. She can't help but like that 'directness' and it makes him somewhat dangerous and exciting to know. Loerke is a very unihibited person while Gerald is all inhabitions. Loerke is loose, while Gerald is all tied up in knots.




> "Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality." Much is made of how Lawrence puts down industrialism in the novel, but he also puts down aesthecism. Art is another diversion, another repetitive cycle to take you away from the spiritual connection. Gudrun seems to be absorbed into Loerke:


This is interesting considering Lawrence himself loved art and painting/drawing. Do you find it strange he would do this in the novel? Do you think,* Virgil,* that later he felt differently about it? I thought he was putting down the idea of 'art serving industry', not art as a whole.




> And they are very European. They have been to many cities, cycles of cities, as if each city was a work of art to be evaluated:


This Eruopean way that Loerke had only made him the more appealing to Gundrun to know. He could show her around to the inner circle of artists and very European thinking people who would advance her in an art career. I think that Loerke was the link to that other world outside England for Gundrun into that free-thinking Bohemian world of Paris and Germany at the time. 




> And Loerke manipulates her and she is willing to be manipulated:


Definitely agree and she likes this manipulation. When someone is manipulated all the pressure is off that person and they can give over to the other and not have to make decisions. He can control her, in a sense; something Gerald was unable to do.




> And Gerald at one point wants to know what it is that Gudrun sees in Lorke:
> 
> She doesn't answer Gerald here, but she does answer it later to us the reader in a moment of her rationalizing to herself:


Yes, I did notice this in this chapter. Interesting observation. She knew consciously, but could not relay that to Gerald.




> Gerald is the macho man, Loerke the homosexual. Gerald the industrialist; Loerke the aesthete. Gerald the rich man; Loerke the poor man. Gerald the Englishman; Loerke the German. She has tried one and is now bored with it; it is time to try something different, another thing that may bring happiness, another promise of satisfaction. It is a new mountain to climb, having climbed and done with the previous.


Very good asssesment and contrasts of the two characters; they are about as different as night and day. I think this is just why she gravitates towards Loerke. Given another time and he might have been repulsive to her, but now in the wake of the failed relationship between Gundrun and Gerald it is the right time for a huge change for Gundrun or so she thinks.


Onto next post ~

For quotes when you see : - see post #274. 





> I wanted to also wanted to discuss the climax in chapter 30, so be forewarned:
> *********************SPOILER**********************


*Virgil,* Yes, this is such an important part of the book. Glad you went back to it.




> I want to start just before Gerald comes upon Gudrun and Leorke. Gudrun and Leorke are enjoying themselves on the mountain. Loerke takes out biscuits and Schnapps and the two find the moment in the snowy, silvery twilight perfect. 
> 
> "Whither," a very important Lawentian word. The moment of pleasure, escatasy has come, a potential moment at the point of transcendence. But instead of transfiguring or transcending, the emotion is whither - what next? Here we are but where do we go now? We have reached the end of this cycle of emotion, and so where is the next.


I did not know about the word "Whither", being an important Lawrence term. I will have to note it in his stories from now on. Thanks for pointing that out.
So this can be a point of transcendence between Loerke and Gudrun? How can 'transfiguring' and 'transcending' turn into the emotion of 'what next' or 'whither?' I think you have lost me here but maybe you can explain it better to me. If it is as you say isn't it the same with Birkin and Ursula at the end of the book - thus 'whither?' or 'where do we go from here?' When I read this passage you quoted firstly I felt it was strange that all of a sudden Gudrun was in a blissful state of happiness. I could not quite fathom that scene in the book. Help me here. I felt if she truly felt that way she was deceiving herself and hiding from her true being and emotions. Had she totally freed herself from her attachment to Gerald at this point?





> Then Gerald shows up suddenly and smacks Loerke to the ground. But Gudrun still has her pluck:
> 
> Here we recall that scene Gudrun strikes that blow at Gerald back at the water-party scene. And as before Gerald is shocked.


Yes, good analogy - she did repeat the blow and said prior at the Water-Party scene she would strike the last blow and so she has in this final scene between them. Again Gerald is shocked, but why do you think?




> Again we have the imagery of Gerald fragmented, openned up. The blow has reached down into his subconscious and that desire to kill comes out:


The 'fragmented' part is excellent. You describe that so well in this last pargraph of yours :Thumbs Up:  ....hummmm....'subconsious' again.  :Wink:  You sure have been using that word a lot lately...of course, how can one read L with using it? Do you still not believe in it, *V*?




> He is reaching his moment of satisfaction, his bliss. Strangling her will achieve his moment of satisfaction. But he doesn't complete it. I think this is very important. He has the power and ability to kill her and he doesn't go through with it. Why?


'Why' is an interesting question. I wonder if he has just had enough at this point. For one thing there has been much death encountered personally in his life. I think he strangles her and then suddenly something vital inside him just shatters and breaks, and he lets go. He lets go of all his 'will'; thus he gives up and goes off to die alone and dejected of all life.




> I can't help but see it as a moment of transcendence over the will of his subconscious. "'I didn't want it, really'" and "'Ive had enough.'" It is as if he realizes that after he kills her, "whither?" "What next?" What would it have accomplished. Everything we have seen and read is his desire and propensity for him to kill her and he overcomes it. I can't quite call it heroic, but some measure of noblity should be given him. And then he is broken inside and goes off and accepts his death. He is tired of the cycles and his only way to stop them is to end himself.


Opps, we think the same way, I had not read your last paragraph yet, when I wrote my last one; so we agree. Good referring again to "whither?" and "What next?". So true - what could possibly be next for him after this? He has met his only option and that is to dissolve and be done with everything. I think he kept things going at home also and he can't return there to that pointless existence. He really is left with no alternative but to seek obscurity in the snow and the finality of death. I don't know if it is heroic either when he refrains from killing Gudrun. But his death does seem noble, somehow to me, as well. Good last line, *V.* I think it is a matter of him simply being weary of living/struggling, at this point, the kind of living Gerald was experiencing for his entire life, a non vital type of living.

Onto next post ~

Refer to post #276 for *Virgil's* quotes from book.




> I have one more analytic post on Women In Love. There is an interesting passage in the last chapter "Exeunt" (chapter 31). Birkin returns to the mountains to help Gudrun after Gerald has died. He goes to investigte the the death scene:


I also found this passage curious and very though provoking.




> Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald.


Yes, now I can clearly see what Lawrence was getting at with this part of the story. I did think at the time that for Gerald there was no other alternative but death. If one explored other possibilites they all would eventually lead to death or obscurity. Gerald's life was spent and he was fragmented beyond repair at the point when he tried to strangle Gundrun. There could be nothing after but death. Birkin does come to this realisation which must have been totally devastating and sorrowful to Birkin who had deeply loved Gerald as a brother.




> And from Gerald he begins to contemplate the religious significance of life.


Fascinating quote from the book. I thought it was amazing, when I first read it. It seemed like a new thought to me - one I had never contemplated before. Yes, I believe this - God does not need man. Dinasaurs left the earth and becames extinct and so could man someday - who knows? It is an interesting and curious thought, is it not? This part of the book reminds me of some passages from his "Apocalypse". I don't recall exactly which ones, but it seems to me he repeated some thoughts such as this in the A.




> I find this an interesting religious notion. God is essentially uncaring about man and his predicament in the universe. That is not original. Hardy and other late 19th century thinkers may have shared this. But here I think is where it is only Lawrence's conceptualization:


Yes, but Hardy finally claimed to have no belief at all in God, he denied God existed; he claimed to be an atheist. Lawrence seems to believe in a God or Gods, but that God will still exist if, if man no longer exists, at least in this part of his life when he wrote WIL. 




