June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

I've just finished the book and my first thought is that it is very much a soap opera.

I haven't read all of the posts so forgive me if I bring up something that has already been discussed.

Geralds reaction to those statues, perhaps that is his reaction to Gudrun's world. She's the artist, he's the logical businessman maybe a forshadowing of their inability to stay together.

Somebody mentioned that Loerke was a homosexual, how do we know this? Did I miss that part? I got the impression that he was hetero from that parts that described his inability to approach let alone speak to Gudrun.

Quote:

---

Again we get this "what next" for Gerald if he had lived. Whither? And it's apparent to Birkin that there was nothing left for Gerald.

---

This screams Soap Opera, why isn't there anything left for Gerald???

Just read those pages you scanned Janine for the second time. Thanks for sharing :)

Hi Manolia, Glad you read it again and got something of value out of it. This same author - Worthen - wrote the current L biography I am reading - it is only the first half called "The Early Years"; very detailed; I also own the second half called "Life of an Outsider". Shall I scan more of the Introduction for you? I think there may be about 8 pages left, on here it won't appear to be that long...just in the paperback edition. I will check my book and see where I left off. I am reading a "Casebook" now on "The Rainbow"and "Women in Love". It is quite interesting; renewed it at my library tonight, but I have ordered it online used. It is something I would like to add to my collection. I read another one as well, also ordered that one but I scanned much of it - "The Sons and Lovers Casebook"; the scans will come in real handy, later on, when we read and discuss the S&L's on here this fall. How many books did I say I owned on L? Well add a few new finds to the list. Probably up to about 25 now.

Women In Love is my personal favorite of Lawrence's books. I feel that it is his most complete representation of his views on life, individuality, and marriage. The true joy in the novel comes from comparing the relationship of Birkin and Ursula with that of Gerald and Gudrun. As a result, one can see that true marriage must result from free passion and a divorce from the dehumanizing industrialization. Rupert and Ursula were able to create an entirely new world within themselves. This is contrasted with the relationshp of Gerald and Gudrun. Gerald could not break from industrialization and was left wanting more from work. Gudrun was left wanting actual passion and resorted to affairs. Rupert and Ursula found contenment, while Gerald and Gudrun's relationship ended when Gerald died.

Hi mcvv09, I see you are new to the forum, so let me welcome you! I am so glad you stopped by this thread to comment. I too find this to be my favorite Lawrence novel. I feel it is Lawrence most complete and perfect work - really his masterpiece. We have been discussing the book in extensive detail (mostly two month's ago, as our monthly book read) and have written 19 pages of posts, quite ambitious for one month's time! I hope you find the time to read some of the entries, if not all. I think you will gather much in the way of new ideas and information from doing so. The novel is a complex one, as all of Lawrence's writings are.

We currently have active threads on Lawrence - one on his short stories and one on his Tortoise poems, the second will resume next month, if anyone else in addition to myself is interested.

I am an avid fan of Lawrence and have read 3 full biographies on the man and have real nearly all his novels. I am currently reading a later, more obscure novel "The Plumed Serpent".

Several of the participants in the short story thread will be reading "Sons and Lover's" sometime this fall and discussing it. During Christmas vacation we are planning to read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" - same group.

I hope you can join in with some, or all, of these threads that are in progress or will be starting up soon. If you have not read Lawrence's short stories you are in for an interesting experience - discussions have been quite enthralling and I hope you can join in our group.

Have a great weekend and glad I caught your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

http://www.online-literature.com/aut...h_lawrence.jpg

In June we will be reading Women in Love by DH Lawrence:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...0742461&sr=1-1

Online Copy

Book Club Regulations

---

He is one of my unfavorites and he had greatly influenced me. Many of my ideas about life and the world are formed and shaped by Lawrence. One of th e creations of him that touched me beyond limits is Piano. This poem is so deeply rooted that I feel like crying whenever I read this, so nostalgically presented, a perfect relationship between mother and son. When e read his poems we get transported to the domain he writes about.

Blaze, did you mean to write 'unfavorites'? I am curious. I am sorry I have missed that other thread in which we were discussing Lawrence's work and ideas and nature. I have been preoccuppied with two other Lawrence threads that are currently very active - Sons and Lovers and Short Stories. I will try to post something in your thread about Lawrence's domain tomorrow. I did not mean to be absent from there so long.

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspian

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

---

Nice to see you back, caspian! Glad you are further exploring the novels or my favorite author - DHL....good writing, eh? Yes, the men were fully-fleshed out - you are correct on that observation, I believe. Your plan to read "The Rainbow" is a good one. Virgil will probably comment in here since he loves that novel best of all of L's novels. I now think I love them all but before "Women in Love" has been my favorite. I read in the same sequence that you are reading - WIL first and the TR next. It will not hurt to do so since both novels are quite complete without each other although a deeper understanding might be said to be acquired by reading both. I would think so since L conceived both stories to be one novel orginally, and then split them up, knowing they would be too long, for just one novel (together).

