Printable View
Just a quick question on eveyone's opinons how much of a feature everyone thinks homosexuality or homoeroticism is in Lawrence's novels? Obviously there are plenty of male/male relationships in the novels, but it's a concept that always seems to get overlooked and that no one really discusses (at least on this forum, anyway!) I'm writing a paper on the subject and any ideas would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
One book stands out for with D.H Lawrence and that of Sons and Lovers.
The one thing I can is that there is a lot of insinuation of Oedipe Complex.
Lots of his writing is based around dark sexual desires and any sexuality of any kind he would have found mostly motivating.
In other words he had a lot of Byron in him.
I haven't actually ready Women in Love, but from what I know of it, it has many overt homosexual references and homoeroticism... Lawrence was suspected of having sexual relationship with a man while writing the above mentioned book... I am sure this theme comes up throughout Lawrence's novels.
I'm only half-way through Women in Love and there is not a whole lot of homosexuality made plain and explicit so far. They say Lawrence fell in love with a boy or man when he was 16. I read his poetry a lot and most of the content there relating to sex and love relates to that between a man and a woman. Lady Chatterly's LoveR seems to have little to no homosexuality in it. And hey, is it just me or is LCL a better and easier read than most of his other novels? I am having a tough time getting through Women in Love. There are breathtaking passages of high drama and brilliance and profundity, but overall I find the book a little dare I say boring. Same with Sons and Lovers. I had a tough time finishing that book. But Lady Chatterly is among my all time favourite books. Anyway. Off topic.
I like the Lawrence quote which goes something like "why is it that all the remarkable men in history have been bisexual or tended towards bisexuality?"
I didn't know this about Lawrence, but it makes sense.
Women in Love has lots of homoeroticism.
I got a five that says within an hour of his next logon, Emil Bean will be all over this thread like a damp duvet.
Was Byron the guy who ran the Old Forge on the outskirts of Eastwood?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
I bet :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
I would confirm that DHL was almost certainly bicurious, he was obsessed with male/male relationships though not necessarily sexual ones. There is some doubt about his own "performances"!
Check out "The Blind Man" from "England, My England" for a very erotic man on man encounter
Yeah, I think Lawrence was definitely interested. Arguing that he must be straight because he writes about heterosexual couples is ridiculous. Oscar Wilde wrote about heterosexual couples. Noel Coward wrote about heterosexual couples. Homosexuality (or at least homosexual acts) was illegal in the UK until 1967, so writing openly about homosexuality is going to get your book banned, plus raise a few eyebrows about your own tendencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidspanswick
What convinces me is how central sex is to the novels. I don't think that it's all Lawrence wrote about but it's odd that the subject would be so important to him if he was really having the kind of passions in the novel. I know that it partly symbolises the triumph of the individual over society and the state and maybe that is why Lawrence promoted it so heavily, but my thinking is that he had sexual feelings that he couldn't act upon. Is it a coincidence that Women in Love is his favourite novel? It's not his best- the only really good bit is the two men wrestling, though of course, they might have been doing something entirely different. Even if they were 'wrestling', it's clear that it mirrors sex.
Also, there's a very impassioned line in Lady Chatterley's Lover- I think it's the best one in the book: "It's the one insane taboo left: sex as a natural and vital thing. They won't have it, and they'll kill you before they'll let you have it. You'll see, they'll hunt that man down" If Lawrence is referring to sex in all its forms, his statement sounds a lot more reasonable. Were homosexuality to be acknowledged in that light, they really would hunt you down. Even if they don't kill you as such, you would be condemned to never be able to live the life you truly desire.