> It is up to man to put himself in contact with the divinity. This is where Birkin and Ursula in their polar star relationship will be. As you can grasp, the ideal relationship with this divinity is as a plant, basking in the glory of this fountainhead. In other works, the fountainhead tends to be the sun.


*Virgil,* all of this gets a little confusing to me. What about after death -will Ursula and Birkin still be as stars and one with the universe? I thought also that plants were inert. Or did you mean to say 'planet' here? Yes, Lawrence felt the 'sun' was the fountainhead of life....something like that. Many ancient civilizations worshiped the sun and this seemed to appeal to Lawrence's ideals. Does the sun work into the scheme of the Phoenix as well -the burning down, to rise from the ashes and live again? I am thinking - sun/fire. 




> *One last thing. Now that I have studied Women In Love in real detail, perhaps it is as great or greater than Lawrence's The Rainbow. I encourage everyone to read The Rainbow and let me know which is the greater work. I now have a hard time deciding. This was a real pleasure. *


Well, I read both books and I feel "Women in Love" is the most complete and the best novel of the two, but I should definitely go back and re-read "To the Rainbow". I am sure now, with this additional knowledge I have acquired from our great discussions, I will be able to see much deeper into the novel's meanings and symbolism. I will definitely appreciate it better after a second reading. I too would highly recommend WIL to all and encourage them to try it.

I have some more commentary from two source books to post. I will do that in my leisure and let you all know when I do so. I think it will enhance our total understanding of the novel. What a great discussion this has been thanks to *everyone!*

----------


## Virgil

Janine, I'll respond to all your questions. But it may take a while. I'll be going away at the end of the week and I'm not sure I'll get to any of t until I come back. Thanks for your reply.

----------


## Janine

> Janine, I'll respond to all your questions. But it may take a while. I'll be going away at the end of the week and I'm not sure I'll get to any of t until I come back. Thanks for your reply.


*Virgil,* don't worry your brilliant little brain about Lit Net posts. Go and have fun! That's fine. Actually, I am glad of it. I am burned out by now :Sick:  and need a rest. 
Also, I want to post some more of the introduction - some food for thought. I came across some commentary in another book called "D.H.Lawrence Literary Critiques" I have out from my library. It is an older book, but it has some good commentary on "The Rainbow" and "Women in Love". I will probably photocopy the Rainbow part and scan the WIL part. Takes so long to scan though. I wish I could come across these books online - I would buy them gladly. I have been looking. I really want one called "Sons and Lovers" A Casebook edited by Gamini Salgado. It is a good book with all kinds of references in it from letters to critics commentary (in L's time) to his own comments/observations on the book.

Here is a cool site I found last night when I was researching L online:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/22...ure.html?fta=y

Enjoy! J

You know my signature photo? Well, this is the actual tree the picture was fashioned after, which Lawrence sat under to do his writing in New Mexico. It is a tall stately pine tree. Wonderful, isn't it?



PS. *Virgil* - I read your poem you wrote in the contest site and liked it very much. Sorry I forgot to mention it, and now my mailbox is nearly full again. Good job and hope you win!

----------


## Janine

*Hi everyone!* I am now posting some more of the commentary by Worthen from my book Introduction:




> In three crucial chapters at the heart of the book, the characters begin to choose which way they will go. Though there is space only to touch on these in reductive outline, here is where difficulty and disturbance concentrate, and an outline may serve as sounding board rather than imprisoning interpretation. 
> 
> In chapter XVIII, 'Rabbit', Gudrun and young Winifred Crich set out to sketch the 'Looliness' of Looloo the Pekinese; and Winifred produces a wicked little diagram or caricature, which nevertheless is very 'like'. She's an apt pupil for Gudrun, who likes to pin things down, to grasp them once and for all: Gerald as wolf (14:40), birds as little Lloyd Georges (264:3). She sculpts figures of birds and animals one can hold in one's hand. Art for her is a means of knowing as possession, exerting a kind of power over the object - which is why the drawing may do Looloo 'some subtle injury' (236:6). But it is one thing to sketch Looloo, and quite another to haul the great buck rabbit Bismarck out of his cage by the ears, in order to do the same. For he has power of his own, and reacts against the attempts to 'grasp' him by instantaneous violence, tempestuous, almost uncontrollable. This in turn brings welling up in Gudrun; 'fury', a 'heavy cruelty', as her wrists are scored and she battles to control the 'bestial stupidity' (240:30-32). To hear her high voice 'like the crying of a seagull, strange and vindictive' (241:2) is to be reminded again of the scene with the horse at the railway crossing, especially when Gerald' takes over the struggle (110:9-II2:40). But the response of violence to rebellion is height&#172;ened this time as the man's hand comes down on the rabbit's neck like a hawk, and the animal screams in the fear of death - until, with a final writhe and tearing, it is mastered. Having taken in the scene with the mare, and the scene with the highland cattle which re&#172;orchestrated it, perhaps we are prepared for the struggle between man and animal to suggest something about the human 'war', the battle between the sexes. (So far, moreover, the action has been predominantly realistic, starting in comedy, surprised into violence.) But now, from behind the realism, once more, the new art begins to open up a dimension undiscovered in earlier fiction, for 'the scream of the rabbit ... seemed to have torn the veil of her consciousness' (241:20-21), and what lies behind the veil in Gudrun and Gerald is revealed to them both presently, beyond disguise. 
> 
> The language shows the strain of having to put into words something which by definition is almost beyond articulation, and which may therefore seem far-fetched or even absurd - at first. Gudrun looks at him with eyes 'strained with underworld knowledge' (nearly a contradiction in terms, but not for Lawrence), '... like those of a creature which is at his mercy' (an expression caught in the eyes of rabbit and woman alike), 'yet which is his ultimate victor' (241:40-242:1) – unless he could treat her as he has treated Bismarck. He feels 'the mutual hellish recognition' (242:2) as 'she seemed like a soft recipient of his magical, hideous white fire' (242:4-5), of cruelty. 'There was a league between them, abhorrent to them both. They were implicated with each other in abhorrent mysteries' Then follows perhaps the most absurb-sounding sentence Lawrence had ever had ever written. ‘The long, shallow red rip seemed torn across his brains, tearing the surface of his ultimate consciousness, letting through the forever unconscious, unthinkable red ether of the beyond, the obscene beyond’ (242:37-7). But suppose one tried to puzzle this out? Is it that, as Gerald stares into the redness of that gash opened up by violence, he can momentarily sense his way through the bloody medium into this own psyche as well as hers? – and be enveloped and overcome by what comes out of the blood, the fascinating excitement of violence, or exerting power over a living creature sadistically, or masochistically? The Rainbow made it clear that sex is always, for Lawrence, a going through, beyond one’s ordinary self and old consciousness, into a new mode of being. But here the mode is ‘hellish’ and ‘obscene’ because because its ‘either’ – the medium in the space beyond the normal atmostphere, now within rather than above – is the pleasure in violence, whose final frisson is death. Bismarck, then, gets rid of distress and frustration by tearing round and round in meteoric frenzy, seeming mad but actually quite natural. (Yet that word poses disturbing questions in this context. What is ‘natural’? Is violence, war, ‘natural’, or ‘denaturing’?) But as the lovers exchange suggestive hints of the possibilities their subconscious has suggested, they show a readiness to offer and accept rabbit-sexuality and animal violence that may, even now (for conscious human beings), be ‘shocking’ in its ‘nonchalance’(243:33-4). However, the final sentence of the chapter (243:33-4) is a sudden reminder of the path that has been forsaken since ‘Water-Party’. For Bismarck is not the power-wielder and warmonger of his name. In truth he is a mystery, a wonder (like Gerald in the canoe), when seen with reverence for the ‘other’ rather than with the impulse to impose ones’s will and dominate – whether by Winfred’s fantasy and mothering, or in Gerald and Gundrun’s power struggle, to the death if it should come to that.
> 
> There is violence and deathliness in Birkin and Ursula, too. Yet the crucial discovery of chapter XIX, 'Moony', is that there is a kind of violence that can heal, as well as a violence that destroys. The changeability of this pair has -been evident since 'Water-Party'. Birkin has been ill, withdrawn. Ursula has again reacted in repulsion at what she sees as his deathliness, and, moreover, with a kind of pure hatred for his very being, oppressive to her ego. As she wanders through the dark trees, she is in a mood of almost annihilating repudiation - hating the brilliant moonlight which makes everything definite and visible to consciousness, drawn to the darkness in which we can lose oneself. Yet here by the pond is Birkin, a shadow, muttering ludicrously, so that she wants to laugh. The flower-husks he drops in the water are reminders of the flowers they scattered on the pond in chapter XI, 'An Island", when they first admitted their love, now gone dead and dry, Birkin thinks that all relations with women are an antiphony of lies. Indeed, the moon suggests to him a horrible female power, like the Syrian goddess of violent sexuality. So it seems in hatred of Woman that he begins to stone the moon's reflection. But, when it is over, he will ask '"Was it hate?"' However much is may be (both in Birkin and the watching Ursula) a wroking off of anger, dislike, frustration, it seems also more, and deeper than that. What happens to dark water and white moon -- as well as in people?
> 
> The impact of the first stone makes the moon's reflection look like a writhing cuttlefish, and with a second stone the moon explodes. Waves of darkness run into the centre, but after the near-destruction the moon re-forms. Again, with stones close together, Birkin's explosions momentarily obliterate the moon, but again it re-forms. Then he throws stone, after stone, after stone. And here what seems important is to submit imaginatively to the experience in the language and the rhythm, let it happen within: 'And he was not satisfied ... whole and composed, at peace' (247:35-248:22). It is an experience of extraordinary violence, yet after and through it comes a strange peace, and tenderness, in which words of simple truth can be spoken. Neurosis, hatred, deathliness have vanished (though they may come back). Moreover, after the apparently destructive violence the moon looks different. It no longers seems hard, triumphant, a thing of power. It has become a rose, 'constellated' in the dark water - reminding one of Ursula's rose (not afleur du mal) against Birkin's dark river of dissolution, and of how the rosy lantern balanced and harmonized with the dark one and its writhing sea-creature, and of the symbolism of the rose in many languages. What has happened in the pool and in the subconscious of the lovers seems to be a mode of 'love' in which the relationship can grow through conflict, the clash of personalities, even violence, to harmony and peace. In The Rainbow sex had been seen as a kind of death and rebirth, a loss of consciousness and experience of oblivion at the hands of the 'other' (like the result of the first stonings here), but opening up a new life beyond. But then, as Lawrence rewrote his 'philosophy' in 'The Crown', he had seen that there were times when violence and destruction have to go far indeed before new creation can begin. The subconscious may have to be deeply agitated, neurotic consciousness broken apart or indeed almost completely disintegrated, before the new harmony can come about and the whole self become calm and composed. Yet come about it experientially does - because (this seems important) neither of the opposed forces can overcome the other. Out of the writhing polyp, the crashing noise, the broken water, the splintered light, the shattering violence, come healing, peace and tenderness. '''There is a golden light in you, which I wish you would give me''', says Birkin (249:15), something more than merely personal. 
> ...


