Janine this explanation is wonderful!:nod: :nod:
I'll come back to it later and comment further.
Printable View
Janine this explanation is wonderful!:nod: :nod:
I'll come back to it later and comment further.
Janine, I second that. You gave a great explanation. When I finish the novel in a day or two, I'll come back to your post to ask a question that may lead to qualifing your answer. But your response was superb. :thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by manolia
I just finished the Chapter Continental, chapter 29, and I would like to discuss the landscape symbolism of the nothern ice world. What are your thoughts on that? It is a remarkable scene visually and symbolically. I think Manolia expressed some difficulty, and i have some ideas, but nothing definitive yet. I need to ponder it a little more. Two more chapters to finish!! 40 pages. Since I'm traveling for work tomorrow, I should be able to finish it on the plane.
Hi Grace, sorry I skipped over you yesterday; I just realised that. Sorry, you won't finish by end of the month, but I doubt we will be done discussing by then anyway; so don't dispair. I have a feeling this discussion will continue on at least into next month for a time. There is so much to talk about; this being such a complex novel to discuss.Quote:
Please don't wait for me either. Real life has called this past week and a half and I am afraid I might not finish in time. I will jump in the conversation when I can!
Janine...I was reading three books at once for a while. I stopped to read WIL.
__________________
"The reason we live is to do what we love" - Ray Bradbury
I thought you were reading 3 books at once. I see you got realistic and stopped to read just one at a time. WIL is about all one can handle - it is so intense.
Grace, hope you don't mind I requoted your signature line - I really like that!
I have to post this and answer Virgil and manolia separate since I just had a power outtage momentarily and I am afraid it will happen again.
I don't mind you posting my quote Janine! I am glad you like it. Ray Bradbury said it when I went to hear him speak.
I am positive I will join in the conversation before it is too long gone. I should finish sometime soon...the story has really picked up. I was reading for four hours the other day. Not too much left. Conversations for the book club never really end as soon as the month is up though either.
Gee thanks, manolia, I did not know if I could get all that written coherently and if it would make sense. My head was bursting with these various things I have been reading both on this book and "Sons and Lovers"; actually studying them simulaneously is quite helpful to understanding both and just how Lawrence conceived of this novel, WIL, and also to see L's development in ideas. It is getting extremely interesting cross-referencing critical analysis, letters, etc. But it is a wonder I can remember it all and then relay it to you. I am hoping to post some of the Introduction to my book. I scanned 9 pages of it last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Hope you do get back soon with some comments on what I have written. Most of the ideas came from the book but now put into my own words.
Virgil, Thanks again! superb - wow I like that! I wish there was an emoticon for a bow. I would take one, for my effort, at least. Yes, hope you can review it all in a day or so. It will make more sense to you then. I want to post more of the Introduction - start with a few pages for you people to read and absorb. It is legal to post that directly from the book, right - I scanned 9 pages so far - paperback size though, so should not be that long. I will post a few pages now at end of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You know I will have to review that chapter and the landscape symbolism. That was a very complicated chapter and the whole 'white world of snow' concepts and the 'barreness/isolation' of the landscape. If you noticed Ursula could not take it any longer after a point and could not wait to depart from it to a warmer climate. However, Gerald and Gudrun both had a fascination for that deadly cold world.Quote:
I just finished the Chapter Continental, chapter 29, and I would like to discuss the landscape symbolism of the nothern ice world. What are your thoughts on that? It is a remarkable scene visually and symbolically. I think Manolia expressed some difficulty, and i have some ideas, but nothing definitive yet. I need to ponder it a little more. Two more chapters to finish!! 40 pages. Since I'm traveling for work tomorrow, I should be able to finish it on the plane.
Virgil, yes, give us some ideas on what you think of the whole thing and the symbolism. I will see what I can dig up about those scenes in the meantime and I will review that chapter, as well..
Enjoy the last two chapters. Will you take you laptop on your trip this time? Have a safe journey and have fun!
*Here is some of the Introduction. I may be repeating some of what I already pointed out in my posts.
