Sons and Lovers

[wendy]

I read Sons and Lovers as the book I had to assess as the graduating paper. I love it from the first few pages.<br> It is suble and delicate. The world Lawrence portrayed is very different from the present, yet I can understand and have commmo feeling as him,probably. <br> He displayed the life of Paul and his freinds in its truest forms it even hurts me. and I feel sad about Paul's struggle and escape from life,but constantly failed.<br> Life is, truely, a long journey, and paul had just expirenced the early part of it. The better life is yet to come.

[C Bainbridge]

A wonderful read. It has to be deeply understood to appreciate all that is there. I have lived in this area that Lawrence writes about and can testify that he has captured the harshness of the lives of the people there as well as well as their subtle humour and sensitvity. Not just a story about a mothers control and jealousy it is deeper than that. I lived in Eastwood over thirty years ago and would feel that not much has changed since the days when Lawrence was there,

[Katie]

At the beginning, I had to push myself to continue reading because, at first, I didn't see any real storyline or flahes of action and excitement. The truth is that there is plenty of the former, but little of the latter two. The real genius of the novel is in its subtlety and vivid description. Never before have I read a book that focuses so expertly on a young mans emotions and true feelings. His love for his mother is plain and, in a way, quite sad. He can never truly be himself as long as she is alive. And yet, even in death, she has an almightly hold over him. His very decision to live is based upon his need to carry on her life and legacy. <br>

[Janine]

Pensive, So glad that helped with your understanding. How are you liking the book S&L's? It took me years to go back and read it, and I truly loved it. You know that "Sons and Lovers" is basically biographical, right? Lawrence later did say that he exaggerated the father (his father). The woman at the Hagg's Farm - Miriam is Jessie in real life. His brothers and sister were pretty realistically depicted and so was his mother. It is fascinating, is it not? Also Jessie's siblings and her parents were realisticly depicted. He loved going to that farm. Often, in preceeding novels and stories, Lawrence got into a lot of hot water with friends/aquaintances by writing about them vividly. He would exaggerate some, but when they recognised they had been the inspiration for his character, they dropped him as a friend. Not too many people could take the joke, right?
If you want to learn more about Lawrence check out the Nottingham University site - his college. They have a whole section dedicated to L. It is fabulous and shows many photos and even pictures of his orginal manuscripts written in his florid handwriting.

[Pensive]

Spoiler!


Pensive, So glad that helped with your understanding. How are you liking the book S&L's?

I have completed 'Sons' part yet, and I found it quite nice to read. As a story, it has been fun to read but I felt bad when William died.

What I liked about it was the simple way of writing, and the flow in the writing. It goes smooth, just like a story. I would form an opinion about the whole book after having read the 'Lovers' part now! :D

[Janine]

Spoiler!



I have completed 'Sons' part yet, and I found it quite nice to read. As a story, it has been fun to read but I felt bad when William died.

What I liked about it was the simple way of writing, and the flow in the writing. It goes smooth, just like a story. I would form an opinion about the whole book after having read the 'Lovers' part now! :D

Spoiler, too!

Pensive, so glad you are enjoying it. Yes, doesn't Lawrence's writing go smoothly and I always notice a lovely flow to his prose. I feel a poetry in it, as well. L was very perceptive and sensitive to the world about him, and the people who occuppied that world. I think you will enjoy the 'Lovers' part very much. Gee, I did not think about it in split terms. I must review my book - are their two sections actually with the headings of "Sons" and "Lovers" ? In reading the second half, keep in mind that Miriam was Lawrence's very real woman friend/girlfriend, Jessie. Others in the book are also 'based' on very real people.
Yes, I thought the death of William very sad and very tragic. Indeed, more so now, that I know this was the true fate of Lawrence's brother. Lawrence was the youngest child in the family. The rest of the book becomes even more captivating. Enjoy!

[Virgil]

Spoiler, too!

Pensive, so glad you are enjoying it. Yes, doesn't Lawrence's writing go smoothly and I always notice a lovely flow to his prose. I feel a poetry in it, as well. L was very perceptive and sensitive to the world about him, and the people who occuppied that world. I think you will enjoy the 'Lovers' part very much. Gee, I did not think about it in split terms. I must review my book - are their two sections actually with the headings of "Sons" and "Lovers" ? In reading the second half, keep in mind that Miriam was Lawrence's very real woman friend/girlfriend, Jessie. Others in the book are also 'based' on very real people.
Yes, I thought the death of William very sad and very tragic. Indeed, more so now, that I know this was the true fate of Lawrence's brother. Lawrence was the youngest child in the family. The rest of the book becomes even more captivating. Enjoy!

Janine, if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence had a younger sister, so Bert (David Herbert) would not be the youngest child.

[Pensive]

Spoiler!


Spoiler, too!

Pensive, so glad you are enjoying it. Yes, doesn't Lawrence's writing go smoothly and I always notice a lovely flow to his prose. I feel a poetry in it, as well. L was very perceptive and sensitive to the world about him, and the people who occuppied that world. I think you will enjoy the 'Lovers' part very much. Gee, I did not think about it in split terms. I must review my book - are their two sections actually with the headings of "Sons" and "Lovers" ? In reading the second half, keep in mind that Miriam was Lawrence's very real woman friend/girlfriend, Jessie. Others in the book are also 'based' on very real people.
Yes, I thought the death of William very sad and very tragic. Indeed, more so now, that I know this was the true fate of Lawrence's brother. Lawrence was the youngest child in the family. The rest of the book becomes even more captivating. Enjoy!

Thanks! :D Actually I have completed the first part, so I named it 'Sons' part. :p Now, when I would complete complete the second part, I would have completed 'Sons and Lovers'! :D

Hey, so Lawrence is not the book character Paul (the third child)? I thought D.H. Lawrence was Paul.


Janine, if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence had a younger sister, so Bert (David Herbert) would not be the youngest child.

But if Sons and Lovers is auto-biographical, it can't be so. The eldest was a boy (the one who died), but the second was a girl, the third one a boy and the youngest was also a boy. So Lawrence is supposed to have an elder sister instead of a younger sister. :)

[Janine]

Janine, if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence had a younger sister, so Bert (David Herbert) would not be the youngest child.

Virgil and Pensive, and everyone else, I stand corrected.:redface: Lawrence was the 4th child of Lydia and Arthur Lawrence; the family picture I have, in one of my biography books, makes it look like Bert is younger than Emily. It is Emily that is the youngest, right, Virgil? Bert was the youngest of the three boys. He certainly was the weakest child, this I am sure of; he nearly died at birth and was a very sickly baby. He looks healthy enough in photos, as a young boy, but he was supposidly always coming down with something.
The names of his brothers and sisters in "Son and Lovers" were changed somewhat, I believe. I would have to do more research because my feeble brain never retains these details. It has been awhile since I read Sons and Lovers - I need to re-read that one, too. Also, changed are the names of the people at Haggs farm - forget the name of Jessie's parent's farm, too - help Pensive! - my brain must be asleep tonight:goof: . That book of mine is missing, too. You would after reading 3 biographies, I would have remembered L was the not the youngest, but second youngest to his little sister. In the photo I have they look to be close in age.
I have been on a frantic search for one of my Lawrence biography books; don't ever clean up your piles of books; it is a sure way to loose them! There is a big empty space on my bookshelf and I am wondering if the ghost of Lawrence came to claim it...:alien: *no, Janine, this is the D.H.Lawrence book of the month, and not Owen Meany!*

Pensive, Yes, Paul's character was based on Lawrence, young Bert, as he was then called. Only difference in the book Paul is depicted as an artist and Bert was a writer, but actually Bert did love art and painted when young and off and on in his adult life. Lawence just has Paul aspiring to follow art in S&L, not writing. Anybody dispute this? Remember the charactes are "based" on real people, like when they say a film is "based on a true story". The number of sisters and brothers may vary in the book and the sequence of ages, as well. The book is based on Lawrence's life not a replica. If you read my later post - I am revising this one, I say that Virgil is correct - Lawrence is the 4th child born and he had a younger sister. I provided a timeline on the births in a later post, after I researched it.

[Virgil]

One more correction Janine. I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you. I thought Emily was the older sister and Ada was the younger. I'm off to start Women In Love tonight. :)

[Janine]

One more correction Janine. I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you. I thought Emily was the older sister and Ada was the younger. I'm off to start Women In Love tonight. :)

Virgil, From the picture, you could not quite tell from the names below; that is why I was asking you. Yeah, right you are picking on me:bawling: NO, just kidding; I'm not that sensitive. I was embarrassed I did not know which kid was older and thought Bert the youngest though. I tend to forget little details like that. I always forget birthday dates in my family - ask them the will tell you.
I just found this timeline in my Cambridge biography that I have not yet read:

December 1875 - Artur John Lawrence marries Lydia Beardsall, Sneinton, Nottingham

September 1876 - George Arthur Lawrence born, Brinsley

July 1878 - William Ernest Lawrence born, New Cross

March 1882 - Emily Una Lawrence born, New Cross

September 1885 - David Herbert Lawrence born, Eastwood

June 1887 - Lettice Ada Lawrence born, Eastwood

Virgil, Hope I copied that right. Well, that straightens that out once and for all!
This way too you can see the difference's in ages between the 5 children.
Now if you put me on the project I will try to list who represents which person depicted in "Sons and Lovers" - but actually we should get onto WIL.

[Pensive]

Thanks Janine for all this information! It's very much appreciated. :)

[Janine]

Thanks Janine for all this information! It's very much appreciated. :)

Hi Pensive, your welcome. I just hope I have the dates right. I was copying them out of a book and I have bifocals and don't wear them up close - either way can't see details well in books when trying to type. I did check it over once. Had it wrong first time and had to correct so think now it is right. Interesting to note the differences in the children's ages. First two and last two kids - 2 yrs appart. If I find out the names of the children as related to the S&L characters I will type that up or copy for you. Shame we are not discussing S&L, since I would love talking about that book with you. But I did vote for WIL. Will you be reading it, too? You will enjoy it very much I think.

You are so funny dividing up the book into "Sons" and then "Lovers". Is it Chapter 7, that starts with "Lad-and-Girl Love", part 2 of the book you call "Lovers"? Well, that is fitting. In my book version, it does not head that second section that way....so you made it up, right? You will enjoy this second part very much. Some fine writing there.

Pensive, have you finished the book yet?

[Janine]

At the beginning, I had to push myself to continue reading because, at first, I didn't see any real storyline or flahes of action and excitement. The truth is that there is plenty of the former, but little of the latter two. The real genius of the novel is in its subtlety and vivid description. Never before have I read a book that focuses so expertly on a young mans emotions and true feelings. His love for his mother is plain and, in a way, quite sad. He can never truly be himself as long as she is alive. And yet, even in death, she has an almightly hold over him. His very decision to live is based upon his need to carry on her life and legacy. <br>

Hi Katie, nice to meet you. I am a huge Lawrence enthusiast, and in fact have now read 3 full biographies and most of his novels, stories. Oddly enough, when I first tried to read "Sons and Lovers" in my 20's, over 30 yrs ago, I could not get into it. I recently went back and read it and loved every word. I think if you enjoyed this novel you may want to consider reading "Women in Love" which is our monthly book read for June. If you put it into search you will locate it. Actually just put 'Lawrence' into search and it will list all the Lawrence threads. We also have currently running a Lawrence Short Story thread, which has proved to be very interesting. We are trying to choose stories that are available here on Lit Net.

As you pointed out about Lawrence's vivid descriptions - in your words
"Never before have I read a book that focuses so expertly on a young man's emotions and true feelings." This is absolutely the magic of reading Lawrence's work. I felt the same way the first book I read of his - which was "Women in Love". Not only does he show us the inner workings of the mind in his characters, but the intricate/complex relationships between these characters. His characters are portrayed multi-layered and fully fleshed-out, making them absolutely intimate and real to the reader. The current novel we are reading and discussing, "Women in Love", is expressly indicative of this style of writing and of the characters being highly developed.

In "Sons and Lovers" Paul's mother is such an key part of Paul's life; the way you worded it is just perfect. Do you know that the novel is mostly autobiographical? Paul is actually a stand-in for Lawrence himself. His father is exaggerated in the book, Lawrence later in life admitted this; he felt badly about it. His mother is mostly realistic, though and, although he had an eternal and deep love for his mother, he also felt her controlling ways and influence in his life profoundly.

Katie, If you want to discuss this book further please let me know. It has been a few years since I read it, but I am sure it will come back to me when we speak of specific scenes and characters.


A wonderful read. It has to be deeply understood to appreciate all that is there. I have lived in this area that Lawrence writes about and can testify that he has captured the harshness of the lives of the people there as well as well as their subtle humour and sensitvity. Not just a story about a mothers control and jealousy it is deeper than that. I lived in Eastwood over thirty years ago and would feel that not much has changed since the days when Lawrence was there,

Hello, C Bainbridge, Nice to meet you. I am a avid Lawrence enthusiast. I adore the man's writing! I have read 3 full biographies and most of his novels and stories and poetry. I am totally fascinated to find someone on Lit Net that lived in Lawrence country.

Your words about "Sons and Lovers" are totally accurate, especially your second sentence, and yes, the book is a lot more than "a mother's control and jealousy"; it does go a lot deeper than that. Currently, there are other Lawrence threads, one called Lawrence Short Stories and the June Monthly discussion is "Women in Love", if you care to join in either one or both. So far the discussions are going quite well.

I came into this thread, since I am looking for a newly formed thread called "Sons and Lovers" - so far I have found about 4 or 5 with the same heading - strange. I need to contact a moderator to point this out and maybe all the threads can be consolidated into one coherent discussion, what do you think?

C Bainbridge, I hope to see you around and on some of the other Lawrence threads. I am sure, having lived in Lawrence country, you could add much to the discussions. I know I would be fascinated to hear of the areas DHL grew up and wrote about.

[Virgil]

Janine, I think Katie and Bainbridge posted over two years ago and are not coming back. :lol:

[Janine]

Janine, I think Katie and Bainbridge posted over two years ago and are not coming back. :lol:

Virgil, :lol: I know that!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: I was posting really late last night and trying to find the 'sons and lovers' post where Scher moved our stuff. So I found about 5 'sons and lovers' posts. I must have had blurry eyes (actually I was bug-eyed :eek:) since I though it said 07 for the year date.....I know I know....silly me.:blush: So, I did go and write all this brilliant stuff :rolleyes: and then I noticed the real date and realised these posts were quite dead! Oh, well it brought them up to the first page anyway. So how did all this other stuff get in here anyway?
Well, I had to laugh at my own stupidity!:lol:

Who knows they might come back.....:lol:

[Pensive]

Hi all!

I was reading how Miriam showed Paul his diary written in French, but I was unable to understand it as I am not familiar with French. And I really want to understand what it means! Can anyone help me and translate this passage? :)



"'Ce matin les oiseaux m'ont eveille,'" he read. "'Il faisait
encore un crepuscule. Mais la petite fenetre de ma chambre etait bleme,
et puis, jaune, et tous les oiseaux du bois eclaterent dans un chanson
vif et resonnant. Toute l'aube tressaillit. J'avais reve de vous.
Est-ce que vous voyez aussi l'aube? Les oiseaux m'eveillent presque
tous les matins, et toujours il y a quelque chose de terreur dans
le cri des grives. Il est si clair---'"

[Janine]

Hi Pensive, I would really love to help you but unfortunately I did poorly in French - only had it briefly in high school. I did not retain a thing I learned, which was not much anyway. You know I run into French all the time in Lawrence's writing and I want to know, too, just what he says. I bought a French/English dictionary but I am always too lazy to look up the words when I am reading. I might be able to look up some key words and get the gist of what it says.
There is someone on Lit Net from Paris. Let me think of who that is and maybe he can translate it for us. I don't know if Virgil knows any French but I will ask him, also.
I am curious also to find out what the passage means....hummm....good question...


How far are you in your reading of the book? Just curious. I will discuss it with you when you complete it if you like. I will get back to you on the translation. J

[Pensive]

Hi Pensive, I would really love to help you but unfortunately I did poorly in French - only had it briefly in highschool. I did not retain a thing I learned, which was not much anyway.

You know I run into French all the time in Lawrence's writing and I want to know, too, just what he says. I bought a French/English dictionary but I am always too lazy to look up the words when I am reading. I might be able to look up some key words and get the gist of what it says.
There is someone on Lit Net from Paris. Let me think of who that is and maybe he can translate it for us. I don't know if Virgil knows any French but I will ask him, also.
I am curious also to find out what the passage means....hummm....good question...

Hey Janine! I also thought of online dictionary at first but it is very tedious to search out every word and there are about fifty of them! In addition to this, some words can have more than one meaning which would make the translation even more difficult. And the thing which makes this task impossible is that I don't even know helping verbs (or a little bit of French)! Even if I get to know the meanings, I wouldn't be able to connect them... :(

Perhaps someone who knows French would stumble across this thread? There is always hope. :p


How far are you in your reading of the book? Just curious. I will discuss it with you when you complete it if you like. I will get back to you on the translation. J

I have read upto where Paul gets twenty guineas for his painting. :) Surely I would love to discuss it once I finish. :D

[Janine]

Hey Janine! I also thought of online dictionary at first but it is very tedious to search out every word and there are about fifty of them! In addition to this, some words can have more than one meaning which would make the translation even more difficult. And the thing which makes this task impossible is that I don't even know helping verbs (or a little bit of French)! Even if I get to know the meanings, I wouldn't be able to connect them... :(

Perhaps someone who knows French would stumble across this thread? There is always hope. :p

Pensive, I had the same thoughts - we really do need an interpreter for this one.

[/QUOTE]I have read upto where Paul gets twenty guineas for his painting. :) Surely I would love to discuss it once I finish. :D[/QUOTE]

Fantastic! Looking forward to that. After I finish WIL, I will review the "Sons and Lovers" book. I read it two years ago. It will be fun to talk about. I am sure when you mention scenes, it will all come back to me. By the way, I thought the funneral of the oldest son (was the oldest, right?) was so heartbreaking and poignant. I recall it well, bringing the body home and all. How sad he died away from home. It was a tear-jerker.

[Virgil]

Pensy, Janine - I know of a site that translates stuff into many languages. It's a forum of language experts and when I get home I will get on and ask to translate that for you. OK? I don't have the site here at work or I would have done it earlier.

[Pensive]

Fantastic! Looking forward to that. After I finish WIL, I will review the "Sons and Lovers" book. I read it two years ago. It will be fun to talk about. I am sure when you mention scenes, it will all come back to me. By the way, I thought the funneral of the oldest son (was the oldest, right?) was so heartbreaking and poignant. I recall it well, bringing the body home and all. How sad he died away from home. It was a tear-jerker.

Exactly, William was the eldest son in the book. I found it heart-breaking as well, the mother's condition and all that. I remember disliking his girl-friend very much from the very start. I especially remember how William told her if he died, she would forget him in three months, and she did... It was really sad, her attitude with his family, even her attitude with him, which caused his death I think. Her dresses were more important to her than people's emotions... Whenever I think of William's death, I think of her, and feel this anger inside me...


Pensy, Janine - I know of a site that translates stuff into many languages. It's a forum of language experts and when I get home I will get on and ask to translate that for you. OK? I don't have the site here at work or I would have done it earlier.

Virgil, that would be very nice of you! :)

[Virgil]

Hi all!

I was reading how Miriam showed Paul his diary written in French, but I was unable to understand it as I am not familiar with French. And I really want to understand what it means! Can anyone help me and translate this passage? :)

I got it translated, Pensy. Here iswhat I was given:


"This morning the birds wakened me," he read. "It was still dawn light. But the little window of my room was pale, and then yellow, and all the birds in the woods burst in a lively and resounding song. The whole dawn shivered. I had been dreaming of you. Do you also see the dawn? The birds wake me nearly every morning, and there is always a sound of terror in the song of the thrushes. It is so clear..."

[Janine]

Virgil, That is great - wow, you will have to give me that translation site URL. I want to use it for other passages I have wondered about. Thanks for getting it translated.

Pensive and Virgil, It is lovely and beautiful, don't you think?
P - yes, I now recall about the girlfriend and how materialistic she was and yes, so true she did forget him after 3 months - that makes it all so much sadder. I could not stand her either. It seemed to me she was very manipulative with William, am I right?
About the quote - is that from Paul's diary or from Miram's diary. I was a little unclear of that. I figured it was from Paul's - right?

[Pensive]

Virgil, That is great - wow, you will have to give me that translation site URL. I want to use it for other passages I have wondered about. Thanks for getting it translated.

Thanks a lot, Virgil and Janine! :)


Pensive and Virgil, It is lovely and beautiful, don't you think?

It's beautiful yet heart-aching when I look at the later events...


P - yes, I now recall about the girlfriend and how materialistic she was and yes, so true she did forget him after 3 months - that makes it all so much sadder. I could not stand her either. It seemed to me she was very manipulative with William, am I right?

Exactly! But then her own background is given in the book as well. She had lived with her Aunt and was in need of love (according to William). I think this makes her situation a little more understandable. She never had any parents and siblings to love. I don't mean that what she did/the way she behaved was right, but perhaps that was the way she was brought up and I felt pity for her for that as well, for sometime.


About the quote - is that from Paul's diary or from Miram's diary. I was a little unclear of that. I figured it was from Paul's - right?

It's from Miriam's diary, more like an exercise book. She created a diary and wrote the events of her life in it to practice French which Paul was teaching her. :)

[Janine]

Thanks a lot, Virgil and Janine! :)

Pensive - glad to be of assistence anytime, but Virgil did the translating. Thanks Virgil!


It's beautiful yet heart-aching when I look at the later events...

Yes, I thought it was so beautiful. Well that is true - knowing the later events does bring a feeling of heart-ache to reading those lines. You know Jessie wrote her own book later in life. I have a desire to read it. I know it might be slanted a bit her being rejected and all but I still think it would be highly interesting. After-all she knew Lawrence intimately and in his early days. I just may invest in that book. I wonder if some of her real diary entries will be in it. She helped edit Lawrence's early work so she and he were quite compatible on a mental level. I think the book would be well written and interesting, don't you?


Exactly! But then her own background is given in the book as well. She had lived with her Aunt and was in need of love (according to William). I think this makes her situation a little more understandable. She never had any parents and siblings to love. I don't mean that what she did/the way she behaved was right, but perhaps that was the way she was brought up and I felt pity for her for that as well, for sometime.

You know your paragraph makes me think how Lawrence did write about real flesh and blood people and no one was all good or all bad; they were all complex and the way they were in personality by their past and their enviromental/family influences. I am sure it is true of this character also and that William truly loved her and wanted to give her what she had lacked in life. It is nice you try to understand her, and not condemn her. I don't recall her that well from my reading but I am sure she was as complex as others characters in the book.


It's from Miriam's diary, more like an exercise book. She created a diary and wrote the events of her life in it to practice French which Paul was teaching her. :)

That makes more sense. It would seem that Miriam would have written this, not Lawrence. It is romantic about, her dreaming of him. I liked that L was teaching her French and she wrote the diary in that tongue...how interesting a little fact that is. I had not known it.

[Virgil]

You're welcome Pensy and Janine. It was nothing. It is quite pretty and probably sounds even prettier in french.

[Janine]

Pensive, how is the "Lovers" part coming along?

[Pensive]

I think the book would be well written and interesting, don't you?

Well, it seems so by the sound of it. :)


Pensive, how is the "Lovers" part coming along?

I finally finished the book just yesterday. Quite good, I would say, but very confusing at times. As soon as I finished it, I found myself lost in the sea of thoughts. It's my habit, that many times when I see characters are confused in taking a action I try to think what I would have done on their place and sometimes the answer comes back to me, but this is one of those novels in which I kept on thinking what I should have done and I found no way out.

The characters are so complex that it's difficult to judge or critisize the things done by characters. Paul, I found very complex himself. But interesting. But sometimes he looked self-centered to me, the way he attached Miriam to himself, at first a kind of forced her to do what she did not want to, and then he could not marry her. I wonder if anyone else felt that way? I also didn't like some of his views (in which he seemed very sure) about the attitude of women. Other times, he seemed very unlucky to me. Her mother married to a man with whom she was not very happy and she found happiness only in her children. And then her beloved elder son died at a young age, a very big and grave shock and because he didn't chose the right girl. It's obvious the mother turned all her hopes towards her younger son.

She seemed to be wanting a woman for him who would let him have some space for her as well. The mother along with his son got unlucky again. Her son found himself attracted towards a girl who wanted her all by herself. Though at times I felt pity for Miriam, but other times, she also annoyed me by the way she wanted him all by herself. Prying in his things is another thing, it can be because of curiosity, but all the time she was with him or his family, it seemed to me she never wanted Paul to go towards his mother.

Then he met Clara (already married). Another disappointment for the mother. Paul got unlucky again. From the very start as he met those girls, it seemed to me, just like his mother that they were not both for him. Clara also chose her husband because she felt his love was more permanent... Does anyone of you think it's because she was thinking Paul had dumped Miriam?? Because as far as I remember, she seemed very interested in knowing whether Paul's mother made him break up with Miriam. And I think neither a man nor a woman likes it that the one she/he is going off is in so much influence of his parents that he would break up just because his mother said so. Or perhaps I have got the wrong feeling, it was just because of the Dawes, and because Clara thought he needed her.

He went for Miriam again but they couldn't make-up. Paul was not comfortable with her. At that time, I felt a great pity towards Miriam as well as Paul but more towards Miriam. I mean it must be bad already. Whatever it was, she had desired him immensely and had even offered the sacrifices she could for his sake.

The way Paul behaves when his mother is about to die is also heart-aching. In the end when she says something like this which makes one sad, (I don't remember the exact words) "Annie, don't think I didn't like your house. I just want to go home."

[Janine]

Hi Pensive, just to let you know I read your post and found it very interesting. So you finished all now - Sons and Lovers parts. Glad you did like the book. I will answer your well expressed post with some comments soon and to the best of my abilitly. The novel, along with all of Lawrence's novels and stories presents very complex characters (we were just today discussing this fact on the other thread - "Women in Love".) and it is not always easy or possible to figure these characters out according to their motives or actions in life. In a way this is realistic, in that often the people we know and love, do not always act in ways we feel appropriate or expected. I do agree with you that the book can be very confusing in places and is very thought provoking long after you shut the pages of the novel. It is a shame we are not having a big discussion on this book, but eventually it might get chosen as a book of the month read.
It is a fascinating book and there is much to what you have said about it. I will get back to you very soon and write more comments to your great post. I hope Virgil stops in, too. Janine

[Pensive]

Hi Pensive, just to let you know I read your post and found it very interesting. So you finished all now - Sons and Lovers parts. Glad you did like the book. I will answer your well expressed post with some comments soon and to the best of my abilitly. The novel, along with all of Lawrence's novels and stories presents very complex characters (we were just today discussing this fact on the other thread - "Women in Love".) and it is not always easy or possible to figure these characters out according to their motives or actions in life. In a way this is realistic, in that often the people we know and love, do not always act in ways we feel appropriate or expected. I do agree with you that the book can be very confusing in places and is very thought provoking long after you shut the pages of the novel. It is a shame we are not having a big discussion on this book, but eventually it might get choosen as a book of the month read.
It is a fascinating book and there is much to what you have said about it. I will get back to you very soon and write more comments to your great post. I hope Virgil stops in, too. Janine

I strongly agree with you that the characters were real. They were not put as entirely 'good' or 'bad' which is the case in many novels. Instead, they were shown with their weaker sides as well. Their battling selves as well. This is what made the book seem very real. I think I have mentioned it already before, but if I have not, I would do that again: I loved Lawrence's writing style. The way he showed the emotions of Paul was extremely fascinating. There is this passage which I liked a lot, and I think it reveals quite a lot about what picture Paul had in his mind of Clara. He had an idea they might not be able to stay together for long just like he had when he was with Miriam.


What is she, after all?" he said to himself. "Here is the sea-coast morning, big and permanent and beautiful; there is she fretting, always unsatisfied, and temporary as a bubble of foam. What does she mean to me, after all? She represents something, like a bubble of foam represents the sea. But what is she? It's not her I care for.

Oh, and take as much time as you want. Whenever you are free, you should give your thoughts! I am looking forward to that. :)

I may participate in the discussion of Women in Love in a few days as well, depends on whether I get to find the copy...

[Janine]

I strongly agree with you that the characters were real. They were not put as entirely 'good' or 'bad' which is the case in many novels. Instead, they were shown with their weaker sides as well. Their battling selves as well. This is what made the book seem very real. I think I have mentioned it already before, but if I have not, I would do that again: I loved Lawrence's writing style. The way he showed the emotions of Paul was extremely fascinating. There is this passage which I liked a lot, and I think it reveals quite a lot about what picture Paul had in his mind of Clara. He had an idea they might not be able to stay together for long just like he had when he was with Miriam.



Oh, and take as much time as you want. Whenever you are free, you should give your thoughts! I am looking forward to that. :)

I may participate in the discussion of Women in Love in a few days as well, depends on whether I get to find the copy...

Pensive, great to see you respond to my post so quickly. Glad we are in agreement on the realism of the characters. Yes, Lawrence explores their weaknesses, as well as their strengths. No character in any Lawrence book is easily figured out and none are 'all bad and all good', just like real people. His characters are all so mulitlayered and this makes them fascinating in my opinion.

I first was attracted to Lawrence's beautiful and fluid style of writing, too. Some passages are so vivid and so brilliant and I always say he describes in color - full technicolor. From one of my biographies I read that after his severe illness, when he was a young man and nearly died, he seemed to come back from a 'near death experience' and he seemed to see colors and things more clearly and more vividly than he had before. He had written it in letters that are well documented and others had observed this new intense insight and 'genius' in him. He wrote "Sons and Lovers" after that illness.

To learn something of his biography and life greatly aids one in understanding his books. "Sons and Lovers" is basically autobiographical; I think I may have told you this before. Paul is Lawrence and he wrote what was in his own head/heart/soul and just exactly how he felt even about the two women - Miriam and Clara. Miriam who was really Jesse Chambers, in real life, is someone I have always felt a tinge of sorrow/pathos for. She was a very good friend with young Lawrence, before they went to the stage of being lovers or attempting to be so. The 'lovers' part of their relationship could never be right for them and I think she endured the pain of this rejection all her life. She wrote a biography of her own, which I have read reviews on and apparently it is not that extensely read or acclaimed, since it can be bought at a reasonable price on Amazon. I would actually now like to read this book and may purchase it sometime in the near future (perhaps out of sheer curiosity). I want to see just what she had to say about young Lawrence (Bert as they called him). Surely she knew him as no one else did, when they were growing up together. I think it is the age-old 'coming of age' story by the second half of this book - you know, the 'Lovers' part, with many struggles that go along with that time in a man's life. At Paul's age, he is just at the experimental period, and trying to figure out what to do with his life and what he wants his life to become. Jesse was his first girlfriend/love and rarely does that love turn out well. Clara, I am sure represents another, second love in his life. Was he engaged to her in the book? I don't recall now without reviewing the text. If so she represents Louie Burrows, who actually was good friends with Jesse, I believe. He was actually engaged to her and broke it off after his illness. I will try to find more about the character, Clara, in my biographies.

Paul (Lawrence's) mother was completely overbearing with her children, but especially with young Paul(Lawrence/Bert) - the youngest of the boys. Yet he loved her almost with an unnatural kind of intense love. Had she still been alive when Lawrence meet Frieda Weekly, she would have no doubt have stopped Lawrence from running away with Frieda and eventually marrying her. His mother had a great hold on his life. This part of S&L is absolutely true. The aided death is still very much a conjecture. No one knows the full truth about whether that actually occurred. She may have just passed away naturally in her sleep. I have read both versions in biographies, so who knows?

The father in the book is somewhat exaggerated and later in life Lawrence admitted to this and felt badly about it. He was not as bad as he is depicted in S&L. Kind of sad for him.

Many people, unfortunately, became victims being depicted in Lawrence's novels. He often used their images and exaggerated them or changed certain things about them. Usually though they could see themselves portrayed in the character. Therefore L lost many a friend this way. He did not mean to offend but the end result often was that the people were greatly offended.

[Pensive]

He wrote "Sons and Lovers" after that illness.

You make me learn something new everyday about Lawrence. Thanks for that. This is interesting. :) I have usually heard of people losing touch with their writings after illness rather than being good. But this is fascinating to hear.


To learn something of his biography and life greatly aids one in understanding his books. "Sons and Lovers" is basically autobiographical; I think I may have told you this before.

Yes, you did tell me.


Paul is Lawrence and he wrote what was in his own head/heart/soul and just exactly how he felt even about the two women - Miriam and Clara. Miriam who was really Jesse Chambers, in real life, is someone I have always felt a tinge of sorrow/pathos for. She was a very good friend with young Lawrence, before they went to the stage of being lovers or attempting to be so. The 'lovers' part of their relationship could never be right for them and I think she endured the pain of this rejection all her life. She wrote a biography of her own, which I have read reviews on and apparently it is not that extensely read or acclaimed, since it can be bought at a reasonable price on Amazon. I would actually now like to read this book and may purchase it sometime in the near future (perhaps out of sheer curiosity). I want to see just what she had to say about young Lawrence (Bert as they called him).

Miriam's character (and the happenings in the book) made me feel pity towards her too. It's a pity she could not get the man she loved.


Surely she knew him as no one else did, when they were growing up together. I think it is the age-old 'coming of age' story by the second half of this book - you know, the 'Lovers' part, with many struggles that go along with that time in a man's life. At Paul's age, he is just at the experimental period, and trying to figure out what to do with his life and what he wants his life to become. Jesse was his first girlfriend/love and rarely does that love turn out well.

Yes, Miriam knew the inside him. She could understand him. Perhaps this was also another reason Paul broke up with her I think. In the novel it's written, he felt hatred towards her sometimes for knowing so much about him.


Clara, I am sure represents another, second love in his life. Was he engaged to her in the book? I don't recall now without reviewing the text. If so she represents Louie Burrows, who actually was good friends with Jesse, I believe. He was actually engaged to her and broke it off after his illness. I will try to find more about the character, Clara, in my biographies.

No, not engages in the ring sort of manner, but for sometime, it looked as if they would marry. Oh, I would love it if you can share more about Clara with the help of his biography. :)


Paul (Lawrence's) mother was completely overbearing with her children, but especially with young Paul(Lawrence/Bert) - the youngest of the boys. Yet he loved her almost with an unnatural kind of intense love. Had she still been alive when Lawrence meet Frieda Weekly, she would have no doubt have stopped Lawrence from running away with Frieda and eventually marrying her. His mother had a great hold on his life. This part of S&L is absolutely true. The aided death is still very much a conjecture. No one knows the full truth about whether that actually occurred. She may have just passed away naturally in her sleep. I have read both versions in biographies, so who knows?

Well, the book which I read had confirmed of aided death but the truth might be different. Paul's condition at that time was very interesting yet tear-jerking to me. He wanted the one he loved the most (I get this feeling he loved his mother the most and she had an influence over him more than any body else) to die. The feelings in those pages are described very well.


The father in the book is somewhat exaggerated and later in life Lawrence admitted to this and felt badly about it. He was not as bad as he is depicted in S&L. Kind of sad for him.

I don't know why, but I couldn't dislike Mr. Morel very much. He angered me a lot on beating his wife but then again at those times, this was the attitude of many working-class people in that area. I think social atmosphere is depicted in a very interesting manner as well.


Many people, unfortunately, became victims being depicted in Lawrence's novels. He often used their images and exaggerated them or changed certain things about them. Usually though they could see themselves portrayed in the character. Therefore L lost many a friend this way. He did not mean to offend but the end result often was that the people were greatly offended.

Oh he shouldn't have done that I guess! But the need to write what you imagine can be terrible so I can understand why he couldn't stop himself from writing the exaggerated version of them.

I was thinking about one thing a lot; the attitude of Lawrence towards the behaviour of women. There were these dialogues between Miriam and Paul in the end which I think confirmed this feeling of mine. Or perhaps I didn't get it. Can anyone explain to me what it means? :(


"Oh, I don't think it won't be a great deal. Only you'll find
earning your own living isn't everything."

"No," she said, swallowing with difficulty; "I don't suppose
it is."

"I suppose work CAN be nearly everything to a man," he said,
"though it isn't to me. But a woman only works with a part of
herself. The real and vital part is covered up."

"But a man can give ALL himself to work?" she asked.

"Yes, practically."

"And a woman only the unimportant part of herself?"

"That's it."

I don't understand if work can be nearly everything to a man, why can't it be for a woman? There were some other little things like this as well but I didn't mark them so I am sorry I can't show them here...

[Janine]

You make me learn something new everyday about Lawrence. Thanks for that. This is interesting. :) I have usually heard of people losing touch with their writings after illness rather than being good. But this is fascinating to hear.

Hi Pensive, ah thank you for saying that. It really makes me feel satisfaction having helped you better understand Lawrence and the book. Yes, actually Lawrence was weak and ill his entire life after that major illness of pnemonia. He had periods of more vital health, but in several of my biographies it was noted that he seemed to have colds often and always at the Christmas holiday season. English rainy/damp weather was especially hard on his bad chest conditions. So eventually he traveled to more moderate climates to live, such as Italy, New Mexico, Australia, and Mexico. This is what makes Lawrence's life so extraordinary and commendable. How the man could persist against all odds, to produce the high quality and the great body of his writing, is incredible. I have the highest regard and respect for that type of ambition. He once said that if he stopped working - either writing or painting (yes, Lawrence did some painting and drawing, too) he would die. I believe his talent did keep him active and alive. He had a tremendous will to write and to live. He had a wonderful lively way and was loved by many.



Miriam's character (and the happenings in the book) made me feel pity towards her too. It's a pity she could not get the man she loved.

I think you may be looking at his from a youthful and romantic position. Being older now, I feel that first loves usually doesn't take full root to blossom into a full-fledged long term love relationship or marriage. Lawrence seemed to align Miriam(Jesse) with his mother in several texts I have read, in that she could be controlling and overbearing, in Lawrence's eyes. Did Miriam seem subtly controlling in the book? I thought I recalled that she did and I know there remained a sort of friction between them and it seemed they could not come to agreements on their love-life. I do not know how much this was imagined by Lawrence in his actual case, or if it actually happened, but he did the right thing by not taking her as his wife. I am convinced of that. I know that Jessie must have been heartbroken at the time. I don't believe she ever married, but I am not completely sure of it. My son had a first love that reminds me of this relationship. He was in his early 20's and the girl always seemed to want to control him, or manipulate him in subtle ways; he finally rebelled. He is now happily married and so is she - to different people. The point is this - in the book had it felt right for them, I think they would have worked out their struggles and married, but it was not meant to be.
The short story I have posted this month is interesting - I think Lawrence wrote it about himself going back to see the woman he once loved and broke off with. It is a short short story - only a half dozen pages long, I believe. You might find it quite interesting to read and think in relationship to "Sons and Lovers" and to Lawrence's real life. It all seems to tie in to me. The story is called "The Shades of Spring". It is very nostalgic.


Yes, Miriam knew the inside him. She could understand him. Perhaps this was also another reason Paul broke up with her I think. In the novel it's written, he felt hatred towards her sometimes for knowing so much about him.

It is indeed interesting what you say about Paul feeling hatred towards Miriam 'for knowing so much about him'. It is always interesting how in L's keen perception, he could see beyond something and into the very core of thinking/reaction in a person. Because now Paul feels vulnerable and revealed to Miriam, he also feels anger towards her. How often we act in strange ways when feeling exposed. This is very psychological, don't you think?

This I am not so sure of in the real life with Lawrence and Jesse. She knew the youthful Lawrence, but not the deeper parts of him that she could not comprehend. Lawrence changed much after he left Eastwick and developed as a man and a philosopher/idealist. I think that Jessie remained true to the youthful Lawrence, but she would not have been able to exist in the world of the mature Lawrence, nor in reality could he exist in her limited world.




No, not engages in the ring sort of manner, but for sometime, it looked as if they would marry. Oh, I would love it if you can share more about Clara with the help of his biography. :)

Pensive, in the book, did Paul ask Clara to marry him while they were riding on a train together? I seem to recall that part; if so the character corresponds to Louie Burrows and that was an actual incident. I looked in one of my biographies and it is hard to accertain, but I believe she is one and the same person. If she is I have a wonderful photo of her I will post. She was quite lovely and beautiful.


Well, the book which I read had confirmed of aided death but the truth might be different. Paul's condition at that time was very interesting yet tear-jerking to me. He wanted the one he loved the most (I get this feeling he loved his mother the most and she had an influence over him more than any body else) to die. The feelings in those pages are described very well.

Most of my books did claim it was aided death, but never confirmed or proven. Probably it was, since the mother was very close to the end when she did die, hanging on my a mere thread. It was awful, as you can imagine from the account in the book, to see her wasting away. You put that so nicely in your paragraph and I too thought it so tear-jerking a scene - truly heart-breaking when Paul was torn between letting her go yet loving her so much to help her to die. The feelings were described very well, indeed. It seemed so real to me.


I don't know why, but I couldn't dislike Mr. Morel very much. He angered me a lot on beating his wife but then again at those times, this was the attitude of many working-class people in that area. I think social atmosphere is depicted in a very interesting manner as well.

I did not really dislike him either and I rather feel badly now for Lawrence's real father. Lawrence go something of value from both parents and in the end it helped to balance out his life and his writing. His father was depicted harshly in the novel, but he was sad as well, I thought. In reality I don't believe he ever beat Lawrence's mother or the children. He was just harsh and like you said, he was no different than the typical working-class man trying to make a living in the pits for his family. It was a hard job working in darkness day in and day out, to be so dirty and close to the threat of death always. The man had his good side at times. No one in a Lawrence book is all good or all bad, they are all human-beings with weaknesses and strengths and flaws. This is why the characters present a very realistic picture. They are real people.

"I think social atmosphere is depicted in a very interesting manner as well"

This and the socio-economic issues are another major theme of this book: the encrouchment of industry and modernization on the world. The area depicted in the book is only a microcosom of a much larger situation/problem, facing the earth and the world in the years to come. I often think, if Lawrence were here now and saw how man has abused the earth, he would be appalled. Lawrence was very 'prophetic' in his observations and social commentary.


Oh he shouldn't have done that I guess! But the need to write what you imagine can be terrible so I can understand why he couldn't stop himself from writing the exaggerated version of them.

Like you have said in this paragraph 'the need to write what you imagine can be terrible' and it must have been great in one so brilliant and observant as L. I am sure he was inspired and driven; when he saw someone or something he photographed it in his mind and used what he absorbed; expressing all on paper; I think the words naturaly poured out from him. I don't think it ever was intentional at all or vindicative on his part. Unfortunately, people did not agree and they hated his depictions of them. I suppose they felt exposed. I don't think it could have been helped, nor do I think he should have changed a thing he wrote.


I was thinking about one thing a lot; the attitude of Lawrence towards the behaviour of women. There were these dialogues between Miriam and Paul in the end which I think confirmed this feeling of mine. Or perhaps I didn't get it. Can anyone explain to me what it means? :(

This part I will have to review and think about. It is late now and I am really tired out and can't think of how to answer this; the answer would be quite complex. I will try to do so tomorrow. I do think L knew woman quite well. This insight into women's behavior is very developed in his books to follow. We are seeing it now in "Women in Love". It is as though he has crawled inside their skins at times and knows precisely how they will react to things and to men. He had many good woman friends, probably more than he had male friends. I will go into this more extensively later.


I don't understand if work can be nearly everything to a man, why can't it be for a woman? There were some other little things like this as well but I didn't mark them so I am sorry I can't show them here...

Ok, another one I have to think about. It is a good question. I will re-read both passages and see how I feel about them. I will get back to you later with some more ideas.

[Pensive]

I am sorry for being a bit late in replying, summer holidays are making me go lazy.



I think you may be looking at his from a youthful and romantic position. Being older now, I feel that first loves usually doesn't take full root to blossom into a full-fledged long term love relationship or marriage. Lawrence seemed to align Miriam(Jesse) with his mother in several texts I have read, in that she could be controlling and overbearing, in Lawrence's eyes. Did Miriam seem subtly controlling in the book? I thought I recalled that she did and I know there remained a sort of friction between them and it seemed they could not come to agreements on their love-life. I do not know how much this was imagined by Lawrence in his actual case, or if it actually happened, but he did the right thing by not taking her as his wife. I am convinced of that. I know that Jessie must have been heartbroken at the time. I don't believe she ever married, but I am not completely sure of it. My son had a first love that reminds me of this relationship. He was in his early 20's and the girl always seemed to want to control him, or manipulate him in subtle ways; he finally rebelled. He is now happily married and so is she - to different people. The point is this - in the book had it felt right for them, I think they would have worked out their struggles and married, but it was not meant to be.

Well yes, in the novel, Miriam seemed to be very controlling for him.


The short story I have posted this month is interesting - I think Lawrence wrote it about himself going back to see the woman he once loved and broke off with. It is a short short story - only a half dozen pages long, I believe. You might find it quite interesting to read and think in relationship to "Sons and Lovers" and to Lawrence's real life. It all seems to tie in to me. The story is called "The Shades of Spring". It is very nostalgic.

I would check it out now. Seems interesting! :)


It is indeed interesting what you say about Paul feeling hatred towards Miriam 'for knowing so much about him'. It is always interesting how in L's keen perception, he could see beyond something and into the very core of thinking/reaction in a person. Because now Paul feels vulnerable and revealed to Miriam, he also feels anger towards her. How often we act in strange ways when feeling exposed. This is very psychological, don't you think?

Exactly, it is. I think this book deals with a lot of psychology of human beings, more than most of the books I have read.


This I am not so sure of in the real life with Lawrence and Jesse. She knew the youthful Lawrence, but not the deeper parts of him that she could not comprehend. Lawrence changed much after he left Eastwick and developed as a man and a philosopher/idealist. I think that Jessie remained true to the youthful Lawrence, but she would not have been able to exist in the world of the mature Lawrence, nor in reality could he exist in her limited world.

I am not sure what to say about this, because I have not read of Lawrence as an idealist/philosopher. Sons and Lovers end when Paul left both Miriam and Clara. But this interests me to read his actual biography.



Pensive, in the book, did Paul ask Clara to marry him while they were riding on a train together? I seem to recall that part; if so the character corresponds to Louie Burrows and that was an actual incident. I looked in one of my biographies and it is hard to accertain, but I believe she is one and the same person. If she is I have a wonderful photo of her I will post. She was quite lovely and beautiful.

I don't remember this part. I guess I would have to check some parts of the book again. It was so long, and complex, that while following the plot, I had the chance of forgetting some of the previous things I had read. So forgive me for that.


Most of my books did claim it was aided death, but never confirmed or proven. Probably it was, since the mother was very close to the end when she did die, hanging on my a mere thread. It was awful, as you can imagine from the account in the book, to see her wasting away. You put that so nicely in your paragraph and I too thought it so tear-jerking a scene - truly heart-breaking when Paul was torn between letting her go yet loving her so much to help her to die. The feelings were described very well, indeed. It seemed so real to me.

I am sorry, I used the wrong word which was 'confirmed'. Because we can't be sure about it. In the book, it's made sure that Paul and Annie slipped something in her glass, but this doesn't have to be that killed her. She was already very fragile. But my mind leans towards the aided death. Because she died just after that.


I did not really dislike him either and I rather feel badly now for Lawrence's real father. Lawrence go something of value from both parents and in the end it helped to balance out his life and his writing. His father was depicted harshly in the novel, but he was sad as well, I thought. In reality I don't believe he ever beat Lawrence's mother or the children. He was just harsh and like you said, he was no different than the typical working-class man trying to make a living in the pits for his family. It was a hard job working in darkness day in and day out, to be so dirty and close to the threat of death always. The man had his good side at times. No one in a Lawrence book is all good or all bad, they are all human-beings with weaknesses and strengths and flaws. This is why the characters present a very realistic picture. They are real people.

This is one of the things I liked about Sons and Lovers that the characters look real. :)



This and the socio-economic issues are another major theme of this book: the encrouchment of industry and modernization on the world. The area depicted in the book is only a microcosom of a much larger situation/problem, facing the earth and the world in the years to come. I often think, if Lawrence were here now and saw how man has abused the earth, he would be appalled. Lawrence was very 'prophetic' in his observations and social commentary.

Yes, it seems like one of the basic themes of the book. I think this book covers most of the topics: relationships which mean both kind of relationships; romantic relationship as well as family relations, moral/religious values of people in that era and in that area, people's mentality (in a word human-psychology) and how the things were changing.


Like you have said in this paragraph 'the need to write what you imagine can be terrible' and it must have been great in one so brilliant and observant as L. I am sure he was inspired and driven; when he saw someone or something he photographed it in his mind and used what he absorbed; expressing all on paper; I think the words naturaly poured out from him. I don't think it ever was intentional at all or vindicative on his part. Unfortunately, people did not agree and they hated his depictions of them. I suppose they felt exposed. I don't think it could have been helped, nor do I think he should have changed a thing he wrote.

Perhaps you are right. How could we have obtained such a good book if Lawrence had had not exaggerated some of the people. :p But on the other hand I feel with those people also who had their versions exaggerated. Even Lawrence had not liked being exposed to Miriam much you see.



This part I will have to review and think about. It is late now and I am really tired out and can't think of how to answer this; the answer would be quite complex. I will try to do so tomorrow. I do think L knew woman quite well. This insight into women's behavior is very developed in his books to follow. We are seeing it now in "Women in Love". It is as though he has crawled inside their skins at times and knows precisely how they will react to things and to men. He had many good woman friends, probably more than he had male friends. I will go into this more extensively later.


Ok, another one I have to think about. It is a good question. I will re-read both passages and see how I feel about them. I will get back to you later with some more ideas.

Oh you don't have to hurry, whenever you have free time. :) I would like to hear your thoughts about it. :D

[Janine]

Pensive, no problem being late answering - good to pace ourselves. Glad you are on summer vacation now. Enjoy your leisure while you can. I can imagine that you worked hard enough all year. I am tired out from posting so much in the WIL discussion and also now in the Lawrence Tortoise Poems thread - stop by and check it out when you have a chance. Ktd222 asked me to start it. It is going well so far. It should be fun.
I will answer your post tomorrow or in the coming days, since you told me to take my time. I am so happy we are discussing S&L. It brings the book back to me. I will review it when I finish up my other book. I am a little tired and lazy myself tonight. I am anxious to finish reading my book (WIL) soon, later tonight or tomorrow night, hopefully.
See you soon ~ Janine

[Janine]

Well yes, in the novel, Miriam seemed to be very controlling for him.

Hi Pensive, Yes, and I do think Miriam seemed to be controlling in a quiet way. Lawrence seemed to perceive her as a threat. This plays into Lawrence's own theories on woman and his deeper (psychological) fears regarding them. I read Lawrence’s first novel “The White Peacock” and this was quite a prominent theme in the book. Lawrence seemed to feel women a definite threat to men, and yet he was drawn to them from the start. In Lawrence’s writing there is always a great deal of conflict – between characters and within the characters themselves. So it was with Miriam. There is a lot of duality in L's writings.


I would check it out now. Seems interesting! :)

I still have not checked this, but I will. I have been so busy with the other threads. Sorry about that. Also, I told you I would try to scan a picture of Lousia (Louie) Burrows for you. My book has a lovely photo of her; she was quite pretty. There is another woman who comes to mind who was good friends with Jessie. I believe her name was Helen Cork. I forget if Lawrence showed interest in her as a lover to Helen, I think maybe he did. I know for certain he was engaged (not in the ring sense) to Louie.

Good news; I went to my library tonight and found some research books on some of Lawrence’s writings. I found one book that has much about “Sons and Lovers” – critical analysis. I am anxious to see if it can give me some additional insight into the novel.



Exactly, it is. I think this book deals with a lot of psychology of human beings, more than most of the books I have read.

Pensive, you are quite perceptive. Definitely, there is much psychology in Lawrence’s books…all of them. In WIL the book is filled with a more developed sense of the psychology and Lawrence’s personal philosophy, as well. Our current discussions are quite intense and complex with all the psychological elements and the symbolism to discuss.


I am not sure what to say about this, because I have not read of Lawrence as an idealist/philosopher. Sons and Lovers end when Paul left both Miriam and Clara. But this interests me to read his actual biography.

Many critics state that Lawrence was interested in the psychology between the son and the mother and cite the Odiepus complex as a prominent theme in the book. At the time that Lawrence was writing “Sons and Lovers” this sort of thinking was very popular, with Freud’s ideas of the subconscious being newly introduced into society. Biographers say that Lawrence had a ‘unnaturally’ close relationship with his own mother and this is reflected in the book. I don’t personally see this, but many do. The mother did seem to cling to the son for the lack of her relationship with the husband. It is so true that much is evident in regard to the subconscious and psychology of each character, especially Paul and his mother.



I don't remember this part. I guess I would have to check some parts of the book again. It was so long, and complex, that while following the plot, I had the chance of forgetting some of the previous things I had read. So forgive me for that.

I will try checking too. I know it is in one of my biographies. It is hard to find the exact quote – they are thick volumes and I never mark any book. I should take notes, but I forget to and later I am really sorry I did not at least note the page of particular interest.


I am sorry, I used the wrong word which was 'confirmed'. Because we can't be sure about it. In the book, it's made sure that Paul and Annie slipped something in her glass, but this doesn't have to be that killed her. She was already very fragile. But my mind leans towards the aided death. Because she died just after that.

