June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I don't know why Russell turned Lawrence down, but i'd bet my money that he thought him pervert or vulgar or both.

---

You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

---

Virgil, So did Lawrence break the friendship off or did Russell? I would like to read those other letters involving the quarrel. I will have to see if my book contains them. I have read of one account of a suspected laisson with a man in Cornwall, I believe that is where it took place. I will try to find it in my book, but it is still only conjecture on that biographer's part. I don't know if he is alluding to homosexuality in his books or not; I have never concluded in my own mind if he was talking about the closeness of man to man, as in this novel, as homosexual or just primal closeness. Have you come to the wrestling match? I think I feel this was in this scene, that it was not a homosexual encounter, but rather something much different/more meaningful to Lawrence. Let me know what you think after reading it.

Virgil, did you read manolia's and my last posts? Wondered what you thought of our observations/discussion on the blood philosophy, etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, So did Lawrence break the friendship off or did Russell? I would like to read those other letters involving the quarrel. I will have to see if my book contains them. I have read of one account of a suspected laisson with a man in Cornwall, I believe that is where it took place. I will try to find it in my book, but it is still only conjecture on that biographer's part. I don't know if he is alluding to homosexuality in his books or not; I have never concluded in my own mind if he was talking about the closeness of man to man, as in this novel, as homosexual or just primal closeness. Have you come to the wrestling match? I think I feel this was in this scene, that it was not a homosexual encounter, but rather something much different/more meaningful to Lawrence. Let me know what you think after reading it.

---

No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.

Quote:

---

Virgil, did you read manolia's and my last posts? Wondered what you thought of our observations/discussion on the blood philosophy, etc?

---

I think you guys got it. I didn't think there was anything for me to comment on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.

---

You know this is an excellent way of putting it. I agree with these thoughts on the issue. My view is he was not a homosexual or even had tendencies towards it. Good way of thinking - '...was not afraid to put himself out there.......clear about it". That's a good point.

Quote:

---

I think you guys got it. I didn't think there was anything for me to comment on.

---

Good; so you think we do understand the blood theory and the primal instinct that ties in with it? Were we accurate in our assessments/comments?

I have also been discussing "Sons and Lovers" with Pensive. Drop by if you can. She completed the book and liked it very much.
Been fun.... but going to bed now - tired of writing;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

You know this is an excellent way of putting it. I agree with these thoughts on the issue. My view is he was not a homosexual or even had tendencies towards it. Good way of thinking - '...was not afraid to put himself out there.......clear about it". That's a good point.

---

Just finished this chapter earlier. I got to say that it is very suggestive of homosexuaity. I just don't know what Lawrence is trying to say with it. I have given up trying to understand where he's at with this. If anyone has any good ideas, let me know.

Quote:

---

Good; so you think we do understand the blood theory and the primal instinct that ties in with it? Were we accurate in our assessments/comments?

---

I think so.

Quote:

---

I have also been discussing "Sons and Lovers" with Pensive. Drop by if you can. She completed the book and liked it very much.
Been fun.... but going to bed now - tired of writing;)

---

Yes I go and look. A really fine novel.

good discussion, guys. I avoid reading the last 3 pages, I should come back after reading those chapters.
so, I,ve finished 8 ch. and here's my opinion for now. I still find Lawrence very different. but honestly i'm not impressed so much. he's very good, and very different at describing feelings and I liked it. but when it comes on his narrating in general, he's kind of boring. especially that entertainment part with dancing and swimming at hermione's place was awful- of course for me. ready for stones! :D there's still the rest of the book, hopefully my opinion is not gonna be same.:)

hi, janine. nice to see you here, you're so friendly encouraging. :) Actually I bazed on Schok.'s post from previous thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schokokeks

Don't worry, caspian, I'm equally ignorant as to Lawrence :). I had only heard his name before.
I read his wikipedia entry the other day in order to get at least some ideas on him before we start reading, and I must say it only made me hungrier to read one of his works. It seems Lawrence is mad, bad, and dangerous to know ;), and who can help being interested in the bad guys :D.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?

---

and there's a woman sharing a small place with several men. that's quite typical for paris than for london.

Well, to each his own caspian. Lawrence is not for everyone.

I can't point out stuff in every chapter. But there is something important in chapter 17, The Industrial Magnate I should point out. I think most can see that Lawrence is establishing here the modern social order, based on industry, and how each level of society fits in and the pressure to reach equality.

Quote:

---

The men were not against him, but they were against the masters. It was war, and willy nilly he found himself on the wrong side, in his own conscience. Seething masses of miners met daily, carried away by a new religious impulse. The idea flew through them: `All men are equal on earth,' and they would carry the idea to its material fulfilment. After all, is it not the teaching of Christ? And what is an idea, if not the germ of action in the material world. `All men are equal in spirit, they are all sons of God. Whence then this obvious disquality?' It was a religious creed pushed to its material conclusion. Thomas Crich at least had no answer. He could but admit, according to his sincere tenets, that the disquality was wrong. But he could not give up his goods, which were the stuff of disquality. So the men would fight for their rights. The last impulses of the last religious passion left on earth, the passion for equality, inspired them.

---

Notice how Lawence sees society in terms of religious integration. And the Godhead in modern life is integrated with the machine:

Quote:

---

Seething mobs of men marched about, their faces lighted up as for holy war, with a smoke of cupidity. How disentangle the passion for equality from the passion of cupidity, when begins the fight for equality of possessions? But the God was the machine. Each man claimed equality in the Godhead of the great productive machine. Every man equally was part of this Godhead. But somehow, somewhere, Thomas Crich knew this was false. When the machine is the Godhead, and production or work is worship, then the most mechanical mind is purest and highest, the representative of God on earth. And the rest are subordinate, each according to his degree.

---

Lawrence's problem with the modern world is what it has done to religion:

Quote:

---

Immediately he saw the firm, he realised what he could do. He had a fight to fight with Matter, with the earth and the coal it enclosed. This was the sole idea, to turn upon the inanimate matter of the underground, and reduce it to his will. And for this fight with matter, one must have perfect instruments in perfect organisation, a mechanism so subtle and harmonious in its workings that it represents the single mind of man, and by its relentless repetition of given movement, will accomplish a purpose irresistibly, inhumanly. It was this inhuman principle in the mechanism he wanted to construct that inspired Gerald with an almost religious exaltation. He, the man, could interpose a perfect, changeless, godlike medium between himself and the Matter he had to subjugate. There were two opposites, his will and the resistant Matter of the earth. And between these he could establish the very expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical repetition, repetition ad infinitum, hence eternal and infinite. He found his eternal and his infinite in the pure machine-principle of perfect co-ordination into one pure, complex, infinitely repeated motion, like the spinning of a wheel; but a productive spinning, as the revolving of the universe may be called a productive spinning, a productive repetition through eternity, to infinity. And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.

---

To be even more specific, the problem with the modern world is that the "machine-prnciple" is a repetittive loop which mankind is trapped in. The Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence out of repetition.

Quote:

---

But they submitted to it all. The joy went out of their lives, the hope seemed to perish as they became more and more mechanised. And yet they accepted the new conditions. They even got a further satisfaction out of them. At first they hated Gerald Crich, they swore to do something to him, to murder him. But as time went on, they accepted everything with some fatal satisfaction. Gerald was their high priest, he represented the religion they really felt. His father was forgotten already. There was a new world, a new order, strict, terrible, inhuman, but satisfying in its very destructiveness. The men were satisfied to belong to the great and wonderful machine, even whilst it destroyed them. It was what they wanted. It was the highest that man had produced, the most wonderful and superhuman. They were exalted by belonging to this great and superhuman system which was beyond feeling or reason, something really godlike. Their hearts died within them, but their souls were satisfied. It was what they wanted. Otherwise Gerald could never have done what he did. He was just ahead of them in giving them what they wanted, this participation in a great and perfect system that subjected life to pure mathematical principles. This was a sort of freedom, the sort they really wanted. It was the first great step in undoing, the first great phase of chaos, the substitution of the mechanical principle for the organic, the destruction of the organic purpose, the organic unity, and the subordination of every organic unit to the great mechanical purpose. It was pure organic disintegration and pure mechanical organisation. This is the first and finest state of chaos.

---

The real Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence, a breaking free of the repetetive cycle of mankind. There are many natural cycles to life (eating, sleeping, seasons, menstruation, planting, harvesting, day, night birth, death, etc.), and these are to be trascended as well. These are natural and there is a certain satisfaction, if not completeness, to be achieved. But the machine has accentuated this further, a degeneration. Completeness is a breaking free of the cycles of life, a religious experience. It is sort of like the breaking free of reincarnation, the wheel of life, that Hindu religious men strive for. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was aware of Hindu religious ideas.

So notice the structure of the novel, cycles of recurring scenes. The central premise of the novel is which characters are able to transcend and which are caught in the cycles forever repeating life. Remember the opening scene where Ursula and Gudrun are talking about marriage and experience. The marriage that will climax this novel is a marraige of transcending religion (not the formal church marriage of the openning chapters) and the experience will be to transcend beyond the cycles to a "star" existence in the beyond.

I hope that makes sense. ;)

Hi Virgil, I read your post and I will comment tomorrow. There is so much here and I am so tired now and can't think clearly. I was out all day today and need rest now.

Hi caspian, nice to see you on here also and thanks for your nice compliment. I really do try to be helpful to everyone. Sorry the book is not to your liking. It is a very deep and difficult book to comprehend. You may have been bored with the chapter seeing it with difference eyes; we have been exposed to more of Lawrence and are well aquainted with his style of writing, his symbolism and his theories. Of course this helps one to understand better what is going on in the story and what Lawrence is getting at. As Virgil, said 'Lawrence is not for everyone'; and some other authors come to mind as well, such as James Joyce and William Faukner, Virginia Wolfe - Virgil mentioned these sometime back, since he pointed out that this book is not plot driven. That is not to say it is 'plotless', far from it, nor pure 'stream-of-consciousness' style either, but it incorporates both in a very unique way. I hope this gives you some insite, but if you do not care for this book or understand it fully it is quite understandable. This is why we are having such indepth discussions. Lawrence is not easy to understand or explain. Remember we all have our separate tastes in literature; I respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

---

Oh so it was Russell who turned L down? I thought that Russell was "disqusted" by L's blood theory (maybe he misunderstood it). But if it is the other way around..it seems that i misunderstood your previous post :lol:(you were talking both about blood theory and their friendship coming to an end and i connected the two facts) anyway you know better ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Just finished this chapter earlier. I got to say that it is very suggestive of homosexuaity. I just don't know what Lawrence is trying to say with it. I have given up trying to understand where he's at with this. If anyone has any good ideas, let me know.

---

Homosexuallity is implied in this part i think (and in other parts of the book), but one can't be sure. Maybe L was doing it on purpose (to let different groups of people read this book and come to their own conclusions). Maybe he was "experimenting" with the idea (having, as you said an homosexual friend) maybe he was trying to figure homosexuallity out (to understand better what leads to it *- back then there was no idea that one might be born a homosexual-scientists are not sure even as we speak). What i am trying to say is, that his not putting himself out there, wasn't out of fear of censorship (i agree with you, he has proved that he didn't much care) but merely because he himself didn't have a clear, formed opinion on the matter.

