June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love' [Archive] - Page 2

Virgil

07-11-2007, 07:24 PM

I wanted to look more closely on chapter 30, "Snowed Up", the climatic chapter. Look at the first few paragraphs:

WHEN URSULA and Birkin were gone, Gudrun felt herself free in her contest with Gerald. As they grew more used to each other, he seemed to press upon her more and more. At first she could manage him, so that her own will was always left free. But very soon, he began to ignore her female tactics, he dropped his respect for her whims and her privacies, he began to exert his own will blindly, without submitting to hers.
So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."

When Ursula had gone, Gudrun felt her own existence had become stark and elemental. She went and crouched alone in her bedroom, looking out of the window at the big, flashing stars. In front was the faint shadow of the mountain-knot. That was the pivot. She felt strange and inevitable, as if she were centred upon the pivot of all existence, there was no further reality.
Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

And they shortly have their first battle:

`Are you alone in the dark?' he said. And she could tell by his tone he resented it, he resented this isolation she had drawn round herself. Yet, feeling static and inevitable, she was kind towards him.

`Would you like to light the candle?' she asked.

He did not answer, but came and stood behind her, in the darkness.

`Look,' she said, `at that lovely star up there. Do you know its name?'

He crouched beside her, to look through the low window.

`No,' he said. `It is very fine.'

`Isn't it beautiful! Do you notice how it darts different coloured fires -- it flashes really superbly --'

They remained in silence. With a mute, heavy gesture she put her hand on his knee, and took his hand.

`Are you regretting Ursula?' he asked.

`No, not at all,' she said. Then, in a slow mood, she asked:

`How much do you love me?'

He stiffened himself further against her.

`How much do you think I do?' he asked.

`I don't know,' she replied.

`But what is your opinion?' he asked.

There was a pause. At length, in the darkness, came her voice, hard and indifferent:

`Very little indeed,' she said coldly, almost flippant.

His heart went icy at the sound of her voice.

`Why don't I love you?' he asked, as if admitting the truth of her accusation, yet hating her for it.

`I don't know why you don't -- I've been good to you. You were in a fearful state when you came to me.'

Her heart was beating to suffocate her, yet she was strong and unrelenting.

`When was I in a fearful state?' he asked.

`When you first came to me. I had to take pity on you. But it was never love.'

It was that statement `It was never love,' which sounded in his ears with madness.

`Why must you repeat it so often, that there is no love?' he said in a voice strangled with rage.

`Well you don't think you love, do you?' she asked.

He was silent with cold passion of anger.

`You don't think you can love me, do you?' she repeated almost with a sneer.

`No,' he said.

`You know you never have loved me, don't you?'
She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.

`I don't know what you mean by the word `love,' he replied.

`Yes, you do. You know all right that you have never loved me. Have you, do you think?'

`No,' he said, prompted by some barren spirit of truthfulness and obstinacy.

`And you never will love me,' she said finally, `will you?'

There was a diabolic coldness in her, too much to bear.

`No,' he said.

`Then,' she replied, `what have you against me!'

He was silent in cold, frightened rage and despair. `If only I could kill her,' his heart was whispering repeatedly. `If only I could kill her -- I should be free.'

It seemed to him that death was the only severing of this Gordian knot.

`Why do you torture me?' he said.

She flung her arms round his neck.

`Ah, I don't want to torture you,' she said pityingly, as if she were comforting a child. The impertinence made his veins go cold, he was insensible. She held her arms round his neck, in a triumph of pity. And her pity for him was as cold as stone, its deepest motive was hate of him, and fear of his power over her, which she must always counterfoil.
Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

Janine

07-11-2007, 10:19 PM

I wanted to look more closely on chapter 30, "Snowed Up", the climatic chapter. Look at the first few paragraphs:

So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."

Hi Virgil,glad to see you back. This is good. Yes, it is very much a "contest of wills" they are actively engaged in.

Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

This is excellent! Your explanation seems accurate to me. I had been wondering what the significance of the "mountain-knot" and the word "pivot" was and this is perfect. It clears up many questions in my mind. Interesting observation "unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied." I must think about this line more.

And they shortly have their first battle: (see Virgil's post for dialogues/quote)

She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.

Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

Terrific! I had not thought of this either. It makes perfect sense to me now. Again the whole idea of a knot. How interesting.
I will wait to hear what you add to this. It is all very enlightening to me.

Virgil

07-11-2007, 10:23 PM

I am sorry I had to miss out on the discussion as well as the reading. My mother passed away last month.

I reverted to some short reads since then and have just picked up Women in Love again. Never got too far in it... off to check out the other group reads now.
My deepest sympathy, Gracewings. I lost my father in September, and it was not easy. I know how you feel. May she be in a better place.

Hi Virgil,glad to see you back. This is good.
Thank you for your encouragement Janine. :)

Janine

07-12-2007, 12:13 AM

Virgil, Another thought on the knot. Does it not mimic the couple who drown in the lake - were they not intertwined like a knot, causing death?

Virgil

07-12-2007, 07:00 AM

Virgil, Another thought on the knot. Does it not mimic the couple who drown in the lake - were they not intertwined like a knot, causing death?

:idea: Great thought Janine. There are lots of interconnections like that throughout the novel.

grace86

07-12-2007, 12:51 PM

What I noticed in "Snowed Up" was how self destructive and selfish Gudrun was. Gerald did love her, so when she twisted the logic up and made him admit that he didn't, I was like "what the heck is going on?"

Why would she be so self destructive?

That whole chapter was filled with tension...I think definitely it was the climactic chapter in the book...things just kind of rupture.

Help me out guys, I think it was in "Woman to Woman" or the previous chapter to "Snowed Up," but I think Ursula and Gudrun were having a conversation and Ursula had the thought that Gudrun would never experience love....it was something like that...I can't remember exactly.

Janine

07-12-2007, 01:14 PM

:idea: Great thought Janine. There are lots of interconnections like that throughout the novel.

Virgil, Yes, I agree there are 'interconnections throughout the novel'. You know, the more I read other Lawrence work, as well, the more I see the same the same sort of images running throught them, such as this knot, moon, sun, flower references, mythical symbolism, etc. many seemingly 'set' images in the authors mind/subscious (;) ) perhaps.

Grace, I think Gudrun intentionally begins to distance Gerald and sabatoge/undermine their relationship, then make it seem, even to herself and her own satisfaction, that Gerald is the one at fault. Why would she act this way? It is life - people do act this way. They don't always do the logical thing. I think from the beginning Gudrun had the potennial for this sort of behavior, perhaps passive aggressive. I did not feel shocked by it; rather I felt it destined to take place that she would be the one to reject him and in such a cruel way. I think she had it in her all the time to be strong-willed and dominent - just look at the scene when she gives him the back-handed slap and the comments she makes. As, Virgil, pointed out with the this couple, Gudrun and Gerald, from the start, it has been a 'war of wills' and a test for each at whole would hold out longer. I think part of the reason Gudrun was so drawn to Gerald was the challenge to beat him at his own game of 'will'. When he first came to her in the night he was willful, don't you think? I think always they go back and forth lording the power over each other. As Virgil said they have not accomplished the magnificence/beauty of love and a relationship that works such as Birkin and Ursula have.
Grace, 'rupture' is a good word to use at the climax.
I will look up that chapter. I think it was further back in the book or maybe even the very first conversation the women had when coming out of their house, in the chapter "The Sisters".

Virgil

07-12-2007, 01:56 PM

Help me out guys, I think it was in "Woman to Woman" or the previous chapter to "Snowed Up," but I think Ursula and Gudrun were having a conversation and Ursula had the thought that Gudrun would never experience love....it was something like that...I can't remember exactly.

I'm afraid I don't recall, Grace.

What I noticed in "Snowed Up" was how self destructive and selfish Gudrun was. Gerald did love her, so when she twisted the logic up and made him admit that he didn't, I was like "what the heck is going on?"

Why would she be so self destructive?

But Grace Gerald is just as self destructive. Once Gudrun has shut him out (or was it a smultaneous shutting of each other?) Gerlad goes through these cycle of thoughts. Some more from "Snowed Up," chapter 30:

It seemed to him that Gudrun was sufficient unto herself, closed round and completed, like a thing in a case. In the calm, static reason of his soul, he recognised this, and admitted it was her right, to be closed round upon herself, self-complete, without desire. He realised it, he admitted it, it only needed one last effort on his own part, to win for himself the same completeness. He knew that it only needed one convulsion of his will for him to be able to turn upon himself also, to close upon himself as a stone fixes upon itself, and is impervious, self-completed, a thing isolated.
"In the calm, static reason of his soul" he realizes that she is not dependant on him. Remember Ursula and Birkin are in static opposition, autonomous but in love. Those caught in the cycle of love require dependence, actually interdependence. (This is all Lawrentian thought, so take it as not reality, unless of course you buy into Lawrence's world view.) Interdependence brings us back to that knot, the wrapping of each lover's subconscious with each other. Notice the metaphor. They are both going static not in perfect star love, but as a stone, impervious and isolated.

This knowledge threw him into a terrible chaos. Because, however much he might mentally will to be immune and self-complete, the desire for this state was lacking, and he could not create it. He could see that, to exist at all, he must be perfectly free of Gudrun, leave her if she wanted to be left, demand nothing of her, have no claim upon her.
This affects his very soul, his subconscious starts to affect his person.

But then, to have no claim upon her, he must stand by himself, in sheer nothingness. And his brain turned to nought at the idea. It was a state of nothingness. On the other hand, he might give in, and fawn to her. Or, finally, he might kill her. Or he might become just indifferent, purposeless, dissipated, momentaneous. But his nature was too serious, not gay enough or subtle enough for mocking licentiousness.
It brings out in him what was deep inside, the will to kill. He killed his brother in childhood, and the chaos has brought that nature out.

And then a great paragraph:

A strange rent had been torn in him; like a victim that is torn open and given to the heavens, so he had been torn apart and given to Gudrun. How should he close again? This wound, this strange, infinitely-sensitive opening of his soul, where he was exposed, like an open flower, to all the universe, and in which he was given to his complement, the other, the unknown, this wound, this disclosure, this unfolding of his own covering, leaving him incomplete, limited, unfinished, like an open flower under the sky, this was his cruellest joy. Why then should he forego it? Why should he close up and become impervious, immune, like a partial thing in a sheath, when he had broken forth, like a seed that has germinated, to issue forth in being, embracing the unrealised heavens.
"Rent," "torn" - remember earlier in the novel he was described as fragmented, broken. I forget where that was, but I pointed it out in an ealier post. He cannot give in to her and lose his individuality. He must also press his will on her.

Janine

07-12-2007, 10:32 PM

Virgil, good post. I will comment on it tomorrow. I am too tired out now. I quite agree with most of what you have said. Question - which chapter did you take the last quote from - about how far into the chaper? I don't recall reading that part - maybe I was a half asleep when I read it. It is a great passage.

manolia

07-14-2007, 01:46 PM

So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."

Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

And they shortly have their first battle:

She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.
Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

Grace, I think Gudrun intentionally begins to distance Gerald and sabatoge/undermine their relationship, then make it seem, even to herself and her own satisfaction, that Gerald is the one at fault. Why would she act this way? It is life - people do act this way. They don't always do the logical thing. I think from the beginning Gudrun had the potennial for this sort of behavior, perhaps passive aggressive. I did not feel shocked by it; rather I felt it destined to take place that she would be the one to reject him and in such a cruel way. I think she had it in her all the time to be strong-willed and dominent - just look at the scene when she gives him the back-handed slap and the comments she makes. As, Virgil, pointed out with the this couple, Gudrun and Gerald, from the start, it has been a 'war of wills' and a test for each at whole would hold out longer. I think part of the reason Gudrun was so drawn to Gerald was the challenge to beat him at his own game of 'will'. When he first came to her in the night he was willful, don't you think? I think always they go back and forth lording the power over each other. As Virgil said they have not accomplished the magnificence/beauty of love and a relationship that works such as Birkin and Ursula have.

:nod: Nice and helpful posts. :nod: I agree with both of you concerning the fact that Gerald actually loved Gudrun and she was the one who was trying to convince him that he didn't. She was literally puting words in his mouth, wasn't she???