Yes, my thoughts too were that she was very fragile and nearly gone, really at the threshold of ‘death’s door’, and if they increased her medication I certainly sympathise with them. They were only thinking of her own terrible suffering and wanted to put an end to it. It was such a sad part of the book. I felt like I was there with them. It made my heart ache for Lawrence and his sister.


This is one of the things I liked about Sons and Lovers that the characters look real. :)

Yes, they do seem so real to me. It made sense to know that they were based on real people. All of Lawrence’s books make one feel this way. It is the magic of his writing. He was so intuitive, naturally, and could paint such vivid pictures of the people he characterized.



Yes, it seems like one of the basic themes of the book. I think this book covers most of the topics: relationships which mean both kind of relationships; romantic relationship as well as family relations, moral/religious values of people in that era and in that area, people's mentality (in a word human-psychology) and how the things were changing.

Yes, it did cover all of those themes and aspects of a family life and growing up and going out into the world for the first time. I loved that it was so complete and encompassed so much. Again that is what made it feel quite real.


Perhaps you are right. How could we have obtained such a good book if Lawrence had had not exaggerated some of the people. :p But on the other hand I feel with those people also who had their versions exaggerated. Even Lawrence had not liked being exposed to Miriam much you see.

Exactly. I suppose every author steps on some toes along the way; I don’t think it can be helped. In the name of art it just happens and ‘you can’t please all the people all of the time’, as the saying goes. Yes, it is true that L did not like to be exposed himself. I felt badly for Miriam and for the father and perhaps some others. Lawrence sometimes contradicted himself and was a very complex man, not easy to figure out. I am sure as a friend it was the same. A good biography would give you better insight into what type a person Lawrence actually was. You might better understand his motives. Many authors do write about what they know and who they know. It is not that unusual when one reads the biographies. I know that Thomas Hardy actually wrote about real incidents. It would seem inevitable that some people would be offended.



Oh you don't have to hurry, whenever you have free time. :) I would like to hear your thoughts about it. :D

Same with you; take your time to reply. I will be busy researching more about S&L in the library books I found tonight. I hope it proves interesting. :)

[quasimodo1]

Sons and Lovers ( S&L) is a ‘ bildungsroman’ (A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.) Some novels which fall in this category are autobiographical like Dickens’ ‘David Copperfield’ or Joyce’s ‘Portrait of the Artist…’ . Likewise Lawrence’s ‘S & L’, roughly deals with the childhood, adolescence and early adulthood of the author. It is a frank portrayal of the relationship between a domineering mother and the son, a relationship that influences every aspect of the protagonist’s life. From his relationship with his father to his romantic affairs with two very different women.

The Story

Paul Morel grows up in The Bottoms, a community of coal miners in Nottinghamshire. A background almost identical to Lawrence’s own. His mother, Gertrude Coppard Morel-- & father, Walter, have had a horrible marriage. Within six months into the marriage she realized her mistake of marrying a man significantly having a different temperament than her. She fought hard to change him, to make him undertake his own responsibilities, to make him fulfill his obligations. But his sensuous nature refused to become moral and religious. The unfulfilled woman concentrates on her sons. Paul grows up in the shadow of a smothering mother. He becomes an artist and begins to have relationships with women: the innocent, old-fashioned, Miriam Leivers and Clara Dawes, married but estranged and provocatively modern. Of course, his mother’s looming presence dominates his life and hence these relationships end badly.

Meanwhile, when his mother contracts cancer, Paul murders her with morphine. The novel ends with him striding confidently towards a golden future, borne up by the continuing support of her love for him.

Lawrence- A Painter

Lawrence is beautifully attentive to descriptive detail and even his characterization come up as portraits. The life of the working class and the English country side are captured to almost perfection. Something done so well by Thomas Hardy The characters are life like especially the mother, Mrs. Morel.

Freud & Oedipus Complex

’’ When Lawrence began the novel he had only passing knowledge of the Freudian theories regarding the mother-son relationship(Oedipus Complex). Essentially the author was writing from experience: the psychic bond between Mrs. Morel and her son, Paul, was very similar to the bond shared by Lawrence and his mother. This bond between son and mother amounts almost to a husband and wife sort of love - without the sex - and prevents the son from ever achieving a fully satisfactory relationship with another woman because of the hold the mother has on the son’s soul. It is not until the mother is dead that the son is able to begin to free himself from her hold. The novel, then, is the story of that struggle. ’’

Religion

Miriam, one of Paul’s lovers is extremely religious. She possesses intense piety and religion and believes that her brothers and father are too vulgar, for they have no regard for church or God. Her love for Paul is more of a worship and she even associates God with their relationship. The rose bush is just like a parallel to their relationship.

Industrialisation

There are significant mention of industrialization all through. Mrs Morel is a bored wife of a miner. Mrs. Morel is confident that William will achieve a better profession than mining. She knows that William is capable of more than her husband ever was, and wants William to pursue all that he can achieve. The trains of transport. Paul finds a job at a company that makes surgical appliances. He is becoming part of the great industrial movement of England.
Arthur, the youngest Morel child, gets a job at Minton Pit, doing electrical work. He, as with Paul, enters the work force, doing a profession that requires skill and technical knowledge.

Drawbacks

The initial chapters are good and the descriptions are refreshing but later the book drags along. SONS AND LOVERS is not a ’’feel good’’ read, and Paul’s inability to break free from the psychological bondage with his mother is frustrating and sometimes exasperating. Paul’s obsession, frustration, and indecision about the women in his life at times seem ridiculous especially that with Miriam.

Uniqueness

It is a peep into the life of the author, D.H. Lawrence who has written a woman’s thoughts better than many female writers have. May be it was his close relationship with his mother that he was able to understand women so well . Lawrence is very vulnerable here because he not only exposes himself as the son, but also inevitable as the lover.


Would recommend every mother and son to read this novel

I don't necessarily go along with this review; not all of it. Still, in following this thread, I was losing track of the overview. Maybe this helps. quasimodo1

[Janine]

Sons and Lovers ( S&L) is a ‘ bildungsroman’ (A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.) Some novels which fall in this category are autobiographical like Dickens’ ‘David Copperfield’ or Joyce’s ‘Portrait of the Artist…’ . Likewise Lawrence’s ‘S & L’, roughly deals with the childhood, adolescence and early adulthood of the author. It is a frank portrayal of the relationship between a domineering mother and the son, a relationship that influences every aspect of the protagonist’s life. From his relationship with his father to his romantic affairs with two very different women.

Hi Quasi, Nice to see you join in. This information is quite good, although I don't agree either with all of it. I cringed when I read the blunt line: "Paul murders her with morphine". :eek:
Pensive and I have already cited that it is merely conjecture that this even happened, or at least in Lawrence's real life. In Paul's case, the euthenasia is not 'murder', in my eyes. The woman was nearly in the grave; suffering unspeakable. His act was out of deepest love and compassion. She may have died without the morphine overdose, who knows? I think in the book we are left to wonder about that.

The part about Lawrence, the painter, is excellent and of course, Lawrence did physically paint and sketch, as well. He once said if he was not doing one he was doing the other. L was rarely idle. He also claimed if he stopped working he would simply die, and he meant this literally since he had TB most of his life and struggled with his health.


Freud & Oedipus Complex

’’ When Lawrence began the novel he had only passing knowledge of the Freudian theories regarding the mother-son relationship(Oedipus Complex). Essentially the author was writing from experience: the psychic bond between Mrs. Morel and her son, Paul, was very similar to the bond shared by Lawrence and his mother. This bond between son and mother amounts almost to a husband and wife sort of love - without the sex - and prevents the son from ever achieving a fully satisfactory relationship with another woman because of the hold the mother has on the son’s soul. It is not until the mother is dead that the son is able to begin to free himself from her hold. The novel, then, is the story of that struggle. ’’

I especially like this part. This explains much better than I could have in one of my previous posts. Last night I read a letter in Lawrence's own words explaining the situation family-wise and his close relationship to his mother. It is very interesting and revealing, indeed. I have to type out the passage; it is quite long. I know you will all like this very much. It takes what you have quoted to a new dimension. I must type it out tonight and have it ready to post tomorrow (hopefully).

Also, there are a couple of other letters that will be of great interest to you, Pensive, about the Miriam/Paul - Jessie/Lawrence relationship. One is shorter in Lawrence's words and the other Jessie wrote, and is a more than two pages long. Again another typing job.

Good news Pensive - I found an entire book on commentary on "Sons and Lovers" in my library last night. It is an older book, but has some excellent letters and other information about the book and characters.
One thing I found out in my initial reading is that that Clara was not actually based on anyone in particular, but a combination of three women Lawrence knew. She is basically a totally fictional character, or so this book claims.


Religion

Miriam, one of Paul’s lovers is extremely religious. She possesses intense piety and religion and believes that her brothers and father are too vulgar, for they have no regard for church or God. Her love for Paul is more of a worship and she even associates God with their relationship. The rose bush is just like a parallel to their relationship.

Yes, this is also quite good. I like the worship part especially and how Miriam viewed Paul. I believe it was so also of Jessie towards Lawrence. The passage by Jessie in my book reveals some of this idea and shows how her image of him becomes tarnished or shattered. As I said, I will be typing this out for all to read.


Drawbacks

The initial chapters are good and the descriptions are refreshing but later the book drags along. SONS AND LOVERS is not a ’’feel good’’ read, and Paul’s inability to break free from the psychological bondage with his mother is frustrating and sometimes exasperating. Paul’s obsession, frustration, and indecision about the women in his life at times seem ridiculous especially that with Miriam.

Quasi, It has been a while since I read the book, but although Lawrence's books sometimes move slower in places, I never feel they drag along. I think he paced the stories this way as some authors use humor to break up the text and plot. He also often reflects the seasons and the ebb and flow of life. I think it depends on individual taste as to whether a person 'feels good' reading his work. I dispute that notion as irrelevant. Mostly Lawrence has real 'gravity' to his work and therefore it is not a nice little story with sweet one dimensional characters. All characters are complex and layered and therefore there are no good guys, bad guys, or happy, sad guys. It is as it would be in real life.



Uniqueness

It is a peep into the life of the author, D.H. Lawrence who has written a woman’s thoughts better than many female writers have. May be it was his close relationship with his mother that he was able to understand women so well . Lawrence is very vulnerable here because he not only exposes himself as the son, but also inevitable as the lover.

How well put this is! I believe that is why he so often appeals to women, although I have know some men who love his work, as well. However, the feminists seem to have turned against Lawrence in the past; he offended many of their principles. It may have been partly grave misunderstanding, but I do see some of his philosophies as ones they would greatly oppose. The last statement of this quote is also very interesting in terms of 'son and lover'.

Quasi, final note: where did you get this information? Who is the author of the quotes?

[Pensive]

Hi Pensive, Yes, and I do think Miriam seemed to be controlling in a quiet way. Lawrence seemed to perceive her as a threat. This plays into Lawrence's own theories on woman and his deeper (psychological) fears regarding them. I read Lawrence’s first novel “The White Peacock” and this was quite a prominent theme in the book. Lawrence seemed to feel women a definite threat to men, and yet he was drawn to them from the start. In Lawrence’s writing there is always a great deal of conflict – between characters and within the characters themselves. So it was with Miriam. There is a lot of duality in L's writings.

Yes, I have also noticed the conflicts a lot. This really makes me wonder what were Lawrence's religious views? In the book, Paul's own religious views are not much highlighted. As far as I remember, there was this passage in which Paul's religious views seemed to be having a conflict.


I still have not checked this, but I will. I have been so busy with the other threads. Sorry about that. Also, I told you I would try to scan a picture of Lousia (Louie) Burrows for you. My book has a lovely photo of her; she was quite pretty. There is another woman who comes to mind who was good friends with Jessie. I believe her name was Helen Cork. I forget if Lawrence showed interest in her as a lover to Helen, I think maybe he did. I know for certain he was engaged (not in the ring sense) to Louie.

Oh I can understand. You must be discussing Women in Love as well. I have checked it out in my local book-shop, couldn't find it there, but have asked for it. It might be available soon. Or else I have decided I wouldn't wait and read it online.

It would be nice of you if you can post the picture. Thanks. :)


Good news; I went to my library tonight and found some research books on some of Lawrence’s writings. I found one book that has much about “Sons and Lovers” – critical analysis. I am anxious to see if it can give me some additional insight into the novel.

This is a really good news! :D



Pensive, you are quite perceptive. Definitely, there is much psychology in Lawrence’s books…all of them. In WIL the book is filled with a more developed sense of the psychology and Lawrence’s personal philosophy, as well. Our current discussions are quite intense and complex with all the psychological elements and the symbolism to discuss.

Complex books encourage complex thoughts, and complex thoughts encourage a complex discussion. :)


Many critics state that Lawrence was interested in the psychology between the son and the mother and cite the Odiepus complex as a prominent theme in the book. At the time that Lawrence was writing “Sons and Lovers” this sort of thinking was very popular, with Freud’s ideas of the subconscious being newly introduced into society. Biographers say that Lawrence had a ‘unnaturally’ close relationship with his own mother and this is reflected in the book. I don’t personally see this, but many do. The mother did seem to cling to the son for the lack of her relationship with the husband. It is so true that much is evident in regard to the subconscious and psychology of each character, especially Paul and his mother.

Interesting! I just checked out wikipedia, and read some of Freud's theory. I am not sure if people would agree with me here but his theories didn't seem very sane to me. By my own personal experience, those I know, my obervations, I get this feeling his theories don't seem to apply. Same seems to be the case in Sons and Lovers. The son was closer to his mother because she was the one who spent time with him. A person like Morel, who worked hard in the mines, then came home late mostly, he would hardly have time to share things with his son. Mother who remained at home was more likely to do so. As for the mother preferring son, there can be several reasons for that. It is I think mentioned in the book also, when her children were born she found a way to divert attention from her husband. And the kind of woman Mrs. Morel was, it was not difficult to figure out that she considered men as the bread-earner, not the women. Men were considered physically powerful as well. I think that's the reason why she was closer to her sons than Annie.

The other reason as to why Lawrence was so close to her mother can also be the death of William. I remember fairly well that after that incident, they got even more close. This is also natural for a mother to feel more protected of her son after such a terrible death of her son at a young age. I don't think Freud's theory has got anything to do with this.



I will try checking too. I know it is in one of my biographies. It is hard to find the exact quote – they are thick volumes and I never mark any book. I should take notes, but I forget to and later I am really sorry I did not at least note the page of particular interest.

Oh no problem. It's okay. :)


Yes, my thoughts too were that she was very fragile and nearly gone, really at the threshold of ‘death’s door’, and if they increased her medication I certainly sympathise with them. They were only thinking of her own terrible suffering and wanted to put an end to it. It was such a sad part of the book. I felt like I was there with them. It made my heart ache for Lawrence and his sister.

Yes, the book had turned very emotional.


Yes, it did cover all of those themes and aspects of a family life and growing up and going out into the world for the first time. I loved that it was so complete and encompassed so much. Again that is what made it feel quite real.

I agree.


Exactly. I suppose every author steps on some toes along the way; I don’t think it can be helped. In the name of art it just happens and ‘you can’t please all the people all of the time’, as the saying goes. Yes, it is true that L did not like to be exposed himself. I felt badly for Miriam and for the father and perhaps some others. Lawrence sometimes contradicted himself and was a very complex man, not easy to figure out. I am sure as a friend it was the same. A good biography would give you better insight into what type a person Lawrence actually was. You might better understand his motives. Many authors do write about what they know and who they know. It is not that unusual when one reads the biographies. I know that Thomas Hardy actually wrote about real incidents. It would seem inevitable that some people would be offended.

Yes, I might try his biography but Women in Love at first. :p I am quite excited about that.


Same with you; take your time to reply. I will be busy researching more about S&L in the library books I found tonight. I hope it proves interesting. :)

Me too! :D

Thanks quasmodo, though I feel as if I don't agree with all points. But still it's a good review. :)


Freud & Oedipus Complex

’’ When Lawrence began the novel he had only passing knowledge of the Freudian theories regarding the mother-son relationship(Oedipus Complex). Essentially the author was writing from experience: the psychic bond between Mrs. Morel and her son, Paul, was very similar to the bond shared by Lawrence and his mother. This bond between son and mother amounts almost to a husband and wife sort of love - without the sex - and prevents the son from ever achieving a fully satisfactory relationship with another woman because of the hold the mother has on the son’s soul. It is not until the mother is dead that the son is able to begin to free himself from her hold. The novel, then, is the story of that struggle. ’’

I have given my views about it in my earlier post.


Drawbacks

The initial chapters are good and the descriptions are refreshing but later the book drags along. SONS AND LOVERS is not a ’’feel good’’ read, and Paul’s inability to break free from the psychological bondage with his mother is frustrating and sometimes exasperating. Paul’s obsession, frustration, and indecision about the women in his life at times seem ridiculous especially that with Miriam.

I agree with what you have said here, but I wouldn't call this the draw-back of the novel. On the other hand, I feel this is the good thing about it. :) It's real.


Uniqueness

It is a peep into the life of the author, D.H. Lawrence who has written a woman’s thoughts better than many female writers have. May be it was his close relationship with his mother that he was able to understand women so well . Lawrence is very vulnerable here because he not only exposes himself as the son, but also inevitable as the lover.

In a way I agree. He has certainly expressed the women he knew very well. A very deep insight of women he knew. But there were some general statements he made about females which I didn't like very much. And this makes me feel as if feminists do have a point if they critisize his attitude towards women. Here is this passage I previously quoted, but now this seems relevant to it:


"Oh, I don't think it won't be a great deal. Only you'll find
earning your own living isn't everything."

"No," she said, swallowing with difficulty; "I don't suppose
it is."

"I suppose work CAN be nearly everything to a man," he said,
"though it isn't to me. But a woman only works with a part of
herself. The real and vital part is covered up."

"But a man can give ALL himself to work?" she asked.

"Yes, practically."

"And a woman only the unimportant part of herself?"

"That's it."


Also, there are a couple of other letters that will be of great interest to you, Pensive, about the Miriam/Paul - Jessie/Lawrence relationship. One is shorter in Lawrence's words and the other Jessie wrote, and is a more than two pages long. Again another typing job.

Perhaps you can type only some parts of it? The ones you think are most interesting.


Good news Pensive - I found an entire book on commentary on "Sons and Lovers" in my library last night. It is an older book, but has some excellent letters and other information about the book and characters.
One thing I found out in my initial reading is that that Clara was not actually based on anyone in particular, but a combination of three women Lawrence knew. She is basically a totally fictional character, or so this book claims.

It's a striking news. I had no idea it would be so! Thanks a lot for giving this piece of information.



Yes, this is also quite good. I like the worship part especially and how Miriam viewed Paul. I believe it was so also of Jessie towards Lawrence. The passage by Jessie in my book reveals some of this idea and shows how her image of him becomes tarnished or shattered. As I said, I will be typing this out for all to read.

That's nice of you. :)


How well put this is! I believe that is why he so often appeals to women, although I have know some men who love his work, as well. However, the feminists seem to have turned against Lawrence in the past; he offended many of their principles. It may have been partly grave misunderstanding, but I do see some of his philosophies as ones they would greatly oppose. The last statement of this quote is also very interesting in terms of 'son and lover'.

I don't call myself a feminist, but there are things in which I agree with their principles. And I feel I agree with them again in the matter of this book. The views of Paul, though highly interesting, but seemed very particular, confined to the study of some women he knew, very much to me. But I van be wrong of course in this feeling. I have explained it in my earlier than the earlier post. :)

[Janine]

Yes, I have also noticed the conflicts a lot. This really makes me wonder what were Lawrence's religious views? In the book, Paul's own religious views are not much highlighted. As far as I remember, there was this passage in which Paul's religious views seemed to be having a conflict.

Yes, many conflicts in all of Lawrence's works. Very good citing the religion as one form of conflict. Another hard question to difinitively answer is about religion and L's beliefs. I felt in S&L much the same way you did; that Paul was in conflict about his religious views. I believe in L's own life he went through many stages from non-belief to rebirth and belief in a religious sense, but not a 'conventional' religious sense, at all. Virgil knows more about this and he can explain it much better than I can. I will ask him to check in here, unless he is reading along; he can fill in more of the details and explain. L's religion was more of a mystical sense of living.


Oh I can understand. You must be discussing Women in Love as well. I have checked it out in my local book-shop, couldn't find it there, but have asked for it. It might be available soon. Or else I have decided I wouldn't wait and read it online.

Wow, that discussion is really something - now it is taking off and is so active, I can hardly keep up. It is very challenging though. Thanks for being understanding if I delay here on this thread. We are nearly at the end of the book. I may finish up tonight. I was too tired last night and it was too late. I hope you can find the book. Interestingly though it is not at all like "Sons and Lovers". I found a quote last night by Lawrence that said he would never write another novel like "Sons and Lovers" again. He would go onto something new. "Women in Love" is more involved, I believe. You know more complex with a lot of symbolism, etc. Anyway, hope you find the book. I bought mine off Amazon - a newer version by Cambridge. It is suppose to have some restored parts but so far I don't see a difference but the extras are worth buying that edition. We also have it listed on Lit Net as you said. You could print out chapter by chapter to read.


It would be nice of you if you can post the picture. Thanks.

I tried to find it online, but no good. There is a terrific online exhibit at Nottingham University. Cambridge has some things online about Lawrence as well, or it all might be in conjunction. I am not sure now. I will get the link and post it next time. You will love the sites.


Complex books encourage complex thoughts, and complex thoughts encourage a complex discussion. :)

Pensive, this is wonderful - did you write it? can I use it for my signature quote? I could say: Quote by Pensive:.........
It is so well put and so true!


Interesting! I just checked out wikipedia, and read some of Freud's theory. I am not sure if people would agree with me here but his theories didn't seem very sane to me. By my own personal experience, those I know, my obervations, I get this feeling his theories don't seem to apply. Same seems to be the case in Sons and Lovers. The son was closer to his mother because she was the one who spent time with him. A person like Morel, who worked hard in the mines, then came home late mostly, he would hardly have time to share things with his son. Mother who remained at home was more likely to do so. As for the mother preferring son, there can be several reasons for that. It is I think mentioned in the book also, when her children were born she found a way to divert attention from her husband. And the kind of woman Mrs. Morel was, it was not difficult to figure out that she considered men as the bread-earner, not the women. Men were considered physically powerful as well. I think that's the reason why she was closer to her sons than Annie.

Excellent going to check out Freud. I should read that entry myself. I forget so much; that will take me back to my college days.
I don't know if I agree with you entirely since I read that letter by Lawrence last night about his relationship to his mother. I can't wait to show that to you and see what you think. Have patience, since I am such a slow typist. I am going to try and scan it in and see if that works, or maybe I can type from the scan, easier than from the book.


The other reason as to why Lawrence was so close to her mother can also be the death of William. I remember fairly well that after that incident, they got even more close. This is also natural for a mother to feel more protected of her son after such a terrible death of her son at a young age. I don't think Freud's theory has got anything to do with this.

I think you are right in saying that added into the equation of why Lawrence and the mother were so close. I do agree with somethings in your last passage. I agree about the relationship of the mother and father and the effect it had on the family. I am sure this did make Paul's mother turn to her children for solace, comfort, companionship and love, etc.


Yes, the book had turned very emotional.

It did towards the end; the second part you called 'Lovers' really got intense, didn't it?


Yes, I might try his biography but Women in Love at first. :p I am quite excited about that.

Well, for now just read a short biography online and then later you may want to explore a more indepth one. You will definitely find WIL interesting. After you do read it we can discuss it and also you can go into the thread and read all that was written in the discussion group. It has been a fantastic discussion in there. I have learned so much.


Thanks quasmodo, though I feel as if I don't agree with all points. But still it's a good review. :)

Yes, Quasi, good points brought out in that post. Thanks again!


In a way I agree. He has certainly expressed the women he knew very well. A very deep insight of women he knew. But there were some general statements he made about females which I didn't like very much. And this makes me feel as if feminists do have a point if they critisize his attitude towards women. Here is this passage I previously quoted, but now this seems relevant to it:

I agree with you as well on this. Some of his statements sometimes bring up the hairs on my back in defense, being a woman. Yes, that passage seems to be one sided doesn't it. I think by WIL he felt differently about this. But Lawrence said himself that his path was the only one and he felt he should be followed. Many women would take offense to that notion. He did bruise the sensibilities of many a female. It is true. Lawrence was sometimes very much an enigma and he displayed a certain duality in his own personality and his beliefs. I think sometimes he does contradict his own words within a novel. This passage in particular does not seem so definite to me. He seems to be arrogant at the time and perhaps he is just displaying this part of Paul's immaturity/confusion at that time. I don't think Lawrence ultimately felt this way about women in the work force. Here he was talking to Miriam, wasn't he? I have to be honest I am not sure if either of us are taking this passage as it is intended to be meant. I will ask Virgil his take on it. I am a little confused about it presently.


Perhaps you can type only some parts of it? The ones you think are most interesting.

Good suggestion. I will see if I can. No problem; I enjoy sharing information when I find it.


It's a striking news. I had no idea it would be so! Thanks a lot for giving this piece of information.

Yes, I found it interesting also that Clara was a combination of women L knew.



I don't call myself a feminist, but there are things in which I agree with their principles. And I feel I agree with them again in the matter of this book. The views of Paul, though highly interesting, but seemed very particular, confined to the study of some women he knew, very much to me. But I van be wrong of course in this feeling. I have explained it in my earlier than the earlier post. :)

This I am not sure of. I think you are right in that the views were pertaining to particular women in the book and not all women by far. It was a very personal portrayal of these characters and his intimacies. Is that what you meant?

[Pensive]

Yes, many conflicts in all of Lawrence's works. Very good citing the religion as one form of conflict. Another hard question to difinitively answer is about religion and L's beliefs. I felt in S&L much the same way you did; that Paul was in conflict about his religious views. I believe in L's own life he went through many stages from non-belief to rebirth and belief in a religious sense, but not a 'conventional' religious sense, at all. Virgil knows more about this and he can explain it much better than I can. I will ask him to check in here, unless he is reading along; he can fill in more of the details and explain. L's religion was more of a mystical sense of living.

The book has some very interesting thoughts of Paul regarding this, but the trouble is they are very much contradictory. It's not easy to judge by them to which religion (or perhaps to none) he belonged.

I hope Virgil also gets time to give his thoughts about it, and we are not disturbing him. :)


Wow, that discussion is really something - now it is taking off and is so active, I can hardly keep up. It is very challenging though. Thanks for being understanding if I delay here on this thread. We are nearly at the end of the book. I may finish up tonight. I was too tired last night and it was too late. I hope you can find the book. Interestingly though it is not at all like "Sons and Lovers". I found a quote last night by Lawrence that said he would never write another novel like "Sons and Lovers" again. He would go onto something new. "Women in Love" is more involved, I believe. You know more complex with a lot of symbolism, etc. Anyway, hope you find the book. I bought mine off Amazon - a newer version by Cambridge. It is suppose to have some restored parts but so far I don't see a difference but the extras are worth buying that edition. We also have it listed on Lit Net as you said. You could print out chapter by chapter to read.

I had thought of printing it, but you see it has many chapters, and is quite long which would make it difficult for me to print it out. My printer is quite slow as well.

If I get it late, then I would still like to read the discussion of yours about it. Sometimes it's interesting to be just an observor rather a participant! :D



I tried to find it online, but no good. There is a terrific online exhibit at Nottingham University.

No problem! :)


Cambridge has some things online about Lawrence as well, or it all might be in conjunction. I am not sure now. I will get the link and post it next time. You will love the sites.

I am quite sure I would like it. :) Thanks!


Pensive, this is wonderful - did you write it? can I use it for my signature quote? I could say: Quote by Pensive:.........
It is so well put and so true!

:blush: Ummm...yes, I wrote it. But it was just an ordinary thought...


Excellent going to check out Freud. I should read that entry myself. I forget so much; that will take me back to my college days.

Hey Janine, you seem to be knowing quite a lot about Lawrence and the books, now it seems to be as if you have been a literature student!


I don't know if I agree with you entirely since I read that letter by Lawrence last night about his relationship to his mother. I can't wait to show that to you and see what you think. Have patience, since I am such a slow typist. I am going to try and scan it in and see if that works, or maybe I can type from the scan, easier than from the book.

I think you are right in saying that added into the equation of why Lawrence and the mother were so close. I do agree with somethings in your last passage. I agree about the relationship of the mother and father and the effect it had on the family. I am sure this did make Paul's mother turn to her children for solace, comfort, companionship and love, etc.


This seems interesting. I would like to see what he has got to say in the letter. And take as much time as you want, Janine! But according to what I read in the book, I got this feeling that Freud's theory had got nothing to do with Paul's relationship with his mother.


It did towards the end; the second part you called 'Lovers' really got intense, didn't it?

Yes, very much. It was a tear-jerker on many places.


Well, for now just read a short biography online and then later you may want to explore a more indepth one. You will definitely find WIL interesting. After you do read it we can discuss it and also you can go into the thread and read all that was written in the discussion group. It has been a fantastic discussion in there. I have learned so much.

I have read a bit about him on wikipedia, but would try to look at other sources as well. :) I am glad I read Sons and Lovers in summer vacations. :D


I agree with you as well on this. Some of his statements sometimes bring up the hairs on my back in defense, being a woman. Yes, that passage seems to be one sided doesn't it. I think by WIL he felt differently about this. But Lawrence said himself that his path was the only one and he felt he should be followed. Many women would take offense to that notion. He did bruise the sensibilities of many a female. It is true. Lawrence was sometimes very much an enigma and he displayed a certain duality in his own personality and his beliefs. I think sometimes he does contradict his own words within a novel. This passage in particular does not seem so definite to me. He seems to be arrogant at the time and perhaps he is just displaying this part of Paul's immaturity/confusion at that time. I don't think Lawrence ultimately felt this way about women in the work force. Here he was talking to Miriam, wasn't he? I have to be honest I am not sure if either of us are taking this passage as it is intended to be meant. I will ask Virgil his take on it. I am a little confused about it presently

Yes, it's the last time he talks to Miriam in Sons and Lovers, before he leaves. I am myself not too sure if he certainly meant to say what I comprehended.


Good suggestion. I will see if I can. No problem; I enjoy sharing information when I find it.

And I enjoy reading the information you share. :)


This I am not sure of. I think you are right in that the views were pertaining to particular women in the book and not all women by far. It was a very personal portrayal of these characters and his intimacies. Is that what you meant?

A kind of. But what I actually meant was by reading the book, we couldn't have been sure the images as women he had of Clara and Miriam could apply to other women if he had been careful enough not to generalise them. It seemed to me as if Paul was generalizing women; making up his views about the whole female kind just by judging the women he knew. But perhaps I am wrong in this feeling, as I have already said... :)

[Janine]

The book has some very interesting thoughts of Paul regarding this, but the trouble is they are very much contradictory. It's not easy to judge by them to which religion (or perhaps to none) he belonged.
Pensive, You know, it is characteristic that Lawrence's characters sometimes are quite contradictory. I just found something in my commentary book on that point, more in relation to WIL book. Lawrence, himself in real life could be contradictory at times. Well, all I can say is that many people in can be condradictory and also unsure of their religious beliefs or if they even have any. I don't think in this novel L's religious beliefs have been fully explored. He is merely beginning to reject the old, conventional ways of thought. Later on, in his more advanced novels and writings, he truly does want a new order to life and forms his own ideas and thoughts about religion. Even into the last part of his life, he began to think differently about death and the hereafter. It was always a 'progression' and 'transformation' for Lawrence throughout his life. This is not easily explained without going into many aspects of his philosophy. In "Sons and Lovers", L is reflecting only the beginnings of this progression.


I hope Virgil also gets time to give his thoughts about it, and we are not disturbing him. :)

I did point it out to him in one of the threads. Hope he catches it. You won't be disturbing him...he already is disturbed :lol: - he would laugh himself silly hearing me say that. (Of course I am just kidding.) NO, I am sure he would be happy to add something about religion to this discussion.


I had thought of printing it, but you see it has many chapters, and is quite long which would make it difficult for me to print it out. My printer is quite slow as well.

I fully understand. Actually my printer is fast - I bought a nice 3 in one type last year. It scans, copies and prints in full color. Still to print out the book does take much ink. I printed out one of the L short stories and then found I had it in a book.:( What a waste of ink, right?



If I get it late, then I would still like to read the discussion of yours about it. Sometimes it's interesting to be just an observor rather a participant! :D

Well, I would hold off to not spoil the book. You could refer back to the discussion later - these threads seem to stay on forever, don't they? Or copy all out and put in a program on your computer. That way you can read it as you go from chapter to chapter. True that sometimes it is fun to be an observer on here - I have done that and learned much. I feel like a spy - it is rather fun!


I am quite sure I would like it. :) Thanks!

Good! Hope you come to any of the future L discussions.


:blush: Ummm...yes, I wrote it. But it was just an ordinary thought...

No need to blush. No ones thoughts are ever ordinary. It must have been important.


Hey Janine, you seem to be knowing quite a lot about Lawrence and the books, now it seems to be as if you have been a literature student!


Never, not at all - I graduated art college with a BFA in illustration. Actually, illustration does relate somewhat to literature, doen't it? In grade school I had problems with reading. I never could read aloud in the class, even in high school. I had a mortal fear of it and could never pronounce words correctly. I still struggle with that part of literature but I am improving since I joined Lit Net. I think more than likely I had a reading learning disability. Now I read slow but fine. Also in grade school they discovered I needed glasses - that is why I fell behind not being able to read the blackboard.
I have read a lot of books on Lawrence, all independently. It is just something I love. If I love something enough I pursue it avidly. I am pretty much obsessed with this study by now. A few years back, I was obsessed with Thomas Hardy; had to read all his books. I read some brief biographies, but not a full one, not yet...someday maybe. For now, I am back to Lawrence. With the added convenience of finding more information and books on Amazon I have bought some lately such as 'Complete Collected Poems', 'Selected Letters of L', two new biographies, and various other things.


This seems interesting. I would like to see what he has got to say in the letter. And take as much time as you want, Janine! But according to what I read in the book, I got this feeling that Freud's theory had got nothing to do with Paul's relationship with his mother.
Like I said - scanned some pages and found it will work and is readable. I do that tonight...the scanning part. Well, Lawrence seems to think it does in his case so I think that would apply to Paul. More on this whole idea later.




Yes, very much. It was a tear-jerker on many places.
Yes, parts of the book went right to the tear-ducts. Had to keep tissues on hand.

I have read a bit about him on wikipedia, but would try to look at other sources as well. :) I am glad I read Sons and Lovers in summer vacations. :D

So your vacation had begun then? Some are later. How long does it last? Enjoy while you can! Good time to read it when leisurely on vacation. I hate reading Lawrence work fast - one needs time to full absorb it.


Yes, it's the last time he talks to Miriam in Sons and Lovers, before he leaves. I am myself not too sure if he certainly meant to say what I comprehended. [QUOTE]

Oh that makes more sense then. Maybe his words were not so true to what he really felt. It sounds like an upsetting scene and he was not too sure on his part, just saying those things like a man might say...you know....men, right - half the time they don't really know exactly what they want....hahahehehe!


[QUOTE]And I enjoy reading the information you share. :)

Thanks, glad to share it, as I said. Gee, lately I feel like a 'wealth of knowledge' since I am pretty well read on Lawrence, by now, and it seems to be him month on Lit Net. I like being enthusiastic about it and love sharing it others. I have tons of neat photos I will post for you, also. I have to upload them to my photo hosting site first. I found interesting photos online - Lawrence/his family/friends/etc.


A kind of. But what I actually meant was by reading the book, we couldn't have been sure the images as women he had of Clara and Miriam could apply to other women if he had been careful enough not to generalise them. It seemed to me as if Paul was generalizing women; making up his views about the whole female kind just by judging the women he knew. But perhaps I am wrong in this feeling, as I have already said... :)

Perhaps he did generalize them somewhat. Lawrence felt his books were 'art' above all else. I think, too he wrote about women of his day; and remember this book was early in the 20th century and women did not have the freedoms or free attitudes woman have today. I felt I could relate to some of the aspects and characteristics of the women in S&L. I have been hurt in love affairs before, so I felt an affinity to Miriam, at times.
In some ways Paul's images are tainted with his attitudes towards woman. Pschology plays a big role in this, in that Lawrence felt he was in fear of women. He felt that a woman could destroy a man. We just disgussed this in the other thread. Virgil very outspokenly pointed out the psychological reasoning behind this idea. I will try to see what page it is on and you can go in and read it. It will give you some insight on L's views of women.
In many ways L is definitely a 'paradox' when it comes to women. He had tons of women friends, even feminists, and he seemed to be able to see right to the soul of a woman in describing her, yet he had this deep-seeded fear of woman, yet he wanted one woman and married and stayed faithful. Later his theories on life and marriage in a new light are born from some of this fear. Most likely his mother's influence had a lot to do with this. I found this in one of the letters: "It has been rather terrible and made me, in some respects, abnornal." Those are L's exact words, regarding his close relationship to his mother.
I've scanned some pages of text and it worked well. I will scan those letters later tonight and post the photo of Louie Burrows along with the texts.

[Janine]

Pensive, here's the photos I promised. I am working on the letter - the first one that Lawrence wrote about his relationship to his mother. You will find it very interesting. I was able to scan the letters directly into my Microsoft Word documents and they corrected the scan automatically. Now I have to piece together the documents and will post it tomorrow.

Jessie (Miriam)
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/JesseChambers.jpg

Louie Burrows (his fiance)
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/LouieBurrows1.jpg


Pensive, you can find much more information and photos on this great site:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/mss/online/online-exhibitions/exhib_dhl/index.phtml

If you go to 'Portal' also on the left, last listed, it takes you to another site that is good and has more great photos. Enjoy!

[Janine]

Pensive, Ok, here is the letter:


DHL to To Rachel Annand Taylor, 3 December 1910

I have been at home now ten days. My mother is very near the end.:): Today I have been to Leicester. I did not get home till half past nine. Then I ran upstairs. Oh she was very bad. The pains had been again.
'Oh my dear' I said, 'is it the pains?'
'Not pain now - Oh the weariness' she moaned, so that I could hardly hear her. I wish she could die tonight.
My sister and I do all the nursing. My sister is only 22. I sit upstairs hours and hours till I wonder if ever it were true that I was at London. I seem to have died since, and that is an old life, dreamy.
I will tell you. My mother was a clever, ironical delicately moulded woman of good, old burgher descent. She married below her. My father was dark, ruddy, with a fine laugh. He is a

* Referring to The Trespasser?
t Referring to The White Peacock?
~ Lawrence's mother died on 9 December 191O~

coal miner. He was one of the sanguine temperament, warm and hearty, but unstable: he lacked principle, as my mother would have said. He deceived her and lied to her. She despised him - he drank.
Their marriage life has been one carnal, bloody fight. I was born hating my father: as early as ever I can remember, I shivered with horror when he touched me. He was very- bad before I was born.
This has been a kind of bond between me and my mother. We have loved each other, almost with a husband and wife love, as well as filial and maternal. We know each other by instinct. She said to my aunt - about me: 'But it has been different with him. He has seemed to be part of me.' - And that is the real case. We have been like one, so sensitive to each other that we never needed words. It has been rather terrible and has made me, in some respects, abnormal.
I think this peculiar fusion of soul (don't think me highfalutin) never comes twice in a life-time - it doesn't seem natural. When it comes it seems to distribute one's consciousness far abroad from oneself, and one understands! I think no one has got 'Understanding' except through love. Now my mother is nearly dead, and I don't quite know how I am.
I have been to Leicester today, I have met a girl* who has always been warm for me - iike a sunny happy day - and I've gone and asked her to marry me: in the train, quite unpremeditated, between Rothley and Quorn - she lives at Quorn. When I think of her I feel happy with a sort of warm radiation - she is big and dark and handsome. There were five other people in the carriage. Then when I think of my mother: - if you've ever put your hand round the bowl of a champagne glass and squeezed it and wondered how near it is to crushing-in and the wine all going through your fingers - that's how my heart feels - like the champagne glass. There is no hostility between the warm happiness and the crush of misery: but one is concentrated in my, chest, and one is diffuse - a suffusion, vague.

* Louie Burrows, according to Jessie Chambers, one of-the models for Clara Dawes.

Muriel [Jessie Chambers] is the girl I have broken with. She loves me to madness, and demands the soul of me. I have been cruel to her, and wronged her, but I did not know.
Nobody can have the soul of me. My mother has had it, and nobody can have it again. Nobody can come into my very self again, and breathe me like an atmosphere. Don't say I am hasty this time - I know. Louie - whom I wish I could marry the day after the funeral - she would never demand to drink me up and have me. She loves me - but it is a fine, warm, healthy, natural love - not like Jane Eyre, who is Muriel, but like - say Rhoda Fleming or a commoner Anna Karenina. She will never plunge her hands through my blood and feel for my soul, and make me set my teeth and shiver and fight away. Ugh - I have done well - and cruelly - tonight.
I look at my father - he is like, a cinder. It is very terrible, mis-marriage.

I will have comments on this letter tomorrow. Very revealing letter; interesting, isn't it?

[Virgil]

The book has some very interesting thoughts of Paul regarding this, but the trouble is they are very much contradictory. It's not easy to judge by them to which religion (or perhaps to none) he belonged.

I hope Virgil also gets time to give his thoughts about it, and we are not disturbing him. :)


Oh you're not disturbing me. I think the question was to Lawrence's religion. For sure Lawrence was unconventional in his religious beliefs. I don't think he ever was an atheist. I think his religiuos beliefs were very similar to most of the 19th century romantics in that they believe in a spirituality that encompassed the earth and life, but not so specific and particular as in the Bible. In this sense all religions are reflective in their own cultural perspective of this overarching religion of all humanity and nature. I am not as up on the nuiances of the young Lawrence (of around Sons and Lovers timeframe) so i can't help as much there. But as Lawrence grew older, he became more enamored with a sort of paganism. I think his reasoning evolved to where this spirituality that encompassed nature was partitioned into a diety of sorts for the natural elements. For instance he felt the sun was like a god or spirit that provided a positive life energy. How serious he was I don't know. He didn't pray to a god of the sun or something like that, but he did see spirituality in them. I hope that helps.

Great pictures Janine and thanks for the letter. Did you actually type that out or were you able to find it on the internent?

[Janine]

Oh you're not disturbing me. I think the question was to Lawrence's religion. For sure Lawrence was unconventional in his religious beliefs. I don't think he ever was an atheist. I think his religiuos beliefs were very similar to most of the 19th century romantics in that they believe in a spirituality that encompassed the earth and life, but not so specific and particular as in the Bible. In this sense all religions are reflective in their own cultural perspective of this overarching religion of all humanity and nature. I am not as up on the nuiances of the young Lawrence (of around Sons and Lovers timeframe) so i can't help as much there. But as Lawrence grew older, he became more enamored with a sort of paganism. I think his reasoning evolved to where this spirituality that encompassed nature was partitioned into a diety of sorts for the natural elements. For instance he felt the sun was like a god or spirit that provided a positive life energy. How serious he was I don't know. He didn't pray to a god of the sun or something like that, but he did see spirituality in them. I hope that helps.

Great pictures Janine and thanks for the letter. Did you actually type that out or were you able to find it on the internent?

Virgil, that is a great explanation to the religion question which is a really difficult question when it comes to Lawrence. I tried before to answer it, but I am sure my answer was only half-baked.
I am glad you found the photos and the letter interesting. I was able to scan both. I had to fix up the photos some in Adobe (I still have my old program but it works great); I scanned in the letter as a document straight to the file Microsoft Word, somehow it transports it there and then fixes as it processes it. I had to do a little revision in the transfer, like parts of words would drop out or punctuation. It was so much easier than typing. I am thrilled now I can do this. I have several things I wish to quote from both my library reference books and my Introduction from WIL. It takes a bit of time for scanning and fixing, but no where near as much as typing, which I hate - ugh!

Note: I just went into the post with the two women's photos and posted a link to Nottingham University online exhibit of Lawrence. I may have posted it before, but this takes you directly to the page. It is a great site to explore - wonderful photos, too.

[Virgil]

I scanned in the letter as a document straight to the file Microsoft Word, somehow it transports it there and then fixes as it processes it. I had to do a little revision in the transfer, like parts of words would drop out or punctuation. It was so much easier than typing. I am thrilled now I can do this.

I don't blame you for being thrilled. That is a great feature.

[farnoosh]

i am reading the book right now

[Janine]

I don't blame you for being thrilled. That is a great feature.

Yeah, and it is not even a really expensive scanner. It is a HP 3-in-one scanner, copier, printer - cost me about 50 dollars. It works great!
Virgil, I was doubly thrilled to find this and know you will appreciate it. I thought of you right away - 'pyschobable' and all! Now this I typed - was short and too much of a bother to scan:


Letter from Lawrence to Barbara Low, 11 September 1916

I hated the Pyschoanalysis [sic] Review of Sons and Lovers.* You know I think ‘complexes’ are vicious half-statements of the Freudians: sort of can’t see wood for trees. When you’ve said Mutter-complex, you’ve said nothing – no more than if you called hysteria a nervous disease. Hysteria isn’t nerves, a complex is not simply a sex relation: far from it. – My poor book: it was as art, a fairly complete truth: so they carve a half lie out of it, and say ‘Voila.’ Swine!...

* This may refer to A,B. Kuttner’s critical article

This is a real gem! I thought of using it for a signature. :lol:
This should answer Pensive's ideas on Freud and Lawrence, or at least how he felt about him in 1916. Gee, I remember the 'Mutter-complex' from my college days.


i am reading the book right now

Hi farnoosh and welcome to this site. Great - glad you are reading the book; hope you enjoy it. Post any time or get back to us with comments when you are done. Meanwhile, you may want to read the commentary already posted. I am sure you will find it all quite interesting and it will be very helpful. Hope to see you on here again real soon.

[Virgil]

Quote:
Letter from Lawrence to Barbara Low, 11 September 1916

I hated the Pyschoanalysis [sic] Review of Sons and Lovers.* You know I think ‘complexes’ are vicious half-statements of the Freudians: sort of can’t see wood for trees. When you’ve said Mutter-complex, you’ve said nothing – no more than if you called hysteria a nervous disease. Hysteria isn’t nerves, a complex is not simply a sex relation: far from it. – My poor book: it was as art, a fairly complete truth: so they carve a half lie out of it, and say ‘Voila.’ Swine!...



This is a real gem! I thought of using it for a signature. :lol:
This should answer Pensive's ideas on Freud and Lawrence, or at least how he felt about him in 1916. Gee, I remember the 'Mutter-complex' from my college days.

:lol: :lol: Fabulous.

[Janine]

Manny, yes, what a find!

By the way, my new WIL book has a fairly good chronology in the beginning of it's pages. Now I won't have to ask you all the time when things were written. It pretty much lays it all out. I think the short stories are included but it might not break down every story and pinpoint it's exact date. I will still need you for that one. ;)

[Pensive]

Pensive, You know, it is characteristic that Lawrence's characters sometimes are quite contradictory. I just found something in my commentary book on that point, more in relation to WIL book. Lawrence, himself in real life could be contradictory at times. Well, all I can say is that many people in can be condradictory and also unsure of their religious beliefs or if they even have any. I don't think in this novel L's religious beliefs have been fully explored. He is merely beginning to reject the old, conventional ways of thought. Later on, in his more advanced novels and writings, he truly does want a new order to life and forms his own ideas and thoughts about religion. Even into the last part of his life, he began to think differently about death and the hereafter. It was always a 'progression' and 'transformation' for Lawrence throughout his life. This is not easily explained without going into many aspects of his philosophy. In "Sons and Lovers", L is reflecting only the beginnings of this progression.


Oh you're not disturbing me. I think the question was to Lawrence's religion. For sure Lawrence was unconventional in his religious beliefs. I don't think he ever was an atheist. I think his religiuos beliefs were very similar to most of the 19th century romantics in that they believe in a spirituality that encompassed the earth and life, but not so specific and particular as in the Bible. In this sense all religions are reflective in their own cultural perspective of this overarching religion of all humanity and nature. I am not as up on the nuiances of the young Lawrence (of around Sons and Lovers timeframe) so i can't help as much there. But as Lawrence grew older, he became more enamored with a sort of paganism. I think his reasoning evolved to where this spirituality that encompassed nature was partitioned into a diety of sorts for the natural elements. For instance he felt the sun was like a god or spirit that provided a positive life energy. How serious he was I don't know. He didn't pray to a god of the sun or something like that, but he did see spirituality in them. I hope that helps.

Thanks a lot, Virgil and Janine. This helps in understanding about his religious beliefs, yes. :)


I fully understand. Actually my printer is fast - I bought a nice 3 in one type last year. It scans, copies and prints in full color. Still to print out the book does take much ink. I printed out one of the L short stories and then found I had it in a book.:( What a waste of ink, right?

You don't know sometimes how good it can do you! There was this course book I had about a year ago. And I lost it. Brought another one, felt a bit bad, but after sometime I found the same old book. But then again before one day of my exams, I lost one of those books. I had much to study that night for exams. And the shop was not near. If you lose one book (though I hope it never happens), you would still be having it. Or you can gift it to a friend as well! :)



Well, I would hold off to not spoil the book. You could refer back to the discussion later - these threads seem to stay on forever, don't they? Or copy all out and put in a program on your computer. That way you can read it as you go from chapter to chapter. True that sometimes it is fun to be an observer on here - I have done that and learned much. I feel like a spy - it is rather fun!

:D


Good! Hope you come to any of the future L discussions.

Yeah, me too!


No need to blush. No ones thoughts are ever ordinary. It must have been important.

But sometimes the thoughts can be really silly! :p But yes, no denying, even the silliest thoughts can prove to be important...


Never, not at all - I graduated art college with a BFA in illustration. Actually, illustration does relate somewhat to literature, doen't it? In grade school I had problems with reading. I never could read aloud in the class, even in high school. I had a mortal fear of it and could never pronounce words correctly. I still struggle with that part of literature but I am improving since I joined Lit Net. I think more than likely I had a reading learning disability. Now I read slow but fine. Also in grade school they discovered I needed glasses - that is why I fell behind not being able to read the blackboard.

That's really good you are improving now! :) You know sometimes I think it would have been much better if I were a slow reader. I don't consider myself a very fast reader, but sometimes I read a book containing about three hundred pages in a day (but that depends on the book as well). On the other hand, there is this chance of missing things, or forgetting what you have read. When one reads a bit fast, he doesn't always get time to grasp everything.


I have read a lot of books on Lawrence, all independently. It is just something I love. If I love something enough I pursue it avidly. I am pretty much obsessed with this study by now. A few years back, I was obsessed with Thomas Hardy; had to read all his books. I read some brief biographies, but not a full one, not yet...someday maybe. For now, I am back to Lawrence. With the added convenience of finding more information and books on Amazon I have bought some lately such as 'Complete Collected Poems', 'Selected Letters of L', two new biographies, and various other things.

Hehe, you a real Lawrence-fan then! :) By the way, I have read The Mayor of Casterbridge of Hardly as well, and liked it very much. :) It was sentimental, especially the Henchard's will in the end brought tears in my eyes. I have tried to read Return of the Native but couldn't get into it. I might try it again in these holidays though.


So your vacation had begun then? Some are later. How long does it last? Enjoy while you can! Good time to read it when leisurely on vacation. I hate reading Lawrence work fast - one needs time to full absorb it.

Yes, there is quite a time left. More than a month. :)


Oh that makes more sense then. Maybe his words were not so true to what he really felt. It sounds like an upsetting scene and he was not too sure on his part, just saying those things like a man might say...you know....men, right - half the time they don't really know exactly what they want....hahahehehe!

Men might say the same thing about women! :p


Perhaps he did generalize them somewhat. Lawrence felt his books were 'art' above all else. I think, too he wrote about women of his day; and remember this book was early in the 20th century and women did not have the freedoms or free attitudes woman have today. I felt I could relate to some of the aspects and characteristics of the women in S&L. I have been hurt in love affairs before, so I felt an affinity to Miriam, at times.
In some ways Paul's images are tainted with his attitudes towards woman. Pschology plays a big role in this, in that Lawrence felt he was in fear of women. He felt that a woman could destroy a man. We just disgussed this in the other thread. Virgil very outspokenly pointed out the psychological reasoning behind this idea. I will try to see what page it is on and you can go in and read it. It will give you some insight on L's views of women.
In many ways L is definitely a 'paradox' when it comes to women. He had tons of women friends, even feminists, and he seemed to be able to see right to the soul of a woman in describing her, yet he had this deep-seeded fear of woman, yet he wanted one woman and married and stayed faithful. Later his theories on life and marriage in a new light are born from some of this fear. Most likely his mother's influence had a lot to do with this. I found this in one of the letters: "It has been rather terrible and made me, in some respects, abnornal." Those are L's exact words, regarding his close relationship to his mother.

Reading about D.H. Lawrence (from both his perspective and Paul's), I have got the feeling I didn't like him very much. We all have weaknesses, but some have more control over them than others which is also a reason why we like some and don't like the others. If it were not for the fact Lawrence had written a really good book like Sons and Lovers, I would not have liked him at all. :p At many places, Paul seems like a person thinkin very highly of himself. And so does Lawrence (even more), by what you have told me, and by what I have read about him.


Pensive, here's the photos I promised. I am working on the letter - the first one that Lawrence wrote about his relationship to his mother. You will find it very interesting. I was able to scan the letters directly into my Microsoft Word documents and they corrected the scan automatically. Now I have to piece together the documents and will post it tomorrow.

