:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
I know exactly what you mean ;)
Printable View
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
I know exactly what you mean ;)
:thumbs_up :thumbs_up
Yes, Manolia!!! I knew you would become an avid fan. Next you will be like me, buying countless Lawrence books. I think I have over 25! Now that is obsession. Sorry real life work gets in the way. Duties on the homefront here do, too. Manolia - your post is a good one and your enthusisam for this story really shows through.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
I have just completed only Chapter 1, but I am taking it slowly and really absorbing it, this time around. I thought a lot about Chapter 1 last night and my impression is that there is a lot there. There are many key paragraphs suggesting events that will develop in the future. Chapter 1 is a well constructed introduction to everything - the changing industrial world, the family environment and the relationship of the husband and wife with their separate views on life, the initial attraction and short-lived love, the friction that develops due to their separateness. What really stands out to me is how well Lawrence knew these characters. It was as though he could crawl into their very skins and show us the way they both were thinking and feeling - amazing inner portraits of both people. It is no wonder since they were based on his real parents. He certainly knew them well and was not afraid to reveal, even to himself, the inner deep turbulent way in which they reacted to each other. This must have been a painful process to actually write this way and see one's parents on the page. Last time I read the novel I did not feel as sympathetic to the father, but this time, due to additional readings, commentaries and new perspectives on my part, I felt more sympathy at time for his position in the marriage.
Quote:
Yes they are pretty different the Morels. That differance is what attracted them to each other i think.
Mr Morel admired Mrs Morel because "she was very lady like" and he used to speak reverentially to her, using "thous and thines".
Mrs Morel was fascinated by his warmth and liveliness. She came form a puritan family, where men and especially her father (a short description is being given) are very restraint and silent.
Janine, i think their true happiness lasted only a few months.
They seemed to be happy for six months. Yes, that is pretty brief.Quote:
The next Christmas they were married, and for three months
she was perfectly happy: for six months she was very happy.
The next paragraphs show how things begin to change or how reality sets in. At first "he signed the pledge" and his living by her standards - quite co-operative, but then it says he was "nothing if not showy".
Quote:
He had signed the pledge, and wore the blue ribbon of a
tee-totaller: he was nothing if not showy. They lived, she thought,
in his own house. It was small, but convenient enough, and quite
nicely furnished, with solid, worthy stuff that suited her honest soul.
The women, her neighbours, were rather foreign to her, and Morel's
mother and sisters were apt to sneer at her ladylike ways.
But she could perfectly well live by herself, so long as she
had her husband close.
Sometimes, when she herself wearied of love-talk, she tried
to open her heart seriously to him. She saw him listen deferentially,
but without understanding. This killed her efforts at a finer intimacy,
and she had flashes of fear. Sometimes he was restless of an evening:
it was not enough for him just to be near her, she realised.
She was glad when he set himself to little jobs.
One can see when the differences and friction exists and then begins to creep in and become more evident and eventually prominent in their life together. They really cannot communicate on a deeper level, of which the mother longs for this level of intimacy after the 'honeymoon' period of their marriage is over - say the first 6 months. The father reacts by becoming restless. Each person seems to place an effect on the other unconsciously, which is so realistic of real life couples, who ultimately become more and more distanced from each other, when they can't work things out.
Below, from the first line of the book, it is evident that this ugliness and bleak atmosphere is going to be a key issue in the book. Sometimes in movie commentaries I have heard the director refer to the atmosphere of the film as a character of it's own such as a rainy type gloomy film. In a sense, this image of the mines and the colliers becomes a live character in this and many of Lawrence's novels. It could be called the menacing character or threat. Lawrence saw it as a disease spreading over the natural countryside of his youth.Quote:
That's exactly what caught my interest. What i loved in "Women in love" was the dreary and bleak setting, which depicts Lawrence opinion concerning indusrialisation. Same setting here too.
Lawrence even uses the word 'Hell' in his very first paragraph...interesting way to begin a book.Quote:
"THE BOTTOMS" succeeded to "Hell Row". Hell Row was a block of thatched,
bulging cottages that stood by the brookside on Greenhill Lane.
There lived the colliers who worked in the little gin-pits two
fields away. The brook ran under the alder trees, scarcely soiled
by these small mines, whose coal was drawn to the surface by
donkeys that plodded wearily in a circle round a gin.
I think it was somewhat superficial and yet there seemed to exist some sort of love between them at first, however the type of love that Gertrude hoped to have was never evident and therefore she may have been deluding herself with higher expectations of her husband. This, he was incapable of achieving; it just was not in his nature. She would have liked to change him into what she expected him to be, but he obviously was a simplier being with his own ideas of living - some place it says he was more 'sensual' than she was. I can't find the exact quote now. Both of these people are stubborn and will not yield or compomise. There is no 'give and take' in this marriage and so it is doomed to exist from the start as a very unhappy one. Even in their difference's in speech the difference is made manifest. He speaks, as Lawrence once referred to as 'heart speech' and she speaks in "head speech' or the higher form of English.Quote:
Hmmmm..good question.
I believe that whatever love there is, it is very superficial.
The two people got together because they were merely atracted by certain things in each other's personality (see above what i wrote to Janine). There wasn't any long lasting acquaintance between them, they kinda rushed in a thoughtless marriage.
This is so parallel to the story we are doing in short stories. Did anyone read it yet? I think the feelings she is having about Mr. Moral's illness are very complex and cannot be easily interpretted. If you read the story 'Odour of Chrysantamums' you see a 'what if' scenerio being played out, in the wife's mind. Interesting that she thinks - 'she wants him for himself'. I have not read that part yet, but am anxious now to read it. I only vaguely remember that scene, so I don't have a complete comment formed as yet.Quote:
Nevertheless, it seems that a kind of love has existed and it is apparent by Mrs Morel thoughts. In certain parts, especially when Mr Morel is ill, we can see Mrs Morel talking to herself and saying that "she didn't want him dead. She still wants him for herself (putting aside the fact that he is the breadwinner)". The same when Mr Morel decides to leave her and she evntually realises that he was just hiding in the back of the house.
I thought this passage of interest and sort of sums up the feeling later that the wife is having about her life.
That last line makes evident that what Mrs. Morel is wanting she know she will never have. It is a very poignant line.Quote:
She went indoors, wondering if things were never going to alter.
