June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[Scheherazade]

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

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

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

Online Copy

Book Club Regulations

[ladymacbeth]

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

[Schokokeks]

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

[manolia]

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

[Schokokeks]

Hi Janine !

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

Hi Schokokeks,

Hi Janine !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

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

The women wandered about in a little confusion, chased hither and thither by the three married daughters of the house. All the while there could be heard the characteristic, imperious voice of one Crich woman or another calling `Helen, come here a minute,' `Marjory, I want you -- here.' `Oh, I say, Mrs Witham --.' There was a great rustling of skirts, swift glimpses of smartly-dressed women, a child danced through the hall and back again, a maidservant came and went hurriedly.

Meanwhile the men stood in calm little groups, chatting, smoking, pretending to pay no heed to the rustling animation of the women's world. But they could not really talk, because of the glassy ravel of women's excited, cold laughter and running voices. They waited, uneasy, suspended, rather bored. But Gerald remained as if genial and happy, unaware that he was waiting or unoccupied, knowing himself the very pivot of the occasion.

Suddenly Mrs Crich came noiselessly into the room, peering about with her strong, clear face. She was still wearing her hat, and her sac coat of blue silk.

`What is it, mother?' said Gerald.

`Nothing, nothing!' she answered vaguely. And she went straight towards Birkin, who was talking to a Crich brother-in-law.

`How do you do, Mr Birkin,' she said, in her low voice, that seemed to take no count of her guests. She held out her hand to him.

and

There was a moment's lull, as everybody looked at the bors d'oeuvres that were being handed round. And out of this lull, a girl of thirteen or fourteen, with her long hair down her back, said in a calm, self-possessed voice:

`Gerald, you forget father, when you make that unearthly noise.'

`Do I?' he answered. And then, to the company, `Father is lying down, he is not quite well.'

`How is he, really?' called one of the married daughters, peeping round the immense wedding cake that towered up in the middle of the table shedding its artificial flowers.

`He has no pain, but he feels tired,' replied Winifred, the girl with the hair down her back.

The wine was filled, and everybody was talking boisterously. At the far end of the table sat the mother, with her loosely-looped hair. She had Birkin for a neighbour. Sometimes she glanced fiercely down the rows of faces, bending forwards and staring unceremoniously. And she would say in a low voice to Birkin:

`Who is that young man?'

`I don't know,' Birkin answered discreetly.

`Have I seen him before?' she asked.

`I don't think so. I haven't,' he replied. And she was satisfied. Her eyes closed wearily, a peace came over her face, she looked like a queen in repose. Then she started, a little social smile came on her face, for a moment she looked the pleasant hostess. For a moment she bent graciously, as if everyone were welcome and delightful. And then immediately the shadow came back, a sullen, eagle look was on her face, she glanced from under her brows like a sinister creature at bay, hating them all.

`Mother,' called Diana, a handsome girl a little older than Winifred, `I may have wine, mayn't I?'

`Yes, you may have wine,' replied the mother automatically, for she was perfectly indifferent to the question.

And Diana beckoned to the footman to fill her glass.

`Gerald shouldn't forbid me,' she said calmly, to the company at large.

`All right, Di,' said her brother amiably. And she glanced challenge at him as she drank from her glass.

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

`You don't believe in having any standard of behaviour at all, do you?' he challenged Birkin, censoriously.

`Standard -- no. I hate standards. But they're necessary for the common ruck. Anybody who is anything can just be himself and do as he likes.'

`But what do you mean by being himself?' said Gerald. `Is that an aphorism or a cliche?'

`I mean just doing what you want to do. I think it was perfect good form in Laura to bolt from Lupton to the church door. It was almost a masterpiece in good form. It's the hardest thing in the world to act spontaneously on one's impulses -- and it's the only really gentlemanly thing to do -- provided you're fit to do it.'

`You don't expect me to take you seriously, do you?' asked Gerald.

`Yes, Gerald, you're one of the very few people I do expect that of.'

`Then I'm afraid I can't come up to your expectations here, at any rate. You think people should just do as they like.'

`I think they always do. But I should like them to like the purely individual thing in themselves, which makes them act in singleness. And they only like to do the collective thing.'

`And I,' said Gerald grimly, `shouldn't like to be in a world of people who acted individually and spontaneously, as you call it. We should have everybody cutting everybody else's throat in five minutes.'

`That means you would like to be cutting everybody's throat,' said Birkin.

`How does that follow?' asked Gerald crossly.

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

`Sometimes you talk pure nonsense,' said Gerald to Birkin. `As a matter of fact, none of us wants our throat cut, and most other people would like to cut it for us -- some time or other --'

`It's a nasty view of things, Gerald,' said Birkin, `and no wonder you are afraid of yourself and your own unhappiness.'

`How am I afraid of myself?' said Gerald; `and I don't think I am unhappy.'

`You seem to have a lurking desire to have your gizzard slit, and imagine every man has his knife up his sleeve for you,' Birkin said.

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

[manolia]

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

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

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

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

I also liked this one

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

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

[Schokokeks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Virgil]

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

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

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

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

[Janine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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