*It gave me the impression, that while describing the scene where the two men fight naked, that maybe he was pondering with the idea if the spectacle of a perfect naked male body can attract another male who is in direct proximity with it. In many instances it is obvious that Birkin admires Gerald's body and appearance in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I am very interested and will check the thread. Which of the characters was referred to as Cybele? Thanks for looking it up.

---

If i remember correctly it is Ursula (Cybele is mentioned by Birkin. He might be reffering to all women-Cybele was the mother of all the gods- but we know which particular woman he has in his mind)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, I read this last night and I found it of great interest, too. It is strange that now the alignment is with Gudrun and Gerald. Do you believe his agreeing with Gudrun is true and honest? I feel always as though Gerald does not know what he craves or wants in life.

---

Hmmm i wouldn't put it like that (that he doesn't know what he wants). I'd say that Gerald is the character who undergoes a big change (due to his father's illness and his fear of death..in ch 24 his mother who knows him better, admits that he isn't made for that kind of things..being subjected to the gruesome spectacle of his father slowly dying, that is). Moreover Gerald being successful as a bussinessman, which was his first goal in life and having nothing more to achieve in this aspect of his life, is suffering from boredom and feels empty. That's were Gudrun steps in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Ok, you must have come to ch.20, and what did you think of that scene? It is a very significant scene, I believe. I felt at the beginning of that scene as though Gerald was lost and knew not what he craved from his life. Birkin seemed to lead him and then to give him contact and comfort and establish the closeness Birkin wants of Gerald, temporarily at least; it seems also in this scene that Gerald wants that closeness, as well. Therefore it is curious to me that in chapter 21, while riding in the car sitting behind Birkin, he is agreeing with Gudrun. Obviously Birkin does not hear the conversation, due to the noise of the motor car. Is Gerald merely placating Gudrun by agreeing? Also, is he influenced by his magnetism towards her, his great desire in wanting her physically, at this point? .

---

I think that it's clear by the glimering of his eyes (L says something to that effect) that he actually agrees 100% with Gudrun. As for the scene between the two men in ch 20, i believe that we never get to know what Gerald really thinks about many things. For Birkin we have endless passages..but for Gerald not! As schokokeks has already mentioned, Gerald is more shown than told. That was pretty accurate. We never get to know what Gerald is actually thinking. We have his body language described, the expession of his eyes and of course his words (but he doesn't talk much either).

I just finished chapter 24

*EDIT*
Another referance in mythology. Gerald is called Hermes (don't remember in which chapter. In greek mythology Hermes was the messanger of gods and also the god of commerce and of thieves!!)

There is another reference to Damocles. We have this expression in greek "Δαμόκλειος σπάθη" (Sword of Damocles). We use it in every day speech as well and it indicates "imminent danger" (like a sword which is hanging over your head and is ready to fall).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Oh so it was Russell who turned L down? I thought that Russell was "disqusted" by L's blood theory (maybe he misunderstood it). But if it is the other way around..it seems that i misunderstood your previous post :lol:(you were talking both about blood theory and their friendship coming to an end and i connected the two facts) anyway you know better ;)

---

manolia, I am so glad you jumped in here; I was feeling rather spent and talked out (yes, actually me saying that - ha!). Anyway, I want others to have their say and hear their opinions, too. You are doing a good job in reading and thinking hard on the meanings. I always enjoy hearing your take on the scenes, etc.

Yes, I too am still not completely clear on whether Lawrence dropped Russell or visa versa. I thought I read now several times that it was Russell that broke with Lawrence. Perhaps he felt he was about to be exposed to the world in someway if he indeed was homosexual himself of had homosexual friends. He may have thought Lawrence was referring somehow to homosexualtiy as well as heterosexuality.
I agree that another issue is his understanding it. Lawrence was venturing in untrod territory. He may have felt it 'so far out there' to want to be associated anymore with L.

Quote:

---

Homosexuallity is implied in this part i think (and in other parts of the book), but one can't be sure. Maybe L was doing it on purpose (to let different groups of people read this book and come to their own conclusions). Maybe he was "experimenting" with the idea (having, as you said an homosexual friend) maybe he was trying to figure homosexuallity out (to understand better what leads to it *- back then there was no idea that one might be born a homosexual-scientists are not sure even as we speak). What i am trying to say is, that his not putting himself out there, wasn't out of fear of censorship (i agree with you, he has proved that he didn't much care) but merely because he himself didn't have a clear, formed opinion on the matter.

*It gave me the impression, that while describing the scene where the two men fight naked, that maybe he was pondering with the idea if the spectacle of a perfect naked male body can attract another male who is in direct proximity with it. In many instances it is obvious that Birkin admires Gerald's body and appearance in general.

---

I agree about the attractiveness of the man's body to Birkin and probably visa versa. I address that more extensively later in this post. Here and there it does seem that homosexual ideas are implied, but I have never thought it really was a truly homosexual scene - the naked wrestling match in particular. If you notice Birkin speaks of cultures where this type of naked contact/closeness is quite natural and acceptable, renewing the body and spirit of a man. What I might want to ask is pretty outspoked. Do you envision his man to man closeness and 'full complete relationship' that Birkin speaks of as one with the potential for actual sexual intercourse between the two? This I could never really see happening, knowing the two men are so very much attracted to women, but maybe I am being naive. I have seen it more brotherly, but deeply so, and with no fear of actual touching and being physically close, as with children; no inhibitions. There is one instance in WIL when Birkin says to Ursula something to do with going away and even to a place where they would not need clothing and could feel free, totally free.
There are other authors who you many not have read who posed similar questions about their characters, making the reader wonder if certain passages referred to homosexuality or friendship. One author I think of is Evelyn Waugh, in "Brideshead Revisited". You may not have read the book, but Virgil has. In this book, two men are extremely close, love each other, but one wonders at times if the magnetism is homosexual, especially when they were younger. With Charles, I feel he is basically heterosexual, but would it be so unusual to have homosexual desires at a certain time in ones life being a man, or a greater pure love for a man, than he did for the woman? As far as Sebastian is concerned, I have stronger feelings about him being homosexual. Waugh himself finally admitted to his own homosexualtiy. I only cite this as an example and parallel case.
Actually, though Lawrence never came off in real life as homosexual, being married faithfully to one woman for his entire life. Yes, there have been biographers who tried to cite evidence that he had a male encounter or perhaps more than one. He certainly was very close to one man well depicted in his novel, "Sons and Lovers", also in his first novel "The White Peacock". Both prominent characters in these books in actuality was based on one of the Chamber's sons (I forget which one), brother to Jessie Chambers (his friend and first love/girlfriend). She was Miriam in "Sons and Lovers". This young man was very close to Lawrence in his youth.

*From Introduction to “The White Peacock” c.1911

Quote:

---

*Cyril knows ‘the unending miseries of the poor’ too well affected by ideas of ending them. Again, it has been pointed out how Cyril’s reaction to George in the chapter ‘A Poem of Friendship’ is similar to that of Birkin towards Gerald in the *‘Prologue’ to “Woman in Love,” with the same insistence upon a man’s love for a man as superior to that for a woman and accompanies a stress upon the ways in which women ‘undermine man’s hold on life.’……….

---

Here this commentator cited several examples of this from various Lawrence stories and novels with certain key characters, including “Women in Love”;...it was too long to type from the book....
then it goes on to say:

Quote:

---

Significantly, Lawrence wrote to Jessie Chambers while finishing the final version of the novel (White Peacock), to say ‘ “I have always believed it was the woman who paid the price in life. But I’ve made a discover. It is the man who pays, not the woman”’

---

*began writing novel 1906-8 (21 to 23 yrs of age) completed, published when he was 26yrs of age)
*main narrative character in White Peacock
* which chapter does your book begin with? In my edition the “Prologue” is included in the back of the book, being a chapter that was originally cut for publication of the book.

From "The White Peacock" c.1911

Quote:

---

“We stood and looked at each other as we rubbed ourselves dry. He was well proportioned, natuarally of handsome physique, heavily limbed. He laughed at me, telling me I was like one of Audrey Beardsley’s long, lean ugly fellows. I referred to him to many classic examples of slenderness, declaring myself more exquisite than his grossness, which amused him.
But I had to give in, and bow to him, and he took on an indulgent, gentle manner. I laughed and submitted. For he knew how I admired the noble, white fruitfulness of his form. As I watched him, he stood in white relief against the mass of green. He polished his arm, holding it out straight and solid; he rubbed his hair into curls, while I watched the deep muscles of his shoulders, and the bands stand out in this neck as he held it firm; I remember the story of Annable.
He saw I had forgotten to continue my rubbing, and laughing he took hold of me and began to rub me briskly, as if I were a child, or rather, a woman he loved and did not fear. I left myself quite limply in his hands, and, to get a better grip of me, he put his arm round me and pressed me against him, and the sweetness of the touch of our naked bodies one against the other was superb. It satisfied in some measure the vague, indecipherable yearning of my soul; and it was the same with him. When he had rubbed me all warm, he let me go, and we looked at each other with eyes of still laughter, and our love was perfect for a moment, and more perfect than any love I have known since, either for man or woman.”

---

This passage would certainly indicate a closeness to man was perhaps more desirable to Lawrence at the time and obviously he was still considering it in “Women in Love”. In “The White Peacock” George’s bodily description reminds me of his description of Gerald, Cyril's of Birkin. They seem to correspond to some degree. You know I have been plagued for the entire time I have read Lawrence concerning this homosexual question. I have even discussed it with friends who feel that it was not truly what Lawrence was getting at. But as I have plunged deeper into Lawrence’s early works and his life I am even more miffed. My actually personal conclusion is that Lawrence and his male characters are not homosexual, yet they do prefer the closeness of men. It seems that the damaging effects of Lawrence’s own overbearing mother helped form some of these ideas of perfect love and woman just did not seem to fit the bill entirely. It seems that Lawrence felt he could not be totally furfilled in woman and so he has portrayed this in his characters. That is just my own opinion having done the research. There is a recurring theme of woman as 'all devouring' of the male. It is evident in his first somewhat flawed novel, acting as a prelude to what is to come in more complete novels. In WIL it is very prominent an idea with the symbolism referring often to the women more than the man. Gudrun as the all powerful woman warrior, Hermoine, and Ursula with their connections to strong Greek mythological woman and gods.

Quote:

---

If i remember correctly it is Ursula (Cybele is mentioned by Birkin. He might be reffering to all women-Cybele was the mother of all the gods- but we know which particular woman he has in his mind)

---

This is good and further supports the ideas I have layed out previously. I also think in the scene when Gerald comes to Gurdrun in the night at her house there are womb references back to a mother. This too is very significant considering Lawrence’s own life and his own mother relationship and how he felt about her smothering ways.

Quote:

---

Hmmm i wouldn't put it like that (that he doesn't know what he wants). I'd say that Gerald is the character who undergoes a big change (due to his father's illness and his fear of death..in ch 24 his mother who knows him better, admits that he isn't made for that kind of things..being subjected to the gruesome spectacle of his father slowly dying, that is). Moreover Gerald being successful as a bussinessman, which was his first goal in life and having nothing more to achieve in this aspect of his life, is suffering from boredom and feels empty. That's were Gudrun steps in.