I think it a good plan after reading TR to go back, as you say, and reread WIL for refreshing. I read the novel twice and I acquired a lot more from it the second time around. I just bought a new copy of TR, so it is on my reading list for probably next year unless sooner. I read it before, as I said, but now it is time for a rereading - definitely, because I am sure my perspective on Lawrence has changed significantly since I first read this novel in my youth. Lawrence, himself, felt that all novels or great works should be read at least twice; I read this acknowlegement in a letter he wrote. I can truly see his point now and agree whole-heartedly.

I saw the film and so did Virgil. We both agree that it did fluctuate much from the original story and Virgil felt it feel very short of getting some of the ideas across. I recall the film being quite progressive and acclaimed in it's day so I think it set out to show some of what Lawrence was saying but films always do fall short. Still at the time it was a bit of a revelations and a well made film I think. I own the film but now when watching it I am sure I will see how very very different it is from the story. For one thing Gerald is blond in the book and dark haired brooding in the film. Yes, at times Rupert is clownish in the film or funny but in the book there were shred of that in his way I think but not so much. Also one whole scene with the fig - I wondered where they even got that from - it was not in the text of the book at all! Film-makers can be so funny in that I suppose they have to appeal to an audience and the masses when making films and lose sight sometimes of the orginal book. But all in all I don't feel it was a bad production - just limited. They did get the wrestling scene pretty accurate and also the ending. That was something quite amazing.

I think that V read "Rabbit, run" so I will let him comment on that.
"Owen Meany" I liked but probably would never read again. I had some issues with that book and it seemed so long, at times. You can read my comments in the OM thread. I do like Irving to some degree - basically he is a good writer, with interesting ideas, but I don't think heis great, but I am not normally one to read contemporary authors too often, so I am biased in that way.
Virgil might comment also on OM, but then again this is a WIL thread. haha - how we all overlap - right?
Nice to see this thread reoppened again - by that I mean active. I believe these threads should continue forever, you know.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caspian

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

---

I'm glad you're reading The Rainbow. That is actually my favorite of Lawrence's novels. I guess it would be hard to read the ending of Women In Love while at the beach. ;) Seems incongruous.

Any questions or comments of A Prayer for Owen Meany are supposed to go here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...any#post403911

And on Rabitt, Run here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=27094&page=2

Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heraclitus

Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.

---

Fantastic! Hello heraclitus, and welcome to this great forum. As you may have surmised, I am a huge Lawrence fan, from my signature and photo above it - called the Lawrence tree by Georgia O'Keefe, which someone has recently pointed out to me is actually hanging upside-down;;) I just have not changed it yet.
Anyway, I have read many Lawrence biographies and most of what Lawrence has written and your questions are not easy ones to answer. There is another person, as interested as I am, in Lawrence work, Virgil;he wrote his thesis on Lawrence and L's ideas of 'Transfiguration' in his later works. Unfortunately, V is temporarily away from the computer this weekend, but will be back next week, and active on the site I am sure.

At anyrate, you have come to the right place to discuss Lawrence work, although this particular discussion on "Women in Love" basically took place nearly one year ago; however threads never technically close and I still love to discuss this great book, so if I see someone comment I come in a try to address the post. "Women in Love" has always been my favorite Lawrence book, but the more I learn, myself, about Lawrence, the more I see his ideas presented in other books, I can see that in WIL ,they were far from definitive or final for Lawrence. You have to understand that indeed, Lawrence was influenced in his early years and beyond by Freud and by Nietzche, but Lawrence never truly adopted their philosophies precisely; remember he was just 'influenced' by their writings. Lawrence very much had his own set of ideas, which changed and developed in the space of his short life span. He died of TB in his early 40's. If you were to read more of his books, and I don't know how much you have read, you would see this exploration of Lawrence's beliefs and know it is not a simple question that you present here on your forum post. Actually, much of what you say is good and true, but actually Lawrence did feel he was a highly religious person, but his religion was not of the conventional or easily explained aspect. Lawrence did believe in a higher power or powers; it is very complicated to explain and only by absorbing more of his writings can one come up with their own conclusion to just what exactly Lawrence did believe in. It has been a long pursuit for me and I still soak up whatever I can find to read of Lawrence's because of my own curiosity on the subject.

Currently, I would like to alert you to other Lawrence discussions - one active now Lawrence short stories thread, which has been running now over a year and is very successful. If you are inclined, feel free to come and and join in our discussions; we discuss one story monthly; this month is "The Blind Man" and can be found on this very site, under Lawrence's main page. You will actually learn much about how Lawrence thought and believed from those stories. We have all learned much and continue to do so. Plus the discussions are a lot of fun.

In the near spring we plan on reading "The Rainbow" and discussing that novel. Have you read it? It actually is the prequel to "Women in Love" but most definitely can be read independently. I read it that way actually; read WIL firstly. Later on, perhaps in the summer, we planned a reading of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I hope all of these novels interest you. I, especially love to recruit newcomers to the Lawrence threads. Hope you can join us.

everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reading

everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy

---

Well hello reading and welcome to the forum!

Yes, you are absolutely correct assuming that. I am probably the biggest fan of all of Lawrence's on this site, along with Virgil; I have made it my life goal to read all that Lawrence has written (at least, all that I can find available). I did read several biographies and started a 4th. I'm rather addicted by now, to say the least. Lawrence is my favorite author.

