Printable View
Speaking of chapter 3......Does anybody else find it odd that
1. Hermoine would show up at ruperts job, slightly stalkerish
2. Rupert would invite her in the classroom
3. Carry on a conversation in front of the whole class
So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?
I have not reached that point to admit Lawrence being "mad, bad" yet, but he's definitely very different.
I,ve no time at all. I've only read 6 ch. huhhhh
Hi Grace, I will try to address and answer each of your questions; probably Virgil will, also. Considering the complexity of the book, long posts can't be helped. Sorry if they seem a bit overwhelming or difficult. Virgil stated that Lawrence is not an easy author to study. I should hope by discussing in some depth, readers would gain some insight and knowledge into the workings of the book and it's characters, and the author. Posts are long also due to quoting certain parts of the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
First off you are right - this book is nothing at all like Austen. Austen always ends her books 'happily ever after' for starts. Lawrence's books and characters are very layered - good observation. I actually have a harder time reading Austen, than I do Lawrence. I think Lawrence's writing flows more easily but the characters are very intricate pyschologically. Analysis is not an easy task.Quote:
It is rather difficult to get into Lawrence. At first glance I almost thought his work like Austen's (who I cannot read) but the characters seem to be layered a bit more.
They have many strange conversations - Rupert and Hermione. Yes, good he is trying to break free of Hermione - that is a huge part of it; also her way of being hyocritical of everyone really. She is very snooty and acts above everyone, too. He feels trapped in her dominence and control and wants out. Later you will see he does break the ties. Hermione was based on a real person Lawrence knew - Lady Ottoline. When she recognised herself in his novel, she quickly disowned Lawrence as a friend. I can see why. He did exaggerate her character to suit the book. Ursula is based on his real life wife, Frieda.Quote:
I am not all that far into it right now, I've just finished chapter 3. The conversation between Hermione and Rupert was a tad strange. I know he is a misanthrope but I am not entirely sure I understand Hermione. Was Rupert's anger with her simply because of her being hypocritical in her statements or does it have to do with the fact that he no longer wants the relationship with her?
Most people like Rupert, even with his flaws and faults. At least in the beginning, he has likable traits and that sort of personality that seems to attract people. He is magnetic somehow and they say Lawrence was this way. He represents Lawrence, himself, in that most things he says and believes are Lawrence's personal ideology and thoughts/ideas.Quote:
You know, even though he isn't a very personable character, I think Rupert is my favorite character so far.
There is much symbolism, but I don't think it necessary to get it all. First time I read the novel some 30 yrs ago (I was young then) I did not even consider symbolism. I knew nothing of Lawrence's life and I did not even know that any of the characters were based on real people. I loved the book regardless. I loved the imagery. It fascinated me the way all the characters were so complex. But to each his own; you may or may not like this book. It is an easy book to read, but the inner meanings are difficult to understand. There is much said between the lines.Quote:
(lol I know there is a bunch of symbolism in this novel that I'm not getting!)
If there is anything specific you want to ask questions about, fire away. I or Virgil will be happy to try to answer your posts as best we can.
Grace, don't be discouraged just because you are on chapter 3. There is still time. We are just a bit ahead. Plenty of others are still in the process of reading. Important thing is to enjoy your reading.
hi caspian, are you referring to the quote on Virgil's signature - "mad, bad, and dangerous to know"? That does not refer to Lawrence, but is a Byron quote. He used to have a picture of Byron in his signature, but changed it recently to the one of the Phoenix, which was very symbolic to Lawrence. Up to chapter 6 is good...you are going along fine. I think Virgil is up to 8, and I am a little further but others are are not as far as you. You have time, don't get discouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by caspian
Yes, Lawrence's writing is definitely different. In many ways he is mad, bad...and even dangerous to know. It could fit Lawrence, too. :lol:
Hi papayahed, I will try to answer your three questions to the best of my own observations of the chapter.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
1.It seems she states here why she stopped in to see Birkin. I think her underlying motive is to exercise her power and control over him. You could call it stalking, except for the fast that Birkin and Hermione have been intimate and are still connected by the fact they have been lovers. Also, by now she realises that Birkin is attracted to Ursula and she is protecting her own interests in her lover.Quote:
At that moment another vision was seen through the glass panels of the door. It was Hermione Roddice. Birkin went and opened to her.
`I saw your car,' she said to him. `Do you mind my coming to find you? I wanted to see you when you were on duty.'
She looked at him for a long time, intimate and playful, then she gave a short little laugh. And then only she turned to Ursula, who, with all the class, had been watching the little scene between the lovers.
2. Not sure how to answer this question, except to say that I think Birkin would be curtious; how or why would he tell her to go away? She said she came to visit him and see him when he was on duty. Hermione is very manipulative, don't you think?