She was beginning by now to realise that they would not. She seemed
so far away from her girlhood, she wondered if it were the same
person walking heavily up the back garden at the Bottoms as had run
so lightly up the breakwater at Sheerness ten years before.
"What have I to do with it?" she said to herself. "What have
I to do with all this? Even the child I am going to have!
It doesn't seem as if I were taken into account."
Sometimes life takes hold of one, carries the body along,
accomplishes one's history, and yet is not real, but leaves oneself
as it were slurred over.
"I wait," Mrs. Morel said to herself--"I wait, and what I wait
for can never come."
I agree. I think in the first chapter, the description of her feelings when the father gives the son his first haircut is very significant. Something inside of her seems to be shattered at that moment - it goes way deeper in meaning than the mere haircut of the child. I think in a way it is the father being dominent over the mother and saying ok, "I am the father and this is how it is going to be". I thought of my neighbor who actually did cut his boys hair when they got to a certain age and the mother would have had no say in the matter. It seems the father also knows how precious the hair is to the mother and the keeping the child a baby as well and so he goes and does this on his own, to her horror. Surely he knew what he was doing, but then again, he may have not realised the extend of how it would effect the mother.Quote:
But the most important part is when she stops caring about his actions (that's where her love stops) and then turns to her sons.
As for Mr Morel we get hints of his love in many places. First we learn that he is jealous of his first born child. Then we see that even when he is angry with her and they fight he has great pungs of guilt (although he never admits it).
That line - "a spear through the side of her love for Morel" is very significant and also symbolic in reference to Christ and suffering; the suffering sacrificing Christian. This is a major turning point in the relationship and instead now of "striving bitterly against him", Gertrude is now "distances" herself and "ceased to fret for his love"...and "he was an outsider to her".Quote:
Presently she came to an end, soothed the child and cleared away
the breakfast-table. She left the newspaper, littered with curls,
spread upon the hearthrug. At last her husband gathered it up and put
it at the back of the fire. She went about her work with closed
mouth and very quiet. Morel was subdued. He crept about wretchedly,
and his meals were a misery that day. She spoke to him civilly,
and never alluded to what he had done. But he felt something final
had happened.
Afterwards she said she had been silly, that the boy's hair
would have had to be cut, sooner or later. In the end, she even
brought herself to say to her husband it was just as well he had
played barber when he did. But she knew, and Morel knew, that that
act had caused something momentous to take place in her soul.
She remembered the scene all her life, as one in which she had
suffered the most intensely.
This act of masculine clumsiness was the spear through the side of
her love for Morel. Before, while she had striven against him bitterly,
she had fretted after him, as if he had gone astray from her.
Now she ceased to fret for his love: he was an outsider to her.
In this earlier quote we see when the boy was born, that the father was decent to the mother, but it did not satisfy her loneliness:
This distance between them is like they live on two planets. I find these following passages interesting and significant after the child is born.Quote:
Gertrude Morel was very ill when the boy was born.
Morel was good to her, as good as gold. But she felt very lonely,
miles away from her own people. She felt lonely with him now,
and his presence only made it more intense.
Then her own opinion of his at this point.Quote:
At last Mrs. Morel despised her husband. She turned to
the child; she turned from the father. He had begun to neglect her;
the novelty of his own home was gone.
Quote:
He had no grit, she said
bitterly to herself. What he felt just at the minute, that was all to him.
He could not abide by anything. There was nothing at the back
of all his show.
This paragraph shows the dynamics of their battle and how the react to each other and the distinct differences in their natures and their ways of thinking. He cannot in the end endure her trying to 'force him' into 'moralistic' modes or being. I have read commentaries that state that the image of Lawrence's father portrayed in this book was totally unfair and that later Lawrence regretted that he was so harsh towards his father. Both adults acted childishly at times and the blame was equal for the tumultuous admosphere in the household. No one was the culprit or to blame. Their marriage became a complex and damaging one for the children between them, which is sad.Quote:
There began a battle between the husband and wife--a fearful,
bloody battle that ended only with the death of one. She fought
to make him undertake his own responsibilities, to make him fulfill
his obligations. But he was too different from her. His nature
was purely sensuous, and she strove to make him moral, religious.
She tried to force him to face things. He could not endure it--it
drove him out of his mind.
I agree! Good post. And now what are you appologising for? I don't see that you gave anything away and anyway forget what I said earlier. You can't give away anything about this book; at least not to me. I read it before. ;)Quote:
Great observations Alexei.
Yes, well somewhere in the text it mentioned that she began criticising him, not to benefit the marriage any longer, but to save his soul, to save him as a man. Mrs. Morel was a deeply and staunchly religious woman in this respect. Remember she was brought up as a 'tee-totaller' and drinking must have been a sure way to hell so she was trying also to reform him. I do think the marriage goes dead at some point given all these various factors and finally she even gives up the quest to save her husband and is totally numb to her life and marriage. It is true that she learned to restrain her feelings being a devout christian woman. Interesting that it is the opposite to Gudrun in "Women in Love". Remember too, that this novel would have been set earlier in the century than WIL, so some attitudes would be changing at the time Lawrence wrote this later novel.Quote:
There is a certain point where Mrs Morel stops critisising her husband about his drunkeness, because she just doesn't care anymore. This is the point, chronologically, where we can safely say that her love is dead.
Also, to comment on your first point, Mrs Morel is more like disappointed and hurt, she doesn't actually try to fight back. YEs, that seems to be true. The answer can be found again in her upbringing. Mrs Morel comes from a puritan family. She is a devout christian and she has learned to restrain her feelings.Quite the opposite from Gudrun from "Women in love" who was a tigress ;)
Hi Virgil, good to see you here giving a few comments. It is interesting comparing the book with Joyce's novel. Both are 'coming of age' novels and I did not know the word you presented with the definition, so now I learned something new today.