Oddly enough, I just finished "The Virgin and the Gipsy". I read this book years ago and loved it, but strange as it may seem when I picked it up again, I could not recall much from my earlier reading.

A few others I have read lately have been the same way. I read "Love Among the Haystakes" a couple of weeks ago; another repeat reading and I liked that book very much, as well. Have you read any other of his books? I have been trying to read his shorter works of fiction, such as the length of "The Virgin and the Gipsy". Also, on this forum is a discussion thread of Lawrence's short stories, which I have been active in since the beginning. I recently dropped out for a time, due to some problems that cropped up and I need a rest myself. It is also possible the thread will take a rest until fall; that is not certain so don't quote me.

This is odd; I came into this thread the other day, actually to see if it still existed. This was last year's discussion on the novel "Women in Love"; this discussion group was great; the discussion highly sucessful. How in the world did you ever find this thread? Probably by just putting 'Lawrence' into the search, right? The participants in this thread had expressed a desire to discuss another full-length Lawrence novel in the future. The one that will probably be discussed next will be "The Rainbow" since we did discuss "Sons and Lovers", as one of the regular monthly reads (also a very enlightening discussion). If you have not read that novel, I would highly recommend it to you. It was Lawrence's first well known novel and basically it is drawn from his his own life and family (basically autobiographical in origin).

If you are just beginning to discover D.H.Lawrence, let me suggest a few short works you may want to begin with. I would highly recommend these pieces of shorter fiction (Novellas):

Love Among the Haystakes
The Fox
The Ladybird

And any or all of the short stories. You can take a peek in the short story thread to see the ones we have discussed in the past year. One one of the pages we did list those. I will try and find that page and list them here for you. There are a lot of posts to wade through to find them but I think I know about where they are in that thread.

Hope all this helps. It might be fun to start a separate thread on "The Virgin and the Gipsy", if I do I will let you know. There is a movie adaptation of the book which I am considering buying. I saw it on Amazon.

Glad to see this thread is still open but I am frankly confused as to why the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread is closed or appears to be. I am posting here now to assure this stays open because I wish to copy this thread to my hard-drive - the discussion was so good.

First, sorry if the following has been gone over before, but I didn't want to go back over the whole thread till I've finished the book. Too many spoilers.

What excites me principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown at times as an overbearing preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But am I right?

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing genitals through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover that glaring ommission of the great 18th and 19th century novelists: sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. Amongst its many other achievements, WIL is a brave stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex. The powerful scene where Gerald, on the brink of the void, goes to Gudrun's room and pours his 'poison' into her, and is relieved, exposes a vital truth; it's an overwhelming vindication for the advent of the sex scene in literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carpalim

What I love principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown as a preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But am I right?

---

I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.

Quote:

---

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.

---

Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.

---

A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)


[/QUOTE]Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are sprinklings here and there. 'Nana' by Zola comes to mind. Don't remember much in Hardy, but then I only read him at school - perhaps they only gave us 'clean' ones (Mayor of Casterbridge, Return of the Native).

Glad to see a newcomer to the Women in Love thread. Welcome Carpalim! It is good to see a new face here. "Women in Love" happens to be my favorite Lawrence novel and I have read nearly all of them by now. In fact, I am working now on the more obscure ones. You can't tell I am a Lawrence fanatic, can you? Anyway, I enjoyed reading your very well thoughtout and written post. I think that definitely "Women in Love" is a kind of grabbling towards Lawrence's true goals and perspective in life, and he is stuggling with his beliefs. He has already been accused, at this point, of being too 'preachy' and so he is definitely projecting his personality onto Birkin. The majority of critics will agree that Birkin most certain does represent Lawrence. This does not say it shows us a Lawrence without doubts and flaws - to the contrary, Lawrence know what they are. In a sense from the beginning of this novel to the end is a personal journey for Lawrence. He is working out his own existence in the pages and he is also seeing the characters around him as only he could perceive them. For instance, Hermoine Rondice is also representative of Lady Ottoline Morrel, who later Lawrence had a falling-out with. You can well see why, when she recognised her character in the novel. Of course, she and L did not have an affair or sexual relationship, but she very much portrays her personality. Ursula is of course, representative of Lawrence real wife, Frieda. At anyrate, you are correct, in thinking that at times in the novel Lawrence is poking some fun at himself. I agree about the humor in the conversations, even though there is a great deal of gravity and meaning, as well. Many people do not realise just how humorous Lawrence was in real life. He could actually be the life of the party and loved mimicry and charades. I think that Birkin's playful personality does indeed reflect that of Lawrence, at times in the novel.

I remember that when we discussed this book awhile back, a few people started out not liking Birkin at all. I did not quite understand that, since I did like his character from the start and found him amusing, and I saw Lawrence immediately in his character. I also saw the very human aspects of the man trying desperately to break out of the norm and find his own unique world and way.