Miriam
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/JesseChambers.jpg

Louie Burrows
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/LouieBurrows1.jpg


Pensive, you can find much more information and photos on this great site:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/mss/online/online-exhibitions/exhib_dhl/index.phtml

If you go to 'Portal' also on the left, last listed, it takes you to another site that is good and has more great photos. Enjoy!

I really thank you, Janine, for posting the pictures. Interesting pictures! Even Miriam seems to be smiling. The image I get of Miriam is a girl who is usually very grave, but here she is different from the image I had of her in my mind! :)


DHL to To Rachel Annand Taylor, 3 December 1910

I have been at home now ten days. My mother is very near the end.: Today I have been to Leicester. I did not get home till half past nine. Then I ran upstairs. Oh she was very bad. The pains had been again.
'Oh my dear' I said, 'is it the pains?'
'Not pain now - Oh the weariness' she moaned, so that I could hardly hear her. I wish she could die tonight.
My sister and I do all the nursing. My sister is only 22. I sit upstairs hours and hours till I wonder if ever it were true that I was at London. I seem to have died since, and that is an old life, dreamy.
I will tell you. My mother was a clever, ironical delicately moulded woman of good, old burgher descent. She married below her. My father was dark, ruddy, with a fine laugh. He is a

* Referring to The Trespasser?
t Referring to The White Peacock?
~ Lawrence's mother died on 9 December 191O~

coal miner. He was one of the sanguine temperament, warm and hearty, but unstable: he lacked principle, as my mother would have said. He deceived her and lied to her. She despised him - he drank.
Their marriage life has been one carnal, bloody fight. I was born hating my father: as early as ever I can remember, I shivered with horror when he touched me. He was very- bad before I was born.
This has been a kind of bond between me and my mother. We have loved each other, almost with a husband and wife love, as well as filial and maternal. We know each other by instinct. She said to my aunt - about me: 'But it has been different with him. He has seemed to be part of me.' - And that is the real case. We have been like one, so sensitive to each other that we never needed words. It has been rather terrible and has made me, in some respects, abnormal.
I think this peculiar fusion of soul (don't think me highfalutin) never comes twice in a life-time - it doesn't seem natural. When it comes it seems to distribute one's consciousness far abroad from oneself, and one understands! I think no one has got 'Understanding' except through love. Now my mother is nearly dead, and I don't quite know how I am.
I have been to Leicester today, I have met a girl* who has always been warm for me - iike a sunny happy day - and I've gone and asked her to marry me: in the train, quite unpremeditated, between Rothley and Quorn - she lives at Quorn. When I think of her I feel happy with a sort of warm radiation - she is big and dark and handsome. There were five other people in the carriage. Then when I think of my mother: - if you've ever put your hand round the bowl of a champagne glass and squeezed it and wondered how near it is to crushing-in and the wine all going through your fingers - that's how my heart feels - like the champagne glass. There is no hostility between the warm happiness and the crush of misery: but one is concentrated in my, chest, and one is diffuse - a suffusion, vague.

* Louie Burrows, according to Jessie Chambers, one of-the models for Clara Dawes.

Muriel [Jessie Chambers] is the girl I have broken with. She loves me to madness, and demands the soul of me. I have been cruel to her, and wronged her, but I did not know.
Nobody can have the soul of me. My mother has had it, and nobody can have it again. Nobody can come into my very self again, and breathe me like an atmosphere. Don't say I am hasty this time - I know. Louie - whom I wish I could marry the day after the funeral - she would never demand to drink me up and have me. She loves me - but it is a fine, warm, healthy, natural love - not like Jane Eyre, who is Muriel, but like - say Rhoda Fleming or a commoner Anna Karenina. She will never plunge her hands through my blood and feel for my soul, and make me set my teeth and shiver and fight away. Ugh - I have done well - and cruelly - tonight.
I look at my father - he is like, a cinder. It is very terrible, mis-marriage.

Now, Janine, these two letters are extremely interesting. Okay, when I try to relate Freud's theory with this, it still doesn't make any sense. You see - Lawrence calls his father 'very bad' even before marriage. Having a father you dislike is not I think very easy to cope with. And I don't see why couldn't the boy be closer to his mother - the mother who loved him - was good to him rather than being bad. You see he said himself he didn't like being touched by his father. So his relationship, about which he mentions, 'almost-husband and wife like" (there is an almost) seems understandable to me.

As for the second letter, I think it makes even more clear why broke off with Miriam. She wanted his soul. And he had already been very much attached to his mother, and sometimes he regretted it. He had not wanted to be the same with Miriam simply because he didn't like being that. He had wanted to have a part of his soul away from anybody, his mother, his sister, whomever.

Thanks again! :)

[Janine]

Pensive, excellent post! I will get back to you soon. I expended all my energy in WIL, posting just now. I had to think real hard to try to convey things I have been reading, additional to the novel, in my commentary books. I want to scan some of the "Sons and Lovers" to convey to you, as well, what I have read and studied. I am tired today and I have to go eat my dinner, but hope to post something later in response to your great post. See you then....

[Janine]

Thanks a lot, Virgil and Janine. This helps in understanding about his religious beliefs, yes. :)

Hi Pensive, I am finally back, but of course, real-life is still calling to me. I just ran out to do some errands; in-between doing laundry. But I have time to post you a reply. I am so glad our posts have helped you with your religious belief questions. It is, as I said, a very hard thing to answer decisively or finally. Virgil knows more of the theology than I do. I plan on reading L's very last posthumeously published novel "Apocalypse" sometime - maybe in the summer. I took it out of the library to look over and Virgil said he wrote that about his religious ideas, which were rather strange, during the last years of his life. But I have a curiosity to read it. I found it in the theology section of my library.


You don't know sometimes how good it can do you! There was this course book I had about a year ago. And I lost it. Brought another one, felt a bit bad, but after sometime I found the same old book. But then again before one day of my exams, I lost one of those books. I had much to study that night for exams. And the shop was not near. If you lose one book (though I hope it never happens), you would still be having it. Or you can gift it to a friend as well! :)

Yes, the story may be helpful printed out after all. I could use that one to mark certain passages - right? I won't lose my Lawrence books; I guard them with my life! :lol:
Figures you found the book after you bought it. That usually happens to me with drugstore items and incidentals. I can't find them for the life of me, I buy a new one, then very mysteriously the old one appears. My friend said that if you are hunting an item go look in the first place you searched; amazingly this usually works. You can easily overlook something. You are so funny, finding the book and then losing one again. That is really a good story! I can give the short story to someone also, who needs a copy. Maybe someone on here who needs it - mail it to them.


Yeah, me too!
So glad you agree and definitely, we need you in other discussions. You are such a intuitive and intelligent discusser:thumbs_up , and you are so nice, too. The short story thread it a good one to start with and also L's poetry is quite nice and very interesting. Right now ktd222 and I are discussing "Baby Tortoise" in our 'Tortoise poems' thread. There are 4 Lawrence threads active right now. Fine with me, since I love the author's work. "Tortoise" discussions are going slowly, but quite well. Virgil also stops in with comments. Anybody is welcome, of course, especially you....hint hint....;)



But sometimes the thoughts can be really silly! :p But yes, no denying, even the silliest thoughts can prove to be important...

Absolutely true! :p Many times there emerges a real gem amongst the silly thoughts in life and in posts.


That's really good you are improving now! :) You know sometimes I think it would have been much better if I were a slow reader. I don't consider myself a very fast reader, but sometimes I read a book containing about three hundred pages in a day (but that depends on the book as well). On the other hand, there is this chance of missing things, or forgetting what you have read. When one reads a bit fast, he doesn't always get time to grasp everything.

Thanks, yes, I think I have improved, but mostly in recognising certain words and finally being able to pronounce them correctly. I think I had a problem with that and oft times just skipped over a word I did not know. Now I do try to sound out the word different ways and I look things up often. I have always hated doing that, but I make myself now. I want to understand the texts better. Well, you seem to read much faster than I do. I can't read that much in a day - 300 pages - wow. But you are right I think us slow readers do absorb more by being slow and careful. I never skim a book or skip parts. I am rather a purest that way. I would feel I was missing something. I am very intense and concentrated when I read, so maybe being so slow is not that bad, afterall. I very much enjoy reading when I have the time. Someone once told me there are two kinds of readers - ones that read each and every word (that is me) and others read phrases, but not the words 'aloud' in ones mind (as I do). It only proves we all have our own styles of reading and that is how it should be. Teachers try to fit everyone into a mold and some rebell. I think I did. The mold was not right for me, I am sure of it.


Hehe, you a real Lawrence-fan then! :) By the way, I have read The Mayor of Casterbridge of Hardly as well, and liked it very much. :) It was sentimental, especially the Henchard's will in the end brought tears in my eyes. I have tried to read Return of the Native but couldn't get into it. I might try it again in these holidays though.

Oh yes, to the first statement. But to the second about Hardy; I am also a big fan of his writing. I have read nearly everything he wrote. I do this; I discover a writer and then try to read most of his work, if I really like him. What is not to like about Hardy? The man was brilliant! I had first joined a literature group online - The Thomas Hardy Association - but it was not a forum, rather a literature list and eveyday one would receive tons of emails for everyone on the list. It was interesting, at first and I learned much, but it got really tiresome after a while. However, I made one very good friend on there and he has filled me in on all of Hardy's background and basis for his books. He lived with his wife in Costa Rica, but now resides back in his native land, Japan. He always says "Return of the Native" is like his story. He is very nice and respectful and came to visit me last spring and to meet my family. Next time he plans on bringing Yoko, his wife. That will be such a treat. So, see how fate can work. Isn't it a wonderful story?
I also love "Mayor of Casterbridge". I own the BBC miniseries and saw it when I was midway through the book. I have to say they did a fine job on the film. I cry real tears everytime I get to that ending, too. I can hardly take it. It is a fine book, indeed. I love Hardy's plots and plot twists. Of course, "Tess" is great. Have you read "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" yet? I have the film of that one, too, by Roman Polanski - wonderful! I also have the film of "Return of the Native" and "The Woodlanders". I set out to get any Hardy adaptation I could a few years ago. Oh, if manolia were only reading this now she would die laughing. She and I joke all the time about films. I particually liked "The Woodlanders" for some reason. I cry in that one, too. Quess I have a weakness for the sentimental.
I have known other people who said they had a difficult time getting into the reading of "Return of the Native" and also of "Jude the Obscure". Both novels are a little more psyhological and involved, if you know what I mean. Maybe that is the reason. Someday maybe you will read them and I don't think you will regret it.


Yes, there is quite a time left. More than a month. :)

Glad you have a whole month left for vacation. I suppose you plan a lot of reading, but go enjoy the outdoors and real life, too. Is it warm there where you live?


Men might say the same thing about women! :p

So true - it all depends on ones vantage point.


Reading about D.H. Lawrence (from both his perspective and Paul's), I have got the feeling I didn't like him very much. We all have weaknesses, but some have more control over them than others which is also a reason why we like some and don't like the others. If it were not for the fact Lawrence had written a really good book like Sons and Lovers, I would not have liked him at all. :p At many places, Paul seems like a person thinkin very highly of himself. And so does Lawrence (even more), by what you have told me, and by what I have read about him.

Well, he certainly knew he had talent and greatness, but I don't think Lawrence is someone you could call conceited, not at all. He lived a very simple life actually, never owned much or any property (ranch in New Mexico was kept in his wife's name - he refused to own property), and most people who meet him took to him right away and liked him emensely. He had a great many friends during his lifetime. He had a good sense of humor according to his friends and a very friendly way. From all my reading I get quite another view of the man. He was not a saint; that is for certain and he had his faults and his characteristic ways and attitudes/quirps, but one has to understand all the obstacles the man was up against. The press and the critics crucified him/his novels. Then by marrying an already married and divorced woman, Lawrence again was crucified. Then on top of that, she was German and that was just prior to WWI, so they was even suspect of being spies, which was totally ludicrious. Then his passport was confiscated and they could not leave England when they wished to. He was hassled in the draft and the army recruiting office, when he was certainly chronically ill with undiagnosed TB. He fought illness of the lungs all his life. He had a great zest for living, but his days were numbered and he probably knew it underneath his great fortitude and his denial. After I realised all the emense obstacles of his life, I better understood him and had the greater respect for the man.
So, by our earlier writings, I don't want to give you the wrong impression of the actual man, Lawrence. Paul may come off as a character who is conceited and proud, but I think the real Lawrence was..... "just a man, take him for all his faults". Hamlet. I have read some of the letters he wrote and I feel like those are a small true window into the real man's soul. I really liked what I read, so far. The early letters are rather endearing and intimate and in these Lawrence seems humble and very respectful of those he is writing to. He seems to be a nice man, very sensitive and intuitive. He seems to be struggling along like any fine young author would. And most importantly he seems to love life. He never once felt sorry for himself and he wrote a wonderful poem to this effect - one of his poems about animals. It mimics his own situation in life. I think the "Baby Tortoise" poem is very suggestive of the weight that Lawrence had to carry in his struggle against the world.



I really thank you, Janine, for posting the pictures. Interesting pictures! Even Miriam seems to be smiling. The image I get of Miriam is a girl who is usually very grave, but here she is different from the image I had of her in my mind! :)

I knew you would like the photos. They say "a picture says a thousand words". Think that is how the saying goes. It is so true. I feel I could have known these people when I see their photos. They become so human to me. I meant to write Jesse for Miriam over her picture. I am sure you realised that.


Now, Janine, these two letters are extremely interesting. Okay, when I try to relate Freud's theory with this, it still doesn't make any sense. You see - Lawrence calls his father 'very bad' even before marriage. Having a father you dislike is not I think very easy to cope with. And I don't see why couldn't the boy be closer to his mother - the mother who loved him - was good to him rather than being bad. You see he said himself he didn't like being touched by his father. So his relationship, about which he mentions, 'almost-husband and wife like" (there is an almost) seems understandable to me.

Yes, I found these letters to be real gems; so revealing and 'telling', aren't they? They do explain so much about his attitudes towards his parents. I very much agree with you, that naturally he would be closer to his mother because of his situation and their strange marriage. I think he was probably even more precious to his mother, who lost his older brother to death; also playing into this is the fact that L was sickly as a baby; he almost died at birth, in fact, and needed greater care/mothering as a child; there were times his life hung by a thread, due to his weak lungs. Surely, all this would make a mother more protective and the two grow closer together in their relationship.

As for the second letter, I think it makes even more clear why broke off with Miriam. She wanted his soul. And he had already been very much attached to his mother, and sometimes he regretted it. He had not wanted to be the same with Miriam simply because he didn't like being that. He had wanted to have a part of his soul away from anybody, his mother, his sister, whomever.

Thanks again! :)

Yes, that letter makes it much clearer to me, as well. The 'soul possessiveness' issue arises in his novel "Women in Love". It is quite prominent and plays into the main theme of the book. I like the way you described and explained that aspect of why he did not want it to happen again with Miriam - the possessing of his soul. That is quite intuitive and well put. I think you are absolutely right on this point. This actually can help us understand WIL better and why he feels marriage should be not a merging of two souls but a separateness that is orbiting in perfect harmony. Interesting how this notion relates directly to that idea. I understand it even better now.

Pensive, you are quite welcome and thank you for your great post and all the good ideas here - not silly one bit......;)

[protagonist]

thanks for yuou explanations I am reading the book now and the writings here make me understand clearly.

[Janine]

thanks for yuou explanations I am reading the book now and the writings here make me understand clearly.

Hi protagonist, and welcome to this site! Glad the information helped you to understand the book more clearly. A few of us have been discussing and planning to read "Sons and Lovers" sometime in the fall months. Hope you can join in to our discussions then. Enjoy your reading!

[Janine]

Hello Everyone!
I am revitalizing this thread - "Sons and Lovers" (reading for October 07) and hope to have a really great discussion on the book. So, currently please begin reading it; if you don't own a copy, I believe it is here on this site online, at least to get you started.

I read the book last year for the first time - yes, hard to believe for those who know how enthused I am all the time about Lawrence's work, but it seemed when I tried to read it years ago, I had some problems getting started - for one thing the dialect language of the father really seemed difficult for me to comprehend. So if you run into the same problem, you might want to re-read those passages and eventually they will become clear to you and you will get the flow of how he speaks. By the time I did finally read this fine book, I had found out it was basically autobiographical or as they say in the movies, 'based on a true story'. I don't know about anyone else, but I am always more fascinated know a story, film or novel is based on truth. Therefore, this fact made me want to read the book even more, since I had read several biographies about the author, all very interesting.

"Sons and Lovers" is a fine book and the novel that gave Lawrence his fame and established him initially as an important author. It is not his first published book. His first published book was "The White Peacock" and next "The Trespasser". "Sons and Lovers" followed and received critical acclaim, launching Lawrence as a prominent author.

Lawrence was quoted as saying something like, he would never write another novel quite like this one. He knew the novels to follow would be different, even at that early juncture in his life. He knew the book was very personal and contained his adolescence and his early life story and conflicts.
I think you will enjoy the book very much. For me it will be a repeat reading which I am looking forward to very much. Even Lawrence felt that books should be read twice, at the least. One does always see and observe so much more in a second reading. I know some of you have already read this book recently, so that a reviewing of the book is all you will probably need. We don't need to discuss at a fast pace and there is no pressure to end the discussions, so take your time and let us hopefully explore many aspects of this fine book and DHL.

Enjoy your reading!

[Virgil]

Enjoy everyone. It is a great novel. I'll pop in and out, based on what i remember, but unfortunately my schedule doesn't allow for another novel at this point.

[amalia1985]

I am half-way through it, waiting for the discussion to begin,see you!

[manolia]

Half way through!!!! You are a fast reader! Hehehehe you have to bare with me since i am such a slow poke :D
I have finished the first chapter :thumbs_up

[amalia1985]

The first chapter has some of the most beautiful descriptions in the book, I think.

[Janine]

The first chapter has some of the most beautiful descriptions in the book, I think.

Hello Manolia and amalia - Great to see both of you here! Pensive will arrive soon. She emailed me today.
Virgil, glad you can pop in and out and I think somethings will definitely come back to you as we discuss. I understand that you can't fully tackle another book. Yes, amelia - the descriptions in the book certainly marvelous and beautiful. I love Lawrence's descriptions of nature the best. Apparently, you are a fast reader, so we don't want to disappoint, but maybe give a few more days to let others get into reading the book. Some have only just found out about this thread. Don't worry, Manolia, you will have time to catch up. I am still finishing up the other L book I am reading, but I can accomplish that tonight (I hope). Mine will be a second reading, anyway. I do remember much of the book. Also, I scanned much commentary on the book - really good stuff to add to our discussions. Virgil send me (lended me a book) on who's who in Lawrence's work. This should aid us also and make the book more interesting. I think all this will make for a great discussion, don't you? I am excited! I have long wanted to discuss this book in-depth with someone. This will be a great group.:thumbs_up

[manolia]

Yes i agree with both of you. The descriptions are pretty tense. I liked the two scenes where the breach in their relationship is described. I also liked very much the part where Mrs Morel is finally disillusioned.

Janine and everyone else, i have spotted the first flower referances:




She became aware of something about her. With an effort she
roused herself to see what it was that penetrated her consciousness.
The tall white lilies were reeling in the moonlight, and the air was
charged with their perfume, as with a presence. Mrs. Morel gasped
slightly in fear. She touched the big, pallid flowers on their petals,
then shivered. They seemed to be stretching in the moonlight.
She put her hand into one white bin: the gold scarcely showed
on her fingers by moonlight. She bent down to look at the binful
of yellow pollen; but it only appeared dusky. Then she drank a deep
draught of the scent. It almost made her dizzy.

......


When she came to herself she was tired for sleep. Languidly she
looked about her; the clumps of white phlox seemed like bushes spread
with linen; a moth ricochetted over them, and right across the garden.
Following it with her eye roused her. A few whiffs of the raw,
strong scent of phlox invigorated her. She passed along the path,
hesitating at the white rose-bush. It smelled sweet and simple.
She touched the white ruffles of the roses. Their fresh scent
and cool, soft leaves reminded her of the morning-time and sunshine.
She was very fond of them. But she was tired, and wanted to sleep.
In the mysterious out-of-doors she felt forlorn.


Question:
Aren't lilies supposed to be a symbol of death???

[amalia1985]

I think so, manolia, yes.I remember when we used to read Jacobean Theatre and the lilies were emphasised as such.
And Janine, my favourite "Lawrence" descriptions exist in "The Rainbow". Especially those in the chapters of the "child" Ursula.

[Janine]

manolia, thanks for quoting that. Good observation on your part and suggesting the significance of the lilies. I am thinking now of Easter and the Easter lilies - the pure white ones. It is funny but when you quoted this I don't recall reading it at all. Gee, now I can't wait to pick up the book once again - it will feel like a long lost friend, a really good old friend. Books can bring comfort in the words sometimes and I found reading just these lines comforted me and brought me closer to a core of truth about life and how we feel looking at the beauty in a lovely flowers. It is a sensitive and lovely writing - these two paragraphs.

amalia , thanks, too, for you comments and supporting the idea of death being significant for the emphasis on lily, and backing that idea up with the Jacobean reference. Probably in Shakespeare we can also find many or some reference's to lilies and death. He made use of a lot of flowers and their significance. A friend of mine made a quilt on all of Shakespeare's flowers. I thought that was interesting.

It has been eons since I read "The Rainbow" and it is on my list of L books I must re-read, perhaps after this book or after we all read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" - although I have already read that book twice. I think I shall have a totally different perspective when re-reading "The Rainbow". I think this will also have to be one we eventually discuss in this forum, don't you? In the meantime, I will have to check out those chapters "Child" that you mention. They sound interesting.
There are also some stunning descriptions in Lawrence's first published novel "The White Peacock"...I read that one last year and liked it, although it is not as developed as "Sons and Lovers". I still go back to some of the paragraphs and re-read them - they are so lovely and full of deeper meaning.

Good start to this discussion. :thumbs_up Hope I can dig up something more to add tonight.

[amalia1985]

Any Lawrence masterpiece is included in my favourite-book list. The way he depicts complex human emotions, and especially his boldness with sexuality, is astonishing. I cannot forget the "fight scene" in "Women In Love"...

[Alexei]

Any Lawrence masterpiece is included in my favourite-book list. The way he depicts complex human emotions, and especially his boldness with sexuality, is astonishing. I cannot forget the "fight scene" in "Women In Love"...

That's why I like his works so much. He not only makes the characters vivid and real-like with thеsе psychological descriptions, he gave then unusual deepness. The complex characters he creates are so interesting and they aren't alike. He doesn't use some characters that are more like one person in different patterns, all his characters are different and genuine, they are all unique and still bound by the Lawrence tendency to make them as complex as possible.

[Janine]

Any Lawrence masterpiece is included in my favourite-book list. The way he depicts complex human emotions, and especially his boldness with sexuality, is astonishing. I cannot forget the "fight scene" in "Women In Love"...

Wonderful, amalia! I have finally met another avid Lawrence fan. I think Manolia is becoming one quickly and Pensive as well and a few others. I am delighted. I fully agree with you. I think Lawrence has a number of masterpieces, to say the least. He was quite a unique author. I cannot forget several key scenes in "Women in Love" - first the drowning scene - particularly the part when the couple is found intertwined in the lake and mud, second the wrestling scene you mention, also the scene when Birkin goes off into the fields - was that the height of sensuality? I think one of the last scenes in the snow with Gerald going off by himself is simply awesome, brilliant, heart-breaking. All these scenes are so graphic and stay with the reader for a long time, maybe even forever. Lawrence paints such a vivid and indellible impression on one's mind and sensibilities, don't you think? He penetrates ones very soul with these images. I still think often of everyone of those scenes.

Manolia and Amalia, I have now read about 15 pages of the beginning of "Sons and Lovers". I enjoyed every word last night. I am anxious to resume tonight and get to the part Manolia quoted about the flowers.

What strikes me in these first pages is the way in which Lawrence presents his characters - the characters of the mother and the father and their relationship. If you notice the first few years seeme to be happy years for both of them and then crept in the discontent and the problems - financial seemed to be the first and then the issue of Mr. Morel's drinking problem. From the beginning Lawrence shows us that the two married people are quite different in background, attitudes, refinement, and personality.
Lawrence also fills these beginning pages with the tone and atmosphere of the area where they live with a keen sense of things changing and more mines and collieries being established and encrouching on the land and the beauty of nature. Already we can feel the ugliness of industrialisation and the mining community, that later occuppied much of Lawrence's themes in his writing. The fact of the man's love of dancing and being outgoing and exerburent is also quite evident as the wife, in contrast, is more retiring and does not let herself go with the dancing and such. She is more introverted and the husband more of an extrovert. The mismatch is evident. Also explored in this short amount of pages is the interference that has been going on behind the wife's back as to the financial position of the couple so that we see the husband has not been honest with his wife. His mother is still protecting him and saving him from ruin, and the wife has been unaware of this deceit up until now. Now obviously, a sense of resentment will set in.

Please let me know of your impressions, also, of the first part of the book. I hope this sounds accurate. I was just rambling on with my thoughts and my impressions so far.

I have gotten several PM's from people about this thread and the short story thread. Pensive will be joining us for both. Quark is busy with advanced studies and will be taking part when he can. Virgil will be popping in from time to time, as he is quite busy now with his job and real life;) If I left anyone out, I am sorry. I have to go back and check my PM box. Opps -Yes, I did forget to mention someone. Joining us will be the amazing reader, Alexei....she reads at a fast pace, so watch out for her, gang. I communicated with her in another thread and she is very enthused about joining both groups; said she would be reading for some discussion sometime next week.

[amalia1985]

What have always troubled me-from the first time I read the book until now that I'm re-reading- is the relationship of Paul's parents. I dare to say that there is a certain aura of passion between them. As you said, Janine, there are two people that couldn't be more different. Perhaps, it is the passion of the "opposite". Is there love?

[amalia1985]

That's why I like his works so much. He not only makes the characters vivid and real-like with thеsе psychological descriptions, he gave then unusual deepness. The complex characters he creates are so interesting and they aren't alike. He doesn't use some characters that are more like one person in different patterns, all his characters are different and genuine, they are all unique and still bound by the Lawrence tendency to make them as complex as possible.


You are absolutely right, Alexei!

[Janine]

How funny - I just revised my post and there you appeared, Alexei - I was thinking of you and added you into the names. You must have read my mind. Anyway, how great to see you here! :thumbs_up and discussing already. We have such a great group this time around!

And I fully agree with what you have written about L's characters being complex and none two alike. Very well expressed!

amalia, I think it will take much time to answer that question you poss, as to whether the mother and father truly love each other. I do think passion did exist at one time.

On with the book!

[Alexei]

I have been thinking on Amalia's question and the resume by Janine and there is something that strikes me as interesting when we compare The morels relationship with the one between Gerald and Gudrun in "Women in Love" (I hope you don't mind that I am directing my post to comparing with other Lawrence's works). The relation love-hate in the two couples relations seems interesting to me, after in both them the partners are actually more like antagonist. Yet while between Gerald and Gudrun this antagonism take the shape of some kind of hatred, between the Morels is different, Mrs. Morel is more like disappointed and hurt, she doesn't actually try to fight back. That makes me think that she actually loves him at least at the beginning of the book (there is a certain point in the novel when the author said that she just start to reconcile because she doesn't love him anymore), because she is a strong person and otherwise she would have tried to do something to fight back, as it was in the case Gerald/Gudrun.

Janine, thanks for the great introduction. It's very kind:)
And I have a good news - I am planning to read "Odour of Chrysanthemums" tonight :) Soon I will be ready to join the discussion.

[Janine]

I have been thinking on Amalia's question and the resume by Janine and there is something that strikes me as interesting when we compare The morels relationship with the one between Gerald and Gudrun in "Women in Love" (I hope you don't mind that I am directing my post to comparing with other Lawrence's works). The relation love-hate in the two couples relations seems interesting to me, after in both them the partners are actually more like antagonist. Yet while between Gerald and Gudrun this antagonism take the shape of some kind of hatred, between the Morels is different, Mrs. Morel is more like disappointed and hurt, she doesn't actually try to fight back. That makes me think that she actually loves him at least at the beginning of the book (there is a certain point in the novel when the author said that she just start to reconcile because she doesn't love him anymore), because she is a strong person and otherwise she would have tried to do something to fight back, as it was in the case Gerald/Gudrun.

Janine, thanks for the great introduction. It's very kind:)
And I have a good news - I am planning to read "Odour of Chrysanthemums" tonight :) Soon I will be ready to join the discussion.

Alexei, no problem comparing, but don't give too much of the novel away, or the ending. I usually do the same thing. I like to compare the stories and the novels. Oops, just realised I gave away a few scenes in my earlier post; hope anyone who did not read WIL did not notice. I know that Manolia read WIL and so did a few others. I don't think that Pensive has, however. I agree with your observations. It seems that Mrs. Morel gives in after a time and then directs her concentration and love towards her sons - thus the title - "Sons and Lovers" and the main themes of the book. She become somewhat obsessed in her sons and so she redirects her love to them, which eventually is felt as a smothering type love. I do think that the relationships in each novel have their similarities and then again their extreme differences. I do think the initial attraction for the Morals was the opposite attributes they saw in each other. Opposites do seem often to attract to make up for the missing element in one person - perhaps one person is quiet and the other more outgoing. One sees that quality and is attracted by it. However, often this combination does not have staying power or permanence. Much about life and relationships can be learned from reading Lawrence's work. We don't always act sensible or logical either and often Lawrence explores this aspect of human nature. I think this is what draws people to his writings. We see people fully exposed - the good and the bad, the pretty and the ugly...it is a truthful assessment of how people are and how they react to each other. I think Mrs. Moral settles finally, into a very inert state of being with her husband and that relationship, but first, I think the relationship is quite turbulent. Perhaps it is a sort of love/hate relationship similiar to Gerald and Gudrun in WIL. The Morels go through many stages and we see the changes in both, and then when the children arrive things further change in their relationship to each other.
Alexei, so glad you found the thread and are participating. You seem very enthusiastic - I like that! Glad you will read the O or C story tonight. I will also try to re-read it or partly tonight. You will see the connection to "Sons and Lovers" right away. I have some biographical background on the story concerning Lawrence's mother and his grandmother. This should be of some interest. I will look that up, also. Thanks for your compliments on my introduction.

[manolia]

Wonderful, amalia! I think Manolia is becoming one quickly and Pensive as well and a few others. ....

Manolia and Amalia, I have now read about 15 pages of the beginning of "Sons and Lovers". I enjoyed every word last night. I am anxious to resume tonight and get to the part Manolia quoted about the flowers.

I am becoming a fan of D H Lawrence :)
Go go Janine!! I have read the first three chapters (not much, work gets in the way lately).



What strikes me in these first pages is the way in which Lawrence presents his characters - the characters of the mother and the father and their relationship. If you notice the first few years seeme to be happy years for both of them and then crept in the discontent and the problems - financial seemed to be the first and then the issue of Mr. Morel's drinking problem. From the beginning Lawrence shows us that the two married people are quite different in background, attitudes, refinement, and personality. .

Yes they are pretty different the Morels. That differance is what attracted them to each other i think.
Mr Morel admired Mrs Morel because "she was very lady like" and he used to speak reverentially to her, using "thous and thines".
Mrs Morel was fascinated by his warmth and liveliness. She came form a puritan family, where men and especially her father (a short description is being given) are very restraint and silent.
Janine, i think their true happiness lasted only a few months.



Lawrence also fills these beginning pages with the tone and atmosphere of the area where they live with a keen sense of things changing and more mines and collieries being established and encrouching on the land and the beauty of nature. Already we can feel the ugliness of industrialisation and the mining community, that later occuppied much of Lawrence's themes in his writing. .

That's exactly what caught my interest. What i loved in "Women in love" was the dreary and bleak setting, which depicts Lawrence opinion concerning indusrialisation. Same setting here too.


What have always troubled me-from the first time I read the book until now that I'm re-reading- is the relationship of Paul's parents. I dare to say that there is a certain aura of passion between them. As you said, Janine, there are two people that couldn't be more different. Perhaps, it is the passion of the "opposite". Is there love?

Hmmmm..good question.
I believe that whatever love there is, it is very superficial.
The two people got together because they were merely atracted by certain things in each other's personality (see above what i wrote to Janine). There wasn't any long lasting acquaintance between them, they kinda rushed in a thoughtless marriage.
Nevertheless, it seems that a kind of love has existed and it is apparent by Mrs Morel thoughts. In certain parts, especially when Mr Morel is ill, we can see Mrs Morel talking to herself and saying that "she didn't want him dead. She still wants him for herself (putting aside the fact that he is the breadwinner)". The same when Mr Morel decides to leave her and she evntually realises that he was just hiding in the back of the house.
But the most important part is when she stops caring about his actions (that's where her love stops) and then turns to her sons.
As for Mr Morel we get hints of his love in many places. First we learn that he is jealous of his first born child. Then we see that even when he is angry with her and they fight he has great pungs of guilt (although he never admits it).



, between the Morels is different, Mrs. Morel is more like disappointed and hurt, she doesn't actually try to fight back. That makes me think that she actually loves him at least at the beginning of the book (there is a certain point in the novel when the author said that she just start to reconcile because she doesn't love him anymore), because she is a strong person and otherwise she would have tried to do something to fight back, as it was in the case Gerald/Gudrun.
.

Great observations Alexei.
There is a certain point where Mrs Morel stops critisising her husband about his drunkeness, because she just doesn't care anymore. This is the point, chronologically, where we can safely say that her love is dead.
Also, to comment on your first point, Mrs Morel is more like disappointed and hurt, she doesn't actually try to fight back. YEs, that seems to be true. The answer can be found again in her upbringing. Mrs Morel comes from a puritan family. She is a devout christian and she has learned to restrain her feelings.Quite the opposite from Gudrun from "Women in love" who was a tigress ;)

[Virgil]

Here's an interesting thing to ponder while you read this. Sons and Lovers is a bildungsroman of the development of Paul Morel. Isn't it interesting that so much of the early part of the novel takes place before Paul is even born? For instance, the novel that this is often compared to is James Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man, also a bildunsroman and published almost at the same time. There the the novel starts with the central character's (Stephan Daedalas) first moments of consciousness as a baby. But here we go almost a third into the novel before Lawrence even begins to concentrate on Paul. You may not begin to answer why Lawrence structures the book this way without having read the entire novel and really digested it, but something for you all to keep in mind.

From Merriam-Webster:

bildungsroman
Main Entry: bil&#183;dungs&#183;ro&#183;man
Pronunciation: 'bil-du[ng](k)s-rO-"m&#228;n, -du[ng]z-
Function: noun
Etymology: German, from Bildung education + Roman novel
: a novel about the moral and psychological growth of the main character

[Alexei]

I am sorry, if I have spoiled the reading. I didn't thought about that when I write the post. I usually forget about this because I don't find a book less interesting if now the plot and etc., but I can't expect everybody to be like me I am really sorry :bawling: Next time I will be more careful.

[Alexei]

Virgil, I have just seen your post and the question is really interesting. I haven't tried to compare the book with "Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man". I have to think about it :)

[Virgil]

I am sorry, if I have spoiled the reading. I didn't thought about that when I write the post. I usually forget about this because I don't find a book less interesting if now the plot and etc., but I can't expect everybody to be like me I am really sorry :bawling: Next time I will be more careful.

Oh no need to apologize. It's nice to be surprised as a reader, but a good reader will want to know ahead of time so that he can evaluate asw he's reading. I probably spoil novels for many first time readers. :D Well, how can one make intelligent comments if he/she doesn't know the entire novel.

[amalia1985]

I agree with all the points of Janine, Manolia and Alexei, and was fascinated by the reference to Gudrun from "Women In Love". I 've always liked her more than Ursula due to her liberated nature, opposing pious and, perhaps "fake", characters.

What I am particularly interested to explore is how the mother really influenced Paul's relationships. But I have to read that first...

Impatient is my middle-name...

[Alexei]

Impatient is my middle-name...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know exactly what you mean ;)

[amalia1985]

:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

[Janine]

I am becoming a fan of D H Lawrence :)
Go go Janine!! I have read the first three chapters (not much, work gets in the way lately).

Yes, Manolia!!! I knew you would become an avid fan. Next you will be like me, buying countless Lawrence books. I think I have over 25! Now that is obsession. Sorry real life work gets in the way. Duties on the homefront here do, too. Manolia - your post is a good one and your enthusisam for this story really shows through.

I have just completed only Chapter 1, but I am taking it slowly and really absorbing it, this time around. I thought a lot about Chapter 1 last night and my impression is that there is a lot there. There are many key paragraphs suggesting events that will develop in the future. Chapter 1 is a well constructed introduction to everything - the changing industrial world, the family environment and the relationship of the husband and wife with their separate views on life, the initial attraction and short-lived love, the friction that develops due to their separateness. What really stands out to me is how well Lawrence knew these characters. It was as though he could crawl into their very skins and show us the way they both were thinking and feeling - amazing inner portraits of both people. It is no wonder since they were based on his real parents. He certainly knew them well and was not afraid to reveal, even to himself, the inner deep turbulent way in which they reacted to each other. This must have been a painful process to actually write this way and see one's parents on the page. Last time I read the novel I did not feel as sympathetic to the father, but this time, due to additional readings, commentaries and new perspectives on my part, I felt more sympathy at time for his position in the marriage.


Yes they are pretty different the Morels. That differance is what attracted them to each other i think.
Mr Morel admired Mrs Morel because "she was very lady like" and he used to speak reverentially to her, using "thous and thines".
Mrs Morel was fascinated by his warmth and liveliness. She came form a puritan family, where men and especially her father (a short description is being given) are very restraint and silent.
Janine, i think their true happiness lasted only a few months.


The next Christmas they were married, and for three months
she was perfectly happy: for six months she was very happy.

They seemed to be happy for six months. Yes, that is pretty brief.

The next paragraphs show how things begin to change or how reality sets in. At first "he signed the pledge" and his living by her standards - quite co-operative, but then it says he was "nothing if not showy".


He had signed the pledge, and wore the blue ribbon of a
tee-totaller: he was nothing if not showy. They lived, she thought,
in his own house. It was small, but convenient enough, and quite
nicely furnished, with solid, worthy stuff that suited her honest soul.
The women, her neighbours, were rather foreign to her, and Morel's
mother and sisters were apt to sneer at her ladylike ways.
But she could perfectly well live by herself, so long as she
had her husband close.

Sometimes, when she herself wearied of love-talk, she tried
to open her heart seriously to him. She saw him listen deferentially,
but without understanding. This killed her efforts at a finer intimacy,
and she had flashes of fear. Sometimes he was restless of an evening:
it was not enough for him just to be near her, she realised.
She was glad when he set himself to little jobs.


One can see when the differences and friction exists and then begins to creep in and become more evident and eventually prominent in their life together. They really cannot communicate on a deeper level, of which the mother longs for this level of intimacy after the 'honeymoon' period of their marriage is over - say the first 6 months. The father reacts by becoming restless. Each person seems to place an effect on the other unconsciously, which is so realistic of real life couples, who ultimately become more and more distanced from each other, when they can't work things out.


That's exactly what caught my interest. What i loved in "Women in love" was the dreary and bleak setting, which depicts Lawrence opinion concerning indusrialisation. Same setting here too.

Below, from the first line of the book, it is evident that this ugliness and bleak atmosphere is going to be a key issue in the book. Sometimes in movie commentaries I have heard the director refer to the atmosphere of the film as a character of it's own such as a rainy type gloomy film. In a sense, this image of the mines and the colliers becomes a live character in this and many of Lawrence's novels. It could be called the menacing character or threat. Lawrence saw it as a disease spreading over the natural countryside of his youth.


"THE BOTTOMS" succeeded to "Hell Row". Hell Row was a block of thatched,
bulging cottages that stood by the brookside on Greenhill Lane.
There lived the colliers who worked in the little gin-pits two
fields away. The brook ran under the alder trees, scarcely soiled
by these small mines, whose coal was drawn to the surface by
donkeys that plodded wearily in a circle round a gin.

Lawrence even uses the word 'Hell' in his very first paragraph...interesting way to begin a book.


Hmmmm..good question.
I believe that whatever love there is, it is very superficial.
The two people got together because they were merely atracted by certain things in each other's personality (see above what i wrote to Janine). There wasn't any long lasting acquaintance between them, they kinda rushed in a thoughtless marriage.

I think it was somewhat superficial and yet there seemed to exist some sort of love between them at first, however the type of love that Gertrude hoped to have was never evident and therefore she may have been deluding herself with higher expectations of her husband. This, he was incapable of achieving; it just was not in his nature. She would have liked to change him into what she expected him to be, but he obviously was a simplier being with his own ideas of living - some place it says he was more 'sensual' than she was. I can't find the exact quote now. Both of these people are stubborn and will not yield or compomise. There is no 'give and take' in this marriage and so it is doomed to exist from the start as a very unhappy one. Even in their difference's in speech the difference is made manifest. He speaks, as Lawrence once referred to as 'heart speech' and she speaks in "head speech' or the higher form of English.


Nevertheless, it seems that a kind of love has existed and it is apparent by Mrs Morel thoughts. In certain parts, especially when Mr Morel is ill, we can see Mrs Morel talking to herself and saying that "she didn't want him dead. She still wants him for herself (putting aside the fact that he is the breadwinner)". The same when Mr Morel decides to leave her and she evntually realises that he was just hiding in the back of the house.

This is so parallel to the story we are doing in short stories. Did anyone read it yet? I think the feelings she is having about Mr. Moral's illness are very complex and cannot be easily interpretted. If you read the story 'Odour of Chrysantamums' you see a 'what if' scenerio being played out, in the wife's mind. Interesting that she thinks - 'she wants him for himself'. I have not read that part yet, but am anxious now to read it. I only vaguely remember that scene, so I don't have a complete comment formed as yet.

I thought this passage of interest and sort of sums up the feeling later that the wife is having about her life.

She went indoors, wondering if things were never going to alter.
She was beginning by now to realise that they would not. She seemed
so far away from her girlhood, she wondered if it were the same
person walking heavily up the back garden at the Bottoms as had run
so lightly up the breakwater at Sheerness ten years before.

"What have I to do with it?" she said to herself. "What have
I to do with all this? Even the child I am going to have!
It doesn't seem as if I were taken into account."

Sometimes life takes hold of one, carries the body along,
accomplishes one's history, and yet is not real, but leaves oneself
as it were slurred over.

"I wait," Mrs. Morel said to herself--"I wait, and what I wait
for can never come."

That last line makes evident that what Mrs. Morel is wanting she know she will never have. It is a very poignant line.


But the most important part is when she stops caring about his actions (that's where her love stops) and then turns to her sons.
As for Mr Morel we get hints of his love in many places. First we learn that he is jealous of his first born child. Then we see that even when he is angry with her and they fight he has great pungs of guilt (although he never admits it).

I agree. I think in the first chapter, the description of her feelings when the father gives the son his first haircut is very significant. Something inside of her seems to be shattered at that moment - it goes way deeper in meaning than the mere haircut of the child. I think in a way it is the father being dominent over the mother and saying ok, "I am the father and this is how it is going to be". I thought of my neighbor who actually did cut his boys hair when they got to a certain age and the mother would have had no say in the matter. It seems the father also knows how precious the hair is to the mother and the keeping the child a baby as well and so he goes and does this on his own, to her horror. Surely he knew what he was doing, but then again, he may have not realised the extend of how it would effect the mother.

Presently she came to an end, soothed the child and cleared away
the breakfast-table. She left the newspaper, littered with curls,
spread upon the hearthrug. At last her husband gathered it up and put
it at the back of the fire. She went about her work with closed
mouth and very quiet. Morel was subdued. He crept about wretchedly,
and his meals were a misery that day. She spoke to him civilly,
and never alluded to what he had done. But he felt something final
had happened.

Afterwards she said she had been silly, that the boy's hair
would have had to be cut, sooner or later. In the end, she even
brought herself to say to her husband it was just as well he had
played barber when he did. But she knew, and Morel knew, that that
act had caused something momentous to take place in her soul.
She remembered the scene all her life, as one in which she had
suffered the most intensely.

This act of masculine clumsiness was the spear through the side of
her love for Morel. Before, while she had striven against him bitterly,
she had fretted after him, as if he had gone astray from her.
Now she ceased to fret for his love: he was an outsider to her.

That line - "a spear through the side of her love for Morel" is very significant and also symbolic in reference to Christ and suffering; the suffering sacrificing Christian. This is a major turning point in the relationship and instead now of "striving bitterly against him", Gertrude is now "distances" herself and "ceased to fret for his love"...and "he was an outsider to her".

In this earlier quote we see when the boy was born, that the father was decent to the mother, but it did not satisfy her loneliness:


Gertrude Morel was very ill when the boy was born.
Morel was good to her, as good as gold. But she felt very lonely,
miles away from her own people. She felt lonely with him now,
and his presence only made it more intense.

This distance between them is like they live on two planets. I find these following passages interesting and significant after the child is born.


At last Mrs. Morel despised her husband. She turned to
the child; she turned from the father. He had begun to neglect her;
the novelty of his own home was gone.
Then her own opinion of his at this point.

He had no grit, she said
bitterly to herself. What he felt just at the minute, that was all to him.
He could not abide by anything. There was nothing at the back
of all his show.


There began a battle between the husband and wife--a fearful,
bloody battle that ended only with the death of one. She fought
to make him undertake his own responsibilities, to make him fulfill
his obligations. But he was too different from her. His nature
was purely sensuous, and she strove to make him moral, religious.
She tried to force him to face things. He could not endure it--it
drove him out of his mind.

This paragraph shows the dynamics of their battle and how the react to each other and the distinct differences in their natures and their ways of thinking. He cannot in the end endure her trying to 'force him' into 'moralistic' modes or being. I have read commentaries that state that the image of Lawrence's father portrayed in this book was totally unfair and that later Lawrence regretted that he was so harsh towards his father. Both adults acted childishly at times and the blame was equal for the tumultuous admosphere in the household. No one was the culprit or to blame. Their marriage became a complex and damaging one for the children between them, which is sad.

Great observations Alexei.
I agree! Good post. And now what are you appologising for? I don't see that you gave anything away and anyway forget what I said earlier. You can't give away anything about this book; at least not to me. I read it before. ;)


There is a certain point where Mrs Morel stops critisising her husband about his drunkeness, because she just doesn't care anymore. This is the point, chronologically, where we can safely say that her love is dead.
Also, to comment on your first point, Mrs Morel is more like disappointed and hurt, she doesn't actually try to fight back. YEs, that seems to be true. The answer can be found again in her upbringing. Mrs Morel comes from a puritan family. She is a devout christian and she has learned to restrain her feelings.Quite the opposite from Gudrun from "Women in love" who was a tigress ;)

Yes, well somewhere in the text it mentioned that she began criticising him, not to benefit the marriage any longer, but to save his soul, to save him as a man. Mrs. Morel was a deeply and staunchly religious woman in this respect. Remember she was brought up as a 'tee-totaller' and drinking must have been a sure way to hell so she was trying also to reform him. I do think the marriage goes dead at some point given all these various factors and finally she even gives up the quest to save her husband and is totally numb to her life and marriage. It is true that she learned to restrain her feelings being a devout christian woman. Interesting that it is the opposite to Gudrun in "Women in Love". Remember too, that this novel would have been set earlier in the century than WIL, so some attitudes would be changing at the time Lawrence wrote this later novel.

Hi Virgil, good to see you here giving a few comments. It is interesting comparing the book with Joyce's novel. Both are 'coming of age' novels and I did not know the word you presented with the definition, so now I learned something new today.
Hi Amalia - impatient one - do read on! :lol:

Whew - this took me forever to write - a small novel I think! Hahaha

[Virgil]

Wow, what a post Janine. :)



They seemed to be happy for six months. Yes, that is pretty brief.

I don't know. The first year of marriage is usually one of the hardest. Six months of happiness isn't too bad. I assume that meant lots of sex. :D


One can see when the differences and friction exists and then begins to creep in and become more evident and eventually prominent in their life together. They really cannot communicate on a deeper level, of which the mother longs for this level of intimacy after the 'honeymoon' period of their marriage is over - say the first 6 months. The father reacts by becoming restless. Each person seems to place an effect on the other unconsciously, which is so realistic of real life couples, who ultimately become more and more distanced from each other, when they can't work things out.
I have always felt that the origins of Lawrence's dualism (his outlook that the world works by contrasting principles) started with the observation of his parents. His parents are opposites in many ways, and I think Lawrence wants you to see them as architypical opposites. Now there is no question that the sympathies seem to reside with Mrs. Morel in this relationship, but that is because Paul Morel's sympathies are with his mother. But I think Lawrence the author is fairer to the father as the novel goes along. There is a separation between Paul the character and Lawrence the author. I think the point is that paul is absorbing more of his mother's consciouness than his father's.


Below, from the first line of the book, it is evident that this ugliness and bleak atmosphere is going to be a key issue in the book. Sometimes in movie commentaries I have heard the director refer to the atmosphere of the film as a character of it's own such as a rainy type gloomy film. In a sense, this image of the mines and the colliers becomes a live character in this and many of Lawrence's novels. It could be called the menacing character or threat. Lawrence saw it as a disease spreading over the natural countryside of his youth.
As a bildungsroman this all goes into the building of Paul's character. Lawerence is a psychological writer. So another way to say what I just said is that it all goes into the formation of Paul's consciousness.


Lawrence even uses the word 'Hell' in his very first paragraph...interesting way to begin a book.
Yes, quite interesting. I had not remembered that. Now in Lawrence's scheme of things, Hell is often portrayed as positive, alluring place. I'm not sure how to take this. I know some have stated that Lawrence suggests the ugliness of industry. Yes that is there, but Lawrence is not a writer who forms simple equations, such as mining equals bad. You will find some sections where it is described in a fascinating, alluring way.


He speaks, as Lawrence once referred to as 'heart speech' and she speaks in "head speech' or the higher form of English.
Right. And isn't the father representative of heart speech?



I agree. I think in the first chapter, the description of her feelings when the father gives the son his first haircut is very significant. Something inside of her seems to be shattered at that moment - it goes way deeper in meaning than the mere haircut of the child. I think in a way it is the father being dominent over the mother and saying ok, "I am the father and this is how it is going to be". I thought of my neighbor who actually did cut his boys hair when they got to a certain age and the mother would have had no say in the matter. It seems the father also knows how precious the hair is to the mother and the keeping the child a baby as well and so he goes and does this on his own, to her horror. Surely he knew what he was doing, but then again, he may have not realised the extend of how it would effect the mother.
Quite right, and the Mr. Morel's taking the boy for his haircut is clearly the claiming of male territory.


That line - "a spear through the side of her love for Morel" is very significant and also symbolic in reference to Christ and suffering; the suffering sacrificing Christian. This is a major turning point in the relationship and instead now of "striving bitterly against him", Gertrude is now "distances" herself and "ceased to fret for his love"...and "he was an outsider to her".
A wonderful, wonderful line! It combines a lot of the themes.


This paragraph shows the dynamics of their battle and how the react to each other and the distinct differences in their natures and their ways of thinking. He cannot in the end endure her trying to 'force him' into 'moralistic' modes or being. I have read commentaries that state that the image of Lawrence's father portrayed in this book was totally unfair and that later Lawrence regretted that he was so harsh towards his father. Both adults acted childishly at times and the blame was equal for the tumultuous admosphere in the household. No one was the culprit or to blame. Their marriage became a complex and damaging one for the children between them, which is sad.
Wonderful, and the question that one who has read this book is, how does this connect with Paul's relationships with his girlfriends later in the novel?

[Janine]

Wow, what a post Janine. :)
Virgil, Thanks for reading it. This stuff was rattling around in my head all night long and I just had to get it out and on paper(computer)..haha! Hope I have not bored everyone yet. I guess I felt inspired today.;)


I don't know. The first year of marriage is usually one of the hardest. Six months of happiness isn't too bad. I assume that meant lots of sex. :D

Yes, yes,... sex, passion,... the whole enchilada!:lol:


I have always felt that the origins of Lawrence's dualism (his outlook that the world works by contrasting principles) started with the observation of his parents. His parents are opposites in many ways, and I think Lawrence wants you to see them as architypical opposites. Now there is no question that the sympathies seem to reside with Mrs. Morel in this relationship, but that is because Paul Morel's sympathies are with his mother. But I think Lawrence the author is fairer to the father as the novel goes along. There is a separation between Paul the character and Lawrence the author. I think the point is that paul is absorbing more of his mother's consciouness than his father's.
Oh, I definitely agree with your first statement. I have thought the same countless times reading his works. Yes, he did make them in this novel the archetypes of this principal. He probably exaggerated both parents for the novel. I know that later he was more sympathetic towards his father but one would feel in this novel it was the other way around. I do think Lawrence was more intune with his mother, from biographies I have read, and not so with his father but for story purposes he makes the Morel character worse than his real father. Definitely the two characters have much incommon but are not the same people. I think at first Lawrence did absorb more of his mother's consciousness but later in his writing the opposite became evident, such as in "Women in Love," when sensuality came to the foreground of importance and significance.

As a bildungsroman this all goes into the building of Paul's character. Lawerence is a psychological writer. So another way to say what I just said is that it all goes into the formation of Paul's consciousness. Absolutely.



Yes, quite interesting. I had not remembered that. Now in Lawrence's scheme of things, Hell is often portrayed as positive, alluring place. I'm not sure how to take this. I know some have stated that Lawrence suggests the ugliness of industry. Yes that is there, but Lawrence is not a writer who forms simple equations, such as mining equals bad. You will find some sections where it is described in a fascinating, alluring way.