Hi Amalia - impatient one - do read on! :lol:
Whew - this took me forever to write - a small novel I think! Hahaha
Wow, what a post Janine. :)
I don't know. The first year of marriage is usually one of the hardest. Six months of happiness isn't too bad. I assume that meant lots of sex. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I have always felt that the origins of Lawrence's dualism (his outlook that the world works by contrasting principles) started with the observation of his parents. His parents are opposites in many ways, and I think Lawrence wants you to see them as architypical opposites. Now there is no question that the sympathies seem to reside with Mrs. Morel in this relationship, but that is because Paul Morel's sympathies are with his mother. But I think Lawrence the author is fairer to the father as the novel goes along. There is a separation between Paul the character and Lawrence the author. I think the point is that paul is absorbing more of his mother's consciouness than his father's.Quote:
One can see when the differences and friction exists and then begins to creep in and become more evident and eventually prominent in their life together. They really cannot communicate on a deeper level, of which the mother longs for this level of intimacy after the 'honeymoon' period of their marriage is over - say the first 6 months. The father reacts by becoming restless. Each person seems to place an effect on the other unconsciously, which is so realistic of real life couples, who ultimately become more and more distanced from each other, when they can't work things out.
As a bildungsroman this all goes into the building of Paul's character. Lawerence is a psychological writer. So another way to say what I just said is that it all goes into the formation of Paul's consciousness.Quote:
Below, from the first line of the book, it is evident that this ugliness and bleak atmosphere is going to be a key issue in the book. Sometimes in movie commentaries I have heard the director refer to the atmosphere of the film as a character of it's own such as a rainy type gloomy film. In a sense, this image of the mines and the colliers becomes a live character in this and many of Lawrence's novels. It could be called the menacing character or threat. Lawrence saw it as a disease spreading over the natural countryside of his youth.
Yes, quite interesting. I had not remembered that. Now in Lawrence's scheme of things, Hell is often portrayed as positive, alluring place. I'm not sure how to take this. I know some have stated that Lawrence suggests the ugliness of industry. Yes that is there, but Lawrence is not a writer who forms simple equations, such as mining equals bad. You will find some sections where it is described in a fascinating, alluring way.Quote:
Lawrence even uses the word 'Hell' in his very first paragraph...interesting way to begin a book.
Right. And isn't the father representative of heart speech?Quote:
He speaks, as Lawrence once referred to as 'heart speech' and she speaks in "head speech' or the higher form of English.
Quite right, and the Mr. Morel's taking the boy for his haircut is clearly the claiming of male territory.Quote:
I agree. I think in the first chapter, the description of her feelings when the father gives the son his first haircut is very significant. Something inside of her seems to be shattered at that moment - it goes way deeper in meaning than the mere haircut of the child. I think in a way it is the father being dominent over the mother and saying ok, "I am the father and this is how it is going to be". I thought of my neighbor who actually did cut his boys hair when they got to a certain age and the mother would have had no say in the matter. It seems the father also knows how precious the hair is to the mother and the keeping the child a baby as well and so he goes and does this on his own, to her horror. Surely he knew what he was doing, but then again, he may have not realised the extend of how it would effect the mother.
A wonderful, wonderful line! It combines a lot of the themes.Quote:
That line - "a spear through the side of her love for Morel" is very significant and also symbolic in reference to Christ and suffering; the suffering sacrificing Christian. This is a major turning point in the relationship and instead now of "striving bitterly against him", Gertrude is now "distances" herself and "ceased to fret for his love"...and "he was an outsider to her".
Wonderful, and the question that one who has read this book is, how does this connect with Paul's relationships with his girlfriends later in the novel?Quote:
This paragraph shows the dynamics of their battle and how the react to each other and the distinct differences in their natures and their ways of thinking. He cannot in the end endure her trying to 'force him' into 'moralistic' modes or being. I have read commentaries that state that the image of Lawrence's father portrayed in this book was totally unfair and that later Lawrence regretted that he was so harsh towards his father. Both adults acted childishly at times and the blame was equal for the tumultuous admosphere in the household. No one was the culprit or to blame. Their marriage became a complex and damaging one for the children between them, which is sad.
Virgil, Thanks for reading it. This stuff was rattling around in my head all night long and I just had to get it out and on paper(computer)..haha! Hope I have not bored everyone yet. I guess I felt inspired today.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, yes,... sex, passion,... the whole enchilada!:lol:Quote:
I don't know. The first year of marriage is usually one of the hardest. Six months of happiness isn't too bad. I assume that meant lots of sex. :D
Oh, I definitely agree with your first statement. I have thought the same countless times reading his works. Yes, he did make them in this novel the archetypes of this principal. He probably exaggerated both parents for the novel. I know that later he was more sympathetic towards his father but one would feel in this novel it was the other way around. I do think Lawrence was more intune with his mother, from biographies I have read, and not so with his father but for story purposes he makes the Morel character worse than his real father. Definitely the two characters have much incommon but are not the same people. I think at first Lawrence did absorb more of his mother's consciousness but later in his writing the opposite became evident, such as in "Women in Love," when sensuality came to the foreground of importance and significance.Quote:
I have always felt that the origins of Lawrence's dualism (his outlook that the world works by contrasting principles) started with the observation of his parents. His parents are opposites in many ways, and I think Lawrence wants you to see them as architypical opposites. Now there is no question that the sympathies seem to reside with Mrs. Morel in this relationship, but that is because Paul Morel's sympathies are with his mother. But I think Lawrence the author is fairer to the father as the novel goes along. There is a separation between Paul the character and Lawrence the author. I think the point is that paul is absorbing more of his mother's consciouness than his father's.
Absolutely.Quote:
As a bildungsroman this all goes into the building of Paul's character. Lawerence is a psychological writer. So another way to say what I just said is that it all goes into the formation of Paul's consciousness.
That is true. I think that the first line with the word 'Hell' can draw a person into the story easily because it is a term of fascination. Lawrence knew the effect it would have, why else would he use it as his very first line. I think it is brilliant. Yes, later the 'dark' side of mankind and life was the alluring way and fascinated him even in the mining community, but I am especially thinking of the novel I just read - "The Plumed Serpent".Quote:
Yes, quite interesting. I had not remembered that. Now in Lawrence's scheme of things, Hell is often portrayed as positive, alluring place. I'm not sure how to take this. I know some have stated that Lawrence suggests the ugliness of industry. Yes that is there, but Lawrence is not a writer who forms simple equations, such as mining equals bad. You will find some sections where it is described in a fascinating, alluring way.