That is all for now until I scan the remainder. You may have noticed W speaks of 3 key chapters and only two are mentioned here; this is where I left off scanning and will resume soon. I think these passages, and pointing out these three chapters, will give you much to think about and clarify some parts and ideas we discussed throughout the postings. Keep in mind that the next part I post disgusses the 'third chapter' Worthen is referring to so...this is to be continuted.

----------


## papayahed

> *Papayahed,* is this that part you are referring to in Chapter VI?
> 
> Ok, for the last hour or so I have been searching through the text and postings for references to the figurines and I come up with some discussions starting at post #117, about Lawrence's 'blood philosophy' which is first layed out and explained by Virgil. If you continue on through post #120, and maybe even a little further on you will see the discussion about the African figures and how they relate to this philosophy or idea. I hope this helps some. You might have to skip over some unnecessary parts of the postings.


Oh good heavens! Thanks for taking the time to look.

----------


## papayahed

I've just finished the book and my first thought is that it is very much a soap opera. 

I haven't read all of the posts so forgive me if I bring up something that has already been discussed.

Geralds reaction to those statues, perhaps that is his reaction to Gudrun's world. She's the artist, he's the logical businessman maybe a forshadowing of their inability to stay together.

Somebody mentioned that Loerke was a homosexual, how do we know this? Did I miss that part? I got the impression that he was hetero from that parts that described his inability to approach let alone speak to Gudrun.




> Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald.


This screams Soap Opera, why isn't there anything left for Gerald???

----------


## manolia

Just read those pages you scanned Janine for the second time. Thanks for sharing  :Smile:

----------


## Janine

Hi *Manolia,* Glad you read it again and got something of value out of it. This same author - Worthen - wrote the current L biography I am reading - it is only the first half called "The Early Years"; very detailed; I also own the second half called "Life of an Outsider". Shall I scan more of the Introduction for you? I think there may be about 8 pages left, on here it won't appear to be that long...just in the paperback edition. I will check my book and see where I left off. I am reading a "Casebook" now on "The Rainbow"and "Women in Love". It is quite interesting; renewed it at my library tonight, but I have ordered it online used. It is something I would like to add to my collection. I read another one as well, also ordered that one but I scanned much of it - "The Sons and Lovers Casebook"; the scans will come in real handy, later on, when we read and discuss the S&L's on here this fall. How many books did I say I owned on L? Well add a few new finds to the list. Probably up to about 25 now.

----------


## mcvv09

Women In Love is my personal favorite of Lawrence's books. I feel that it is his most complete representation of his views on life, individuality, and marriage. The true joy in the novel comes from comparing the relationship of Birkin and Ursula with that of Gerald and Gudrun. As a result, one can see that true marriage must result from free passion and a divorce from the dehumanizing industrialization. Rupert and Ursula were able to create an entirely new world within themselves. This is contrasted with the relationshp of Gerald and Gudrun. Gerald could not break from industrialization and was left wanting more from work. Gudrun was left wanting actual passion and resorted to affairs. Rupert and Ursula found contenment, while Gerald and Gudrun's relationship ended when Gerald died.

----------


## Janine

*Hi mcvv09,* I see you are new to the forum, so let me welcome you! I am so glad you stopped by this thread to comment. I too find this to be my favorite Lawrence novel. I feel it is Lawrence most complete and perfect work - really his masterpiece. We have been discussing the book in extensive detail (mostly two month's ago, as our monthly book read) and have written 19 pages of posts, quite ambitious for one month's time! I hope you find the time to read some of the entries, if not all. I think you will gather much in the way of new ideas and information from doing so. The novel is a complex one, as all of Lawrence's writings are.

We currently have active threads on Lawrence - one on his short stories and one on his Tortoise poems, the second will resume next month, if anyone else in addition to myself is interested.

I am an avid fan of Lawrence and have read 3 full biographies on the man and have real nearly all his novels. I am currently reading a later, more obscure novel "The Plumed Serpent". 

Several of the participants in the short story thread will be reading "Sons and Lover's" sometime this fall and discussing it. During Christmas vacation we are planning to read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" - same group. 