This is a good observation:

Quote:

---

A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)

---

I think a distinctive scene is when Ursula comes back at Birkin after they go off for a picnic and he had given her the rings - she really brings to light the failings in his idealogy. She tells him to go back to his spiritual wives. I just love that scene. After that Birkin does change his tune. We have all been there sometime in our lives and know that same feeling, I believe...and yes, Lawrence knew just how to beautifully express all of that and not make it ridiculous - instead it is always so truthful and totally human.

Quote:

---

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.

---

I think he was restrained by the times as is evident when he pulled out all the stops or some in "Lady Chatterly's Lover" which he had to have printed and published with his own money. However, in this part of Lawrence's career when he wrote WIL, I think the book is perfect in what it does reveal sexually. You must know that Lawrence himself was sometimes called a prude and he was certainly old-fashioned in some views. He was very much for marriage and to one woman for life. I think that by showing the plants in such a sensual way is totally Lawrence's style and it serves to not only suggest the sexual union but also to bring nature into play with humanity and I think that he is showing us that we are not any different than nature and the animal kingdom - there is the interconnectivity of all and the heavens. Lawrence abhored pornography and he did not blantantly set forth sex in his books in a pornographic way at all. He was not out to make the reader have thrills or a shock over his more intimate scenes. Instead he stayed true to his form and indeed the suggestion is much more effective. I can not imagine WIL written in any other manner. He said just enough and the text is beautiful - the scenes stand out as intense images in our minds long after the last page is read. To me this book had a great impact on my life at the time I first read it. I have since read it again and it no less has impressed me. If anything, I have been affected more so by it. Now that is a 'great' book.

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably beyond the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carpalim

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably not to be held within the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

---

Well, all literature has breaks in recording. The author chooses to fully render some things and summarize others. If the actual sex has nothing to do with the themes, then the author has crossed over into pornography. When the sex is integral to the themes, then the author needs to make a decision. Suggestiveness in deference to decorum is not necessarily a bad thing. Except for Lady Chatterly Lawrence is not really all that sexually explicit. Certainly less so than Joyce in Ulysses. In many respects Lawrence is quite prude. One can even argue that the explicitedness of Lady Chatterly was done for commercial purposes. But nonetheless it is still integral to the themes and works out well in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Carpalim

Quote:

---

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably not to be held within the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.

---

Carpalim, Anyone who comes in here and contributes is more than welcome. I like it when people show interest in Lawrence, since I am such a big fan of the author myself. Even though this discussion of the novel took place months ago, or was it a year, Virgil (?), I am quite pleased to see the thread continuing with added commentary. I would like to see all threads on serious discussions continue like this. By all means, Carpalim, do add more comments and I or Virgil will try to address them in the coming days, weeks.

You may not know this, but Lawrence wrote a very prominent essay on his thoughts concerning pornography. I have so many Lawrence books and not sure which one it is in, at this moment or I would look it up now; so let me look that up for you later on and get back to you. You might get lucky and find the essay online. I will check that out and see if I come up with it tonight. I do know that Lawrence thought that 'if sex was in the 'head' that made it pornographic' - at least that was his view. I will also find exact quotes. I think the essay would better help you understand where Lawrence was 'coming from' about revealing the sexual act blantantly in his work. Also, one must be aware that very often his publishers cut texts and yes, indeed, very often Lawrence was very angry about his work being butchered - who wouldn't be? Some of the original texts have resurfaced now and scholars of Lawrence are working hard to have them become public. Many of these original versions are now publishede and attainable. In fact Lawrence actually wrote three distinct version of LCL. In "Lady Chatterly's Lover", I don't quite agree with Virgil about this novel, being more sexually explicit, because of the commercial factor. I think by this point in Lawrence's late life, he just did not care anymore what people thought and about who was going to censor him; he had become fearless and reckless in a way. This is why he sought finally to have this book published and payed for outside the bonds of the conventional publishing world; instead independently - in fact, Lawrence, himself had it financed out of his own pocket. I therefore, do not see it as a money-making venture - Lawrence was not like that at all. He disliked capitalism. He did not care much about things and could have lived well and high, but he choose always not to - he took the more 'untraveled' road. In someways' by standing up to publishers and doing his 'own thing', towards the end, he ended up sabataging himself; but I do not think he was ever in true need of food or the essentials in life and he was able to make enough money to travel the world throughout his life; although he was never extravagant in anyway. I have read 4 biographies by now, and much research on the author, so I know this to be a fact. He wasn't down and out poor, but he was far from rich. In fact, I think that publishing "Lady Chatterly" set him back some. The book was banned or rejected in several countries at first; there was even a big court battle in England - the famous obesity trial - one can read all about it and who stood up for Lawrence in the end. Now LCL best seller, right? Truly ironic. For the times, it was quite a scandalise book but by today's standards no one would even raise an eyelid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, all literature has breaks in recording. The author chooses to fully render some things and summarize others. If the actual sex has nothing to do with the themes, then the author has crossed over into pornography. When the sex is integral to the themes, then the author needs to make a decision. Suggestiveness in deference to decorum is not necessarily a bad thing. Except for Lady Chatterly Lawrence is not really all that sexually explicit. Certainly less so than Joyce in Ulysses. In many respects Lawrence is quite prude. One can even argue that the explicitedness of Lady Chatterly was done for commercial purposes. But nonetheless it is still integral to the themes and works out well in my opinion.