Janine

07-14-2007, 03:40 PM

Hi manolia and Virgil, nice to see you here again. I keep popping in periodically. Glad these posts have been helpful to you.

Yes, perhaps by Gundrun 'putting the words in his mouth', as you say manolia, she was playing the ultimate power-game with Gerald, for she was controlling his actual responses to her. At this point I see both individuals going into a non-logical state. They are tied up in a 'web' or 'knot' of emotions with no solution. By additional reading I have gathered some new ideas or cleared up some thoughts in my own mind. I have ideas on the Gudrun/Gerald relationship. In Lawrence's book "Apogalypse", which is much later than WIL, Lawrence's expresses clearly his deepest thoughts on mankind and relationships, towards the end of this book. Lawrence believed there were two modes of being in man - the 'collective' and the 'individual'. I believe WIL with the two relationships demonstrates his idea. Ursula and Birkin are both separate yet part of the collective universe and orbiting like stars in perfect harmony with each other. The follow text is part of his concept, but to understand his whole meaning, I may have to quote additional text, some parts leading up to this. For now this is his conclusion on the individual and love. He states that individuals cannot exist in love relationships thus:

Chapter Twenty-Three
6.To have an ideal for the individual which regards only his individual self and ignores his collective self is in the long run fatal. To have a creed of individuality which denies the reality of the hierarchy makes at last for more anarchy. Democratic man lives by cohesion and resistence, the cohesive force of 'love' and the resistent force of the individual 'freedom'. To yield entirely to love would be to be absorbed, which is the death of the individual: for the individual must hold his own, or he ceases to be 'free' and individual. So that we see, what our age has proved to its astonishment and dismay, that the individual cannot love. The individual cannot love: let that be an axiom. And the modern man or woman cannot conceive of himself, herself, save as an individual. And the individual in man or woman is bound to kill, at last, the lover in himself or herself. It is not that each man kills the thing he loves, but each man, by insisting on his own individuality, kills the lover in himself, as the woman kills the lover in herself.

Later in the passage he concludes:

Or when he loves, when she loves, he must take it back, she must take it back.

This is the way in which Lawrence views the whole love concept in 'individuals'. These ideas are purely his and of course much more complicated in the full text of the book. Ofcourse, it benefits to read the whole chapter these came from to see just how Lawrence thought or came to this conclusion. I figure this much will give you all something to think about.

This is what has come to me. Gerald and Gurdrun both want to love and do love truly but wish to maintain their own individuality and power at the same time. Therefore this fits in with what Lawrence has said in his "Apogalypse".

Also, I find the last line particularly interesting since 'love is given and then taken back'. So in my eyes now, I would say both did truly love each other, but then withdrew that love out of maintaining their own individuality and sense of power. This was a destructive type of love that could only end tragically.

It also struck me that Loerke represents the individual who will never truly 'love' but keep separate and free in his individuality. Did he not mention often to Gudrun the idea of maintaining her individuality, or is this just a sense I get from him? Also I get the impression that Loerke can never have a full and complete relationship with anyone and will always remain appart and individual throughout his life. Therefore, he does not threaten Gundrun with the same type relationship - this love tug of war - she is now rejecting in Gerald and herself. Loerke is a free-spirit and cares little for others, his main concern is his own art and his individuality, or am I reading him wrong? It seems to me at the end that Gudrun will go the same route now as Loerke has gone with her own sense of free individuality minus responsibilites to another human being.

PS: manolia, guess what film I took out of the library on Friday?

papayahed

07-14-2007, 04:19 PM

18 pages???? How the heck am I suppossed to keep up with 18 pages???? I'm almost done I'm on XXVIII. Have we already taked about Geralds reaction to the statues way back in VI?

manolia

07-14-2007, 04:38 PM

Also, I find the last line particularly interesting since 'love is given and then taken back'. So in my eyes now, I would say both did truly love each other, but then withdrew that love out of maintaining their own individuality and sense of power. This was a destructive type of love that could only end tragically.

It also struck me that Loerke represents the individual who will never truly 'love' but keep separate and free in his individuality. Did he not mention often to Gudrun the idea of maintaining her individuality, or is this just a sense I get from him? Also I get the impression that Loerke can never have a full and complete relationship with anyone and will always remain appart and individual throughout his life. Therefore, he does not threaten Gundrun with the same type relationship - this love tug of war - she is now rejecting in Gerald and herself. Loerke is a free-spirit and cares little for others, his main concern is his own art and his individuality, or am I reading him wrong? It seems to me at the end that Gudrun will go the same route now as Loerke has gone with her own sense of free individuality minus responsibilites to another human being.

Wonderful explanation Janine! Thanx!
On a side note, i believe that you are reading Loerke correctly! After all, it is clearly stated in the book that he is a "free spirit" and he is very like Gudrun, so i believe your explanation is correct.

PS: manolia, guess what film I took out of the library on Friday?

Hmmmm.. let me see..Was it "Mulholland Drive"? :lol: :lol:

Janine

07-14-2007, 05:33 PM

18 pages???? How the heck am I suppossed to keep up with 18 pages???? I'm almost done I'm on XXVIII. Have we already taked about Geralds reaction to the statues way back in VI?

papayahed, I am glad to see you are nearly done the book, that you stayed with it. Everyone finished at a different time, which is just fine. Yikes, are there really 16 pages? We sure were ambitious this past month! As Virgil told me, these threads never close or end. A few of us seem to be trying to keep this one going and Virgil still has some things to discuss on the chapter "Snowed Up" I believe. I don't totally recall Gerald's reactions, but vaguely I do, so if you have questions or want to discuss it, I am totally open to reviewing that part of the book and talking more about it. It is quite significant and there are some posts, if I recall correctly, referring to that part of the story and chapter. Quite a number of times the idea of the primative art was brought up - just to recap our discussions. Virgil knows much about this total concept and what was in Lawrence's mind concerning the art, and I posted a 'Introduction' to my book, which is a good commentary; I believe there it also mentions the idea behind the art pieces/statues in chapter VI. I am going out now, but will look all of this up for you later on tonight and direct you to those specific references. Hope to be of some help to you. Yes, 16 pages is too much to wade through.

manolia, glad you liked the explanation and agreed with it. Of course in quoting from the other book and of Lawrence's philosophical ideas this is only a portion of it taken out of complete context, but it is the essense of what he is saying and getting at in WIL, in my opinion. Glad I was accurate about Loerke or at least those were both our impressions of the way he was.

Yes, the movie just might be that one!:lol:

Janine

07-14-2007, 10:06 PM

Gerald looked round the room. It was an ordinary London sitting-room in a flat, evidently taken furnished, rather common and ugly. But there were several negro statues, wood-carvings from West Africa, strange and disturbing, the carved negroes looked almost like the foetus of a human being. One was a woman sitting naked in a strange posture, and looking tortured, her abdomen stuck out. The young Russian explained that she was sitting in child-birth, clutching the ends of the band that hung from her neck, one in each hand, so that she could bear down, and help labour. The strange, transfixed, rudimentary face of the woman again reminded Gerald of a foetus, it was also rather wonderful, conveying the suggestion of the extreme of physical sensation, beyond the limits of mental consciousness.

`Aren't they rather obscene?' he asked, disapproving.

`I don't know,' murmured the other rapidly. `I have never defined the obscene. I think they are very good.'

Gerald turned away. There were one or two new pictures in the room, in the Futurist manner; there was a large piano. And these, with some ordinary London lodging-house furniture of the better sort, completed the whole.

Papayahed, is this that part you are referring to in Chapter VI?

Ok, for the last hour or so I have been searching through the text and postings for references to the figurines and I come up with some discussions starting at post #117, about Lawrence's 'blood philosophy' which is first layed out and explained by Virgil. If you continue on through post #120, and maybe even a little further on you will see the discussion about the African figures and how they relate to this philosophy or idea. I hope this helps some. You might have to skip over some unnecessary parts of the postings.

Virgil

07-14-2007, 10:16 PM

Of course as part of looking closely at chapter 30 we should discuss Gudrun and Loerke's relationship.

She had a curious sort of allegiance with Loerke, all the while, now, something insidious and traitorous. Gerald knew of it. But in the unnatural state of patience, and the unwillingness to harden himself against her, in which he found himself, he took no notice, although her soft kindliness to the other man, whom he hated as a noxious insect, made him shiver again with an access of the strange shuddering that came over him repeatedly.
They have their art in common:

They were almost of the same ideas. He hated Mestrovic, was not satisfied with the Futurists, he liked the West African wooden figures, the Aztec art, Mexican and Central American. He saw the grotesque, and a curious sort of mechanical motion intoxicated him, a confusion in nature. They had a curious game with each other, Gudrun and Loerke, of infinite suggestivity, strange and leering, as if they had some esoteric understanding of life, that they alone were initiated into the fearful central secrets, that the world dared not know. Their whole correspondence was in a strange, barely comprehensible suggestivity, they kindled themselves at the subtle lust of the Egyptians or the Mexicans. The whole game was one of subtle inter-suggestivity, and they wanted to keep it on the plane of suggestion. From their verbal and physical nuances they got the highest satisfaction in the nerves, from a queer interchange of half-suggested ideas, looks, expressions and gestures, which were quite intolerable, though incomprehensible, to Gerald. He had no terms in which to think of their commerce, his terms were much too gross.

The suggestion of primitive art was their refuge, and the inner mysteries of sensation their object of worship. Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality.

`Of course,' said Gudrun, `life doesn't really matter -- it is one's art which is central. What one does in one's life has peu de rapport, it doesn't signify much.'

`Yes, that is so, exactly,' replied the sculptor. `What one does in one's art, that is the breath of one's being. What one does in one's life, that is a bagatelle for the outsiders to fuss about.'

It was curious what a sense of elation and freedom Gudrun found in this communication. She felt established for ever. Of course Gerald was bagatelle. Love was one of the temporal things in her life, except in so far as she was an artist. She thought of Cleopatra -- Cleopatra must have been an artist; she reaped the essential from a man, she harvested the ultimate sensation, and threw away the husk; and Mary Stuart, and the great Rachel, panting with her lovers after the theatre, these were the exoteric exponents of love. After all, what was the lover but fuel for the transport of this subtle knowledge, for a female art, the art of pure, perfect knowledge in sensuous understanding.

"Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality." Much is made of how Lawrence puts down industrialism in the novel, but he also puts down aesthecism. Art is another diversion, another repetitive cycle to take you away from the spiritual connection. Gudrun seems to be absorbed into Loerke:

`Yes. You cannot go back to the teaching. No --' he shrugged his shoulders -- `that is impossible. Leave that to the canaille who can do nothing else. You, for your part -- you know, you are a remarkable woman, eine seltsame Frau. Why deny it -- why make any question of it? You are an extraordinary woman, why should you follow the ordinary course, the ordinary life?'

Gudrun sat looking at her hands, flushed. She was pleased that he said, so simply, that she was a remarkable woman. He would not say that to flatter her - - he was far too self-opinionated and objective by nature. He said it as he would say a piece of sculpture was remarkable, because he knew it was so.

And it gratified her to hear it from him. Other people had such a passion to make everything of one degree, of one pattern. In England it was chic to be perfectly ordinary. And it was a relief to her to be acknowledged extraordinary. Then she need not fret about the common standards.

And they are very European. They have been to many cities, cycles of cities, as if each city was a work of art to be evaluated:

`Paris, no!' he said. `Between the religion d'amour, and the latest 'ism, and the new turning to Jesus, one had better ride on a carrousel all day. But come to Dresden. I have a studio there -- I can give you work, -- oh, that would be easy enough. I haven't seen any of your things, but I believe in you. Come to Dresden -- that is a fine town to be in, and as good a life as you can expect of a town. You have everything there, without the foolishness of Paris or the beer of Munich.'

And Loerke manipulates her and she is willing to be manipulated:

`A bore,' he repeated. `What does it matter whether I wear this hat or another. So love. I needn't wear a hat at all, only for convenience. Neither need I love except for convenience. I tell you what, gnadige Frau --' and he leaned towards her -- then he made a quick, odd gesture, as of striking something aside -- `gnadige Fraulein, never mind -- I tell you what, I would give everything, everything, all your love, for a little companionship in intelligence --' his eyes flickered darkly, evilly at her. `You understand?' he asked, with a faint smile. `It wouldn't matter if she were a hundred years old, a thousand -- it would be all the same to me, so that she can understand.' He shut his eyes with a little snap.