---

True, what you wrote here. I did not put it quite right, yet still there are passages where Gerald seems to be looking down an abyss or void. I will try to find them. He is bored and feels empty. This is so true. He knows not how to proceed with his life at this point. I feel he is ‘lost’ in some great way and I think by the end of the novel you will understand this better. Gerald seems drawn to seeing his father’s 'eyes of death' and wanting to experience the death; he does not seem to be able to help himself. This too is very prophetic and one will eventually see where it leads. Gerald has been surrounded his whole life by death – his young brother, his sister, his father and now it seems his mother is like a dead person, as well. Even though he reviles it he seems drawn to it as inevitable. Only Winifred seems to me to be of life and light in that family. Sad, isn’t it? Did you come to the part when Gerald visits Gudrun to spend the night in her house? I will comment on that part later. I have some insight into something one biographer/analysis pointed out about this scene and others that correspond to it in other L novels.

Quote:

---

I think that it's clear by the glimering of his eyes (L says something to that effect) that he actually agrees 100% with Gudrun. As for the scene between the two men in ch 20, i believe that we never get to know what Gerald really thinks about many things. For Birkin we have endless passages..but for Gerald not! As schokokeks has already mentioned, Gerald is more shown than told. That was pretty accurate. We never get to know what Gerald is actually thinking. We have his body language described, the expession of his eyes and of course his words (but he doesn't talk much either).

---

I am still not completely sure if he is in total accord with what Gudrun states, but to most of it he may be. His 'sparkling eyes' also seem to indicate to me that he is aligning himself with Gudrun in a kind of secretive union and it is drawing them closer. This scene is very much of a flirtation between them as well, don’t you think? Both her body language and his is obvious and indicate much more than what they are saying in words. It certainly gives us a clearer idea of how Gudrun feels about marriage, if in fact she is being truthful about those feelings.

Quote:

---

I just finished chapter 24
*EDIT*
Another referance in mythology. Gerald is called Hermes (don't remember in which chapter. In greek mythology Hermes was the messanger of gods and also the god of commerce and of thieves!!)

There is another reference to Damocles. We have this expression in greek "Δαμόκλειος σπάθη" (Sword of Damocles). We use it in every day speech as well and it indicates "imminent danger" (like a sword which is hanging over your head and is ready to fall).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles

---

Good work again, magnolia. I will read the wikipedia entry. Hermes is very significant and also I had noticed Damocles mentioned and something about a sword. These references are very interesting, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

. If you notice Birkin speaks of cultures where this type of naked contact/closeness is quite natural and acceptable, renewing the body and spirit of a man.

---

Yes you are right. But fighting naked is not a part of Gerald's and Birkin's culture (they are both englishmen, right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

What I might want to ask is pretty outspoked. Do you envision his man to man closeness and 'full complete relationship' that Birkin speaks of as one with the potential for actual sexual intercourse between the two? This I could never really see happening, knowing the two men are so very much attracted to women, but maybe I am being naive. I have seen it more brotherly, but deeply so, and with no fear of actual touching and being physically close, as with children; no inhibitions.

---

No i don't think that in their case it is a proof of homosexuality. I believe that Birkin and especially Gerald were meant to be heterosexuals. But i also believe, like i said in the previous post, that L was 'experimenting" with the idea of homosexuality. Not necessarily in his real life (the only things i know about his real life is what i have read in your posts and Virgil's). As for their being brotherly and all, i agree since it is said earlier in the book that Birkin wanted to be brothers by blood with Gerald (a 'ritual' where each one cuts his hand and they join the two wounds).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

* which chapter does your book begin with? In my edition the “Prologue” is included in the back of the book, being a chapter that was originally cut for publication of the book.

---

I am afraid that my copy doesn't have this 'extra' chapter :( . I'll have a look if it can be found here in litnet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

From "The White Peacock" c.1911


It seems that the damaging effects of Lawrence’s own overbearing mother helped form some of these ideas of perfect love and woman just did not seem to fit the bill entirely. It seems that Lawrence felt he could not be totally furfilled in woman and so he has portrayed this in his characters. That is just my own opinion having done the research. There is a recurring theme of woman as 'all devouring' of the male. It is evident in his first somewhat flawed novel, acting as a prelude to what is to come in more complete novels. In WIL it is very prominent an idea with the symbolism referring often to the women more than the man. Gudrun as the all powerful woman warrior, Hermoine, and Ursula with their connections to strong Greek mythological woman and gods.

---

I have a copy of "The white peacock". I have a book with L's short stories (some of them) but i haven't read it yet :blush: .
Anyway what you say about L's mother sounds plausible. After all an oppressing mother (parents in general) and perhaps an unhappy childhood account for many things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

True, what you wrote here. I did not put it quite right, yet still there are passages where Gerald seems to be looking down an abyss or void. I will try to find them. He is bored and feels empty. This is so true. He knows not how to proceed with his life at this point. I feel he is ‘lost’ in some great way and I think by the end of the novel you will understand this better. Gerald seems drawn to seeing his father’s 'eyes of death' and wanting to experience the death; he does not seem to be able to help himself. This too is very prophetic and one will eventually see where it leads.

---

Yep. I noticed the abyss and void references. It made me think that maybe Gerald won't have a happy ending..So actually it is prophetic, eh? Don't answer now, i'll see in a few chapters ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

This scene is very much of a flirtation between them as well, don’t you think? Both her body language and his is obvious and indicate much more than what they are saying in words. It certainly gives us a clearer idea of how Gudrun feels about marriage, if in fact she is being truthful about those feelings.

---

Yes i agree. They start talking about Birkin but what they actually do is letting each other know their views about love and marriage ;) . So you might say that this is actually a flirtation scene.

manolia, I want to address each thing you wrote later tonight, but for now let me say that you won't find the "Prologue" on this site. I believe I already looked. I bought a paperback Penquin Camridge edition, recently from Amazon which did cost me nearly $10 new. It contains some extra material which was not published, and is suppose to actually have two full chapters that are not in most of the published volumes. I have counted one in the body of the book. These chapters apparently were in L's orginal manuscripts and his publishers took these out or made L do so.
Apparently L would have had the book start with this "Prologue" chapter. I only read a small portion of it, but when I complete the book I will read it entirely and then reveal what I have read. Perhaps I can even scan the pages for you. It is too long to retype. I did not want to read it now, because I thought it might change some of my views on the book or clarify things like the Gerald/Birkin relationship issue and I felt it unfair that I would have this additional chapter and others would not. There are two additions at the end of the book that are revealed to have been included in L's original manuscripts: this "Prologue" and part of another chapter (that being in the published book). I also want to read the preface when I complete the book and then I may have more comments on all the things we have been discussing. We can always go back and review certain scenes, chapters, etc.
The other thing I wanted to tell you now is that in the short stories there is a story called "Wintery Peacock". That is not the same as "The White Peacock", the full-length novel. I only found out about it in my biography research and had to track down a used copy on Amazon. I was glad I did, since it has much that is prophetic of the novels to follow, and my being so into studying Lawrence, I found his first novel fascinating. It contains the seeds of his later more developed work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I can't point out stuff in every chapter. But there is something important in chapter 17, The Industrial Magnate I should point out. I think most can see that Lawrence is establishing here the modern social order, based on industry, and how each level of society fits in and the pressure to reach equality.

---

Virgil, yes, can't point out everything although I would love to. We would be here a year!
In this first paragraph is presented the idea of the religion being exploited as the banner for the workers to use to justify their want of equality. In other words they carry this 'religious impulse' whose proclaimation is 'All men are created equal', this being the teaching of Christ, to promote their own welfare. Gerald's father, Thomas Crich 'could but admit, according to his sincere tenets, that the disquality was wrong'. Then, does this mean that he felt equality was justified, but if he then truly admits this, even to himself, he would have to 'give up his goods, which were the stuff of disquality'? This he cannot do; therefore, he at last had no answer.' I envision him having this inner turmoil and 'no win' struggle within himself, concerning his moral behavior and beliefs. Thus there is another inner conflict set up, which can never be resolved. This recalls me to Sebastian's mother/s similiar dilema in "Brideshead Revisited." She had to be charitable out of her quilty conscious in having so much weath and power. I am reminded of the part where she speaks of the bibilical verse about the eye of the needle, the camel and admittence into heaven, creating inner turmoil. I think later we see the same dilemma set up for Gerald's father. In this case, Thomas Crich and management of the company and 'the machine' represent the Godhead in concept- is that accurate to say?

Quote:

---

Notice how Lawence sees society in terms of religious integration. And the Godhead in modern life is integrated with the machine:

---

(see Virgil's previous quote)
Yes, and no wonder he was friends with Huxley who saw the world turning unnatural and machine driven. This particular paragraph reminds me of The Crusades, the way the mob reacts in their holy war. In this instance, however the end result is that the Godhead cannot be a thing shared by the masses but must stand alone and rule the workers in order that the machine would function efficiently. Is this correct? Thomas Crich knows this.

Quote:

---

Lawrence's problem with the modern world is what it has done to religion:

---

(see V's previous quote)

So, now the concentration is on Gerald running the company and his own ideas and concepts on running it, which differ some from his fathers and he sees as his religion.

Quote:

---

He had a fight to fight with Matter, with the earth and the coal it enclosed.......................................... ............................................
It was this inhuman principle in the mechanism he wanted to construct that inspired Gerald with an almost religious exaltation. He, the man, could interpose a perfect, changeless, godlike medium between himself and the Matter he had to subjugate. There were two opposites, his will and the resistant Matter of the earth. And between these he could establish the very expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical repetition, repetition ad infinitum, hence eternal and infinite...................................And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.

---

Quote:

---

To be even more specific, the problem with the modern world is that the "machine-principle" is a repetittive loop which mankind is trapped in. The Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence out of repetition.

---

Ok, now I see - this is a good way of summing it up. Yes, now I can understand the 'transcendence out of repetition' idea Lawrence is presenting here and in other parts of the book. That makes it a lot clearer.

Quote:

---

The real Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence, a breaking free of the repetetive cycle of mankind. There are many natural cycles to life (eating, sleeping, seasons, menstruation, planting, harvesting, day, night birth, death, etc.), and these are to be trascended as well. These are natural and there is a certain satisfaction, if not completeness, to be achieved. But the machine has accentuated this further, a degeneration. Completeness is a breaking free of the cycles of life, a religious experience. It is sort of like the breaking free of reincarnation, the wheel of life, that Hindu religious men strive for. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was aware of Hindu religious ideas.

---

This is good, citing the natural cycles in life. These directly relate to the cycles in the book and the repetitions/rhythms, as well. I found a short preface, that Lawrence wrote himself to "Women in Love" in my book. Does your volume have this preface? He mentions his use of repetition and why it exists in the book. The preface is too long to type, but I will try to scan this preface if you do not have it. It is very interesting and somewhat revealing of Lawrence's intentions.
I like your final references to Hindu religion and the breaking free of the wheel of life and reincarnation. I am sure L was aware of the Hindu religious ideas, among many others. He was well read on word religions, etc.

Quote:

---

So notice the structure of the novel, cycles of recurring scenes. The central premise of the novel is which characters are able to transcend and which are caught in the cycles forever repeating life. Remember the opening scene where Ursula and Gudrun are talking about marriage and experience. The marriage that will climax this novel is a marraige of transcending religion (not the formal church marriage of the openning chapters) and the experience will be to transcend beyond the cycles to a "star" existence in the beyond.