3. see comments below quote
3. In the first paragraph it mentions that the "A SCHOOL-DAY was drawing to a close". Also note the phrase "as the end of the afternoon approached". In paragraph two it states that "the end of the day was here.....hushed to retire." In the third paragraph there are further indications of the end of the school day; phrases such as "..day had gone by.." and "At the end.." and "to finish" and especially suggestive of the day ending is the phrase "by the time the gong went." Therefore, I don't believe, that the children are present in the classroom when the full discussion and altercation between Hermione and Ruppert takes place. I personally got the impression the gong was close to sounding and when it did the children had left the classroom, by the time the discussion/argument was in full swing.Quote:
A SCHOOL-DAY was drawing to a close. In the class-room the last lesson was in progress, peaceful and still. It was elementary botany. The desks were littered with catkins, hazel and willow, which the children had been sketching. But the sky had come overdark, as the end of the afternoon approached: there was scarcely light to draw any more. Ursula stood in front of the class, leading the children by questions to understand the structure and the meaning of the catkins.
A heavy, copper-coloured beam of light came in at the west window, gilding the outlines of the children's heads with red gold, and falling on the wall opposite in a rich, ruddy illumination. Ursula, however, was scarcely conscious of it. She was busy, the end of the day was here, the work went on as a peaceful tide that is at flood, hushed to retire.
This day had gone by like so many more, in an activity that was like a trance. At the end there was a little haste, to finish what was in hand. She was pressing the children with questions, so that they should know all they were to know, by the time the gong went. She stood in shadow in front of the class, with catkins in her hand, and she leaned towards the children, absorbed in the passion of instruction.
I agree that it was not too explicit on the children exiting the classroom. It is true that shortly after the section I quoted, Birkin requested crayons for the children and then one child was send on a quest to get some by Ursula. Strange that their departure is not definitely stated. But by the end when Ursula lays her head on the desk and weeps it seems she is alone. My thought throughout the passage was why Birkin instigated this confrontation with Hermione in front of Ursula. I came to my own personal conclusion that probably he wanted her to hear his disortation on his philosophy of life and sensuality/passion.
Janine/Virg...what is the time setting exactly of this novel? I glanced around for it in the introduction...sorry if you addressed it already in the forum (it's late and I don't want to look back right now). Hermione mentioned something about seeing Birkin's car outside, so I am just trying to put it into context.
Oh...I am not disturbed at being a little behind. I should be able to finish just fine. :p And I was just joking about the long posts, they are actually very informative and helpful.
For the explanations to 1 and 3 i agree with Janine.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
To answer the 2 question i've to add to what Janine has already said, that Hermione cunningly asks Ursula if she minds her coming in the classroom. Ursula gladly accepts (more out of awkwardness than real happiness) and so Birkin can actually do no more but accept.
I am on ch 14 "The water party". This is a very interesting chapter.
Funny thing Virgil, he didn't strike me as a fascist or a sympathetic to fascism, by saying that. I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book ;) ), that Birkin is tired of human race. He sounds very bitter and is sick of the degenaration around him. I also thought that he sees life and people this way due to the "perversed" relationship he has with Hermione (a powerful, controling, domineering and oppressing woman who also never comes up to his expectations considering her understanding and her various opinions. One presumes that they don't have much in common). I was a bit surprised when you and Janine said that he (Lawrence) actually was sympathetic towards fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Grace, novel takes place in present time, which was written around 1917 I think and published in 1921. One important big difference from the present time which is not mentioned and that is that WWI was going on. The novel seems to allude to it but never outright delineates it. Actually the characters seem to act as if it's just prior to the war (which started in 1914). That's why there is such a gloomy and apocolyptic feel to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
This is actually somewhat related to Grace's question in a way. This novel really predates facism. Mussolini, I think the first of the facist dictators, took power in 1922. What you see throughout this novel is the sense that society must be regenerated anew, and fascism promised that. There was a sense in Europe after WWI that democracy had led it astray. Given Lawrence's inherent distaste for democracy he was sympatheitic to fascism, especially in Italy where he went to live right after WWI, and would have known the Mussolini government first hand. Now given, Musollini's first years were actually productive (he made the trains run on time, as they say) I think Lawrence may have been enamored. And he wasn't the only writer to be enamored with fascism. If you check the political sympathies of many writers between the two world wars, you will find quite a few. Getting back to the novel, you can see that Birkin is referred to as a special or chosen person. I think Lawrence saw dictators in this way too.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
You know, I have never warmed to Birkin. He is so misanthropic that he is somewhat opposite my nature. Frankly I'm not sure what exactly Ursula sees in him. I guess my personal world view is actually closer to Gerald's. Like i've said elsewhere, I love Lawrence as a writer, but his ideas are flakey.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
It is a hard novel, Grace. The imagery, symbolism, and language connotations are really like a long complex poem. I can see why this is ranked above The Rainbow as his finest accomplishment as a novelist. But I still enjoy The Rainbow more.Quote:
(lol I know there is a bunch of symbolism in this novel that I'm not getting!)