---

Virgil, That is true, about literature often breaking in the recording. I think sometimes the author does it purposely, for a certain effect. Often 'suggestion' is much more effective than spelling out the intimate details. I don't think that Lawrence avoided 'sex' in the novels one bit. He used 'sensuality' and connected the natural elements in nature and the animal kingdom with the human-being. Look at the scene in WIL, when Birkin runs out of the house into the fields or woods, after Hermoine hits him in the head. He fleas from her falsity and strips naked and is one with the natural world again - undergoing a sort of cleansing of his body and soul. The naked wrestling scene may not be 'sexual' in nature, but it certainly was the epitomy of the 'sensual' and it was so well written and imagined. The catkin scene is a good one, and shows the way in which Lawrence tied all of nature in with man. I happen to love that scene, since it also shows the difference in the two women's thinking and later actions.

Yes, Virgil, you're right that an author can't record everything, and must be selective in what he shows. But what I meant was the break in the tone, the change in focus, whenever the sex crops up. Lawrence, who has throughout the novel maintained his amazing facility for recording what is entering the character's souls through their eyes, ears, noses and fingers, must artificially shut down this direct sensory intake whenever the characters 'embrace'. Birkin, on seeing the secrets of Ursula's body would have a reaction. Surely the reaction of a character like Birkin to such a thing would be of profound interest, and thoroughly relevant to the aim of rendering the three-dimensional relationship between him and Ursula. This is what he gave us in 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'. When the clothes came off, the sensory intake of the lovers kept running, we kept looking through their eyes at what they were seeing. As a result the depiction of the relationship became so fully-rounded it attained an almost unbearable truthfulness. For instance, when Lady C considers how ridiculous ultimately the movement of her lover's body is. A reaction from Gudrun to Gerald on the same level of directness would bring not pornography but simply more truth.

I'm not criticising WIL here - the relationships are obviously beautifully and masterfully rendered, including the coming-togethers. I just think it could have been even better if it had that extra dimension which graces Lady C.

If Lawrence was more explicit in LCL for commercial reasons, I'm greatly surprised, though he is too much of an artist to let the sex be anything other than a vital part of his statement.

Janine, I'd love to read L's views on 'pornography'. I must have a look for it.

I can't resist any more. Just a general word on the dreaded 'p' word. To my mind, any writing which is an honest meditation on what it is to possess a sexual organ is to be welcomed as a valid exploration into one aspect of the profundity we call the human condition, no matter how frank the vision. Such an endeavour should not concern itself with whether the public is going to be offended or 'thrilled'. Though I'd say that if the reader is thrilled as a side effect, then... well, what's the harm? A little more joy has been brought into the world!

Carpalim,

Quote:

---

If Lawrence was more explicit in LCL for commercial reasons, I'm greatly surprised, though he is too much of an artist to let the sex be anything other than a vital part of his statement.

---

Sorry to jump in here like this, but did you see my post above? I don't think he did publish the book for commercial gain; that has been well documented. Also, I think that had Lawrence written WIL, at the same time in his life, that he wrote LCL, he may very well have been more sexually and honestly expressive/explicit about the characters. I don't think when he wrote WIL, he would have gotten away with it. His prior book "The Rainbow" was banned, so he was not about to throw all caution to the wind at this point in his career, or he would end up having another banned book on his hand, which would surely mean total ruin. I don't think any publisher would have published a book such as LCL in the early year that he wrote WIL.

Janine, yes, I did see your post; it came in as I was replying to Virgil's points. I do take on board your interesting info about the circumstances of LCL's publication. I come to the thread knowing very little about L's biography and am most grateful for what I've learned from your posts.

I'm on the final chapter now, so I'll post something when I've finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carpalim

Janine, yes, I did see your post; it came in as I was replying to Virgil's points. I do take on board your interesting info about the circumstances of LCL's publication. I come to the thread knowing very little about L's biography and am most grateful for what I've learned from your posts.

I'm on the final chapter now, so I'll post something when I've finished.

---

Oh thank you; glad to help out in any way. Enjoy the ending of the novel. I will be anxious to know what you think of it. I actually have read WIL twice and thanks to a good friend, listened to the MP3 audiofile once and it is still in my player so I plan another listening to. I do think WIL is my favorite book, don't you?;)...a little obessive on my part...

Thanks, I will enjoy it! And yes, I do think WIL is your favourite book! But there's one other tiny matter regarding WIL I'd just like to mention now, which is: is there an error in the manuscript? Because in my edition, there is a glaring contradiction between the first desciption of Halliday and the second, which follows about two pages later. Initially he's described as 'swarthy' and 'slender' with 'long, solid black hair'. Then he is 'heavy' and 'fair'. Is this so in your editions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carpalim

Thanks, I will enjoy it! And yes, I do think WIL is your favourite book! But there's one other tiny matter regarding WIL I'd just like to mention now, which is: is there an error in the manuscript? Because in my edition, there is a glaring contradiction between the first desciption of Halliday and the second, which follows about two pages later. Initially he's described as 'swarthy' and 'slender' with 'long, solid black hair'. Then he is 'heavy' and 'fair'. Is this so in your editions?