I was referring to his father....yes, heart speech. Remember in the film "Coming Through" he says that prior to reciting the 'Violets' poem. That poem was definitely 'heart speech'. One reason I like it so very much. Plus it reminds me of a real event in the book and L's life (don't want to give that part away for those who did not read that far).Quote:
Right. And isn't the father representative of heart speech?
Yes, this is what I think, too. It is not that I did not sympathise with the mother's feelings, especially being a mother myself and recalling my son's own curls falling to the floor. That was a kind of passage to boyhood, but a mother does feel pathos for those discarded baby curls.Quote:
Quite right, and the Mr. Morel's taking the boy for his haircut is clearly the claiming of male territory.
I thought so, too. Another brilliant line.Quote:
A wonderful, wonderful line! It combines a lot of the themes.
I think it will take time and more reading to see the connection. The connections develop subtly and slowly overtime and once Paul begins to get involved with women, other than his mother. But as they say, 'the formative years', so growing up with this turmoil leaves deep scars on the children. I have also been told and read that growing up in this type of 'bickering mother and father' environment the children do not a clearcut notion of how a family should act; they don't know what is truly normal or how a husband and wife should be with each other or treat each other. I think we saw this damage in the book by Woolf with Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey's relationship and their children. All the children were affected by their early lives, with these parents always at odds. For one, usually what happens is a child will look to one parent and give that parent his loyalties; the kids begin to take sides. It gets complicated, but a lot of stuff goes on in this sort of situation that causes deep-seeded problems later in life. I know because I have witnessed this first hand.Quote:
Wonderful, and the question that one who has read this book is, how does this connect with Paul's relationships with his girlfriends later in the novel?
Wow! These are three challenging posts :lol: I have only menage with Janine's first post, but I will read the other two later.
I think this takes a great part when it comes to the "scenes" which Lawrence makes so memorizing, it's actually easier to memorize them than to forget them. And I think that later on in the book it start to contrast with the "background" on which the whole Paul/Miriam relationship takes part. I think that may be this bleak atmosphere could be consider as a stimulus that drives Paul more to the nature. Well, not a main one, but still there is some effect in this direction, at least in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, that's exactly what i think about it too. I have finished the story two days ago, but I try to get out of my head the idea that it is the "what if scenario", so i could see beyond it. It seems harder than I thought :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Alexei, I am glad you read my first post; yes, perhaps they are challenging, but this should make for a more stimulating discussion, if they be so. I think given the time, we have the time to slow up and reflect on various aspects of the book, as they are presented in the novel. Take your time to read these posts and to answer. I will patiently wait to hear any comments and the same applies to what Virgil has written in his post(s). I tend to like to discuss these book chronologically, and see how the story and characters develop and change over the course of the novel. I realised most of you have gone past reading Chapter 1, and I have revisited it here in my post. I have read the entire book before, so I felt it advantageous as I read, to delve below the surface and see things I had not noticed on first reading. I felt a need to express some of these thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexei
I also wanted to ask people their impression of the last part of Chapter 1, when the husband came home drunk and tired, and the wife harrassed him and he actually pushed her from the house and locked her out. What did everyone think of that scene and the outcome? It seemed now that I have progressed to Chapter 2, that Walter was somewhat changed after that incident. He became more retiring and less combatant. We have seen changes within the wife up until now, but now we begin to see definite changes in the husband as well, into a quieter and more subdued state.
Lawrence's scenes are so very memorable and one cannot easily erase them from one's mind. They seem so real. I fully agree with your thoughts here. Yes, althought the first paragraphs of the book reveal a dismal atmosphere and tone, later the woodlands and fields take on the beauty Lawrence felt was being threatened; there is a definite contrast. The mining community and the increase in industrialism is a sort of stimulus, indeed, that leads Lawrence back to nature and his love of it. This followed the author all of his days and is revealed in all of his work. I think that the nature scenes are especially prominent in this novel and his first published novel "The White Peacock". These two are more pastoral and reflect outside influences, like Thomas Hardy, etc. Remember that Lawrence was still quite young writing this book and had not formed so much a cynical view of the world that later he will expresses. This book is filled more with his youth and learning, and a journey through that youth and a transformation.Quote:
I think this takes a great part when it comes to the "scenes" which Lawrence makes so memorizing, it's actually easier to memorize them than to forget them. And I think that later on in the book it start to contrast with the "background" on which the whole Paul/Miriam relationship takes part. I think that may be this bleak atmosphere could be consider as a stimulus that drives Paul more to the nature. Well, not a main one, but still there is some effect in this direction, at least in my opinion.
I hope these posts do not overwhelm you, therefore take your time to comment and I will wait for all your comments on what I have written, before I post anymore.
Yes, I know what you mean. It is hard to get it out of one's head while reading this book. Not sure if it was advantageous to read them the same time or not.Quote:
Yes, that's exactly what i think about it too. I have finished the story two days ago, but I try to get out of my head the idea that it is the "what if scenario", so i could see beyond it. It seems harder than I thought :lol:
Hey, Alexei, I posted these long posts to slow up your speedy reading, since you are way ahead of Manolia and I, and probably amalia as well!
*Haha - sabotage the speedy reader Alexei by giving her something else to read.*:lol:
I think that her reaction was normal, at least the way I see it. I have some experience with the problem of alcoholism, since my cousin is a psychologist in an AA club, and tends to speak to me very often about similar incidents. Being tired is no excuse for killing yourself through drinking, and anyone should realise that having a family is basically having certain responsibilities. Being softened was the least for Maurel.
I don't blame Paul's mother regarding certain aspects of her later behaviour, given the fact of her life with her husband.
P.S. I am close to finishing the book, and I try to restrain myself from speaking!! Hi Hi Hi...