That is true. I think that the first line with the word 'Hell' can draw a person into the story easily because it is a term of fascination. Lawrence knew the effect it would have, why else would he use it as his very first line. I think it is brilliant. Yes, later the 'dark' side of mankind and life was the alluring way and fascinated him even in the mining community, but I am especially thinking of the novel I just read - "The Plumed Serpent".



Right. And isn't the father representative of heart speech? I was referring to his father....yes, heart speech. Remember in the film "Coming Through" he says that prior to reciting the 'Violets' poem. That poem was definitely 'heart speech'. One reason I like it so very much. Plus it reminds me of a real event in the book and L's life (don't want to give that part away for those who did not read that far).




Quite right, and the Mr. Morel's taking the boy for his haircut is clearly the claiming of male territory.
Yes, this is what I think, too. It is not that I did not sympathise with the mother's feelings, especially being a mother myself and recalling my son's own curls falling to the floor. That was a kind of passage to boyhood, but a mother does feel pathos for those discarded baby curls.


A wonderful, wonderful line! It combines a lot of the themes. I thought so, too. Another brilliant line.



Wonderful, and the question that one who has read this book is, how does this connect with Paul's relationships with his girlfriends later in the novel?

I think it will take time and more reading to see the connection. The connections develop subtly and slowly overtime and once Paul begins to get involved with women, other than his mother. But as they say, 'the formative years', so growing up with this turmoil leaves deep scars on the children. I have also been told and read that growing up in this type of 'bickering mother and father' environment the children do not a clearcut notion of how a family should act; they don't know what is truly normal or how a husband and wife should be with each other or treat each other. I think we saw this damage in the book by Woolf with Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey's relationship and their children. All the children were affected by their early lives, with these parents always at odds. For one, usually what happens is a child will look to one parent and give that parent his loyalties; the kids begin to take sides. It gets complicated, but a lot of stuff goes on in this sort of situation that causes deep-seeded problems later in life. I know because I have witnessed this first hand.

[Alexei]

Wow! These are three challenging posts :lol: I have only menage with Janine's first post, but I will read the other two later.


Below, from the first line of the book, it is evident that this ugliness and bleak atmosphere is going to be a key issue in the book. Sometimes in movie commentaries I have heard the director refer to the atmosphere of the film as a character of it's own such as a rainy type gloomy film. In a sense, this image of the mines and the colliers becomes a live character in this and many of Lawrence's novels. It could be called the menacing character or threat. Lawrence saw it as a disease spreading over the natural countryside of his youth.

I think this takes a great part when it comes to the "scenes" which Lawrence makes so memorizing, it's actually easier to memorize them than to forget them. And I think that later on in the book it start to contrast with the "background" on which the whole Paul/Miriam relationship takes part. I think that may be this bleak atmosphere could be consider as a stimulus that drives Paul more to the nature. Well, not a main one, but still there is some effect in this direction, at least in my opinion.


This is so parallel to the story we are doing in short stories. Did anyone read it yet? I think the feelings she is having about Mr. Moral's illness are very complex and cannot be easily interpretted. If you read the story 'Odour of Chrysantamums' you see a 'what if' scenerio being played out, in the wife's mind. Interesting that she thinks - 'she wants him for himself'. I have not read that part yet, but am anxious now to read it. I only vaguely remember that scene, so I don't have a complete comment formed as yet.

Yes, that's exactly what i think about it too. I have finished the story two days ago, but I try to get out of my head the idea that it is the "what if scenario", so i could see beyond it. It seems harder than I thought :lol:

[Janine]

Wow! These are three challenging posts :lol: I have only menage with Janine's first post, but I will read the other two later.
Alexei, I am glad you read my first post; yes, perhaps they are challenging, but this should make for a more stimulating discussion, if they be so. I think given the time, we have the time to slow up and reflect on various aspects of the book, as they are presented in the novel. Take your time to read these posts and to answer. I will patiently wait to hear any comments and the same applies to what Virgil has written in his post(s). I tend to like to discuss these book chronologically, and see how the story and characters develop and change over the course of the novel. I realised most of you have gone past reading Chapter 1, and I have revisited it here in my post. I have read the entire book before, so I felt it advantageous as I read, to delve below the surface and see things I had not noticed on first reading. I felt a need to express some of these thoughts.

I also wanted to ask people their impression of the last part of Chapter 1, when the husband came home drunk and tired, and the wife harrassed him and he actually pushed her from the house and locked her out. What did everyone think of that scene and the outcome? It seemed now that I have progressed to Chapter 2, that Walter was somewhat changed after that incident. He became more retiring and less combatant. We have seen changes within the wife up until now, but now we begin to see definite changes in the husband as well, into a quieter and more subdued state.

I think this takes a great part when it comes to the "scenes" which Lawrence makes so memorizing, it's actually easier to memorize them than to forget them. And I think that later on in the book it start to contrast with the "background" on which the whole Paul/Miriam relationship takes part. I think that may be this bleak atmosphere could be consider as a stimulus that drives Paul more to the nature. Well, not a main one, but still there is some effect in this direction, at least in my opinion.
Lawrence's scenes are so very memorable and one cannot easily erase them from one's mind. They seem so real. I fully agree with your thoughts here. Yes, althought the first paragraphs of the book reveal a dismal atmosphere and tone, later the woodlands and fields take on the beauty Lawrence felt was being threatened; there is a definite contrast. The mining community and the increase in industrialism is a sort of stimulus, indeed, that leads Lawrence back to nature and his love of it. This followed the author all of his days and is revealed in all of his work. I think that the nature scenes are especially prominent in this novel and his first published novel "The White Peacock". These two are more pastoral and reflect outside influences, like Thomas Hardy, etc. Remember that Lawrence was still quite young writing this book and had not formed so much a cynical view of the world that later he will expresses. This book is filled more with his youth and learning, and a journey through that youth and a transformation.

I hope these posts do not overwhelm you, therefore take your time to comment and I will wait for all your comments on what I have written, before I post anymore.




Yes, that's exactly what i think about it too. I have finished the story two days ago, but I try to get out of my head the idea that it is the "what if scenario", so i could see beyond it. It seems harder than I thought :lol:

Yes, I know what you mean. It is hard to get it out of one's head while reading this book. Not sure if it was advantageous to read them the same time or not.

Hey, Alexei, I posted these long posts to slow up your speedy reading, since you are way ahead of Manolia and I, and probably amalia as well!
*Haha - sabotage the speedy reader Alexei by giving her something else to read.*:lol:

[amalia1985]

I think that her reaction was normal, at least the way I see it. I have some experience with the problem of alcoholism, since my cousin is a psychologist in an AA club, and tends to speak to me very often about similar incidents. Being tired is no excuse for killing yourself through drinking, and anyone should realise that having a family is basically having certain responsibilities. Being softened was the least for Maurel.

I don't blame Paul's mother regarding certain aspects of her later behaviour, given the fact of her life with her husband.

P.S. I am close to finishing the book, and I try to restrain myself from speaking!! Hi Hi Hi...
All I want to say is how astonishing it continues to be after this second reading. That's the difference between a good book and a masterpiece.

[Janine]

I think that her reaction was normal, at least the way I see it. I have some experience with the problem of alcoholism, since my cousin is a psychologist in an AA club, and tends to speak to me very often about similar incidents. Being tired is no excuse for killing yourself through drinking, and anyone should realise that having a family is basically having certain responsibilities. Being softened was the least for Maurel.

I don't blame Paul's mother regarding certain aspects of her later behaviour, given the fact of her life with her husband.

P.S. I am close to finishing the book, and I try to restrain myself from speaking!! Hi Hi Hi...
All I want to say is how astonishing it continues to be after this second reading. That's the difference between a good book and a masterpiece.

amalia, So this is your second reading....wonderful! and you are almost done the book. I am waaaaayyyyy behind with you and Alexei, but I am trying to think more now about symbolism and images that reoccur in Lawrence's work and also the characters and so as I read I am taking it slower. I think I have a much different perspective now about the novel and the story of the two people. This may be due to having read so much more of Lawrence and of his life and knowing what he said in reference to his father and how he was treated too harshly in the novel. I was therefore trying to see both sides equally and understand why each person was reacting as they were. I think it takes two to tango, as they say and no one person is ever at complete fault. We might like one more than the other or empathsize more with that person and I would probably empathize more with the woman, being a woman. But knowing I might lean that way I was trying to give some merit to the man. His drinking may seem to be excessive but what I have read it was quite common at that time for men from the pits to stop off at a pub on their way home and have a few beers. I think that as time went on and Mr. Moral was shut out more from his wife's life he took this to more excess, being inwardly lonely and unhappy and therefore restless.
I fully agree with you about the book being a masterpiece. I think I could actually read this book a third time and still enjoy every word, but life has only so much time and there are so many good books yet to read. I am glad I planned on reading all of Lawrence's books twice. So far, it has been more rewarding that way. Even Lawrence believed that books should be read at least twice, if not more times. I have a great quote from him to that effect and when I find it I may add it to my own signature quotes at the bottom of my page. Lawrence read many books twice and thrice. One wonders how he had the time! Amazing.

[grace86]

Is this the thread Janine!!!! :D

I'm gonna see if I can find an online copy or from my library...and maybe read a long slowly....poor Don Quixote lays unfinished in the nightstand drawer.

[Virgil]

Is this the thread Janine!!!! :D

I'm gonna see if I can find an online copy or from my library...and maybe read a long slowly....poor Don Quixote lays unfinished in the nightstand drawer.

:lol: Grace, I was wondering what had happened to you. Lit Net has Sons and Lovers online. I however will not be reading along. As soon as I finish Updike's Rabbit, Run (I have about 40 pages to go) I will return to Don Quixote. I have to finish it. I promised Quasimodo I would start a Virgil's Aeneid reading group around Christmas time.

[Janine]

Is this the thread Janine!!!! :D

I'm gonna see if I can find an online copy or from my library...and maybe read a long slowly....poor Don Quixote lays unfinished in the nightstand drawer.

Grace, this is 'the place' - the right thread indeed! We have not gotten too far yet (although so far, so good, and very enthusiastic from everyone); so do come and read along slowly, and when you are able between school work. Don't feel pressured in the least to participate - do so when you can, and only if you can. Don't want to see you miss anymore important Shakespeare classes.;) College has to be your priorty. I understand fully.
Yes, poor DQ lays unfinished, but you can pick it up after, hopefully. DQ is a patient man!

PS: I will email you more tomorrow. I am tired out now. Long day! J

[Janine]

Hi everyone! I finished up Chapter 2 (reading like a snail; sorry) last night and had a few thoughts about it, but I have to go out for the rest of the day and into the evening, so I will try to post something later tonight. I thought it was an interesting chapter with the huband being nursed back to health by his the wife. The complex feelings that passed between them was something to think about. This story has no easy answers and is so realistic in that way. People have complex emotions and feeling and even act in ways they would probably not have predicted possible.

I also, found of keen interest, the scene when Gertrude looks down on Paul and ponders about the child and just how much he has perceived of the unhappiness existing in the house - even as far back as her womb. Also we see the first signs of her wishing he was still attached to her physically. When I return I will try to quote specific parts that indicate various things I found to be of interest such as this part about the child in her arms looking up to her. This passage was like nothing I have ever read before. I had forgotten about it but now knowing the full story it particularly stood out to me. Funny how we miss so much on our first readings.

I just came to the part when the youngest son is born. At this time it seems the family strife has calmed down to more of a whimper. I wonder if that is why he seems less affected by turmoil and is the one child to be drawn to his father.

[amalia1985]

I would venture to say that he could sense the tension between the two parents and -consciously or unconsiously-desires to retain a balance, perhaps.

[Janine]

I would venture to say that he could sense the tension between the two parents and -consciously or unconsiously-desires to retain a balance, perhaps.

amalia, that is an interesting idea, but I think if we are talking about the youngest child's relationship to it's father, I don't know if he, as a small toddler, would know, consciously or even unconsciously that his parents were of need a balance and attempt to retain it by going to his father. It seems to me that that child might just be drawn to him naturally. Perhaps he will grow up to be more like the father. The older children openingly seem to favor their father. I believe it stated that the girl did not like him at all. My theory is that by now the mother and father have calmed their relationship and are more co-operative with each other or more calm around the children and so the father has been more loving towards this child, who seems to be attracted to him. I think that earlier the mother turned the other children away from the father's attentions, by putting him down and also just by her action of opposing him. The father is no saint and I have felt more sympathy at times for the woman trying to raise her children when the father drinks away the little money they do have. Her womanly, motherly struggle is certainly commendable, but at the same time her harsh defensive attitude towards her husband, has aligned the children very much with her. It is awful when children are forced between two parents this way and they eventually end up taking 'sides'. No one wins in this kind of domestic war. By the end of the book you will see the effects this kind of homelike, with so much domestic inballance, and forced loyalties, does harm to all the members, the effect on Paul, being the most singled out in the book and prominent.

[Pensive]

Hi everyone, I am sorry for having come late in the discussion but the last few days have been a kind of busy.

I read Sons and Lovers a few months back, so forgive me if my memory seems to be fooling me during all this discussion and feel free to correct me. :)

Janine's question has struck me as a really good one, but complex. Yes, Janine, I personally find it really hard to take side with either Mr. Morel or Mrs. Morel alone. Still, most of the times I feel sympathy for the both. In that time, it was pretty common for miners to drink heavily (I think it's quite natural, though it can be controlled, to get attracted towards alcohol when you work so hard the whole day). If anyone is interested, she/he might want to try Chase The Wind which deals about mining and mining problems more deeply. It's not 'great' writing when compared to a classic like Sons and Lovers but still quite good. Anyway, back on topic, I think Mr. Morel was not alone in that, and for this I felt pity for both the miners themselves as well as their wives. Their wives were not only suffering, they themselves were having probably even more difficult time. They say alcohol eats you and tear you apart...

This thing is really interesting about Lawrence that his books raise questions which are very interesting yet so complex...there is this one which has been bugging my mind as well (wanted to start a separate thread about it in General Chat) but now as we are discussing the book, I hope to ask it when the right time comes. :p

[amalia1985]

I was referring to the youngest child's later reaction towards the father, but even a toddler can "feel" the "atmosphere" in a household. I think your theory is right, Janine, regarding the couple's behaviour. The children have been "forced" to take the mother's child and that is something that I find clearly negative, in terms of Mrs. Morel's behaviour. This will become quite evident in her various involvements in Paul's relationships with both Miriam and Clara.

[manolia]

Nice posts everyone ;)
I have finished the first part of the book..since everyone seems that has already finished the book or is reading it for the second time, i won't be posting "Spoiler alerts". I hope this is ok with everyone??

[amalia1985]

I wouldn't mind spoilers, manolia. Is it not a wonderful book?

[Pensive]

Nice posts everyone ;)
I have finished the first part of the book..since everyone seems that has already finished the book or is reading it for the second time, i won't be posting "Spoiler alerts". I hope this is ok with everyone??

Personally, I have no problem with that. :)

[Janine]

Hi everyone, I am sorry for having come late in the discussion but the last few days have been a kind of busy.

I read Sons and Lovers a few months back, so forgive me if my memory seems to be fooling me during all this discussion and feel free to correct me. :)

Janine's question has struck me as a really good one, but complex. Yes, Janine, I personally find it really hard to take side with either Mr. Morel or Mrs. Morel alone. Still, most of the times I feel sympathy for the both. In that time, it was pretty common for miners to drink heavily (I think it's quite natural, though it can be controlled, to get attracted towards alcohol when you work so hard the whole day). If anyone is interested, she/he might want to try Chase The Wind which deals about mining and mining problems more deeply. It's not 'great' writing when compared to a classic like Sons and Lovers but still quite good. Anyway, back on topic, I think Mr. Morel was not alone in that, and for this I felt pity for both the miners themselves as well as their wives. Their wives were not only suffering, they themselves were having probably even more difficult time. They say alcohol eats you and tear you apart...

This thing is really interesting about Lawrence that his books raise questions which are very interesting yet so complex...there is this one which has been bugging my mind as well (wanted to start a separate thread about it in General Chat) but now as we are discussing the book, I hope to ask it when the right time comes. :p

Glad to see you back, Pensive. Glad you see the problems as complex. I don't think anything in any of Lawrence's novels has an easy or set solution. Lawrence was showing both sides of the relationship and he takes much time to go into the characters of each - the man and the woman. In fact, one of my commentary books points this out - that he takes a number of chapter to discuss their intricate relationship and reveal many things about it. There are many subtlites I had not at first percieved on my initial reading of the novel. I do feel sorry for the plight of the miners - it has to be a hellish job and perhaps they could not go directly home until the did some 'unwinding' in a pub. According to what I have read, in my autobiograhies, about miners is to stop off for a few beers was quite natural and a part of that area's way of living. Mostly it was accepted behavior. I think that given the circumstances of Lawrence's unusual closeness to his mother and her control over him at the time he wrote the novel he felt this way about his father and therefore he painted his character of Mr. Morel (blantantly fashioned after his father) to be more exaggerated in the drinking aspect. In the story we can then percieve that he did indeed develop into having a drinking problem. It is quite sad when this happens to a person. I also know an few people with the addiction and their lives have been difficult. One is reformed and the other struggles with this every day of their lives. For poor Mr. Morel it must have been hard because he did continue to be the bread winner and provide for the family so one has to feel for his position in that family. His wife at times in the text is overly harsh and snide with him I think. I could quote some lines but if you really read that text again you will see what I mean. There was definitely a lot of animosity between them and on her part a lot of repulsion and resentment towards him. These two people should never have married because they truly could not live peacably or lovingly together. They were just too different in temperment and manor and expectations.

Pensive, do ask the question. That is what this discussion is for. I would love to hear and discuss the issue and the question.


To Everyone, glad to see you all her and reading...at any speed....fine with me....

Manolia, do not worry about being behind. I am more behind than you. I did read the book before, so don't worry, at this point, about posting spoilers. Only one who did not read the book, who might be reading along, is Grace and I told her, reading the posts, might spoil the book ending for her. I appologise to all, since last night I went out till 10PM and so it was late when time to read my book a little in bed before sleep. I snuck back to my other Lawrence book, "The Plumed Serpent" to read one chapter. I was afraid I would forget it and I have only a few chapters to finish that novel, so I hated to let it go too long.

You all might be calling me 'the leader', but I can't do this thread all alone or the short story one.;) :lol: I am so glad to see you all coming in today and posting interesting things. Thanks! It takes the pressure off of me to keep things rolling. Do keep posting everyone, especially since I am behind in my (refresher) second reading. If you post questions, no doubt the story will come back to me.

Amalia, I am glad you see my point with the child and the parents. I am sure the child does feel the tension in the household, but probably not as much as the older children did when the parents were at the height of passion/even anger at each other. Yes, when you reach the ending one's perspective on the mother/son relationship does alter greatly. If you read anything about Lawrence's real parents you would alter your perception even more so.
I think after reading three biographies that is why I think this way trying to be fair to both parents. I got a more realistic view of the two characters now in my mind and cannot dismiss them. Every critic I have read says that "Sons and Lovers" is basically autobiographical. Lawrence, himself, said it contained all his youth. Hard to divorce one from the other. So much of Lawrence surfaces in the character of Paul. The story has that intimate and personal quality, as well.

Virgil, the idea of the fire, fireplace, firey sunsets, etc, that we have been discussing in the short story interested me greatly. I started to notice many passages in the second chapter of S&L, using the fire images, also. They are numerous. I do agree with your passages in the short story posts about the fire and the idea now of the mining community not being entirely dismal or horrid. I should amend my saying so earlier. The mining community is in direct contrast at this point with the natural environment and therefore, you are correct in saying, that this begins some of the duality that inhabits much of Lawrence's work to follow. Later on Lawrence pursues, more negatively, the effects of industrialisation in the world, more so than he did in these earlier books. I do find that he writes more menacing about the pits and the destruction of the land even back then at times, but it does become a source of the family's existence and support, so we can't see it as a negative thing, entirely. Once again the whole subject is presented in a complex manor and with no real solution to the environmental issues is ever truly offered. For instance, if we don't have the jobs for the minors in the ugly pits then how would they support their family. Again, this supports the fact that the wife of Morel often 'puts him down' saying he is dirty. Yet she accepts the money he has earned willingly(his job is the reason he is dirty with coal soot), to support herself and her children.

[Virgil]

Virgil, the idea of the fire, fireplace, firey sunsets, etc, that we have been discussing in the short story interested me greatly. I started to notice many passages in the second chapter of S&L, using the fire images, also. They are numerous. I do agree with your passages in the short story posts about the fire and the idea now of the mining community not being entirely dismal or horrid. I should amend my saying so earlier. The mining community is in direct contrast at this point with the natural environment and therefore, you are correct in saying, that this begins some of the duality that inhabits much of Lawrence's work to follow. Later on Lawrence pursues, more negatively, the effects of industrialisation in the world, more so than he did in these earlier books. I do find that he writes more menacing about the pits and the destruction of the land even back then at times, but it does become a source of the family's existence and support, so we can't see it as a negative thing, entirely. Once again the whole subject is presented in a complex manor and with no real solution to the environmental issues is ever truly offered. For instance, if we don't have the jobs for the minors in the ugly pits then how would they support their family. Again, this supports the fact that the wife of Morel often 'puts him down' saying he is dirty. Yet she accepts the money he has earned willingly(his job is the reason he is dirty with coal soot), to support herself and her children.

Glad I could help Janine. It is interesting to note that the one who is connected to blood knowledge in the novel is Mr. Morel, the one who is the miner. One way of looking at the novel is how Paul must shuck off his mother's consciousness to grow into himself. Despite his love for her, her mental consciousness that he has absorbed hinders his romantic relationships.

[Janine]

Glad I could help Janine. It is interesting to note that the one who is connected to blood knowledge in the novel is Mr. Morel, the one who is the miner. One way of looking at the novel is how Paul must shuck off his mother's consciousness to grow into himself. Despite his love for her, her mental consciousness that he has absorbed hinders his romantic relationships.

Virgil - yes, very well put. I knew that about the father and the blood philosophy part. Yes, he did eventually grow past his mother but as this book closes we don't see that yet, do we? I have not yet gotten to the end, but as I recall it it left off without a true solution or answer.

[amalia1985]

When we are able to trace the autobiographical hints in a novel, our attention is turned to themes and moments that we may not have noticed otherwise.

It adds a certain "magic" to our reading and we begin to think differently regarding characters and incidents,because we know it's not a simple "fiction", but something that goes much deeper, communicatinf hidden wishes, fears and perhaps, desires that things might have been different.

Who knows, writing is always escaping for me, at least.

[Janine]

Amalia, they always say to 'write what you know of' and it is so true. Lawrence certainly did that and he dug down deeply, to reveal people who were fully 'fleshed out' & real and complex. His characters are all completely believable in his early novels, especially.
I have read now past Chapter 2. I am to the part when the oldest brother burned his letter and has now gone off to London to work.
How did people feel about the mother's feelings when she had to let him go? I felt that it was not too untypical of what we now call 'separation anxiety' for a mother with her first born child. I know many mothers who have gone through these mixed feelings before and feel threatened by losing their son to the world. I know I went through it when my son went into the Army National Guard at a young age - I thought my heart was breaking. Anyway, I would like to know what you think of it and of her protective ways with her oldest son in general.

[Virgil]

When we are able to trace the autobiographical hints in a novel, our attention is turned to themes and moments that we may not have noticed otherwise.


I've had this discussion with Janine. And to no one's surprise, she disagees with me. ;) To me, autobiagraphical details can be interesting but only incedental. A work should stand on itself. I don't get wraped up in biographical reflections in a work of literature.

[Janine]

I've had this discussion with Janine. And to no one's surprise, she disagees with me. ;) To me, autobiagraphical details can be interesting but only incedental. A work should stand on itself. I don't get wraped up in biographical reflections in a work of literature.

Virgil.....And I still disagree....hahaha:lol: ..... I do get wrapped up in authobiograhical connections and reflections. I think it adds much scope to the artist's work and my interest in it is magnified. Sorry, but that is just me. I think if you are inclined, as I am, to find it more interesting and to satisfy a curiousity, then you should explore the author's life. If you don't give a hoot about his life or his beliefs, then just keep the work isolated and evaluate it that way. I can't divorce Lawrence's work from himself and his life...sorry...not in this point of my knowledge of the author and his ideas. When I first started to read "Sons and Lovers", I knew nothing about Lawrence and therefore (for me personally), the book did not grab my interest and draw me in, as I hoped it would. Since now I do know so much about Lawrence's life and a friend had told me it was basically authobiographical, I could not wait to soak up every line. When I read "Women in Love" I did not know anything much about the author. But I can tell you, that now that I have read more about him, I found my reading much more meaningful, deeper and richer.
I do agree that a story or novel should stand on it's own merits and surely I agree that Lawrence's do just that. I am not disputing this one bit. I just think that it is interesting to know something more about the author and about his life in order to embrace the full scope of his thoughts and ideas.

[Alexei]

Sometimes to know about the authors life really helps to understand the ideas better, but I m usually not interested. I prefer to give my attention to the work. I try not to read biographies, because it makes me search for the authors life reflected in the book, it actually spoils my reading, because I miss too many other things in the process.

[Virgil]

Virgil.....And I still disagree....hahaha:lol: ..... I do get wrapped up in authobiograhical connections and reflections. I think it adds much scope to the artist's work and my interest in it is magnified. Sorry, but that is just me. I think if you are inclined, as I am, to find it more interesting and to satisfy a curiousity, then you should explore the author's life. If you don't give a hoot about his life or his beliefs, then just keep the work isolated and evaluate it that way. I can't divorce Lawrence's work from himself and his life...sorry...not in this point of my knowledge of the author and his ideas. When I first started to read "Sons and Lovers", I knew nothing about Lawrence and therefore (for me personally), the book did not grab my interest and draw me in, as I hoped it would. Since now I do know so much about Lawrence's life and a friend had told me it was basically authobiographical, I could not wait to soak up every line. When I read "Women in Love" I did not know anything much about the author. But I can tell you, that now that I have read more about him, I found my reading much more meaningful, deeper and richer.
I do agree that a story or novel should stand on it's own merits and surely I agree that Lawrence's do just that. I am not disputing this one bit. I just think that it is interesting to know something more about the author and about his life in order to embrace the full scope of his thoughts and ideas.

An excellent rebuttal Janine. :thumbs_up You almost made me change my mind, and admit I'm wrong. :lol:

[amalia1985]

Janine, you are absolutely right. Mrs. Morel's reaction is totally justified in my eyes. Although, I am only 22, and therefore, too young to be a parent, I know how my own mother-and father, of course- will deal with my leaving to London next Semptember for post-graduate studies on theatre.

There is nothing stronger than the parent-child relationship, provided it is a healthy one. The issue is that there certainly must be a balance, because there is a thin red line, where justifiable anxiety may easily change to oppression with obvious and inevitable consequences...

[Janine]

An excellent rebuttal Janine. :thumbs_up You almost made me change my mind, and admit I'm wrong. :lol:

Thanks Virgil, coming from you that's nice (M,B,&D to know); I will gladly accept that and if you do change your mind, then let me be the first to know.

I also was thinking last night, of how much you know about Lawrence and, for instance, his 'blood philosophy', just one aspect of his thinking and how you do incorporate this added knowledge often in your various insightful posts, so I would think knowing of the author and his life and times and development has added greatly to those intuitive posts of yours.:lol:


Janine, you are absolutely right. Mrs. Morel's reaction is totally justified in my eyes. Although, I am only 22, and therefore, too young to be a parent, I know how my own mother-and father, of course- will deal with my leaving to London next Semptember for post-graduate studies on theatre.

There is nothing stronger than the parent-child relationship, provided it is a healthy one. The issue is that there certainly must be a balance, because there is a thin red line, where justifiable anxiety may easily change to oppression with obvious and inevitable consequences...

amalia, that is very well put and I totally agree. Somewhere along the line, and especially in this particular instance in this story, the relationships between the mother and the children became possessive and overbearing, probably more prominent when they all hit adolescence. Then after the death in the family, I feel this 'inbalance' became prominent to a greater degree.

[amalia1985]

It became prominent because any feeling-however vulnerable that may be- of security and permanency is shuttered, the mother feels that there must be something for her to cling upon...

[Janine]

It became prominent because any feeling-however vulnerable that may be- of security and permanency is shuttered, the mother feels that there must be something for her to cling upon...

*Note: Spoiler - tells later key events of the story.

amalia, I think that is very true. Once the oldest son dies she is shattered and her world is shaken and in a sense caves in. It is a very sad thing when this happens. It seems they always say people die inside when they lose hope. I think that Mrs. Morel had great hope in her oldest son and she had to be effected greatly by his demise. The scene when they bring him home for burial is truly heartbreaking. I hope I am not spoiling this for anyone. I will add spoiler at the top of this post, just in case.

I had to go out today to a doctor appointment, but my doctor was quite late, so I got a lot of S&L reading done in the office waiting room. I am to the part when Mr. Morel got seriously injured in the mine and is now on the mend. Tomorrow I will try to comment on some of that part of the book. I found the mixed feelings the wife and the children has interesting and the semblance of peace they enjoyed while he was in the hospital recovering.

[Virgil]

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

[Janine]

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

Lawrence who? :lol:

[stella]

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

i dont know about the whole career ....but the i loved everything that concerened William and i loved that scene it was so touching .......

[Janine]

stella and Virgil, Yes, I thought that scene was amazing from beginning to end. No doubt it was one of the best things Lawrence ever wrote. It was brilliant writing and so full of emotion and realistic pathos. It was almost too hard to take - all that deep down suffering the family was feeling and experiencing as the scene unfolded.

[Pensive]

Pensive, do ask the question. That is what this discussion is for. I would love to hear and discuss the issue and the question.

:)

Surely, I would like to put it here but it deals with the later part of story so I would like to wait until we reach that part.


Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

Good of you to mention it, Virgil. This part is indeed very touching and plays with the reader's sentiments most easily. I also remember it, and think that it would be a shame not to compliment the effective nature of that part when the talk turns towards Sons and Lovers!

[manolia]

I have come to the part where Miriam is defeated (to use the name of the chapter) and Paul concetrates on Clara.
Clara is a very interesting person..can we see her as a man hater or a feminist? She strikes me as a feminist , although Paul says ironically that she just thinks that she is.

Something i don't quite get..why Mrs Morel continually says that Miriam will absorb Paul? Is it just Miriam or every woman that comes near him? I am asking this, since up to the chapter i am currently reading she seems to have a particular issue with Miriam and not Clara. She seems to have a positive opinion of Clara (the only problem being the age difference).
What i also find a bit odd is the mother and son relationship..it seems a bit abnormal in places..what do you all think? Paul slights Miriam (the woman who seems to understand him best, who shares his love for art, who understands and amires his artistic talent, who brings his better self on the surface) for the sake of his mother. Is it "normal"? His mother, on the other hand who seems to cling desperately on her son (now that William is dead..wow that was a wonderful scene indeed!!) and wants "compensation" for her failure of a wedding..

The other thing i wanted to comment on is Paul's sexual frustration. I don't quite get (again) why Miriam doesn't want to be engaged to him. She seems very much in love with him. Why does she insist on this platonic love? Is it her upbringing and her religious background? (she is a devout christian and in many places Paul is "having fun" dissilusioning her and bringing forth his "religious agnosticism"). There is also a scene, where Paul is eating a flower. I rember reading here on Lit net, that flower eating is a sign of sexual frustration..So is Paul turned to Clara because of this, because of her magnificent personality (she reminds me a bit of Gudrun, she is untamable and she shuns men), or both of them?

[Janine]

I have come to the part where Miriam is defeated (to use the name of the chapter) and Paul concetrates on Clara.
Clara is a very interesting person..can we see her as a man hater or a feminist? She strikes me as a feminist , although Paul says ironically that she just thinks that she is.
Hi manolia, I have not gotten as far as you in your reading, but if memory serves me correctly, I do believe that Clara is a feminist and all for women's rights such as voting and independence. Isn't Clara married or am I mixing her up with someone else? I thought she was separated from her husband when Paul pursues her. Opps, answered my own question. Additionally this might help you further understand her postion with Paul. I just found this in the book: Who's Who in D.H.Lawrence Graham Holderness, page 35.


DAWES, CLARA: A blonde with a sullern expression and a defiant air, with scornful grey eyes, and a skin like white honey; a full mouth, with a slightly lifted upper lip, that 'did not know whether it was raised in scorn of all men, of out of eagerness to be kissed'. But Clara believes the former: separated from a frustrating, unfulfilled marriage, she becomes a passionate devotee of Women's Rights, and a confirmed manhater. But in her love-affair with Paul Morel, she experiences transcendent ecstasies of passion --'the naked hunger and inevitability of his loving her, something strong and blind and ruthless in its primitiveness, made the hour almost terrible to her.' But she wants a relationship more permanent than Paul can offer: she craves for surety, stability; in her love for Paul she discovers herself, and can stand distinct and complete, having 'received her confirmation', but she never believes that her life belongs to him. There is not stability in Paul: at least her husband has a kind of 'manly dignity', whereas Morel is evanescent, not sure ground for a woman to stand on. She visits Baxter in the hospital, wanting to make restitution; he can offer her a relationship of permanence and stability. if it is only a permanence and stability of self-sacrifice. Sons and Lovers.



manolia's quote:

Something i don't quite get..why Mrs Morel continually says that Miriam will absorb Paul? Is it just Miriam or every woman that comes near him? I am asking this, since up to the chapter i am currently reading she seems to have a particular issue with Miriam and not Clara. She seems to have a positive opinion of Clara (the only problem being the age difference).
What i also find a bit odd is the mother and son relationship..it seems a bit abnormal in places..what do you all think? Paul slights Miriam (the woman who seems to understand him best, who shares his love for art, who understands and amires his artistic talent, who brings his better self on the surface) for the sake of his mother. Is it "normal"? His mother, on the other hand who seems to cling desperately on her son (now that William is dead..wow that was a wonderful scene indeed!!) and wants "compensation" for her failure of a wedding..

Again from the same book here is what Holderness says about Miriam:
Brown-eyed and dark-haired, Miriam is intensely romantic, in her imagination a princess turned into a swine girl. Her life is all imagination, mysticism and religion, and she recoils from the vulgarity, the commonness, the drudgery of her ordinary life. She is exceedingly sensitive, and the slightest physical grossness makes her recoil in anguish. She seems always like a maiden in bondage in some dreamy take, 'her spirit dreaming in a land far awy and magical'. For Miriam, all experiences must be kindled in her imagination before she feels she possesses them; her intensity is incapable of accepting emotion on a normal plane --everything about her is 'gripped stiff' with intensity, and the effort overcharged, recoils on itself. She loves paul absorbedly, with a clinging affection; she desires always to embrace him, but only in so far as he does not want her physically. To Paul it seems that she never realises him, that he could be a mere object to her--that she never appreciates or understands the male that he is. She prefers instead to create moments of intense emotional communion with Paul, especially in relation to nature, in which she experiences little stillnesses of ecstasy; but Paul remains detached and uncomfortable. Eventually she relinquishes herself to him sexually, but as a sacrifice in which she feels something of horror. Her soul stands apart. 'She lay to be sacrificed because she loved him so much. And he had to sacrifice her.' When Paul breaks off their relationship she is hurt, but almost glad: she had always felt in a kind of bondage to him, which she hated because she could not control it. 'Deep down, she hated him, because she loved him, and he dominated her.' Sons and Lovers

So, I don't think Paul's mother, with her negative influence towards Miriam, is the only or key reason Paul breaks off with Miriam. I feel it is like the above statements by Hollerness that so well describes what is going on between them and how they are not meeting with each other's expectations. I think their relationship is quite complex and that they both want very different things in the end, therefore their parting was inevitable.
I do think with Clara that Mrs. Morel is not threatened by any spirituality or sense of the qualities that scare her or threaten her about Miriam. Clara and Miriam are quite different. I will have to wait until I get to that part before I can fully assess why I think this is true and why Mrs. Morel seems to like Clara but not Miriam. It is a very interesting question. Hopefully someone else will come up with some thoughts on it and also on your other questions, manolia.

I do, however, think that the relationship between Paul and his mother are at times quite abnormal. Most critics and readers of Lawrence agree upon this idea. Thus many site the Odeipus complex idea and other phychological reasons for the closeness. They are unusually close and intense with each other, especially as the book progresses. It turns out not to be a heathy thing for Paul. In later books, Lawrence deeply explored this whole idea of his mother's dominence and of women dominating men. This is not an easy question you have asked about the mother's position with Paul. I think that the book leads us to believe and understand just how Mrs. Morel came to be this way and how Paul reacted to her control. The death of the oldest son was a key element or reason Paul and his mother became so close, also the unhappy marriage of Mrs. Morel, but I think from the beginning she knew that there was something very special about Paul.

The other thing i wanted to comment on is Paul's sexual frustration. I don't quite get (again) why Miriam doesn't want to be engaged to him. She seems very much in love with him. Why does she insist on this platonic love? Is it her upbringing and her religious background? (she is a devout christian and in many places Paul is "having fun" dissilusioning her and bringing forth his "religious agnosticism").
I think the quote above from the book helps in explaining the 'why'. Yes, I am sure that Paul is frustrated sexually, at this point, with Miriam. Although she has given herself to him physically, it appears to him and to her as a sacrifice and not a true meeting of the two in a union or love. I do think it is her upbringing and her own inclination to be 'dreamy' and 'mystical' and 'religious' in her thinking. Actually she is young and not too realistic about Paul. She seems to shun the physicality of him as a man.

Manolia's quote:
There is also a scene, where Paul is eating a flower. I rember reading here on Lit net, that flower eating is a sign of sexual frustration..So is Paul turned to Clara because of this, because of her magnificent personality (she reminds me a bit of Gudrun, she is untamable and she shuns men), or both of them?

That is quite interesting about the flower-eating. I think I had heard of this before. I recall when the topic was mentioned in another thread. She has some similarity perhaps to Gudrun, but I think she is more focused and knows in the end what she wants as a woman, whereas Gundrun is still searching for that at the end of WIL, don't you think?

I hope all this makes sense. I did my best. This book helped and made it a little clearer even for myself. Of course this is just one commentators opinion but I thought it was pretty accurate.


Hi Pensive, I did not mean to skip over your post. I agree, as I see manolia does as well, about the death scene with William and the burial. It was amazing and so full of truth and heart. I think only someone who has gone through this type experience can so accurately describe how it is. Lawrence shone in these passages and one travels through the same experience, minute by minute, feeling all the sadness of the family, as it unfolds.

[amalia1985]

I would say that Miriam's attitude towards the "platonic love" idea can be justified, if we examine both the religious and the social upbringing of the era, which has, obviously, influenced Miriam, as Janine already mentioned.
No matter how much in love she might be with Paul, it is possible that she has been raised with the view that sexual intercourse before marriage is a dreadful sin, while today this view is actually a "laughable" one.

Regarding Mrs. Morel' attitude towards Miriam, I would risk to say that she may not "agree" with the pious, devoted attitude of the girl, whereas she may find the independent Clara more interesting.
On the other hand, I also believe that Mrs. Morel-perhaps, instictively- knows that Clara is not a likely candidate to be Paul's wife, so she turns her attention to Miriam, exposing her dislike towards a potential marriage. I think that she is the type of woman who would dismiss every woman her son would present as his future wife...

[Virgil]

I just found this in the book: Who's Who in D.H.Lawrence Graham Holderness, page 35.



Again from the same book here is what Holderness says about Miriam:

That book is coming in handy. ;)

[Janine]

That book is coming in handy. ;)

Yes, it is - thanks!

Only think I thought it told in there who the characters were based after. I think I have another book that tells me that. I have so many books now to refer to that it is getting really confusing - guess I have 'Lawrence' overload!:lol:

[Virgil]

I know I'm not reading along. But this has always been on my mind. Does Miriam have the same personality/type/disposition (I'm not sure what is the right word) as Paul's mother and Clara the same as Paul's father?

[Janine]

I would say that Miriam's attitude towards the "platonic love" idea can be justified, if we examine both the religious and the social upbringing of the era, which has, obviously, influenced Miriam, as Janine already mentioned.
No matter how much in love she might be with Paul, it is possible that she has been raised with the view that sexual intercourse before marriage is a dreadful sin, while today this view is actually a "laughable" one.

Regarding Mrs. Morel' attitude towards Miriam, I would risk to say that she may not "agree" with the pious, devoted attitude of the girl, whereas she may find the independent Clara more interesting.
On the other hand, I also believe that Mrs. Morel-perhaps, instictively- knows that Clara is not a likely candidate to be Paul's wife, so she turns her attention to Miriam, exposing her dislike towards a potential marriage. I think that she is the type of woman who would dismiss every woman her son would present as his future wife...

amalia, I certainly agree with you. One has to put the book into the context of the time. Back then it was the norm for a young girl to wait till marriage to have sexual intercourse, so that actually Miriam's behavior is probably typical, and especially when if a young man, such as Paul, (whom we have no doubt she does loves), pressures her into the act. I don't think either of them were wrong, but Miriam was not ready for sex and so it is sad because most likely it is a social and moral issue with her and part of her upbringing. As you pointed out, in today's world, Paul's behavior would not have been frowned upon; unless one was strickly religious and still believed in this way...in that case I would not call the behavior 'laughable' but respect whatever a person decides to do. It is true that at this time the book was written at a time when attitudes were slowly changing, but only for some. Lawrence paved the way, in many instances, with his writings and books for more openness on these issues. Another thing is that his books were often censored. Nowdays they would not be so - rather they would be considered mild compared to many. Also, if you read further into Lawrence's writings, he believed people actually thought too much and were too intellectualized and lost the essense of enjoyment in sexual relationships. Remember me referring to Paul's (and Lawrence's) mother and father as having 'head speech' and heart speech'. I know all this gets confusing, but Miriam and Paul, in my eyes overlapped when it came to issues of the heart and love of nature, interests such as art and literature, but when it came to the 'physicality' of life and living and relationships, Miriam could not let herself go and give herself up fully to Paul. I think that Mrs. Morel had her relationship with the visiting preacher who was on this same plane of intellectual thinking, but of course that was loveless and not physical. I think that Miriam posed a threat because she, too, was intellectual and less physical. Remember the father was more physical and the Mrs. Morel retired, recoiled from him. Isn't it sort of the same with Miriam? Now Clara comes along and she is so much different - more independent and spirited - and Mrs. Morel probably does not feel she can have control over Clara, and as you said most likely she does not see him marrying her or see her as a threat, in one way, for the future of Paul. She knows she will be a 'temporary' thing with Paul and a part of his growing up, whereas the potential to work it out with Miriam still exists and that could turn into a permanent union. Perhaps too, she sees, if he did continue with Miriam and marry, this would be mimicing the bad marriage she has as a result, for she knows ultimately that Paul will not be happy in that type of union.
Mostly, I think that Mrs. Morel does want to keep Paul for herself. I think that had she not died, she would have kept exerting her control over him. As he said, in one part of the book, his goal was to have a small house and paint and live alone with his mother. Of course, this is not a 'normal' thing for a young man to long for, although in the book he was quite young when he was thinking in that vane.


I know I'm not reading along. But this has always been on my mind. Does Miriam have the same personality/type/disposition (I'm not sure what is the right word) as Paul's mother and Clara the same as Paul's father?

Hahaha...read my last post. We must think alike!;)

[manolia]

Isn't Clara married or am I mixing her up with someone else? I thought she was separated from her husband when Paul pursues her. Opps, answered my own question.

Yes quite right! She is separated and "bonded for a life time". Thank you very much for the book quotes. They were very helpfull. They summarize nicely what it is said in the book. It is better to read all those information together, since all these things were spread in the book and somehow i at least couldn't focus on all of them ;)



So, I don't think Paul's mother, with her negative influence towards Miriam, is the only or key reason Paul breaks off with Miriam. I feel it is like the above statements by Hollerness that so well describes what is going on between them and how they are not meeting with each other's expectations

Ah yes. Now that i think about it i think that this exact phrase (the one i have highlighted) exists somewhere in the book..



I do, however, think that the relationship between Paul and his mother are at times quite abnormal. Most critics and readers of Lawrence agree upon this idea. Thus many site the Odeipus complex idea and other phychological reasons for the closeness.

These were exactly my thoughts. But then again i tend to see Odeipus syndrome in many books :lol: so i was afraid that i could be very wrong.
Anyway, i read the part where Paul takes his mother on a trip and he is really frustrated with the fact that she is getting old..this was the part that made me think intensely of the "weirdness" of their relationship.



The death of the oldest son was a key element or reason Paul and his mother became so close, also the unhappy marriage of Mrs. Morel, but I think from the beginning she knew that there was something very special about Paul.

Hmmm...i remember at the begining of the book, the scene where Mrs Morel is holding baby Paul and she describes his eyes and how strange and "knowing" is his expression..so we could say that there is something special about Paul and his mother is aware of it. But later on i got the feeling that Mrs Morel was neglecting Paul or at least he wasn't paying much attention to him and she was rather absorbed by William..



She has some similarity perhaps to Gudrun, but I think she is more focused and knows in the end what she wants as a woman, whereas Gundrun is still searching for that at the end of WIL, don't you think

I haven't read enough about Clara. She is mentioned twice so far in the book, so i'll answer that later on when i get there ;)



I hope all this makes sense. I did my best. This book helped and made it a little clearer even for myself. Of course this is just one commentators opinion but I thought it was pretty accurate.

They make perfect sense. Thanks again for sharing :)


I would say that Miriam's attitude towards the "platonic love" idea can be justified, if we examine both the religious and the social upbringing of the era, which has, obviously, influenced Miriam, as Janine already mentioned.
No matter how much in love she might be with Paul, it is possible that she has been raised with the view that sexual intercourse before marriage is a dreadful sin, while today this view is actually a "laughable" one.

Quite right. I agree. Of course sexual intercourse before marriage was out of the question for a decent girl of that era. But i was wondering why she said "no" when Paul offered her an engagement. (Mrs Morel says to Paul that if he continues to visit Miriam so often he must consider himself engaged and Paul asks Miriam if they should be engaged and she says no)



On the other hand, I also believe that Mrs. Morel-perhaps, instictively- knows that Clara is not a likely candidate to be Paul's wife, so she turns her attention to Miriam, exposing her dislike towards a potential marriage.

That's is what i think too :nod:


I know I'm not reading along. But this has always been on my mind. Does Miriam have the same personality/type/disposition (I'm not sure what is the right word) as Paul's mother and Clara the same as Paul's father?

Hmmm..this hadn't occured to me but now that i think of it, i believe you are right.

[Janine]

Yes quite right! She is separated and "bonded for a life time". Thank you very much for the book quotes. They were very helpfull. They summarize nicely what it is said in the book. It is better to read all those information together, since all these things were spread in the book and somehow i at least couldn't focus on all of them ;)

Oh, I am the same way - thoughts keep drifting around or rattling around in my head. Actually when you mention certain scenes the book comes back to me and although I don't know the exact quotes or the passages offhand the essense and meaning comes back into focus and I can usually dig up something in reference to it. Just call me the 'reference consultant!':lol: manolia, are you still the 'mythology consultant?' ;) Anyway, glad the book quotes helped you. I thought it was insightful and summed it all up nicely and accurately. That puts things into better perspective.


Ah yes. Now that i think about it i think that this exact phrase (the one i have highlighted) exists somewhere in the book..

Yes, I think it does also. Don't ask me where but someplace or the other.


These were exactly my thoughts. But then again i tend to see Odeipus syndrome in many books :lol: so i was afraid that i could be very wrong.
Anyway, i read the part where Paul takes his mother on a trip and he is really frustrated with the fact that she is getting old..this was the part that made me think intensely of the "weirdness" of their relationship.

Never be afraid to throw a thought out there. If it is way off someone will tell you and if you hit it on that is even better but no one here cares. Everyone has his own ideas on the deeper meanings in this book. Lawrence books are not easy to study, so you have all achieved much and are to be commended. Hey, everyone - take a bow! :thumbs_up His stories and novels are so complex, with much layering of meaning and conflicts and dualities, that we might never fully explain them. Only Lawrence could do that, if he were here now. Maybe his intention was to present stories that would be wondered at long after the last pages were closed. I think this is partly true.
Yes, that trip part was a little strange, I agree...not so normal between a mother and a son.


Hmmm...i remember at the begining of the book, the scene where Mrs Morel is holding baby Paul and she describes his eyes and how strange and "knowing" is his expression..so we could say that there is something special about Paul and his mother is aware of it. But later on i got the feeling that Mrs Morel was neglecting Paul or at least he wasn't paying much attention to him and she was rather absorbed by William..

manolia, you are reading my mind; that is the precise scene I was thinking of. I thought that was one of the most interesting moments, also...sort of an epiphany on the part of the mother. Hope I spelled the right.:lol:


I haven't read enough about Clara. She is mentioned twice so far in the book, so i'll answer that later on when i get there ;)

It is funny, I really have a vague image now of Clara so I have to wait till I read up to that part to make any further comments on here, same as you.


They make perfect sense. Thanks again for sharing :)

Oh good, I typed them straight from the book (didn't feel like scanning today) so not sure if they might have some typos. I was too worn out to proof-read. I hope they are correct, but glad they all did make perfect sense and were helpful.




Quite right. I agree. Of course sexual intercourse before marriage was out of the question for a decent girl of that era. But i was wondering why she said "no" when Paul offered her an engagement. (Mrs Morel says to Paul that if he continues to visit Miriam so often he must consider himself engaged and Paul asks Miriam if they should be engaged and she says no)
Well, I think that if she said she would become engaged to Paul then she would be committed and would feel even more pressure to have sex with him. I think that also she had her own misgivings. When they do finally split if you notice she is relieved in some sense. The pressure is off of her and she is free to be her own person again.



That's is what i think too :nod:
Oh, good - then we agree. Good post manolia! :D




Hmmm..this hadn't occured to me but now that i think of it, i believe you are right. Well, think of the differences in the two parents of Paul. It makes sense. One parent is more cerebral and the other more physical.

[Quark]

These were exactly my thoughts. But then again i tend to see Odeipus syndrome in many books :lol: so i was afraid that i could be very wrong.
Anyway, i read the part where Paul takes his mother on a trip and he is really frustrated with the fact that she is getting old..this was the part that made me think intensely of the "weirdness" of their relationship.

No one can talk about this book without bringing up the word Oedipal, but I've never been convinced that we should call it that. Paul and his mother grow closer over time because circumstances make them more intimate; think of when Paul catches pnemonia after William's death. Sometimes the mother-son relationship becomes weirdly amorous, but usually because of misplaced sexuality. Both Mrs. Morel and Paul are unsucessful in their love affairs, and since they are friendly and close they engage in some weird moments. I wouldn't say intercourse is what they're after, though. Oedipal is a poor adjective for this; consoling might be a better one.


amalia, I certainly agree with you. One has to put the book into the context of the time. Back then it was the norm for a young girl to wait till marriage to have sexual intercourse, so that actually Miriam's behavior is probably typical, and especially when if a young man, such as Paul, (whom we have no doubt she does loves), pressures her into the act. I don't think either of them were wrong, but Miriam was not ready for sex and so it is sad because most likely it is a social and moral issue with her and part of her upbringing. As you pointed out, in today's world, Paul's behavior would not have been frowned upon; unless one was strickly religious and still believed in this way...in that case I would not call the behavior 'laughable' but respect whatever a person decides to do. It is true that at this time the book was written at a time when attitudes were slowly changing, but only for some. Lawrence paved the way, in many instances, with his writings and books for more openness on these issues. Another thing is that his books were often censored. Nowdays they would not be so - rather they would be considered mild compared to many. Also, if you read further into Lawrence's writings, he believed people actually thought too much and were too intellectualized and lost the essense of enjoyment in sexual relationships. Remember me referring to Paul's (and Lawrence's) mother and father as having 'head speech' and heart speech'. I know all this gets confusing, but Miriam and Paul, in my eyes overlapped when it came to issues of the heart and love of nature, interests such as art and literature, but when it came to the 'physicality' of life and living and relationships, Miriam could not let herself go and give herself up fully to Paul. I think that Mrs. Morel had her relationship with the visiting preacher who was on this same plane of intellectual thinking, but of course that was loveless and not physical. I think that Miriam posed a threat because she, too, was intellectual and less physical. Remember the father was more physical and the Mrs. Morel retired, recoiled from him. Isn't it sort of the same with Miriam? Now Clara comes along and she is so much different - more independent and spirited - and Mrs. Morel probably does not feel she can have control over Clara, and as you said most likely she does not see him marrying her or see her as a threat, in one way, for the future of Paul. She knows she will be a 'temporary' thing with Paul and a part of his growing up, whereas the potential to work it out with Miriam still exists and that could turn into a permanent union. Perhaps too, she sees, if he did continue with Miriam and marry, this would be mimicing the bad marriage she has as a result, for she knows ultimately that Paul will not be happy in that type of union.
Mostly, I think that Mrs. Morel does want to keep Paul for herself. I think that had she not died, she would have kept exerting her control over him. As he said, in one part of the book, his goal was to have a small house and paint and live alone with his mother. Of course, this is not a 'normal' thing for a young man to long for, although in the book he was quite young when he was thinking in that vane.