---

Gee, you are observant; I have never noticed that. I will have to check the text more closely now...how curious. Do you know which chapter Halliday was introduced into the story? Then he appears later on, right? Maybe by fair he mean his skintone and maybe he gained weight...haha... really, I am just kidding. I will have to check that out and get back to you. I tend to get all those characters in that group of friends confused with each other.

I should mention this to you now. We have been planning on reading "The Rainbow" sometime in the near future. We have a number of members interested in discussing it. I have read the book years ago but hardly recall much about it now, although I cheated and watched some episodes from a BBC mini-series on Youtube. I am definitely going to reread the novel; in fact I began it a month or so ago, but then put it asside since I was in the transistion of switching to a new PC. So Carpalim, if you have read the novel or desire to, I hope you can join in our discussion when the time comes. In actuality, the novel is the prequel to WIL, although it is very conceivable to read them out of sequence - I know I did orginally. "The Rainbow" features Ursula - pre-WIL, a sort of coming of age novel.

Presently, and most likely tonight, I will be formally posting the introduction to the Lawrence short story, so you may wish to check that out. I already mentioned the name of the story so some could get started reading it. It is under 10 pages long and not too demanding at this late date of this month. Discussion should be great fun with a few new participants. Glad to have you abroad.

Halliday first appears in the London bar chapter 'Creme de Menthe'. The two contradictory descriptions take place in that chapter within two pages of each other.

I'd love to read 'The Rainbow' next, though I'm going to have a hard time getting a copy. I live in Greece whose bookshops never carry a full range of classic literature in English (though they carry some, hence my acquisition of WIL). I'll have a look though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carpalim

Halliday first appears in the London bar chapter 'Creme de Menthe'. The two contradictory descriptions take place in that chapter within two pages of each other.

---

Oh, good...I will check that chapter out tonight. This is funny, you must also be good at finding discrepencies in movies/films. I think I found one in the mini-series "Shackleton". I have watched the survival/adventure film countless times and when they are in the life boats somehow a few characters switch boats. I keep watching that part to see if I am correct but I think I am. Some people find things like this in all kinds of films and I guess books also - how funny!

Quote:

---

I'd love to read 'The Rainbow' next, though I'm going to have a hard time getting a copy. I live in Greece whose bookshops never carry a full range of classic literature in English (though they carry some, hence my acquisition of WIL). I'll have a look though...

---

Oh good, Carpalim, it would be great to have you join in the discussion. Well, the rate we are going on here, or rather me, I think you still have time to track a copy down. Can you buy on Amazon over there? I know I have seen inexpensive copies on Amazon. In fact recently I purchase a new copy on there myself; I must have lost my old copy or borrowed the book from my library on first reading - too long ago; I don't remember.
Anyway, I always feel so badly when people can't get the English books they desire to read in other countries; in the US you can find those at any bookstore and online, and they are not expensive. Well, scout around for it and it could even be in a book collection of his works. Good luck to you, C.
The other person interested in discussing "The Rainbow" lives in Greece, also. I will ask her where she got her book.

I found Women in Love a very fine book in style but strange in thought.It is perhaps bold for the period in which it was written and,despite everything,I think it's a great achievement to be able to representate different types of human character by making them also felt by the reader.However,it woke in me the same feelings as Madame Bovary.I got irritated by the passivity of some,or by the meaningless of life in some others.I am still wondering about it,though.It's a book that deserves much consideration and takes time not only to read but also to chew...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remarkable

I found Women in Love a very fine book in style but strange in thought.It is perhaps bold for the period in which it was written and,despite everything,I think it's a great achievement to be able to representate different types of human character by making them also felt by the reader.However,it woke in me the same feelings as Madame Bovary.I got irritated by the passivity of some,or by the meaningless of life in some others.I am still wondering about it,though.It's a book that deserves much consideration and takes time not only to read but also to chew...

---

Hi Remarkable - glad you are considering all aspects of this book. This is one of my favorite Lawrence novels. I have read it twice and I am on my second listening of the audiofiles. I also know much about the background and intentions of the author in putting forth this novel - one he considered to be his very best.

Yes, the passivity and the meaninglessness of life are there but one does react to that and I believe that Lawrence intended that to be his position. People in real life are passive and they have their issues. This book explores them - it is a journey one takes with Lawrence through the develpment of this great work. It is quite different than other books and that is one reason that Lawrence's own generation did not always 'get' just what he was driving at. For instance, even though this book shows nothing about war, the book does have the undertones of a war being fought in Europe. Lawrence did this mainly through his characters.

I know the more I read or listen to this novel the more, I get out of it. It is a very intricate and complex book. If you care to look back on the discussion you will see just how complex...it was one of the best discussion here on this forum and putting our heads together and referring to much outside research made me fully appreciate the depths of this book.