All I want to say is how astonishing it continues to be after this second reading. That's the difference between a good book and a masterpiece.
amalia, So this is your second reading....wonderful! and you are almost done the book. I am waaaaayyyyy behind with you and Alexei, but I am trying to think more now about symbolism and images that reoccur in Lawrence's work and also the characters and so as I read I am taking it slower. I think I have a much different perspective now about the novel and the story of the two people. This may be due to having read so much more of Lawrence and of his life and knowing what he said in reference to his father and how he was treated too harshly in the novel. I was therefore trying to see both sides equally and understand why each person was reacting as they were. I think it takes two to tango, as they say and no one person is ever at complete fault. We might like one more than the other or empathsize more with that person and I would probably empathize more with the woman, being a woman. But knowing I might lean that way I was trying to give some merit to the man. His drinking may seem to be excessive but what I have read it was quite common at that time for men from the pits to stop off at a pub on their way home and have a few beers. I think that as time went on and Mr. Moral was shut out more from his wife's life he took this to more excess, being inwardly lonely and unhappy and therefore restless.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
I fully agree with you about the book being a masterpiece. I think I could actually read this book a third time and still enjoy every word, but life has only so much time and there are so many good books yet to read. I am glad I planned on reading all of Lawrence's books twice. So far, it has been more rewarding that way. Even Lawrence believed that books should be read at least twice, if not more times. I have a great quote from him to that effect and when I find it I may add it to my own signature quotes at the bottom of my page. Lawrence read many books twice and thrice. One wonders how he had the time! Amazing.
Is this the thread Janine!!!! :D
I'm gonna see if I can find an online copy or from my library...and maybe read a long slowly....poor Don Quixote lays unfinished in the nightstand drawer.
:lol: Grace, I was wondering what had happened to you. Lit Net has Sons and Lovers online. I however will not be reading along. As soon as I finish Updike's Rabbit, Run (I have about 40 pages to go) I will return to Don Quixote. I have to finish it. I promised Quasimodo I would start a Virgil's Aeneid reading group around Christmas time.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
Grace, this is 'the place' - the right thread indeed! We have not gotten too far yet (although so far, so good, and very enthusiastic from everyone); so do come and read along slowly, and when you are able between school work. Don't feel pressured in the least to participate - do so when you can, and only if you can. Don't want to see you miss anymore important Shakespeare classes.;) College has to be your priorty. I understand fully.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
Yes, poor DQ lays unfinished, but you can pick it up after, hopefully. DQ is a patient man!
PS: I will email you more tomorrow. I am tired out now. Long day! J
Hi everyone! I finished up Chapter 2 (reading like a snail; sorry) last night and had a few thoughts about it, but I have to go out for the rest of the day and into the evening, so I will try to post something later tonight. I thought it was an interesting chapter with the huband being nursed back to health by his the wife. The complex feelings that passed between them was something to think about. This story has no easy answers and is so realistic in that way. People have complex emotions and feeling and even act in ways they would probably not have predicted possible.
I also, found of keen interest, the scene when Gertrude looks down on Paul and ponders about the child and just how much he has perceived of the unhappiness existing in the house - even as far back as her womb. Also we see the first signs of her wishing he was still attached to her physically. When I return I will try to quote specific parts that indicate various things I found to be of interest such as this part about the child in her arms looking up to her. This passage was like nothing I have ever read before. I had forgotten about it but now knowing the full story it particularly stood out to me. Funny how we miss so much on our first readings.
I just came to the part when the youngest son is born. At this time it seems the family strife has calmed down to more of a whimper. I wonder if that is why he seems less affected by turmoil and is the one child to be drawn to his father.
I would venture to say that he could sense the tension between the two parents and -consciously or unconsiously-desires to retain a balance, perhaps.
amalia, that is an interesting idea, but I think if we are talking about the youngest child's relationship to it's father, I don't know if he, as a small toddler, would know, consciously or even unconsciously that his parents were of need a balance and attempt to retain it by going to his father. It seems to me that that child might just be drawn to him naturally. Perhaps he will grow up to be more like the father. The older children openingly seem to favor their father. I believe it stated that the girl did not like him at all. My theory is that by now the mother and father have calmed their relationship and are more co-operative with each other or more calm around the children and so the father has been more loving towards this child, who seems to be attracted to him. I think that earlier the mother turned the other children away from the father's attentions, by putting him down and also just by her action of opposing him. The father is no saint and I have felt more sympathy at times for the woman trying to raise her children when the father drinks away the little money they do have. Her womanly, motherly struggle is certainly commendable, but at the same time her harsh defensive attitude towards her husband, has aligned the children very much with her. It is awful when children are forced between two parents this way and they eventually end up taking 'sides'. No one wins in this kind of domestic war. By the end of the book you will see the effects this kind of homelike, with so much domestic inballance, and forced loyalties, does harm to all the members, the effect on Paul, being the most singled out in the book and prominent.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
Hi everyone, I am sorry for having come late in the discussion but the last few days have been a kind of busy.
I read Sons and Lovers a few months back, so forgive me if my memory seems to be fooling me during all this discussion and feel free to correct me. :)
Janine's question has struck me as a really good one, but complex. Yes, Janine, I personally find it really hard to take side with either Mr. Morel or Mrs. Morel alone. Still, most of the times I feel sympathy for the both. In that time, it was pretty common for miners to drink heavily (I think it's quite natural, though it can be controlled, to get attracted towards alcohol when you work so hard the whole day). If anyone is interested, she/he might want to try Chase The Wind which deals about mining and mining problems more deeply. It's not 'great' writing when compared to a classic like Sons and Lovers but still quite good. Anyway, back on topic, I think Mr. Morel was not alone in that, and for this I felt pity for both the miners themselves as well as their wives. Their wives were not only suffering, they themselves were having probably even more difficult time. They say alcohol eats you and tear you apart...
This thing is really interesting about Lawrence that his books raise questions which are very interesting yet so complex...there is this one which has been bugging my mind as well (wanted to start a separate thread about it in General Chat) but now as we are discussing the book, I hope to ask it when the right time comes. :p
I was referring to the youngest child's later reaction towards the father, but even a toddler can "feel" the "atmosphere" in a household. I think your theory is right, Janine, regarding the couple's behaviour. The children have been "forced" to take the mother's child and that is something that I find clearly negative, in terms of Mrs. Morel's behaviour. This will become quite evident in her various involvements in Paul's relationships with both Miriam and Clara.
Nice posts everyone ;)
I have finished the first part of the book..since everyone seems that has already finished the book or is reading it for the second time, i won't be posting "Spoiler alerts". I hope this is ok with everyone??
I wouldn't mind spoilers, manolia. Is it not a wonderful book?