Janine, these are some monster paragraphs you're composing here. I think I'll comment on these one idea at a time. First, I think Miriam is prudish, not because of social conditioning, but because she is snobish. I like what your book told us about her character. She is very romantically inclined with a preponderance of imagination and a lack of empathy for anyone or anything not in her dream world. Miriam desires to transcend her physical surroundings. Unfortunately for Paul, this means abstaining from sex. For all this, though, I like her. Something about her is very endearing, and I actually hoped that Paul would fall in love with her and not the confused Clara.

[Virgil]

No one can talk about this book without bringing up the word Oedipal, but I've never been convinced that we should call it that.

No question that Oedipal has to be brought up in reference to this novel. Let me say that Lawrence, very knowledgable on the psychological thoeries of his day, did not consider himself a Freudian. He was much closer to a Jungian, though he kind of created his own theories. (Side note, all them a bunch of hogwash, but those were the theories of the day. ;) ) This novel though is an early Lawrence novel, and while he was definitely aware of Freud at this time, he is I think in the middle of formulating his understanding of psychology. I think it's a bit of a mix here, and I think he is conscious of Freud's Oadepal complex, but i think he tries to vary it too. I don't recall any sexual desire for his mother, but I do think the implication is there given Paul's overt attachment to her and the sexual conflicts that Paul has.

[Janine]

No one can talk about this book without bringing up the word Oedipal, but I've never been convinced that we should call it that. Paul and his mother grow closer over time because circumstances make them more intimate; think of when Paul catches pnemonia after William's death. Sometimes the mother-son relationship becomes weirdly amorous, but usually because of misplaced sexuality. Both Mrs. Morel and Paul are unsucessful in their love affairs, and since they are friendly and close they engage in some weird moments. I wouldn't say intercourse is what they're after, though. Oedipal is a poor adjective for this; consoling might be a better one.

Hi Quark, glad to see you here again. I agree about the Oedipal thing and this book. I do not personally subscribe to the belief that it was that at all. I think it was various conditions and events that lead up to the closeness between the mother and his son. I stated to manolia, earlier:
"I do, however, think that the relationship between Paul and his mother are at times quite abnormal. Most (I might have changed this to say some and not most) critics and readers of Lawrence agree upon this idea. Thus many site the Odeipus complex idea and other phychological reasons for the closeness." I think this is of true of the critics, although as I said, I don't believe it is Oedipal in the final anaylsis.
"They are unusually close and intense with each other, especially as the book progresses." I do think they become closer as time goes by.


Janine, these are some monster paragraphs you're composing here.Oh sorry,...yes, but I thought you could handle it.;)
I think I'll comment on these one idea at a time. Good idea and no rush.


First, I think Miriam is prudish, not because of social conditioning, but because she is snobish. I like what your book told us about her character. She is very romantically inclined with a preponderance of imagination and a lack of empathy for anyone or anything not in her dream world. Miriam desires to transcend her physical surroundings. Unfortunately for Paul, this means abstaining from sex. For all this, though, I like her. Something about her is very endearing, and I actually hoped that Paul would fall in love with her and not the confused Clara.

Well, yes I think I mostly agree with you in this paragraph - 'snobbish' I am not quite sure of, but in a way, you might be correct. She might have a feeling of being 'superior' in that she has helped Paul in many respects and seems to sometimes take on the teacher/leader role with him. I thought the additional writing helpful and that he pegged her pretty well. I like Miriam, also. She seems to have sense of finer ideas and thoughts and I guess I have a weakness for people who are dreamers (because I too am one). I also hoped that he would choose Miriam over Clara. I could tell that the Clara relationship was not one of permanence. She was too confused and on the rebound from her husband and that relationship - not a good thing. Actually, now that I think of it, they both were on the rebound, which normally does not turn out well in the end. Both were transition people for each other at that time.


No question that Oedipal has to be brought up in reference to this novel. Let me say that Lawrence, very knowledgable on the psychological thoeries of his day, did not consider himself a Freudian. He was much closer to a Jungian, though he kind of created his own theories. (Side note, all them a bunch of hogwash, but those were the theories of the day. ;) ) This novel though is an early Lawrence novel, and while he was definitely aware of Freud at this time, he is I think in the middle of formulating his understanding of psychology. I think it's a bit of a mix here, and I think he is conscious of Freud's Oadepal complex, but i think he tries to vary it to. I don't recall any sexual desire for his mother, but I do think the implication is there given Paul's overt attachment to her and the sexual conflicts that Paul has.

Virgil, this is good and I agree with most of what you have written here, too. I don't really envision that Paul wanted to have sex with his mother but I do agree with you that Lawrence's ideas at this point were not fully formed so it is more of an exploratory type novel and coming of age. Later Lawrence's own individualistic theories will become fully formed in his novels and stories.

[manolia]

First, I think Miriam is prudish, not because of social conditioning, but because she is snobish. I like what your book told us about her character. She is very romantically inclined with a preponderance of imagination and a lack of empathy for anyone or anything not in her dream world. Miriam desires to transcend her physical surroundings. Unfortunately for Paul, this means abstaining from sex. For all this, though, I like her. Something about her is very endearing, and I actually hoped that Paul would fall in love with her and not the confused Clara.

Yes, i agree. Miriam is pretty snobbish. I can recall in various places where she thinks herself superior to her brothers etc


Virgil, this is good and I agree with most of what you have written here, too. I don't really envision that Paul wanted to have sex with his mother but I do agree with you that Lawrence's ideas at this point were not fully formed so it is more of an exploratory type novel and coming of age. Later Lawrence's own individualistic theories will become fully formed in his novels and stories.

When we talk of Oidepus complex it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a craving for sex..but merely an attraction between mother and son which is very excessive and not normal..this is at least how we use it nowadays. (After all, poor Oidepus when he did what he did with his mother he didn't know she was his mother, whereas Mrs Morel knows who Paul is so it'd be very weird if L implied a sexual attraction between them, wouldn't it?).
I don't believe there is sexual attraction between Paul and his mother. There is a strong bond and they are very tense two each other and they behave very strangely to each other. And sometimes the things they say and do aren't very "normal".

[Virgil]

When we talk of Oidepus complex it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a craving for sex..but merely an attraction between mother and son which is very excessive and not normal..this is at least how we use it nowadays.
I guess to be fair to Freud, I think he meant that the sexual desire in Oedipal complex is sub-conscious. Reminds me what a crock this sort of psychology is. Whenever you can't prove something exactly, just say it's in the sub-conscious and you can always win. :lol:


(After all, poor Oidepus when he did what he did with his mother he didn't know she was his mother, whereas Mrs Morel knows who Paul is so it'd be very weird if L implied a sexual attraction between them, wouldn't it?).
Ah yes, I have always thought the same thing. Poor Oedipus. But it could have been in his sub-conscious. :p :lol:


I don't believe there is sexual attraction between Paul and his mother. There is a strong bond and they are very tense two each other and they behave very strangely to each other. And sometimes the things they say and do aren't very "normal".
Actually you raise a good point. Oepidal complex refers to a son's attraction to his mother, not the mother to her son; but here Mrs. Morel is just as attached to her son. But I agree, none of this is sexual.

[manolia]

I guess to be fair to Freud, I think he meant that the sexual desire in Oedipal complex is sub-conscious. Reminds me what a crock this sort of psychology is. Whenever you can't prove something exactly, just say it's in the sub-conscious and you can always win. :lol:


Yeah, i know what you mean. I don't like these stuff either. I have read a bit of Freud but it didn't interest me much. It is better when you watch those things in movies :D :D
EDIT Before your mind works in..mysterious ways..i meant just David Lynch.

I am currently reading chapter 11 and i think this chapter provides some of the answers i was looking for. In the first paragraph it is explained why Miriam and Paul behave like that to each other and make matters difficult.



Perhaps the recoil and the shrinking from her was love in its first
fierce modesty. He had no aversion for her. No, it was the opposite;
it was a strong desire battling with a still stronger shyness
and virginity. It seemed as if virginity were a positive force,
which fought and won in both of them. And with her he felt it
so hard to overcome;

In the following paragraph i think Lawrence describes the situation of his generation and the "disfunction" perhaps?(speaking strictly about his class). I think in this paragraph we can see how deeply wounded he is by his father behaviour to his mother. And how in this time of his life he views sex between the married couple. Can we say that he thinks that sex is something dirty and unholy?



He looked round. A good many of the nicest men he knew were
like himself, bound in by their own virginity, which they could not
break out of. They were so sensitive to their women that they would
go without them for ever rather than do them a hurt, an injustice.
Being the sons of mothers whose husbands had blundered rather
brutally through their feminine sanctities, they were themselves
too diffident and shy. They could easier deny themselves than incur
any reproach from a woman; for a woman was like their mother, and they
were full of the sense of their mother. They preferred themselves
to suffer the misery of celibacy, rather than risk the other person.



There seemed an eternal maidenhood
about her (Miriam); and when he thought of her mother, he saw the great
brown eyes of a maiden who was nearly scared and shocked out of her
virgin maidenhood, but not quite, in spite of her seven children.
They had been born almost leaving her out of count, not of her,
but upon her. So she could never let them go, because she never had
possessed them.

[amalia1985]

I would agree that the Oedipal Complex is something we could take in mind, regarding our analysis here, as it is often used to describe similar relationships,
e.g. Hamlet and Gertrude in Shakespeare’s masterpiece, but I would say that Mrs. Morel’s attitude is an example of pure possessive behavior, which is partly justifiable and partly tyrannical, but in any case, rooted in actions, choices, and experiences of the past, which have influenced her immensely.

And to clear any misunderstanding, I used the word “laughable” wrongly, I never mean to be disrespectful to anyone, even to those who clearly provoke me in my life. I admit, though, that I am extremely spontaneous and express what comes in my mind, the rush of youth, perhaps.

Nevertheless, I find any strict religious rules abhorrent, limiting the freedom we all earn, as long as it does not provoke any negative consequences to others, of course. To connect this opinion of mine- which may be wrong, of course- I’ve always found myself attached to Clara, whereas Miriam was someone I tried hard to understand and come to terms with her ideals, but I simply could not…However, I admire her closeness to Art, and her firm character, true to her beliefs, although they may not be something I agree with.

[manolia]

Hehehe Amalitsa being spontaneous is a good thing ;) It shows that you are a sincere and warm person :) . I wish i was spontaneous..

Anyway, i have another one of those questions were i ask your opinion..Isn't it a bit odd -for a man of his era- that Paul does all those house chores?? I know this question is a bit silly, but since we are a nice and causy discussion group i said i'd venture to ask :goof:

[Virgil]

Hehehe Amalitsa being spontaneous is a good thing ;) It shows that you are a sincere and warm person :) . I wish i was spontaneous..

Anyway, i have another one of those questions were i ask your opinion..Isn't it a bit odd -for a man of his era- that Paul does all those house chores?? I know this question is a bit silly, but since we are a nice and causy discussion group i said i'd venture to ask :goof:

He didn't work in the mines so I would imagine that certain chores were divided between the home people, I'm refering to in addition to himself his mother and his sister. Lawrence in real life was quite a disciplined working person and I've read him describing himself doing many chores around the house.

[amalia1985]

I absolutely agree with everything Virgil said, and I would suggest that Paul feels very much attached to his house, he really wants to help, and as Virgil already mentioned, it is another very good "autobiographical" spot of the novel.

[Janine]

Hi Everyone's, your posts have been interesting...lots to think about. This recent discussion brought to mind a letter of Lawrence's I read recently, but now can't seem to locate in my books (I will keep trying). In the meantime, I did come across this letter by his wife Frieda. Note that "Sons and Lovers" was first called "Paul Morel" in original drafts by Lawrence. She is referring to that book and the letter by Lawrence, himself, which follows. It is interesting what she says and especially what Lawrence himself said and describes his book as embodying. Remember he is referring to his first drafts and his ideas. Still these letters are very significant and 'telling', revealing. Part of a letter to Mr. Garnett, September 7, 1912:

He really loved his mother more than any body, even with his other women, real love, sort of Oedipus, his mother must have been adorable....

Another letter to Garnett from Lawrence, (in reference to the ideas/story behind "Paul Morel"), 19 November, 1912:


It follows this idea: a woman of character and refinement goes into the lower class, and has no satisfaction in her own life. She has [U]had a passion for her husband, so the children are born of passion, and have heaps of vitality. But as her sons grow up she selects them as lovers - first the eldest, then the second. These sons are urged into life by their reciprocal love of their mother -- urged on and on. But when they come to manhood, they can't love, because their mother is the strongest power in their lives, and holds them. -- It's rather like Goethe and his mother and Frau von Stein and Christiana --. As soon as the young men come into contact with women, there's a split. William gives his sex to a fribble, and his mother holds his world. But the split kills him, because he doesn't know where he is. The next son gets a woman who fights for his soul -- fights the mother.The battle goes on between the mother and the girl, with the son as object. The mother gradually proves stronger, because of the tie of blood. The son decides to leave his soul in his mother's hands, and, like his elder brother, go for passion. He gets passion. Then the split begins to tell again. But, almost unconsciously, the mother realises what is the matter, and begins to die. The son casts off his mistress, attends to his mother dying. He is left in the end naked of everything, with the drift woards death.
Then in the next paragraph he adds:

It is a great tragedy....

[manolia]

He didn't work in the mines so I would imagine that certain chores were divided between the home people, I'm refering to in addition to himself his mother and his sister. Lawrence in real life was quite a disciplined working person and I've read him describing himself doing many chores around the house.


I absolutely agree with everything Virgil said, and I would suggest that Paul feels very much attached to his house, he really wants to help, and as Virgil already mentioned, it is another very good "autobiographical" spot of the novel.

Thanks. That makes sense..but he had a job which occupied most of his day (the one at Jordan's)..i again thought that it had to do with his mother (he somehow enjoyed helping her and doing house chores in order to be close to her).

EDIT
Ooops Janine didn't meant to post over you..

[Janine]

Thanks. That makes sense..but he had a job which occupied most of his day (the one at Jordan's)..i again thought that it had to do with his mother again (he somehow enjoye helping her and doing house chores in order to be close to her).

That is true and actually Lawrence, himself, did so. He also did many household chores during his marriage. He loved scrubbing floors, yuk, and he liked cooking very much so. He even baked breads in a crude oven when he lived in Taos, New Mexico. He enjoyed physical labor and even worked once on a farm and loved it. He was quite a versatile person.


EDIT
Ooops Janine didn't meant to post over you..

Yes, manolia, no, need to be sorry and no problem, but it was strange -- I nearly had a heart-attack just now. I thought I had lost that whole post I just took the time to copy by hand out of my book. Oh, relief, so glad it came through ok. I hope you all find it interesting.

Oh sorry, Virgil, did not realise you posted nearly the same thought on housework - we also were posting the same time.... how funny! Lively group here today....:lol:

[manolia]

Janine you were right about Clara. She isn't much like Gudrun ;) Anyway, didn't she submit quite easilly? :brow:
As about Mrs Morel liking Clara i am about to read their first meeting under the Morel roof. I'll offer my final verdict tomorrow :lol:

[Janine]

Janine you were right about Clara. She isn't much like Gudrun ;) Anyway, didn't she submit quite easilly? :brow:
As about Mrs Morel liking Clara i am about to read their first meeting under the Morel roof. I'll offer my final verdict tomorrow :lol:

manolia, glad you agree about Clara and Gudrun. I only vaguely remember that scene - will be interesting when I get to it. So far I have still been reading this book like a snail - very slowly and really absorbing it this time round. Sadly I am only yet on page 100....that is slow:( I did stop to read the end of "The Plumed Serpent" so I am guilty of straying slightly....now I am back on the path of reading S&L's so there is hope for me yet.
So about the reading of the meeting of the two woman -- are you sure it will be your 'final verdict!' :lol:

manolia, before I leave for dreamland and sleep (much needed right now), I would like to ask you to post what you thought of Lawrence's letter on his ideas of what his novel represents. I thought that letter was quite 'revealing'. You know that Lawrence was a very avid letter writer? He wrote as many or even more letters than he did novels - I think there are 7 full volumes of his letters in book form. Virgil knows the exact amount so I might be wrong on the number. Truly amazing! When did the guy sleep between household chores, breadbaking, letters, novels and stories, not to mention poetry?

Also, does anybody have any ideas on Paul's first job and his departure, that first day, from the security of his home? I thought those passages, when his mother accompanied him to the interview, and the day he first set off alone to get the train, to be very well written and interesting, also very 'real'. So any thoughts on this part of the book and what follows - his time in the factory setting, working with a different set of people and various personalities? Just throwing this question out there and hope to get some thoughts on the subject....call it 'leaving home to work at one's first job' - surely we can all relate to that experience.

[manolia]

I forgot to comment on the letter you posted, thanx for reminding it :) .



But as her sons grow up she selects them as lovers - first the eldest, then the second

I liked this explanation. I don't take it literaly, though. I think it means that Mrs Morel places her affection on William first and after his death concetrates on Paul. She depends firstly on her first born, she clings on him and when he is no longer available she turns to Paul.



But when they come to manhood, they can't love, because their mother is the strongest power in their lives, and holds them. As soon as the young men come into contact with women, there's a split. William gives his sex to a fribble, and his mother holds his world. But the split kills him, because he doesn't know where he is.

It seems to me that William and Paul lead parallel lives (at least their love lives are alike) up to a certain point.


The next son gets a woman who fights for his soul -- fights the mother.The battle goes on between the mother and the girl, with the son as object. The mother gradually proves stronger, because of the tie of blood. The son decides to leave his soul in his mother's hands, and, like his elder brother, go for passion. .

Yes this is exactly what happens. .Between Miriam and his mother, he chooses his mother and goes to Clara for passion.

[amalia1985]

I think that the word "tragedy" which Lawrence uses speaks for itself...The tragedy of those who cannot distinguish the boundaries between the feeling of love, the feeling of passion, and the feeling of possession.

[Quark]

Lawrence's letter made me realize how much William's story foreshadows Paul's life. Tragedy is a good word to describe the action in the story, too. I wouldn't necessarily have called it that without Lawrence saying so himself. I actually thought that Paul was somewhat contented with his life, even if he is horribly unsuccessful with his interpersonal relationships. Tragedy, though, is an apt description. Even if Paul isn't totally aware of it. I think drawing a parallel between William and Paul is part of what helps me to see Paul's life tragically. William's death is certainly tragic. Once we can see Paul's personal failures in that light, I think Paul becomes a more tragic figure.

It's been a while since I read the ending, though. I might reinterpret all of this when I get there.

[Janine]

I think that the word "tragedy" which Lawrence uses speaks for itself...The tragedy of those who cannot distinguish the boundaries between the feeling of love, the feeling of passion, and the feeling of possession.

amalia, this is very well put and articulated. Yes, the tragedy of this story does indeed speak for itself...tragic in many ways to the various individuals.

Quark, I agree. It is a very tragic book all around. Glad the letter shed some definitive insight for all of you. It is always good to hear it right from the author's own mouth. That should be an accurate source, if any. I am sure I can dig up other things Lawrence said about his novel/novels in the letters, just so many to wade through it is not easy research. I long to read those letters because they seem to enlighten me to the whole mind-set of Lawrence and his intentions for his body of work as it changes over the years. The letters are truly personal and fascinating. But alas, there is only so much time in the day...sigh sigh...
Which brings me to your subject of final analysis of the book's ending. I too am not there yet, this being my repeat visit to the book, so when I read it again I am sure my perspectives will have altered somewhat. I think you last statement about seeing Wiliam in a different and more tragic prespective after we look at Paul's own life/tragedy is a really good one....very accurate.

manolia, last but not least! hi, notice I am working back on these posts - Quark, amalia and now you! ;)


I forgot to comment on the letter you posted, thanx for reminding it.

Oh no, problem. I can always wait. Just thought you might have missed it, since that post was not too long or did not seem to stand out at all.


But as her sons grow up she selects them as lovers - first the eldest, then the second...


I liked this explanation. I don't take it literaly, though. I think it means that Mrs Morel places her affection on William first and after his death concetrates on Paul. She depends firstly on her first born, she clings on him and when he is no longer available she turns to Paul.

I don't take it literally, either. I think it represents this in the mind of the sons and the mother, but not truly Freudian with the desire for sexual union, as we have been discussing. I feel it is as you pointed out in your next few paragraphs but somewhere along the line this got excessive and obsessive in the mother. She could not let the son's go...yes, she clings to William and then when he is gone she clings to Paul even harder, I believe. Mother's who are truly normal know when to let go of their offspring. Baby birds are pushed from the nest and have to learn to fly and eventually do fly away from their mother's to start their own families. In a normal environment with loving mother and loving father having a loving relationship the whole family flourishes and is whole as a result. All of the Morel children are effected by this lost of normalacy in their environment...even the girls(girl), I believe. First off, parents who always are fighting and opposing each other do not provide a healthy family life with security and a sense of peace and understanding so that those members either go onto similiar lives or break away and finally rebell altogether from convention. Many wife beaters go on to have children who turn into wife beaters. History can repeat itself and it does often, too often. What I am trying to say is much damage is done unconsciously to the children of such a combatant husband and wife.



But when they come to manhood, they can't love, because their mother is the strongest power in their lives, and holds them. As soon as the young men come into contact with women, there's a split. William gives his sex to a fribble, and his mother holds his world. But the split kills him, because he doesn't know where he is.


It seems to me that William and Paul lead parallel lives (at least their love lives are alike) up to a certain point.

Somewhat true, I think, but don't you see Paul emulating his older brother and looking up to him and then following in his footsteps with the 'passion' aspects of the novel, and yet still, this is not the right path for Paul to choose. There are too reasons for that - to begin with it is not really Paul's path to follow and second he still can't break from the mother at the end, even though she has died. The bond is too strong.


The next son gets a woman who fights for his soul -- fights the mother.The battle goes on between the mother and the girl, with the son as object. The mother gradually proves stronger, because of the tie of blood. The son decides to leave his soul in his mother's hands, and, like his elder brother, go for passion.


Yes this is exactly what happens...Between Miriam and his mother, he chooses his mother and goes to Clara for passion.

So Miriam, in a sense, represented his soul or spiritual side, and she is left behind, with his mother winning the final battle between them, don't you think?

[Quark]

I don't take it literally, either. I think it represents this in the mind of the sons and the mother, but not truly Freudian with the desire for sexual union, as we have been discussing. I feel it is as you pointed out in your next few paragraphs but somewhere along the line this got excessive and obsessive in the mother. She could not let the son's go...yes, she clings to William and then when he is gone she clings to Paul even harder, I believe. Mother's who are truly normal know when to let go of their offspring. Baby birds are pushed from the nest and have to learn to fly and eventually do fly away from their mother's to start their own families. In a normal environment with loving mother and loving father having a loving relationship the whole family flourishes and is whole as a result. All of the Morel children are effected by this lost of normalacy in their environment...even the girls(girl), I believe. First off, parents who always are fighting and opposing each other do not provide a healthy family life with security and a sense of peace and understanding so that those members either go onto similiar lives or break away and finally rebell altogether from convention. Many wife beaters go on to have children who turn into wife beaters. History can repeat itself and it does often, too often. What I am trying to say is much damage is done unconsciously to the children of such a combatant husband and wife.

Yes, I'd hate to be the family psychologist for the Morels, but I will say that circumstances probably had more of an effect on Paul and Mrs Morel's relationship than did any inherent mother-son affection. The troublesome home life combined with William's death brought them closer together. Paul and his mother's personal traits only exacerbate the problem. Mrs. Morel is very controlling and possessive, and Paul is far too sensitive to resist her influence. The mother-son relationship does become weirdly sexual at times, but not because of real affection. It takes this uncomfortable turn because of the problems at home and Paul's susceptibility to his mother's control.

[Janine]

Yes, I'd hate to be the family psychologist for the Morels, but I will say that circumstances probably had more of an effect on Paul and Mrs Morel's relationship than did any inherent mother-son affection. The troublesome home life combined with William's death brought them closer together. Paul and his mother's personal traits only exacerbate the problem. Mrs. Morel is very controlling and possessive, and Paul is far too sensitive to resist her influence. The mother-son relationship does become weirdly sexual at times, but not because of real affection. It takes this uncomfortable turn because of the problems at home and Paul's susceptibility to his mother's control.

Quark, Absolutely, they would be a good case for a psychologist - a real challenge. The letter I was hunting for I still have not located but in it this is the essense I believe. Lawrence is stating to someone (a close friend) that he has had a very unusually close relationship to his mother - almost as if they were husband and wife. I think he actually uses those words or like a marriage. Don't quote me on this but I will try hard to find this very revealing letter. I should have marked the page when I first read it since I thought it was highly significant. I don't think that Paul or the model for Paul (Lawrence, himself) had what we could term a normal relationship with his mother.
Good point you bring up, Quark, is that given their separate needs and personalities Paul is so sensitive and subject to submission to his mother's hold on him. I do think much affect exists but I think that also the boys felt they were filling in for the failure of the father to form a close bond to their mother. Just as a mother might make up for a son not having a father and overcompensate I think her the father is absent most of the time and especially from the mother - therefore the situation is condusive to this sort of off-balance odd closeness with the mother and her sons.

[amalia1985]

Yes, Janine, I agree with you. It is something that can be often seen in "real" life, as well. The husband is lost,(gone or dead), and the mother who happens to have a son clings to him, as if he was her only survival, if I can put it that way. It is to be expected, pain brings a lot with it, but it is then that one can refer to that thin red line which I have already mentioned.

[manolia]

I think that the word "tragedy" which Lawrence uses speaks for itself...The tragedy of those who cannot distinguish the boundaries between the feeling of love, the feeling of passion, and the feeling of possession.

Very well put :thumbs_up



Baby birds are pushed from the nest and have to learn to fly and eventually do fly away from their mother's to start their own families.

I liked that parallel :)



What I am trying to say is much damage is done unconsciously to the children of such a combatant husband and wife.

Yes, very true. And the fact that Mrs Morel tried (and succeeded) in alienating her husband from her children is one of the outcomes. It is very hard when the children have to choose sides (haven't you said something to that effect on an earlier post?).



So Miriam, in a sense, represented his soul or spiritual side, and she is left behind, with his mother winning the final battle between them, don't you think?

Yes exactly. That's is why Mrs Morel hates Miriam. They are fighting for the same thing: Paul's soul - spiritual side. And Mrs Morel has no problem with Clara (final verdict :lol: ). She is very kind with her on their first meeting. She merely feels sorry for her because she knows that Paul will soon abandon her.

[Virgil]

Baby birds are pushed from the nest and have to learn to fly and eventually do fly away from their mother's to start their own families.

Or they get eaten by the nearest cat waiting in the bushes by the tree. :D :lol: :p

[Janine]

Yes, Janine, I agree with you. It is something that can be often seen in "real" life, as well. The husband is lost,(gone or dead), and the mother who happens to have a son clings to him, as if he was her only survival, if I can put it that way. It is to be expected, pain brings a lot with it, but it is then that one can refer to that thin red line which I have already mentioned.

Hi amalia, I am glad you see my point and agree with the idea. I think now about this a great deal, because, in some ways, it is personal to my own story and I have only one son to dote upon. Pretty much he goes his own way and does not suffer from the 'Lawrence mother syndrome' of trying to hold on to hard to him and his life. But, being a mother, I know that 'letting go' is hard time and a stage one must go through in life. Our mother's had to let us go at one time as well. It is natural to life and to nature itself. I see Mrs. Morel as having never gone to this stage with her sons. She might let them and even encourage them to go off to work on their own, out into the world, but when it came to women, she held the reigns even tighter. Emotionally she had a great hold over them. Is this the thin line you speak of - between love and obsession? I would imagine that Mrs. Morel has a total fear of being completely alone. Should her sons break totally away emotional she would probably have felt abandoned.

amalia, I got your thoughful PM and will answer later. My box is nearly full again, so I have to clear it out first. I am so glad you are enjoying this group. When we did "Women in Love" we had a great time, too. manolia really missed our discussions, when they finished up.:) She urged me to start up this group and thread, since we had (earlier) discussed it among ourselves. Thanks M, for motivating me!
I knew you would all love this book!


Very well put :thumbs_up

I agree again - almost poetic the way you expressed that thought, amalia!


I liked that parallel :)

manolia, a pretty common parallel here in the US I think, but still a good one. All creatures leave their parents to go off and start their own family and reproduce. Only humans seem to have these 'pyschological, Freudian, subconscious, unconscious, cerebral' (are you listening to this, Virgil?:lol: hang-ups and problems! If you go into the 'Lawrence Tortoise poems' thread you will see the poem 'Baby Tortoise' - well, the turtle and tortoise do not even have the benefit of having known his mother, or parents, for that matter. He must survive entirely on his own. I think you will be 'touched' by Lawrence's sensitive writing about the baby tortoise.


Yes, very true. And the fact that Mrs Morel tried (and succeeded) in alienating her husband from her children is one of the outcomes. It is very hard when the children have to choose sides (haven't you said something to that effect on an earlier post?).

Definitely, I have said that before. I have experienced this, first hand, in my own immediate family. My parents did not get along and were so opposite from each other. I often say they should never have married. Of course then I would not be here - right? I can tell you that staying together 'for the children's sake' never works. It leaves a lot of deep scars on everyone and the children especially, so. I still feel the effects of a childhood with much 'turmoil' and 'tension', so that when I first began to read this book, I found it actually painful to revisit a battle ground between parents, as the Morel's household exhibited. Even the children's reactions to their parents were reminiescent of how I felt at a young age and how my sisters also, reacted. I think now we have all grown beyond that but some resentments can stay for a lifetime. It is hard to overcome ones past, especially the 'formative years'. I think this is one thing that greatly attracts me to Lawrence and his own personal story. I don't know if Lawrence ever overcame his mother's strong ties of love and obsession and posessiveness that were developed in his 'formative years'; I seriously doubt it, completely. I do think he carried the 'scars' of it all his life.



Yes exactly. That's is why Mrs Morel hates Miriam. They are fighting for the same thing: Paul's soul - spiritual side. And Mrs Morel has no problem with Clara (final verdict :lol: ). She is very kind with her on their first meeting. She merely feels sorry for her because she knows that Paul will soon abandon her.

manolia, that is so well put - yes, it is accurate to say she really does not take the Clara/Paul relationship seriously or that it will be permanent. I felt that was true, too. Therefore Clara does not threaten her relationship with her son.


Or they get eaten by the nearest cat waiting in the bushes by the tree.

:lol: Are you the class clown in this group? :lol: Thanks for lightening things up, Virgil!...truly!...:lol:
But seriously, when this happens and it does sometimes, unfortunately, (they call it 'survival of the fittest') and the persistent animals just start all over again - didn't you ever see that happen? I saw ducks hatch and then get eatten by turtles and then the mother duck just started all over again, like it was what she was suppose to do. Nature is like that - persistent and stubborn to survive. Instincts to perpetuate the species are strong. We humans are really the weak ones.;) Probably, Lawrence, would have said - "...because we think too much!"

[stella]

I can tell you that staying together 'for the children's sake' never works. It leaves a lot of deep scars on everyone and the children especially, so. I still feel the effects of a childhood with much 'turmoil' and 'tension', so that when I first began to read this book, I found it actually painful to revisit a battle ground between parents, as the Morel's household exhibited. Even the children's reactions to their parents were reminiescent of how I felt at a young age and how my sisters also, reacted. I think now we have all grown beyond that but some resentments can stay for a lifetime. It is hard to overcome ones past, especially the 'formative years'. I think this is one thing that greatly attracts me to Lawrence and his own personal story.



i have to disagree on" the stayig for the sake of the children "part ,i wish that my parents would get a divorce sometimes but i really dont want it to happen i guess the scars will be deeper if they did-not that they are not deep now ,am not thinking of ever getting married-but i guess it'll be much worse if they they get a divorce .
that's also what made me go on with the book the first part of the story was so personal for me .....

[amalia1985]

Janine and manolia, thank you for your nice comments. It means a lot to me, all these kind words. You make me very happy.

Marriage is something that I've always looked upon as some sort of a cage, although my parents are very well together. The thin line I spoke of is exactly what Janine mentioned. The difference between love and possession, which becomes obsession.

On the other hand, I've always sympathised with Mrs. Morel's fear of being abandoned, having known little affection from her husband, and I dare to say I can really understand how she feels.

[Janine]

amalia, how sweet of you to to thank us. I really meant it. You wrote that so well. You seem to like the story and really get it's depth and meaning, which not all people do or can. You and manolia really like to analysis which is right up my alley, too.
I think, being women, we can relate to Mrs. Morel. Being a mother, I know I can. I still feel the strong tie to my only child, my son. I feel wounded at times when not included in his life and he can hurt me by saying one little thing. It is not easy being a mother, period! Concerning Mrs. Morel, no one likes being ignored or neglected and in a big sense she has been so by her husband going to bars and coming home late. I have been through this type of thing in my own life, many many years ago in my past, and it is not a nice feeling taking second best over a world of men and a man who is self absorbed, especially one who stops off from work at a bar to drink for hours and comes home late for dinner. I think, that in reading this book a second time, I feel 'empathy' for both, the man and the woman. I seriously think they were mismatched from the beginning, and so it is not either of their faults that they can't get along together or feel true passionate love that lasts. Apparently, they once did have passion, but it faded because there was nothing else between them in order to cement the relationship - they were just too different. The passion burned out, in a sense and left them with nothing.
Yes, the thin line is the difference between love and possession. You are right - that then becomes obsession and the true love is lost.

Glad we have made you happy. I too, feel touched and happy that you are happy and enjoying the discussions so much. It can be enriching to talk like this, among each other, with all the 'give and take' of exchange going on. Ultimately we end up talking about life in general and a broader sense, and this is very helpful in the long run. I think Lawrence would be proud and pleased that his story brought this aspect out in people, making them re-exam their own selves and their own lives and their own values.

[Virgil]

Hey thought you might want to know. I came across a Lawrence poem on Miriam. Check it out:


Last Words to Miriam
by D.H. Lawrence

YOURS is the shame and sorrow
But the disgrace is mine;
Your love was dark and thorough,
Mine was the love of the sun for a flower
He creates with his shine. 5

I was diligent to explore you,
Blossom you stalk by stalk,
Till my fire of creation bore you
Shrivelling down in the final dour
Anguish—then I suffered a balk. 10

I knew your pain, and it broke
My fine, craftsman’s nerve;
Your body quailed at my stroke,
And my courage failed to give you the last
Fine torture you did deserve. 15

You are shapely, you are adorned,
But opaque and dull in the flesh,
Who, had I but pierced with the thorned
Fire-threshing anguish, were fused and cast
In a lovely illumined mesh. 20

Like a painted window: the best
Suffering burnt through your flesh,
Undrossed it and left it blest
With a quivering sweet wisdom of grace: but now
Who shall take you afresh? 25

Now who will burn you free
From your body’s terrors and dross,
Since the fire has failed in me?
What man will stoop in your flesh to plough
The shrieking cross? 30

A mute, nearly beautiful thing
Is your face, that fills me with shame
As I see it hardening,
Warping the perfect image of God,
And darkening my eternal fame. 35
I also looked it up in my complete poems of Lawrence and found two other versions. One which was never published and one that was published at an earlier date. They are slightly different. Unfortunately they are not on the internet. If I find the time and there is interest, I can hand type them in.

[Janine]

Hey thought you might want to know. I came across a Lawrence poem on Miriam. Check it out:


I also looked it up in my complete poems of Lawrence and found two other versions. One which was never published and one that was published at an earlier date. They are slightly different. Unfortunately they are not on the internet. If I find the time and there is interest, I can hand type them in.

Yes, I have seen this poem and I liked it very much. I thought it was very honest. Glad you posted it.
Thanks, Virgil, for taking the time to do so. It helps us to understand better Lawrence's mindset about Jessie, the model for Miriam, also. I posted a letter in this thread awhile back about Jesse and how the relationship ended badly/sadly.
If one scans back many pages you will all find a lot about the characters and real life people who represented or were models for the characters. I had also posted some very good photos from the areas that Lawrence is talking about as he writes in "Sons and Lovers" and later novels. You can get a real sense from those photos. What do they always say "a picture holds a million words"

Yes, if you can, V, do copy out the other versions. I am sure I have them in my book, too. It might be interesting to see how things might have changed in Lawrence's mind between the different drafts of the same poem.

I am editing this since I read the poem over thoroughly and wow - this is a great poem. What does everyone think of it. Really complex, isn't it?

Here is the last part of a letter by Lawrence that I had posted awhile back. This part concerns Jessie Chambers and their relationship and breakup and his plans of marriage to Louie Burrows. I would highly recommend reading the rest of the letter - it is on page 3 of this thread (towards the bottom of the page). Also, towards the bottom of that page, there are photos of the two young women.
This segment of the letter goes along well with the tone and portend of Lawrence's poem "Last Words to Miriam".


Muriel [Jessie Chambers] is the girl I have broken with. She loves me to madness, and demands the soul of me. I have been cruel to her, and wronged her, but I did not know.
Nobody can have the soul of me. My mother has had it, and nobody can have it again. Nobody can come into my very self again, and breathe me like an atmosphere. Don't say I am hasty this time - I know. Louie - whom I wish I could marry the day after the funeral - she would never demand to drink me up and have me. She loves me - but it is a fine, warm, healthy, natural love - not like Jane Eyre, who is Muriel, but like - say Rhoda Fleming or a commoner Anna Karenina. She will never plunge her hands through my blood and feel for my soul, and make me set my teeth and shiver and fight away. Ugh - I have done well - and cruelly - tonight.
I look at my father - he is like, a cinder. It is very terrible, mis-marriage.

Note how close the names are Murial and Miriam. Interesting.

[amalia1985]

It is exactly what we have been stating from the beginning. He is aware (Lawrence, and therefore Paul) that his mother "demanded" his soul. He seems to be giving it to her in his own free will, and is unwilling to share it with any other woman. I think that may be one of the reasons Mrs Morel "prefers" Clara. She seems to know that she would never "demand" his soul, whereas she can see that Miriam's wish is very different.

I love the way he uses examples taken from literature in his very telling answer. Jane Eyre, Anna Karennina, women that loved in a very deep, but also very different way. This comparison is outstanding, coming from a soulful genious!

Also the comment concerning his father is something that sheds light to many of his references and comments in the book. "Like a cinder"...It can brought tears to someone's eyes, just to think of the pressure in him. As powerful as the word "disgrace" mentioned in the poem Virgil kindly posted.

[manolia]

I love the way he uses examples taken from literature in his very telling answer. Jane Eyre, Anna Karennina, women that loved in a very deep, but also very different way. This comparison is outstanding, coming from a soulful genious!

That's what i thought reading this letter. I have read only Jane Eyre though ;)
I like the way he justifies to himself his cruel treating towards Muriel. I couldn't help, while reading certain parts of the book, thinking that he is a cruel person when it comes to other women (except his mother). And a bit selfish too.



Note how close the names are Murial and Miriam. Interesting.

Janine, thanks for sharing. I hadn't noticed the previous pages (prior to our discussion). I'll do now :)


Hey thought you might want to know. I came across a Lawrence poem on Miriam. Check it out:


Nice poem!! Thanks for sharing. Yes, do type the other poems if you find time :)


I think, being women, we can relate to Mrs. Morel. Being a mother, I know I can. I still feel the strong tie to my only child, my son.......Yes, the thin line is the difference between love and possession. You are right - that then becomes obsession and the true love is lost.


Janine it saddened me to know that you can personally relate to this story :(

It is a sad story and it made me thinking about marriage and what an important step it is to one's life and what problems can create a possible mis-match..

[Janine]

It is exactly what we have been stating from the beginning. He is aware (Lawrence, and therefore Paul) that his mother "demanded" his soul. He seems to be giving it to her in his own free will, and is unwilling to share it with any other woman. I think that may be one of the reasons Mrs Morel "prefers" Clara. She seems to know that she would never "demand" his soul, whereas she can see that Miriam's wish is very different.

Amalia, Yes, It does confirm what we have all agreed upon. You state this very well. I don't see Mrs. Morel threatened by Clara (mother's do know when girls (in their son's lives) most likely won't be permanent - they have a sixth sense about these things). But with Miriam Mrs Morel is threatened, she fears abandonment - Miriam wants Paul's soul completely - Mrs. Morel knows this and sets up a war between them.

I love the way he uses examples taken from literature in his very telling answer. Jane Eyre, Anna Karennina, women that loved in a very deep, but also very different way. This comparison is outstanding, coming from a soulful genious!

Yes, isn't that wonderful? Well, as a young man, Lawrence avidly read these novels and authors, and later made his own assessments. I don't know if you are aware of it, but L wrote many an essay - there are complete books of them - on various prominent authors such as Dostoievsky, Thomas Hardy, Herman Melville, and countless others. Sometimes he could be too opinioned and brutal in his reviews but I have read several and find them interesting, regardless of his prejudices, which surface at times. The Thomas Hardy essay is wonderful and quite enlightening. One can see in L's early novels, "Sons and Lovers", especially in "The White Peacock", definite Hardy influences - these two books are more 'pastoral', although all his books contain elements of nature and his love of flowers, plants, trees and the natural environments he lived in. I have just finished up a later novel set in Mexico and his description of the vivid flowers and plants is extraodinary and so beautiful and so realistic, yet poetic.

Also the comment concerning his father is something that sheds light to many of his references and comments in the book. "Like a cinder"...It can brought tears to someone's eyes, just to think of the pressure in him. As powerful as the word "disgrace" mentioned in the poem Virgil kindly posted.

Amalia, the 'cinder' reference is near the end. Yes, it is a powerful word and relates back to the coal and the fire and the hearth, which we have been discussing in the short story thread - interesting. Also interesting, is the idea of Lawrence's own demise and cremation and his idea of the mythological 'Phoenix' bird who rises from the ashes and is reborn. Did you read the entire letter on page 3? Also, if you did go there, how did you like the photos of Jessie and Louie? Both were lovely women. I must have posted the other photos over in short story thread. I will check it out and see if I can repost some in here. Those are the ones of Lawrence's first/second(?) home and the foundry, mines and colliery, and also the countryside across from his home. These are quite interesting and illustrate L's environment at the time.


That's what i thought reading this letter. I have read only Jane Eyre though ;)
I like the way he justifies to himself his cruel treating towards Muriel. I couldn't help, while reading certain parts of the book, thinking that he is a cruel person when it comes to other women (except his mother). And a bit selfish too.

Manolia, and I think it is ok to think that way. Lawrence was not a saint himself - he was human! If you read a biography on the author you will see that he was not always such a desirable friend or acted in a totally appropriate way. So his character of Paul is also 'human' with human flaws and confusions and adverse behavior, at times. I often found the character of Paul 'cruel' and even 'inconsiderate', in my own eyes. Always I tried to delve below and see why he was so. I felt often Paul was forcing Miriam into something she was not at all ready for. Remember she is only a young woman; how old was Miriam suppose to be? And also consider the time period these events took place. The world was about to change, and perhaps beginning to change, but inborn attitudes were still rooted in the past and the stricter morels of English society.



Janine, thanks for sharing. I hadn't noticed the previous pages (prior to our discussion). I'll do now :)

You are welcome. Glad it was helpful. I was really hunting for another letter when I came across this one which proved to be just as interesting. This part of the letter is only an excerpt from the end; I think you will find the entire letter very enlightening and revealing. These letters of Lawrence's are invaluable when studying his work. I still believe one cannot totally divorce an author and his biography/personal history from his work, especially with Lawrence's book "Sons and Lovers"...too much of it is based on biography and real people. So Virgil, I am once again taking my stand on this issue. ;) :lol:


Nice poem!! Thanks for sharing. Yes, do type the other poems if you find time :)




Janine it saddened me to know that you can personally relate to this story :(
Well, everyone's family has some kind of a sad story, I would imagine. It is life. It is what we do with our past and our personal experiences, in the future, that counts - we have to go on past the bad memories and make our own good ones, right? Still it touched me that you felt that way for me. Thank you, M; you are so sweet and understanding.:)

It is a sad story and it made me thinking about marriage and what an important step it is to one's life and what problems can create a possible mis-match..[/QUOTE]

It is a sad story, but the thing is it is wonderful that it is impressing you and others in this way - to not go and make the same mistakes, as the characters have made. There is a definite lesson here, in seeing the 'opposite' of a 'happy union', displayed in this book. Yes, even today people get together for the wrong reasons and there are mismatches. Looking deeply into a situation like this one, depicted in this story/novel, one can see how it can happen and how to avoid it, personally. I think that Lawrence would have been more than proud to know that, generations later, he influenced someone in this way - to encourage them to live their own life, and a better one by far, than his parents did. I made a bad match myself in the past, but had the advantage to know it right away and break from the marriage and I have never regretted it one bit. The point is don't make the mismatch - marriage is something should not be taken lightly. It is a life decision which will effect your entire existence.

[Virgil]

Manolia, and I think it is ok to think that way. Lawrence was not a saint himself - he was human! If you read a biography on the author you will see that he was not always such a desirable friend or acted in a totally appropriate way.

Actually he could be quite cruel. He kept losing friends as he got on. Also his illness seemed to make hime very irritable. I guess that's understandable. But he was known for making fun of people behind their back. :D


These letters of Lawrence's are invaluable when studying his work. I still believe one cannot totally divorce an author and his biography/personal history from his work, especially with Lawrence's book "Sons and Lovers"...too much of it is based on biography and real people. So Virgil, I am once again taking my stand on this issue.
They are. But that's in addition to appreciating the novel for what it is on its own. :)

As to his loves and marriage, his marriage did not prove out very well. Personally I think he was best suited to be with Jesse.

[manolia]

Manolia, and I think it is ok to think that way. Lawrence was not a saint himself - he was human! If you read a biography on the author you will see that he was not always such a desirable friend or acted in a totally appropriate way. So his character of Paul is also 'human' with human flaws and confusions and adverse behavior, at times. I often found the character of Paul 'cruel' and even 'inconsiderate', in my own eyes. Always I tried to delve below and see why he was so. I felt often Paul was forcing Miriam into something she was not at all ready for. Remember she is only a young woman; how old was Miriam suppose to be? And also consider the time period these events took place. The world was about to change, and perhaps beginning to change, but inborn attitudes were still rooted in the past and the stricter morels of English society.

I've been reading the first three pages of this thread..where you reffer to the "who is who" in the book. So the Morel family and the family in Willie Farm are all made after real people in L's life?
You are very right. Paul is like a real human being. But that is what i like in a good book. Real characters and not one dimensional cardboard (sp?) characters ;) That's what i meant :)




You are welcome. Glad it was helpful. I was really hunting for another letter when I came across this one which proved to be just as interesting.

Yep. Already read it :) I wonder how the real girl (Jessie) must have felt after reading this..

[Janine]

Manolia,
I thought you knew the novel was quite autobiographical and based on real people in L's life; his parents, friends and girlfriends, etc. Actually all of his novels are based, in part, on real people he knew. I cannot really think of one that is not, but Virgil;) may disagree with that. There is tons of research to wade through on this idea/subject. Some of the biography books I own have photos and it will say beneath the photo what character this (real life) person related to. I find this totally fascinating, but unfortunately, the real life people did not always find it so and took Lawrence quite literally even though he changed the characters for his own individual artistic expression. Many of his former friends/acquaintances dropped him like a hot potato; you can imagine! Oh yes, Lawrence made tons of friends and many people loved him intensely, but he also made many an enemy in his short lifetime.

I think that after Lawrence wrote this letter around the same time he wrote some to Jessie. directly. I will dig those up and post later; I have to type them out. I think after a time Jessie, no longer responded to these letters. In fact she may not have responded to any of them, after the breakup; I'm not certain. I know that I read a note on this, written by Lawrence's former friend, John Middleton Murray, concerning L's treatment of Jessie. Jessie, herself wrote a novel on Lawrence. You can find it listed on Amazon. I have often wondered if I should read it, but I think I read that it is quite slanted in the reviews in Amazon. Still, to hear it from a woman who had close ties to Lawrence intimately, I feel it would be benificial. I still may invest in that book someday, but I would not recommend it as the consumate and impartial biography of Lawrence. There are many biographies on Lawrence out there and some by former friends and they all have their bias' so you have to take that fact into account. Like reading history books, who knows what is truly accurate?

In the short story thread, we read "The Shades of Spring" and obviously, the models for the characters were Lawrence, himself and Jessie. Now years later, as the character, Syson, revisits his old sweetheart and countryside, he finds she has moved on; she has a new lover, who she plans on marrying. The story is a sort of 'what if you revisited your former lover' scenerio. I really liked the story, knowing of Jessie and Lawrence's true break, even looking in terms of the aspect of their intense friendship. The story seemed ever so poignant in the light of those facts.

I think, that likewise, "Sons and Lovers" feels the same to me. In fact I never went back to read the book until reading several Lawrence biographies; then my friend told me S&L is basically autobiographical. This intrigued me and made me want to read it. Even now, on a second reading, and having more biolographical knowledge of Lawrence, I find the reading has more depth for me concerning the characters and the relationships.

I do not think that Jessie ever married. This might tell you something about the depth of her love for Lawrence.

I have read in several books that Ursula (in part) is based on Frieda, Lawrence's wife, in both "The Rainbow" and 'Women in Love". In WIL, there are many characters based on real people in L's life, such as Hermoine and some critics have their thoughts, on who exactly Gerald represented or was modeled after - these do conflict some. Rupert Birkin is definitely based on Lawrence, himself. He preaches, like Lawrence, and is not always clear-cut on his theories on life and love (since they are still in the developmental stage for L)...so who could mistake him? There are books that tell who the characters are all based on. I find it quite interesting, don't you?

Manolia, I just went back and read the first 3 pages of this thread like you did. I had forgot what I had written in there and there is a lot of good comments and posts by Pensive and Virgil, as well. It would be good for anyone in this discussion to review those pages or skim to the informative parts. Yes, Willey Farm was based on Haggs farm - the homestead of the Chamber's family; Jessie Chambers is the counterpart to Miriam. The brothers play a prominent role in the story, as well.
Check out the Nottingham University online exhibit, to see photos of all of these people who the characters were based on. You will find it quite interesting. If you can't find the site, I will post the direct link. Let me know.

[amalia1985]

Yes, Janine, we have read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and Dostoevsky in our university class, and I must admit that this was my "initiation" to the Lawrence's world. The way his insight touched sensitive spots of those versatile and "sensitive" writers made me love him and all his works. The essays reveal his true, deep love for Literature with a capital "L", as we say in Greece, and makes someone admire the genious in the man, not only the author.

Regarding the two women, I must say that I love looking at collectors' photos of women and men of that era. They are so ethereal, almost otherwordly, so classy-if I may use the word-the way I've always pictured Lawrence and Hardy's heroines in my mind. He had a pretty good taste, to make it sound a little "lighter".

I must agree with you and Manolia, regarding the "first feelings" about Paul-and Lawrence, by extention-I've often thought "poor Miriam", "poor Clara", but more often I have thought "poor Mrs.Maurel".I don't know, I dare to say I can feel that woman, I have a very close relationship with my mother, and I seem to love all the mothers of the world, I don't know if that sounds a little bit childish from someone who enters his 23rd year of life, but I think that our love for our mothers moves our world-in a healthy relationship-I can understand his deep love for her.

Somehow off the point but it can be relevant in a way:taking all negative-and positive-spots in Rupert's character, isn't he fascinating?

[Janine]

Yes, Janine, we have read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and Dostoevsky in our university class, and I must admit that this was my "initiation" to the Lawrence's world. The way his insight touched sensitive spots of those versatile and "sensitive" writers made me love him and all his works. The essays reveal his true, deep love for Literature with a capital "L", as we say in Greece, and makes someone admire the genious in the man, not only the author.

amaliaHow fortunate to have read them; and did you discuss them, too? I would have loved to have disgussed them. I was borrowing that book from my library so many times, I finally broke down and bought it off Amazon used. I am glad I did; I find it interesting, even in part. I have not read it all. I read the Hardy essay but only part of the Dostoevsky one. My friend, Downing, was interested in reading it so I scanned it to my hard-drive to send to her sometime. She had just read a D novel, "Bothers K", I think.
You know that is very true - his love of literature comes through in those essays even though he does not agree with everything but he is very sensitive to the writers and how they thought at the time. Lawrence's love of literature stayed with him his entire life. It is even more amazing how much he read of other authors considering how much he wrote and how short his life really was. I found a letter where Lawrence said he had to read a book at least twice, and that everyone should do so. I really believe this is true now. I am adopting this philosophy.


Regarding the two women, I must say that I love looking at collectors' photos of women and men of that era. They are so ethereal, almost otherwordly, so classy-if I may use the word-the way I've always pictured Lawrence and Hardy's heroines in my mind. He had a pretty good taste, to make it sound a little "lighter".
I love looking at the old photos, too. I can't get enough of them. Everytime I buy a Lawrence book first thing I do is search (usually in the center of the book) for any photos. I have quite a collection by now. Yes, they are so 'ethereal and otherworldly' - that is an interesting way to put that. People were classy back then, men always wearing a suit in public and even at home, women proud of their finery and hats - hats were big. We have lost some of that sense of style and 'classiness', I think, which is kind of sad.


I must agree with you and Manolia, regarding the "first feelings" about Paul-and Lawrence, by extention-I've often thought "poor Miriam", "poor Clara", but more often I have thought "poor Mrs.Maurel".I don't know, I dare to say I can feel that woman, I have a very close relationship with my mother, and I seem to love all the mothers of the world, I don't know if that sounds a little bit childish from someone who enters his 23rd year of life, but I think that our love for our mothers moves our world-in a healthy relationship-I can understand his deep love for her.