To be continued. I stopped at this one point about the background of the war and violence basically. Please give me your opinions after you read it.Quote:
Introduction by John Worthen,1995
Does Women in Love seem difficult? If so, there are good reasons. Because Lawrence was making a radical break with earlier fiction his major work was met with incomprehension at first, and in some ways we are still learning to read it. Indeed, the novel and its predecessor The Rainbow had been difficult to write. Both emerged from what Lawrence originally thought of as a pot-boiler, 'The Sisters', which grew and grew strangely, at the hands of an exploratory writer who had a long struggle to find his way and understand what he was discovering. It took three years and four quite different versions, along with a challenging effort of criticism and philosophy in the 'Study of Thomas Hardy', before Lawrence got hold of The Rainbow. It then took a rewriting of his 'philosophy' into 'The Crown' and another year of struggle (in three versions) to capture the very different sequel Women in Love.
Both novels may seem disturbing, too - though we ought perhaps to be more willing than some of their first readers to try to understand the nature of the disturbance. Only weeks after it was published in 1915 The Rainbow was charged with obscenity and destroyed, by order of the Bow Street Magistrates Court- a verdict almost incomprehensible now. It was not available in England again until 1926. No publisher would risk Women in Love for four years after its completion; and when it did come out it was in a private edition in America, followed by another court case.3 Few major novels have had such difficult births.
What was it that seemed so unacceptable about these books - and not only to reviewers and policemen? (Only one writer, Arnold Bennett, stood up in public for The Rainbow.) Ostensibly it was the subject: sexual relations, treated with what then seemed daring openness. Yet in the late twentieth century, after a revolution in attitudes to sex which Lawrence helped bring about, the novels can still cause almost visceral disturbance. The trouble clearly lay deeper than the subject. What can still disturb is to be' shown 'civilized' human beings as by no means fully under their own control, but impelled by forces within them well below the level of their conscious will or choice. Lawrence, in these novels, no longer contained the beginnings of such insight within the definite characterization of Sons and Lovers, which had been widely admired, but set out to change our very conception of character. In a letter about the penultimate version of The Rainbow he had told Edward Garnett not to look any longer in his work for 'the old stable ego of the character'! He wanted to go deeper. Instead of portraying human beings as consciously analysable personalities, as nineteenth-century novels had done, he wanted to get at what we have learned to call the subconscious, the four-fifths of the' iceberg hidden below the ego and the surface of our knowing. That deeper 'being' had somehow to be made visible, like the patterns produced acoustically in fine sand by invisible sound, patterns which moreover change as soon as the note does. So Lawrence wanted also to get rid of the idea of a stable ego, the belief that personality is constant, and find ways, instead, of showing human beings as fluctuating and changeable - like water, which can be ice, steam or liquid, and yet is always the same substance; or like Ursula in The Rainbow and Women in Love, who seems so different in every phase of her life as she reacts to differing pressures, and yet is always Ursula. This makes understanding character much more difficult for both writer and reader, however, since knowledge can no longer be settled or secure. But Lawrence's first readers often strongly resisted the vision of themselves as unstable and governed by subterranean impulse, resisted the idea of flux as a principle of life, which they found much more threatening or even outrageous than mere sexual explicitness.
There was a further challenge. Lawrence had to find a language for what had been inexpressible before, and what his people themselves cannot think or say in any articulate awareness. He had also to find new ways of using words to capture rhythms of being, hidden processes of the psyche. But rhythm uses repetition, and 'poetic' prose can seem (and be) overwritten. Moreover, since language and rhythm have to come from the author, there is a danger that the fiction will become too authorial and imprisoning, unless he can partly preserve the autonomy of the characters by dramatizing them and having them speak and act out their inner being in ways readers can respond to for themselves. Dialogue is very important in Women in Love - but must often suggest more than it seems to say. The new insights required, indeed, an art so new that it was liable to seem unintelligible or over-insistent; or, if its tendency were glimpsed, to be resisted and rejected in self-defence, defence, that is, of the old and much more comfortable idea of the self, as consciously self-defining and stable.
The effect on Lawrence of that rejection, however - made unmistakable in the destruction of The Rainbow - was traumatic, and permanent. He tried to leave England for America. but without a valid passports could not go, so did the next best thing and isolated himself near the tip of Cornwall. There, in 1916, the most terrible year of the most terrible war mankind had ever seen, he began to write Women in Love with, at first, no idea of publication. From being a writer feeling himself at the height of his powers as he finished The Rainbow, confident that he had lifted his art a dimension above Sons and Lovers (which had got him recognized as among the most promising young novelists), and sure that he had written a great work of religious imagination and struck a blow for women, he became a writer who had lost his audience, and felt totally alienated from his society. He began his sequel about Ursula and Gudrun with only a notional reader in mind and in a state of hostility:
... it is beyond all possibility even to offer it to the world, a putrescent mankind like ours. I feel I cannot touch humanity, even in thought, it is abhorrent to me. But a work of art is an act of faith, as Michael Angelo says, and one goes on writing, to the unseen witnesses.