I hope that makes sense. ;)

---

You make perfect sense. Thanks for such a great post - I learned much here. I am going to call you the "Philosopher Laurette" (sp?) of the discussion group.:thumbs_up You really have it down now, from doing your thesis, I believe. Hey, Virgil, you could do a second thesis on Lawrence. Then I might have to call you Dr.Virgil :lol:.

Your last line about the marriage is excellent and accurate. Makes the "star" existence clearer to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yes you are right. But fighting naked is not a part of Gerald's and Birkin's culture (they are both englishmen, right?)

---

Hi again manolia,
This is true, but Gerald seemed to have no qualms about stripping and swimming nude in the lake. I don't think in this era, it was that unusual. The woman also went swimming nude in the scene of the Water-Party, when they are quite isolated. I think the way Lawrence presents these scenes does not indicate to me that he means them to be homosexual. I feel the 'knowledge' of each other and other deeper/primal feelings go far beyond the physical/sexual ideas or possibilities. In the wrestling scene I don't feel sexual tension in that sense. If it were truly homosexual, I feel we would see and feel it in that scene. I felt the scene to be quite pure and beautiful.

Quote:

---

No i don't think that in their case it is a proof of homosexuality. I believe that Birkin and especially Gerald were meant to be heterosexuals. But i also believe, like i said in the previous post, that L was 'experimenting" with the idea of homosexuality. Not necessarily in his real life (the only things i know about his real life is what i have read in your posts and Virgil's). As for their being brotherly and all, i agree since it is said earlier in the book that Birkin wanted to be brothers by blood with Gerald (a 'ritual' where each one cuts his hand and they join the two wounds).

---

This experimenting is something I am not too sure about. I say this because it feels like Lawrence is pretty sure of his ideas, and not experimenting with any of them. His writing seems definite and I don't feel he would hide this from us, nor would he be experimenting with homosexual ideas in this novel. He may have written more specifically and the publishers made him cut it from his book, who knows? But I feel it is unlikely. I definitely think he wrote from a deep personal well within himself and he would never just throw in the homosexual issue for the benefit of his readers. He believed his books to be art. Everything written in WIL is meant to be there and is either revealing or symbolic, etc. and always intentional. He would not write just to appease his readers either, so this does not settle quite right with me. Also, the 'blood brother' idea is mentioned again, I believe, in the scene of the wrestling match. In this way it further emphasised the point.

Don't worry, I have not read all of Lawrence's short stories, either....probably not even one third of them. I am working on it since we started that thread.

Quote:

---

Anyway what you say about L's mother sounds plausible. After all an oppressing mother (parents in general) and perhaps an unhappy childhood account for many things.

---

Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life. In "The White Peacock" he meets a man, a landowner/keeper from a neighboring farm who tells him about how women consume men and ruin them. I don't know the exact words, but he feels this strange fear of women in this novel. Now comes WIL and women are depicted as the ones to be somewhat feared/controlling/fatal to men, don't you think it? He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly. I also read something in one of my biographies that substantiates this idea in refernce to L's novels. It is certainly clear in his novel "Sons and Lovers", and in WIL I feel that Birkin is wanting his relationship to be different and not all comsuming. He does not want to be controlled by the woman/comsumed by her. This he knows to be fatal. So in WIL he goes a step further than his other novels and finds a way to break out of convention and be as 'two stars' - equal and opposite each other.

Quote:

---

Yep. I noticed the abyss and void references. It made me think that maybe Gerald won't have a happy ending..So actually it is prophetic, eh? Don't answer now, i'll see in a few chapters ;)

---

I won't say anymore... but yes, very significant. Are you nearly done the book? I have about 5 more chapters, I think.

Quote:

---

Yes i agree. They start talking about Birkin but what they actually do is letting each other know their views about love and marriage ;) . So you might say that this is actually a flirtation scene.

---

I think it is a fliration and a way to share an intimacy in which they are attracted and drawn to each other in a sexual tension. This scene recalls me to the earlier scene when Gerald is drawn to the woman in the pub, but of course Gudrun is more of an intellectual match for Gerald. Now here, I do feel sexual tension exists between Gerald and Gudrun, that I don't feel this exists between Birkin and Gerald in the wrestling match scene. In this car scene I do admit it is interesting the way they do reveal their ideas on Birkin's philosophy and his opinions, but mostly doesn't Gudrun do the talking or commenting and then Gerald agrees? It made me laugh a little or raise my eyebrows reading this scene.

manolia, hope this makes sense. If it does not let me know. I was struggling to express some parts of it. Getting tired now.

Just a quick thought about the two men wrestling naked and the two sisters swiming naked. On the surface it again recalls classical allusions. Male wrestlers in ancient greece wrestled nude. The two sisters swimming naked recalls greek nymphs, lesser dieties, although I think this is not as strong an idea as the wrestlers. I say on the surface, because lawrence takes the wrestlers to a point of homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

You make perfect sense. Thanks for such a great post - I learned much here. I am going to call you the "Philosopher Laurette" (sp?) of the discussion group.:thumbs_up You really have it down now, from doing your thesis, I believe. Hey, Virgil, you could do a second thesis on Lawrence. Then I might have to call you Dr.Virgil :lol:.

Your last line about the marriage is excellent and accurate. Makes the "star" existence clearer to me.

---

:blush: Oh, thank you Janine. Yes I really learned Lawrence by studying for my thesis. If I can package all my lit net Lawrence posts into a thesis and it would be acceptable than what the heck i would do it. :lol:
Janine you said:

Quote:

---

In this first paragraph is presented the idea of the religion being exploited as the banner for the workers to use to justify their want of equality.

---

I don't think that Lawrence would use the word "exploited." I think he sees the religion as integrated with their state of existence, as if there is a psychological connection between what the people believe and their state of existence. It is a relationship between their subconscious and their actions, decisions, and life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

:blush: Oh, thank you Janine. Yes I really learned Lawrence by studying for my thesis. If I can package all my lit net Lawrence posts into a thesis and it would be acceptable than what the heck i would do it. :lol:[QUOTE

Yeah, really I think we have nearly written a book by now between us. Hey, maybe I could do the same thing and get a masters, what do you think Dr. Virg?


Janine you said:


I don't think that Lawrence would use the word "exploited." I think he sees the religion as integrated with their state of existence, as if there is a psychological connection between what the people believe and their state of existence. It is a relationship between their subconscious and their actions, decisions, and life.

---

Virgil, You are absolutely right. 'Integrated' is the perfect word to use. I was struggling with that whole reply to your very long and complex post. It was taxing my feeble little brain and now I have 'brain freeze-up'. It was not easy writing all that and somethings may not be quite clear. I hope some of what I wrote does make sense, for all my labored effort.
You are correct, about this statement; I did not feel I was wording that at all right, sorry. Let me say I meant more or less what you were saying, like with the Crusades, the way throngs of men/soldiers went to the Holy Lands. Their motivation was deeply ingrained in their religious subconscious that told them it was the right/holy thing to do. Just an example.
'subsconscious' - hey you actually used that word - what subconscious?:lol:

I was thinking how all of this chapter probably is much like "Kangaroo" - that dealt also with the machine, the workers, the Godhead and the mob. I am now quite anxious to read that book. It might prove very interesting after reading WIL.

Hey all, was just internet browsing and found this. Thought the statements by others and Lawrence of interest. One goes along with Virgil's idea of the book being a long narrative poem or poem/novel; I thought that was particularly interesting.

Women in Love
With an Introduction by Joyce Carol Oates
foreword by the author
Commentary by Carl van Doren, Rebecca West,
Aldous Huxley, and Henry Miller

It is . . . the world of the poets and the preponderance of the poet in [Lawrence] that is the key to his work. He magnified and deepened experience in the manner of a poet," wrote Anaïs Nin in 1934.
Privately printed in 1920 and published commercially in 1921, Women in Love is the novel Lawrence himself considered his masterpiece. Set in the English Midlands, the novel traces the lives of two sisters, Ursula and Gudrun, and the men with whom they fall in love. All four yearn for fufillment in their romantic lives, yet struggle in a world that is increasingly violent and destructive. Commenting on the novel, which was composed in the midst of the First World War in 1916, Lawrence wrote, "The bitterness of the war may be taken for granted in the characters." Rich in symbolism and lyrical prose, Women in Love is a complex meditation on the meaning of love in the modern world.
To the critic Alfred Kazin, "No other writer of [Lawrence's] imaginative standing has in our time written books that are so open to life."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, You are absolutely right. 'Integrated' is the perfect word to use. I was struggling with that whole reply to your very long and complex post. It was taxing my feeble little brain and now I have 'brain freeze-up'. It was not easy writing all that and somethings may not be quite clear. I hope some of what I wrote does make sense, for all my labored effort.

---

I know. It's not easy writing long posts. And don't be so humble, your brain is not feeble. :lol: Your effort makes a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

You are correct, about this statement; I did not feel I was wording that at all right, sorry. Let me say I meant more or less what you were saying, like with the Crusades, the way throngs of men/soldiers went to the Holy Lands. Their motivation was deeply ingrained in their religious subconscious that told them it was the right/holy thing to do. Just an example.
'subsconscious' - hey you actually used that word - what subconscious?:lol:

---

:lol: Yes, indeed, what subconcious? I was presenting Lawrence's view on the subject. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, I want to address each thing you wrote later tonight, but for now let me say that you won't find the "Prologue" on this site. I believe I already looked. .

---

Yes i looked too. They don't have it :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Apparently L would have had the book start with this "Prologue" chapter. I only read a small portion of it, but when I complete the book I will read it entirely and then reveal what I have read. Perhaps I can even scan the pages for you. .

---

Thank you very much Janine. You can of course e-mail me any time you like :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life.............................................. .............
He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly.

---

We definately agree on this one. I've just read ch 28 (or was it 29?) and it has again the same idea introduced somewhere ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I won't say anymore... but yes, very significant. Are you nearly done the book? I have about 5 more chapters, I think.

---

I've read ch 28 (or 29?) but i just realised that ch 30 is huge!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Just a quick thought about the two men wrestling naked and the two sisters swiming naked. On the surface it again recalls classical allusions. Male wrestlers in ancient greece wrestled nude. The two sisters swimming naked recalls greek nymphs, lesser dieties, although I think this is not as strong an idea as the wrestlers. I say on the surface, because lawrence takes the wrestlers to a point of homosexuality.

---

I haven't thought about that, but it is quite true ;) .The nymph theme is introduced in the book (i don't remember where right now but both nymphs and dryads are mentioned). The same for the wrestlers theme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yes i looked too. They don't have it :(
Thank you very much Janine. You can of course e-mail me any time you like :)

---

Yes, manolia, pity they don't have the extras, but I figured they would not include them on here. I bought my new book primarily for the extras, since my WIL book was in a collection which was heavy, a large hardback. This paperback is much more portable and I like reading the extra pages of commentary. I will read those when I complete the book, and the extras in the back of the book. Sort of like getting into the 'Special Features' on a DVD:lol: Yes, I can email them to you if they scan ok. Did you get my last email? Hope they are not floating off into cyberspace:(

Quote:

---

We definately agree on this one. I've just read ch 28 (or was it 29?) and it has again the same idea introduced somewhere ;)

---

Oh good, we are in agreement. I did read that other reference as well, plus considering the material from the other novel I think it clearly indicates Lawrence's own fears in this respect. The women's names further emphasis the idea. One has to take several sources and sort of form an opinion/concept from that. Add it all together.