I just wanted to address the comment about the change in Halliday's appearance. Before the publication of this book, Lawrence was nearly sued by a friend (wish i could remember his name). The appearance and personality of Halliday was curiously similar to that of this old friend. To protect his hard earned income and royalties on the book, and in accordance with his publisher's wishes, he changed the appearance from black hair to blond. He was still sued and the man took part of his earnings for the book. Questions still arise as to whether or not he was only making a deal of it for monetary gain. The character Pussum was also inspired by the friend's wife. The character Hermione was also said to be based on a woman named Lady Ottoline Morrell, she did not sue him for libel, but the case was settled out of court. One more thing- If you all remember the part in the book when Gudrun and Gerald were in a restaurant and met Pussum, Halliday and their gang... this actually happened in Lawrence's life. His dear friend Katherine Mansfield, one of his few loyal friends, was at a restaurant and overheard two men (Kot and Gertler) making snide remarks about his collection of poems Amores. She walked over to them, asked to see the book and walked away with it, just as Gudrun did with Rupert Birkin's letter.

I really recommend reading his biography, specifically Elain Feinstein's "Lawrence and the Women." His characters are illustrated wonderfully, however they are also mainly based on close friends and family. I find it much easier to understand his novels, which were his most prized possessions, after reading about his life and inspirations. The biography is also not boring, if you do not ordinarily read them, as i do not. I found it quite interesting and I actually enjoy Lawrence much more then I did prior to reading it. Sons and Lovers is a great book as well, if you would like to learn a bit more about his earlier years from his own personal account. The short story the White Stocking is also EXTREMELY close to his own experiences with his wife Frieda. They undoubtedly loved eachother, but their relationship was on the fine line between love and hate and both were very jealous and violent with eachother (due to her D.H.'s popularity and her lack of it, and his strong fear of powerful women as well as her sexual permiscuity during their marriage).

Sorry if i interrupted, however I thought it would be beneficial to know a bit about his struggles and life if you want to further understand his novels, poems and short stories. Thank you for reading! =)

First off, welcome, manders, to the forum. I am pleased you have such an avid interest in D.H.Lawence. I share this interest whole-heartedly. The man's work and life never ceases to fascinate me.

Wow, so much here to address, so do be patient. I will work on all of this. First off, if you read any of our discussion, it took place a year or so back; however, threads never really close or end, which makes life interesting, isn't that correct? This discussion was great and then after we discussed "Sons and Lovers'. Currently, we have a very long running 'Lawrence Short Story' thread; this month we have been discussing the longer story "The Princess" - you may be aware of this fact already as attributed to your biographical readings - that this story was also based on a real person, Dorothy Brett. In fact, most of Lawrence's stories were based on someone real; often it is a challenge to find out just who he fashioned the characters after. I have read now 4 or 5 full biographies - all totally fascinating to me; I haven't read the one you mentioned but I will look into it. I have the Cambridge ones currently to tackle. I can't get the last one - "The Dying Game" because the price on that one keeps soaring; quite impossible to aquire. I have several other spin-offs that I also plan to read - one is 'The Minoan Distance'...this deals with Lawrence, during his traveling years, expecially in NM and Mexico; I haven't read all of that yet, just parts. I am quite obsessed with Lawrence, as by now, you can imagine. Still he wrote so darn much, his letters themselves take up about 8 full volumes, it is always an endless pursuit to find more Lawrence...or course I have my work cut out for me now....my goal being to read all that I do own presently. Let me get specifically to your comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manders7890

I just wanted to address the comment about the change in Halliday's appearance. Before the publication of this book, Lawrence was nearly sued by a friend (wish i could remember his name). The appearance and personality of Halliday was curiously similar to that of this old friend. To protect his hard earned income and royalties on the book, and in accordance with his publisher's wishes, he changed the appearance from black hair to blond. He was still sued and the man took part of his earnings for the book. Questions still arise as to whether or not he was only making a deal of it for monetary gain.

---

Yes, this is basically true; I and the group here, pretty much knew this and since Lawrence had first written "The Rainbow" and I believe it was banned or he was also sued for that novel, therefore he had to comply his publishers. I don't think it was profit per ce that drove Lawrence, but he had to live, also. He cared little for money or riches, but he had to support his wife and he make enough money to finally be enabled to travel to the places he desired to go. He couldn't starve; so one must understand, he could not be expected to write for no or little profit. There was an early time he had to borrow money and he abhored the idea. He paid it all back. I think also Lawrence might be inclined to change a persons hair color or his physical appearance for symbolic reasons, not just out of fear of being sued. Lawrence was always being threatened to be sued. He would verbally fight back, whenever he had the chance. Knowing what he did about the problems surrounding his publication of "The Rainbow" he was more cautious concerning "Women in Love' - the book that he considered his masterpiece. I happen to think it his best book, as well; although others on the forum may disagree with me. Virgil also knows much about Lawrence - he wrote his thesis on Lawrence's idea of 'Transfiguration'.