The successive drafts show him struggling to contain and overcome the misanthropy and contempt, the world hatred, for which Birkin served as spokesman in the first writing. Another reason for the book to be disturbing, then, is that it was written by a man who had reason to be disturbed. Yet he had spoken - about Sons and Lovers - of how one might shed one's sicknesses in a book, presenting them in order to get beyond them and come through; but this meant that the author would' be no wise man helping us to share his clear-sightedness, but 'agonistes', inside the conflict he creates, fighting to recover equilibrium in a world he thought (with ample reason) had gone destructively mad.
For perhaps the most important point about Women in Love is that it is a war novel, even though its society is apparently at peace and its date left deliberately vague. Uncovered in the depths of all the characters is violence, threatening to destroy the self and others, and this is because the novel was written at a time when all over Europe people had thrown themselves - at first with enthusiasm - into the First World. War, and in that most terrible year of Verdun and the Somme, 1916, when slaughter reached an appalling peak that had never been known before. (We have supped full of horrors since, but no gap is wider and more difficult to imagine historically than that between the summers of 1914 and 1916.) The fate of The Rainbow seemed only another symptom of the destructiveness Lawrence now saw everywhere. He thought of calling the new novel 'Dies frae' (i.e. Day of Wrath and Last Judgement); and though he significantly decided not to, there is something apocalyptic about it. Its world is coming apart; and that creates more difficulty, since the art, in language and form, must be such as can render and explore violence, disintegration, deadly excess - and thus become even more disturbing to readers who like to think of themselves as civilized and self-controlled. This poses, moreover, a crucial question for the critic: is this a destructively violent and excessive work, or is it a diagnosis of violence and excess, enabling its author and its readers to come through the experience with better understanding of themselves?
Hi Grace, fantastic!.....So glad you are progressing so well...wow, 4 hours of reading; your eyes must have looked like these :eek: It will be great to hear your comments. Someone else said the book was picking up at a certain part. Yes, the ending is really something and you will like the last few chapters very much so. It is hard to put the book down at a certain point. Glad you hear that these conversations never truly end. I saw that Virgil posted something the other day in Owen Meany thread. Here Scher had finally finished the book and so she posted. I added something after Virgil. Glad we could go back to it and this thread should get comments for sometime I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
If you read what I posted - the Introduction - to my WIL edition, you will gain a lot of insight into the ideas/intentions of the book. I will post more of that intro - I scanned about 9 pages and there are 9 more. I used up 5 today, so I can probably post the whole thing in about 3, 4 posts. Let me know what you think?
Thanx for the post Janine!
So actually the book was written during 1916 where these terrible events took place? That explains a lot about the background of the book (and especially the parts in the snowed mountains-a very spooky atmosphere indeed). Hence the wilderness and desolation and stillness in the mountains and the strange effect it has upon Gudrun and Gerald (they spent a lot of time watching, almost bewitched and terrified out of the window at the vast wilderness of snow.) The descriptions of the landscape gave me a desperate feeling sometimes.
And of course the fact that his other novel , the rainbow, was destroyed by the police and rejected, accounts for Birkin's character (he is very bitter and a misantropist).
EDIT
SPOILERS AHEAD
Now, about your previous post (the one that was an answer to my questions). I liked your explanations about the Gudrun-Gerald realationship and what you say about Lawrence wanting to make a point in which type of realationship he thought was best. Now, how about the last few lines, where Ursula and Birkin talk and Birkin tells bluntly to Ursula (if i am not mistaken) that her love was not enough. Does it have to do with balance (does Birkin need a soul mate, a male soul mate, a good friend to balance his life as much as he needs a woman? Or is it a homosexuality reference?)
manolia, Yes, yes, doesn't that Introduction explain a lot about the mood and the atmosphere of the entire story, especially the snow and ice scenes that you have pointed out? I read more that said that actually Lawrence was working out the character and his ideas as far as Birkin/himself is concerned. In other words the book is a work in progress and so is Birkin's character. Is there not many changes he goes through by the end of the book? All the characters do so actually, some for good and some not. This line in the Introduction interested meQuote:
Originally Posted by manolia
"....he had spoken - about Sons and Lovers - of how one might shed one's sicknesses in a book, presenting them in order to get beyond them and come through; but this meant that the author would be no wise man helping us to share his clear-sightedness, but 'agonistes', inside the conflict he creates, fighting to recover equilibrium in a world he thought (with ample reason) had gone destructively mad."