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.

Quote:

---

I've read ch 28 (or 29?) but i just realised that ch 30 is huge!!

---

I think that I recall that chapter, and it taking me awhile to get through. I don't like the long chapters. I read one or so a night and when one is long it seems it goes on forever. I would rather read 2 short ones than one long one...silly really but it paces you,...plus this is such concentrated writing hard to comprehend so much text at one time.

Quote:

---

I haven't thought about that, but it is quite true ;) .The nymph theme is introduced in the book (i don't remember where right now but both nymphs and dryads are mentioned). The same for the wrestlers theme.

---

Yes, very good Virgil, I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I know. It's not easy writing long posts. And don't be so humble, your brain is not feeble. :lol: Your effort makes a lot of sense.

---

Duh, well that is good to know. I guess senility is still a few years away. I am glad much of what I said makes sense. Thanks for reading it. Yes, these posts on Lawrence are particularly involved and taxing. I was exhausted last night from writing so much.

Quote:

---

:lol: Yes, indeed, what subconcious? I was presenting Lawrence's view on the subject. ;)

---

I knew you would appreciate this one.:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Yes i looked too. They don't have it :(

---

I don't have a Prologue in my Penguin edition, I have a Forward written by Lawrence. Is this the same thing? The first sentence of the Forward is "This novel was written in its first form in the Tyrol." Sad to say I will have to buy a new book. This one has fallen apart. It is twenty-five years old. I'll have to look into the edition you have janine. Only problem is all these notes I've taken in here. :bawling: I will have to keep this together with a rubber band for reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Oh good, we are in agreement. I did read that other reference as well, plus considering the material from the other novel I think it clearly indicates Lawrence's own fears in this respect. The women's names further emphasis the idea. One has to take several sources and sort of form an opinion/concept from that. Add it all together.

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.

---

Chapter 34? I only have 31 chapters in the entire novel. I'm up to chapter 22.

Quote:

---

Yes, very good Virgil, I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out. :lol:

---

It may be a very long pursuit and one that will never be completely resolved. ;) But I wish you luck. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life. In "The White Peacock" he meets a man, a landowner/keeper from a neighboring farm who tells him about how women consume men and ruin them. I don't know the exact words, but he feels this strange fear of women in this novel. Now comes WIL and women are depicted as the ones to be somewhat feared/controlling/fatal to men, don't you think it? He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly. I also read something in one of my biographies that substantiates this idea in refernce to L's novels. It is certainly clear in his novel "Sons and Lovers", and in WIL I feel that Birkin is wanting his relationship to be different and not all comsuming. He does not want to be controlled by the woman/comsumed by her. This he knows to be fatal. So in WIL he goes a step further than his other novels and finds a way to break out of convention and be as 'two stars' - equal and opposite each other.

---

I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said. :p It kind of sticks in your head. :D I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me :p but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Sort of like getting into the 'Special Features' on a DVD:lol: Yes, I can email them to you if they scan ok. Did you get my last email? Hope they are not floating off into cyberspace:(

---

:lol: :lol: I really like it when you talk in film terms :lol: :lol: Yes it is exactly like watching the special features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Chapter 34? I only have 31 chapters in the entire novel. I'm up to chapter 22.

---

My book has 31 chapters too :eek2: Why??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I think that I recall that chapter, and it taking me awhile to get through. I don't like the long chapters. I read one or so a night and when one is long it seems it goes on forever. I would rather read 2 short ones than one long one...silly really but it paces you,...plus this is such concentrated writing hard to comprehend so much text at one time.

---

I prefer short chapters too..i usually read before i sleep (no insomnia problems anymore;) ) and when i encounter long chapters i am forced to read them till a certain point and then continue the next day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, very good Virgil, I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out. :lol:

---

:lol: You don't have to agree with us on this one or to be convinced. That's the nice thing with a work of art (like a painting or a good book like this one), they create different thoughts and feelings to different persons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said. :p It kind of sticks in your head. :D I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me :p but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

---

That seems like a valid theory to me. After all a lot can be explained when one considers the subconscious ehhmmm thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said. :p It kind of sticks in your head. :D I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me :p but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

---

Virgil, Yes, that about sums it up. Sometimes we do have to be specific and I am not offended one bit. It is too sketchy to beat around the bush. How interesting your professor talked about this in college. Back in my college days, I also had a professor who was very much into pyschologoy and the Id concept and the 'returning to the safety of the womb ideas. However, it seems to be reversed in Lawrence's mind of the being swallowed up and the act being fatal to the male. Perhaps that stemmed from his clinging mother who tried to control his life. Mostly the other theory was getting back to the safety of the womb, as I said. I don't recall much about those studies and they were just discussions in college - actually the professor was kind of kooky - he was my Literature professor. Well, it was art school so you can imagine how way out that got. I can imagine you in those classes telling them you thought anything psychological and subscious was a bunch of hooey.:lol:

If somehow you could read "The White Peacock", you would see more clearly some of these blantant ideas of Lawrence's. I will see if I can scan the pages referring directly to this idea. It was rather shocking to me at first. This first novel was quite revealing and surprising at times. The only part I don't see in that book is any empathy for the woman getting hurt. In this book, WIL, I probably do. I think you will come to a scene with Gundrun on the excursion to the snowy mountains where she is speaking her mind to Gerald about his effect on her sexually. It should tie right in with this idea, I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

:lol: :lol: I really like it when you talk in film terms :lol: :lol: Yes it is exactly like watching the special features.

---

manolia, I knew you could relate. It is so funny, I don't think in terms of chapters either, but in terms of scenes and scenarios. We should be film directors!:lol:

Quote:

---

My book has 31 chapters too :eek2: Why??

---

I went to check and I was thinking 37, sorry I meant to write 27. My book has 32 chapters....I still haven't figured out which chapter was added to this newer edition. There is suppose to be two actually - but the one is the 'Prologue' which they placed at the end of this book in 'extra features';) stuff. Hey, I will have to read a whole chapter more than you and Virgil, and everyone else, so reading the book will take me longer. :bawling: What chapter are you reading presently? I may take a break tonight from reading or just finish up this chapter 31, I am currently on. I have a good movie to watch - you know how that goes;)

Quote:

---

I prefer short chapters too..i usually read before i sleep (no insomnia problems anymore;) ) and when i encounter long chapters i am forced to read them till a certain point and then continue the next day.

---

Oh so glad that insomnia left you at last. Yes, we read on the same schedule in different time zones! Haha. I stop reading the chapter when my eyes will no longer remain open. Happens a lot. With audiobooks I wake up with the headphones still on hours later.

Quote:

---

:lol: You don't have to agree with us on this one or to be convinced. That's the nice thing with a work of art (like a painting or a good book like this one), they create different thoughts and feelings to different persons.

---

I know. It just does not settle well with me. I will probably read more biographies and be convinced one way or the other. It is just that in "Women in Love" if Birkin were homosexual I don't think he would concentrate on his relationship developing with Ursula. I suppose the only way to really know is if Lawrence were here now resurrected and we could ask him - "hey, what is the meaning of all this?"

Quote:

---

That seems like a valid theory to me. After all a lot can be explained when one considers the subconscious ehhmmm thingy.

---

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.:lol:

Hey, are we having fun yet? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, Yes, that about sums it up. Sometimes we do have to be specific and I am not offended one bit. It is too sketchy to beat around the bush. How interesting your professor talked about this in college. Back in my college days, I also had a professor who was very much into pyschologoy and the Id concept and the 'returning to the safety of the womb ideas.

---

Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb. :lol: We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. :lol: So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex:p ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense. :lol:

Quote:

---

However, it seems to be reversed in Lawrence's mind of the being swallowed up and the act being fatal to the male. Perhaps that stemmed from his clinging mother who tried to control his life. Mostly the other theory was getting back to the safety of the womb, as I said. I don't recall much about those studies and they were just discussions in college - actually the professor was kind of kooky - he was my Literature professor. Well, it was art school so you can imagine how way out that got.

---

How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians? :lol: Now I'm starting to get way out myself. :D

Quote:

---

I can imagine you in those classes telling them you thought anything psychological and subscious was a bunch of hooey.:lol:

---

Oh I was young and gullable in those days and believed whatever my teachers told me.

Quote:

---

If somehow you could read "The White Peacock", you would see more clearly some of these blantant ideas of Lawrence's. I will see if I can scan the pages referring directly to this idea. It was rather shocking to me at first. This first novel was quite revealing and surprising at times. The only part I don't see in that book is any empathy for the woman getting hurt.

---

Well perhaps some day.

Quote:

---

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.:lol:

Hey, are we having fun yet? :D

---

I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too. :D I'm having fun. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too. :D I'm having fun. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.:lol:

Hey, are we having fun yet? :D

---

Hehehe i use the word thingy when i am too lazy to think of the correct word :lol: . I can't even imagine what you guys thought i meant :lol: :lol: :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb. :lol: We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. :lol: So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex:p ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense. :lol:

---

Virgil, How funny, well it was the era. My professor was suppose to be teaching us literature. I can only recalling read some contemporary poetry and Herman Hesse; he must have been big on Hesse. I did actually enjoy Hesse, but you know - all that 'psychobabble' :lol: stuff you abhore. Mostly, my crazy professor played his guitar with some other guy; they jammed some days. They played classical flamingo; pretty good stuff. I think most likely they both were high on something or should I say some 'thingie'.:lol:

Quote:

---

How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians? :lol: Now I'm starting to get way out myself. :D

---

No, they talked from both sides - men/women. In fact it was not just men wanting to return to the womb. You are looking at it too literally. It was only symbolic and they sited how many people die in the fetal position or sleep that way - and so it is in the womb. They long for the comfort and security of the womb. I don't know I am a sleeper so maybe I want to go back to that too. Somedays I don't feel like being conscious and somedays on here I am only partically conscious I believe. :eek:

Quote:

---

Oh I was young and gullable in those days and believed whatever my teachers told me.

---

Well, I listened and believed some, but always with a suspicious eye. Often though I viewed it as quite extraordinary and unigue having come from a very conservative background. I suppose for awhile I believed much of it, too and felt I had my eyes open or exposed to things foreign to me prior to this time. I am glad I did study those books, ideas, etc. I think in a way it did change my life or influence it. It all adds into the mix of life experience.

Quote:

---

Well perhaps some day.

---

Ok, good. I just think you would find some parts extremely interesting. Of course the book is not as mature as his others but I found it to hold many of the seeds of what would eventually be fullblown in his other novels. I looked at the book more analytical but it was an enjoyable read actually...more pastoral in a sense since he was exploring different styles of writing. The woodlands/fields/flowers are magnificently portrayed in that book. Many of the flower passages have much symbolism as well. You would notice so much symbolism in this first book.

Quote:

---

I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too. :D I'm having fun. :)

---

Funny, manolia, I use that word all the time, too. Maybe we heard it on a movie Special Features - haha:lol: Yes, lets not touch on what manolia meant in this context referring to "thingie".