I hope you can join in with some, or all, of these threads that are in progress or will be starting up soon. If you have not read Lawrence's short stories you are in for an interesting experience - discussions have been quite enthralling and I hope you can join in our group.

Have a great weekend and glad I caught your post.

----------


## blazeofglory

> *
> 
> In June we will be reading Women in Love by DH Lawrence:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...0742461&sr=1-1
> 
> Online Copy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book Club Regulations


He is one of my unfavorites and he had greatly influenced me. Many of my ideas about life and the world are formed and shaped by Lawrence. One of th e creations of him that touched me beyond limits is Piano. This poem is so deeply rooted that I feel like crying whenever I read this, so nostalgically presented, a perfect relationship between mother and son. When e read his poems we get transported to the domain he writes about.

----------


## Janine

*Blaze,* did you mean to write 'unfavorites'? I am curious. I am sorry I have missed that other thread in which we were discussing Lawrence's work and ideas and nature. I have been preoccuppied with two other Lawrence threads that are currently very active - Sons and Lovers and Short Stories. I will try to post something in your thread about Lawrence's domain tomorrow. I did not mean to be absent from there so long.

----------


## caspian

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out. 
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing. 
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

----------


## Janine

> Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out. 
> I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house.  I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing. 
> ....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
> By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!


Nice to see you back, *caspian!* Glad you are further exploring the novels or my favorite author - DHL....good writing, eh? Yes, the men were fully-fleshed out - you are correct on that observation, I believe. Your plan to read "The Rainbow" is a good one. Virgil will probably comment in here since he loves that novel best of all of L's novels. I now think I love them all but before "Women in Love" has been my favorite. I read in the same sequence that you are reading - WIL first and the TR next. It will not hurt to do so since both novels are quite complete without each other although a deeper understanding might be said to be acquired by reading both. I would think so since L conceived both stories to be one novel orginally, and then split them up, knowing they would be too long, for just one novel (together).

I think it a good plan after reading TR to go back, as you say, and reread WIL for refreshing. I read the novel twice and I acquired a lot more from it the second time around. I just bought a new copy of TR, so it is on my reading list for probably next year unless sooner. I read it before, as I said, but now it is time for a rereading - definitely, because I am sure my perspective on Lawrence has changed significantly since I first read this novel in my youth. Lawrence, himself, felt that all novels or great works should be read at least twice; I read this acknowlegement in a letter he wrote. I can truly see his point now and agree whole-heartedly.

I saw the film and so did *Virgil.* We both agree that it did fluctuate much from the original story and Virgil felt it feel very short of getting some of the ideas across. I recall the film being quite progressive and acclaimed in it's day so I think it set out to show some of what Lawrence was saying but films always do fall short. Still at the time it was a bit of a revelations and a well made film I think. I own the film but now when watching it I am sure I will see how very very different it is from the story. For one thing Gerald is blond in the book and dark haired brooding in the film. Yes, at times Rupert is clownish in the film or funny but in the book there were shred of that in his way I think but not so much. Also one whole scene with the fig - I wondered where they even got that from - it was not in the text of the book at all! Film-makers can be so funny in that I suppose they have to appeal to an audience and the masses when making films and lose sight sometimes of the orginal book. But all in all I don't feel it was a bad production - just limited. They did get the wrestling scene pretty accurate and also the ending. That was something quite amazing. 

I think that *V* read "Rabbit, run" so I will let him comment on that. 
"Owen Meany" I liked but probably would never read again. I had some issues with that book and it seemed so long, at times. You can read my comments in the OM thread. I do like Irving to some degree - basically he is a good writer, with interesting ideas, but I don't think heis great, but I am not normally one to read contemporary authors too often, so I am biased in that way. 
*Virgil* might comment also on OM, but then again this is a WIL thread. haha - how we all overlap - right? 
Nice to see this thread reoppened again - by that I mean active. I believe these threads should continue forever, you know. :Wink:

----------


## Virgil

> Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out. 
> I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing. 
> ....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
> By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!


I'm glad you're reading The Rainbow. That is actually my favorite of Lawrence's novels. I guess it would be hard to read the ending of Women In Love while at the beach.  :Wink:  Seems incongruous.

Any questions or comments of A Prayer for Owen Meany are supposed to go here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...any#post403911

And on Rabitt, Run here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=27094&page=2

----------


## heraclitus

Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.

----------


## Janine

> Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.


Fantastic! Hello *heraclitus,* and welcome to this great forum. As you may have surmised, I am a huge Lawrence fan, from my signature and photo above it - called the Lawrence tree by Georgia O'Keefe, which someone has recently pointed out to me is actually hanging upside-down; :Wink:  I just have not changed it yet.
Anyway, I have read many Lawrence biographies and most of what Lawrence has written and your questions are not easy ones to answer. There is another person, as interested as I am, in Lawrence work, *Virgil;*he wrote his thesis on Lawrence and L's ideas of 'Transfiguration' in his later works. Unfortunately, *V* is temporarily away from the computer this weekend, but will be back next week, and active on the site I am sure.

At anyrate, you have come to the right place to discuss Lawrence work, although this particular discussion on "Women in Love" basically took place nearly one year ago; however threads never technically close and I still love to discuss this great book, so if I see someone comment I come in a try to address the post. "Women in Love" has always been my favorite Lawrence book, but the more I learn, myself, about Lawrence, the more I see his ideas presented in other books, I can see that in WIL ,they were far from definitive or final for Lawrence. You have to understand that indeed, Lawrence was influenced in his early years and beyond by Freud and by Nietzche, but Lawrence never truly adopted their philosophies precisely; remember he was just 'influenced' by their writings. Lawrence very much had his own set of ideas, which changed and developed in the space of his short life span. He died of TB in his early 40's. If you were to read more of his books, and I don't know how much you have read, you would see this exploration of Lawrence's beliefs and know it is not a simple question that you present here on your forum post. Actually, much of what you say is good and true, but actually Lawrence did feel he was a highly religious person, but his religion was not of the conventional or easily explained aspect. Lawrence did believe in a higher power or powers; it is very complicated to explain and only by absorbing more of his writings can one come up with their own conclusion to just what exactly Lawrence did believe in. It has been a long pursuit for me and I still soak up whatever I can find to read of Lawrence's because of my own curiosity on the subject.

Currently, I would like to alert you to other Lawrence discussions - one active now Lawrence short stories thread, which has been running now over a year and is very successful. If you are inclined, feel free to come and and join in our discussions; we discuss one story monthly; this month is "The Blind Man" and can be found on this very site, under Lawrence's main page. You will actually learn much about how Lawrence thought and believed from those stories. We have all learned much and continue to do so. Plus the discussions are a lot of fun.

In the near spring we plan on reading "The Rainbow" and discussing that novel. Have you read it? It actually is the prequel to "Women in Love" but most definitely can be read independently. I read it that way actually; read WIL firstly. Later on, perhaps in the summer, we planned a reading of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I hope all of these novels interest you. I, especially love to recruit newcomers to the Lawrence threads. Hope you can join us.

----------


## reading

everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy

----------


## Janine

> everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy


Well hello *reading* and welcome to the forum!

Yes, you are absolutely correct assuming that. I am probably the biggest fan of all of Lawrence's on this site, along with Virgil; I have made it my life goal to read all that Lawrence has written (at least, all that I can find available). I did read several biographies and started a 4th. I'm rather addicted by now, to say the least. Lawrence is my favorite author.

Oddly enough, I just finished "The Virgin and the Gipsy". I read this book years ago and loved it, but strange as it may seem when I picked it up again, I could not recall much from my earlier reading. 