Do you mean poor Mrs. Morel? Yes, I feel for her in many ways because I am a mother myself. However I think I felt deepest for the rejection of Miriam. I don't think the last part of your statement makes you seem childish at all. It is commendable that you have stayed so close to your mother - I am sure she is happy about that closeness and cherishes it. Yes, well we learn firstly from our mothers, don't we? Then why should there not be a strong bond between us and them. They gave us birth, so this bond is very special.


Somehow off the point but it can be relevant in a way:taking all negative-and positive-spots in Rupert's character, isn't he fascinating?


Absolutely! Isn't he like L himself and does he cease from fascinating us ever?

[Virgil]

Yes, Janine, we have read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and Dostoevsky in our university class, and I must admit that this was my "initiation" to the Lawrence's world. The way his insight touched sensitive spots of those versatile and "sensitive" writers made me love him and all his works. The essays reveal his true, deep love for Literature with a capital "L", as we say in Greece, and makes someone admire the genious in the man, not only the author.


That is amazing. I'm surprised that students were given Lawrence's critcism to read. His criticism is not highly regarded by critics. It is nteresting criticism, but it is not objective criticism. It really reflects his ideas rather than the authors. But it does show his love of literature. We see from his criticism who his major infleuences are. Thomas Hardy in fiction and Walt Whitman in poetry. He did like Herman Melville too, but I don't think he was able to use him in any way. At least as far as I can tell. I do think he was somewhat infleuenced by the Russian writers.

[Janine]

i have to disagree on" the stayig for the sake of the children "part ,i wish that my parents would get a divorce sometimes but i really dont want it to happen i guess the scars will be deeper if they did-not that they are not deep now ,am not thinking of ever getting married-but i guess it'll be much worse if they they get a divorce .
that's also what made me go on with the book the first part of the story was so personal for me .....

Hi stella, I only just saw your posting, I am sorry for delaying in a response. I don't know which is worse, but I can tell you that I have a son and it never easy either way and - not easy for anyone with parents living appart and divorced; but, I think my son suffers less from the scars of that experience, than my sisters and I did, growing up in a virtual 'war zone' atmosphere. No one wants to see parents separate or divorce, but sometimes it is the best thing for everyone concerned in the long run. I feel badly for you, and if you are an only child, I can imagine how you feel. I hope that your own parents can iron out their differences and live more peacably together.
It is sad that you think never to marry. You may change your mind in the future if you meet the right person. Life evolves and attitudes do change sometimes. So never say 'never'.


That is amazing. I'm surprised that students were given Lawrence's critcism to read. His criticism is not highly regarded by critics. It is nteresting criticism, but it is not objective criticism. It really reflects his ideas rather than the authors. But it does show his love of literature. We see from his criticism who his major infleuences are. Thomas Hardy in fiction and Walt Whitman in poetry. He did like Herman Melville too, but I don't think he was able to use him in any way. At least as far as I can tell. I do think he was somewhat infleuenced by the Russian writers.

Seriously, I was thinking the same thing when I first read amalia's post. I think you have stated that well, Virgil. That is a good assessment of Lawrence and his critical reviews, love of literature, influences from the writers you mentioned.

This information is for everyone.

"Sons and Lovers" ~ Casebook Series ~ D.H.Lawrence ~ A Selection of Critical Essays Edited by Gamini Salgado

This is a fine and very helpful book. I wanted to mention it, since you might be able to secure it at your library. I first found it there in my library in my city and I liked it so much I bought it (used) from Amazon. It is probably out of print, by now, but is quite an aid to studying the book, S&L.

[manolia]

Manolia,
I thought you knew the novel was quite autobiographical and based on real people in L's life; his parents, friends and girlfriends, etc. Actually all of his novels are based, in part, on real people he knew. I cannot really think of one that is not, but Virgil;) may disagree with that. There is tons of research to wade through on this idea/subject. Some of the biography books I own have photos and it will say beneath the photo what character this (real life) person related to. I find this totally fascinating, but unfortunately, the real life people did not always find it so and took Lawrence quite literally even though he changed the characters for his own individual artistic expression. Many of his former friends/acquaintances dropped him like a hot potato; you can imagine! Oh yes, Lawrence made tons of friends and many people loved him intensely, but he also made many an enemy in his short lifetime.

Yes i knew that some of the characters were based on real people but i was regarding the book as a work of fiction mostly..something like WIL..but it seems that in this book (S&L) all the characters are based on real people and most of the events are based on true events.




I think that after Lawrence wrote this letter around the same time he wrote some to Jessie. directly. I will dig those up and post later; I have to type them out. I think after a time Jessie, no longer responded to these letters. In fact she may not have responded to any of them, after the breakup;


Yes, do if you find time :)



I have read in several books that Ursula (in part) is based on Frieda, Lawrence's wife, in both "The Rainbow" and 'Women in Love". In WIL, there are many characters based on real people in L's life, such as Hermoine and some critics have their thoughts, on who exactly Gerald represented or was modeled after - these do conflict some. Rupert Birkin is definitely based on Lawrence, himself. He preaches, like Lawrence, and is not always clear-cut on his theories on life and love (since they are still in the developmental stage for L)...so who could mistake him? There are books that tell who the characters are all based on. I find it quite interesting, don't you?


Yes i remember what we were discussing about Birkin etc. He was a very interesting character. But in the end i preffered Gerald :D




I must agree with you and Manolia, regarding the "first feelings" about Paul-and Lawrence, by extention-I've often thought "poor Miriam", "poor Clara", but more often I have thought "poor Mrs.Maurel".I don't know, I dare to say I can feel that woman, I have a very close relationship with my mother, and I seem to love all the mothers of the world, I don't know if that sounds a little bit childish from someone who enters his 23rd year of life, but I think that our love for our mothers moves our world-in a healthy relationship-I can understand his deep love for her.


Hehehe i feel the same way about my mom. We are really close and i tell her everything :D and i am a bit older than you. You know what they say about greek moms :lol: :lol:

[amalia1985]

He is so fascinating in all his flaws...

Sorry about the misspeling, but I was in such a hurry to sort out and express my thoughts that my fingers went mad on the key-board...:D

Yes, Janine, we did discuss the essays, even wrote an exam on them. We were fortunate enough to have an excellent professor that succeeded in making Lawrence's writings stay with us. I think this is very important.

Yes, manolia, I know...Well, we loving daughters cannot help it...;)

[manolia]

How come Paul didn't notice earlier that his mother was sick? Yes i know, he was quite absorbed with Clara and there was a distance between him and his mother for a while (and he was kind of "subconciously"-sorry Virgil :lol: -aware that there was something wrong with his mother, her colour wasn't right and it seems in certain parts that there existed an unspoken secret between them) but still...she was supposed to be the center of his life, what kept him together as a being..and he goes partying with his friend :confused: and returns and finds his mother so sick? Isn't he totally selfish then? He couldn't realise that the dearest person in his life was suffering so much (the pains were supposed to have started months before).

[amalia1985]

Perhaps, he did realise it but did not want to accept it. You pose a very good question here, manolia.


That is amazing. I'm surprised that students were given Lawrence's critcism to read. His criticism is not highly regarded by critics. It is nteresting criticism, but it is not objective criticism. It really reflects his ideas rather than the authors. But it does show his love of literature. We see from his criticism who his major infleuences are. Thomas Hardy in fiction and Walt Whitman in poetry. He did like Herman Melville too, but I don't think he was able to use him in any way. At least as far as I can tell. I do think he was somewhat infleuenced by the Russian writers.


Yes, Virgil, you are right. Our professor did mention that back then, but she is a woman who always gave us many opportunities to achieve a possible insight in every author's works, and appreciated even the texts which could certainly be called "subjective". She did a good job, I think.

[Virgil]

How come Paul didn't notice earlier that his mother was sick? Yes i know, he was quite absorbed with Clara and there was a distance between him and his mother for a while (and he was kind of "subconciously"-sorry Virgil :lol: -aware that there was something wrong with his mother,

:lol: No need to apologize. In the world of the novel, subconscious does exist and is a perfectly valid question.

[Janine]

:lol: No need to apologize. In the world of the novel, subconscious does exist and is a perfectly valid question.

ohhhhh, now I see --- ha;) ..."in the world of the novel...."

Virgil, you are a riot!:lol:

I see you all have been carrying on well without me. I am looking up some letters and things right now. See what I can come up with of interest tonight.

[Janine]

Ok, I did not yet find the letters between Lawrence and Jessie (ones I had in-mind at the time of the breakup), but I did find this except, and thought it of interest, from Jessie Chambers book. Keep in mind this is just from her point of view and may contain her own bias', but I think it may be pretty accurate an account. Please let me know what you all think. This is rather long - I scanned it. I thought of summarizing but just could not get it accurate, sorry.

'E. T.' (Jessie Chambers) D. H. LAWRENCE:
A PERSONAL RECORD (1935)

LAWRENCE began to write his autobiographical novel during 19II, which was perhaps the most arid year of his life. He did not tell me himself that he was at work upon this theme. I heard of it through 'Helen'. He had been working on it for the greater part of the year, and it was some time after our brief meeting in October that he sent the entire manuscript to me, and asked me to tell him what I thought of it.

He had written about two-thirds of the story, and seemed to have come to a standstill. The whole thing was somehow tied up. The characters were locked together in a frustrating bondage, and there seemed no way out. The writing oppressed me with a sense of strain. It was extremly tired writing. I was sure that Lawrence had had to force himself to do it. The spontaneity that I had come to regard as the distinguishing feature of his writing was quite lacking. He was telling the story of his mother's married life, but the telling seemed to be at second hand, and lacked the living touch. I could not help feeling that his treatment of the theme was far behind the reality in vividness and dramatic strength. Now and again he seemed to strike a curious, half-apologetic note, bordering on the sentimental. A nonconformist minister whose sermons the mother helped to compose was the foil to the brutal husband. He gave the boy Paul a box of paints, and the mother's heart glowed with pride as she saw her son's budding power. It was story-bookish. The elder brother Ernest, whose short career had always seemed to me most moving and dramatic, was not there at all. I was amazed to find there was no mention of him. The character Lawrence called Miriam was in the story, but placed in a bourgeois setting, in the same family from which he later took the Alvina of The Lost Girl. He had placed Miriam in this household as a sort of foundling, and it was there that Paul Morel made her acquaintance.

The theme developed into the mother's opposition to Paul's love for Miriam. In this connection several remarks in this first draft impressed me particularly. Lawrence had written: 'What was it he [Paul Morel] wanted of her [Miriam]? Did he want her to break his mother down in him? Was that what he wanted?'
And again: 'Mrs Morel saw that if Miriam could only win her son's sex sympathy there would be nothing left for her.'

In another place he said: 'Miriam looked upon Paul as a young man tied to his mother's apron-strings.' Finally, referring to the people around Miriam, he said: 'How should they understand her - petty tradespeople!' But the issue was left quite unresolved. Lawrence had carried the situation to the point of deadlock and stopped there.

As I read through the manuscript I had before me all the time the vivid picture of the reality. I felt again the tenseness of the conflict, and the impending spiritual clash. So in my reply I told him I was very surprised that he had kept so far from reality in his story; that I thought what had really happened was much more poignant and interesting than the situations he had invented. In particular I was surprised that he had omitted the story of Ernest, which seemed to me vital' enough to be worth telling as it actually happened. Finally I suggested that he should write the whole story again, and keep it true to life.

Two considerations prompted me to make these suggestions. First of all I felt that the theme, if treated adequately, had in it the stuff of a magnificent story. It only wanted setting down, and Lawrence possessed the miraculous power of translating the raw material of life into significant form. That was my first reaction to the problem. My deeper thought was that in the doing of it Lawrence might free himself from his strange obsession with his mother. I thought he might be able to work out the theme in the realm of spiritual reality, where alone it could be worked out, and so resolve the conflict in himself. Since he had elected to deal with the big and difficult subject of his family, and the interactions of the various relationships, I felt he ought to do it faithfully - 'with both hands earnestly', as he was fond of quoting. It seemed to me that if he was able to treat the theme with strict integrity he would thereby walk into freedom, and cast off the trammelling past like an old skin.

The particular issue he might give to the story never entered my head. That was of no consequence. The great thing was that I thought I could see a liberated Lawrence coming out of it. Towards Lawrence's mother I had no bitter feeling, and could have none, because she was his mother. But I felt that he was being strangled in a bond that was even more powerful since her death, and that until he was freed from it he was held in check and unable to develop.

In all this I acted from pure intuition, arising out of my deep knowledge of his situation. I said no word of this to him because I thought it must inevitably work itself out in the novel, provided he treated the subject with integrity. And I had a profound faith in Lawrence's fundamental integrity.
He fell in absolutely with my suggestion and asked me to write what I could remember of our early days, because, as he truthfully said, my recollection of those days was so much clearer than his. I agreed to do so, and began almost at once, but had not got very far when word came that Lawrence was dangerously ill with pneumonia. I was sure he would get better and went on writing the notes for him. When he was convalescent'the first thing he wrote was a tiny pencilled message to me, saying: 'Did I frighten you all? I'm sorry. Never mind, I'm soon going to be all right.'

I saw him during the Christmas holiday sitting by the fire in his bedroom, grievously thin, but yet somehow so vital. Whenever I looked at him, I seemed to see the naked flame of life. It was so as he sat in his room on that sunny Saturday morning, from time to time putting a scrap of linen to his lips, and then dropping it into the fire. He looked at me with eyes in which a light would leap, then sink, and leap again. I was staying with 'Helen'. Lawrence asked me where we were going for lunch, and in the way he suddenly turned his head when I told him, I saw the whole bitterness of his illness and his enforced severance from activity.

He asked me if I had written the notes I promised to do, and I told him I had begun to write them before he was ill and just went on. He said he was going to Bournemouth as soon as he was strong enough, and after that he would come and fetch them. This was our first real talk since his mother's funeral. Some of the old magic returned, the sense of inner understanding which was the essence of our friendship ....

The writing of the novel (still called 'Paul Morel') now went on apace. Lawrence passed the manuscript on to me as he wrote it, a few sheets at a time, just as he had done with The White Peacock, only that this story was written with incomparably greater speed and intensity.

The early pages delighted me. Here was all that spontaneous flow, the seemingly effortless translation of life that filled me with admiration. His descriptions of family life were so vivid, so exact, and so concerned with everyday things we had never even noticed before. There was Mrs Morel ready for ironing, lightly spitting on the iron to test its heat, invested with a reality and significance hitherto unsuspected. It was his power to transmute the common experiences into significance that I always felt to be Lawrence's greatest gift. He did not distinguish between small and great happenings; the common round was full of mystery, awaiting interpretation. Born and bred of working people, he had the rare gift of seeing them from within, and revealing them on their own plane. An incident that particularly pleased me was where Morel was recovering from an accident at the pit, and his friend Jerry came to see him. The conversation of the two men and their tenderness to one another were a revelation to me. I felt that Lawrence was coming into his true kingdom as a creative artist, and an interpreter of the people to whom he belonged....I began to realize that whatever approach Lawrence made to me inevitably involved him in a sense of disloyalty to his mother. Some bond, some understanding, most likely unformulated and all the stronger for that, seemed to exist between them. It was a bond that definitely excluded me from the only position in which I could be of vital help to him. We were back in the old dilemma, but it was a thousand times more cruel because of the altered circumstances. He seemed to be fixed in the centre of the tension, helpless, waiting for one pull to triumph over the other.

The novel was written in this state of spirit, at a white heat of concentration. The writing of it was fundamentally a terrific fight for a bursting of the tension. The break came in the treatment of Miriam. As the sheets of manuscript came rapidly to me I was bewildered and dismayed at that treatment. I began to perceive that I had set Lawrence a task far beyond his strength. In my confidence I had not doubted that he would work out the problem with integrity. But he burked the real issue. It was his old inability to face his problem squarely. His mother had to be supreme, and for the sake of that supremacy every disloyalty was permissible.

The realization of this slowly dawned on me as I read the manuscript. He asked for my opinion, but comment seemed futile - not merely futile, but impossible. I could not appeal to Lawrence for justice as between his treatment of Mrs Morel and Miriam. He left off coming to see me and sent the manuscript by post. His avoidance of me was significant. I felt it was useless to attempt to argue the matter out with him. Either he was aware of what he was doing and persisted, or he did not know, and in that case no amount of telling would enlighten him. It was one of the things he had to find out for himself. The baffiing truth, of course, lay between the two. He was aware, but he was under the spell of the domination that had ruled his life hitherto, and he refused to know. So instead of a release and a deliverance from bondage, the bondage was glorified and made absolute. His mother conquered indeed, but the vanquished one was her son. In Sons and Lovers Lawrence handed his mother the laurels of victory.

The Clara of the second half of the story was a clever adaptation of elements from three people, and her creation arose as a complement to Lawrence's mood of failure and defeat. The events related had no foundation in fact, whatever their psychological significance. Having utterly failed to come to grips 'with' his problem in real life, he created the imaginary Clara as a compensation. Even in the novel the compensation is unreal and illusory, for at the end Paul Morel calmly hands her back to her husband, and remains suspended over the abyss of his despair. Many of the incidents struck me as cheap and commonplace, in spite of the hard brilliance of the narration. I realized that I had naively credited Lawrence with superhuman powers of detachment.

The shock of Sons and Lovers gave the death-blow to our friendship. If I had told Lawrence that I had died before, I certainly died again. I had a strange feeling of separation from the body. The daily life was sheer illusion. The only reality was the betrayal of Sons and Lovers. I felt it was a betrayal in an inner sense, for I had always believed that there was a bond between us, if it was no more than the bond of a common sp.ffering. But the brutality of his treatment seemed to deny any bond. That I understood so well what made him do it only deepened my despair. He had to present a distorted picture of our association so that the martyr's halo might sit becomingly on his mother's brow. But to give a recognizable picture of our friendship which yet completely left out the years of devotion to the development of his genius - devotion that had been pure joy seemed to me like presenting Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. What else but the devotion to a common end had held us together against his mother's repeated assaults? Neither could I feel that he had represented in any degree faithfully the nature and quality of our desperate search for a right relationship. I was hurt beyond all expression. I didn't know how to bear it.

Lawrence had said that he never took sides; but his attitude placed him tacitly on the side of those who had mocked at love - except mother-love. He seemed to have identified himself with the prevailing atmosphere of ridicule and innuendo. It was a fatal alignment, for it made me see him as a philistine of the philistines, and not, as I had always believed, inwardly honour&#172;ing all unspoken bond, and suffering himself from the strange hostility to love. He had sometimes argued - in an effort to convince himself - that morality and art have nothing to do "with one another. However that might be, I could not help feeling that integrity and art have a great deal to do with one another. The best I could think of him was that he had run with the hare and hunted with the hounds....His significance withered and his dimensions shrank. He ceased to matter supremely.

I tried hard to remind myself that after all Sons and Lovers was only a novel. It was not the truth, although it must inevitably stand for truth. I could hear in advance Lawrence's protesting voice: 'Of course it isn't the truth. It isn't meant for the truth. It's an adaptation from life, as all art must be. It isn't what I 'think of you; you know it isn't. What shall I put? What do you want me to put...?' in a mounting crescendo of irritation and helplessness. I felt that words could only exacerbate the situation. The remedy must be left to time. And as I sat and looked at the subtle distortion of what had been the deepest values of my life, th"e one gleam of light was the realization that Lawrence had overstated his case; that some day his epic of maternal love and filial devotion would be viewed from another angle, that of his own final despair.

The book was written in about six weeks, under the influence of something amounting almost to frenzy. Although he avoided me Lawrence wanted to know what I thought of the novel. So, after I had studied the last sheets of the manuscript, I suggested that, as I had a holiday on a certain Monday in March, I should spend the week-end with my sister and we might meet and talk about the book. Lawrence replied that he had promised to go on a visit to a schoolmaster friend in Staffordshire on that particular weekend, but he would try to get back in good time on the Sunday. From the tone of his letter I judged that he intended me to have an opportunity of saying anything I wished to say, but it was to be a limited opportunity. I made some notes on minor points and took the manuscript with me....

We went out into the cloudy afternoon and walked past Greasley Church, then took the footpath through the fields where he and my brothers had wOi"ked together at hay harvest. Lawrence kept a sharp look-out for violets in the hedgerows. He said there must be some about because A. [Ada, Lawrence's sister] had seen youths coming home from the pit with bunches of violets and celandines in their hands. At the mention of violets and celandines I had hard work to keep the tears back, because it seemed as if springtime and spring flowers had gone out of my life for ever. Until then his manner had been bleak and forbidding, but now he softened a little and said almost wistfully:

'I thought perhaps you would have something to say about the writing.'

I felt as if I was sinking in deep water. But it was now the eleventh hour, and the time for speaking had gone by, and I merely said:

'I've put some notes in with the manuscript,' and he replied quietly, as though he was suddenly out of breath, 'Oh, all right. I thought you might like to say something. That's all.'

It was not that I would not speak but simply that I could not.
Between pride and anguish I found it impossible to tell him that the account he had given of our friendship amounted to a travesty of the real thing. His defensive attitude had kept me at bay, as he intended it should, and now the time was gone. It was too late. I could only remain silent. We spoke no more about the novel and soon turned back towards the cottage....

There was no further attempt at discussion of the novel. Lawrence made no approach to me nor I to him. I returned what few books of his I had, and he replied in a casual note. The more I thought about the situation - and' it was impossible to think about anything else - the more certain I became of the futility of attempting to reason the matter out with him. I realized that the entire structure of the story rested upon the attitude he had adopted. To do any kind of justice to our relationship would involve a change in his attitude towards his momer's influence, and of that I was now convinced he was incapable. It was the old situation in a new setting, the necessity for the mother's supremacy. More than a year before he had told me so in exact words, only without referring directly to his mother:

'You are the irremediable thing,' he had said, looking at me as though he would consume me with his eyes. 'You are what has to be. You are what cannot be helped. The great thing now is that you should not become bitter.'
It roused my irony that he should take my doom for granted, and in spite of my misery I laughed, and replied:

'No, I don't think I shall turn bitter.' But Lawrence was in such deadly earnest he did not perceive why I laughed. Now, in the novel, he had taken up the same position, and appointed himself judge and executioner. He held over me a doom of negation and futility. It pressed upon me like a weight, making the nights and days a torture. I dreaded lest I should come to fulfil it, as he seemed convinced I must.

Note: The first parts of this writing are referring primarily to the first novel drafts of Paul Morel. When we get past the illness Lawrence begins to change the novel into Sons and Lovers.

These last few paragraph's, in particular, is quite sad, I think, for anyone who has experienced heartbreak, from separating from a close friend and lover. I think many of us can relate to this feeling Jessie had looking back on the events.

[Virgil]

Very interesting Janine. I think you missed my post on the previous page where I said he would have been better suited to have married Jesse.

[rosepaoo]

one year ago,my teacher ever introduce this novle to us
It is a pity that i have never read it until now
However,i should have a look at it sometime

[Virgil]

one year ago,my teacher ever introduce this novle to us
It is a pity that i have never read it until now
However,i should have a look at it sometime

Well, if you read it you can join in our conversation. We would love to have you. Welcome to lit net. :)

[Janine]

Very interesting Janine. I think you missed my post on the previous page where I said he would have been better suited to have married Jesse.

Virgil, I did note it, your post. I was so busy scanning this stuff and posting it that I forgot/failed to answer your email. I often think it, as well. It seemed they had this very intense and special (and very rare bond). I wish they could have worked through their hangups or differences, but I think the timing was all wrong back then for them. Timing can be everything. I do know that Jessie gave her heart and soul to helping Lawrence get published. I believe one of the first things he ever had published he entered into a local contest and it was under her pen name. A second entry was under her friend's name - might have been Louie, not sure now. Jessie edited a lot of his work and helped and encouraged him. I think she understood in the end why Lawrence could not stay with her and this writing reveals that idea somewhat. I really felt for her, having been through intense heartbreak myself. It must have been hard - she saw Lawrence in a very special light. I think she stayed friendly with Lawrence sister for life. Lawrence invited her to come visit he and Frieda - I have that letter. I doubt she ever responded to it at that time. Sad for her. She was most likely a fine person and a nice woman/sweet.


one year ago,my teacher ever introduce this novle to us
It is a pity that i have never read it until now
However,i should have a look at it sometime

rosepaoo, yes, welcome to the Lit Net site! You can join in with our discussion or you can read the posts. I think you will get a lot of information in these posts about Lawrence and his novel and his work. I am happy you have found this thread. It is never too late to read the book. It is a great book and I am sure you will enjoy it. Our discussion here has no deadline.

[manolia]

Firstly, i'd like to say that Jessie writes beautifully.
I really liked this letter. Thanks for posting it Janine :) .
I have separated a few paragraphs that i liked most.



Two considerations prompted me to make these suggestions. First of all I felt that the theme, if treated adequately, had in it the stuff of a magnificent story. It only wanted setting down, and Lawrence possessed the miraculous power of translating the raw material of life into significant form. That was my first reaction to the problem. My deeper thought was that in the doing of it Lawrence might free himself from his strange obsession with his mother. I thought he might be able to work out the theme in the realm of spiritual reality, where alone it could be worked out, and so resolve the conflict in himself. Since he had elected to deal with the big and difficult subject of his family, and the interactions of the various relationships, I felt he ought to do it faithfully - 'with both hands earnestly', as he was fond of quoting. It seemed to me that if he was able to treat the theme with strict integrity he would thereby walk into freedom, and cast off the trammelling past like an old skin.

The particular issue he might give to the story never entered my head. That was of no consequence. The great thing was that I thought I could see a liberated Lawrence coming out of it.

So instead of a release and a deliverance from bondage, the bondage was glorified and made absolute. His mother conquered indeed, but the vanquished one was her son. In Sons and Lovers Lawrence handed his mother the laurels of victory.


Is Jessie suggesting that L should write a novel about his life (and his mother mostly) for therapeutic reasons? To purge himself and fight his own demons? And that he wasn't eventually succesful in doing so?



It was his power to transmute the common experiences into significance that I always felt to be Lawrence's greatest gift.


Definately agree with this quote!! She summarizes beautifully what I like in L's writing as well.



It was his old inability to face his problem squarely. His mother had to be supreme, and for the sake of that supremacy every disloyalty was permissible.

Poor Jessie..that's what i thought reading this (and the second half of the letter).



The Clara of the second half of the story was a clever adaptation of elements from three people, and her creation arose as a complement to Lawrence's mood of failure and defeat. The events related had no foundation in fact, whatever their psychological significance. Having utterly failed to come to grips 'with' his problem in real life, he created the imaginary Clara as a compensation


So Clara wasn't an actual person but a composition of three women in L's life? Do you know anything about these women?
And what about Ernest (the brother who isn't mentioned in the novel)? Why Jessie insists that he was so important?



The shock of Sons and Lovers gave the death-blow to our friendship. If I had told Lawrence that I had died before, I certainly died again. I had a strange feeling of separation from the body. The daily life was sheer illusion. The only reality was the betrayal of Sons and Lovers. I felt it was a betrayal in an inner sense, for I had always believed that there was a bond between us, if it was no more than the bond of a common sp.ffering. But the brutality of his treatment seemed to deny any bond.
He had to present a distorted picture of our association so that the martyr's halo might sit becomingly on his mother's brow
I was hurt beyond all expression. I didn't know how to bear it.
And as I sat and looked at the subtle distortion of what had been the deepest values of my life, th"e one gleam of light was the realization that Lawrence had overstated his case;
Between pride and anguish I found it impossible to tell him that the account he had given of our friendship amounted to a travesty of the real thing


Poor Jessie..again..it is nice to know her side of the story ;) I was beginning to think that what i've read-finished the book last night - was somewhat what happened...

[amalia1985]

Poor Jessie, indeed...She must have suffered greatly. Still, we must be "thankful" for this, because her letter sheds light to many aspects of the story and Paul's relationships.

The revelation regarding Clara was shuddering! She is such a fascinating and multi-dimensional character that one can trace the hints of composition in her, but personally, I understood this only today when I read the letter Janine very kindly posted for us.

The words Jessie uses are so revealing... "betrayal", "distorted", "anguish". I don't think she is melodramatic, or that she overreacts. I can understand her.

[Janine]

Firstly, i'd like to say that Jessie writes beautifully.
I really liked this letter. Thanks for posting it Janine :) .
I have separated a few paragraphs that i liked most.

Hello today ~ manolia and amalia, I am so glad you both were interested in this passage by Jessie. This is actually not a letter, but part of her book she wrote; and if you notice it was years later in 1935 that it was published...so it is much past their breakup period; I am sure things had time in her mind to settle down so she could be more objective. It is not a letter, but one could say it is a letter to the world explaining her take on Lawrence and her relationship, the breakup and the ideas/origins behind the story. You might be interested in reading that book someday. I have seen used copies available on Amazon at fairly reasonable prices - no doubt it is out of print now. This book is called:

D. H. LAWRENCE
A PERSONAL RECORD by 'E. T.' (Jessie Chambers) (1935)

I may eventually invest in it myself. I keep it in my 'wish list' on
Amazon so that when the price is right I may purchase it.



Is Jessie suggesting that L should write a novel about his life (and his mother mostly) for therapeutic reasons? To purge himself and fight his own demons? And that he wasn't eventually succesful in doing so?

That is a good question, M, and I think that is what she is basically saying, when she suggested he rewrite the book or work on it, in a more realistic manor; one that would more directly relate to L's life. His version "Paul Morel" had only half the story and not all and it left out vital parts such as the son Ernst. I think he is the one whom William is fashioned after, but I am not sure. Do you know, Virgil? I will look it up later. If he was being left out originally then the whole death scene would have been eliminated as well. This would have greatly impacted the book and the book would have lost much. Maybe it was just too painful for L at that time to write about his older brother's death - you can imagine it would be.




Definately agree with this quote!! She summarizes beautifully what I like in L's writing as well.

I thought so, too. Jessie was a very smart, intense, sensitive person. I feel she knew Lawrence well and was sensitive to his good and bad points, his strengths and weaknesses. Afterall they had a special bond of closeness from a very early age - how could it be otherwise?


Poor Jessie..that's what i thought reading this (and the second half of the letter).

Yes, she was quite crushed. I think, as women, we can all relate to that. Sorry, V and Q - guess that leaves you guys out.;) (temporarily). I know that even Lawrence admits that he has hurt her badly and deeply. I will eventually dig up his letter to her, and you will see what he does say about it. I know he eventually felt badly, and so did several of his friends about the separation, even as far as their friendship goes. If you have had a bond of friendship and love it is that way sometimes and perhaps can't be helped.



So Clara wasn't an actual person but a composition of three women in L's life? Do you know anything about these women?
And what about Ernest (the brother who isn't mentioned in the novel)? Why Jessie insists that he was so important?

I have read this in several biographies. I can look up what women he modeled her character after.
I answered about Ernest in my entry, previous. I must look those facts up to confirm what I said. I am not a walking Lawrence encyclopedia unfortunately.:lol: But I have enough books now that it has to be in one of them. Finding which one is the task.


Poor Jessie..again..it is nice to know her side of the story ;) I was beginning to think that what i've read-finished the book last night - was somewhat what happened...

manolia, so glad you finished the novel. How did you like the ending? I am still not on the second part. I am up to the part where William is getting a bit disillusioned with his girlfriend - they are home for the holidays or it might be the next visit. The chapter is called: 'Death in the Family', so I know what is to follow - besides I did read the book before. I am enjoying my reading although it is slow. I keep stopping to read the commentary books so I can scan stuff for all of you. I may not even finish the book before the month is up. Last night I feel asleep reading it and today I am going out so don't know if I will get much reading done later - probaby be too tired out....we will see...


Poor Jessie, indeed...She must have suffered greatly. Still, we must be "thankful" for this, because her letter sheds light to many aspects of the story and Paul's relationships.

Hello amalia, Yes, as I said above this is not a letter but in a sense it is her letter to the world about L. I think she did suffer greatly. I don't think a love like she had for L would easily be forgotten or gotten over, do you. He was a genius and a very special person. I feel for her.


The revelation regarding Clara was shuddering! She is such a fascinating and multi-dimensional character that one can trace the hints of composition in her, but personally, I understood this only today when I read the letter Janine very kindly posted for us.

Thank you - you are kind too, to say that last part. It did take me awhile to scan all of this. It was about 8 pages in the book...long but I felt worthwhile for all of you to read. I actually took it from the Gaimini book which compiles many things about L - criticisms, letters, excerpts (such as this one). I love that reference book and glad I purchased it recently.
I am just happy that all of this shed light on the characters and the formation of the book and the relationship of Jessie and Lawrence. If it has added to the discussion, then it was well worth the effort it took me.


The words Jessie uses are so revealing... "betrayal", "distorted", "anguish". I don't think she is melodramatic, or that she overreacts. I can understand her.

In this passage, I do not think she is being melodramatic. I don't know about the entire book, but this part seems to show that she is talking sensibly and being quite honest, don't you think?

[amalia1985]

Of course, I agree with you, Janine. She is honest and expresses her feelings bravely, I think that this is the kind of woman who would fall in love with Lawrence. She doesn't hide anything, and- from what I can understand through the passage- she retains a good balance between her love for him and her knowing of "the reasons why". I think that she understands him.

It is too bad that their relationship did not work out eventually. But perhaps, two strong and, apparently, so independent minds such as theirs would eventually find themselves in conflict? I don't know, but I deeply admire the way she demonstrates her feelings. Simple, honest and without hatred or pity. She must have been a remarkable woman...

[Janine]

Of course, I agree with you, Janine. She is honest and expresses her feelings bravely, I think that this is the kind of woman who would fall in love with Lawrence. She doesn't hide anything, and- from what I can understand through the passage- she retains a good balance between her love for him and her knowing of "the reasons why". I think that she understands him.

It is too bad that their relationship did not work out eventually. But perhaps, two strong and, apparently, so independent minds such as theirs would eventually find themselves in conflict? I don't know, but I deeply admire the way she demonstrates her feelings. Simple, honest and without hatred or pity. She must have been a remarkable woman...

amalia, Yes, I think there is no doubt she was remarkable and special. I don't personally think their relationship would have worked out or been a happy one, in the long run. I think they were too alike and yet too different. For one thing, Lawrence wanted to roam the world and this would not have suited Jessie. If you read the story we did, awhile back in 'Short Story' thread, called "The Shades of Spring" you will feel the main woman character was definitely based on Jessie, so now we get a little peak into how Lawrence felt later in life about her. I really thought this story added to my overall understanding of the two people. She was rooted to the land and Lawrence was not, although his mind and thoughts came back to it often. Read the story - it is not at all long - and you will see what I mean.

[amalia1985]

Thanks for the suggestion, Janine. I will read it tonight.

[Janine]

amalia,Oh, good.... being so interested in Jessie and Lawrence's breakup, I think you will find it very enlightening.


Here are some Lawrence poems that I think you will like very much. This first one I think relates to what Jessie so eloquently stated that Lawrence's strenght was with the fact that he could take ordinary things and show them as special and with importance and significance:


We are Transmitters


As we live, we are transmitters of life.
And when we fail to transmit life, life fails to flow through us.

That is part of the mystery of sex, it is a flow onwards.
Sexless people transmit nothing.

5 And if, as we work, we can transmit life into our work,
life, still more life, rushes into us to compensate, to be ready
and we ripple with life through the days.

Even if it is a woman making an apple dumpling, or a man a stool,
if life goes into the pudding, good is the pudding
10 good is the stool,
content is the woman, with fresh life rippling in to her,
content is the man.

Give, and it shall be given unto you
is still the truth about life.
15 But giving life is not so easy.
It doesn't mean handing it out to some mean fool, or letting the living dead eat you up.
It means kindling the life-quality where it was not,
even if it's only in the whiteness of a washed pocket-handkerchief.

The next three poems are about his mother's illness; quite sad:

D.H. Lawrence (1885–1930). from Amores. 1916.

Sorrow


WHY does the thin grey strand
Floating up from the forgotten
Cigarette between my fingers,
Why does it trouble me?

Ah, you will understand;
When I carried my mother downstairs,
A few times only, at the beginning
Of her soft-foot malady,

I should find, for a reprimand
To my gaiety, a few long grey hairs
On the breast of my coat; and one by one
I let them float up the dark chimney.


Silence

Since I lost you I am silence-haunted,
Sounds wave their little wings
A moment, then in weariness settle
On the flood that soundless swings.

Whether the people in the street
Like pattering ripples go by,
Or whether the theatre sighs and sighs
With a loud, hoarse sigh:

Or the wind shakes a ravel of light
Over the dead-black river,
Or night's last echoing
Makes the daybreak shiver:

I feel the silence waiting
To take them all up again
In its vast completeness, enfolding
The sound of men.

Brooding Grief

A yellow leaf from the darkness
Hops like a frog before me.
Why should I start and stand still?

I was watching the woman that bore me
Stretched in the brindled darkness
Of the sick-room, rigid with will
To die: and the quick leaf tore me
Back to this rainy swill
Of leaves and lamps and traffic mingled before me.

[amalia1985]

Such moving poems, are they not? I read the story, and I understood your point regarding Jessie, Janine. I think that her love for the land was a bit restrictive for Lawrence. I believe that he loved her, but perhaps, felt that his freedom was threatened? What do you all believe?

I think that the first poem is a hymn to life. Lawrence was a lover of life, of freedom. Sexuality could be regarded as freedom for him, he declared LIFE for both women and men.

The way he uses "grey hair" as a symbolism of his mother's death in the "Sorrow" is so moving...

I love the way he uses images taken from nature, in the second poem "Silence" to descrine his loneliness after her mother's death. "River", "wind". Taken in mind the place of his birth, the wild, fascinating countryside of England, we can see the deep influence of nature in his works.

Something similar could be applied to the third poem you were so kind to post for us, Janine. The image of nature linked with the darkness is haunting and the way he describes the wind is almost supernatural. It brings chills to your skin, as a cold wind, indeed.

[manolia]

I liked the "sorrow" better :)
Thanks Janine.

[Virgil]

Here are some Lawrence poems that I think you will like very much. This first one I think relates to what Jessie so eloquently stated that Lawrence's strenght was with the fact that he could take ordinary things and show them as special and with importance and significance:

Thanks Janine, and I definitely agree with Jesse. That is one of Lawrence's strengths for sure. And while i don't necessarily take up the same themes as Lawrence in my writing, it (finding significance in the ordinary) is one thing I try to do, possibly because of all the reading of lawrence I have done.


Such moving poems, are they not? I read the story, and I understood your point regarding Jessie, Janine. I think that her love for the land was a bit restrictive for Lawrence. I believe that he loved her, but perhaps, felt that his freedom was threatened? What do you all believe?

I think that the first poem is a hymn to life. Lawrence was a lover of life, of freedom. Sexuality could be regarded as freedom for him, he declared LIFE for both women and men.

I agree with most of what you said Amelia, but I am not so sure about the sexuality as freedom thought. That may be more of a reading into it from the perspective of our current values. I don't really see too many Lawrence stories where sexuality is contrasted against social restrictions. I think one of Lawrence's points is that the sexuality is happening around whether it's acknowledged or not. The conflict with freedom is his frankness in presenting it and getting it published; but I don't think the themes inside the works deal with this freedom. At least in the works I'm recalling in my mind now. Sexuality for Lawrence is a spiritual experience, and I think you can see it in that poem. Lawrence was actually quite prudish himself in real life, not so much because he felt it was indecent but because it seems to trivialize the religious aspect of the sex.

[Janine]

Everyone's comments were well stated. I enjoyed reading them. I figured these poems would fill-in in a slow period of our discussions. I always have something up my sleeve. haha.

In the BBC film called "Coming Through" (there is a poem named the same) a very thin and young Kenneth Branagh plays young Bert Lawrence, and in one touching scene, he carries his sick mother down the stairs and in his mind recites this sensitive poem - "Sorrow". The movie is not a great one, but the parts that explore Lawrence's early years are commendable and quite well done. Helen Mirren plays Frieda and I felt she fit the role well. If you have a change to see this film, do; it might be hard to find. It is more an educational film, as Virgil has pointed out to me. One does learn some new things about Lawrence - even exploring Virgil's last thoughts, concerning Lawrence sometimes prude attitudes. It is true that he looked at sexual freedom as not really a nice thing (loose sex was not to his liking at all), but rather looked at permanent relationships, having genuine sexual freedom within that structure, to be a religious act, a transfiguration. I hope I stated that correctly. Anyway, in S&L, remember that he is exploring a young man's first sexual experiences and at the end he of the book he throws off Clara and is quite alone, not really knowing what he wants to do now or how he thinks of sex and love. He is quite confused, so that he looks towards devotion to his dead mother.
The film is basically an exploration of Lawrence's poetry and life, up until he meets Frieda. I really liked the film myself, and found it interesting, although I think the director should have stuck to the past and not incorporated present day and the past interspersed...sometimes it gets annoying. They even show the parents tomb and Lawrence's name is on it as well. They go to the house he was born and also from a distance one sees the delapidated farmhouse and grounds that was the Hagg's (Jessie's family) farm.

Virgil, I sometimes see images in your poetry that are Lawrentian...such as the use of a cross at times and other images he uses.

[amalia1985]

I never said that sexuality was not something spiritual for Lawrence. I may have looked upon the issue with modern eyes, because for me sexuality is freedom. Is not frankness related to freedom? What did I miss here?

[Janine]

Thanks Janine, and I definitely agree with Jesse. That is one of Lawrence's strengths for sure. And while i don't necessarily take up the same themes as Lawrence in my writing, it (finding significance in the ordinary) is one thing I try to do, possibly because of all the reading of lawrence I have done.


I agree with most of what you said Amelia, but I am not so sure about the sexuality as freedom thought. That may be more of a reading into it from the perspective of our current values. I don't really see too many Lawrence stories where sexuality is contrasted against social restrictions. I think one of Lawrence's points is that the sexuality is happening around whether it's acknowledged or not. The conflict with freedom is his frankness in presenting it and getting it published; but I don't think the themes inside the works deal with this freedom. At least in the works I'm recalling in my mind now. Sexuality for Lawrence is a spiritual experience, and I think you can see it in that poem. Lawrence was actually quite prudish himself in real life, not so much because he felt it was indecent but because it seems to trivialize the religious aspect of the sex.

Virgil, Here's were it all seems to get confusing to me, with Lawrence and his sexual outlook. He was against Miriam and her religious sense of confiction and yet he is a 'prude' himself' or so you say. Maybe 'prude' is not the word we should be using. Afterall' he paved the way for the world in open attitudes towards sex within his writing so how can we truly say he is a prude? I think this idea of him being prudish actually is more the case in his younger years. But for heavens sake, he was out in the woods having sex, or trying to with a married woman (women he based Clara on) and then meeting Frieda, also married, it is of great conjecture as to whether he broke through his own prudishness and did indeed have sex with her very early on. I have read all manor of renditions and conjectures on that thought. Some biographers claim they have proof of it. At anyrate they were co-habiting 2 yrs before marriage, while she was still legally bound to her husband in England.

So amalia, I am not sure it is accurate to assess Lawrence as truly prudish, or even the thought of him not believing in sexual openness and freedom. I think I have to recant what I said prior and agree with you, to some extent on this point.

[Janine]

Since it is quiet on here right now. I will post some more of Michael Black's commentary. Hope I am not repeating myself here; if I am please let me know. Here goes:


The Morels
Lawrence's bias in Sons and Lovers, of course, is obviously in favour of the mother in the conflicts which take place both between Paul's parents and between the mother and Miriam, but it is important to remember Lawrence's own critical dictum - to trust the tale, not the teller - when reading the novel. That is to say, the novelist may write with conscious intent to take up certain attitudes in his work whilst the process of imaginative creation in the writing of the book may in fact suggest other attitudes. This is borne out almost from the start of the novel, for example in the scene where Morel comes home late at night from the public house:

At half-past eleven her husband came. His cheeks were very red and very shiny above his black moustache. His head nodded slightly. He was pleased with himself.
'Oh! Oh! waitin' for me, lass? I've bin 'elpin' Anthony, an' what's think he's gen me? Nowt b'r a lousy hae'f-crown, an' that's ivry penny-'
'He thinks you've made the rest up in beer,' she said shortly.
'An' I 'aven't-that I 'aven't. You b'lieve me. I've 'ad very little this day, I have an' all.' His voice went tender. 'Here, an' I browt thee a bit 0' brandysnap, an' a coconut for th' children.' He laid the gingerbread and the coconut, a hairy object, on the table. 'Nay, tha niver said thankyer for nowt i' thy life, did ter?'
As a compromise, she picked up the coconut and shook it, to see if it had any milk.
'It's a good 'un, you may back yer life 0' that. I got it fra' Bill Hodgkisson. "Bill," I says, "tha non wants them three nuts, does ter? Arena ter for gi'ein' me one for my bit of a lad an' wench?" "I ham, Walter, my lad," 'e says; "ta'e which on 'em ter's a mind." An' so I took one, an' thanked 'im. I didn't like ter shake it afore 'is eyes, but 'e says, "Tha'd better ma'e sure it's a good un, Walt." An' so, yer see, I knowed it was. He's a nice chap, is Bill Hodg¬kisson, , e' s a nice chap !'
'A man will part with anything so long as he's drunk, and you're drunk along with him,' said Mrs. Morel.
'Eh, tha mucky little 'ussy, who's drunk:, I sh'd like ter know?' said Morel. He was extraordinarily pleased with himself, because of his day's helping to wait in the Moon and Stars. He chattered on.
Mrs. Morel, very tired, and sick of his babble, went to bed as
quickly as possible, while he raked the fire. p. 6-7


This is the first introduction of Morel into the action of the novel, and in itself the quotation shows his warmth and delicacy con¬trasted with the graceless and hard conduct of his wife, whose action in shaking the coconut to see if it is 'good' is unpleasant and insulting. In its context, however, the reader cannot regard the scene in this way, for Lawrence has already prejudiced us against Morel in the preceding pages by his sympathy for Mrs. Morel's situation. The scene is typical of Lawrence's own predi¬lection in the novel, for as H. M. Daleski has aptly commented: 'the weight of hostile comment which Lawrence directs against Morel is balanced by the unconscious sympathy with which he is presented dramatically while the overt celebration of Mrs. Morel is challenged by the harshness of the character in action' (The Forked Flame, p. 43). However, Lawrence himself suggests that Morel is an awkward and unpleasant parent, although the failure in the marriage is obviously as much the mother's fault as the father's, and Morel's supposed failure as a husband and father is suggested as being the dominant factor in driving the mother into closer sympathy with her children, particularly Paul.

Lawrence's bias in describing the family life of the Morels does not interfere, however, with the skill with which it is depicted in literary terms, and the tension in the family between the parents is what gives the early part of Sons and Lovers its power and interest. The scenes between the parents are charged with dramatic force which Lawrence is able to convey with brutal realism. The tragedy of their married life is the failure of both of them to adapt to the very different background and attitude of the other, so that once the initial sensual element has palled they spend their lives in mutual recrimination. The mother, Gertrude, comes from a middle-class family and is fascinated by Walter Morel when she first meets him;
He was well set-up, erect, and very smart. He had wavy black hair that shone again, and a vigorous black beard that had never been shaved. His cheeks were ruddy, and his red, moist mouth was noticeable because he laughed so often and so heartily .... He was so full of colour and animation, his voice ran so easily into comic grotesque, he was so ready and so pleasant with everybody. p. 9

She is opposite to him in many ways, and he in consequence interests her. After the first few months of marriage, however, they drift apart when she tries 'to open her heart seriously to him' and she fails in her efforts to 'improve' him until they become almost totally estranged. For all of Lawrence's sympathy, it is obvious that Mrs. Morel fails to adjust to the demands of her marriage and remains quite unable to see the values of the working-class environment in which she finds herself, remaining detached and alien to her surroundings and attempting to influence her children to feel as she does.


Paul and Miriam
At the same time it must be recognised that the better life which she wishes for her children is certainly not to be deplored, and the novel is able to strike a fine balance between the virtues of Mrs. Morel's idealism and those of the working-class life in which the story is set. Her idealism is not mere social snobbery, and Paul in particular is able to respond to the warmth and vitality of the world into which he is born despite the family discord. He does not become a snob, and although he does not respect his father he is not out of key with his father's world. It is a remarkable achievement of Sons and Lovers that it manages to avoid any suggestion of the facile and merely political and social features of class-consciousness which has beset and stifled so much of English life in this century. The pictures of working-class life in the early part of the book are wonderfully evocative of the feel of the mining village of Best wood, of the life of the miners and the warmth of their dialect, of the games of the children:

Annie and Paul and Arthur loved the winter evenings, when it was not wet. They stayed indoors till the colliers were all gone home, till it was thick dark, and the street would be deserted. Then they tied their scarves round their necks, for they scorned overcoats, as all the colliers' children did, and went out. The entry was very dark, and at the end the whole great night opened out, in a hollow, with a little tangle of lights below where Minton pit lay, and another far away opposite for Selby. The farthest tiny lights seemed to stretch out the darkness for ever. The children looked anxiously down the road at the one lamp-post, which stood at the end of the field path. If the little, luminous space were deserted, the two boys felt genuine desolation. They stood with their hands in their pockets under the lamp, turning their backs on the night, quite miserable, watching the dark houses. Suddenly a pinafore under a short coat was seen, and a long-legged girl came flying up.
'Where's Billy Pillins an' your Annie an' Eddie Dakin?' 'I don't know.'
But it did not matter so much-there were three now. They set up a game round the lamp-post, till the others rushed up, yelling. Then the play went fast and furious.
There was only this one lamp-post. Behind was the great scoop of darkness, as if all the night were there. In front, another wide, dark way opened over the hill brow. Occasionally somebody came out of this way and went into the field down the path. In a dozen yards the night had swallowed them. The children played on.
pp.76-7

Paul is able to benefit from the values both of his environment and of his mother, and even though his mother's love is even¬tually crippling through its very force its virtues must not be underestimated. From his birth it is clear that his mother lavishes affection upon him as a reaction against the guilt she feels at the failure of her marriage. In the second chapter, 'The Birth of Paul', Mrs. Morel takes the baby out into the late summer evening and, looking at him, feels 'in some far inner place of her soul, that she and her husband were guilty' :

She no longer loved her husband; she had not wanted this child to come, and there it lay in her arms and pulled at her heart. She felt as if the navel string that had connected its frail little body with hers had not been broken. A wave of hot love went over her to the infant. She held it close to her face and breast. With all her force, with all her soul she would make up to it for having brought it into the world unloved. She would love it all the more now it was here; carry it in her love. Its clear, knowing eyes gave her pain and fear. Did it know all about her? When it lay under her heart, had it been listening then? Was there a reproach in the look? She felt the marrow melt in her bones, with fear and pain. pp. 36-7

It is a mark of Lawrence's genius as a writer that even in this unsentimental age such writing does not seem false or over-emotional. The values which the mother feels here, and those which she gives to Paul as he grows up, are genuine ones in themselves, and it is the sincerity and the sanity of the portrait of Paul which prevent him from appearing as either a prig or a snob to the reader. Lawrence's ability in portraying Paul (largely as an autobiographical self-portrait) is all the more remarkable when we remember the failure of Thackeray in Pendennis and even of Dickens in David Copperfield to carry through the portraits of their central characters convincingly without making them appear stilted and priggish when they pass through adolescence and early manhood. Sons and Lovers achieves its success where these other novels fail largely because of Lawrence's genuine attempt to deal sincerely with the complex emotions his character experiences and not to be dissuaded from his task by any notions of what the reading public might or might not be expected to want his hero to be like.
The genuineness of Paul's experiences is borne out not only in his relations with his mother, but also in his love and friendship with Miriam, detailed in the second part of the novel, and just as the conflicts between the parents had given the first part of the book its impelling tension so the struggle between Mrs. Morel and Miriam over Paul dominates this section. Although Miriam lives with her parents on their farm she is the opposite of the stereotyped image of the practical, natural country-girl. At first she is reluctant to offer her friendship to Paul, for she lives in a dream-world of spirituality:

Everywhere was a Walter Scott heroine being loved by men with helmets or with plumes in their caps. She herself was something of a own imagination. And she was afraid lest this boy, who, nevertheless, looked something like a Walter Scott hero, who could paint and speak French, and knew what algebra meant, and who went by train to Nottingham every day, might consider her simply as the swine-girl, unable to perceive the princess beneath; so she held aloof. p.142

Soon, however, she responds to Paul, and together they enjoy a platonic relationship which is a major factor in his development, She encourages and applauds his intellectual and artistic interests, and the real value which they both place on these interests is well conveyed by Lawrence. Yet Miriam is still very limited in her attitudes, and Paul finds her constant tendency to spiritualise and etherialise life more and more frustrating as the novel progresses, although at first he is unable to explain his sense of frustration in sexual terms. Miriam's refusal to accept or tolerate the physical aspects of life - indeed, her fear of life is brought out symbolically in Chapter VII, 'Lad-and-Girl Love'. When she shows him the swing in the cowshed, for example, Paul enthusiastically plays on it, but when it comes to her turn she is reluctant and afraid when Paul begins pushing her higher. Her fear and sense of shame in this episode obviously relate to something more than just fear of the swing, and are characteristic of her. Again, soon after this, Miriam's nature is illustrated when late one evening she insists on showing him a wild-rose bush she has discovered, for even this simple enough act has to be spiritualised into something more than a natural event:
'They were going to have a communion together - something that thrilled her, something holy.' When they reach the bush Paul is disquieted and pained by her attitude, for the natural beauty of the rose is not enough for her:

She looked at her roses. They were white, some ill curved and holy, others expanded in an ecstacy. The tree was dark as a shadow. She lifted her hand impulsively to the flowers; she went forward and touched them in worship.
'Let us go,' he said.
There was a cool scent of ivory roses-a white, virgin scent. Something made him feel anxious and imprisoned. The two walked in silence.
'Till Sunday,' he said quietly, and left her; and she walked home slowly, feeling her soul satisfied with the holiness of the night. He stumbled down the path. And as soon as he was out of the wood, in the free open meadow, where he could breathe, he started to run as fast as he could. It was like a delicious delirium in his veins.
p.160

This is indicative of the whole relationship. Miriam gives much to Paul and encourages him in his painting in a way in which his mother was unable to do for all her interest, but there are whole areas of life which she cannot face. Even though she lives on a farm Miriam is unable to face up to the physical realities 'of the continual business of birth and of begetting which goes on upon every farm', and at first she influences Paul to feel the same:
'their intimacy went on in an utterly blanched and chaste fashion. It could never be mentioned that the mare was in foal' (p. r62).