Virgil and manolia, do you have a chapter 30 called "Snow"? I found out this one is apparently the additional chapter. I also have chapter 31"Snowed Up"...one chapter after that, making 32 chapters in my book. How many do you two have?
Odd, I have been investigating this, and apparently in my book they divided up the chapter "Snowed Up" into two chapters. I have compared some of the text and it seems to be the same. I am still not sure if something is added. Will let you know if I find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I went to check and I was thinking 37, sorry I meant to write 27. My book has 32 chapters....I still haven't figured out which chapter was added to this newer edition. There is suppose to be two actually - but the one is the 'Prologue' which they placed at the end of this book in 'extra features';) stuff. Hey, I will have to read a whole chapter more than you and Virgil, and everyone else, so reading the book will take me longer. :bawling: What chapter are you reading presently? I may take a break tonight from reading or just finish up this chapter 31, I am currently on. I have a good movie to watch - you know how that goes;)

---

I am relieved (i thought that my copy was a few chapters short). I am reading ch 29 now. This is the huge chapter i was telling you about. It is the one with the trip to Germany. I have read a few pages only.

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Oh so glad that insomnia left you at last. Yes, we read on the same schedule in different time zones! Haha. I stop reading the chapter when my eyes will no longer remain open. Happens a lot. With audiobooks I wake up with the headphones still on hours later.

---

Thanx for your concern Janine :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.:lol:
Hey, are we having fun yet? :D

---

I was looking for a word with the meaning of "decoding" or "further study" but not quite..i am still missing that word :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb. :lol: We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. :lol: So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex:p ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense. :lol:


How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians? :lol: Now I'm starting to get way out myself. :D

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: That was very funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil and manolia, do you have a chapter 30 called "Snow"? I found out this one is apparently the additional chapter. I also have chapter 31"Snowed Up"...one chapter after that, making 32 chapters in my book. How many do you two have?
Odd, I have been investigating this, and apparently in my book they divided up the chapter "Snowed Up" into two chapters. I have compared some of the text and it seems to be the same. I am still not sure if something is added. Will let you know if I find it.

---

I am not sure.. but i don't remember a chapter with that name.

*EDIT*
I just checked. I have the "Snowed up" chapter but not the "Snow" chapter. Total number of chapters 31

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

I am relieved (i thought that my copy was a few chapters short). I am reading ch 29 now. This is the huge chapter i was telling you about. It is the one with the trip to Germany. I have read a few pages only.

---

Hi manolia! I am on 29 and it is called "Continental" - my chapter is not long at all. They must have combined this chapter with "Snow" in your version/volume. It is quite curious but not unusal to have some differences in L books. I read two versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I think there are actually 3. It seems these Cambridge scholars got together, retrieved some material that had been cut when WIL was originally published and now published it with parts re-established in the text. So far I have not found any differences, but maybe they are subtle ones. Like I said I will let you know if I notice anything particularly different or revealing. I am sure your book is fine.

Quote:

---

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?

---

Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world. She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.
*A note of interest: Frieda's sister ran off and left her husband for her lover, a psychologist who studied with Freud, I believe, or was a colleague of his. (Now Virgil is going to love this part:lol: ) The lover later went insane and committed suicide. Don't quote me on this - it is in my memory of what I read from one biography, but I will recheck the details tonight.


Thanx for your concern Janine :)

I was concerned. I felt badly for you; not good to have insomnia for so long. Probably your allergy meds that did it, right? You need to find that natural suppliment I told you about. It really helped me.

Quote:

---

I was looking for a word with the meaning of "decoding" or "further study" but not quite..i am still missing that word :lol:

---

manolia, you are a riot! :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: That was very funny

---

:lol: Yes, wasn't it? Especially the part where he wonders if it means they are Lesbians.:lol: Virgil, you are too much!!! Yes, you were getting a little too far 'out there'.

Quote:

---

I am not sure.. but i don't remember a chapter with that name.

*EDIT*
I just checked. I have the "Snowed up" chapter but not the "Snow" chapter. Total number of chapters 31

---

Thanks, like I said - I think they are just separated in my volume. Good, shorter chapters for me, that way. I can't wait to get to "Snow" tonight. You are there now with "Continental" with "Snow" part your chapter. We are running neck to neck now. We will all be finished reading the book soon enough, but of course there is still much to talk about...endless really.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?

---

I would characterize Gudrun's sexual mores as somewhere between Pussom's (you guys catch the sexual suggestion in that name? :p ), who obviously is very loose, and Ursula's, who while not prude but certainly is restraint. Gudrun is a bohemian artist, and that carries certain attitudes. Remember she returned home from living in London and the suggestion is that she hung out with Pussom's type of crowd. But she is disatisfied with that life, and I take it she is dissatisfied with that loose sexuality. Ursula is a country girl, a school ma. I think those details are important. In The Rainbow, Ursula has had her sexual experience and is dissatisfied with it.

You bring up a good issue Manolia. Sexual mores are a consistant theme in the novel. I wonder how Hermione fits in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world. She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.

---

Well, this was written before the 1920s. But every era is probably more sexual than the general perception. Lawrence was banned for really just being honest. I don't see any pornography in any of his writing. Perhaps Lady Chatterly in a spot or two really pushed it.

I took Frieda, L's wife, that Janine says was the model for Ursula, as being more sexually loose than Ursula. After all she left her husband and three children for Lawrence. I couldn't imagine Ursula doing that.

Quote:

---

*A note of interest: Frieda's sister ran off and left her husband for her lover, a psychologist who studied with Freud, I believe, or was a colleague of his. (Now Virgil is going to love this part ) The lover later went insane and committed suicide. Don't quote me on this - it is in my memory of what I read from one biography, but I will recheck the details tonight.

---

Oh I do love that...:lol:

You guys are way ahead of me. I'm in chapter 23. And most of my reading comes on the weekend.

I've just finished Chapter 14 Water Party. You all made me feel like that was a terribly important chapter. Feel like I have come over a milestone. ;)

*****SPOILERS (For those who are slow like me anyhow)****

:D Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.

Interestingly enough I like Birkin more than I like Gudrun. They both seem to have crummy views of humanity though. Birkin's hate of humanity seems more intelligent, striving and needy than does Gudrun's though. She seems hungry for something more but also just kind of stubborn.

Sorry I am just kind of blithering away my thoughts on the chapter :D.

*I am optimistic I will be finished here soon. The novel is kind of taking off with my interest now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Hi manolia! I am on 29 and it is called "Continental" - my chapter is not long at all. They must have combined this chapter with "Snow" in your version/volume. It is quite curious but not unusal to have some differences in L books. I read two versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I think there are actually 3. It seems these Cambridge scholars got together, retrieved some material that had been cut when WIL was originally published and now published it with parts re-established in the text. So far I have not found any differences, but maybe they are subtle ones. Like I said I will let you know if I notice anything particularly different or revealing. I am sure your book is fine.

---

Oh i see..i haven't checked here in litnet to compare my book and see if it is the same 'version'. There are 3 versions of "Lady Chaterley's lover"?? I wonder which one i have. We can organise a reading of this book too. It would be fun if we could read it and discuss it simultaneously. But not now (i never read books of the same author in a row. I have certain un-written rules while i read and this is rule number 1 :lol: Perhaps next winter?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I would characterize Gudrun's sexual mores as somewhere between Pussom's (you guys catch the sexual suggestion in that name? :p ), who obviously is very loose, and Ursula's, who while not prude but certainly is restraint. Gudrun is a bohemian artist, and that carries certain attitudes. Remember she returned home from living in London and the suggestion is that she hung out with Pussom's type of crowd. But she is disatisfied with that life, and I take it she is dissatisfied with that loose sexuality. Ursula is a country girl, a school ma. I think those details are important. In The Rainbow, Ursula has had her sexual experience and is dissatisfied with it.

---

Very helpful comments. I know about the roaring 20's (have seen many films :lol: ), but i didn't have this in mind when i read those passages, thanx Janine. And of course Gudrun is a bohemian artist, you are right Virgil (and hanging out with people like Pussum (very suggestive name Virgil ;) ) means that she somehow shared some of their qualities. And yes Ursula is a school ma (more calm and sweet and reserved).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.

---

Yes, i have read some passages that insinuate that Gudrun is in fact jealous of Birkin's and Ursula's relationship and that she perhaps has begun to think differently concerning marriage..but i guess i'll see the whole picture towards the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I wonder how Hermione fits in?.

---

That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, this was written before the 1920s. But every era is probably more sexual than the general perception. Lawrence was banned for really just being honest.

---

:nod: Yes i agree. Most authors tend to depict their era as being nicer and purer than it actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grace86

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.

---

Hi Grace!
My interpretation for this interesting event is that Gudrun is falling in love with Gerald and her world is turning upside down. Gudrun being a wild tiger revolts to the idea and has these moments of hate towards Gerald. For some further explaination on why Gudrun behaves like that you might want to check a few pages back in the thread and also the above posts of Janine and Virgil. The expanations they gave about Gudrun's morals and the historical background is part of the answer to what you ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grace86

I've just finished Chapter 14 Water Party. You all made me feel like that was a terribly important chapter. Feel like I have come over a milestone. ;)

---

Yes, that chapter is a milesotne. :)

Quote:

---

:D Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

---

To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.

Quote:

---

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.

---

Well, I think you would have to assume that it comes out from her subconscious. It also symbloizes the self-destructive nature not just of Gudrun but of gerald who I think actually gets turned on by it.

Quote:

---

*I am optimistic I will be finished here soon. The novel is kind of taking off with my interest now!

---

Great!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?

---

Yes, Woman To Woman was the chapter and i found that a great chapter. So intense the conflict between the two ladies! Yes, Hermione believes she would submit, but i think we can tell from her personality that it would never happen. She would dominate and control.

Hi Grace, welcome back. I am delighted to read your post today. I knew, given enough time, you would be able to get more interested in the book. I am happy to hear you will be finishing it. I think that by the end you will see that many things have changed or developed. For one thing, I have now noticed that Birkin no longer goes on his long tirades or preaching, which is rather refreshing. He has gone through a definite transformation. Also, many of his idea/thoughts have been explored by the others and there are some new opinions on what he has said. I keep thinking that Birkin, who represents Lawrence himself, puts the ideas out there in the first half or so of the book and then he becomes quieter and sits back and allows others to take his words and either criticise or consider them. It is interesting to me that Lawrence had the insight to do this. I think it rather brilliant actually. First one gives the ideas in speeches and then sits back and sees the consequences of his words either be rejected or actualized by the characters.

Quote:

---

Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

---

I answered some of this above. You are right though he falls into Ursula's arms by the end of the chapter, but all is still not right with them. As you said "he's human after all?" I do so agree. Birkin is not always completely definite about his theories or his philosophy on life. One has to understand that in the book he is developing them as he goes along. So at times he is floundering and trying to find the correct words to explain himself. I think this is why he goes on and on and sometimes seems to be going around in circles. He probably bores himself, as much as us with all his conceptualising but out of that comes some wonderful ideas. We may feel frustrated with him at times simply because he is actually feeling so himself, what do you think? Remember that all the characters in the book are not perfect; they are all human with flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths, confusions as well as confirmations.