A few others I have read lately have been the same way. I read "Love Among the Haystakes" a couple of weeks ago; another repeat reading and I liked that book very much, as well. Have you read any other of his books? I have been trying to read his shorter works of fiction, such as the length of "The Virgin and the Gipsy". Also, on this forum is a discussion thread of Lawrence's short stories, which I have been active in since the beginning. I recently dropped out for a time, due to some problems that cropped up and I need a rest myself. It is also possible the thread will take a rest until fall; that is not certain so don't quote me.

This is odd; I came into this thread the other day, actually to see if it still existed. This was last year's discussion on the novel "Women in Love"; this discussion group was great; the discussion highly sucessful. How in the world did you ever find this thread? Probably by just putting 'Lawrence' into the search, right? The participants in this thread had expressed a desire to discuss another full-length Lawrence novel in the future. The one that will probably be discussed next will be "The Rainbow" since we did discuss "Sons and Lovers", as one of the regular monthly reads (also a very enlightening discussion). If you have not read that novel, I would highly recommend it to you. It was Lawrence's first well known novel and basically it is drawn from his his own life and family (basically autobiographical in origin).

If you are just beginning to discover D.H.Lawrence, let me suggest a few short works you may want to begin with. I would highly recommend these pieces of shorter fiction (Novellas):

Love Among the Haystakes
The Fox
The Ladybird

And any or all of the short stories. You can take a peek in the short story thread to see the ones we have discussed in the past year. One one of the pages we did list those. I will try and find that page and list them here for you. There are a lot of posts to wade through to find them but I think I know about where they are in that thread.

Hope all this helps. It might be fun to start a separate thread on "The Virgin and the Gipsy", if I do I will let you know. There is a movie adaptation of the book which I am considering buying. I saw it on Amazon.

----------


## Janine

Glad to see this thread is still open but I am frankly confused as to why the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread is closed or appears to be. I am posting here now to assure this stays open because I wish to copy this thread to my hard-drive - the discussion was so good.

----------


## Carpalim

First, sorry if the following has been gone over before, but I didn't want to go back over the whole thread till I've finished the book. Too many spoilers.

What excites me principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown at times as an overbearing preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But _am_ I right?

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing genitals through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover that glaring ommission of the great 18th and 19th century novelists: sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. Amongst its many other achievements, WIL is a brave stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex. The powerful scene where Gerald, on the brink of the void, goes to Gudrun's room and pours his 'poison' into her, and is relieved, exposes a vital truth; it's an overwhelming vindication for the advent of the sex scene in literature.

----------


## Virgil

> What I love principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown as a preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But _am_ I right?


I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.




> Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.


Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.

----------


## Carpalim

> I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.


A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book) 


[/QUOTE]Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are sprinklings here and there. 'Nana' by Zola comes to mind. Don't remember much in Hardy, but then I only read him at school - perhaps they only gave us 'clean' ones (Mayor of Casterbridge, Return of the Native).

----------


## Janine

Glad to see a newcomer to the Women in Love thread. Welcome *Carpalim!* It is good to see a new face here. "Women in Love" happens to be my favorite Lawrence novel and I have read nearly all of them by now. In fact, I am working now on the more obscure ones. You can't tell I am a Lawrence fanatic, can you? Anyway, I enjoyed reading your very well thoughtout and written post. I think that definitely "Women in Love" is a kind of grabbling towards Lawrence's true goals and perspective in life, and he is stuggling with his beliefs. He has already been accused, at this point, of being too 'preachy' and so he is definitely projecting his personality onto Birkin. The majority of critics will agree that Birkin most certain does represent Lawrence. This does not say it shows us a Lawrence without doubts and flaws - to the contrary, Lawrence know what they are. In a sense from the beginning of this novel to the end is a personal journey for Lawrence. He is working out his own existence in the pages and he is also seeing the characters around him as only he could perceive them. For instance, Hermoine Rondice is also representative of Lady Ottoline Morrel, who later Lawrence had a falling-out with. You can well see why, when she recognised her character in the novel. Of course, she and L did not have an affair or sexual relationship, but she very much portrays her personality. Ursula is of course, representative of Lawrence real wife, Frieda. At anyrate, you are correct, in thinking that at times in the novel Lawrence is poking some fun at himself. I agree about the humor in the conversations, even though there is a great deal of gravity and meaning, as well. Many people do not realise just how humorous Lawrence was in real life. He could actually be the life of the party and loved mimicry and charades. I think that Birkin's playful personality does indeed reflect that of Lawrence, at times in the novel.

I remember that when we discussed this book awhile back, a few people started out not liking Birkin at all. I did not quite understand that, since I did like his character from the start and found him amusing, and I saw Lawrence immediately in his character. I also saw the very human aspects of the man trying desperately to break out of the norm and find his own unique world and way.

This is a good observation:




> A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)


I think a distinctive scene is when Ursula comes back at Birkin after they go off for a picnic and he had given her the rings - she really brings to light the failings in his idealogy. She tells him to go back to his spiritual wives. I just love that scene. After that Birkin does change his tune. We have all been there sometime in our lives and know that same feeling, I believe...and yes, Lawrence knew just how to beautifully express all of that and not make it ridiculous - instead it is always so truthful and totally human.




> Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.


I think he was restrained by the times as is evident when he pulled out all the stops or some in "Lady Chatterly's Lover" which he had to have printed and published with his own money. However, in this part of Lawrence's career when he wrote WIL, I think the book is perfect in what it does reveal sexually. You must know that Lawrence himself was sometimes called a prude and he was certainly old-fashioned in some views. He was very much for marriage and to one woman for life. I think that by showing the plants in such a sensual way is totally Lawrence's style and it serves to not only suggest the sexual union but also to bring nature into play with humanity and I think that he is showing us that we are not any different than nature and the animal kingdom - there is the interconnectivity of all and the heavens. Lawrence abhored pornography and he did not blantantly set forth sex in his books in a pornographic way at all. He was not out to make the reader have thrills or a shock over his more intimate scenes. Instead he stayed true to his form and indeed the suggestion is much more effective. I can not imagine WIL written in any other manner. He said just enough and the text is beautiful - the scenes stand out as intense images in our minds long after the last page is read. To me this book had a great impact on my life at the time I first read it. I have since read it again and it no less has impressed me. If anything, I have been affected more so by it. Now that is a 'great' book.

----------


## Carpalim

Glad to have contributed something useful! 

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably beyond the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden_ evasion_ of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex _per se_ - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

----------


## Virgil

> Glad to have contributed something useful! 
> 
> The 'pornography' question is huge and probably not to be held within the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden_ evasion_ of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex _per se_ - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.


Well, all literature has breaks in recording. The author chooses to fully render some things and summarize others. If the actual sex has nothing to do with the themes, then the author has crossed over into pornography. When the sex is integral to the themes, then the author needs to make a decision. Suggestiveness in deference to decorum is not necessarily a bad thing. Except for Lady Chatterly Lawrence is not really all that sexually explicit. Certainly less so than Joyce in Ulysses. In many respects Lawrence is quite prude. One can even argue that the explicitedness of Lady Chatterly was done for commercial purposes. But nonetheless it is still integral to the themes and works out well in my opinion.

----------


## Janine

Originally Posted by Carpalim 



> Glad to have contributed something useful! 
> 
> The 'pornography' question is huge and probably not to be held within the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.


*Carpalim,* Anyone who comes in here and contributes is more than welcome. I like it when people show interest in Lawrence, since I am such a big fan of the author myself. Even though this discussion of the novel took place months ago, or was it a year, *Virgil* (?), I am quite pleased to see the thread continuing with added commentary. I would like to see all threads on serious discussions continue like this. By all means, Carpalim, do add more comments and I or Virgil will try to address them in the coming days, weeks. 