Again Gudrun was rather offended. Did he not think her good looking, then? Suddenly she laughed.

`I shall have to wait about eighty years to suit you, at that!' she said. `I am ugly enough, aren't I?'

He looked at her with an artist's sudden, critical, estimating eye.

`You are beautiful,' he said, `and I am glad of it. But it isn't that -- it isn't that,' he cried, with emphasis that flattered her. `It is that you have a certain wit, it is the kind of understanding. For me, I am little, chetif, insignificant. Good! Do not ask me to be strong and handsome, then. But it is the me --' he put his fingers to his mouth, oddly -- `it is the me that is looking for a mistress, and my me is waiting for the thee of the mistress, for the match to my particular intelligence. You understand?'

And Gerald at one point wants to know what it is that Gudrun sees in Lorke:

Gerald was gradually overcome with a revulsion of loathing for Loerke. He did not take the man seriously, he despised him merely, except as he felt in Gudrun's veins the influence of the little creature. It was this that drove Gerald wild, the feeling in Gudrun's veins of Loerke's presence, Loerke's being, flowing dominant through her.

`What makes you so smitten with that little vermin?' he asked, really puzzled. For he, man-like, could not see anything attractive or important at all in Loerke. Gerald expected to find some handsomeness or nobleness, to account for a woman's subjection. But he saw none here, only an insect-like repulsiveness.

Gudrun flushed deeply. It was these attacks she would never forgive.

`What do you mean?' she replied. `My God, what a mercy I am not married to you!'

Her voice of flouting and contempt scotched him. He was brought up short. But he recovered himself.

`Tell me, only tell me,' he reiterated in a dangerous narrowed voice -- `tell me what it is that fascinates you in him.'

`I am not fascinated,' she said, with cold repelling innocence.

`Yes, you are. You are fascinated by that little dry snake, like a bird gaping ready to fall down its throat.'

She looked at him with black fury.

`I don't choose to be discussed by you,' she said.

`It doesn't matter whether you choose or not,' he replied, `that doesn't alter the fact that you are ready to fall down and kiss the feet of that little insect. And I don't want to prevent you -- do it, fall down and kiss his feet. But I want to know, what it is that fascinates you -- what is it?'

She doesn't answer Gerald here, but she does answer it later to us the reader in a moment of her rationalizing to herself:

`As for Loerke, there is a thousand times more in him than in a Gerald. Gerald is so limited, there is a dead end to him. He would grind on at the old mills forever. And really, there is no corn between the millstones any more. They grind on and on, when there is nothing to grind -- saying the same things, believing the same things, acting the same things. Oh, my God, it would wear out the patience of a stone.

`I don't worship Loerke, but at any rate, he is a free individual. He is not stiff with conceit of his own maleness. He is not grinding dutifully at the old mills. Oh God, when I think of Gerald, and his work -- those offices at Beldover, and the mines -- it makes my heart sick. What have I to do with it -- and him thinking he can be a lover to a woman! One might as well ask it of a self-satisfied lamp-post. These men, with their eternal jobs -- and their eternal mills of God that keep on grinding at nothing! It is too boring, just boring. However did I come to take him seriously at all!

`At least in Dresden, one will have one's back to it all. And there will be amusing things to do. It will be amusing to go to these eurythmic displays, and the German opera, the German theatre. It will be amusing to take part in German Bohemian life. And Loerke is an artist, he is a free individual. One will escape from so much, that is the chief thing, escape so much hideous boring repetition of vulgar actions, vulgar phrases, vulgar postures. I don't delude myself that I shall find an elixir of life in Dresden. I know I shan't. But I shall get away from people who have their own homes and their own children and their own acquaintances and their own this and their own that. I shall be among people who don't own things and who haven't got a home and a domestic servant in the background, who haven't got a standing and a status and a degree and a circle of friends of the same. Oh God, the wheels within wheels of people, it makes one's head tick like a clock, with a very madness of dead mechanical monotony and meaninglessness. How I hate life, how I hate it. How I hate the Geralds, that they can offer one nothing else.

Gerald is the macho man, Loerke the homosexual. Gerald the industrialist; Loerke the aesthete. Gerald the rich man; Loerke the poor man. Gerald the Englishman; Loerke the German. She has tried one and is now bored with it; it is time to try something different, another thing that may bring happiness, another promise of satisfaction. It is a new mountain to climb, having climbed and done with the previous.

Virgil

07-15-2007, 05:06 PM

I wanted to also wanted to discuss the climax in chapter 30, so be forewarned:
*********************SPOILER**********************

I want to start just before Gerald comes upon Gudrun and Leorke. Gudrun and Leorke are enjoying themselves on the mountain. Loerke takes out biscuits and Schnapps and the two find the moment in the snowy, silvery twilight perfect.

She could feel their voices, hers and his, ringing silvery like bells in the frozen, motionless air of the first twilight. How perfect it was, how very perfect it was, this silvery isolation and interplay.

She sipped the hot coffee, whose fragrance flew around them like bees murmuring around flowers, in the snowy air, she drank tiny sips of the Heidelbeerwasser, she ate the cold, sweet, creamy wafers. How good everything was! How perfect everything tasted and smelled and sounded, here in this utter stillness of snow and falling twilight.

`You are going away tomorrow?' his voice came at last.

`Yes.'

There was a pause, when the evening seemed to rise in its silent, ringing pallor infinitely high, to the infinite which was near at hand.

`Wohin?'

That was the question -- wohin? Whither? Wohin? What a lovely word! She never wanted it answered. Let it chime for ever.

`I don't know,' she said, smiling at him.

"Whither," a very important Lawentian word. The moment of pleasure, escatasy has come, a potential moment at the point of transcendence. But instead of transfiguring or transcending, the emotion is whither - what next? Here we are but where do we go now? We have reached the end of this cycle of emotion, and so where is the next.

Then Gerald shows up suddenly and smacks Loerke to the ground. But Gudrun still has her pluck:

But Gudrun moved forward. She raised her clenched hand high, and brought it down, with a great downward stroke on to the face and on to the breast of Gerald.
Here we recall that scene Gudrun strikes that blow at Gerald back at the water-party scene. And as before Gerald is shocked.

A great astonishment burst upon him, as if the air had broken. Wide, wide his soul opened, in wonder, feeling the pain. Then it laughed, turning, with strong hands outstretched, at last to take the apple of his desire. At last he could finish his desire.

Again we have the imagery of Gerald fragmented, openned up. The blow has reached down into his subconscious and that desire to kill comes out:

He took the throat of Gudrun between his hands, that were hard and indomitably powerful. And her throat was beautifully, so beautifully soft, save that, within, he could feel the slippery chords of her life. And this he crushed, this he could crush. What bliss! Oh what bliss, at last, what satisfaction, at last! The pure zest of satisfaction filled his soul. He was watching the unconsciousness come unto her swollen face, watching the eyes roll back. How ugly she was! What a fulfilment, what a satisfaction! How good this was, oh how good it was, what a God-given gratification, at last! He was unconscious of her fighting and struggling. The struggling was her reciprocal lustful passion in this embrace, the more violent it became, the greater the frenzy of delight, till the zenith was reached, the crisis, the struggle was overborne, her movement became softer, appeased.

He is reaching his moment of satisfaction, his bliss. Strangling her will achieve his moment of satisfaction. But he doesn't complete it. I think this is very important. He has the power and ability to kill her and he doesn't go through with it. Why?

Loerke roused himself on the snow, too dazed and hurt to get up. Only his eyes were conscious.

`Monsieur!' he said, in his thin, roused voice: `Quand vous aurez fini --'

A revulsion of contempt and disgust came over Gerald's soul. The disgust went to the very bottom of him, a nausea. Ah, what was he doing, to what depths was he letting himself go! As if he cared about her enough to kill her, to have her life on his hands!

A weakness ran over his body, a terrible relaxing, a thaw, a decay of strength. Without knowing, he had let go his grip, and Gudrun had fallen to her knees. Must he see, must he know?

A fearful weakness possessed him, his joints were turned to water. He drifted, as on a wind, veered, and went drifting away.

`I didn't want it, really,' was the last confession of disgust in his soul, as he drifted up the slope, weak, finished, only sheering off unconsciously from any further contact. `I've had enough -- I want to go to sleep. I've had enough.' He was sunk under a sense of nausea.

I can't help but see it as a moment of transcendence over the will of his subconscious. "'I didn't want it, really'" and "'Ive had enough.'" It is as if he realizes that after he kills her, "whither?" "What next?" What would it have accomplished. Everything we have seen and read is his desire and propensity for him to kill her and he overcomes it. I can't quite call it heroic, but some measure of noblity should be given him. And then he is broken inside and goes off and accepts his death. He is tired of the cycles and his only way to stop them is to end himself.

Janine

07-15-2007, 05:54 PM

Two excellent posts, Virgil, lots to think about here. I will answer later tonight.

Virgil

07-17-2007, 08:23 PM

I have one more analytic post on Women In Love. There is an interesting passage in the last chapter "Exeunt" (chapter 31). Birkin returns to the mountains to help Gudrun after Gerald has died. He goes to investigte the the death scene:

Gerald might have found this rope. He might have hauled himself up to the crest. He might have heard the dogs in the Marienhutte, and found shelter. He might have gone on, down the steep, steep fall of the south-side, down into the dark valley with its pines, on to the great Imperial road leading south to Italy.

He might! And what then? The Imperial road! The south? Italy? What then? Was it a way out? It was only a way in again. Birkin stood high in the painful air, looking at the peaks, and the way south. Was it any good going south, to Italy? Down the old, old Imperial road?
Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald.

He turned away. Either the heart would break, or cease to care. Best cease to care. Whatever the mystery which has brought forth man and the universe, it is a non-human mystery, it has its own great ends, man is not the criterion. Best leave it all to the vast, creative, non-human mystery. Best strive with oneself only, not with the universe.
And from Gerald he begins to contemplate the religious significance of life.

`God cannot do without man.' It was a saying of some great French religious teacher. But surely this is false. God can do without man. God could do without the ichthyosauri and the mastodon. These monsters failed creatively to develop, so God, the creative mystery, dispensed with them. In the same way the mystery could dispense with man, should he too fail creatively to change and develop. The eternal creative mystery could dispose of man, and replace him with a finer created being. Just as the horse has taken the place of the mastodon.
I find this an interesting religious notion. God is essentially uncaring about man and his predicament in the universe. That is not original. Hardy and other late 19th century thinkers may have shared this. But here I think is where it is only Lawrence's conceptualization:

It was very consoling to Birkin, to think this. If humanity ran into a cul de sac and expended itself, the timeless creative mystery would bring forth some other being, finer, more wonderful, some new, more lovely race, to carry on the embodiment of creation. The game was never up. The mystery of creation was fathomless, infallible, inexhaustible, forever. Races came and went, species passed away, but ever new species arose, more lovely, or equally lovely, always surpassing wonder. The fountain-head was incorruptible and unsearchable. It had no limits. It could bring forth miracles, create utter new races and new species, in its own hour, new forms of consciousness, new forms of body, new units of being. To be man was as nothing compared to the possibilities of the creative mystery. To have one's pulse beating direct from the mystery, this was perfection, unutterable satisfaction. Human or inhuman mattered nothing. The perfect pulse throbbed with indescribable being, miraculous unborn species.

It is up to man to put himself in contact with the divinity. This is where Birkin and Ursula in their polar star relationship will be. As you can grasp, the ideal relationship with this divinity is as a plant, basking in the glory of this fountainhead. In other works, the fountainhead tends to be the sun.

One last thing. Now that I have studied Women In Love in real detail, perhaps it is as great or greater than Lawrence's The Rainbow. I encourage everyone to read The Rainbow and let me know which is the greater work. I now have a hard time deciding. This was a real pleasure. :) :)

Janine

07-17-2007, 09:33 PM

Ok, I think it is about time for me to answer Virgil's remarks and 3 posts; I am taking them one at a time. When you encounter a : please see his quoted text from his post 7/14/07 10:16PM. Sorry it took me so long to get to these additional comments. Here goes:

Of course as part of looking closely at chapter 30 we should discuss Gudrun and Loerke's relationship.