*Warning - this may be a SPOILER for you: Ch. 23

I actually love this chapter when Ursula comes back at Birkin and tells him her mind. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it is quite significant I believe and no one has really addressed that chapter and the way things seem to happen for them. Finally, Birkin is quite speakless when Ursula takes a stand and challenges his ideas and preaching.


To your other questions it seems everyone has answered them so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

Oh i see..i haven't checked here in litnet to compare my book and see if it is the same 'version'. There are 3 versions of "Lady Chaterley's lover"?? I wonder which one i have. We can organise a reading of this book too. It would be fun if we could read it and discuss it simultaneously. But not now (i never read books of the same author in a row. I have certain un-written rules while i read and this is rule number 1 :lol: Perhaps next winter?)

---

Hi manolia, I came on to check the threads and said "WOW!", things were really progressing in the posts. Your post is great. Good answers for Grace.

Yes, I read that there are three versions - full versions - of LCL. I think they actually have different titles. It is funny, years ago I read the book and liked it. Then recently I found another copy and read it and thought - this seems different to me, somehow. I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut.;) :lol: The book I read second time said this. I am experiencing this with WIL, but I read that book first over 30 yrs ago, so who knows? I may have just forgotten much of the plot. The book seems longer to me and more involved, but that also might be my own perception, since in the past few years I have the vision of the film version in my mind, which is quite trimmed down; even combines dialogue from certain scenes. It is a very good film, but I suppose one has to watch it without the book's plot totally in mind. Most of the ideas are there, but not as developed; a two hour film cannot capture all of this.
manolia, yes, definitely we will do LCL - next year would be great! I love the idea!:D

Quote:

---

Very helpful comments. I know about the roaring 20's (have seen many films :lol: ), but i didn't have this in mind when i read those passages, thanx Janine. And of course Gudrun is a bohemian artist, you are right Virgil (and hanging out with people like Pussum (very suggestive name Virgil ;) ) means that she somehow shared some of their qualities. And yes Ursula is a school ma (more calm and sweet and reserved).

---

:lol: I bet you have (referring to the films). Virgil said it is a little ahead of the 20's but I still think women's rights were being explored and people were being exposed to Freud and the Id concepts and Neizthe (sp?) and there was a sort of sexual upheaval at the time for women. Also the fact of Gudrun being a bohemian artist. Definitely that was significant. I am an artist so I know ;) just what that world encompasses. As Virgil said in his post Ursula has had her affair or relationship. She is wanting something more permanent in life. She is definitely "more calm and sweet and reserved" than Gudrun. The two sisters contrast nicely and realistically I believe. I have two sisters and I can relate to this. No I was not the wild one;) :lol:

Quote:

---

Yes, i have read some passages that insinuate that Gudrun is in fact jealous of Birkin's and Ursula's relationship and that she perhaps has begun to think differently concerning marriage..but i guess i'll see the whole picture towards the end.

---

I read this part also, and thought of posting along with my comments, but you know I was too tired to look up the chapter and the quote.:blush: Wasn't she at the mill at the time? She had been having tea with Ursula at Birkin's abode and she got domestic feelings and sort of envied her sister. She explored in her mind the possibility of marriage to Gerald, right? Wow, now that I am near the end of the book, that seems like eons ago.

Quote:

---

That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?

---

Good observation, I agree totally in what you wrote here. Hermoine is such a phony, always pretending to herself and others.

Quote:

---

:nod: Yes i agree. Most authors tend to depict their era as being nicer and purer than it actually is.

---

They do - even as far back as Thomas Hardy, and he told the truth and was chastised for it; for instance in "Jude the Obscure". Also, I have to think that divorce in Hardy's time was pretty much forbidden and in Lawrence's time was still scorned and looked down on. If one could not get a divorce then, they eloped and lived together or else the woman went to lovers to find any bit of human comfort; it was not just sex, I believe. Virgil pointed out that Lawrence, himself, ran off with another man's wife (his professors' to be exact). She had three children and left them behind. All sound terribly cruel but actually the husband would not give her a divorce, she was shunned by society for leaving him, even though it was a dead marriage. Her children, the husband used as pawns, legally keeping them from her. Basically, it was like that. If one happened to fall in love and leave the marriage it was not like today with lawyers and joint-custody and quick divorces. Woman were crucified, if they were the ones to leave. So woman began to seek more equality and rights of their own - even sexual, so to Gundrun she belonged to this newer society of thought.
Since you came to the chapter where they are spending the holiday at the hostile in the mountains, don't you see a more relaxed atmostphere - the people are much freer and expressive, as compared to the stiff proper society of England. One section they even discuss England and how different it is. The dance seems to be significant to me, in showing how unreserved, unihibited the Europeans are.

Quote:

---

Hi Grace!
My interpretation for this interesting event is that Gudrun is falling in love with Gerald and her world is turning upside down. Gudrun being a wild tiger revolts to the idea and has these moments of hate towards Gerald. For some further explaination on why Gudrun behaves like that you might want to check a few pages back in the thread and also the above posts of Janine and Virgil. The expanations they gave about Gudrun's morals and the historical background is part of the answer to what you ask.

---

I fully agree, and also that she seems to be living up to her names reference and image. Gudrun feels dangerous to me at this point and agressive. Gerald mades a remark that she struck the first blow and he will strike the last - I did not look up the quote, but didn't it go something like that? I think the blow was a sort of signal and 'prophetic' of the challenge, between them, that will most definitely ensue.
Quote by Virgil

Quote:

---

To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.

---

Virgil, I would not expect you to like him. You are a man. ;) But seriously, you have more the engineering type mind and so why would Birkin appeal to your sensibilites? Maybe by the end you may like him a bit more, who knows? Think you may be outnumbered on this one. This discussion has only your male ideas to counterbalance us - the females. Poor Virg - uneven odds again! :lol: How do you put up with all us women folk - don't answer that - you know you love it!:)

But you know I do wonder, do we have to actually 'like' any of the characters in a novel to like the novel?

Quote:

---

Well, I think you would have to assume that it comes out from her subconscious. It also symbloizes the self-destructive nature not just of Gudrun but of gerald who I think actually gets turned on by it.

---

Very well stated. I agree.
But, Virgil....what...that word 'subconscious'.... comes up again. You just can't seem to help yourself using that word...:lol:;) :lol:

Quote:

---

Yes, Woman To Woman was the chapter and i found that a great chapter. So intense the conflict between the two ladies! Yes, Hermione believes she would submit, but i think we can tell from her personality that it would never happen. She would dominate and control.

---

Definitely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I fully agree, and also that she seems to be living up to her names reference and image. Gudrun feels dangerous to me at this point and agressive. Gerald mades a remark that she struck the first blow and he will strike the last - I did not look up the quote, but didn't it go something like that? I think the blow was a sort of signal and 'prophetic' of the challenge, between them, that will most definitely ensue.

---

Gerald didn't say that he would strike the last, in fact Gudrun said she would also strike the last blow. He keeps this from Birkin in Man to Man. It will be interesting to see how that falls into place.

Janine I do see how Birkin's ideas are layed out after he presents them for the others to go through or criticize. Lawrence makes it kind of like an infection. I think Rupert brings up the idea of the end of humanity...and more after death, and then Ursula and Gerald contemplate that later on in a sort of way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.

---

To tell you the truth Virgil, i prefer Gerald now. This happened after the chapter where his fathers's illness was being described..hehehe i know what you might thing..women change their minds easilly :p
I still like Birkin though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut.;) :lol:

---

:lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, yes, definitely we will do LCL - next year would be great! I love the idea!:D

---

:) Ok that's settled. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I read this part also, and thought of posting along with my comments, but you know I was too tired to look up the chapter and the quote.:blush: Wasn't she at the mill at the time? She had been having tea with Ursula at Birkin's abode and she got domestic feelings and sort of envied her sister. She explored in her mind the possibility of marriage to Gerald, right? Wow, now that I am near the end of the book, that seems like eons ago.

---

I think you are right in what you say. There are more referances to Gudrun's jealousy in the ch "Continental".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Since you came to the chapter where they are spending the holiday at the hostile in the mountains, don't you see a more relaxed atmostphere - the people are much freer and expressive, as compared to the stiff proper society of England. One section they even discuss England and how different it is. The dance seems to be significant to me, in showing how unreserved, unihibited the Europeans are.

---

Yes i noticed the relaxed and unreserved atmosphere ;) . That was a very nice part, with the description of the dances and merriment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

To tell you the truth Virgil, i prefer Gerald now. This happened after the chapter where his fathers's illness was being described..hehehe i know what you might thing..women change their minds easilly :p
I still like Birkin though.

---

No, no I wouldn't say that. You're reading it for the first time. I have changed my mind throughout the course of many novels. ;) By the way Manolia, I like your new avatar. Pretty. :)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut.

---

:) Ok that's settled. :)

---

OK, count me in too. :D As to the different versions, it is rather complicated. First there was a final version of the novel. But Lawrence had that privately published and then if I'm remembering it correctly it got edited for sexual content in public editions. This was called I think the "expurgated edition." But some time later (1960's?) the contents that were taken out were put back in for the original full edition. Now what complicates it further was that Lawrence had two previous full drafts before the final published edition, and these drafts have survived. The earlier drafts were actually substantially different than his final draft, and so scholars have actually published them, or at least the second draft which was more mature than the first. That second draft is called "John Thomas and Lady Jane" which I think was the working title of Lady Chatterly's Lover. I bet john Thomas and Lady Jane" can be found on amazon. I have never read the earlier drafts, but i have seen quotes from them. I hope that helps.

Oh boy, I've been away from here for a few busy days, and seeing that you've all added a lot more to the discussion I'm very sorry that I couldn't join in on your points.
But the good news is: I've completed Women in Love :nod:, though at the expense of lacking the time to post here.

*** Spoiler (tells ending) ***

I liked it better and better towards the ending (maybe that was partly due to the increasing number of references to German and Germany during the party's stay in the snow :D). I first thought it should have been Birkin, being the one with the most excentric ideas, to die in the end, or at least it should have been him to whom something extraordinary should have happened. But now that it was Gerald, I'm quite satisfied with it as well, since his being on his way to madness on the last few pages was much more interesting to follow.

*** End spoiler ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Let me address some of your concerns Schoky (...)Like most great modern novels of the early 20th century, this is not a novel that is heavily plot driven. The significant idea/theory which the early moderns were infatuated with was psychology and (...)

---

Thank you very much, Virgil, that was succinct. Now that I've given my thoughts on postmodernism in the Owen Meany thread, it seems only right that you should explain modernism here ;).
This has been a very interesting read, although I still couldn't get used to the forcefulness of the dialogues. I shall remember Lawrence as a fascinating writer, and am looking forward to reading Sons and Lovers one day.
In fact, I think I shall try another modernist novel by another author soon, and will thus vote for To the Lighthouse in the summer reading thread :nod:.

Thank you as well, manolia and Virgil, for your kind offers of help with my uni work ! :) I shall surely come back to it if desperate need arises :).

I think I'll continue to read your ongoing discussions here and add my two cents if I can find a free minute not occupied by translations and essays and the like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grace86

Gerald didn't say that he would strike the last, in fact Gudrun said she would also strike the last blow. He keeps this from Birkin in Man to Man. It will be interesting to see how that falls into place.