Yes, therefore Birkin did have ample reason in the first half of the book to be bitter. But as we all have observed, by the end of the book, Birkin is quite changed or transformed. Lawrence used the term transfiguration. Virgil wrote his thesis on this aspect of Lawrence's work. In WIL by the end he is just starting to really grasp it himself.
Most of what I wrote came from my reading of various commentary, not entirely my own ideas, but in my own words. So thanks for the compliments. That aspect you speak of with the contrasting relationships - if you think in terms of films (;) :lol:) and how the most effective films play up the bad guys, they are most prominent and evil is always in the forground - you can relate to this concept. Look at Shakespeare's plays Othello, MacBeth, King Lear, Richard III and many others and the prominent aspects of the play are the evil ones or the characters with the serious flaws. This is the device to show more blantantly that crime does not pay or that evil does not reign supreme. So with Gerald and Gudrun their flaws are of more interest and graphically show what Birkin all along has been saying it wrong with the world. Of course that is a simplified way of putting it.Quote:
SPOILERS AHEAD
Now, about your previous post (the one that was an answer to my questions). I liked your explanations about the Gudrun-Gerald realationship and what you say about Lawrence wanting to make a point in which type of realationship he thought was best. Now, how about the last few lines, where Ursula and Birkin talk and Birkin tells bluntly to Ursula (if i am not mistaken) that her love was not enough. Does it have to do with balance (does Birkin need a soul mate, a male soul mate, a good friend to balance his life as much as he needs a woman? Or is it a homosexuality reference?)
I know the story ends with that question and this 'disturbs' mostly everyone. No one likes to have a question loom up in the last few lines. I personally, from all my reading of biographies and Lawrence's philosophies, believe it was not a homosexual thing that he is referring to. I don't see it at all sexual. I feel it is just as you have described it, so I would agree with your interpretation. I think in what you said "balance" is the key word, and in Lawrence's mind.
Janine, now you mention it, i remember the word "sickness" in some parts of the book..although i don't quite remember where it was mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes i know. But you put together what you read very beautifully :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:lol: :lol: It was clear and understood before. Now it is even clearer :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
It makes the ending more interesting though. It leaves food for thought behind ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
manolia, if you find that word, please quote. I think I recalled it, also. It might have been when Birkin and Ursula were alone on that little island in the pond and he was going on about the world and how sick it was. You know, going back and reading part now might make more sense in the wake of reading the Introduction and the points Worthen brings out about the war being the backdrop of this story, although never specifically mentioned. It might also explain why Birkin wished to whipe out manhind for good, or some of the other passages - about how God did not need man, comparing extinction to the dinasaurs... hummmm....'very inter..esting'.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Ahhhhhhh.....how sweet of you to say this. Believe me when I say, usually it is a struggle. I am not a natural born writer; plus my head is so congested now with all this Lawrence data, it is hard to concentrate on just one point, bring it altogether into one post...that is why I write so much at a time.;)Quote:
Yes i know. But you put together what you read very beautifully :)
:lol: :lol: :lol: knew you could relate! :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
:lol: :lol: It was clear and understood before. Now it is even clearer :lol: :lol:
Yes, at the end of a novel, you won't find a neatly packaged finalie or satisfying romantic solution, like a Jane Austen novel. Not in Lawrence's work. He invariable keeps one wondering, long after you close the last page. I think that is more fascinating, don't you?Quote:
It makes the ending more interesting though. It leaves food for thought behind ;)
Sheesh, I'm way behind on reading. So here's my question...Is Lawerence purposely making the outfits the women wear sound horribly bad or is it because he's a guy and doesn't know any better? Some of the colors he describe generally look horrible together. ie. yellow dress, pink stocking, and red shoes? Did they get dressed in the dark. Was that the style then? At first I thought it was just the brangwens but the hermoine popped up in something just as bad. Seems strange as he describes all of then being fastideous about their dress.