Quote:

---

The character Pussum was also inspired by the friend's wife. The character Hermione was also said to be based on a woman named Lady Ottoline Morrell, she did not sue him for libel, but the case was settled out of court. One more thing- If you all remember the part in the book when Gudrun and Gerald were in a restaurant and met Pussum, Halliday and their gang... this actually happened in Lawrence's life. His dear friend Katherine Mansfield, one of his few loyal friends, was at a restaurant and overheard two men (Kot and Gertler) making snide remarks about his collection of poems Amores. She walked over to them, asked to see the book and walked away with it, just as Gudrun did with Rupert Birkin's letter.

---

I don't know if I knew Pussum was based on his wife, but probably I did at the time we discussed this book. I think we discussed these connections on this thread sometime back. We all were very aware that Hermoine was based on Ottoline Morrel; that I found clearly evident in several of my biography books and other research books I keep handy; one especially helpful book is a 'timeline' and this outlines just what Lawrence was doing, where he resided and often entries from his own diary or letters to friends documenting his ideas, as he was writting various stories and novels...it is a great window into what Lawrence was thinking and doing at those times. It is a small book and probably impossible to find but worth it's weight in gold.

I don't know if I knew that Katherine Mansfield had actually lived out this scene so this interests me. Thanks for adding it to this thread - love these little tid-bits of information. I know that Lawrence and Katherine Mansfield were good friends, so this would follow to be true. She definitely would have rallied to Lawrence's defense. It was her husband, who Lawrence later split with, Murray - Murray wrote some scathing commentary on Lawrence and that was that. Kot he also split with; at one time he had been somewhat friendly. I forget about Gertler; I think that Virgil knows more about him than I do but I will look him today, because I just can't recall very much about him, although he was often mentioned by Lawrence or in the biographies which I read sometime ago - within the last 5 yrs or so.

[QUOTE]I really recommend reading his biography, specifically Elain Feinstein's "Lawrence and the Women." His characters are illustrated wonderfully, however they are also mainly based on close friends and family. [quote]

I will have to look into that biography. I actually never heard of this author but he sounds quite informed and interesting. Thanks for suggesting it.

Quote:

---

I find it much easier to understand his novels, which were his most prized possessions, after reading about his life and inspirations. The biography is also not boring, if you do not ordinarily read them, as i do not. I found it quite interesting and I actually enjoy Lawrence much more then I did prior to reading it.

---

I am in total agreement with this statement and thought of yours. I say it all the time; one can't separate the art from the artist's life and influences, nor the writing from the author's biography - at least not in Lawrence's case...his personal biography definitely inhances and aids the understanding of any of Lawrence's works. I am not a big biography reader either but I was totally captivated by every biography I have read on Lawrence.

Quote:

---

Sons and Lovers is a great book as well, if you would like to learn a bit more about his earlier years from his own personal account. The short story the White Stocking is also EXTREMELY close to his own experiences with his wife Frieda. They undoubtedly loved eachother, but their relationship was on the fine line between love and hate and both were very jealous and violent with eachother (due to her D.H.'s popularity and her lack of it, and his strong fear of powerful women as well as her sexual permiscuity during their marriage).

---

Yes, "Sons and Lovers" is a classic! We did a full discussion on the novel about a year ago also. How time flies! It was an excellent discussion and discussion group. I hope you can find the thread and review it. I think you will find it highyly informative and interesting. I read the book twice now and the same with "Women in Love"...actually WIL I also listened to an audio-recording now two times - I love it and intend to listen to it again sometime. It is saved on disks and my PC.

In the 'L Short Story' thread, we discussed in-depth 'The White Stocking'...we were aware from the start of the discussion that the idea was based on an incident which happend to Lawrence's mother. I truly was not that aware of his and his wife, Frieda's, connection to this story; this is an early story, so I thought this was prior to all the problems the married couple encountered later on, when say, they had been married 10 yrs or so. All you say about their relationship is true, but I am not sure this story directly connects with them as a newly married couple. I will look this up, since I own a commentary book exclusively on the early fiction of Lawrence - the author, Michael Black, goes into accurate detail concerning this story and it's background, among other stories of Lawrence's. I may be wrong and have just forgotten that connection - it would seem somewhat logical. The M. Black book has helped greatly in the short story discussion group. I hope you will be able to join us in our next discussion, which may either be in January or February - we have not decided on the next one yet. We may skip a month; we had discussed that idea.

Quote:

---

Sorry if i interrupted, however I thought it would be beneficial to know a bit about his struggles and life if you want to further understand his novels, poems and short stories. Thank you for reading! =)

---

Oh don't be sorry; I am so glad you showed up and your comments are very helpful. Like I said the groups never really die out or end. I hope I have been of help to you, as well. We do however know about his many struggles in life....I believe that is one good reason I am so drawn to the author and of course, he fought against all odds, having such poor health....but his genius was always evident.

Feel free to post again or contact me about Lawrence and I hope sincerely you join our short story discussion group. Also, and in limbo, currently there is a poetry thread on L called "Baby Tortoise" - we attempted to discuss this group of poems but only got so far; hopefully one of these days we will continue and finish up. The poems are wonderful; all of L's poems are terrific and deeply meaningful.

Thanks Manders. Perhaps you can join us in other Lawrence readings. We're hoping to do The Rainbow sometime in the early spring.