They have their art in common:

Yes, I think that is a big factor. The art draws them together and they can understand each other, both being artists. I think too, that Gundrun is mesmerized and bedazzled with Loerke and his art. She is impressed with his art and him; so she feels associating with him, can lift her own 'statis' as an artist in the art community. She must feel flattered as well, seeing that Loerke has such artistic talent, and has taken an avid interest in her. I think also his directness is attractive to her. She can't help but like that 'directness' and it makes him somewhat dangerous and exciting to know. Loerke is a very unihibited person while Gerald is all inhabitions. Loerke is loose, while Gerald is all tied up in knots.

"Art and Life were to them the Reality and the Unreality." Much is made of how Lawrence puts down industrialism in the novel, but he also puts down aesthecism. Art is another diversion, another repetitive cycle to take you away from the spiritual connection. Gudrun seems to be absorbed into Loerke:

This is interesting considering Lawrence himself loved art and painting/drawing. Do you find it strange he would do this in the novel? Do you think, Virgil, that later he felt differently about it? I thought he was putting down the idea of 'art serving industry', not art as a whole.

And they are very European. They have been to many cities, cycles of cities, as if each city was a work of art to be evaluated:

This Eruopean way that Loerke had only made him the more appealing to Gundrun to know. He could show her around to the inner circle of artists and very European thinking people who would advance her in an art career. I think that Loerke was the link to that other world outside England for Gundrun into that free-thinking Bohemian world of Paris and Germany at the time.

And Loerke manipulates her and she is willing to be manipulated:
Definitely agree and she likes this manipulation. When someone is manipulated all the pressure is off that person and they can give over to the other and not have to make decisions. He can control her, in a sense; something Gerald was unable to do.

And Gerald at one point wants to know what it is that Gudrun sees in Lorke:

She doesn't answer Gerald here, but she does answer it later to us the reader in a moment of her rationalizing to herself:

Yes, I did notice this in this chapter. Interesting observation. She knew consciously, but could not relay that to Gerald.

Gerald is the macho man, Loerke the homosexual. Gerald the industrialist; Loerke the aesthete. Gerald the rich man; Loerke the poor man. Gerald the Englishman; Loerke the German. She has tried one and is now bored with it; it is time to try something different, another thing that may bring happiness, another promise of satisfaction. It is a new mountain to climb, having climbed and done with the previous.

Very good asssesment and contrasts of the two characters; they are about as different as night and day. I think this is just why she gravitates towards Loerke. Given another time and he might have been repulsive to her, but now in the wake of the failed relationship between Gundrun and Gerald it is the right time for a huge change for Gundrun or so she thinks.

Onto next post ~

For quotes when you see : - see post #274.

I wanted to also wanted to discuss the climax in chapter 30, so be forewarned:
*********************SPOILER**********************

Virgil, Yes, this is such an important part of the book. Glad you went back to it.

I want to start just before Gerald comes upon Gudrun and Leorke. Gudrun and Leorke are enjoying themselves on the mountain. Loerke takes out biscuits and Schnapps and the two find the moment in the snowy, silvery twilight perfect.

"Whither," a very important Lawentian word. The moment of pleasure, escatasy has come, a potential moment at the point of transcendence. But instead of transfiguring or transcending, the emotion is whither - what next? Here we are but where do we go now? We have reached the end of this cycle of emotion, and so where is the next.

I did not know about the word "Whither", being an important Lawrence term. I will have to note it in his stories from now on. Thanks for pointing that out.
So this can be a point of transcendence between Loerke and Gudrun? How can 'transfiguring' and 'transcending' turn into the emotion of 'what next' or 'whither?' I think you have lost me here but maybe you can explain it better to me. If it is as you say isn't it the same with Birkin and Ursula at the end of the book - thus 'whither?' or 'where do we go from here?' When I read this passage you quoted firstly I felt it was strange that all of a sudden Gudrun was in a blissful state of happiness. I could not quite fathom that scene in the book. Help me here. I felt if she truly felt that way she was deceiving herself and hiding from her true being and emotions. Had she totally freed herself from her attachment to Gerald at this point?

Then Gerald shows up suddenly and smacks Loerke to the ground. But Gudrun still has her pluck:

Here we recall that scene Gudrun strikes that blow at Gerald back at the water-party scene. And as before Gerald is shocked.

Yes, good analogy - she did repeat the blow and said prior at the Water-Party scene she would strike the last blow and so she has in this final scene between them. Again Gerald is shocked, but why do you think?

Again we have the imagery of Gerald fragmented, openned up. The blow has reached down into his subconscious and that desire to kill comes out:
The 'fragmented' part is excellent. You describe that so well in this last pargraph of yours:thumbs_up ....hummmm....'subconsious' again. ;) You sure have been using that word a lot lately...of course, how can one read L with using it? Do you still not believe in it, V?

He is reaching his moment of satisfaction, his bliss. Strangling her will achieve his moment of satisfaction. But he doesn't complete it. I think this is very important. He has the power and ability to kill her and he doesn't go through with it. Why?

'Why' is an interesting question. I wonder if he has just had enough at this point. For one thing there has been much death encountered personally in his life. I think he strangles her and then suddenly something vital inside him just shatters and breaks, and he lets go. He lets go of all his 'will'; thus he gives up and goes off to die alone and dejected of all life.

I can't help but see it as a moment of transcendence over the will of his subconscious. "'I didn't want it, really'" and "'Ive had enough.'" It is as if he realizes that after he kills her, "whither?" "What next?" What would it have accomplished. Everything we have seen and read is his desire and propensity for him to kill her and he overcomes it. I can't quite call it heroic, but some measure of noblity should be given him. And then he is broken inside and goes off and accepts his death. He is tired of the cycles and his only way to stop them is to end himself.

Opps, we think the same way, I had not read your last paragraph yet, when I wrote my last one; so we agree. Good referring again to "whither?" and "What next?". So true - what could possibly be next for him after this? He has met his only option and that is to dissolve and be done with everything. I think he kept things going at home also and he can't return there to that pointless existence. He really is left with no alternative but to seek obscurity in the snow and the finality of death. I don't know if it is heroic either when he refrains from killing Gudrun. But his death does seem noble, somehow to me, as well. Good last line, V. I think it is a matter of him simply being weary of living/struggling, at this point, the kind of living Gerald was experiencing for his entire life, a non vital type of living.

Onto next post ~

Refer to post #276 for Virgil's quotes from book.

I have one more analytic post on Women In Love. There is an interesting passage in the last chapter "Exeunt" (chapter 31). Birkin returns to the mountains to help Gudrun after Gerald has died. He goes to investigte the the death scene:

I also found this passage curious and very though provoking.

Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald.

Yes, now I can clearly see what Lawrence was getting at with this part of the story. I did think at the time that for Gerald there was no other alternative but death. If one explored other possibilites they all would eventually lead to death or obscurity. Gerald's life was spent and he was fragmented beyond repair at the point when he tried to strangle Gundrun. There could be nothing after but death. Birkin does come to this realisation which must have been totally devastating and sorrowful to Birkin who had deeply loved Gerald as a brother.

And from Gerald he begins to contemplate the religious significance of life.

Fascinating quote from the book. I thought it was amazing, when I first read it. It seemed like a new thought to me - one I had never contemplated before. Yes, I believe this - God does not need man. Dinasaurs left the earth and becames extinct and so could man someday - who knows? It is an interesting and curious thought, is it not? This part of the book reminds me of some passages from his "Apocalypse". I don't recall exactly which ones, but it seems to me he repeated some thoughts such as this in the A.

I find this an interesting religious notion. God is essentially uncaring about man and his predicament in the universe. That is not original. Hardy and other late 19th century thinkers may have shared this. But here I think is where it is only Lawrence's conceptualization:

Yes, but Hardy finally claimed to have no belief at all in God, he denied God existed; he claimed to be an atheist. Lawrence seems to believe in a God or Gods, but that God will still exist if, if man no longer exists, at least in this part of his life when he wrote WIL.

It is up to man to put himself in contact with the divinity. This is where Birkin and Ursula in their polar star relationship will be. As you can grasp, the ideal relationship with this divinity is as a plant, basking in the glory of this fountainhead. In other works, the fountainhead tends to be the sun.

Virgil, all of this gets a little confusing to me. What about after death -will Ursula and Birkin still be as stars and one with the universe? I thought also that plants were inert. Or did you mean to say 'planet' here? Yes, Lawrence felt the 'sun' was the fountainhead of life....something like that. Many ancient civilizations worshiped the sun and this seemed to appeal to Lawrence's ideals. Does the sun work into the scheme of the Phoenix as well -the burning down, to rise from the ashes and live again? I am thinking - sun/fire.

One last thing. Now that I have studied Women In Love in real detail, perhaps it is as great or greater than Lawrence's The Rainbow. I encourage everyone to read The Rainbow and let me know which is the greater work. I now have a hard time deciding. This was a real pleasure. :) :)

Well, I read both books and I feel "Women in Love" is the most complete and the best novel of the two, but I should definitely go back and re-read "To the Rainbow". I am sure now, with this additional knowledge I have acquired from our great discussions, I will be able to see much deeper into the novel's meanings and symbolism. I will definitely appreciate it better after a second reading. I too would highly recommend WIL to all and encourage them to try it.

I have some more commentary from two source books to post. I will do that in my leisure and let you all know when I do so. I think it will enhance our total understanding of the novel. What a great discussion this has been thanks to everyone!

Virgil

07-17-2007, 10:54 PM

Janine, I'll respond to all your questions. But it may take a while. I'll be going away at the end of the week and I'm not sure I'll get to any of t until I come back. Thanks for your reply.

Janine

07-18-2007, 12:00 AM

Janine, I'll respond to all your questions. But it may take a while. I'll be going away at the end of the week and I'm not sure I'll get to any of t until I come back. Thanks for your reply.

Virgil, don't worry your brilliant little brain about Lit Net posts. Go and have fun! That's fine. Actually, I am glad of it. I am burned out by now:sick: and need a rest.
Also, I want to post some more of the introduction - some food for thought. I came across some commentary in another book called "D.H.Lawrence Literary Critiques" I have out from my library. It is an older book, but it has some good commentary on "The Rainbow" and "Women in Love". I will probably photocopy the Rainbow part and scan the WIL part. Takes so long to scan though. I wish I could come across these books online - I would buy them gladly. I have been looking. I really want one called "Sons and Lovers" A Casebook edited by Gamini Salgado. It is a good book with all kinds of references in it from letters to critics commentary (in L's time) to his own comments/observations on the book.

Here is a cool site I found last night when I was researching L online:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/travel/22culture.html?fta=y

Enjoy! J

You know my signature photo? Well, this is the actual tree the picture was fashioned after, which Lawrence sat under to do his writing in New Mexico. It is a tall stately pine tree. Wonderful, isn't it?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/treeLawrenceWroteBeneath.jpg

PS. Virgil - I read your poem you wrote in the contest site and liked it very much. Sorry I forgot to mention it, and now my mailbox is nearly full again. Good job and hope you win!

Janine

07-19-2007, 12:09 AM

Hi everyone! I am now posting some more of the commentary by Worthen from my book Introduction:

In three crucial chapters at the heart of the book, the characters begin to choose which way they will go. Though there is space only to touch on these in reductive outline, here is where difficulty and disturbance concentrate, and an outline may serve as sounding board rather than imprisoning interpretation.