Papayahed, glad you see you back. You can catch up, disussions no doubt, will go on long after the month is done on this one. Owen Meany discussions just picked up again; Scher just finished reading the book and has many questions to debate. We were all just discussing this fact, that threads never end and we can keep on posting if we care to.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I have a direct reference to the colored stockings in one of the commentary books I have been reading. I will try to find the exact part and see what the commentator had to say about the dressing styles. They certainly did seem strange and quite gawdy. I know for a fact, that Lawrence liked these thick colored stocking and had his wife wear them all the time. Lawrence could be a 'strange bird' - his wife, Frieda, actually said that about him in a direct quote. In the story descriptions I noticed how badly the colors went together. Somewhere I believe it said that Gudrun was wearing a bright red sash with something that sounded pastel - did not sound pretty at all, nor matching. It is a good observation on your part that Lawrence describes the woman as fasctideous, yet they wear such odd combinations of clothes. Even the sister's coats sound strange at times to me. Maybe that was the style then, I am not sure. It seems Lawrence dressed his male characters better althought Birkin was always dressed a bit roughly or rumpled. I suppose Gerald was the best dresser of all.
I noticed Birkin is very contradicting. He was telling Ursula about how he likes the old England of Jane Austen's, but then he contradicts himself when he talks about not liking the old ideas of marriage or when he says:
"You'll never get houses and furniture-or even clothes. Houses and furniture and clothes, they are all terms of an old base world, a detestable society of man."
He is kind of contradicting himself right?
I thought about the introduction you posted, Janine, where it talks about Lawrence wanting to create characters that cannot be analyzed and put into such a form as traditional characters of the day. Birkin is definitely so human, it is easy to understand Ursula's frustration with him in the chapter, The Chair.
Just my thoughts.
**I also noticed the odd contrast of colors in the sisters' clothing. Gudrun is always so stark. But then she doesn't nearly come off as so quiet as Ursula. Any thoughts on the specific colors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Hmm. I never considered much of the clothing colors other than to characterize Gudrun as artsy. She's the one I think that is always in stark colors. Or am I wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There are contradictions in many of the characters, grace, but in this case I think there is an explanation. When he's talking about the world of Jane Austen he's talking about marriage in general. Actually the predecessor novel to this is The Rainbow and The Rainbow is a generational novel, meaning that the story spans three genrations culminating with Ursula. The start of the novel, the first generation, that of Ursula's grandfather, would actually link up with Jane Austen's time. Interesting. When he's talking about unconventional, he still means that the marriage is conventional but that the couple will always be traveling and unsettled in a home.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
Yes, I have my laptop with me. Unfortunately I did not read on the plane. I sat next to an interesting woman and we talked the flight through. She's a foster care mother, taking in orphans temporarily until either their parents work out their troubles or they can be adopted. She's had over 40 kids in her lifetime and actually adopted six for herself. There are such big hearted people in this world that makes you see the wonder of humanity. She and her husband are jewels of this world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I did read half of chapter 30, "Snowed Up" and wow!! so far. Another of those incredible chapters. But I'm going to hold off commenting on it until I finish. I wanted to get to the ice world symbolism first.
Not sure about the legality of it. It may not be. I think you can quote from it, but to repreoduce the entire thing may be an issue. I don't think the author would mind. He doesn't make much money from that sort of essay. He probably just wants to get his name and ideas out. But the publisher may mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, he is contradicting himself. In fact Birkin contradicts himself all throughout the novel in certain instances. I think the Introduction makes this clearer and I as I post the remaining pages I think this might become clearer. In WIL think of the novel as a work in progress; and so it is Birkin and his opinions. From the beginning to the end he is changing or modifying his ideas and his mode of being. I think I already posted something to this effect to manolia or someone; I have lost track now with so many postings.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
The quote is so typical and truthful of Lawrence's life and philosophy. He lived his life pretty much that way, a very basic existence, never owning a house. In fact he was given a ranch and acres of land in New Mexico, and he refused to have the title in his name; it was in his wife, Frieda's name. He owned little in the way of goods or furniture and they were mostly on the move from country to country throught his life. He was far from poor having made money on his novels, short stories, poems, commentaries, etc. - he was quite a prolithic and ambitious author. He made money but not nearly what he would have made today, but sufficent enough to support all the traveling and moving about he and Frieda did. He died in his mid 40's, leaving Frieda with enough money to survive comfortably.