The nature scene is one of my favorites in the book and actually in the film version I have seen many times of the book. It is beautifully depicted, and to me the ultimate in freedom and sensuality. The sense of touch in the field and in the grove of trees is heightened by Birkin's state (soul/mind/spirit, or maybe what Lawrence's terms the deeper 'blood' state). Here he is at a pinacle and longs to free himself from all evils and conventions, and he takes the plunge to do so. It is a kind of death of which he will emerge cleaner and more wholesome. Up until now he has only talked about it. This scene is key to the central theme of the story, I believe. It is a major turning point for Birkin in his freedom and his divorcing himself entirely from Hermione's domination over him. The scene is brilliantly written, don't you agree?[/QUOTE]
Janine, I loved this scene as well. I, too, thought it was beautifully written. I am so glad that you pointed out the death of the old self, and the divorce he had with the domination that Hermonine had over him. Very well said!!
SPOILERS AHEAD (CHAPTER 14)
In ch 14, after Gerald confesses to Gudrun that he is in love with her this paragraph follows. Why Lawrence brings up the accident and the Cain reference again? Any ideas anyone? It seems out of place to me.
Quote:
He walked on beside her, a striding, mindless body. But he recovered a little as he went. He suffered badly. He had killed his brother when a boy, and was set apart, like Cain
Maybe it is just women who warm up to Birkin :lol: (maybe I should put in an answer in Lote's Why women don't like nice men thread) :lol: Personally I don't know why I like his character. But Gerald doesn't seem (so far) that much of an optimist either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Even though his characters are all very different they aren't hard to like (lol even the misanthropic ones). Actually, I don't like Mrs. Crich. The conversation/thing she had going on with Birkin in the beginning was just kind of weird.
Thanks for letting me know the setting. Now that you mention it, I think I did already know that from somewhere :D .
Grace, so glad you are keeping with it. I don't think you will regret it at all. The book is fascinating even if one does not agree with all the ideas. I think everyone is at different parts of the book anyway. I did not read much last night because I seem now to be ahead; last book Owen Meany, I was way behind. I did finally catch up in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
I know I do tend to expound in much detail - but glad you are reading the posts (everyone's) and have found then 'informative and helpful'. You know, it is not easy to think about all this and then write all this down; so thank you for appreciating it.
manolia's post
manolia,Thanks for finding this. I posted those answers to the questions so late last night and I was trying to review what I read. I had missed seeing that part. Now this recalls it to me.Quote:
To answer the 2 .......that Hermione cunningly asks Ursula if she minds her coming in the classroom. Ursula gladly accepts (more out of awkwardness than real happiness) and so Birkin can actually do no more but accept.
This is one of my favorite chapters. It is very interesting and there is much there in one chapter. Let us know what you think after you read it.Quote:
I am on ch 14 "The water party". This is a very interesting chapter.
True and I really like your observations. I feel the same way about all that you wrote. Good observations on your part and I love the way you expressed it. I think you are right about all.Quote:
Funny thing Virgil, he didn't strike me as a fascist or a sympathetic to fascism, by saying that. I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book ), that Birkin is tired of human race. He sounds very bitter and is sick of the degenaration around him. I also thought that he sees life and people this way due to the "perversed" relationship he has with Hermione (a powerful, controling, domineering and oppressing woman who also never comes up to his expectations considering her understanding and her various opinions. One presumes that they don't have much in common). I was a bit surprised when you and Janine said that he (Lawrence) actually was sympathetic towards fascism.
I think the fascism thing was just temporary for Lawrence and he later changed his mind. Mostly from the things he said, people took him as sympathetic to fascism. I really love the post by Virgil :thumbs_up explaining all this about L and fascism and the wars. Excellent explanation, Virg! I like what you said "The imagery, symbolism, and language connotations are really like a long complex poem." - this is so true.
manolia's quote:
manolia, Yes, right that Birkin does represent Lawrence himself and I happen to think him the most interesting character in the book. I think one could consider him the central character - what do you think?Quote:
I thought, having already understood that Birkin must be Lawrence himself (and the most interesting character in the book ), that Birkin is tired of human race.
nmolive's quote:
Hi nmolive, Nice to see a new person on here. Yes, I was waiting for this scene to come up since I love it so much. I think this is some of Lawrence's finest writing and description. I find the scene very naturally beautiful. Thanks for your appreciation of my posting remarks and glad you will be discussing.:)Quote:
Janine, I loved this scene as well. I, too, thought it was beautifully written. I am so glad that you pointed out the death of the old self, and the divorce he had with the domination that Hermonine had over him. Very well said!!