In chapter XVIII, 'Rabbit', Gudrun and young Winifred Crich set out to sketch the 'Looliness' of Looloo the Pekinese; and Winifred produces a wicked little diagram or caricature, which nevertheless is very 'like'. She's an apt pupil for Gudrun, who likes to pin things down, to grasp them once and for all: Gerald as wolf (14:40), birds as little Lloyd Georges (264:3). She sculpts figures of birds and animals one can hold in one's hand. Art for her is a means of knowing as possession, exerting a kind of power over the object - which is why the drawing may do Looloo 'some subtle injury' (236:6). But it is one thing to sketch Looloo, and quite another to haul the great buck rabbit Bismarck out of his cage by the ears, in order to do the same. For he has power of his own, and reacts against the attempts to 'grasp' him by instantaneous violence, tempestuous, almost uncontrollable. This in turn brings welling up in Gudrun; 'fury', a 'heavy cruelty', as her wrists are scored and she battles to control the 'bestial stupidity' (240:30-32). To hear her high voice 'like the crying of a seagull, strange and vindictive' (241:2) is to be reminded again of the scene with the horse at the railway crossing, especially when Gerald' takes over the struggle (110:9-II2:40). But the response of violence to rebellion is height¬ened this time as the man's hand comes down on the rabbit's neck like a hawk, and the animal screams in the fear of death - until, with a final writhe and tearing, it is mastered. Having taken in the scene with the mare, and the scene with the highland cattle which re¬orchestrated it, perhaps we are prepared for the struggle between man and animal to suggest something about the human 'war', the battle between the sexes. (So far, moreover, the action has been predominantly realistic, starting in comedy, surprised into violence.) But now, from behind the realism, once more, the new art begins to open up a dimension undiscovered in earlier fiction, for 'the scream of the rabbit ... seemed to have torn the veil of her consciousness' (241:20-21), and what lies behind the veil in Gudrun and Gerald is revealed to them both presently, beyond disguise.

The language shows the strain of having to put into words something which by definition is almost beyond articulation, and which may therefore seem far-fetched or even absurd - at first. Gudrun looks at him with eyes 'strained with underworld knowledge' (nearly a contradiction in terms, but not for Lawrence), '... like those of a creature which is at his mercy' (an expression caught in the eyes of rabbit and woman alike), 'yet which is his ultimate victor' (241:40-242:1) – unless he could treat her as he has treated Bismarck. He feels 'the mutual hellish recognition' (242:2) as 'she seemed like a soft recipient of his magical, hideous white fire' (242:4-5), of cruelty. 'There was a league between them, abhorrent to them both. They were implicated with each other in abhorrent mysteries' Then follows perhaps the most absurb-sounding sentence Lawrence had ever had ever written. ‘The long, shallow red rip seemed torn across his brains, tearing the surface of his ultimate consciousness, letting through the forever unconscious, unthinkable red ether of the beyond, the obscene beyond’ (242:37-7). But suppose one tried to puzzle this out? Is it that, as Gerald stares into the redness of that gash opened up by violence, he can momentarily sense his way through the bloody medium into this own psyche as well as hers? – and be enveloped and overcome by what comes out of the blood, the fascinating excitement of violence, or exerting power over a living creature sadistically, or masochistically? The Rainbow made it clear that sex is always, for Lawrence, a going through, beyond one’s ordinary self and old consciousness, into a new mode of being. But here the mode is ‘hellish’ and ‘obscene’ because because its ‘either’ – the medium in the space beyond the normal atmostphere, now within rather than above – is the pleasure in violence, whose final frisson is death. Bismarck, then, gets rid of distress and frustration by tearing round and round in meteoric frenzy, seeming mad but actually quite natural. (Yet that word poses disturbing questions in this context. What is ‘natural’? Is violence, war, ‘natural’, or ‘denaturing’?) But as the lovers exchange suggestive hints of the possibilities their subconscious has suggested, they show a readiness to offer and accept rabbit-sexuality and animal violence that may, even now (for conscious human beings), be ‘shocking’ in its ‘nonchalance’(243:33-4). However, the final sentence of the chapter (243:33-4) is a sudden reminder of the path that has been forsaken since ‘Water-Party’. For Bismarck is not the power-wielder and warmonger of his name. In truth he is a mystery, a wonder (like Gerald in the canoe), when seen with reverence for the ‘other’ rather than with the impulse to impose ones’s will and dominate – whether by Winfred’s fantasy and mothering, or in Gerald and Gundrun’s power struggle, to the death if it should come to that.

There is violence and deathliness in Birkin and Ursula, too. Yet the crucial discovery of chapter XIX, 'Moony', is that there is a kind of violence that can heal, as well as a violence that destroys. The changeability of this pair has -been evident since 'Water-Party'. Birkin has been ill, withdrawn. Ursula has again reacted in repulsion at what she sees as his deathliness, and, moreover, with a kind of pure hatred for his very being, oppressive to her ego. As she wanders through the dark trees, she is in a mood of almost annihilating repudiation - hating the brilliant moonlight which makes everything definite and visible to consciousness, drawn to the darkness in which we can lose oneself. Yet here by the pond is Birkin, a shadow, muttering ludicrously, so that she wants to laugh. The flower-husks he drops in the water are reminders of the flowers they scattered on the pond in chapter XI, 'An Island", when they first admitted their love, now gone dead and dry, Birkin thinks that all relations with women are an antiphony of lies. Indeed, the moon suggests to him a horrible female power, like the Syrian goddess of violent sexuality. So it seems in hatred of Woman that he begins to stone the moon's reflection. But, when it is over, he will ask '"Was it hate?"' However much is may be (both in Birkin and the watching Ursula) a wroking off of anger, dislike, frustration, it seems also more, and deeper than that. What happens to dark water and white moon -- as well as in people?

The impact of the first stone makes the moon's reflection look like a writhing cuttlefish, and with a second stone the moon explodes. Waves of darkness run into the centre, but after the near-destruction the moon re-forms. Again, with stones close together, Birkin's explosions momentarily obliterate the moon, but again it re-forms. Then he throws stone, after stone, after stone. And here what seems important is to submit imaginatively to the experience in the language and the rhythm, let it happen within: 'And he was not satisfied ... whole and composed, at peace' (247:35-248:22). It is an experience of extraordinary violence, yet after and through it comes a strange peace, and tenderness, in which words of simple truth can be spoken. Neurosis, hatred, deathliness have vanished (though they may come back). Moreover, after the apparently destructive violence the moon looks different. It no longers seems hard, triumphant, a thing of power. It has become a rose, 'constellated' in the dark water - reminding one of Ursula's rose (not afleur du mal) against Birkin's dark river of dissolution, and of how the rosy lantern balanced and harmonized with the dark one and its writhing sea-creature, and of the symbolism of the rose in many languages. What has happened in the pool and in the subconscious of the lovers seems to be a mode of 'love' in which the relationship can grow through conflict, the clash of personalities, even violence, to harmony and peace. In The Rainbow sex had been seen as a kind of death and rebirth, a loss of consciousness and experience of oblivion at the hands of the 'other' (like the result of the first stonings here), but opening up a new life beyond. But then, as Lawrence rewrote his 'philosophy' in 'The Crown', he had seen that there were times when violence and destruction have to go far indeed before new creation can begin. The subconscious may have to be deeply agitated, neurotic consciousness broken apart or indeed almost completely disintegrated, before the new harmony can come about and the whole self become calm and composed. Yet come about it experientially does - because (this seems important) neither of the opposed forces can overcome the other. Out of the writhing polyp, the crashing noise, the broken water, the splintered light, the shattering violence, come healing, peace and tenderness. '''There is a golden light in you, which I wish you would give me''', says Birkin (249:15), something more than merely personal.

Yet as soon as they begin consciously to speak, misunderstanding flares and conflict begins again. Ursula thinks Birkin is demanding male supremacy, that she should submit and serve, and he is unclear about what he wants. He is also infuriated by the 'Magna Mater' (the Great Female and Mother) in her, and her assertive will and self-insistence (against his). Nevertheless, what they reached for a moment was real, and will come again when the words and the self¬willed 'old stable egos' give way. Afterwards, Rirkin is able to clarify to himself the. different ways that modern men and women can go. In Halliday's African statuette there seemed to be embodied a mode of being which - no longer fusing body, mind and spirit - has given itself over entirely to experiencing and knowing through the senses. This is in the mode of dissolution because it is a falling apart of unified being, reducing back to one element, though Birkin admires its civilization, which has gone much further down the road than his own. (Dissolution may be necessary before new integration can begin.) There is also an opposite 'Arctic' way of disintegration and reduction, when life is wholly dominated by mind and will, the 'white' life we have seen in Gerald.to But now the Birkin who preached about the 'River of Dissolution' has been brought by Ursula and the experience of the pond to glimpse a third way, which he calls 'paradisal', over-optimistically. Yet he has glimpsed a vio¬lence and disintegration which can heal, a conflict after which the 'opposites' can each be themselves again, perhaps indeed more so, but 'constellated' together in new peace and beauty of relation. He goes off impulsively to ask Ursula to marry him - which turns out to be grimly funny, because he doesn't yet understand what he has glimpsed, and because Ursula has changed again, so that another row results. Yet he has found a way ahead.

That is all for now until I scan the remainder. You may have noticed W speaks of 3 key chapters and only two are mentioned here; this is where I left off scanning and will resume soon. I think these passages, and pointing out these three chapters, will give you much to think about and clarify some parts and ideas we discussed throughout the postings. Keep in mind that the next part I post disgusses the 'third chapter' Worthen is referring to so...this is to be continuted.

papayahed

07-22-2007, 11:00 AM

Papayahed, is this that part you are referring to in Chapter VI?

Ok, for the last hour or so I have been searching through the text and postings for references to the figurines and I come up with some discussions starting at post #117, about Lawrence's 'blood philosophy' which is first layed out and explained by Virgil. If you continue on through post #120, and maybe even a little further on you will see the discussion about the African figures and how they relate to this philosophy or idea. I hope this helps some. You might have to skip over some unnecessary parts of the postings.

Oh good heavens! Thanks for taking the time to look.

papayahed

07-22-2007, 11:16 AM

I've just finished the book and my first thought is that it is very much a soap opera.

I haven't read all of the posts so forgive me if I bring up something that has already been discussed.

Geralds reaction to those statues, perhaps that is his reaction to Gudrun's world. She's the artist, he's the logical businessman maybe a forshadowing of their inability to stay together.

Somebody mentioned that Loerke was a homosexual, how do we know this? Did I miss that part? I got the impression that he was hetero from that parts that described his inability to approach let alone speak to Gudrun.

Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald.

This screams Soap Opera, why isn't there anything left for Gerald???

manolia

07-22-2007, 03:37 PM

Just read those pages you scanned Janine for the second time. Thanks for sharing :)

Janine

08-06-2007, 09:42 PM

Hi Manolia, Glad you read it again and got something of value out of it. This same author - Worthen - wrote the current L biography I am reading - it is only the first half called "The Early Years"; very detailed; I also own the second half called "Life of an Outsider". Shall I scan more of the Introduction for you? I think there may be about 8 pages left, on here it won't appear to be that long...just in the paperback edition. I will check my book and see where I left off. I am reading a "Casebook" now on "The Rainbow"and "Women in Love". It is quite interesting; renewed it at my library tonight, but I have ordered it online used. It is something I would like to add to my collection. I read another one as well, also ordered that one but I scanned much of it - "The Sons and Lovers Casebook"; the scans will come in real handy, later on, when we read and discuss the S&L's on here this fall. How many books did I say I owned on L? Well add a few new finds to the list. Probably up to about 25 now.

mcvv09

08-24-2007, 11:00 AM

Women In Love is my personal favorite of Lawrence's books. I feel that it is his most complete representation of his views on life, individuality, and marriage. The true joy in the novel comes from comparing the relationship of Birkin and Ursula with that of Gerald and Gudrun. As a result, one can see that true marriage must result from free passion and a divorce from the dehumanizing industrialization. Rupert and Ursula were able to create an entirely new world within themselves. This is contrasted with the relationshp of Gerald and Gudrun. Gerald could not break from industrialization and was left wanting more from work. Gudrun was left wanting actual passion and resorted to affairs. Rupert and Ursula found contenment, while Gerald and Gudrun's relationship ended when Gerald died.

Janine

08-24-2007, 10:08 PM

Hi mcvv09, I see you are new to the forum, so let me welcome you! I am so glad you stopped by this thread to comment. I too find this to be my favorite Lawrence novel. I feel it is Lawrence most complete and perfect work - really his masterpiece. We have been discussing the book in extensive detail (mostly two month's ago, as our monthly book read) and have written 19 pages of posts, quite ambitious for one month's time! I hope you find the time to read some of the entries, if not all. I think you will gather much in the way of new ideas and information from doing so. The novel is a complex one, as all of Lawrence's writings are.

We currently have active threads on Lawrence - one on his short stories and one on his Tortoise poems, the second will resume next month, if anyone else in addition to myself is interested.

I am an avid fan of Lawrence and have read 3 full biographies on the man and have real nearly all his novels. I am currently reading a later, more obscure novel "The Plumed Serpent".