It is Miriam's blindness to certain features of life which so antagonises Mrs. Morel towards her. Paul cannot at first understand his mother's dislike of Miriam, and indeed his mother cannot properly make it explicit herself. The two women are of obviously different temperaments, as is evidenced, for example, three or four pages after the rose-bush episode, where the mother becomes full of enthusiasm over some 'glories of the snow' which she finds in her garden. The 'joy', 'excitement', and the 'elation' which she shows when she discovers the flowers contrasts markedly with the cloying sentimentality of Miriam's attitude towards the wild-roses. Partly, of course, Mrs. Morel's dislike of Miriam is that of a possessive mother jealous of any rival, but that it is not entirely this factor alone is shown by Mrs. Morel's relative friendship towards Clara. The real cause of the antagonism lies in Miriam's 'spirituality', for by her refusal or inability to see Paul as a lover rather than as an intellectual or artistic 'companion' she is challenging Mrs. Morel on the only grounds in which the mother can hope to continue her dominant relationship with her son. Mrs. Morel is understandably hostile towards the girl who becomes the centre of her son's artistic life and whose main fulfilment seems to lie in 'mothering' or caring for his soul and mind.

Eventually Paul himself begins to feel imprisoned and stifled by the kind of 'love' which Miriam is offering him, and he attempts to alter Miriam by suggesting that they become lovers in a physical sense. This itself naturally fails, and soon after Miriam has reluctantly given herself to Paul he breaks off the relationship and becomes more closely involved with Clara. Even here, however, one of the remarkable features of the novel can be noted, for it is impossible for the reader to find fault entirely with Paul or with Miriam. We can see some justifIcation in Miriam's sense of outrage when she is cast off, although there is a certain smugness and self-satisfaction in her view that Paul is simply sowing wild oats with Clara before he returns - a smugness which we partly want to see hurt. There is also justification in Paul's behaviour, however, and a feeling that he has no alternative but to behave as he does, and the fact that we feel this way pays tribute to Lawrence's ability in depicting character. The realism of the whole relationship - the sincerity with which it is portrayed - is its most compelling feature. It is patently life-like that Paul should have struggled through to his understanding of the need to reject Miriam in spite of what she has to offer him, just as it is life-like for him to continue to be entirely unsure as to whether he ought to marry Miriam or not, even until almost the close of the novel. But the reader is in no doubt that giving in to Miriam will be the spiritual death of Paul, and much of the last half of the book involves the tension between Paul's drift towards either death or life.


Clara
Miriam's 'spirituality' finally becomes intolerable to Paul, who sees the true nature of her character in yet another flower-episode in Chapter IX, 'Defeat of Miriam', where she shows him some daffodils, going on to her knees before them, and taking one, 'caressing it with her mouth and cheeks and brow'. Her enthusiasm for the daffodils is still cloying:
'Aren't they magnificent?' she murmured. 'Magnificent ! it's a bit thick-they're pretty.'
She bowed again to her flowers at his censure of her praise. He
watched her crouching, sipping the flowers with fervid kisses. 'Why must you be always fondling things?' he said irritably. 'But I love to touch them,' she replied, hurt.
'Can you never like things without clutching them as if you wanted to pull the heart out of them? Why don't you have a bit more restraint, or reserve, or something?'
She looked up at him full of pain, then continued slowly to stroke her lips against a rumed flower. Their scent, as she smelled, it was so much kinder than he; it almost made her cry.
'You wheedle the soul out of things,' he said 'as if you were a beggar for love. Even the flowers, you have to fawn on them-' Rhythmically, Miriam was swaying and stroking the flower with her mouth, inhaling the scent which ever after made her shudder as it came to her nostrils.
'You don't want to love-your eternal and abnormal craving is to be loved. You aren't positive, you're negative. You absorb, absorb, as if you must fill yourself up with love, because you've got a shortage somewhere.'
She was stunned by his cruelty, and did not hear. He had not the faintest notion of what he was saying. It was as if his fretted; tortured soul, run hot by thwarted passion, jetted off these sayings like sparks from electricity. She did not grasp anything he said. She only sat crouched beneath his cruelty and his hatred of her. She never reillised in a flash. Over everything she brooded and brooded. p. 218


In contrast, Clara is willing to accept Paul as a lover, and she is much more practical and realistic about life than is Miriam. At the same time it must be admitted that in the sections of the novel in which she appears Lawrence is much less able to convey a sense of the richness and immediacy off life than elsewhere, which may well relate in some way to the fact that the Clara episode is not based exactly on anyone experience in Lawrence's own life. Slight though it is, there is an evident sense of contrivance in the character of Clara as Miriam's opposite, but at least the relationship between her and Paul does make clear the fact that Lawrence is not suggesting that any sexual relationship is enough in itself to provide a sense of purpose to life. Clara herself, in spite of her surface sophistication and hardness, leads an empty existence away from her husband, and from the first this sense of emptiness colours the affair with Paul. In the scene where they become lovers in Chapter XII, 'Passion', the description of the background evokes the true nature of their relationship magnificently in typical Lawrentian fashion:
'On either side stood the elm-trees like pillars along a great aisle, arching over and making high up a roof from which the dead leaves fell. All was empty and silent and wet.'


Lawrence's handling of pace and tempo in the novel is masterly, as we shall discuss later, but it is not out of place to notice here how the slowness of the action deliberately makes its own comment on the actions of the characters. Immediately after the sentences just quoted Clara 'stood on top of the stile, and he held both her hands. Laughing, she looked down into his eyes. Then she leaped. Her breast came against his; he held her, and covered her face with kisses', but the slow rhythm of the sentences and the natural description combine to prevent us reading the episode in terms of gay, young love. An air of melancholy is delicately but surely cast over the scene (the image - of the cathedral implicit in the description of the trees aids the impression that there is something not right about the relationship) and the reader can notice for himself how the loneliness of the scene is constantly interpolated ('All was silent and deserted') with the physical description of their actions. It can also be noted how Lawrence also evokes a sense of the limitations of the relationship again through use of flower-symbolism in the red carnations he gives Clara before the walk. Afterwards:

when she arose, he, looking on the ground all the time, saw suddenly sprinkled on the black wet beech-roots many scarlet carnation petals, like splashed drops of blood; and red, small splashes fell from her bosom, streaming down her dress to her feet.
'Your flowers are smashed', he said .p. 3 I I :


Paul and Clara fail to form any lasting meaning in their love, any lasting meaning in their love, and eventually Clara becomes reunited with her husband, Baxter Dawes, although the reconciliation itself is uncertainly handled by Lawrence and is the most contrived feature of the novel. In terms of the structure of the book, however, both Clara and Baxter Dawes have the effect of widening the action of the story and of suggesting certain parallels, particularly between the characters of Baxter and Paul's father. Clara had left her husband because of his insensitive and brutal treatment of her, but (somewhat artificially) Paul makes her aware of her own mistakes in the marriage, and his rather unlikely friendship with Baxter helps to bring them together and leaves Paul alone at the time of his mother's death.

[Virgil]

I never said that sexuality was not something spiritual for Lawrence. I may have looked upon the issue with modern eyes, because for me sexuality is freedom. Is not frankness related to freedom? What did I miss here?
All I'm saying is that the novels and stories of Lawrence I remember (I'll leave the possibility that I'm forgetting one or so) he does not challenge sexual mores or taboos in the story. The sexuality happens as if it's natural. No one is restricting them. The frankness i was refering to is the frankness for Lawrence to write about it. The freedom is with the author writing about sex, not that the stories contain themes of sexual repression. I don't see Miriam as repressed, but that is just the way her character is. She would not be shocked if she learned of others being sexually free. I see Miriam as obsessed with a sort of Platonic ideal, as if life were only ideal and not flesh and blood. If you think I'm wrong tell me. I haven't read the novel in a number of years, so perhaps I'm forgetting.


Virgil, Here's were it all seems to get confusing to me, with Lawrence and his sexual outlook. He was against Miriam and her religious sense of confiction and yet he is a 'prude' himself' or so you say. Maybe 'prude' is not the word we should be using. Afterall' he paved the way for the world in open attitudes towards sex within his writing so how can we truly say he is a prude? I think this idea of him being prudish actually is more the case in his younger years. But for heavens sake, he was out in the woods having sex, or trying to with a married woman (women he based Clara on) and then meeting Frieda, also married, it is of great conjecture as to whether he broke through his own prudishness and did indeed have sex with her very early on. I have read all manor of renditions and conjectures on that thought. Some biographers claim they have proof of it. At anyrate they were co-habiting 2 yrs before marriage, while she was still legally bound to her husband in England.

Well, prude might be too strong a word. He certainly would not suscribe to the rock and roll philosophy of the song that goes, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with." Open sexuality with anyone that comes along is definitely not Lawrence. Look at how critical he was with the free sex characters in Women In Love. True he does run off with another man's wife (he was definitely in love with her, it was not just for sex) and in Lady Chatterly's Lover, Lady Chatterly has an affair. But there too was a loss of love between husband and wife. Not sure what marriage actually meant to him, but two lovers going into the woods would be perfectly natural for him. And I bet it happened a lot more than was written about. The point is that that sort of sexuality was natural but just not openingly written about. The writing of it is the freedom I'm referring to. As to his marriage, except I think for one possible affair (and that may not be confirmed - you may know better than I), he was faithful to his wife. On the other hand I believe his wife cheated on him several times.

From the Michael Black book:

It is a mark of Lawrence's genius as a writer that even in this unsentimental age such writing does not seem false or over-emotional. The values which the mother feels here, and those which she gives to Paul as he grows up, are genuine ones in themselves, and it is the sincerity and the sanity of the portrait of Paul which prevent him from appearing as either a prig or a snob to the reader. Lawrence's ability in portraying Paul (largely as an autobiographical self-portrait) is all the more remarkable when we remember the failure of Thackeray in Pendennis and even of Dickens in David Copperfield to carry through the portraits of their central characters convincingly without making them appear stilted and priggish when they pass through adolescence and early manhood. Sons and Lovers achieves its success where these other novels fail largely because of Lawrence's genuine attempt to deal sincerely with the complex emotions his character experiences and not to be dissuaded from his task by any notions of what the reading public might or might not be expected to want his hero to be like.
I whole heartedly agree. Lawrence at his best is striving for authenticity. He is striving to be honest and natural.

[Janine]

Virgil, I agree with your previous post and the last one. Did you find the commentary helpful? I had scanned it prior to starting this S&L discussion. I thought I would be prepared this time ahead. I did a lot of homework for this thread this time. I feel Michael Black is a pretty good and particial commentator and I am glad I purchased that book. It has helped me with the short stories and to better understand L's first novel "The White Peacock". You really should read that book - it has some lovely passages and some good symbolism with flowers and images.

[amalia1985]

Janine, thank you for posting this extremely interesting commentary for us. I agree with the majority of Black's views on the novel, but I have some objections regarding the Morels' relationship.

He shows Mrs. Morel's attraction to Walter very poignantly-something we have already mentioned in previous posts- an attraction that, gradually, withered. But why? He seems to praise Walter's "warmth", and "delicacy", regarding the coconut incident. I believe that a woman who is both a mother and a wife would want something more helpful than his husband being a happy drunkard, at least this is how I would feel.

Then, he goes on claiming that she failed to adjust to the demands of the marriage. True enough, it was a mistake that she married someone who was of a lower class and, apparently, a lower upbringing in terms of behaviour, which is more important than all the income in the world. How could she possibly adjust living with such a man? I am not saying that she was "the angel of the house"- this Victorian phrase I, particularly, love-but why she should be even grateful to him? I have already stated that I deeply sympathise with Mrs.Morel, so I may be biased, and I admit I am.

I agree with Black's comments on class-consciousness and the way Lawrence deals with the sensitive issue. He retains a balanced view, Paul is open to the new ideas that are being communicated in the farm, mainly by Miriam, and makes obvious efforts to intergrate them with the teachings of his mother.

I think that this excellent commentary contains a lot of issues that could be linked to psychology, to remember an other previous discussion of ours, here. The attraction of Mrs. Morel to Paul when he was but an infant is very important. A very interesting fact that Black states is the way the theme of Conflict is used by Lawrence in both parts of the novel, as a vital factor to the characters'- mainly Paul's- development. I believe that Conflict is always very important in Literature, the opposite views and behavioural aspects among the characters make us understand them as best as we could.

Regarding Miriam, I agree with his view that Miriam is "afraid of life", and here, we can see Paul's-and by extention Lawrence's- love for life which I have already mentioned. Clara, on the other hand, is willing to enjoy her life- to say it in a simple way- and that is what I've always liked about her. I admit I am confused regarding the end, and I grasp the chance to ask a question. Do you think that Clara's reconciliation with Baxter was willing, and true? I think not.

I believe that-as I have already said, if I'm not mistaken- that it is an example of Lawrence being a genious that each character has some flaws, there is no perfection, Miriam is "spiritual", but not at all a damsel-in-distress, and this is what brings the readers closer. They are characters whose flaws may seem serious if isolated and examined closely, but on the whole, these flaws and faults make them more attractive in our eyes.

[Virgil]

Virgil, I agree with your previous post and the last one. Did you find the commentary helpful? I had scanned it prior to starting this S&L discussion. I thought I would be prepared this time ahead. I did a lot of homework for this thread this time. I feel Michael Black is a pretty good and particial commentator and I am glad I purchased that book. It has helped me with the short stories and to better understand L's first novel "The White Peacock". You really should read that book - it has some lovely passages and some good symbolism with flowers and images.

Yes I did. You would make a wonderful teacher Janine. :) I should read "The White Peacock" but but the list of unread books is long. I have to finish Don Quixote, then I promised Quasimodo I would try to get a reading group together for Virgil's The Aeneid, and then I really want to read some more of my favorite living author Cormac Macarthy. Ever see the movie "All The Pretty horses"? He wrote the book. And of course there is the forum book club here too.

[manolia]

Hehehe Janine, indeed you did a lot of homework for this thread :nod:
I want to thank you too, for those pages you scanned for us :)

[Quark]

I was wondering who people think is most at fault for Paul's failed relationships. The first time I read this book I was more interested in just experiencing the tragedies in Paul's life without analyzing the problems, but this time I feel a need to be more critical. Is his mother to blame for controlling Paul? Or, is Paul himself to weak and sensitive to his mother's influence? Is Miriam stifling Paul, or is Paul being unfair to Miriam? I know that these questions can't be solved simply--that the answer is one or the other. Most likely, fault is allotted to both in some degree. What are the degrees, though? In what ways do the characters fail each other?


Oh, and:

I promised Quasimodo I would try to get a reading group together for Virgil's The Aeneid

That's a good idea. If you give me four weeks or so I could join in, too.

[Virgil]

I was wondering who people think is most at fault for Paul's failed relationships. The first time I read this book I was more interested in just experiencing the tragedies in Paul's life without analyzing the problems, but this time I feel a need to be more critical. Is his mother to blame for controlling Paul? Or, is Paul himself to weak and sensitive to his mother's influence? Is Miriam stifling Paul, or is Paul being unfair to Miriam? I know that these questions can't be solved simply--that the answer is one or the other. Most likely, fault is allotted to both in some degree. What are the degrees, though? In what ways do the characters fail each other?


Perhaps all of the above. :)



That's a good idea. If you give me four weeks or so I could join in, too.Oh great. We were talking about around Christmas time. I hope you can join us. :) Anyone else?

[Janine]

Yes I did. You would make a wonderful teacher Janine. :) I should read "The White Peacock" but but the list of unread books is long. I have to finish Don Quixote, then I promised Quasimodo I would try to get a reading group together for Virgil's The Aeneid, and then I really want to read some more of my favorite living author Cormac Macarthy. Ever see the movie "All The Pretty horses"? He wrote the book. And of course there is the forum book club here too.

Virgil, I loved that film! First off, I love Matt Damon. He is a fine actor. In fact, that film is back in my library and I think I will take it out tonight and watch it - well, if I can find time, that is. Is the book really great? Of course, my reading list is way too long presently, to add it on, but just curious. I never heard of that author at all. Is he still alive?
Wow, you sound so busy - me too! Thanks, I wonder if I missed my calling not being a teacher. I don't know though - I think if I had taken that path I would have burnt out quickly. I can't keep this pace up actually and creative projects are now calling to me. I am sort of one of those people who are a 'jack of all trades and a master of none', but hey, 'variety is the spice of life.' Gee, I am all full of 'truisms' today - real 'pearls of wisdom' -;) :lol:
I just think that reading "The White Peacock" would interest you in your study of L and how he began to think in his early years. There are elements there of his later books. Even though not fully formed the seeds of his ideas are in that novel. I found that part fascinating and it is not a long book. I should lend it to you sometime, send it parcel post when you are ready...maybe the summer...or a slow period.

manolia, thank you for thanking me. You are very welcome. The pleasure was mine - I like sharing this information with you. I thought it really filled in the spaces and made things clearer - sort of clarified certain things.

[Janine]

I was wondering who people think is most at fault for Paul's failed relationships. The first time I read this book I was more interested in just experiencing the tragedies in Paul's life without analyzing the problems, but this time I feel a need to be more critical. Is his mother to blame for controlling Paul? Or, is Paul himself to weak and sensitive to his mother's influence? Is Miriam stifling Paul, or is Paul being unfair to Miriam? I know that these questions can't be solved simply--that the answer is one or the other. Most likely, fault is allotted to both in some degree. What are the degrees, though? In what ways do the characters fail each other?



Quark, Wow, complicated questions here. I don't know if one can really ever answer them concisely or 'finally', 'definitively'. I think it is all in the way you view it. I agree with Virgil, 'all of the above'. This will all be eternal unsolved questions, most likely, for me to ponder till eternity. Lawrence was not easy to figure out and he writes about real people and life and of life and struggles - is that easy to figure out? Relationships are so two, three and multiply complicated - who knows for sure? Paul certainly was overly and extremely sensitive and confused about relationships, sex and a mirade of other vital topics. I don't think anyone is to blame. I don't place blame on anyone - Miriam, the mother, the father, or Paul. They all acted in a human fashion with faults and weaknesses, as well as strengths. One cannot say or calculate this in degrees. They all fail in certain ways, but that is human, too, isn't it?

[Virgil]

Virgil, I loved that film! First off, I love Matt Damon. He is a fine actor. In fact, that film is back in my library and I think I will take it out tonight and watch it - well, if I can find time, that is. Is the book really great? Of course, my reading list is way too long presently, to add it on, but just curious. I never heard of that author at all. Is he still alive?
Wow, you sound so busy - me too! Thanks, I wonder if I missed my calling not being a teacher. I don't know though - I think if I had taken that path I would have burnt out quickly. I can't keep this pace up actually and creative projects are now calling to me. I am sort of one of those people who are a 'jack of all trades and a master of none', but hey, 'variety is the spice of life.' Gee, I am all full of 'truisms' today - real 'pearls of wisdom' -;) :lol:
I just think that reading "The White Peacock" would interest you in your study of L and how he began to think in his early years. There are elements there of his later books. Even though not fully formed the seeds of his ideas are in that novel. I found that part fascinating and it is not a long book. I should lend it to you sometime, send it parcel post when you are ready...maybe the summer...or a slow period.


Oh yes he's still alive. He just came out with a new novel called The Road which I bought and have been dying to read. Here a little thing about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac_McCarthy. OK I'll try to find time for The White Peacock.

[Janine]

Oh yes he's still alive. He just came out with a new novel called The Road which I bought and have been dying to read. Here a little thing about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac_McCarthy. OK I'll try to find time for The White Peacock.

Virgil, just got back from the library and I got "All the Pretty Horses" - the film. Going to watch it now...it has been awhile and only saw it once so far. Looking forward to it.
WP can wait. Glad you like this author and just got his newest book; hope you can read it soon. The horses film is set in Mexico, right? I think it was better than PS.;)

I can't answer your PM - too many in there and I can't clear out now. Later. J

[Janine]

Hi everyone! I have been reading the first couple chapters in Part 2; I know I am slow this time around, sorry. Anyway, I find the symbolism in the seeking out of the rosebush really interesting. I was wondering if anyone would like to expound on these ideas. One is that Mirriam is so religious/myscially minded and seems to worship the 'sharing' experience with Paul as though it were a religious one. I found the description of the white roses in the night truly stunning and meaningful. I have some ideas on it myself, but wanted to see if anyone else could write about what they thought first? There was a contrast in the roses - opened and closed ones - that seemed to symbolise Paul and Miriam and their different ways of viewing sex and relationships. What does everyone think of the scene?

Going out tonight so will be back later to check the L threads and others.

[amalia1985]

I agree with you, Janine. The white roses may stand for the "whiteness" of virginity, opposed to the "darkness" of the night. For the deeply religious Miriam, her relationship with Paul may seem like a gift given from God, she stands for spirituality, and perhaps, that is why she views everything around this affair as "religious-related". I think that many of the points that have already been mentioned by all of us can be connected to that part of the novel.

The roses that "stand in opposition"-closed and opened-symbolise for me what you've already mentioned. It may be the "open'', "free" attitude of Paul towards sexuality, while the closed ones may stand for Miriam's restraint approach towards the issue. Also, I would dare to suggest that the closed roses can have a direct sexual connotation, standing as a metaphor for Miriam's virginity.

[Virgil]

Here's a site that describes the symbolism of roses in literature from the middle ages: http://www.discourses.ca/v5n1a1.html.

Not sure about the color scheme in Lawrence. Amelia might be right about virginity. I beleive red rose was symbol for Virgin Mary. And Miriam does have a name that is an offshoot of Mary.

My first thoughts on the Rose was that it represents an ideal, a perfection. Dante has Paradisio organized in the form of a Rose structure, with I think God in the center. I should double check that.

[Pensive]

We are Transmitters


As we live, we are transmitters of life.
And when we fail to transmit life, life fails to flow through us.

That is part of the mystery of sex, it is a flow onwards.
Sexless people transmit nothing.

5 And if, as we work, we can transmit life into our work,
life, still more life, rushes into us to compensate, to be ready
and we ripple with life through the days.

Even if it is a woman making an apple dumpling, or a man a stool,
if life goes into the pudding, good is the pudding
10 good is the stool,
content is the woman, with fresh life rippling in to her,
content is the man.

Give, and it shall be given unto you
is still the truth about life.
15 But giving life is not so easy.
It doesn't mean handing it out to some mean fool, or letting the living dead eat you up.
It means kindling the life-quality where it was not,
even if it's only in the whiteness of a washed pocket-handkerchief.

The next three poems are about his mother's illness; quite sad:

D.H. Lawrence (1885–1930). from Amores. 1916.

Sorrow


WHY does the thin grey strand
Floating up from the forgotten
Cigarette between my fingers,
Why does it trouble me?

Ah, you will understand;
When I carried my mother downstairs,
A few times only, at the beginning
Of her soft-foot malady,

I should find, for a reprimand
To my gaiety, a few long grey hairs
On the breast of my coat; and one by one
I let them float up the dark chimney.


Silence

Since I lost you I am silence-haunted,
Sounds wave their little wings
A moment, then in weariness settle
On the flood that soundless swings.

Whether the people in the street
Like pattering ripples go by,
Or whether the theatre sighs and sighs
With a loud, hoarse sigh:

Or the wind shakes a ravel of light
Over the dead-black river,
Or night's last echoing
Makes the daybreak shiver:

I feel the silence waiting
To take them all up again
In its vast completeness, enfolding
The sound of men.

Brooding Grief

A yellow leaf from the darkness
Hops like a frog before me.
Why should I start and stand still?

I was watching the woman that bore me
Stretched in the brindled darkness
Of the sick-room, rigid with will
To die: and the quick leaf tore me
Back to this rainy swill
Of leaves and lamps and traffic mingled before me.
Thanks Janine for posting these. They are really interesting.

As for the commentary you have posted by Michael Black, I think I agree with most of it. But am I the only one here who feels that Lawrence has been from nowhere biased when it comes to Morels' relationship? Actually, he has focused upon the mother and that's why we get to read about her feelings more in the book rather than Mr. Morel. He has on a very few places narrated the feelings of Mr. Morel (of course this is quite obvious as the central figure is Paul and Paul is closed to his mother) but if he had, we might have had been able to see the other side of the story more clearly and we might have had been able to sympathize with the poor miner. I hope I just don't seem to be babbling.

[Janine]

I agree with you, Janine. The white roses may stand for the "whiteness" of virginity, opposed to the "darkness" of the night. For the deeply religious Miriam, her relationship with Paul may seem like a gift given from God, she stands for spirituality, and perhaps, that is why she views everything around this affair as "religious-related". I think that many of the points that have already been mentioned by all of us can be connected to that part of the novel.

The roses that "stand in opposition"-closed and opened-symbolise for me what you've already mentioned. It may be the "open'', "free" attitude of Paul towards sexuality, while the closed ones may stand for Miriam's restraint approach towards the issue. Also, I would dare to suggest that the closed roses can have a direct sexual connotation, standing as a metaphor for Miriam's virginity.

************************************************
Good posts, Everyone!
I like you comments on the flowers, amalia.

Yes, Virgil that is true about Mary Magdaline being represented by the red rose (at least I think it has to be 'red', but not sure about that fact, actually. Thanks for the rest of that research on the significance of roses.

At anyrate, I achieved my goal last night and got hold of your attention and inspired your rethinking on this aspect of the story. Seems things needed to be livenend up a bit. Sneaky way to get all of you back here - ha!;) I believe I stimulated your thinking again....Good! I thought you all ran away and left me alone:( .

I know we discussed some of the' flower' significance before, but I thought in particular, these references were of interest.
Although I was 'backing up the wagon' a bit, since I just got to these passages in my reading in the book. Therefore, I felt they could be further explored and expounded upon.

Here is the actual passage in the book when Miriam takes Paul to the woods to find her rose-bush. I will underline key word or significant statements.


She wanted to show him a certain wild-rose bush she
had discovered. She knew it was wonderful. And yet,
till he had seen it, she felt it had not come into her soul.
Only he could make it her own, immortal. She was dissatisfied.

Dew was already on the paths. In the old oak-wood a mist
was rising, and he hesitated, wondering whether one whiteness
were a strand of fog or only campion-flowers pallid in a cloud.

By the time they came to the pine-trees Miriam was getting very
eager and very tense. Her bush might be gone. She might not be
able to find it; and she wanted it so much. Almost passionately
she wanted to be with him when be stood before the flowers.
They were going to have a communion together--something that
thrilled her, something holy. He was walking beside her in silence.
They were very near to each other. She trembled, and he listened,
vaguely anxious.

Coming to the edge of the wood, they saw the sky in front,
like mother-of-pearl, and the earth growing dark. Somewhere on the
outermost branches of the pine-wood the honeysuckle was streaming scent.

"Where?" he asked.

"Down the middle path," she murmured, quivering.

When they turned the corner of the path she stood still.
In the wide walk between the pines, gazing rather frightened,
she could distinguish nothing for some moments; the greying light
robbed things of their colour. Then she saw her bush.

"Ah!" she cried, hastening forward.

It was very still. The tree was tall and straggling.
It had thrown its briers over a hawthorn-bush, and its long
streamers trailed thick, right down to the grass, splashing the
darkness everywhere with great spilt stars, pure white.
In bosses of ivory and in large splashed stars the roses gleamed on the
darkness of foliage and stems and grass. Paul and Miriam stood
close together, silent, and watched. Point after point the steady
roses shone out to them, seeming to kindle something in their souls.
The dusk came like smoke around, and still did not put out the roses.

Paul looked into Miriam's eyes. She was pale and expectant
with wonder, her lips were parted, and her dark eyes lay open to him.
His look seemed to travel down into her. Her soul quivered.
It was the communion she wanted. He turned aside, as if pained.
He turned to the bush.

"They seem as if they walk like butterflies, and shake themselves,"
he said.

This part especially struck me with it's significance and references to the differences in the two individuals.

She looked at her roses. They were white, some incurved and holy,
others expanded in an ecstasy. The tree was dark as a shadow.
She lifted her hand impulsively to the flowers; she went forward
and touched them in worship.[/Quote]

That is an amazing passage to me and so brilliantly stated. The imagery is so wonderful and so meaningful. If you notice also it says 'her roses.' Does this indicate that in a way she is sharing her own purity and virginity with Paul at this moment? Not only does she worship the flowers, but Paul himself?.. or at least her image of him?



"Let us go," he said.

There was a cool scent of ivory roses--a white, virgin scent.
Something made him feel anxious and imprisoned. The two walked
in silence.
Wow, looking a little further ahead this does seem to be what is indicated - her virgin scent, not just the flowers.


"Till Sunday," he said quietly, and left her; and she walked
home slowly, feeling her soul satisfied with the holiness of the night.


************************************************** ****


I think this earlier passage is very 'revealing' to us as of how Paul sees/views Miriam.



All the life of Miriam's body was in her eyes, which were usually
dark as a dark church, but could flame with light like a conflagration.
Her face scarcely ever altered from its look of brooding.
She might have been one of the women who went with Mary when Jesus
was dead. Her body was not flexible and living. She walked
with a swing, rather heavily, her head bowed forward, pondering.
She was not clumsy, and yet none of her movements seemed quite
THE movement. Often, when wiping the dishes, she would stand
in bewilderment and chagrin because she had pulled in two halves
a cup or a tumbler. It was as if, in her fear and self-mistrust,
she put too much strength into the effort. There was no looseness
or abandon about her. Everything was gripped stiff with intensity,
and her effort, overcharged, closed in on itself.

****************************


Some other flower/nature references with definite significance and symbolism.


Again, going down the hedgeside with the girl, he noticed
the celandines, scalloped splashes of gold, on the side of the ditch.

"I like them," he said, "when their petals go flat back with
the sunshine. They seemed to be pressing themselves at the sun."

Sun has such significance for Lawrence throughout his novels and writings. I feel this is quite significant especially with the idea of the petals going flat back with the sunshine - open to the sun. Interesting statement and observation of L's

***************************
Then, these two sentences sum up how they first 'began' to love each other.


So it was in this atmosphere of subtle intimacy, this meeting
in their common feeling for something in Nature, that their love started.

I know that this idea was mentioned earlier by someone, but I brought it up again anyway.
**************************
I found this passage extremely interesting/curious (perhaps being an artist myself). What do you think of Paul's comment when he says "the shimmeriness is the real living. The shape is dead crust. The shimmer is inside really" ?
Could this also refer back to the idea of 'death' and to his brother, who when brought home for burial, was only 'a shape' that 'is dead crust'. The 'shimmer' of the soul had gone from him, as will happen also with the dead body of Paul's beloved mother.


"It's because--it's because there is scarcely any shadow in it;
it's more shimmery, as if I'd painted the shimmering protoplasm
in the leaves and everywhere, and not the stiffness of the shape.
That seems dead to me. Only this shimmeriness is the real living.
The shape is a dead crust. The shimmer is inside really."


Pensive, Glad you like the poems and hope all of this new post of mine helps you, too. I agree with your assessment of Michael Black's commentary, basically. Yes, the emphasis here is more on Paul and his mother so there is much more on their characters, but on second reading I am surprised at how many small references I have noticed now having to do with the father such as one I read last night when he was out cutting wood and a young girl came by selling hot-cross buns and he endearingly called her 'darling', then defended her against some boy's comments. I guess in his own way he was kind of charming and chivalous at times and could show a gentler side to his nature. I think I am mostly just looking to be fairer to his image in this second reading, knowing L said, himself he was too brutal to this character fashioned after his father. He was sorry for the offense because it did ultimately wound his father and left scares. Anyway, glad you found the commentary interesting and helpful. His insight has been a help to me and pointed things out that I might not have noticed otherwise.

[manolia]

Janine, Mary Magdalene is definately symbolised by a rose (doesn't have to be a red one). I'll read your last post later on ;) . The rose (like the apple) in many instances symbolises also the woman's womb (don't know if this symbolism applies here though).

[Janine]

Janine, Mary Magdalene is definately symbolised by a rose (doesn't have to be a red one). I'll read your last post later on ;) . The rose (like the apple) in many instances symbolises also the woman's womb (don't know if this symbolism applies here though).

Yes, I know they brought up the symbolism in the DaVinci code quite a bit. I did not think it had to be red necessarily.
Wow, manolia - you sure got over here fast or didn't you read my post in movies yet? If not, we must have ESP. I have missed seeing you here and our nice and stimulating conversations.
Interesting about the apple, too. I bet that symbol crops up frequently in L's work. Wasn't it mentioned in WIL? Come to think of it, Miriam, in this chapter I just read, offered Paul an apple when they were trying to study - do you remember that scene? This thought adds more interest to that moment, since he seemed annoyed at her at first being distracted. Perhaps the significance comes when he finally bit into her apple.

[Virgil]

Virgil[/B] that is true about Mary Magdaline being represented by the red rose (at least I think it has to be 'red', but not sure about that fact, actually. Thanks for the rest of that research on the significance of roses.



Mary Magdeline? I didn't read all the way down. I was looking for confirmation of Virgin Mary.


The rose has been a symbol in religious writing and iconography since the early Middle Ages. The red rose represents the blood of Christ and the martyrs, but the most common association of the rose is with the Virgin Mary
It makes more sense to be associated with Virgin Mary.

[Janine]

Mary Magdeline? I didn't read all the way down. I was looking for confirmation of Virgin Mary.


It makes more sense to be associated with Virgin Mary.

I don't know for sure, but from my earlier research I did after reading the DaVinci Code and seeing the film it seems that it was Mary Magdeline who was assosiated with the symbol of the rose. I could be wrong. I will go look her up on Google or Wikipedia and see if it mentions it. It also ties in with the Knight's Templer. I believe they used the symbol. The author of the book was trying to tie in the two and the crusades and search for the Holy Grail.

Why does it make more sense to be associated with the Virgin Mary? Do you mean in the sense of this story S&L and Miriam's view of herself?


Here are somethings I have come up with. One is that both the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdeline are both associated with the rose.
I think the Virgin Mary is the red rose.
I found this statement online in Wikipedia:
"According to some Biblical legends, the original rose growing in the Garden of Eden was white, but turned red as it blushed with shame upon Adam and Eve's fall from grace."

And looking further into it I found this writing about Scotland in reference to Jesus and Mary Magdeline possibly having a bloodline which was called the Rose line:

http://www.theroseline.co.uk/

After reading this curious article you should click on Rose line - it is to the left in the menu and you can read about that concept. It all is quite interesting.


Here is another article that speaks of the Crusades and the blood-line of Christ and his (possible) intimate association with Mary Magdeline. http://www.tribwatch.com/roslin.htm

This was from another site online, called "The Truth about DaVinci Code:


Mary Magdalene
According to the New Testament, Mary Magdalene was a disciple of Jesus from whom he cast "seven demons"; she followed him throughout his ministry, witnessed the crucifixion, and, with two other female disciples, discovered the empty tomb. Mary was probably from Magdala, a village on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee.

The Da Vinci Code alleges that the New Testament excludes an important fact: ‘‘The marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record’’ (245). There is no evidence in any first-century record that implies a sexual or marital relationship between Jesus and Mary Mag&#173;dalene. Additionally, even if Jesus had married—again, a proposition for which there is no reliable evidence—it wouldn’t be destructive to Chris&#173;tian faith (as Dan Brown implies), for the Scriptures neither affirm nor deny that Jesus was married.

The Da Vinci Code notes that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute: ‘‘That unfortunate misconception is the legacy of a smear campaign launched by the early church. The church needed to defame Mary Mag&#173;dalene to cover up her dangerous secret [i.e., Mary’s role as the spouse of Jesus]’’ (244).

There is no biblical evidence that she was a prostitute. Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary (Luke 8:2), but there is no biblical data to suggest she was sexually immoral. At the same time, there is also no evidence to suggest that anyone instituted a ‘‘smear campaign’’ to discredit her. A tradition arose in the third and fourth centuries that she was the sinful woman mentioned in Luke 7:36–50 and, perhaps, the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11; in 591, Pope Gregory I included this teaching in a sermon. Although such identifications were probably mistaken, they are far from a slander crusade launched to hide a dangerous secret.

So whether you buy into or believe any of this lore or these ideas is insignificant, just the fact that is shows a close association with the 'rose' to both woman - Mary Magdeline and the Virgin Mary. I think, in L's case he would have known about the bible, and the possibity of the significance of the rose and the rose line, as well. Also, online you can read about the 'rose line' which is quite interesting and is the 0 degree Meridium on the globe. I personally think it is interesting that the rose, especially the red rose would relate so to a bloodline and in Lawrence's case often one does see him write of blood related to the red rose....strange, isn't it? And what about L's blood philosophy. I might be going off on a tangent but all this stuff got me thinking in this direction - probably from reading his novel "The Plumed Serpent" which I completed recently. Also, interesting to me is the fact that Lawrence wrote "The Man who Died", about Christ if he were human and had not died on the cross.

[Virgil]

Why does it make more sense to be associated with the Virgin Mary? Do you mean in the sense of this story S&L and Miriam's view of herself?

Yes, of course.


Here are somethings I have come up with. One is that both the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdeline are both associated with the rose.
Yes, that could be but how does Mary Magdeline associated with Miriam?


I think the Virgin Mary is the red rose.
I found this statement online in Wikipedia:
"According to some Biblical legends, the original rose growing in the Garden of Eden was white, but turned red as it blushed with shame upon Adam and Eve's fall from grace."
Hey that is interesting. I could see how that would really interest Lawrence but I don't see how it fits with this novel.


And looking further into it I found this writing about Scotland in reference to Jesus and Mary Magdeline possibly having a bloodline which was called the Rose line:

http://www.theroseline.co.uk/

After reading this curious article you should click on Rose line - it is to the left in the menu and you can read about that concept. It all is quite interesting

Here is another article that speaks of the Crusades and the blood-line of Christ and his (possible) intimate association with Mary Magdeline. http://www.tribwatch.com/roslin.htm.

This was from another site online, called "The Truth about DaVinci Code:

How does any of this fit with S&L?


So whether you buy into or believe any of this lore or these ideas is insignificant, just the fact that is shows a close association with the 'rose' to both woman - Mary Magdeline and the Virgin Mary. I think, in L's case he would have known about the bible, and the possibity of the significance of the rose and the rose line, as well. Also, online you can read about the 'rose line' which is quite interesting and is the 0 degree Meridium on the globe. I personally think it is interesting that the rose, especially the red rose would relate so to a bloodline and in Lawrence's case often one does see him write of blood related to the red rose....strange, isn't it? And what about L's blood philosophy. I might be going off on a tangent but all this stuff got me thinking in this direction - probably from reading his novel "The Plumed Serpent" which I completed recently. Also, interesting to me is the fact that Lawrence wrote "The Man who Died", about Christ if he were human and had not died on the cross.
Yes interesting stuff. Christian and biblical symbols and ideas interested him and he used them for his ideas which are quite different than the original.

[Janine]

Virgil, I was just trying to fill you in on the concepts and the historical backgrounds or the theories, behind the rose references and what it might signify on a deeper level. It does not really have anything directly to do with S&L, but these flower references and the religious references in L's text seem to indicate a lot going on beneath the surface of L's complex mind. What has he been impying, suggesting here?

Did you read my other longer post, with direct quotes from the book and underlined the key words? I thought we could talk more about certain parts of that....like the way Miriam viewed her closeness to Paul and how his being there, when viewing the roses or anything else that thrilled her in nature, made it real and significant for her.

The swing scene was also quite revealing of how timid Miriam is in contrast to the free way Paul is. Any thoughts on that part of the book, anyone?

[Virgil]

Virgil, I was just trying to fill you in on the concepts and the historical backgrounds or the theories, behind the rose references and what it might signify on a deeper level. It does not really have anything directly to do with S&L, but these flower references and the religious references in L's text seem to indicate a lot going on beneath the surface of L's complex mind. What has he been impying, suggesting here?

Did you read my other longer post, with direct quotes from the book and underlined the key words? I thought we could talk more about certain parts of that....like the way Miriam viewed her closeness to Paul and how his being there, when viewing the roses or anything else that thrilled her in nature, made it real and significant for her.

Oh briefly. I meant to go back to it. Sorry. I felt the impulse to comment on the MAry Magdeline when I saw her mentioned. I will go back and read it, probably tomorrow. I'm brain dead at this point of the evening. ;)

[amalia1985]

I don't know about the potentiality of a connection between Mary Magdalene and Lawrence's Miriam, but I would not find the possibility of the rose being related both to Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary. Both women were very close to Jesus and I believe they could be connected with the rose and its symbolisms, different for each woman, but I don't think this has much to do with Lawrence's novel.

Janine, you have posted quite a stunning material here. I will read it and come back.

[amalia1985]

The extremely interesting passage that you posted, Janine, gave me many opportunities to contemplate on the issues relevant here, both regarding Miriam and Paul’s relationship and the way Lawrence chooses to describe it.

“…till he had seen it…” Miriam seems to be so much in love with Paul that she literally views the world through his eyes.
“…communion together…” A sexual connotation? I would say- as we have all stated previously- that here, we talk about spirituality. Miriam views the affair as something sacred, superior, and spiritual, as if it was The Holy Communion for her.
“sky, earth, pearl”: Again-as we have already seen in his poems- Nature plays a vital role for Lawrence. I would dare to add that in university, in various subjects- from poetry to theater- we had been told that “pines” usually carry a sexual connection. Notice that Miriam “gazes rather frightened”, I think I could venture to relate these two points of the passage.

We have many touching, vivid images, where the reader can actually “see” and “feel” the sparkling. Ivory can be another reference to purity, and the importance of it for Miriam.

Janine, I agree with you. The part where Paul mentions the butterflies is very poignant. For Miriam, purity and virginity are treasures. Paul is a treasure to her, as well, so she wants to share every little thing that she loves with him, as you’ve already said. But, I think that Paul does not want her “holy”, and this spirituality of hers probably, unsettles him.

I would put much emphasis on Miriam’s dark eyes, a very important feature. Many heroines- not only of Lawrence, but of the majority of authors- attract attention with their dark eyes, e. g. Anna Karenina or Collin’s “Woman in White”. Perhaps, it is a symbol of mystery and warmth. I don’t think it has much to do with purity, but even if we take daily experiences in our mind, the dark eyes of a man or a woman is always something that attracts attention.

“She might have been one of the women who went with Mary when Jesus was dead.” A very important statement, I would say. I believe it as another indication of Miriam’s spiritual love, “freed” from the aspirations of a carnal relationship, like Mary Magdalene’s love for Jesus, perhaps? Quite controversial for many, but a possibility we have to keep in mind, regarding Lawrence’s use of the example. Can it be accidental? I wouldn’t think so.

Janine, I would say that the sun can be a reference to the kind of love Paul would want to have. Not spiritual, but warm. Perhaps, sun stands for passion? Both Paul and Miriam love Nature immensely, they are “children” of it, but each one gives it a different dimension. Life and Nature are closely connected. Paul loves life, and I agree with you, Janine, regarding the image of “the dead crust”.

[Virgil]

The extremely interesting passage that you posted, Janine, gave me many opportunities to contemplate on the issues relevant here, both regarding Miriam and Paul’s relationship and the way Lawrence chooses to describe it.

“…till he had seen it…” Miriam seems to be so much in love with Paul that she literally views the world through his eyes.
“…communion together…” A sexual connotation? I would say- as we have all stated previously- that here, we talk about spirituality. Miriam views the affair as something sacred, superior, and spiritual, as if it was The Holy Communion for her.
“sky, earth, pearl”: Again-as we have already seen in his poems- Nature plays a vital role for Lawrence. I would dare to add that in university, in various subjects- from poetry to theater- we had been told that “pines” usually carry a sexual connection. Notice that Miriam “gazes rather frightened”, I think I could venture to relate these two points of the passage.

We have many touching, vivid images, where the reader can actually “see” and “feel” the sparkling. Ivory can be another reference to purity, and the importance of it for Miriam.

Janine, I agree with you. The part where Paul mentions the butterflies is very poignant. For Miriam, purity and virginity are treasures. Paul is a treasure to her, as well, so she wants to share every little thing that she loves with him, as you’ve already said. But, I think that Paul does not want her “holy”, and this spirituality of hers probably, unsettles him.

I would put much emphasis on Miriam’s dark eyes, a very important feature. Many heroines- not only of Lawrence, but of the majority of authors- attract attention with their dark eyes, e. g. Anna Karenina or Collin’s “Woman in White”. Perhaps, it is a symbol of mystery and warmth. I don’t think it has much to do with purity, but even if we take daily experiences in our mind, the dark eyes of a man or a woman is always something that attracts attention.

“She might have been one of the women who went with Mary when Jesus was dead.” A very important statement, I would say. I believe it as another indication of Miriam’s spiritual love, “freed” from the aspirations of a carnal relationship, like Mary Magdalene’s love for Jesus, perhaps? Quite controversial for many, but a possibility we have to keep in mind, regarding Lawrence’s use of the example. Can it be accidental? I wouldn’t think so.

Janine, I would say that the sun can be a reference to the kind of love Paul would want to have. Not spiritual, but warm. Perhaps, sun stands for passion? Both Paul and Miriam love Nature immensely, they are “children” of it, but each one gives it a different dimension. Life and Nature are closely connected. Paul loves life, and I agree with you, Janine, regarding the image of “the dead crust”.

Exellent post Amalia! I think we were all approximating what you wrote, but I think you've hit it perefectly. :)

[amalia1985]

Virgil, thank you so much for your very very kind words, but I must say that my post would be nothing without all your precious comments which me food for thought. But for all of you, my ideas would be non-existent, really.

[Janine]

Amalia, you are too modest. You pick up on a lot of sensitive ideas here and I think we are thinking mostly alike on these points which you have so well layed out and illustrated for us. Your post is excellent, indeed! *clap clap*. I am proud of you. Now you are thinking and these are your thoughts added to mine - very good.

I wanted to add something about Miriam. Just a single thought. Did you notice often in the text she is mentioned as hanging back from the crowd, (such as when they all take an excrusion to that famous rock formation), she is then quiet and all to herself - contained, withdrawn, shy? She is jealous in many ways of Paul's attention to the others and she does not want to share him at all. I can easily see how their relationship would not work out, in the long-run. Even in moments of intense sharing she wants only he to be present within her own little religious realm. She is very possessive this way of Paul, I think. It is funny, because by contrast, Lawrence did marry a woman who was quite socialble and he also could be so as they traveled to various contries. He made many many friends; both of them did. I think that Miriam (Jesse) wanted to contain Lawrence and tie him down and he would not have had the freedom he desired in his life if he stayed with this woman.

As to the trees - that is quite interesting. At one point in the text Paul mentions the trees being like columns of fire - do you recall that? Glowing from the setting sun, I believe. Interesting, because later in his books, he sees people as columns of fire or reflections of the sun. Virgil, should be able to present to you and explain Lawrence ideas of the sun and sun worship and the sun's significance. The book I just read "The Plumed Serpent" mentions the sun significantly many times over. It is a form of worship.

The eyes are also interesting to me - in one book I read of L's - "The Lost Girl" the man's eyes were mentioned often as being yellow, which at the time I found to be quite strange. I am still not completely sure of this meaning to Lawrence, except to say he mentions them as being animalistic or of the natural world. I do also recall in "The Fox" - an excellent tale - that the fox had the piercing glowing yellow eyes. Perhaps Miriam's dark eyes symbolise a deep mysterious spirituality. In the "Plumed Serpent" one main character is often mentioned with dark black 'blank' looking eyes. Eyes, in all aspects, seem to have fascinated our Lawrence since all his books mention them often....blue as well. I do think each colors had certain significance for L....perhaps symbolism.

From Shakespeare - 'Loves Labour's Lost' ~ Biron: "Behold the window of my heart, mine eye".

[Virgil]

As to the trees - that is quite interesting. At one point in the text Paul mentions the trees being like columns of fire - do you recall that? Glowing from the setting sun, I believe. Interesting, because later in his books, he sees people as columns of fire or reflections of the sun. Virgil, should be able to present to you and explain Lawrence ideas of the sun and sun worship and the sun's significance. The book I just read "The Plumed Serpent" mentions the sun significantly many times over. It is a form of worship.

I barely remember the columns of fire Janine, so I can't really comment. Wait, it does come back somewhat. Columns of fire in The Plumed Serpent are suggestive of (please excuse me here :blush: ) of penises. :blush: But certainly in the later Lawrence the sun is a source of strength, power, spirituality. May I suggest a short story for the Lawrence short story thread, a story call "Sun." It's set on a Mediterrainean island (can't remember either Greek or Italian) with a woman character who strips naked to absorb the sun and be rejuvinated. I think Manolia an Amalia would like it since it is set next to their home. It is one of the few Lawrence stories where the feamle character is complete charge of the action. But it shows lawrence's late ideas about the sun as a diety. I think it was written shortly after The Plumed Serpent and one can see how Lawrence had really become as cloase to a pagan as any modern person can.


The eyes are also interesting to me - in one book I read of L's - "The Lost Girl" the man's eyes were mentioned often as being yellow, which at the time I found to be quite strange. I am still not completely sure of this meaning to Lawrence, except to say he mentions them as being animalistic or of the natural world. I do also recall in "The Fox" - an excellent tale - that the fox had the piercing glowing yellow eyes. Perhaps Miriam's dark eyes symbolise a deep mysterious spirituality. In the "Plumed Serpent" one main character is often mentioned with dark black 'blank' looking eyes. Eyes, in all aspects, seem to have fascinated our Lawrence since all his books mention them often....blue as well. I do think each colors had certain significance for L....perhaps symbolism.
Janine, I think we had a similar discussion when we were discussing The Prussian Officer. There is some significance for Lawrence (especially here in his earlier writings) to nordic blue eyes and dark southern eyes. I have not been able to figure it out. I do think that a you are probably right about the dark eyes suggesting a spirituality.

[amalia1985]

Again, thank you so much, you made me blushed, and I am so privileged to have you to talk to, as you are so well-read and experienced, and I am too young and too shy, but I always try to think and express my thoughts as best as I can.

I have noticed Miriam being possessive in various parts of the novel, yes.My first thought was that this feeling does not quite come in terms with the spirituality she proclaims, but then again, I feel now that she was in love with Paul, so it would be justifiable for her to wish that she is the only one for him. After all, too much spirituality would make the affair somewhat "unearthly", if I can put it that way, and I think that Lawrence wanted the readers to "feel" that such a relationship can take place. You understand what I'm trying to say, otherwise I don't see the reason for her being so possessive.

[Janine]

I barely remember the columns of fire Janine, so I can't really comment. Wait, it does come back somewhat. Columns of fire in The Plumed Serpent are suggestive of (please excuse me here :blush: ) of penises. :blush: But certainly in the later Lawrence the sun is a source of strength, power, spirituality. May I suggest a short story for the Lawrence short story thread, a story call "Sun." It's set on a Mediterrainean island (can't remember either Greek or Italian) with a woman character who strips naked to absorb the sun and be rejuvinated. I think Manolia an Amalia would like it since it is set next to their home. It is one of the few Lawrence stories where the feamle character is complete charge of the action. But it shows lawrence's late ideas about the sun as a diety. I think it was written shortly after The Plumed Serpent and one can see how Lawrence had really become as cloase to a pagan as any modern person can.
;) You could have more gently used the word phallic as in phallic symbols.:blush: Instead you make poor amalia blush.

You know I don't know where I come up with these scenes in my head. I am sure I did not dream it and I read about this recently; of course now I can't relocate it in my book, as usual. I just need to mark it when I come across interesting passages like this one was about the trees glowing. I believe that Miriam and he were alone when it was observed and right away I did think of the columns of fire in PS. I think Paul refers to them as columns of fire or light. I will hunt though the book tonight to find it. My neck is hurting more again so I can't right now.
Yes, I would, for one, be very interested in reading that short story - let's do it next? Is it a short one? I hope so. I do recall hearing about it. I will look it up in my books tonight. Good suggestion, V.


Janine, I think we had a similar discussion when we were discussing The Prussian Officer. There is some significance for Lawrence (especially here in his earlier writings) to nordic blue eyes and dark southern eyes. I have not been able to figure it out. I do think that a you are probably right about the dark eyes suggesting a spirituality.


If I felt better and had the energy I would quote some passages about 'eyes' from PS and from "The Lost Girl". The mention of eyes is so prominent in both of those books. In WIL, yes, there was the blue Nordic eyes and the dark southern eyes. I well remember that.

amalia, I think that Miriam's possessiveness is a sign of her imaturity for one. She is young and may have grown out of that. I don't think though the relationship between Paul and Miriam would have worked out in the long-run. If Paul represents an image and the thoughts of Lawrence himself then he would never be satisfied rooted in the same place for long. This is what Miriam would have liked - to keep Paul all to herself and rooted. Also she wanted him to remain fitting her image of what she felt he was. She worshipped Paul and Paul wanted merely to be a man to her not a god.