Personally, I have no problem with that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Glad to see you back, Pensive. Glad you see the problems as complex. I don't think anything in any of Lawrence's novels has an easy or set solution. Lawrence was showing both sides of the relationship and he takes much time to go into the characters of each - the man and the woman. In fact, one of my commentary books points this out - that he takes a number of chapter to discuss their intricate relationship and reveal many things about it. There are many subtlites I had not at first percieved on my initial reading of the novel. I do feel sorry for the plight of the miners - it has to be a hellish job and perhaps they could not go directly home until the did some 'unwinding' in a pub. According to what I have read, in my autobiograhies, about miners is to stop off for a few beers was quite natural and a part of that area's way of living. Mostly it was accepted behavior. I think that given the circumstances of Lawrence's unusual closeness to his mother and her control over him at the time he wrote the novel he felt this way about his father and therefore he painted his character of Mr. Morel (blantantly fashioned after his father) to be more exaggerated in the drinking aspect. In the story we can then percieve that he did indeed develop into having a drinking problem. It is quite sad when this happens to a person. I also know an few people with the addiction and their lives have been difficult. One is reformed and the other struggles with this every day of their lives. For poor Mr. Morel it must have been hard because he did continue to be the bread winner and provide for the family so one has to feel for his position in that family. His wife at times in the text is overly harsh and snide with him I think. I could quote some lines but if you really read that text again you will see what I mean. There was definitely a lot of animosity between them and on her part a lot of repulsion and resentment towards him. These two people should never have married because they truly could not live peacably or lovingly together. They were just too different in temperment and manor and expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
Pensive, do ask the question. That is what this discussion is for. I would love to hear and discuss the issue and the question.
To Everyone, glad to see you all her and reading...at any speed....fine with me....
Manolia, do not worry about being behind. I am more behind than you. I did read the book before, so don't worry, at this point, about posting spoilers. Only one who did not read the book, who might be reading along, is Grace and I told her, reading the posts, might spoil the book ending for her. I appologise to all, since last night I went out till 10PM and so it was late when time to read my book a little in bed before sleep. I snuck back to my other Lawrence book, "The Plumed Serpent" to read one chapter. I was afraid I would forget it and I have only a few chapters to finish that novel, so I hated to let it go too long.
You all might be calling me 'the leader', but I can't do this thread all alone or the short story one.;) :lol: I am so glad to see you all coming in today and posting interesting things. Thanks! It takes the pressure off of me to keep things rolling. Do keep posting everyone, especially since I am behind in my (refresher) second reading. If you post questions, no doubt the story will come back to me.
Amalia, I am glad you see my point with the child and the parents. I am sure the child does feel the tension in the household, but probably not as much as the older children did when the parents were at the height of passion/even anger at each other. Yes, when you reach the ending one's perspective on the mother/son relationship does alter greatly. If you read anything about Lawrence's real parents you would alter your perception even more so.
I think after reading three biographies that is why I think this way trying to be fair to both parents. I got a more realistic view of the two characters now in my mind and cannot dismiss them. Every critic I have read says that "Sons and Lovers" is basically autobiographical. Lawrence, himself, said it contained all his youth. Hard to divorce one from the other. So much of Lawrence surfaces in the character of Paul. The story has that intimate and personal quality, as well.
Virgil, the idea of the fire, fireplace, firey sunsets, etc, that we have been discussing in the short story interested me greatly. I started to notice many passages in the second chapter of S&L, using the fire images, also. They are numerous. I do agree with your passages in the short story posts about the fire and the idea now of the mining community not being entirely dismal or horrid. I should amend my saying so earlier. The mining community is in direct contrast at this point with the natural environment and therefore, you are correct in saying, that this begins some of the duality that inhabits much of Lawrence's work to follow. Later on Lawrence pursues, more negatively, the effects of industrialisation in the world, more so than he did in these earlier books. I do find that he writes more menacing about the pits and the destruction of the land even back then at times, but it does become a source of the family's existence and support, so we can't see it as a negative thing, entirely. Once again the whole subject is presented in a complex manor and with no real solution to the environmental issues is ever truly offered. For instance, if we don't have the jobs for the minors in the ugly pits then how would they support their family. Again, this supports the fact that the wife of Morel often 'puts him down' saying he is dirty. Yet she accepts the money he has earned willingly(his job is the reason he is dirty with coal soot), to support herself and her children.
Glad I could help Janine. It is interesting to note that the one who is connected to blood knowledge in the novel is Mr. Morel, the one who is the miner. One way of looking at the novel is how Paul must shuck off his mother's consciousness to grow into himself. Despite his love for her, her mental consciousness that he has absorbed hinders his romantic relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil - yes, very well put. I knew that about the father and the blood philosophy part. Yes, he did eventually grow past his mother but as this book closes we don't see that yet, do we? I have not yet gotten to the end, but as I recall it it left off without a true solution or answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
When we are able to trace the autobiographical hints in a novel, our attention is turned to themes and moments that we may not have noticed otherwise.
It adds a certain "magic" to our reading and we begin to think differently regarding characters and incidents,because we know it's not a simple "fiction", but something that goes much deeper, communicatinf hidden wishes, fears and perhaps, desires that things might have been different.
Who knows, writing is always escaping for me, at least.
Amalia, they always say to 'write what you know of' and it is so true. Lawrence certainly did that and he dug down deeply, to reveal people who were fully 'fleshed out' & real and complex. His characters are all completely believable in his early novels, especially.
I have read now past Chapter 2. I am to the part when the oldest brother burned his letter and has now gone off to London to work.
How did people feel about the mother's feelings when she had to let him go? I felt that it was not too untypical of what we now call 'separation anxiety' for a mother with her first born child. I know many mothers who have gone through these mixed feelings before and feel threatened by losing their son to the world. I know I went through it when my son went into the Army National Guard at a young age - I thought my heart was breaking. Anyway, I would like to know what you think of it and of her protective ways with her oldest son in general.