Several of the participants in the short story thread will be reading "Sons and Lover's" sometime this fall and discussing it. During Christmas vacation we are planning to read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" - same group.

I hope you can join in with some, or all, of these threads that are in progress or will be starting up soon. If you have not read Lawrence's short stories you are in for an interesting experience - discussions have been quite enthralling and I hope you can join in our group.

Have a great weekend and glad I caught your post.

blazeofglory

10-18-2007, 10:45 PM

http://www.online-literature.com/authorpics/dh_lawrence.jpg

In June we will be reading Women in Love by DH Lawrence (http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/):http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0486424588/sr=1-1/qid=1180742461/ref=dp_proddesc_0/002-7211632-3883229?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1180742461&sr=1-1

Online Copy (http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/women_in_love/)

Book Club Regulations (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4104)

He is one of my unfavorites and he had greatly influenced me. Many of my ideas about life and the world are formed and shaped by Lawrence. One of th e creations of him that touched me beyond limits is Piano. This poem is so deeply rooted that I feel like crying whenever I read this, so nostalgically presented, a perfect relationship between mother and son. When e read his poems we get transported to the domain he writes about.

Janine

10-18-2007, 11:59 PM

Blaze, did you mean to write 'unfavorites'? I am curious. I am sorry I have missed that other thread in which we were discussing Lawrence's work and ideas and nature. I have been preoccuppied with two other Lawrence threads that are currently very active - Sons and Lovers and Short Stories. I will try to post something in your thread about Lawrence's domain tomorrow. I did not mean to be absent from there so long.

caspian

11-11-2007, 03:31 AM

Janine

11-11-2007, 03:49 PM

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

Nice to see you back, caspian! Glad you are further exploring the novels or my favorite author - DHL....good writing, eh? Yes, the men were fully-fleshed out - you are correct on that observation, I believe. Your plan to read "The Rainbow" is a good one. Virgil will probably comment in here since he loves that novel best of all of L's novels. I now think I love them all but before "Women in Love" has been my favorite. I read in the same sequence that you are reading - WIL first and the TR next. It will not hurt to do so since both novels are quite complete without each other although a deeper understanding might be said to be acquired by reading both. I would think so since L conceived both stories to be one novel orginally, and then split them up, knowing they would be too long, for just one novel (together).

I think it a good plan after reading TR to go back, as you say, and reread WIL for refreshing. I read the novel twice and I acquired a lot more from it the second time around. I just bought a new copy of TR, so it is on my reading list for probably next year unless sooner. I read it before, as I said, but now it is time for a rereading - definitely, because I am sure my perspective on Lawrence has changed significantly since I first read this novel in my youth. Lawrence, himself, felt that all novels or great works should be read at least twice; I read this acknowlegement in a letter he wrote. I can truly see his point now and agree whole-heartedly.

I saw the film and so did Virgil. We both agree that it did fluctuate much from the original story and Virgil felt it feel very short of getting some of the ideas across. I recall the film being quite progressive and acclaimed in it's day so I think it set out to show some of what Lawrence was saying but films always do fall short. Still at the time it was a bit of a revelations and a well made film I think. I own the film but now when watching it I am sure I will see how very very different it is from the story. For one thing Gerald is blond in the book and dark haired brooding in the film. Yes, at times Rupert is clownish in the film or funny but in the book there were shred of that in his way I think but not so much. Also one whole scene with the fig - I wondered where they even got that from - it was not in the text of the book at all! Film-makers can be so funny in that I suppose they have to appeal to an audience and the masses when making films and lose sight sometimes of the orginal book. But all in all I don't feel it was a bad production - just limited. They did get the wrestling scene pretty accurate and also the ending. That was something quite amazing.

I think that V read "Rabbit, run" so I will let him comment on that.
"Owen Meany" I liked but probably would never read again. I had some issues with that book and it seemed so long, at times. You can read my comments in the OM thread. I do like Irving to some degree - basically he is a good writer, with interesting ideas, but I don't think heis great, but I am not normally one to read contemporary authors too often, so I am biased in that way.
Virgil might comment also on OM, but then again this is a WIL thread. haha - how we all overlap - right?
Nice to see this thread reoppened again - by that I mean active. I believe these threads should continue forever, you know.;)

Virgil

11-11-2007, 08:16 PM

heraclitus

03-08-2008, 12:21 PM

Janine

03-08-2008, 04:28 PM

Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.

Fantastic! Hello heraclitus, and welcome to this great forum. As you may have surmised, I am a huge Lawrence fan, from my signature and photo above it - called the Lawrence tree by Georgia O'Keefe, which someone has recently pointed out to me is actually hanging upside-down;;) I just have not changed it yet.
Anyway, I have read many Lawrence biographies and most of what Lawrence has written and your questions are not easy ones to answer. There is another person, as interested as I am, in Lawrence work, Virgil;he wrote his thesis on Lawrence and L's ideas of 'Transfiguration' in his later works. Unfortunately, V is temporarily away from the computer this weekend, but will be back next week, and active on the site I am sure.

At anyrate, you have come to the right place to discuss Lawrence work, although this particular discussion on "Women in Love" basically took place nearly one year ago; however threads never technically close and I still love to discuss this great book, so if I see someone comment I come in a try to address the post. "Women in Love" has always been my favorite Lawrence book, but the more I learn, myself, about Lawrence, the more I see his ideas presented in other books, I can see that in WIL ,they were far from definitive or final for Lawrence. You have to understand that indeed, Lawrence was influenced in his early years and beyond by Freud and by Nietzche, but Lawrence never truly adopted their philosophies precisely; remember he was just 'influenced' by their writings. Lawrence very much had his own set of ideas, which changed and developed in the space of his short life span. He died of TB in his early 40's. If you were to read more of his books, and I don't know how much you have read, you would see this exploration of Lawrence's beliefs and know it is not a simple question that you present here on your forum post. Actually, much of what you say is good and true, but actually Lawrence did feel he was a highly religious person, but his religion was not of the conventional or easily explained aspect. Lawrence did believe in a higher power or powers; it is very complicated to explain and only by absorbing more of his writings can one come up with their own conclusion to just what exactly Lawrence did believe in. It has been a long pursuit for me and I still soak up whatever I can find to read of Lawrence's because of my own curiosity on the subject.

Currently, I would like to alert you to other Lawrence discussions - one active now Lawrence short stories thread, which has been running now over a year and is very successful. If you are inclined, feel free to come and and join in our discussions; we discuss one story monthly; this month is "The Blind Man" and can be found on this very site, under Lawrence's main page. You will actually learn much about how Lawrence thought and believed from those stories. We have all learned much and continue to do so. Plus the discussions are a lot of fun.

In the near spring we plan on reading "The Rainbow" and discussing that novel. Have you read it? It actually is the prequel to "Women in Love" but most definitely can be read independently. I read it that way actually; read WIL firstly. Later on, perhaps in the summer, we planned a reading of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I hope all of these novels interest you. I, especially love to recruit newcomers to the Lawrence threads. Hope you can join us.

reading

06-14-2008, 02:48 AM

Janine

06-14-2008, 02:42 PM

everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy

Well hello reading and welcome to the forum!

Yes, you are absolutely correct assuming that. I am probably the biggest fan of all of Lawrence's on this site, along with Virgil; I have made it my life goal to read all that Lawrence has written (at least, all that I can find available). I did read several biographies and started a 4th. I'm rather addicted by now, to say the least. Lawrence is my favorite author.

Oddly enough, I just finished "The Virgin and the Gipsy". I read this book years ago and loved it, but strange as it may seem when I picked it up again, I could not recall much from my earlier reading.

A few others I have read lately have been the same way. I read "Love Among the Haystakes" a couple of weeks ago; another repeat reading and I liked that book very much, as well. Have you read any other of his books? I have been trying to read his shorter works of fiction, such as the length of "The Virgin and the Gipsy". Also, on this forum is a discussion thread of Lawrence's short stories, which I have been active in since the beginning. I recently dropped out for a time, due to some problems that cropped up and I need a rest myself. It is also possible the thread will take a rest until fall; that is not certain so don't quote me.

This is odd; I came into this thread the other day, actually to see if it still existed. This was last year's discussion on the novel "Women in Love"; this discussion group was great; the discussion highly sucessful. How in the world did you ever find this thread? Probably by just putting 'Lawrence' into the search, right? The participants in this thread had expressed a desire to discuss another full-length Lawrence novel in the future. The one that will probably be discussed next will be "The Rainbow" since we did discuss "Sons and Lovers", as one of the regular monthly reads (also a very enlightening discussion). If you have not read that novel, I would highly recommend it to you. It was Lawrence's first well known novel and basically it is drawn from his his own life and family (basically autobiographical in origin).

If you are just beginning to discover D.H.Lawrence, let me suggest a few short works you may want to begin with. I would highly recommend these pieces of shorter fiction (Novellas):

Love Among the Haystakes
The Fox
The Ladybird

And any or all of the short stories. You can take a peek in the short story thread to see the ones we have discussed in the past year. One one of the pages we did list those. I will try and find that page and list them here for you. There are a lot of posts to wade through to find them but I think I know about where they are in that thread.

Hope all this helps. It might be fun to start a separate thread on "The Virgin and the Gipsy", if I do I will let you know. There is a movie adaptation of the book which I am considering buying. I saw it on Amazon.

Janine

08-12-2008, 04:53 PM

Glad to see this thread is still open but I am frankly confused as to why the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread is closed or appears to be. I am posting here now to assure this stays open because I wish to copy this thread to my hard-drive - the discussion was so good.

Carpalim

08-13-2008, 07:52 AM

First, sorry if the following has been gone over before, but I didn't want to go back over the whole thread till I've finished the book. Too many spoilers.

What excites me principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown at times as an overbearing preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But am I right?

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing genitals through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover that glaring ommission of the great 18th and 19th century novelists: sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. Amongst its many other achievements, WIL is a brave stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex. The powerful scene where Gerald, on the brink of the void, goes to Gudrun's room and pours his 'poison' into her, and is relieved, exposes a vital truth; it's an overwhelming vindication for the advent of the sex scene in literature.

Virgil

08-13-2008, 08:00 AM

What I love principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown as a preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But am I right?

I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.
Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.

Carpalim

08-13-2008, 09:29 AM

I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.

A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)

[/QUOTE]Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are sprinklings here and there. 'Nana' by Zola comes to mind. Don't remember much in Hardy, but then I only read him at school - perhaps they only gave us 'clean' ones (Mayor of Casterbridge, Return of the Native).

Janine

08-13-2008, 02:18 PM

Glad to see a newcomer to the Women in Love thread. Welcome Carpalim! It is good to see a new face here. "Women in Love" happens to be my favorite Lawrence novel and I have read nearly all of them by now. In fact, I am working now on the more obscure ones. You can't tell I am a Lawrence fanatic, can you? Anyway, I enjoyed reading your very well thoughtout and written post. I think that definitely "Women in Love" is a kind of grabbling towards Lawrence's true goals and perspective in life, and he is stuggling with his beliefs. He has already been accused, at this point, of being too 'preachy' and so he is definitely projecting his personality onto Birkin. The majority of critics will agree that Birkin most certain does represent Lawrence. This does not say it shows us a Lawrence without doubts and flaws - to the contrary, Lawrence know what they are. In a sense from the beginning of this novel to the end is a personal journey for Lawrence. He is working out his own existence in the pages and he is also seeing the characters around him as only he could perceive them. For instance, Hermoine Rondice is also representative of Lady Ottoline Morrel, who later Lawrence had a falling-out with. You can well see why, when she recognised her character in the novel. Of course, she and L did not have an affair or sexual relationship, but she very much portrays her personality. Ursula is of course, representative of Lawrence real wife, Frieda. At anyrate, you are correct, in thinking that at times in the novel Lawrence is poking some fun at himself. I agree about the humor in the conversations, even though there is a great deal of gravity and meaning, as well. Many people do not realise just how humorous Lawrence was in real life. He could actually be the life of the party and loved mimicry and charades. I think that Birkin's playful personality does indeed reflect that of Lawrence, at times in the novel.