You may not know this, but Lawrence wrote a very prominent essay on his thoughts concerning pornography. I have so many Lawrence books and not sure which one it is in, at this moment or I would look it up now; so let me look that up for you later on and get back to you. You might get lucky and find the essay online. I will check that out and see if I come up with it tonight. I do know that Lawrence thought that 'if sex was in the 'head' that made it pornographic' - at least that was his view. I will also find exact quotes. I think the essay would better help you understand where Lawrence was 'coming from' about revealing the sexual act blantantly in his work. Also, one must be aware that very often his publishers cut texts and yes, indeed, very often Lawrence was very angry about his work being butchered - who wouldn't be? Some of the original texts have resurfaced now and scholars of Lawrence are working hard to have them become public. Many of these original versions are now publishede and attainable. In fact Lawrence actually wrote three distinct version of LCL. In "Lady Chatterly's Lover", I don't quite agree with *Virgil* about this novel, being more sexually explicit, because of the commercial factor. I think by this point in Lawrence's late life, he just did not care anymore what people thought and about who was going to censor him; he had become fearless and reckless in a way. This is why he sought finally to have this book published and payed for outside the bonds of the conventional publishing world; instead independently - in fact, Lawrence, himself had it financed out of his own pocket. I therefore, do not see it as a money-making venture - Lawrence was not like that at all. He disliked capitalism. He did not care much about things and could have lived well and high, but he choose always not to - he took the more 'untraveled' road. In someways' by standing up to publishers and doing his 'own thing', towards the end, he ended up sabataging himself; but I do not think he was ever in true need of food or the essentials in life and he was able to make enough money to travel the world throughout his life; although he was never extravagant in anyway. I have read 4 biographies by now, and much research on the author, so I know this to be a fact. He wasn't down and out poor, but he was far from rich. In fact, I think that publishing "Lady Chatterly" set him back some. The book was banned or rejected in several countries at first; there was even a big court battle in England - the famous obesity trial - one can read all about it and who stood up for Lawrence in the end. Now LCL best seller, right? Truly ironic. For the times, it was quite a scandalise book but by today's standards no one would even raise an eyelid.





> Well, all literature has breaks in recording. The author chooses to fully render some things and summarize others. If the actual sex has nothing to do with the themes, then the author has crossed over into pornography. When the sex is integral to the themes, then the author needs to make a decision. Suggestiveness in deference to decorum is not necessarily a bad thing. Except for Lady Chatterly Lawrence is not really all that sexually explicit. Certainly less so than Joyce in Ulysses. In many respects Lawrence is quite prude. One can even argue that the explicitedness of Lady Chatterly was done for commercial purposes. But nonetheless it is still integral to the themes and works out well in my opinion.


*Virgil,* That is true, about literature often breaking in the recording. I think sometimes the author does it purposely, for a certain effect. Often 'suggestion' is much more effective than spelling out the intimate details. I don't think that Lawrence avoided 'sex' in the novels one bit. He used 'sensuality' and connected the natural elements in nature and the animal kingdom with the human-being. Look at the scene in WIL, when Birkin runs out of the house into the fields or woods, after Hermoine hits him in the head. He fleas from her falsity and strips naked and is one with the natural world again - undergoing a sort of cleansing of his body and soul. The naked wrestling scene may not be 'sexual' in nature, but it certainly was the epitomy of the 'sensual' and it was so well written and imagined. The catkin scene is a good one, and shows the way in which Lawrence tied all of nature in with man. I happen to love that scene, since it also shows the difference in the two women's thinking and later actions.

----------


## Carpalim

Yes, Virgil, you're right that an author can't record everything, and must be selective in what he shows. But what I meant was the break in the tone, the change in focus, whenever the sex crops up. Lawrence, who has throughout the novel maintained his amazing facility for recording what is entering the character's souls through their eyes, ears, noses and fingers, must artificially shut down this direct sensory intake whenever the characters 'embrace'. Birkin, on seeing the secrets of Ursula's body would have a reaction. Surely the reaction of a character like Birkin to such a thing would be of profound interest, and thoroughly relevant to the aim of rendering the three-dimensional relationship between him and Ursula. This is what he gave us in 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. When the clothes came off, the sensory intake of the lovers kept running, we kept looking through their eyes at what they were seeing. As a result the depiction of the relationship became so fully-rounded it attained an almost unbearable truthfulness. For instance, when Lady C considers how ridiculous ultimately the movement of her lover's body is. A reaction from Gudrun to Gerald on the same level of directness would bring not pornography but simply more truth. 

I'm not criticising WIL here - the relationships are obviously beautifully and masterfully rendered, including the coming-togethers. I just think it could have been even better if it had that extra dimension which graces Lady C. 

If Lawrence was more explicit in LCL for commercial reasons, I'm greatly surprised, though he is too much of an artist to let the sex be anything other than a vital part of his statement.

Janine, I'd love to read L's views on 'pornography'. I must have a look for it.

I can't resist any more. Just a general word on the dreaded 'p' word. To my mind, any writing which is an honest meditation on what it is to possess a sexual organ is to be welcomed as a valid exploration into one aspect of the profundity we call the human condition, no matter how frank the vision. Such an endeavour should not concern itself with whether the public is going to be offended or 'thrilled'. Though I'd say that if the reader _is_ thrilled as a side effect, then... well, what's the harm? A little more joy has been brought into the world!

----------


## Janine

*Carpalim,* 




> If Lawrence was more explicit in LCL for commercial reasons, I'm greatly surprised, though he is too much of an artist to let the sex be anything other than a vital part of his statement.


Sorry to jump in here like this, but did you see my post above? I don't think he did publish the book for commercial gain; that has been well documented. Also, I think that had Lawrence written WIL, at the same time in his life, that he wrote LCL, he may very well have been more sexually and honestly expressive/explicit about the characters. I don't think when he wrote WIL, he would have gotten away with it. His prior book "The Rainbow" was banned, so he was not about to throw all caution to the wind at this point in his career, or he would end up having another banned book on his hand, which would surely mean total ruin. I don't think any publisher would have published a book such as LCL in the early year that he wrote WIL.

----------


## Carpalim

Janine, yes, I did see your post; it came in as I was replying to Virgil's points. I do take on board your interesting info about the circumstances of LCL's publication. I come to the thread knowing very little about L's biography and am most grateful for what I've learned from your posts. 

I'm on the final chapter now, so I'll post something when I've finished.

----------


## Janine

> Janine, yes, I did see your post; it came in as I was replying to Virgil's points. I do take on board your interesting info about the circumstances of LCL's publication. I come to the thread knowing very little about L's biography and am most grateful for what I've learned from your posts. 
> 
> I'm on the final chapter now, so I'll post something when I've finished.


Oh thank you; glad to help out in any way. Enjoy the ending of the novel. I will be anxious to know what you think of it. I actually have read WIL twice and thanks to a good friend, listened to the MP3 audiofile once and it is still in my player so I plan another listening to. I do think WIL is my favorite book, don't you? :Wink: ...a little obessive on my part...

----------


## Carpalim

Thanks, I will enjoy it! And yes, I do think WIL is your favourite book! But there's one other tiny matter regarding WIL I'd just like to mention now, which is: is there an error in the manuscript? Because in my edition, there is a glaring contradiction between the first desciption of Halliday and the second, which follows about two pages later. Initially he's described as 'swarthy' and 'slender' with 'long, solid black hair'. Then he is 'heavy' and 'fair'. Is this so in your editions?