I've had this discussion with Janine. And to no one's surprise, she disagees with me. ;) To me, autobiagraphical details can be interesting but only incedental. A work should stand on itself. I don't get wraped up in biographical reflections in a work of literature.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
Virgil.....And I still disagree....hahaha:lol: ..... I do get wrapped up in authobiograhical connections and reflections. I think it adds much scope to the artist's work and my interest in it is magnified. Sorry, but that is just me. I think if you are inclined, as I am, to find it more interesting and to satisfy a curiousity, then you should explore the author's life. If you don't give a hoot about his life or his beliefs, then just keep the work isolated and evaluate it that way. I can't divorce Lawrence's work from himself and his life...sorry...not in this point of my knowledge of the author and his ideas. When I first started to read "Sons and Lovers", I knew nothing about Lawrence and therefore (for me personally), the book did not grab my interest and draw me in, as I hoped it would. Since now I do know so much about Lawrence's life and a friend had told me it was basically authobiographical, I could not wait to soak up every line. When I read "Women in Love" I did not know anything much about the author. But I can tell you, that now that I have read more about him, I found my reading much more meaningful, deeper and richer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I do agree that a story or novel should stand on it's own merits and surely I agree that Lawrence's do just that. I am not disputing this one bit. I just think that it is interesting to know something more about the author and about his life in order to embrace the full scope of his thoughts and ideas.
Sometimes to know about the authors life really helps to understand the ideas better, but I m usually not interested. I prefer to give my attention to the work. I try not to read biographies, because it makes me search for the authors life reflected in the book, it actually spoils my reading, because I miss too many other things in the process.
An excellent rebuttal Janine. :thumbs_up You almost made me change my mind, and admit I'm wrong. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Janine, you are absolutely right. Mrs. Morel's reaction is totally justified in my eyes. Although, I am only 22, and therefore, too young to be a parent, I know how my own mother-and father, of course- will deal with my leaving to London next Semptember for post-graduate studies on theatre.
There is nothing stronger than the parent-child relationship, provided it is a healthy one. The issue is that there certainly must be a balance, because there is a thin red line, where justifiable anxiety may easily change to oppression with obvious and inevitable consequences...
Thanks Virgil, coming from you that's nice (M,B,&D to know); I will gladly accept that and if you do change your mind, then let me be the first to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I also was thinking last night, of how much you know about Lawrence and, for instance, his 'blood philosophy', just one aspect of his thinking and how you do incorporate this added knowledge often in your various insightful posts, so I would think knowing of the author and his life and times and development has added greatly to those intuitive posts of yours.:lol:
amalia, that is very well put and I totally agree. Somewhere along the line, and especially in this particular instance in this story, the relationships between the mother and the children became possessive and overbearing, probably more prominent when they all hit adolescence. Then after the death in the family, I feel this 'inbalance' became prominent to a greater degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
It became prominent because any feeling-however vulnerable that may be- of security and permanency is shuttered, the mother feels that there must be something for her to cling upon...
*Note: Spoiler - tells later key events of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by amalia1985
amalia, I think that is very true. Once the oldest son dies she is shattered and her world is shaken and in a sense caves in. It is a very sad thing when this happens. It seems they always say people die inside when they lose hope. I think that Mrs. Morel had great hope in her oldest son and she had to be effected greatly by his demise. The scene when they bring him home for burial is truly heartbreaking. I hope I am not spoiling this for anyone. I will add spoiler at the top of this post, just in case.
I had to go out today to a doctor appointment, but my doctor was quite late, so I got a lot of S&L reading done in the office waiting room. I am to the part when Mr. Morel got seriously injured in the mine and is now on the mend. Tomorrow I will try to comment on some of that part of the book. I found the mixed feelings the wife and the children has interesting and the semblance of peace they enjoyed while he was in the hospital recovering.
Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.
Lawrence who? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
i dont know about the whole career ....but the i loved everything that concerened William and i loved that scene it was so touching .......Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
stella and Virgil, Yes, I thought that scene was amazing from beginning to end. No doubt it was one of the best things Lawrence ever wrote. It was brilliant writing and so full of emotion and realistic pathos. It was almost too hard to take - all that deep down suffering the family was feeling and experiencing as the scene unfolded.
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Surely, I would like to put it here but it deals with the later part of story so I would like to wait until we reach that part.
Good of you to mention it, Virgil. This part is indeed very touching and plays with the reader's sentiments most easily. I also remember it, and think that it would be a shame not to compliment the effective nature of that part when the talk turns towards Sons and Lovers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I have come to the part where Miriam is defeated (to use the name of the chapter) and Paul concetrates on Clara.
Clara is a very interesting person..can we see her as a man hater or a feminist? She strikes me as a feminist , although Paul says ironically that she just thinks that she is.
Something i don't quite get..why Mrs Morel continually says that Miriam will absorb Paul? Is it just Miriam or every woman that comes near him? I am asking this, since up to the chapter i am currently reading she seems to have a particular issue with Miriam and not Clara. She seems to have a positive opinion of Clara (the only problem being the age difference).
What i also find a bit odd is the mother and son relationship..it seems a bit abnormal in places..what do you all think? Paul slights Miriam (the woman who seems to understand him best, who shares his love for art, who understands and amires his artistic talent, who brings his better self on the surface) for the sake of his mother. Is it "normal"? His mother, on the other hand who seems to cling desperately on her son (now that William is dead..wow that was a wonderful scene indeed!!) and wants "compensation" for her failure of a wedding..
The other thing i wanted to comment on is Paul's sexual frustration. I don't quite get (again) why Miriam doesn't want to be engaged to him. She seems very much in love with him. Why does she insist on this platonic love? Is it her upbringing and her religious background? (she is a devout christian and in many places Paul is "having fun" dissilusioning her and bringing forth his "religious agnosticism"). There is also a scene, where Paul is eating a flower. I rember reading here on Lit net, that flower eating is a sign of sexual frustration..So is Paul turned to Clara because of this, because of her magnificent personality (she reminds me a bit of Gudrun, she is untamable and she shuns men), or both of them?