I remember that when we discussed this book awhile back, a few people started out not liking Birkin at all. I did not quite understand that, since I did like his character from the start and found him amusing, and I saw Lawrence immediately in his character. I also saw the very human aspects of the man trying desperately to break out of the norm and find his own unique world and way.

This is a good observation:

A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)

I think a distinctive scene is when Ursula comes back at Birkin after they go off for a picnic and he had given her the rings - she really brings to light the failings in his idealogy. She tells him to go back to his spiritual wives. I just love that scene. After that Birkin does change his tune. We have all been there sometime in our lives and know that same feeling, I believe...and yes, Lawrence knew just how to beautifully express all of that and not make it ridiculous - instead it is always so truthful and totally human.

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.

I think he was restrained by the times as is evident when he pulled out all the stops or some in "Lady Chatterly's Lover" which he had to have printed and published with his own money. However, in this part of Lawrence's career when he wrote WIL, I think the book is perfect in what it does reveal sexually. You must know that Lawrence himself was sometimes called a prude and he was certainly old-fashioned in some views. He was very much for marriage and to one woman for life. I think that by showing the plants in such a sensual way is totally Lawrence's style and it serves to not only suggest the sexual union but also to bring nature into play with humanity and I think that he is showing us that we are not any different than nature and the animal kingdom - there is the interconnectivity of all and the heavens. Lawrence abhored pornography and he did not blantantly set forth sex in his books in a pornographic way at all. He was not out to make the reader have thrills or a shock over his more intimate scenes. Instead he stayed true to his form and indeed the suggestion is much more effective. I can not imagine WIL written in any other manner. He said just enough and the text is beautiful - the scenes stand out as intense images in our minds long after the last page is read. To me this book had a great impact on my life at the time I first read it. I have since read it again and it no less has impressed me. If anything, I have been affected more so by it. Now that is a 'great' book.

Carpalim

08-15-2008, 09:43 AM

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably beyond the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

Virgil

08-15-2008, 10:52 AM

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably not to be held within the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

Well, all literature has breaks in recording. The author chooses to fully render some things and summarize others. If the actual sex has nothing to do with the themes, then the author has crossed over into pornography. When the sex is integral to the themes, then the author needs to make a decision. Suggestiveness in deference to decorum is not necessarily a bad thing. Except for Lady Chatterly Lawrence is not really all that sexually explicit. Certainly less so than Joyce in Ulysses. In many respects Lawrence is quite prude. One can even argue that the explicitedness of Lady Chatterly was done for commercial purposes. But nonetheless it is still integral to the themes and works out well in my opinion.

Janine

08-15-2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Carpalim

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably not to be held within the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

Carpalim, Anyone who comes in here and contributes is more than welcome. I like it when people show interest in Lawrence, since I am such a big fan of the author myself. Even though this discussion of the novel took place months ago, or was it a year, Virgil (?), I am quite pleased to see the thread continuing with added commentary. I would like to see all threads on serious discussions continue like this. By all means, Carpalim, do add more comments and I or Virgil will try to address them in the coming days, weeks.

You may not know this, but Lawrence wrote a very prominent essay on his thoughts concerning pornography. I have so many Lawrence books and not sure which one it is in, at this moment or I would look it up now; so let me look that up for you later on and get back to you. You might get lucky and find the essay online. I will check that out and see if I come up with it tonight. I do know that Lawrence thought that 'if sex was in the 'head' that made it pornographic' - at least that was his view. I will also find exact quotes. I think the essay would better help you understand where Lawrence was 'coming from' about revealing the sexual act blantantly in his work. Also, one must be aware that very often his publishers cut texts and yes, indeed, very often Lawrence was very angry about his work being butchered - who wouldn't be? Some of the original texts have resurfaced now and scholars of Lawrence are working hard to have them become public. Many of these original versions are now publishede and attainable. In fact Lawrence actually wrote three distinct version of LCL. In "Lady Chatterly's Lover", I don't quite agree with Virgil about this novel, being more sexually explicit, because of the commercial factor. I think by this point in Lawrence's late life, he just did not care anymore what people thought and about who was going to censor him; he had become fearless and reckless in a way. This is why he sought finally to have this book published and payed for outside the bonds of the conventional publishing world; instead independently - in fact, Lawrence, himself had it financed out of his own pocket. I therefore, do not see it as a money-making venture - Lawrence was not like that at all. He disliked capitalism. He did not care much about things and could have lived well and high, but he choose always not to - he took the more 'untraveled' road. In someways' by standing up to publishers and doing his 'own thing', towards the end, he ended up sabataging himself; but I do not think he was ever in true need of food or the essentials in life and he was able to make enough money to travel the world throughout his life; although he was never extravagant in anyway. I have read 4 biographies by now, and much research on the author, so I know this to be a fact. He wasn't down and out poor, but he was far from rich. In fact, I think that publishing "Lady Chatterly" set him back some. The book was banned or rejected in several countries at first; there was even a big court battle in England - the famous obesity trial - one can read all about it and who stood up for Lawrence in the end. Now LCL best seller, right? Truly ironic. For the times, it was quite a scandalise book but by today's standards no one would even raise an eyelid.

Well, all literature has breaks in recording. The author chooses to fully render some things and summarize others. If the actual sex has nothing to do with the themes, then the author has crossed over into pornography. When the sex is integral to the themes, then the author needs to make a decision. Suggestiveness in deference to decorum is not necessarily a bad thing. Except for Lady Chatterly Lawrence is not really all that sexually explicit. Certainly less so than Joyce in Ulysses. In many respects Lawrence is quite prude. One can even argue that the explicitedness of Lady Chatterly was done for commercial purposes. But nonetheless it is still integral to the themes and works out well in my opinion.

Virgil, That is true, about literature often breaking in the recording. I think sometimes the author does it purposely, for a certain effect. Often 'suggestion' is much more effective than spelling out the intimate details. I don't think that Lawrence avoided 'sex' in the novels one bit. He used 'sensuality' and connected the natural elements in nature and the animal kingdom with the human-being. Look at the scene in WIL, when Birkin runs out of the house into the fields or woods, after Hermoine hits him in the head. He fleas from her falsity and strips naked and is one with the natural world again - undergoing a sort of cleansing of his body and soul. The naked wrestling scene may not be 'sexual' in nature, but it certainly was the epitomy of the 'sensual' and it was so well written and imagined. The catkin scene is a good one, and shows the way in which Lawrence tied all of nature in with man. I happen to love that scene, since it also shows the difference in the two women's thinking and later actions.

Carpalim

08-15-2008, 02:32 PM

Yes, Virgil, you're right that an author can't record everything, and must be selective in what he shows. But what I meant was the break in the tone, the change in focus, whenever the sex crops up. Lawrence, who has throughout the novel maintained his amazing facility for recording what is entering the character's souls through their eyes, ears, noses and fingers, must artificially shut down this direct sensory intake whenever the characters 'embrace'. Birkin, on seeing the secrets of Ursula's body would have a reaction. Surely the reaction of a character like Birkin to such a thing would be of profound interest, and thoroughly relevant to the aim of rendering the three-dimensional relationship between him and Ursula. This is what he gave us in 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. When the clothes came off, the sensory intake of the lovers kept running, we kept looking through their eyes at what they were seeing. As a result the depiction of the relationship became so fully-rounded it attained an almost unbearable truthfulness. For instance, when Lady C considers how ridiculous ultimately the movement of her lover's body is. A reaction from Gudrun to Gerald on the same level of directness would bring not pornography but simply more truth.

I'm not criticising WIL here - the relationships are obviously beautifully and masterfully rendered, including the coming-togethers. I just think it could have been even better if it had that extra dimension which graces Lady C.

If Lawrence was more explicit in LCL for commercial reasons, I'm greatly surprised, though he is too much of an artist to let the sex be anything other than a vital part of his statement.

Janine, I'd love to read L's views on 'pornography'. I must have a look for it.

I can't resist any more. Just a general word on the dreaded 'p' word. To my mind, any writing which is an honest meditation on what it is to possess a sexual organ is to be welcomed as a valid exploration into one aspect of the profundity we call the human condition, no matter how frank the vision. Such an endeavour should not concern itself with whether the public is going to be offended or 'thrilled'. Though I'd say that if the reader is thrilled as a side effect, then... well, what's the harm? A little more joy has been brought into the world!

Janine

08-15-2008, 03:02 PM

Carpalim,

If Lawrence was more explicit in LCL for commercial reasons, I'm greatly surprised, though he is too much of an artist to let the sex be anything other than a vital part of his statement.

Sorry to jump in here like this, but did you see my post above? I don't think he did publish the book for commercial gain; that has been well documented. Also, I think that had Lawrence written WIL, at the same time in his life, that he wrote LCL, he may very well have been more sexually and honestly expressive/explicit about the characters. I don't think when he wrote WIL, he would have gotten away with it. His prior book "The Rainbow" was banned, so he was not about to throw all caution to the wind at this point in his career, or he would end up having another banned book on his hand, which would surely mean total ruin. I don't think any publisher would have published a book such as LCL in the early year that he wrote WIL.

Carpalim

08-16-2008, 04:52 AM

Janine

08-16-2008, 04:07 PM

Janine, yes, I did see your post; it came in as I was replying to Virgil's points. I do take on board your interesting info about the circumstances of LCL's publication. I come to the thread knowing very little about L's biography and am most grateful for what I've learned from your posts.

I'm on the final chapter now, so I'll post something when I've finished.

Oh thank you; glad to help out in any way. Enjoy the ending of the novel. I will be anxious to know what you think of it. I actually have read WIL twice and thanks to a good friend, listened to the MP3 audiofile once and it is still in my player so I plan another listening to. I do think WIL is my favorite book, don't you?;)...a little obessive on my part...

Carpalim

08-17-2008, 01:22 PM

Janine

08-17-2008, 03:22 PM

Thanks, I will enjoy it! And yes, I do think WIL is your favourite book! But there's one other tiny matter regarding WIL I'd just like to mention now, which is: is there an error in the manuscript? Because in my edition, there is a glaring contradiction between the first desciption of Halliday and the second, which follows about two pages later. Initially he's described as 'swarthy' and 'slender' with 'long, solid black hair'. Then he is 'heavy' and 'fair'. Is this so in your editions?

Gee, you are observant; I have never noticed that. I will have to check the text more closely now...how curious. Do you know which chapter Halliday was introduced into the story? Then he appears later on, right? Maybe by fair he mean his skintone and maybe he gained weight...haha... really, I am just kidding. I will have to check that out and get back to you. I tend to get all those characters in that group of friends confused with each other.

I should mention this to you now. We have been planning on reading "The Rainbow" sometime in the near future. We have a number of members interested in discussing it. I have read the book years ago but hardly recall much about it now, although I cheated and watched some episodes from a BBC mini-series on Youtube. I am definitely going to reread the novel; in fact I began it a month or so ago, but then put it asside since I was in the transistion of switching to a new PC. So Carpalim, if you have read the novel or desire to, I hope you can join in our discussion when the time comes. In actuality, the novel is the prequel to WIL, although it is very conceivable to read them out of sequence - I know I did orginally. "The Rainbow" features Ursula - pre-WIL, a sort of coming of age novel.

Presently, and most likely tonight, I will be formally posting the introduction to the Lawrence short story, so you may wish to check that out. I already mentioned the name of the story so some could get started reading it. It is under 10 pages long and not too demanding at this late date of this month. Discussion should be great fun with a few new participants. Glad to have you abroad.

Carpalim

08-18-2008, 03:47 AM

Halliday first appears in the London bar chapter 'Creme de Menthe'. The two contradictory descriptions take place in that chapter within two pages of each other.

I'd love to read 'The Rainbow' next, though I'm going to have a hard time getting a copy. I live in Greece whose bookshops never carry a full range of classic literature in English (though they carry some, hence my acquisition of WIL). I'll have a look though...

Janine

08-18-2008, 02:28 PM

Halliday first appears in the London bar chapter 'Creme de Menthe'. The two contradictory descriptions take place in that chapter within two pages of each other.

Oh, good...I will check that chapter out tonight. This is funny, you must also be good at finding discrepencies in movies/films. I think I found one in the mini-series "Shackleton". I have watched the survival/adventure film countless times and when they are in the life boats somehow a few characters switch boats. I keep watching that part to see if I am correct but I think I am. Some people find things like this in all kinds of films and I guess books also - how funny!