Grace - I agree, not with Virgil, but with you - maybe women are drawn more to Birkin/Lawrence. I know in his real life this was very true, although sometimes he exasperated them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
:lol: I guess it is a woman thing. :p When i said I identified more with Gerald, I meant his view of reality and the fact that he's an engineer. But still he's more masculine than Birkin. Birkin seems like a gloomy preacher. I guess even gloomy preachers have their female admirers. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I especially like gloomy preachers. :lol:
I even liked Dimesdale in Scarlett Letter - he was pretty gloomy. Well, I liked him best in the film version with Demi Moore - well, I know *now everyone groans*. Well it was probably the actor I liked and that version's sexy scenes.:lol: I know it deviated from the book drastically.
Virgil, Seriously, I can see you identifying with Gerald, but not by the end and also - would you beatup on your horse at the railway crossing like he did?
A very nice chapter Janine :nod: I like the conversation between Gudrun and Gerald on the island and i also like how Lawrence changes the scene from a romantic one to a more dramatic (with the accident on the lake).Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You and Virgil both know a lot about Lawrence's life and what Virgil says makes sense, since i know some authors who were indeed sympathetic towards fascism. But i can see, by what you both say, that Lawrence's preferences were more obscure and difficult to determine. It is quite clear to me by now that he underwent many changes in many things throughout his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I prefer Birkin too, but i don't know if i consider him the central character. At least not yet ;) . One thing is sure, that all the main topics - ideas are introduced mainly by him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
We'll see what happens with my admiration for Birkin as the novel goes on. As it so happens, I make fun of misanthropes in real life :lol:
manolia, I found the conversation on the island quite interesting and really so much to think about. Did you think that Birkin wavered in some parts of that conversation in trying to say exactly what he wanted to say? I felt he was still floundering around with his preaching and ideas and struggling to get it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
***Sorry I must have mixed this scene up with the other one you were talking about - you might not have come to this chapter yet. This chapter I believe is called "The Island".
BUT in the "Picnic" chapter, you are right I liked the conversation between Gerald and Gudrun very much. It was also quite revealing and interesting in their interaction to each other. How about when she slapped him. What did you think of that and his reaction?
Yes, I liked the way "The Picnic" changed so suddenly at the end, too. The whole tone of the story took a turn, changed abruptly. It really catches one by surprise and brings everyone back to dire reality. Good way of putting it going "from a romantic one to a more dramatic". I quite agree.
***Again - you might not be up to this scene (below) and this chapter. If not, leave this question till later on.
I have a question about that "Island" chapter - didn't Birkin mention the term 'queen bee' somewhere in the conversation or in his description of Ursuala? I recall it coming up in my writing and I should have marked it, since I can't locate it again. It could be this chapter or another. It came as curious to me since Lawrence referred to his wife Frieda as the QB - queen bee.
Birkin later, in that same Island scene, does state:
"She sat like a strange queen, almost supernatural in her glowing smiling richness."
Definitely. Good observation on your part. He is hard to study for just that reason. He can seem very obscure at times and very changable. I suppose his basic philosophies stayed constant and his basic themes in the books, but Lawrence, over the space of his lifetime, did go through various stages and did alter his views some, making studying him a real challenge.Quote:
You and Virgil both know a lot about Lawrence's life and what Virgil says makes sense, since i know some authors who were indeed sympathetic towards fascism. But i can see, by what you both say, that Lawrence's preferences were more obscure and difficult to determine. It is quite clear to me by now that he underwent many changes in many things throughout his life.
I sympathise or identify more with Birkin and his wanting to shed the conventionality of life and the soridness of industrialism, etc. I can feel for his confusion and his being trapped in many ways. He wants to break out and be himself and be whole. I can relate to this and it may be what really attracts me to this book. I felt so far as you do, that Birkin did introduces the main topics of the book, this is why I felt he is the main or central character.Quote:
I prefer Birkin too, but i don't know if i consider him the central character. At least not yet ;) . One thing is sure, that all the main topics - ideas are introduced mainly by him.
It is true that he tends to be very 'preachy' and they say this of Lawrence; it was often held against him. Publishers suggested to him not to be so "preachy". He was very preachy in his first novel "The White Peacock". I think he felt he was a sort of 'priest' or 'prophet' with his unique ideas and philosophies, and being young he wanted to relay them eagerly. He had a great deal of zest and enthusiasm. I think this book reflects that, also. I don't really see Birkin as a dreay preacher, but rather a being trying to be heard in the wilderness.
*** some editing I did of my post