grace, I agree about the frustation of Ursula. He was pretty changable even in that one instance - buying the chair and proclaiming how marvelous the old workmanship was on it and then in an instant giving the chair away proclaiming they needed nothing - very unrealistic, don't you think? I think the idea is Lawrence never wanted to be tied down to things. He wanted the ultimate freedom to go 'where the wind blew him' so to speak. If you read the short story in that thread "Things" you will get a sense of what he felt about people owning things. I believe he wrote the piece with a couple he was quite friendly with. The story reflects this idea of things being only things and of no real lasting importance. I read "Sea and Sardinia" and I noticed that, as Lawrence and Frieda traveled through the area once in awhile there was something of local craftsman that interested him in buying. Frieda would love looking and in some instances he poked gentle fun at her, but not at all mean or sarcastic; in fact he sounds pretty typical of a husband watching his wife shop. I found this to be revealing of the type of lifestyle the two lead. He greatly admired the costumes of the locals, but now that I think of it most of what he seemed to appreciate, belonged to the old world of that region. Lawrence also pointed out the clothing vividly of the German people staying at the hostile during the dancing scene.Quote:
I thought about the introduction you posted, Janine, where it talks about Lawrence wanting to create characters that cannot be analyzed and put into such a form as traditional characters of the day. Birkin is definitely so human, it is easy to understand Ursula's frustration with him in the chapter, The Chair.
Yes, good point. There is a definite contrast in the clothing between all four main characters, in fact. With the two sisters remember Gudrun is the artist and Ursula the school teacher, therefore most of the time they reflect their attitudes and their positions. Even though Gundrun is stark she comes off more stylish to me and probably more daring, being the artist; whereas Ursula comes off more quiet in her appearance. It seems that they both greatly admire clothes. I picked that up in a couple of the scenes between just them alone speaking. Likewise in the contrast concept; Birkin is more discheveled, carefree, and casual about his appearance whereas Gerald is always more 'put together' and impecibly dressed. Odd that in the scene where he goes to Gudrun he is not so - he is muddy. Had you thought of that as a contrast in his usual controlled look.Quote:
**I also noticed the odd contrast of colors in the sisters' clothing. Gudrun is always so stark. But then she doesn't nearly come off as so quiet as Ursula. Any thoughts on the specific colors?
Opps did not see you there Virgil, hope you had a good trip - it sounds interesting and I liked your comment about good people in this world. It is true and so often we only read about the bad ones in the news, it is refreshing to meet wonderful people like that - as you said 'jewels of this world'.
I think I must have been posting same time as you. I am glad you can post since I will be anxious to hear your ideas on the ice world symbolism, etc. I can't wait till you finish the book and we can discuss that part with you. Wasn't "Snowed Up" something? I can never get that one scene out of my mind.
Yes, I took that Gudrun was the one with the more progressive clothing - starker colors. I do believe the clothing was very significant in the writing and to Lawrence reflecting the moods and temperments of the characters.
Well, I think it is ok to post the 'Introduction' to the book, if I do it in segments and put the author's name above it. After all people do use these texts in school assignments, colleges, etc. I am not plagerising (sp?)
Hey, Virgil, the short story thread is started and going incredibly well. Lot of participants this time. I think we have encouraged a few Lawrence enthusiasts - so Grace tells me.
This is unfortunate, but I have to forgo the computer now - bad thunderstorms here tonight....just coming in the area - darn!
I kind of feel like I am pointing out the obvious with having said something about the characters' contradictions. I know they all do it, but I guess I pay more attention to Birkin doing so.
I am not quite used to the fact of the characters contradicting themselves. In other novels, those types of contradictions were usually errors on the behalf of the author (I am thinking of Sancho's mule in Don Quixote for example), or the authors use their characters as a sort of back drop or platform to present their ideas/theories...coming to mind is Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment.
At first, Birkin's character actually reminded me of Raskolnikov, until I realized that even though Raskolnikov strayed from his theory, the theory he had was still intact-he suffered from his incapability of putting his theory into proper action, whereas Birkin cannot keep his thoughts concrete.
:D But I am not trying to be redundant, it is just so obvious to me the differences between Lawrence and other, perhaps older authors...:p I will stop the redundancy now.
I hope someone here has read Crime and Punishment, or I will feel kind of silly saying all that up there!