----------


## Janine

> Thanks, I will enjoy it! And yes, I do think WIL is your favourite book! But there's one other tiny matter regarding WIL I'd just like to mention now, which is: is there an error in the manuscript? Because in my edition, there is a glaring contradiction between the first desciption of Halliday and the second, which follows about two pages later. Initially he's described as 'swarthy' and 'slender' with 'long, solid black hair'. Then he is 'heavy' and 'fair'. Is this so in your editions?


Gee, you are observant; I have never noticed that. I will have to check the text more closely now...how curious. Do you know which chapter Halliday was introduced into the story? Then he appears later on, right? Maybe by fair he mean his skintone and maybe he gained weight...haha... really, I am just kidding. I will have to check that out and get back to you. I tend to get all those characters in that group of friends confused with each other. 

I should mention this to you now. We have been planning on reading "The Rainbow" sometime in the near future. We have a number of members interested in discussing it. I have read the book years ago but hardly recall much about it now, although I cheated and watched some episodes from a BBC mini-series on Youtube. I am definitely going to reread the novel; in fact I began it a month or so ago, but then put it asside since I was in the transistion of switching to a new PC. So *Carpalim,* if you have read the novel or desire to, I hope you can join in our discussion when the time comes. In actuality, the novel is the prequel to WIL, although it is very conceivable to read them out of sequence - I know I did orginally. "The Rainbow" features Ursula - pre-WIL, a sort of coming of age novel.

Presently, and most likely tonight, I will be formally posting the introduction to the Lawrence short story, so you may wish to check that out. I already mentioned the name of the story so some could get started reading it. It is under 10 pages long and not too demanding at this late date of this month. Discussion should be great fun with a few new participants. Glad to have you abroad.

----------


## Carpalim

Halliday first appears in the London bar chapter 'Creme de Menthe'. The two contradictory descriptions take place in that chapter within two pages of each other.

I'd love to read 'The Rainbow' next, though I'm going to have a hard time getting a copy. I live in Greece whose bookshops never carry a full range of classic literature in English (though they carry some, hence my acquisition of WIL). I'll have a look though...

----------


## Janine

> Halliday first appears in the London bar chapter 'Creme de Menthe'. The two contradictory descriptions take place in that chapter within two pages of each other.


Oh, good...I will check that chapter out tonight. This is funny, you must also be good at finding discrepencies in movies/films. I think I found one in the mini-series "Shackleton". I have watched the survival/adventure film countless times and when they are in the life boats somehow a few characters switch boats. I keep watching that part to see if I am correct but I think I am. Some people find things like this in all kinds of films and I guess books also - how funny!




> I'd love to read 'The Rainbow' next, though I'm going to have a hard time getting a copy. I live in Greece whose bookshops never carry a full range of classic literature in English (though they carry some, hence my acquisition of WIL). I'll have a look though...



Oh good, *Carpalim,* it would be great to have you join in the discussion. Well, the rate we are going on here, or rather me, I think you still have time to track a copy down. Can you buy on Amazon over there? I know I have seen inexpensive copies on Amazon. In fact recently I purchase a new copy on there myself; I must have lost my old copy or borrowed the book from my library on first reading - too long ago; I don't remember.
Anyway, I always feel so badly when people can't get the English books they desire to read in other countries; in the US you can find those at any bookstore and online, and they are not expensive. Well, scout around for it and it could even be in a book collection of his works. Good luck to you, *C.*
The other person interested in discussing "The Rainbow" lives in Greece, also. I will ask her where she got her book.

----------


## Remarkable

I found Women in Love a very fine book in style but strange in thought.It is perhaps bold for the period in which it was written and,despite everything,I think it's a great achievement to be able to representate different types of human character by making them also felt by the reader.However,it woke in me the same feelings as Madame Bovary.I got irritated by the passivity of some,or by the meaningless of life in some others.I am still wondering about it,though.It's a book that deserves much consideration and takes time not only to read but also to chew...

----------


## Janine

> I found Women in Love a very fine book in style but strange in thought.It is perhaps bold for the period in which it was written and,despite everything,I think it's a great achievement to be able to representate different types of human character by making them also felt by the reader.However,it woke in me the same feelings as Madame Bovary.I got irritated by the passivity of some,or by the meaningless of life in some others.I am still wondering about it,though.It's a book that deserves much consideration and takes time not only to read but also to chew...


*
Hi Remarkable* - glad you are considering all aspects of this book. This is one of my favorite Lawrence novels. I have read it twice and I am on my second listening of the audiofiles. I also know much about the background and intentions of the author in putting forth this novel - one he considered to be his very best.

Yes, the passivity and the meaninglessness of life are there but one does react to that and I believe that Lawrence intended that to be his position. People in real life are passive and they have their issues. This book explores them - it is a journey one takes with Lawrence through the develpment of this great work. It is quite different than other books and that is one reason that Lawrence's own generation did not always 'get' just what he was driving at. For instance, even though this book shows nothing about war, the book does have the undertones of a war being fought in Europe. Lawrence did this mainly through his characters. 

I know the more I read or listen to this novel the more, I get out of it. It is a very intricate and complex book. If you care to look back on the discussion you will see just how complex...it was one of the best discussion here on this forum and putting our heads together and referring to much outside research made me fully appreciate the depths of this book.

----------


## manders7890

I just wanted to address the comment about the change in Halliday's appearance. Before the publication of this book, Lawrence was nearly sued by a friend (wish i could remember his name). The appearance and personality of Halliday was curiously similar to that of this old friend. To protect his hard earned income and royalties on the book, and in accordance with his publisher's wishes, he changed the appearance from black hair to blond. He was still sued and the man took part of his earnings for the book. Questions still arise as to whether or not he was only making a deal of it for monetary gain. The character Pussum was also inspired by the friend's wife. The character Hermione was also said to be based on a woman named Lady Ottoline Morrell, she did not sue him for libel, but the case was settled out of court. One more thing- If you all remember the part in the book when Gudrun and Gerald were in a restaurant and met Pussum, Halliday and their gang... this actually happened in Lawrence's life. His dear friend Katherine Mansfield, one of his few loyal friends, was at a restaurant and overheard two men (Kot and Gertler) making snide remarks about his collection of poems Amores. She walked over to them, asked to see the book and walked away with it, just as Gudrun did with Rupert Birkin's letter. 

I really recommend reading his biography, specifically Elain Feinstein's "Lawrence and the Women." His characters are illustrated wonderfully, however they are also mainly based on close friends and family. I find it much easier to understand his novels, which were his most prized possessions, after reading about his life and inspirations. The biography is also not boring, if you do not ordinarily read them, as i do not. I found it quite interesting and I actually enjoy Lawrence much more then I did prior to reading it. Sons and Lovers is a great book as well, if you would like to learn a bit more about his earlier years from his own personal account. The short story the White Stocking is also EXTREMELY close to his own experiences with his wife Frieda. They undoubtedly loved eachother, but their relationship was on the fine line between love and hate and both were very jealous and violent with eachother (due to her D.H.'s popularity and her lack of it, and his strong fear of powerful women as well as her sexual permiscuity during their marriage). 

Sorry if i interrupted, however I thought it would be beneficial to know a bit about his struggles and life if you want to further understand his novels, poems and short stories. Thank you for reading! =)

----------


## Janine

First off, welcome, *manders*, to the forum. I am pleased you have such an avid interest in D.H.Lawence. I share this interest whole-heartedly. The man's work and life never ceases to fascinate me. 