---

Grace,Yes, you are perfectly correct. I just read the passages over. Gudrun indeed said she would strike the last. That passage is very significant. Did Gerald later hold back from telling Birkin of the blow, when they were talking in the chapter "Man to Man". He was merely thinking about the incident, correct? This statement is very prophetic.

Quote:

---

Janine I do see how Birkin's ideas are layed out after he presents them for the others to go through or criticize. Lawrence makes it kind of like an infection. I think Rupert brings up the idea of the end of humanity...and more after death, and then Ursula and Gerald contemplate that later on in a sort of way.

---

Grace, do you mean an reflection'? 'Infection' does not seem to fit this statement. Yes, and it is also contemplated in other parts of the book. As Ursula and Birkin fall deeper into love, it seems Birkin becomes quieter, more seclusive. Perhaps this is part relects his ideas that he and Ursula need only themselves, and perhaps a few others. Also I do believe that Birkin's behavior is somewhat modified by his consumation of love with Ursula. I do see the second half of the novel with much consideration or criticism of what Rupert previously said or preached.

Quote:

---

To tell you the truth Virgil, i prefer Gerald now. This happened after the chapter where his fathers's illness was being described..hehehe i know what you might thing..women change their minds easilly
I still like Birkin though.

---

manolia, I actually feel more sympathy for Gerald as time goes by in the novel. I don't know if I like Gerald better than Birkin, nor if it truly relevant to me to like either of them. I simply see all the characters as they are, which feels very realistic. I feel deeply involved with all four characters. By the end....hehehe...manolia...you may change your mind again - "Changing ones mind is a woman's perogative" - so the saying goes! ;)

Quote:

---

Ok that's settled.

---

Yes, and Virgil said to count him in. He should make it doubly interesting. ;) :lol: I think that Grace voted for the book also, so she will probably be interesting. How about it Grace?

Quote:

---

I think you are right in what you say. There are more referances to Gudrun's jealousy in the ch "Continental".

---

Yes, several places in the text in different chapters I believe she explores the possibility and thought of being married to Gerald and just exactly how she would envision what type of life that would be.

Quote:

---

Yes i noticed the relaxed and unreserved atmosphere . That was a very nice part, with the description of the dances and merriment.

---

It is interesting - Lawrence uses this frenzied type of gay, spirited dancing in many of his writings to show a feeling of unrestrained freedom. Biographers claim that his father loved to dance and was quite good at it. I believe that is the root of his use of dancing to show the less restricted mood and the more earthy, unrestrained type of personalities. In "Twilight in Italy" he has a marvelous dance scene. It is very sensual and described in a way that is quite sexual and filled with erotic excitement. When I read this scene in WIL I immediately thought of the other scene which someone once posted on this site in the Lawrence section. You may still be able to find it there. There is also some excellent commentary about the scene. Also, in "Sons and Lovers" I believe there is a very distinctive scene at the Miriam's house when the couples whirl around the floor in frenzied dancing. His first novel, "The White Peacock", has a similiar scene. Both scenes have much significance in the way of symbolism.

manolia, I knew you would appreciate "Director's Cut" :lol: :lol: :lol:

*Are we having fun yet?*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No, no I wouldn't say that. You're reading it for the first time. I have changed my mind throughout the course of many novels. ;) By the way Manolia, I like your new avatar. Pretty. :)

---

Yes, manolia, I do also - is it an angel? I cannot fully make it out...but it looks very interesting.

Quote:

---

OK, count me in too. :D As to the different versions, it is rather complicated. First there was a final version of the novel. But Lawrence had that privately published and then if I'm remembering it correctly it got edited for sexual content in public editions. This was called I think the "expurgated edition." But some time later (1960's?) the contents that were taken out were put back in for the original full edition. Now what complicates it further was that Lawrence had two previous full drafts before the final published edition, and these drafts have survived. The earlier drafts were actually substantially different than his final draft, and so scholars have actually published them, or at least the second draft which was more mature than the first. That second draft is called "John Thomas and Lady Jane" which I think was the working title of Lady Chatterly's Lover. I bet john Thomas and Lady Jane" can be found on amazon. I have never read the earlier drafts, but i have seen quotes from them. I hope that helps.

---

Virgil, thanks for clearing this up some. I knew about the "John Thomas and Lady Jane" version. I will check Amazon to see if they have all three versions (?). I am curious now. I may also do more research into it. Do we have a copy of LCL here on this site? Nowdays with a resurgence of interest in Lawrence's work, many of the scholars are putting back the original 'cut' parts of the text, therefore restoring them. I know Cambridge is doing much of this work. Let's hope they are exactly what Lawrence intended in his original writings.

Schokokeks, fantastic - you stuck with the book! It is good to see you back to discuss. It is not at all too late to do so. You can easily go back to parts of the book. We have not discussed all yet. I hope to go back as well and review some things that now seem very important and significant. I think the ending appropriate, as well.

Glad to hear you will go onto other modernists. I read "To the Lighthouse" and also "Mrs. Dalloway" a few years ago. If you need any help or want to discuss them later on let me know; we could start a thread. Both books are quite fascinating. Wolfe's style is more 'stream of consciousness', but so beautifully and brilliantly written. It is even less plot driven that L's work I believe.

Note: Pensive and a few others are currently discussing "Sons and Lovers" in it's own thread. It is a great book. You will like it. Pensive found it very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No, no I wouldn't say that. You're reading it for the first time. I have changed my mind throughout the course of many novels. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

manolia, I actually feel more sympathy for Gerald as time goes by in the novel. I don't know if I like Gerald better than Birkin, nor if it truly relevant to me to like either of them. I simply see all the characters as they are, which feels very realistic. I feel deeply involved with all four characters. By the end....hehehe...manolia...you may change your mind again - "Changing ones mind is a woman's perogative" - so the saying goes! ;)

---

Someone has already said (i don't remember who but it is one of you two) that Birkin's presence is stronger at the first half of the book, where he steps in and analyses many of his ideas (which are in fact the themes of the book). I can see now how true this statement is. From a certain chapter and onwards i think that the Gerald-Gudrun pair is more prominent. I guess that's why i prefer Gerald now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

By the way Manolia, I like your new avatar. Pretty. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, manolia, I do also - is it an angel? I cannot fully make it out...but it looks very interesting.

---

Thank you both :) . It is an angel with a wounded heart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

OK, count me in too. :D As to the different versions, it is rather complicated. First there was a final version of the novel. But Lawrence had that privately published and then if I'm remembering it correctly it got edited for sexual content in public editions. This was called I think the "expurgated edition." But some time later (1960's?) the contents that were taken out were put back in for the original full edition. Now what complicates it further was that Lawrence had two previous full drafts before the final published edition, and these drafts have survived. The earlier drafts were actually substantially different than his final draft, and so scholars have actually published them, or at least the second draft which was more mature than the first. That second draft is called "John Thomas and Lady Jane" which I think was the working title of Lady Chatterly's Lover. I bet john Thomas and Lady Jane" can be found on amazon. I have never read the earlier drafts, but i have seen quotes from them. I hope that helps.

---

We count you in :) . Thanx for the explanation concerning LCL.

Have you read ch 29 "Continental"? This is not a spoiler if you haven't, so i'll ask anyway. In this ch there is this guy Loerke whom Birkin (or Gerald) describes with very negative words. The word "Jew" is used with contempt. I wonder if L was an antisemitist (?). I remember what we were discussing about his being friendly towards fascism..so was he speaking his mind or depicting (perhaps) the already present tendency in Europe against jews?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, and Virgil said to count him in. He should make it doubly interesting. ;) :lol: I think that Grace voted for the book also, so she will probably be interesting. How about it Grace?

---

:nod: Yes it would be very interesting

Manolia, hehe I am trying to figure out what Janine meant by that last quote of hers you posted. I must search the thread!!! :D I seem to be a little lost. What would be interesting?!!! AAAH!!

Janine I did mean "infected," I guess it would be better if I had said that Birkin seems like a catalyst: he starts these big soul searching ideas on humanity, and after he says his bit, the other characters are "infected," they start thinking about it unconsciously. I have no idea if that makes any sense. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grace86

Manolia, hehe I am trying to figure out what Janine meant by that last quote of hers you posted. I must search the thread!!! :D I seem to be a little lost. What would be interesting?!!! AAAH!!

Janine I did mean "infected," I guess it would be better if I had said that Birkin seems like a catalyst: he starts these big soul searching ideas on humanity, and after he says his bit, the other characters are "infected," they start thinking about it unconsciously. I have no idea if that makes any sense. :p

---

Grace, :lol: Sorry, I meant to say 'interested' and not 'interesting'. However, I am sure whatever you should add to the discussion would indeed be "interesting'. We are talking about read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" and discussing it; next year would be good for all of us. I thought you had voted on that book for this month, but I might be wrong. You still may be interested in joining our discussion group when we decide to make a thread.

Ok, I understand the "infected" idea. Yes, Birkin certainly did do that with his words. I just thought infection sounded kind of like a disease :lol: and took on negative conodations.

Quote:

---

Someone has already said (i don't remember who but it is one of you two) that Birkin's presence is stronger at the first half of the book, where he steps in and analyses many of his ideas (which are in fact the themes of the book). I can see now how true this statement is. From a certain chapter and onwards i think that the Gerald-Gudrun pair is more prominent. I guess that's why i prefer Gerald now

---

manolia, yeah - that someone was me!:lol:

Quote:

---

Thank you both . It is an angel with a wounded heart

---

Ahhh.....how poignant. I like the photo/drawing (?) Hope it is not your broken heart...:(

Quote:

---

Have you read ch 29 "Continental"? This is not a spoiler if you haven't, so i'll ask anyway. In this ch there is this guy Loerke whom Birkin (or Gerald) describes with very negative words. The word "Jew" is used with contempt. I wonder if L was an antisemitist (?). I remember what we were discussing about his being friendly towards fascism..so was he speaking his mind or depicting (perhaps) the already present tendency in Europe against jews?

---

Yes, I think the question as to whether Lawrence was truly 'antisemitic' is a difficult one to answer. I know he made a statement, something to do with annilating people in the Crystal Palace, and many people like to quote this, but it is greatly misinterpretted and I have looked it up and some background on the statement and see it was taken out of context and now I understand what he was getting at.
In WIL in this chapter he says 'Jew' very casually and perhaps sees it in a negative vain; depends on how you look at it. He certainly does not like Loerke, but Loerke has other characteristics that men would definitely find offensive. At that time Jews were looked down on in England and central Europe, I believe. This is taken from what I have read of Germany, for certain. I may be wrong, but from other reading concerning the fascists and the Nazi's I got this impression. I did note when the word was said, and wondered about it, but pretty much took it as the attitude of the day in English society. I hope Virgil comments further on this point.

GREAT posts everyone!!!

Yes I did vote for Lady Chatterly's Lover. Sorry I just didn't look back in the posts. If you guys are planning on reading it later it sounds like a great idea. I was planning on reading it this summer but as of right now I don't think that will happen. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grace86

Yes I did vote for Lady Chatterly's Lover. Sorry I just didn't look back in the posts. If you guys are planning on reading it later it sounds like a great idea. I was planning on reading it this summer but as of right now I don't think that will happen. :lol:

---

How about around the Christmas holidays, after your finals Grace? That will give us some space from this novel. I agree with Manolia; it gets old reading the same writer back to back.