[Virgil]

;) You could have more gently used the word phallic as in phallic symbols.:blush: Instead you make poor amalia blush.

:lol: :lol: You're right. I should have used phallic, but for some reason the word did not come to me. Sorry Amalia. :p


You know I don't know where I come up with these scenes in my head. I am sure I did not dream it and I read about this recently; of course now I can't relocate it in my book, as usual. I just need to mark it when I come across interesting passages like this one was about the trees glowing. I believe that Miriam and he were alone when it was observed and right away I did think of the columns of fire in PS. I think Paul refers to them as columns of fire or light. I will hunt though the book tonight to find it. My neck is hurting more again so I can't right now.
Your neck is still bothering you Janine? Oh I wish the pain would go away. Feel better.


Yes, I would, for one, be very interested in reading that short story - let's do it next? Is it a short one? I hope so. I do recall hearing aboutit. I will look it up in my books tonight. Good suggestion, V.
Not long at all. It's a good story. Found it online: http://www.geocities.com/andtherewaswater/Archive/Sun.htm

If I felt better and had the energy I would...
Don't worry. Try to rest your neck. Bengay might help.

[Janine]

:lol: :lol: You're right. I should have used phallic, but for some reason the word did not come to me. Sorry Amalia. :p
Yeah, really, V, you seem to be into referring to body parts lately - remember that other thread?;)



Your neck is still bothering you Janine? Oh I wish the pain would go away. Feel better.

Yeah it is; I wish it would go away, too! What is with this, anyway? I thought this afternoon it was getting better and now it's paining me again - have been watching a movie with a heating pad wrapped round my neck/ ear/back of my head. Looks pretty funny...ever try wrapping a heating pad around your neck? not easy/ At least I can't feel the pain that way. I was falling asleep and I don't want to yet, so I just drank some coffee and now the pain is better - they do put caffeine into pain killers...strange.


Not long at all. It's a good story. Found it online: http://www.geocities.com/andtherewaswater/Archive/Sun.htm

Oh good! I will try to read it, soon as this month's discussions are fully done. Why is no one else posting in there - did I kill the thread?


Don't worry. Try to rest your neck. Bengay might help.

Bengay stinks and makes my eyes burn. I tried Capsasian once (made from hot peppers) but it irritated my skin. Think I will stick to the heating pad.
Thanks for your concern, V! I am sure I will live:D

Hey, this might be more significant than my other dumb posts on the rose idea. I just found this online: symbolism of roses

White: innocence, purity, secrecy, friendship, reverence and humility

That would certainly fit the profile for Miriam, wouldn't it?

In the book "The White Peacock" there is an amazing scene in the woods with white snow-drops that is very reminescent of this passage with the white roses. I will type it up when I am feeling better. It is a lovely passage - one of my favorites.

[Virgil]

Yeah it is; I wish it would go away, too! What is with this, anyway? I thought this afternoon it was getting better and now it's paining me again - have been watching a movie with a heating pad wrapped round my neck/ ear/back of my head. Looks pretty funny...ever try wrapping a heating pad around your neck? not easy/ At least I can't feel the pain that way. I was falling asleep and I don't want to yet, so I just drank some coffee and now the pain is better - they do put caffeine into pain killers...strange.

That does sound funny. Caffeine is wonderful stuff. It stmulates all sorts of things inside. It helps us in many respects.


Oh good! I will try to read it, soon as this month's discussions are fully done. Why is no one else posting in there - did I kill the thread?
No, I think we're just done with Odor of the Chrysanthemums. I have nothing left to say.


Bengay stinks and makes my eyes burn.
They have the odorless kind. It has helped me in the past.


I tried Capsasian once (made from hot peppers) but it irritated my skin. Think I will stick to the heating pad.
Thanks for your concern, V! I am sure I will live:D
You'll live, but you're falling apart. :p Not looking forward to your age. ;)


Hey, this might be more significant than my other dumb posts on the rose idea. I just found this online: symbolism of roses

White: innocence, purity, secrecy, friendship, reverence and humility

That would certainly fit the profile for Miriam, wouldn't it?
Yes it does.


In the book "The White Peacock" there is an amazing scene in the woods with white snow-drops that is very reminescent of this passage with the white roses. I will type it up when I am feeling better. It is a lovely passage - one of my favorites.
OK. :) When you feel up to it.

[Janine]

That does sound funny. Caffeine is wonderful stuff. It stmulates all sorts of things inside. It helps us in many respects.
Yeah, really - don't think I will ever give up caffeine completely. Yeah, caffeine - I have had my caffeine and not I am wide-awake and 'wired':eek: :D


No, I think we're just done with Odor of the Chrysanthemums. I have nothing left to say.

We are? I never know when to quite do I?;) I am sort of a diehard that way!:lol: I keep thinking there must be more we can say about it but I suppose everyone is anxious to move along. I don't blame them one bit. We can't discuss every little line or idea in the story; I have to let it go....;)


They have the odorless kind. It has helped me in the past.

Really? And it does not burn one's eyes - still it is methal or something like that. Funny thing is, I just took some meds, and now I feel ok again - before that I was dying of pain. Also, it seems to come and go even without the meds.



You'll live, but you're falling apart. :p Not looking forward to your age. ;)
Gee thanks:( I hope you make it to this 'ripe old' age I am...:lol: If I were you, I would work out more and more - ward off old the aging process.


Yes it does.

I thought now that was a better reference and a whole lot simplier, too. Guess I was in a fog yesterday when I posted all that other stuff. I could not quite relay what I was actually thinking of or trying to say about the the rose being and age-old symbol throughout religious history.



OK. :) When you feel up to it.

Hey, I have had my coffee now. I am wide-awake, like I said!

Here is the excerpt from "The White Peacock" - found it online and had to type it out, but was easy to refer to online, as I did type (tiled next to the text). This was just something I found interesting having to do with Lawrence's early thought processes and his imagery with another white flower - the snowdrop.

Passage from "The White Peacock":

As I talked to Emily I became dimly aware of a whiteness over the ground. She exclaimed with surprise, and I found that I was walking, in the first shade of twilight, over clumps of snowdrops. The hazels were thin, and only here and there an oak tree uprose. All the ground was white with snowdrops, like drops of manna scattered over the red earth, on the grey-green clusters of leaves. There was a deep little dell, sharp sloping like a cup, and white sparkling of flowers all the way down, with white flowers showing pale among the first inpouring of shadow at the bottom. The earth was red and warm, pricked with the dark, succulent green bluebell sheaths, and embroidered with grey-green clusters of spears, and many white flowerets. High above, about the light tracery of hazel, the weird oaks tangled in the sunset. Below, in the first shadows, dropped hosts of little white flowers, so silent and sad; it seemed like a holy communion of pure wild things, numberless, frail, folded meekly in the evening light. Other flower companies are glad; stately barbaric borders of bluebells, merry-headed cowslip groups, even light, tossing wood-anemones; but snowdrops are sad and mysterious. We have lost their meaning. They do not belong to us, who ravish them. The girls bend among them, touching them with their fingers, and symbolizing the yearning which I felt. Folded in the twilight, those conquered flowerets are sad like forlorn little friends of dryads.

“What do they mean, do you think?” said Leslie.

“They remind me of mistletoe, which is never ours, though we wear it.” Said Emily to me.

“What do you think they say – what do they make you think, Cyril?” Lettie repeated.

“I don’t know. Wmily says they belong to some old wild lost religion –They were the symbol of tears, perhaps, to some strange hearted Druid folk before us.”

“More than tears.” Said Lettie “More than tears, they are so still. Something out of an old religion, that we have lost. The make me feel afraid.”

“What should you have to fear?” said Leslie.

“If I knew I shouldn’t fear,” she answered “Look at all the snowdrops” –they hung in dim, strange flecks among the dusky leaves –“look at them—closed up, retreating, powerless. They belong to some knowledge we have lost, that I have lost, and that I need. I feel afraid. They seem like something in fate. Do you think, Cyril, we can lose things from off the earth – like mastodons, and those old monstrosities –but things that matter –wisdom?”

I thought this imagery very interesting being another white flower that stands out in the dim forest - contrasting and with deeper meaning. I wonder what significance snowdrops might have. I will try and research them as I did the rose. See below the photos - I came up with one symbolic reference so far. Snowdrops are pretty, eh?

snowdrops in England in January
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/SnowdropsEnglandJanuary.jpg

Another photo of snowdrops

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Snowdrops.jpg

Symbolism - (found this reference online)

"Snowdrops, because of their first bloom in many areas, are symbols,
more generally, of hope itself, giving rise to the ancient legend
that in their desolation over the seemingly unending winter cold
and winds and the death of plants displacing the continuous
temperate summer of Eden - through the rupture of the original
integrity and equilibrium of the sensitive attunement of the world
soul by the effects of original sin - the merciful hope of spring
was introduced through the discovery by Adam and Eve of the first
snowdrop blooms."

Here is a poem by Lawrence I just found comparing himself to a rose:


I am Like a Rose


I am myself at last; now I achieve
My very self, I, with the wonder mellow,
Full of fine warmth, I issue forth in clear
And single me, perfected from my fellow.

Here I am all myself. No rose-bush heaving
Its limpid sap to culmination has brought
Itself more sheer and naked out of the green
In stark-clear roses, than I to myself am brought.

[manolia]

You've all been busy :eek:
I haven't read all your posts (i've been gone for two days)..but i will, eventually read all of them ;)


Yes, I know they brought up the symbolism in the DaVinci code quite a bit. I did not think it had to be red necessarily.
Wow, manolia - you sure got over here fast or didn't you read my post in movies yet? If not, we must have ESP. I have missed seeing you here and our nice and stimulating conversations.
Interesting about the apple, too. I bet that symbol crops up frequently in L's work. Wasn't it mentioned in WIL? Come to think of it, Miriam, in this chapter I just read, offered Paul an apple when they were trying to study - do you remember that scene? This thought adds more interest to that moment, since he seemed annoyed at her at first being distracted. Perhaps the significance comes when he finally bit into her apple.

:lol: Janine it must have been ESP since i haven't yet seen your post in the movie thread :p
As for Mary Magdalene, like i said i am not sure if this symbolisms fits to this book, but Mary Magdalene according to the lore (or conspiracy theory, you can choose how to call it :D ) was supposed to be one of Jesus followers (like his 12 pupils and an equal to them) and she was Jesus companion and ..well..lover. The whole rose symbolism is suppossed to refer to the blood lineage that sprank from their union..well those things are just lore if you ask me and they are funny to read..but that's it ;) Not to be taken very seriously.
As for the novel, it makes more sense, at least to me that Miriam is depicted as Mary Magdalene and not as Virgin Mary:

1) Miriam is Paul's admirer and follower of his art (as according to the above lore, Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus)
2)and Miriam has sexual intercourse with Paul (without their being married) which makes her somehow a ""sinner"" (for the era she lived of course) and Mary Magdalene (according to the above lore) was Jesus follower and wife.

This kind of theories exist many many years and many a book prior to the da vinci code have used that kind of symbolism (my favourite being Ecco's "Fucault's Pendulum")

I have yet to read your other posts.

EDIT



I would put much emphasis on Miriam’s dark eyes, a very important feature. Many heroines- not only of Lawrence, but of the majority of authors- attract attention with their dark eyes, e. g. Anna Karenina or Collin’s “Woman in White”. Perhaps, it is a symbol of mystery and warmth. I don’t think it has much to do with purity, but even if we take daily experiences in our mind, the dark eyes of a man or a woman is always something that attracts attention.


Yes i agree. Dark eyes are suppossed to be mysterious and warm (or expressive) whereas blue eyes are cold and distant.
I always thought (being a fan of brittish literature) that the constant mention of dark eyes has something to do with the fact that they are not that common in northern countries, don't know if i am right though..hmmmm..



“She might have been one of the women who went with Mary when Jesus was dead.” A very important statement, I would say. I believe it as another indication of Miriam’s spiritual love, “freed” from the aspirations of a carnal relationship, like Mary Magdalene’s love for Jesus, perhaps? Quite controversial for many, but a possibility we have to keep in mind, regarding Lawrence’s use of the example. Can it be accidental? I wouldn’t think so.

Good point. I didn't remember that till you mentioned it. Another Magdalene referance (possibly)..can't be sure though.




I wanted to add something about Miriam. Just a single thought. Did you notice often in the text she is mentioned as hanging back from the crowd, (such as when they all take an excrusion to that famous rock formation), she is then quiet and all to herself - contained, withdrawn, shy? She is jealous in many ways of Paul's attention to the others and she does not want to share him at all. I can easily see how their relationship would not work out, in the long-run. Even in moments of intense sharing she wants only he to be present within her own little religious realm. She is very possessive this way of Paul, I think. It is funny, because by contrast, Lawrence did marry a woman who was quite socialble and he also could be so as they traveled to various contries. He made many many friends; both of them did. I think that Miriam (Jesse) wanted to contain Lawrence and tie him down and he would not have had the freedom he desired in his life if he stayed with this woman.

Very well said. Miriam is possesive of Paul. No wonder he felt that he was suffocating.



The eyes are also interesting to me - in one book I read of L's - "The Lost Girl" the man's eyes were mentioned often as being yellow, which at the time I found to be quite strange. I am still not completely sure of this meaning to Lawrence, except to say he mentions them as being animalistic or of the natural world. I do also recall in "The Fox" - an excellent tale - that the fox had the piercing glowing yellow eyes. Perhaps Miriam's dark eyes symbolise a deep mysterious spirituality. In the "Plumed Serpent" one main character is often mentioned with dark black 'blank' looking eyes. Eyes, in all aspects, seem to have fascinated our Lawrence since all his books mention them often....blue as well. I do think each colors had certain significance for L....perhaps symbolism.

I agree again. Yellow eyes reminds me of cats, tigers and suchlike animals. Yellow eyes in a human being may suggest certain animal traits (perhaps this refers to excessive sexuallity, hostility or it may suggest that this person is wild, hateful, quick tempered, violent etc). Yellow is also the colour of hatred, is it not?

EDIT again



White: innocence, purity, secrecy, friendship, reverence and humility

That would certainly fit the profile for Miriam, wouldn't it?



You got the white colour right, i am sure :thumbs_up The description fits her like a glove :D

I hope your neck is ok by now Janine :)


I barely remember the columns of fire Janine, so I can't really comment. Wait, it does come back somewhat. Columns of fire in The Plumed Serpent are suggestive of (please excuse me here :blush: ) of penises. :blush: But certainly in the later Lawrence the sun is a source of strength, power, spirituality. May I suggest a short story for the Lawrence short story thread, a story call "Sun."( ....). I think it was written shortly after The Plumed Serpent and one can see how Lawrence had really become as cloase to a pagan as any modern person can.


Hmmm..sounds interesting..
I liked very much this phrase of yours i have highlighted..it is true. I remember vividly that scene from Women in Love where he was describing the african figurines..and the whole blood theory you were explaining to us.


Everyone, sorry for the long post. I had to keep up with the conversation.

[amalia1985]

First of all, Janine, I must thank you for the beautiful pictures of the snowdrops. They have already found their place in my desktop photos archive.

Now, regarding the passage from The White Peacock: As you and Virgil said, whiteness has a very important part in the passage. I think that, once again, Lawrence uses it in contrast to the shadows and the darkness. Can the dropped white flowers, “silent and sad”, symbolize a kind of virginity and innocence that is being threatened?
“Ravish” is a key word, I believe. The innocence that is represented by the flowers is, somehow, destroyed. The yearning and the touching are connected, twilight is, again, present, and I must relate the use of the sad myth of the dryads to the reference of the symbol of tears.

I have a question, though, and I read The White Peacock, some months ago; What is it that Lettie fears? She says she needs knowledge and wisdom. Can these two notions come in contrast to innocence? To connect it with Sons and Lovers: Clara is a woman that “knows” the world, but Miriam lives in a spiritual world of her own. What do you think?

[Janine]

You've all been busy :eek:
I haven't read all your posts (i've been gone for two days)..but i will, eventually read all of them ;)
Yes, also busy last night (after I drank some coffee to stay awake and was quite 'wired' up) posting some photos for illustrations - thought it perked up our thread a little. I should have posted a wild white rose bush, too. Anyway, aren't the snowdrops pretty? I know they were not in S&L's (that I recall) but I thought you might all find the passage from "The White Peacock" of some interest in relation to finding the white rose bush in the wood. I had promised awhile back to post this passage on snowdrops, but had to type it up.



:lol: Janine it must have been ESP since i haven't yet seen your post in the movie thread :p

Yes, I believe we definitely have ESP, manolia! ;) :lol: Have you seen my post in movies by now? At anyrate, I am glad you are back here and don't ever appologise for such a long post - I really enjoyed it emensely. Nice to see someone else fill half a page in the thread besides me! It is a very good post, M! :thumbs_up



As for Mary Magdalene, like i said i am not sure if this symbolisms fits to this book, but Mary Magdalene according to the lore (or conspiracy theory, you can choose how to call it :D ) was supposed to be one of Jesus followers (like his 12 pupils and an equal to them) and she was Jesus companion and ..well..lover. The whole rose symbolism is suppossed to refer to the blood lineage that sprank from their union..well those things are just lore if you ask me and they are funny to read..but that's it ;) Not to be taken very seriously.
As for the novel, it makes more sense, at least to me that Miriam is depicted as Mary Magdalene and not as Virgin Mary:

1) Miriam is Paul's admirer and follower of his art (as according to the above lore, Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus)
2)and Miriam has sexual intercourse with Paul (without their being married) which makes her somehow a ""sinner"" (for the era she lived of course) and Mary Magdalene (according to the above lore) was Jesus follower and wife.

This kind of theories exist many many years and many a book prior to the da vinci code have used that kind of symbolism (my favourite being Ecco's "Fucault's Pendulum")

All of this is quite good and expands the idea. I know that theory has been around long before Dan Brown came out with his blockbuster/contraversial novel. It is the prior stuff I was more interested in. The novel is pretty corny and commercial. I do have better taste in literature than DB's work.:blush: But this added information really throws better light on the correlation between Mary Magdeline and Mirriam. You could probably say that Paul's mother better correlated to Mary, Christ's mother - in sacrificing her sons to the world. Just a thought....maybe way off with that one...just a thought.



Yes i agree. Dark eyes are suppossed to be mysterious and warm (or expressive) whereas blue eyes are cold and distant.
I always thought (being a fan of brittish literature) that the constant mention of dark eyes has something to do with the fact that they are not that common in northern countries, don't know if i am right though..hmmmm..

At least Lawrence seems to think that is true and maybe it is. I don't know for fact. In his later book "The Plumed Serpent" he spoke quite often of the Southern races and their dark complexions and their dark black eyes. He contrasts the two so often like in WIL with Rupert's warmer darker eyes and then with Gerald's cooler (Nordic type) blue ones; of which we discussed earlier in WIL what each seemed to represent to Lawrence. It is strange now that in his earlier novel "Sons and Lovers" Miriam is the one with the mysterious dark eyes. It almost indicates to me that she had the potential represent the blood theory or the deep sexual mysteries and yet she is not the one to do so for Paul, instead it is Clara he finds sexual furfillment with but not entirely. I don't know if that last statement of mine makes sense. It just seems strange now that Miriam has the dark mysterious eyes but these now seem indicative of religious/mystical mysteries. Paul's eyes are described as being blue - correct? I think L often mention's Mrs. Morel's eyes as also being a clear blue.
Looking back to your statements - I do think your first statement on 'eyes' is correct. Miriam had the warm eyes and so did Paul's father.
Yellow eyes still seem strange to me. I felt that in "The Lost Girl", an interesting book, by the way, Lawrence used the description of the eyes in different ways that suggested a darkness and then flecks of light. I really was not sure what he was getting at. Then in "Plumed Serpent" I think he again made mention of eyes with flecks of light or yellow. I felt this corresponded to the sun but I am not completely sure of that. That was only my own theory. One could do a whole study on "Eyes in the work of D.H.Lawrence: Their Significance". Hey, Virgil, would that make a good topic for a thesis? :lol: Another topic could be: "The Symbolism of Flowers in DHL's Works." haha - I still might get that masters degree in L;) :lol:




Good point. I didn't remember that till you mentioned it. Another Magdalene referance (possibly)..can't be sure though.

That was a good point, Amalia. Interesting to think of it this way, especially since later L wrote a story about Christ, if he had been human and not divine and died on the cross - "The Man Who Died". You might want to read it and see if it reveals anything. I think I might sqeeze it in now, between other readings. I think I have it here, in a collected works of his short fiction.



Very well said. Miriam is possesive of Paul. No wonder he felt that he was suffocating.

Yes, true, that 'suffocating' would be a good word for it. I also think, as I read further along, that Paul had to be very sexually frustrated. In some instances Miriam seems to lead Paul on and then withdraw herself from him. There seems to be a tug and then a pulling away that gets annoying to me. She lured him into the woods at dust or dark and then she is cool to him if he tries to approach her. She is not sure in herself either and she 'wants him' and yet she is tied to tradition and to her morals and a higher sense of her worth. There is a definite conflict going on inside of Miriam. She, too, has to feel some sense of sexual frustration, even though she won't let herself go and be natural with Paul. In a sense, she is the more frustrated. It must have been hard being in love in those days. I think by now in the story, he is 22 and she is 20, but they seem to have little physical contact, although they both do crave it. I am thinking on the scene when he fixes the bicycle tire and she admires his skill and wants to run her hands down his sides. Then finally, she does, but that is as far as it goes - she pulls back away from him again. This must have been confusing and lonely for Paul; confusing for her, too. I can see why he is angry much of the time with her or annoyed with her. Am I wrong? If I am please correct me. I don't have to be the 'tour quide' or 'the leader' - just another lowly participant in this thread struggling along with my thoughts, just like all of you. I am only half way through the book, and all of you are probably done reading, correct? What a 'slow-poke' I have been on this one. But I am enjoying my second reading very much, more than the first time. I think I may have to read it a third time....well, someday.


I agree again. Yellow eyes reminds me of cats, tigers and suchlike animals. Yellow eyes in a human being may suggest certain animal traits (perhaps this refers to excessive sexuallity, hostility or it may suggest that this person is wild, hateful, quick tempered, violent etc). Yellow is also the colour of hatred, is it not?

Not sure in L's mind it would be 'excessive' sexuality, but definitely a more earthy sexual, sensual person. In some of L's works, I do think it indicates a certain hate or power such as in "The Prussian Officer" - I will have to look that up and see if he was dark-eyed or yellow-eyed. I am sure it mentions eyes in that story, too. Yet Gerald had the blue eyes and he showed power at times, like when he comes to the railway and makes the horse stay as the train goes by. Not sure what all this eye stuff truly indicates. I think by now I have completely confused myself! :eek2: :goof:




You got the white colour right, i am sure :thumbs_up The description fits her like a glove :D

Thanks, I thought so, too. Glad I found this reference in my travels via cyberspace. On utube I found a video the other day of a tour of Lawrence's ranch in NM - it was quite interesting. You might find it and check it out. In searching for one little thing, I always find a dozen other interesting sites.


I hope your neck is ok by now Janine :)

Thanks, M. My neck is strange; first it hurts badly and then it has periods of feeling like it is getting better. If it keeps up, I will have to go to the drs. My sister had same type thing a few months back and it straightened out finally. Hope mine does too. Too much computer is probably killing my back.:(




Hmmm..sounds interesting..
I liked very much this phrase of yours i have highlighted..it is true. I remember vividly that scene from Women in Love where he was describing the african figurines..and the whole blood theory you were explaining to us.

I really desire now to read that 'Sun' story. Let that be the next short story - what do you think, V? This way we can see some correlation, perhaps concerning this book and the 'sun' or 'column of fire' references. I love linking the stories - easy to do with L's work - themes spill over into his other stories, novels and even his poems; although they are changed often and transposed into something quite different or altered. It mades the whole study so interesting....like taking the journey of discovery with Lawrence.

Hey,Virgil, did you notice in one passage in S&L when he was speaking of Miriam he did mention the word "Transfiguration" or so I think he did - unless I mistaked it for "Transformation" - seemed early in his writing to be thinking this way.


Everyone, sorry for the long post. I had to keep up with the conversation.

And you thought your post was long.......
manolia......NEVER be sorry for a long post!!!!!;) :thumbs_up on your 'interesting' post!

Wow - just editing this - amalia, we must have posted the same time. How funny! ESP again - must be because you and Manolia are Greek - haha - I must have a direct connection to ancient culturess. ha!
Let me think about your questions further, because I don't know the answers off hand.
Wow, I have not meet anyone who read "The White Peacock"....and here you have, amalia.....we must discuss the book. Although, I realise that it was not as developed as S&L's was, is it not a fascinating book? Being it was Lawrence's first published novel it interested me greatly. It does explore some strange areas, such as Annabele and the white peacock, yet there is so much of the seed in that of L's later novels, I found it fascinating. Also, aren't some of the passages beautiful? Almost they still retain a kind of youth, freshness and innocense? I loved the bird nest in the field, and the later reference to it when Cyril comes across it, holding the two tiny hatched baby birds. I have a thing about birdnests so I found this so romantic and so poetically written but with deeper meaning.

[amalia1985]

Yes, Janine, we must definetely discuss "The White Peacock", I read it in university, along with other Lawrence's writings.

I am interested in everything that can be characterised controversial, I want to get and explore more ideas concerning religious and social subjects. I think that "The Man Who Died" is probably the most moving short story about Christ, so stunning, and makes someone understand the torchure the Man went through, which trully made me think a lot of things.

I bought "The Virgin and the Gypsy, and other stories", by Lawrence two years ago. I would love to discuss some of them with all of you. I think that stories like The Man who Died, although they can be characterised "controversial" too bring someone closer to the Human Jesus, but this is only my opinion.

Dan Brown's book was, well, without comments. What you said about taste applies for me too. It's not the subject that met my objections. Personally, I have no problem with the possibility of Jesus having an earthly life, before His Passion, but I think that it all depends on the manner the author uses to express his/her theories. For example, Kazantzakis' "The Last Temptation" deals with the same-more or less-theory that exists around, but in a poetic, "elegant" way.

I think I went off the point, I am looking forward to the continuation of our discussion with all of you.

[Janine]

My last post was gigantic so I am making this one, too....restless and need a life I suppose.....anyway, was looking up white roses again ....since you liked my photos so much amalia, here is another to add to your desktop file:

Wild white roses:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/WildWhiteRose.jpg


Found this on another site - good symbolism/meaning of the white rose:

Meaning of White Roses


White roses are traditionally symbolic of purity and virtue, innocence and sincerity. From the cradle to the grave, white roses are often present to mark the passage of time in our lives. In Victorian times at birth, white roses symbolic of innocence, might have been given to celebrate the new arrival. At marriage a bride may have carried a white bouquet, symbolic of her purity and virtue and at death a coffin may have been decorated with white (and often white and red) roses as a symbol of sincerity and eternal love.
Today we still follow many of these traditions. In the ‘language of flowers’, white roses are symbolic of pure intentions.

In a romantic context, a white rose may be a heart innocent of love, or it may symbolise undying love, a love and loyalty deeper than fleeting passion. Hence in the ‘language of flowers’ both meanings are accommodated, a white rosebud meaning ‘I am too young to be loved’ and a white rose meaning ‘I am worthy of you’.

Like in John Boyle O’Reilly’s poem (above), white and red roses can be seen as symbolic opposites. The Christian Virgin Mary takes the white roses as her symbol as did the Greek & Roman Aphrodite (Venus) Goddess of Love. While the Virgin Mary represents the purity and innocence of the virginal, Aphrodite represents the passage of womanhood – when she is virginal she is represented by white roses, when sexual/fertile she is represented by red roses.


Yes, Janine, we must definetely discuss "The White Peacock", I read it in university, along with other Lawrence's writings.

I am interested in everything that can be characterised controversial, I want to get and explore more ideas concerning religious and social subjects. I think that "The Man Who Died" is probably the most moving short story about Christ, so stunning, and makes someone understand the torchure the Man went through, which trully made me think a lot of things.

I bought "The Virgin and the Gypsy, and other stories", by Lawrence two years ago. I would love to discuss some of them with all of you. I think that stories like The Man who Died, although they can be characterised "controversial" too bring someone closer to the Human Jesus, but this is only my opinion.

Dan Brown's book was, well, without comments. What you said about taste applies for me too. It's not the subject that met my objections. Personally, I have no problem with the possibility of Jesus having an earthly life, before His Passion, but I think that it all depends on the manner the author uses to express his/her theories. For example, Kazantzakis' "The Last Temptation" deals with the same-more or less-theory that exists around, but in a poetic, "elegant" way.

I think I went off the point, I am looking forward to the continuation of our discussion with all of you.

amalia,
Yikes we did it again - you posted same time or right before me! How funny.:lol: I am thrilled you are so interested in these writings and books of L's....wow, and you studied them in university - you must have had a professor who was an L enthusiast like me. Yes, I too agree with you on the contraversial aspects of the stories and writings and actually reading "The Man Who Died" does make it a more real experience. Afterall, it was an earthly suffering. I must dig that book out and read it again because often in commentary they refer back to it and also in the biographies I have read. I have been thinking about refreshing my memory on it for sometime now. I did read "The Virgin and the Gypsy" and I think I liked it very much. That too is on my 'repeat' L reading list.

Yes, hmmmm, Dan Brown....so much for his style of writing...very basic and corny at times...I kept rolling my eyes and thinking this sounds like a movie script - 'Indiana Jones' style....sure enough someone thought so, too...Ron Howard. Actually, I found the movie more entertaining as a mere thriller. So I suppose we agree on DB and his presentation of the idea. Interesting to know someone did so prior to him and presented it much better and more feasibly. Now, that I would not mind reading, just out of curiosity. In posting the stuff about the DiVinci Code book, I was merely showing what the theory presented, not praising his book, by a long shot. I would never read another of his books. One was quite enough.

[Virgil]

As for the novel, it makes more sense, at least to me that Miriam is depicted as Mary Magdalene and not as Virgin Mary:

1) Miriam is Paul's admirer and follower of his art (as according to the above lore, Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus)
2)and Miriam has sexual intercourse with Paul (without their being married) which makes her somehow a ""sinner"" (for the era she lived of course) and Mary Magdalene (according to the above lore) was Jesus follower and wife.


That is very interesting Manolia. Now I don't know which to think. You may be right.

[Janine]

That is very interesting Manolia. Now I don't know which to think. You may be right.

Yes, this was what I was orginally thinking as well, not of Mary as the mother but Mary as the girlfriend or friend or potential girlfriend in relation to Paul.


A later part of the book interested me - also a flower reference - when Mrs. Morel calls Paul out to the garden to point out some foreign bulbs that have bloomed and she does not know where they could have come from. Paul says finally that he had planted a mixed set, apparently as a surprise for his mother. His sharing with her seemed almost to correlate to the religious or deeply felt sharing of the white rose bush in the forrest with Miriam. Did anyone else pick up on the two passages being similiar with the two woman in Paul's life? His reaction to his mother's delight is quite different than it is towards Miriams, if I recall it correctly.

[Quark]

amalia, I think that Miriam's possessiveness is a sign of her imaturity for one. She is young and may have grown out of that. I don't think though the relationship between Paul and Miriam would have worked out in the long-run. If Paul represents an image and the thoughts of Lawrence himself then he would never be satisfied rooted in the same place for long. This is what Miriam would have liked - to keep Paul all to herself and rooted. Also she wanted him to remain fitting her image of what she felt he was. She worshipped Paul and Paul wanted merely to be a man to her not a god.

I wonder how much Miriam actually worshiped Paul. Towards the end Paul decides that Miriam never had any respect for him. In fact, she calls him a four-year old child. Part of Miriam's speech is prompted by the feelings of a scorned lover, but it seems to stay with Paul. He asks Clara or his mother (I forget which) whether he lacks maturity. Both Miriam and Paul think there is some truth behind this; and, if this is true, then Paul is the one exhibiting immaturity. Do any of you think that Paul was really the mature object of Miriam's worship that he believed himself to be early in the novel?

I happen to think that Paul is just a blockhead. Lawrence's more complex interpretation of the protagonist probably made the novel more interesting, though.

[Janine]

I wonder how much Miriam actually worshiped Paul. Towards the end Paul decides that Miriam never had any respect for him. In fact, she calls him a four-year old child. Part of Miriam's speech is prompted by the feelings of a scorned lover, but it seems to stay with Paul. He asks Clara or his mother (I forget which) whether he lacks maturity. Both Miriam and Paul think there is some truth behind this; and, if this is true, then Paul is the one exhibiting immaturity. Do any of you think that Paul was really the mature object of Miriam's worship that he believed himself to be early in the novel?

I happen to think that Paul is just a blockhead. Lawrence's more complex interpretation of the protagonist probably made the novel more interesting, though.

Quark, wish I knew how to answer your post. I have not gotten to the end yet, although I read the book before (a few years back), my memory is not that keen. I don't recall the part you are referring to. I do know, that after the breakup, whatever the two say about each other, might just be a tad slanted and due to their reactions to each other and their hurt feelings. I do feel in many scenes as though she worships him in some mystical way, at least up to the half-way point in the novel - which is about where I am in my second reading. I will try and find some exact quotes. Well, I think both are exhibiting imaturity at times in their relationship. They are young and inexperienced - both of them. What do they know of the world anyway? Then Clara comes along and she is more worldly and in her way leads Paul, something Miriam was not equipped to do emotionally or physically. I don't think anyone is to blame here.

Quark, I am curious - what exactly is your definition of a 'blockhead' ? How do you mean that Lawrence's more complex interpretation of Paul makes the novel more interesting? I don't really get your drift here. The story is about Paul and I don't feel he is a 'blockhead' at all, unless I don't understand the term. He might be confused and unable to disengage himself from his mother's control, but I don't know if in labeling him such, is at all fair or accurate. It is his complexity that makes the novel what it is.

[amalia1985]

Janine, thank you so much for the beautiful photo.

I agree on everything you said, and I really think that "The Virgin and the Gypsy" is such a moving story! You are aslo right regarding our professor. She has a Phd in English Literature, and her final project was concerned with Lawrence's views on Nature and Society.

[Janine]

Janine, thank you so much for the beautiful photo.

I agree on everything you said, and I really think that "The Virgin and the Gypsy" is such a moving story! You are aslo right regarding our professor. She has a Phd in English Literature, and her final project was concerned with Lawrence's views on Nature and Society.

amalia, glad you liked the photos. I love floral photos myself. I was thinking that once I bought those snowdrops for my garden but then I did not care for them as I should and eventually they died off. They were pretty though. Wild roses look different than cultivated ones but they have their own beauty. It is fun to post some photos from time to time in these threads - makes them a little more interesting I think.

I look forward to re-reading the story, "The Virgin and the Gypsy" - when did you finish reading it? I'm glad you liked it so much.

That is wonderful about your professor - her studies sounded quite interesting. How lucky you were having a professor interested in Lawrence. Virgil let me read his thesis on Lawrence awhile back. It is on the aspects of Transfiguration in L's work...quite interesting. You might him about it. ;) It deals with L's later works.

[amalia1985]

Oh, let me see...I've finished reading "The Virgin and the Gypsy" this August. Lawrence's selected short stories was one of the books I took on vacations with me.

My professor is the best I had in my four-year course in university. I am still in touch with her as we are working together, planning my PhD, and I feel privileged for meeting her. Professor like her bring about any university's significance.

[Janine]

Oh, let me see...I've finished reading "The Virgin and the Gypsy" this August. Lawrence's selected short stories was one of the books I took on vacations with me.

My professor is the best I had in my four-year course in university. I am still in touch with her as we are working together, planning my PhD, and I feel privileged for meeting her. Professor like her bring about any university's significance.

amalia, is "The Virgin and the Gypsy" in the short stories? I thought it was longer and more of a novelette. I can't seem to find it in my three short story books. I have another book with "St. Mawr" and "The Man Who Died", but now I have a feeling I don't have the "V an G". Maybe it is on this site. I will go and see now.

Your professor sounds wonderful. I wish I could met her. It is great that she is keeping in touch with you and helping your plan your PhD. I am friends with my high-school literature teacher, can you believe it? She retired a number of years back and lives in my town and is very active in the town and it's history, etc. I see her once in awhile. She was one of my best teachers, but now we often disagree about authors. I don't even think she likes Lawrence at all. She likes American literature, better than English. But I still like her as a friend; she is a nice lady.

You are so privileged to have such a fine teacher and sharing the appreciation of the same literature. Teachers like her do make a difference and are so significant in one's life, never to be forgotten.

[Virgil]

Oh, let me see...I've finished reading "The Virgin and the Gypsy" this August. Lawrence's selected short stories was one of the books I took on vacations with me.

My professor is the best I had in my four-year course in university. I am still in touch with her as we are working together, planning my PhD, and I feel privileged for meeting her. Professor like her bring about any university's significance.


amalia, is "The Virgin and the Gypsy" in the short stories? I thought it was longer and more of a novelette. I can't seem to find it in my three short story books. I have another book with "St. Mawr" and "The Man Who Died", but now I have a feeling I don't have the "V an G". Maybe it is on this site. I will go and see now.

Your professor sounds wonderful. I wish I could met her. It is great that she is keeping in touch with you and helping your plan your PhD. I am friends with my high-school literature teacher, can you believe it? She retired a number of years back and lives in my town and is very active in the town and it's history, etc. I see her once in awhile. She was one of my best teachers, but now we often disagree about authors. I don't even think she likes Lawrence at all. She likes American literature, better than English. But I still like her as a friend; she is a nice lady.

You are so privileged to have such a fine teacher and sharing the appreciation of the same literature. Teachers like her do make a difference and are so significant in one's life, never to be forgotten.

I wish I had had a teacher with a specialty in Lawrence. It would have been a great experience for me. Alas, I had to feel my way through on my own, and I never knew (and still don't) if I got it right.

I've never read The Virgin and the Gypsy. It's not in Lawrence's Complete Short Stories. It is considered a short novel or novella.

Amalia, you're more than welcomed to my master's thesis if you think it would help.

Janine, you never mentioned your high school teacher. Which writers is she interested in?

[Janine]

I wish I had had a teacher with a specialty in Lawrence. It would have been a great experience for me. Alas, I had to feel my way through on my own, and I never knew (and still don't) if I got it right.
Virgil, Same here... with me. What a great experience that would have been. I just discovered Lawrence on my own, well with the suggestion of some guy I was interested in at the time. I don't even recall reading anything of L's in highschool, although my sister said she read "Rocking Horse Winner" in HS. Seems lots of high schools do teach that one, for some strange reason.

I've never read The Virgin and the Gypsy. It's not in Lawrence's Complete Short Stories. It is considered a short novel or novella.
I could have sworn I read it and had the book - like maybe two novellas in one book, but if so, I can't seem to locate the book now. I have lately been thinking of several books I had, and now I can't seem to find either which really bugs me. Odd, because I never ever throw things like that away. Maybe it will turn up if I search for it. I hate to go and buy it, if I have it already. I did just invest in a new copy of "The Rainbow", I figured you would like to hear me say that, Virgil. I do plan a re-reading, maybe in the summer, next year. I checked my big book which houses several of the novels, but it did not have that one. I must have borrowed a library book first time around. I know now I will have such a different concept and perception of the book. V, did you ever read "Arron's Rod"? Not sure I spelled that name correctly. Tired out now to check it.

Amalia, you're more than welcomed to my master's thesis if you think it would help.
It is fine writing Amalia - quite interesting. It did help me understand the theory although I admit I had to read it twice to grasp it all.


Janine, you never mentioned your high school teacher. Which writers is she interested in?

I know she does like Dickens and also loves Victor Hugo - we discussed "Les Miserables" recently, but I was shocked when she said she hated the British authors - I think she basically meant the modernists such as Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce and even Thomas Hardy - she does not like Hardy at all. I was a bit shocked to be honest with you, when she made this statement to me. She is a strictly religious minded, so maybe that is why. She is in her 70's now. She loves histories and I think she likes Shakespeare; well, to each his own, right? She liked Steinbeck, Thomas Wolf, Jack London, Herman Melville - Hemmingway, Hawthorne, Wharton; authors like that. She probably does not like any of the more subversive authors who questioned religion. My high school was tres conservative - what can I say. No wonder I broke loose and went to art school, right - what an eye-opener that was for a girl from a middle class conservative neighborhood in a small town in the suburbs! ;)

[Virgil]

Virgil, Same here... with me. What a great experience that would have been. I just discovered Lawrence on my own, well with the suggestion of some guy I was interested in at the time. I don't even recall reading anything of L's in highschool, although my sister said she read "Rocking Horse Winner" in HS. Seems lots of high schools do teach that one, for some strange reason.

For some reason lots really like "The Rocking Horse Winner." It's an OK story, but there are so many other Lawrence stories that are top notch. I'm not sure why that one clicks with people at large. I should re-read it. Perhaps I missed something.


I could have sworn I read it and had the book - like maybe two novellas in one book, but if so, I can't seem to locate the book now. I have lately been thinking of several books I had, and now I can't seem to find either which really bugs me. Odd, because I never ever throw things like that away. Maybe it will turn up if I search for it. I hate to go and buy it, if I have it already. I did just invest in a new copy of "The Rainbow", I figured you would like to hear me say that, Virgil. I do plan a re-reading, maybe in the summer, next year. I checked my big book which houses several of the novels, but it did not have that one. I must have borrowed a library book first time around. I know now I will have such a different concept and perception of the book. V, did you ever read "Arron's Rod"? Not sure I spelled that name correctly. Tired out now to check it.
No I never read Aaron's rod. That's one of the novels lumped with Kangaroo and The Plumed Serpent as his mediocre period. Great that you bought The Rainbow. I really love that novel. If you want to read The virgin and the Gypsy, I'll be glad to lend it to you.


It is fine writing Amalia - quite interesting. It did help me understand the theory although I admit I had to read it twice to grasp it all.
:blush: Thank Janine.


I know she does like Dickens and also loves Victor Hugo - we discussed "Les Miserables" recently, but I was shocked when she said she hated the British authors - I think she basically meant the modernists such as Woolf, Lawrence, Joyce and even Thomas Hardy - she does not like Hardy at all. I was a bit shocked to be honest with you, when she made this statement to me. She is a strictly religious minded, so maybe that is why. She is in her 70's now. She loves histories and I think she likes Shakespeare; well, to each his own, right? She liked Steinbeck, Thomas Wolf, Jack London, Herman Melville - Hemmingway, Hawthorne, Wharton; authors like that. She probably does not like any of the more subversive authors who questioned religion. My high school was tres conservative - what can I say.
Well, there is some risque stuff in some of those American novelists. And Woolf is not risque at all. Perhaps she didn't care for the experimental writing style. You didn't mention Faulkner in the American writers she liked, and he was very experimental.


No wonder I broke loose and went to art school, right - what an eye-opener that was for a girl from a middle class conservative neighborhood in a small town in the suburbs! ;)
You mean like painting male nudes. :p :lol:

[amalia1985]

I would be honoured to read your thesis, Virgil!!!!! Thank you so much!!!!

[Janine]

For some reason lots really like "The Rocking Horse Winner." It's an OK story, but there are so many other Lawrence stories that are top notch. I'm not sure why that one clicks with people at large. I should re-read it. Perhaps I missed something.

Virgil, I know - I never really could see the big fuss about that story. I thought it surreal and outlandish. I saw this really silly rendition of it on utube the other day - someone made it into a modern video. Well, to each his own. I think, like you I will have to re-read it; maybe there was something I had missed earlier on. I think O of C was good but I don't think that was L's best either. You know sometimes what the majority likes is not what I like particularly.


No I never read Aaron's rod. That's one of the novels lumped with Kangaroo and The Plumed Serpent as his mediocre period. Great that you bought The Rainbow. I really love that novel. If you want to read The virgin and the Gypsy, I'll be glad to lend it to you.

I read "Aaron's Rod" and thought it was a bit strange, but I don't think quite on par (strange-wise) with PS. It seemed to follow in the vane more of 'WIL' and 'Rainbow', but maybe I am thinking that, because I read it back around the time I read those two books. I did not know it was a much later work. Well, yes, I would borrow the book - "Virgin and the Gypsy" - thanks so much for offering it. Let me look around first because I can't imagine I don't have it - I distinctly recall reading it and my library has hardly any books on Lawrence :( - only "Sons and Lovers" and "Woman In Love" I think; possibly LCL....but it is doubtful - a very conservative library and town.



:blush: Thank Janine.

Hey, don't blush - you deserve credit - your thesis was a fine work of research and writing!:thumbs_up



Well, there is some risque stuff in some of those American novelists. And Woolf is not risque at all. Perhaps she didn't care for the experimental writing style. You didn't mention Faulkner in the American writers she liked, and he was very experimental.

That is it exactly - like I said I grew up in a conservative environment and my HS probably banned books with any bit of subversion or risque quality about them. I think perhaps we might have read Faulkner. I know my good HS friend, Cliff, who was a rebel personified (M,B&D like you;)) pushed reading those books and authors. He loved Joyce and kept telling me for years "Janine, you are an artist and you have never read 'Portrait of an Artist' by Joyce? Shame on you!" You know it was not until a year ago, that I finally read the book. He would have been pleased.:lol: Better late than never, right? I think he read Faulkner and also Salinger - think he even got his autograph on his book end page. He died a number of years back and I know his sister-in-law mentioned the book to me recently; she has it. Anyway, it is a good memory thinking of him and how rebellious he was in HS -hey, someone had to stand up for the great authors, right! We probably had a different teacher then too - I recall another woman teaching Lit and she was way more progressive.


You mean like painting male nudes. :p :lol:

NO, that was not particularly what I meant! :lol:(dirty old man!) My college had some real characters, and that includes the professors. One professor I had played his flamingo quitar often in class; that was my English lit class - haha:lol:. He was heavy into Herman Hesse I recall and most times I think he was pretty 'high' in class! Hey, it was the 70's - hear this Amalia; that was the true 'Hippie era'. I lived through it the first time, not in the revival era only! We had a ball in art school! Not sure how much we learned, but it certainly was entertaining at the time.

Hey, V, I saw a film (parody) on going to art school the other night called "Art School Confidential"....I did laugh, and laugh (very amusing) and recall scenes like in my own art college like in this film. You should watch it sometime. You would like the nude model scenes - they were pretty funny and pretty realistic, to the way it really was. All except one guy makes comments about them continually and I don't recall any snickerers or anything like that. Still one main theme is that 'montage garbaaage' - that is with a long 'a' - we used to call it that - got all the 'acolades' and the poor smuck who really had talent, got passed by by the non-talented students and there were many, believe me - all politics and still is, unfortunately. John Malcovitz played a perfect talentless prof. He really fits this role well.

Peace everyone.....hahaha...that is 60's talk.... originally.

[amalia1985]

The volume that contains "The Virgin and the Gypsy" is a 2004 Wordsworth Limited Edition, with introduction and notes by Pr. Jeff Wallace of the University of Glamorgan.

It also contains the following stories:"Love among the Haystacks", "The Lovely Lady", "Rawdon's Roof", "The Rocking- Horse Winner", "The Man Who Loved Islands", and "The Man Who Died".

[Janine]

Amalia, thanks for listing that. I don't recall having that exact volume, because I don't think I ever read "The Lovely Lady" or Rawdon's Roof". I did read "Love Amoung the Haystacks"; and the last two you mention I have in one small volume (paperback). I probably have another paperback buried somewhere in my bookshelf or down in the basement or in a box - any number of hiding places in my way too crowded rooms! haha. I keep thinking I want to read again "Love Amoung the Haystacks" - I really loved that story.:) I remember thinking how sweet and nostalgic that story was and I got a real chuckle out of it.

I heard one critic online say how funny L could be sometimes in his work. You know I do believe we skip over some of his humor. I actually did see shreds of humor in some passages of "Sons and Lovers" on this second reading. Sometimes the mother is complaining about the father and it actually is kind of funny - she goes so over the top. Same in the short story - there were a few instances I kind of found amusing in her anger or resentment. They say Lawrence could be very humorous himself. He loved playing charades and they said people could not stop laughing at his impersonations. I don't think L was all heavy and serious all of the time.

I also want to read "The Fox" again, when I read "L among the H". These 2 books, or novellas, I know I have in a large volume of L's collected works. I probably have another big book somewhere with his collection, too. I just misplaced it. Too much stuff is my ultimate problem. I am still searching this week for a t-shirt with autumn leaves on it. I know I bought it, put it away and by the time I find it it the trees will be bare! :lol:

[Virgil]

The volume that contains "The Virgin and the Gypsy" is a 2004 Wordsworth Limited Edition, with introduction and notes by Pr. Jeff Wallace of the University of Glamorgan.

It also contains the following stories:"Love among the Haystacks", "The Lovely Lady", "Rawdon's Roof", "The Rocking- Horse Winner", "The Man Who Loved Islands", and "The Man Who Died".

Interesting collection. I have never seen it before. 2004 is relatively recent.

[Janine]

Yes, that is a newer edition and it must be 'limited', indeed - can't find it listed on Amazon, at all. I did however, find a movie from the 70's based on the book - looks quite good actually.

From Amazon - Product Description:
Starring Joanna Shimkus, Franco Nero, Honor Blackman, Mark Burns, Fay Compton and Maurice Denham. D. H. Lawrences most electrifying novel comes to life on the silver screen! This movie is based on a short novel by D. H. Lawrence that was discovered in France after his death in 1930. Immediately recognized as a masterpiece in which Lawrence had distilled and purified his ideas about sexuality and morality, the story has become a classic.Set in a small village in the English countryside, this is the story of a secluded, sensitive rector's daughter who yearns for meaning beyond the life to which she seems doomed. When she meets a handsome young gipsy whose life appears different from hers.

Thought that was interesting, being found after his death in France, that is where he died - France.

[Virgil]

I read "Aaron's Rod" and thought it was a bit strange, but I don't think quite on par (strange-wise) with PS. It seemed to follow in the vane more of 'WIL' and 'Rainbow', but maybe I am thinking that, because I read it back around the time I read those two books. I did not know it was a much later work. Well, yes, I would borrow the book - "Virgin and the Gypsy" - thanks so much for offering it. Let me look around first because I can't imagine I don't have it - I distinctly recall reading it and my library has hardly any books on Lawrence :( - only "Sons and Lovers" and "Woman In Love" I think; possibly LCL....but it is doubtful - a very conservative library and town.

Here's a listing of L's novels. Some of these are actually short stories, not novels. Aaron's Rod was 1922. However these are published dates, not when they were actually written. Women In Love was written around 1917 but did not get published until 1920.

NOVELS

The White Peacock (1911)
Sons and Lovers (1912)
The Trespasser (1912)
The Rainbow (1915)
The Lost Girl (1920)
Women in Love (1920)
Aaron's Rod (1922)
Kangaroo (1923)
The Captain's Doll (1923)
The Fox (1923)
Kangaroo (1923)
The Ladybird (1923)
The Boy in the Bush (1924)
St. Mawr (1925)
The Plumed Serpent (1926)
John Thomas and Lady Jane (1927)
Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928)
The Woman Who Rode Away (1928)
The Virgin and the Gipsy (1930)
The Man Who Died (1931)
We Need One Another (1933)
Mr. Noon (1985)
You Touched Me (1993)
Paul Morel (2003)


Hey, don't blush - you deserve credit - your thesis was a fine work of research and writing!:thumbs_up
Thanks. I'm quite proud of it.


That is it exactly - like I said I grew up in a conservative environment and my HS probably banned books with any bit of subversion or risque quality about them. I think perhaps we might have read Faulkner. I know my good HS friend, Cliff, who was a rebel personified (M,B&D like you;)) pushed reading those books and authors. He loved Joyce and kept telling me for years "Janine, you are an artist and you have never read 'Portrait of an Artist' by Joyce? Shame on you!" You know it was not until a year ago, that I finally read the book. He would have been pleased.:lol: Better late than never, right? I think he read Faulkner and also Salinger - think he even got his autograph on his book end page. He died a number of years back and I know his sister-in-law mentioned the book to me recently; she has it. Anyway, it is a good memory thinking of him and how rebellious he was in HS -hey, someone had to stand up for the great authors, right! We probably had a different teacher then too - I recall another woman teaching Lit and she was way more progressive.
Nice to share some fond memories.


NO, that was not particularly what I meant! :lol:(dirty old man!)
:p


My college had some real characters, and that includes the professors. One professor I had played his flamingo quitar often in class; that was my English lit class - haha:lol:. He was heavy into Herman Hesse I recall and most times I think he was pretty 'high' in class! Hey, it was the 70's - hear this Amalia; that was the true 'Hippie era'. I lived through it the first time, not in the revival era only! We had a ball in art school! Not sure how much we learned, but it certainly was entertaining at the time.
College is such a great time. Free and relatively little repsonsibilities. And you're out in the world for the first time. :bawling: I hate growing old.


Hey, V, I saw a film (parody) on going to art school the other night called "Art School Confidential"....I did laugh, and laugh (very amusing) and recall scenes like in my own art college like in this film. You should watch it sometime. You would like the nude model scenes - they were pretty funny and pretty realistic, to the way it really was.
:blush: ;)


All except one guy makes comments about them continually and I don't recall any snickerers or anything like that.
Well, the didn't have someone like me (MB&D) in your class.:p


Peace everyone.....hahaha...that is 60's talk.... originally.
You didn't go to college in the 60's. You're not that old. ;) Peace, sister. :p :D