Hi manolia, I have not gotten as far as you in your reading, but if memory serves me correctly, I do believe that Clara is a feminist and all for women's rights such as voting and independence. Isn't Clara married or am I mixing her up with someone else? I thought she was separated from her husband when Paul pursues her. Opps, answered my own question. Additionally this might help you further understand her postion with Paul. I just found this in the book: Who's Who in D.H.Lawrence Graham Holderness, page 35.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Quote:
DAWES, CLARA: A blonde with a sullern expression and a defiant air, with scornful grey eyes, and a skin like white honey; a full mouth, with a slightly lifted upper lip, that 'did not know whether it was raised in scorn of all men, of out of eagerness to be kissed'. But Clara believes the former: separated from a frustrating, unfulfilled marriage, she becomes a passionate devotee of Women's Rights, and a confirmed manhater. But in her love-affair with Paul Morel, she experiences transcendent ecstasies of passion --'the naked hunger and inevitability of his loving her, something strong and blind and ruthless in its primitiveness, made the hour almost terrible to her.' But she wants a relationship more permanent than Paul can offer: she craves for surety, stability; in her love for Paul she discovers herself, and can stand distinct and complete, having 'received her confirmation', but she never believes that her life belongs to him. There is not stability in Paul: at least her husband has a kind of 'manly dignity', whereas Morel is evanescent, not sure ground for a woman to stand on. She visits Baxter in the hospital, wanting to make restitution; he can offer her a relationship of permanence and stability. if it is only a permanence and stability of self-sacrifice. Sons and Lovers.
manolia's quote:
Again from the same book here is what Holderness says about Miriam:Quote:
Something i don't quite get..why Mrs Morel continually says that Miriam will absorb Paul? Is it just Miriam or every woman that comes near him? I am asking this, since up to the chapter i am currently reading she seems to have a particular issue with Miriam and not Clara. She seems to have a positive opinion of Clara (the only problem being the age difference).
What i also find a bit odd is the mother and son relationship..it seems a bit abnormal in places..what do you all think? Paul slights Miriam (the woman who seems to understand him best, who shares his love for art, who understands and amires his artistic talent, who brings his better self on the surface) for the sake of his mother. Is it "normal"? His mother, on the other hand who seems to cling desperately on her son (now that William is dead..wow that was a wonderful scene indeed!!) and wants "compensation" for her failure of a wedding..
So, I don't think Paul's mother, with her negative influence towards Miriam, is the only or key reason Paul breaks off with Miriam. I feel it is like the above statements by Hollerness that so well describes what is going on between them and how they are not meeting with each other's expectations. I think their relationship is quite complex and that they both want very different things in the end, therefore their parting was inevitable.Quote:
Brown-eyed and dark-haired, Miriam is intensely romantic, in her imagination a princess turned into a swine girl. Her life is all imagination, mysticism and religion, and she recoils from the vulgarity, the commonness, the drudgery of her ordinary life. She is exceedingly sensitive, and the slightest physical grossness makes her recoil in anguish. She seems always like a maiden in bondage in some dreamy take, 'her spirit dreaming in a land far awy and magical'. For Miriam, all experiences must be kindled in her imagination before she feels she possesses them; her intensity is incapable of accepting emotion on a normal plane --everything about her is 'gripped stiff' with intensity, and the effort overcharged, recoils on itself. She loves paul absorbedly, with a clinging affection; she desires always to embrace him, but only in so far as he does not want her physically. To Paul it seems that she never realises him, that he could be a mere object to her--that she never appreciates or understands the male that he is. She prefers instead to create moments of intense emotional communion with Paul, especially in relation to nature, in which she experiences little stillnesses of ecstasy; but Paul remains detached and uncomfortable. Eventually she relinquishes herself to him sexually, but as a sacrifice in which she feels something of horror. Her soul stands apart. 'She lay to be sacrificed because she loved him so much. And he had to sacrifice her.' When Paul breaks off their relationship she is hurt, but almost glad: she had always felt in a kind of bondage to him, which she hated because she could not control it. 'Deep down, she hated him, because she loved him, and he dominated her.' Sons and Lovers
I do think with Clara that Mrs. Morel is not threatened by any spirituality or sense of the qualities that scare her or threaten her about Miriam. Clara and Miriam are quite different. I will have to wait until I get to that part before I can fully assess why I think this is true and why Mrs. Morel seems to like Clara but not Miriam. It is a very interesting question. Hopefully someone else will come up with some thoughts on it and also on your other questions, manolia.
I do, however, think that the relationship between Paul and his mother are at times quite abnormal. Most critics and readers of Lawrence agree upon this idea. Thus many site the Odeipus complex idea and other phychological reasons for the closeness. They are unusually close and intense with each other, especially as the book progresses. It turns out not to be a heathy thing for Paul. In later books, Lawrence deeply explored this whole idea of his mother's dominence and of women dominating men. This is not an easy question you have asked about the mother's position with Paul. I think that the book leads us to believe and understand just how Mrs. Morel came to be this way and how Paul reacted to her control. The death of the oldest son was a key element or reason Paul and his mother became so close, also the unhappy marriage of Mrs. Morel, but I think from the beginning she knew that there was something very special about Paul.
I think the quote above from the book helps in explaining the 'why'. Yes, I am sure that Paul is frustrated sexually, at this point, with Miriam. Although she has given herself to him physically, it appears to him and to her as a sacrifice and not a true meeting of the two in a union or love. I do think it is her upbringing and her own inclination to be 'dreamy' and 'mystical' and 'religious' in her thinking. Actually she is young and not too realistic about Paul. She seems to shun the physicality of him as a man.Quote:
The other thing i wanted to comment on is Paul's sexual frustration. I don't quite get (again) why Miriam doesn't want to be engaged to him. She seems very much in love with him. Why does she insist on this platonic love? Is it her upbringing and her religious background? (she is a devout christian and in many places Paul is "having fun" dissilusioning her and bringing forth his "religious agnosticism").
Manolia's quote:That is quite interesting about the flower-eating. I think I had heard of this before. I recall when the topic was mentioned in another thread. She has some similarity perhaps to Gudrun, but I think she is more focused and knows in the end what she wants as a woman, whereas Gundrun is still searching for that at the end of WIL, don't you think?Quote:
There is also a scene, where Paul is eating a flower. I rember reading here on Lit net, that flower eating is a sign of sexual frustration..So is Paul turned to Clara because of this, because of her magnificent personality (she reminds me a bit of Gudrun, she is untamable and she shuns men), or both of them?
I hope all this makes sense. I did my best. This book helped and made it a little clearer even for myself. Of course this is just one commentators opinion but I thought it was pretty accurate.
Quote:
Hi Pensive, I did not mean to skip over your post. I agree, as I see manolia does as well, about the death scene with William and the burial. It was amazing and so full of truth and heart. I think only someone who has gone through this type experience can so accurately describe how it is. Lawrence shone in these passages and one travels through the same experience, minute by minute, feeling all the sadness of the family, as it unfolds.