I'd love to read 'The Rainbow' next, though I'm going to have a hard time getting a copy. I live in Greece whose bookshops never carry a full range of classic literature in English (though they carry some, hence my acquisition of WIL). I'll have a look though...

Oh good, Carpalim, it would be great to have you join in the discussion. Well, the rate we are going on here, or rather me, I think you still have time to track a copy down. Can you buy on Amazon over there? I know I have seen inexpensive copies on Amazon. In fact recently I purchase a new copy on there myself; I must have lost my old copy or borrowed the book from my library on first reading - too long ago; I don't remember.
Anyway, I always feel so badly when people can't get the English books they desire to read in other countries; in the US you can find those at any bookstore and online, and they are not expensive. Well, scout around for it and it could even be in a book collection of his works. Good luck to you, C.
The other person interested in discussing "The Rainbow" lives in Greece, also. I will ask her where she got her book.

Remarkable

09-06-2008, 04:43 AM

Janine

09-06-2008, 01:39 PM

I found Women in Love a very fine book in style but strange in thought.It is perhaps bold for the period in which it was written and,despite everything,I think it's a great achievement to be able to representate different types of human character by making them also felt by the reader.However,it woke in me the same feelings as Madame Bovary.I got irritated by the passivity of some,or by the meaningless of life in some others.I am still wondering about it,though.It's a book that deserves much consideration and takes time not only to read but also to chew...

Hi Remarkable - glad you are considering all aspects of this book. This is one of my favorite Lawrence novels. I have read it twice and I am on my second listening of the audiofiles. I also know much about the background and intentions of the author in putting forth this novel - one he considered to be his very best.

Yes, the passivity and the meaninglessness of life are there but one does react to that and I believe that Lawrence intended that to be his position. People in real life are passive and they have their issues. This book explores them - it is a journey one takes with Lawrence through the develpment of this great work. It is quite different than other books and that is one reason that Lawrence's own generation did not always 'get' just what he was driving at. For instance, even though this book shows nothing about war, the book does have the undertones of a war being fought in Europe. Lawrence did this mainly through his characters.

I know the more I read or listen to this novel the more, I get out of it. It is a very intricate and complex book. If you care to look back on the discussion you will see just how complex...it was one of the best discussion here on this forum and putting our heads together and referring to much outside research made me fully appreciate the depths of this book.

manders7890

12-10-2008, 04:20 PM

I just wanted to address the comment about the change in Halliday's appearance. Before the publication of this book, Lawrence was nearly sued by a friend (wish i could remember his name). The appearance and personality of Halliday was curiously similar to that of this old friend. To protect his hard earned income and royalties on the book, and in accordance with his publisher's wishes, he changed the appearance from black hair to blond. He was still sued and the man took part of his earnings for the book. Questions still arise as to whether or not he was only making a deal of it for monetary gain. The character Pussum was also inspired by the friend's wife. The character Hermione was also said to be based on a woman named Lady Ottoline Morrell, she did not sue him for libel, but the case was settled out of court. One more thing- If you all remember the part in the book when Gudrun and Gerald were in a restaurant and met Pussum, Halliday and their gang... this actually happened in Lawrence's life. His dear friend Katherine Mansfield, one of his few loyal friends, was at a restaurant and overheard two men (Kot and Gertler) making snide remarks about his collection of poems Amores. She walked over to them, asked to see the book and walked away with it, just as Gudrun did with Rupert Birkin's letter.

I really recommend reading his biography, specifically Elain Feinstein's "Lawrence and the Women." His characters are illustrated wonderfully, however they are also mainly based on close friends and family. I find it much easier to understand his novels, which were his most prized possessions, after reading about his life and inspirations. The biography is also not boring, if you do not ordinarily read them, as i do not. I found it quite interesting and I actually enjoy Lawrence much more then I did prior to reading it. Sons and Lovers is a great book as well, if you would like to learn a bit more about his earlier years from his own personal account. The short story the White Stocking is also EXTREMELY close to his own experiences with his wife Frieda. They undoubtedly loved eachother, but their relationship was on the fine line between love and hate and both were very jealous and violent with eachother (due to her D.H.'s popularity and her lack of it, and his strong fear of powerful women as well as her sexual permiscuity during their marriage).

Sorry if i interrupted, however I thought it would be beneficial to know a bit about his struggles and life if you want to further understand his novels, poems and short stories. Thank you for reading! =)

Janine

12-10-2008, 05:33 PM

First off, welcome, manders, to the forum. I am pleased you have such an avid interest in D.H.Lawence. I share this interest whole-heartedly. The man's work and life never ceases to fascinate me.

Wow, so much here to address, so do be patient. I will work on all of this. First off, if you read any of our discussion, it took place a year or so back; however, threads never really close or end, which makes life interesting, isn't that correct? This discussion was great and then after we discussed "Sons and Lovers'. Currently, we have a very long running 'Lawrence Short Story' thread; this month we have been discussing the longer story "The Princess" - you may be aware of this fact already as attributed to your biographical readings - that this story was also based on a real person, Dorothy Brett. In fact, most of Lawrence's stories were based on someone real; often it is a challenge to find out just who he fashioned the characters after. I have read now 4 or 5 full biographies - all totally fascinating to me; I haven't read the one you mentioned but I will look into it. I have the Cambridge ones currently to tackle. I can't get the last one - "The Dying Game" because the price on that one keeps soaring; quite impossible to aquire. I have several other spin-offs that I also plan to read - one is 'The Minoan Distance'...this deals with Lawrence, during his traveling years, expecially in NM and Mexico; I haven't read all of that yet, just parts. I am quite obsessed with Lawrence, as by now, you can imagine. Still he wrote so darn much, his letters themselves take up about 8 full volumes, it is always an endless pursuit to find more Lawrence...or course I have my work cut out for me now....my goal being to read all that I do own presently. Let me get specifically to your comments.

I just wanted to address the comment about the change in Halliday's appearance. Before the publication of this book, Lawrence was nearly sued by a friend (wish i could remember his name). The appearance and personality of Halliday was curiously similar to that of this old friend. To protect his hard earned income and royalties on the book, and in accordance with his publisher's wishes, he changed the appearance from black hair to blond. He was still sued and the man took part of his earnings for the book. Questions still arise as to whether or not he was only making a deal of it for monetary gain.

Yes, this is basically true; I and the group here, pretty much knew this and since Lawrence had first written "The Rainbow" and I believe it was banned or he was also sued for that novel, therefore he had to comply his publishers. I don't think it was profit per ce that drove Lawrence, but he had to live, also. He cared little for money or riches, but he had to support his wife and he make enough money to finally be enabled to travel to the places he desired to go. He couldn't starve; so one must understand, he could not be expected to write for no or little profit. There was an early time he had to borrow money and he abhored the idea. He paid it all back. I think also Lawrence might be inclined to change a persons hair color or his physical appearance for symbolic reasons, not just out of fear of being sued. Lawrence was always being threatened to be sued. He would verbally fight back, whenever he had the chance. Knowing what he did about the problems surrounding his publication of "The Rainbow" he was more cautious concerning "Women in Love' - the book that he considered his masterpiece. I happen to think it his best book, as well; although others on the forum may disagree with me. Virgil also knows much about Lawrence - he wrote his thesis on Lawrence's idea of 'Transfiguration'.

The character Pussum was also inspired by the friend's wife. The character Hermione was also said to be based on a woman named Lady Ottoline Morrell, she did not sue him for libel, but the case was settled out of court. One more thing- If you all remember the part in the book when Gudrun and Gerald were in a restaurant and met Pussum, Halliday and their gang... this actually happened in Lawrence's life. His dear friend Katherine Mansfield, one of his few loyal friends, was at a restaurant and overheard two men (Kot and Gertler) making snide remarks about his collection of poems Amores. She walked over to them, asked to see the book and walked away with it, just as Gudrun did with Rupert Birkin's letter.

I don't know if I knew Pussum was based on his wife, but probably I did at the time we discussed this book. I think we discussed these connections on this thread sometime back. We all were very aware that Hermoine was based on Ottoline Morrel; that I found clearly evident in several of my biography books and other research books I keep handy; one especially helpful book is a 'timeline' and this outlines just what Lawrence was doing, where he resided and often entries from his own diary or letters to friends documenting his ideas, as he was writting various stories and novels...it is a great window into what Lawrence was thinking and doing at those times. It is a small book and probably impossible to find but worth it's weight in gold.

I don't know if I knew that Katherine Mansfield had actually lived out this scene so this interests me. Thanks for adding it to this thread - love these little tid-bits of information. I know that Lawrence and Katherine Mansfield were good friends, so this would follow to be true. She definitely would have rallied to Lawrence's defense. It was her husband, who Lawrence later split with, Murray - Murray wrote some scathing commentary on Lawrence and that was that. Kot he also split with; at one time he had been somewhat friendly. I forget about Gertler; I think that Virgil knows more about him than I do but I will look him today, because I just can't recall very much about him, although he was often mentioned by Lawrence or in the biographies which I read sometime ago - within the last 5 yrs or so.

I really recommend reading his biography, specifically Elain Feinstein's "Lawrence and the Women." His characters are illustrated wonderfully, however they are also mainly based on close friends and family. [quote]

I will have to look into that biography. I actually never heard of this author but he sounds quite informed and interesting. Thanks for suggesting it.

[quote]I find it much easier to understand his novels, which were his most prized possessions, after reading about his life and inspirations. The biography is also not boring, if you do not ordinarily read them, as i do not. I found it quite interesting and I actually enjoy Lawrence much more then I did prior to reading it.

I am in total agreement with this statement and thought of yours. I say it all the time; one can't separate the art from the artist's life and influences, nor the writing from the author's biography - at least not in Lawrence's case...his personal biography definitely inhances and aids the understanding of any of Lawrence's works. I am not a big biography reader either but I was totally captivated by every biography I have read on Lawrence.

Sons and Lovers is a great book as well, if you would like to learn a bit more about his earlier years from his own personal account. The short story the White Stocking is also EXTREMELY close to his own experiences with his wife Frieda. They undoubtedly loved eachother, but their relationship was on the fine line between love and hate and both were very jealous and violent with eachother (due to her D.H.'s popularity and her lack of it, and his strong fear of powerful women as well as her sexual permiscuity during their marriage).

Yes, "Sons and Lovers" is a classic! We did a full discussion on the novel about a year ago also. How time flies! It was an excellent discussion and discussion group. I hope you can find the thread and review it. I think you will find it highyly informative and interesting. I read the book twice now and the same with "Women in Love"...actually WIL I also listened to an audio-recording now two times - I love it and intend to listen to it again sometime. It is saved on disks and my PC.

In the 'L Short Story' thread, we discussed in-depth 'The White Stocking'...we were aware from the start of the discussion that the idea was based on an incident which happend to Lawrence's mother. I truly was not that aware of his and his wife, Frieda's, connection to this story; this is an early story, so I thought this was prior to all the problems the married couple encountered later on, when say, they had been married 10 yrs or so. All you say about their relationship is true, but I am not sure this story directly connects with them as a newly married couple. I will look this up, since I own a commentary book exclusively on the early fiction of Lawrence - the author, Michael Black, goes into accurate detail concerning this story and it's background, among other stories of Lawrence's. I may be wrong and have just forgotten that connection - it would seem somewhat logical. The M. Black book has helped greatly in the short story discussion group. I hope you will be able to join us in our next discussion, which may either be in January or February - we have not decided on the next one yet. We may skip a month; we had discussed that idea.

Sorry if i interrupted, however I thought it would be beneficial to know a bit about his struggles and life if you want to further understand his novels, poems and short stories. Thank you for reading! =)

Oh don't be sorry; I am so glad you showed up and your comments are very helpful. Like I said the groups never really die out or end. I hope I have been of help to you, as well. We do however know about his many struggles in life....I believe that is one good reason I am so drawn to the author and of course, he fought against all odds, having such poor health....but his genius was always evident.

Feel free to post again or contact me about Lawrence and I hope sincerely you join our short story discussion group. Also, and in limbo, currently there is a poetry thread on L called "Baby Tortoise" - we attempted to discuss this group of poems but only got so far; hopefully one of these days we will continue and finish up. The poems are wonderful; all of L's poems are terrific and deeply meaningful.