Wow, so much here to address, so do be patient. I will work on all of this. First off, if you read any of our discussion, it took place a year or so back; however, threads never really close or end, which makes life interesting, isn't that correct? This discussion was great and then after we discussed "Sons and Lovers'. Currently, we have a very long running 'Lawrence Short Story' thread; this month we have been discussing the longer story "The Princess" - you may be aware of this fact already as attributed to your biographical readings - that this story was also based on a real person, Dorothy Brett. In fact, most of Lawrence's stories were based on someone real; often it is a challenge to find out just who he fashioned the characters after. I have read now 4 or 5 full biographies - all totally fascinating to me; I haven't read the one you mentioned but I will look into it. I have the Cambridge ones currently to tackle. I can't get the last one - "The Dying Game" because the price on that one keeps soaring; quite impossible to aquire. I have several other spin-offs that I also plan to read - one is 'The Minoan Distance'...this deals with Lawrence, during his traveling years, expecially in NM and Mexico; I haven't read all of that yet, just parts. I am quite obsessed with Lawrence, as by now, you can imagine. Still he wrote so darn much, his letters themselves take up about 8 full volumes, it is always an endless pursuit to find more Lawrence...or course I have my work cut out for me now....my goal being to read all that I do own presently. Let me get specifically to your comments.




> I just wanted to address the comment about the change in Halliday's appearance. Before the publication of this book, Lawrence was nearly sued by a friend (wish i could remember his name). The appearance and personality of Halliday was curiously similar to that of this old friend. To protect his hard earned income and royalties on the book, and in accordance with his publisher's wishes, he changed the appearance from black hair to blond. He was still sued and the man took part of his earnings for the book. Questions still arise as to whether or not he was only making a deal of it for monetary gain.


Yes, this is basically true; I and the group here, pretty much knew this and since Lawrence had first written "The Rainbow" and I believe it was banned or he was also sued for that novel, therefore he had to comply his publishers. I don't think it was profit per ce that drove Lawrence, but he had to live, also. He cared little for money or riches, but he had to support his wife and he make enough money to finally be enabled to travel to the places he desired to go. He couldn't starve; so one must understand, he could not be expected to write for no or little profit. There was an early time he had to borrow money and he abhored the idea. He paid it all back. I think also Lawrence might be inclined to change a persons hair color or his physical appearance for symbolic reasons, not just out of fear of being sued. Lawrence was always being threatened to be sued. He would verbally fight back, whenever he had the chance. Knowing what he did about the problems surrounding his publication of "The Rainbow" he was more cautious concerning "Women in Love' - the book that he considered his masterpiece. I happen to think it his best book, as well; although others on the forum may disagree with me. *Virgil* also knows much about Lawrence - he wrote his thesis on Lawrence's idea of 'Transfiguration'.




> The character Pussum was also inspired by the friend's wife. The character Hermione was also said to be based on a woman named Lady Ottoline Morrell, she did not sue him for libel, but the case was settled out of court. One more thing- If you all remember the part in the book when Gudrun and Gerald were in a restaurant and met Pussum, Halliday and their gang... this actually happened in Lawrence's life. His dear friend Katherine Mansfield, one of his few loyal friends, was at a restaurant and overheard two men (Kot and Gertler) making snide remarks about his collection of poems Amores. She walked over to them, asked to see the book and walked away with it, just as Gudrun did with Rupert Birkin's letter.


I don't know if I knew Pussum was based on his wife, but probably I did at the time we discussed this book. I think we discussed these connections on this thread sometime back. We all were very aware that Hermoine was based on Ottoline Morrel; that I found clearly evident in several of my biography books and other research books I keep handy; one especially helpful book is a 'timeline' and this outlines just what Lawrence was doing, where he resided and often entries from his own diary or letters to friends documenting his ideas, as he was writting various stories and novels...it is a great window into what Lawrence was thinking and doing at those times. It is a small book and probably impossible to find but worth it's weight in gold.

I don't know if I knew that Katherine Mansfield had actually lived out this scene so this interests me. Thanks for adding it to this thread - love these little tid-bits of information. I know that Lawrence and Katherine Mansfield were good friends, so this would follow to be true. She definitely would have rallied to Lawrence's defense. It was her husband, who Lawrence later split with, Murray - Murray wrote some scathing commentary on Lawrence and that was that. Kot he also split with; at one time he had been somewhat friendly. I forget about Gertler; I think that Virgil knows more about him than I do but I will look him today, because I just can't recall very much about him, although he was often mentioned by Lawrence or in the biographies which I read sometime ago - within the last 5 yrs or so.

[QUOTE]I really recommend reading his biography, specifically Elain Feinstein's "Lawrence and the Women." His characters are illustrated wonderfully, however they are also mainly based on close friends and family. [quote]

I will have to look into that biography. I actually never heard of this author but he sounds quite informed and interesting. Thanks for suggesting it.




> I find it much easier to understand his novels, which were his most prized possessions, after reading about his life and inspirations. The biography is also not boring, if you do not ordinarily read them, as i do not. I found it quite interesting and I actually enjoy Lawrence much more then I did prior to reading it.


I am in total agreement with this statement and thought of yours. I say it all the time; one can't separate the art from the artist's life and influences, nor the writing from the author's biography - at least not in Lawrence's case...his personal biography definitely inhances and aids the understanding of any of Lawrence's works. I am not a big biography reader either but I was totally captivated by every biography I have read on Lawrence.





> Sons and Lovers is a great book as well, if you would like to learn a bit more about his earlier years from his own personal account. The short story the White Stocking is also EXTREMELY close to his own experiences with his wife Frieda. They undoubtedly loved eachother, but their relationship was on the fine line between love and hate and both were very jealous and violent with eachother (due to her D.H.'s popularity and her lack of it, and his strong fear of powerful women as well as her sexual permiscuity during their marriage).


Yes, "Sons and Lovers" is a classic! We did a full discussion on the novel about a year ago also. How time flies! It was an excellent discussion and discussion group. I hope you can find the thread and review it. I think you will find it highyly informative and interesting. I read the book twice now and the same with "Women in Love"...actually WIL I also listened to an audio-recording now two times - I love it and intend to listen to it again sometime. It is saved on disks and my PC.

In the 'L Short Story' thread, we discussed in-depth 'The White Stocking'...we were aware from the start of the discussion that the idea was based on an incident which happend to Lawrence's mother. I truly was not that aware of his and his wife, Frieda's, connection to this story; this is an early story, so I thought this was prior to all the problems the married couple encountered later on, when say, they had been married 10 yrs or so. All you say about their relationship is true, but I am not sure this story directly connects with them as a newly married couple. I will look this up, since I own a commentary book exclusively on the early fiction of Lawrence - the author, Michael Black, goes into accurate detail concerning this story and it's background, among other stories of Lawrence's. I may be wrong and have just forgotten that connection - it would seem somewhat logical. The M. Black book has helped greatly in the short story discussion group. I hope you will be able to join us in our next discussion, which may either be in January or February - we have not decided on the next one yet. We may skip a month; we had discussed that idea.




> Sorry if i interrupted, however I thought it would be beneficial to know a bit about his struggles and life if you want to further understand his novels, poems and short stories. Thank you for reading! =)


Oh don't be sorry; I am so glad you showed up and your comments are very helpful. Like I said the groups never really die out or end. I hope I have been of help to you, as well. We do however know about his many struggles in life....I believe that is one good reason I am so drawn to the author and of course, he fought against all odds, having such poor health....but his genius was always evident.

Feel free to post again or contact me about Lawrence and I hope sincerely you join our short story discussion group. Also, and in limbo, currently there is a poetry thread on L called "Baby Tortoise" - we attempted to discuss this group of poems but only got so far; hopefully one of these days we will continue and finish up. The poems are wonderful; all of L's poems are terrific and deeply meaningful.

----------


## Virgil

Thanks Manders. Perhaps you can join us in other Lawrence readings. We're hoping to do The Rainbow sometime in the early spring.

----------

