Printable View
hey you guys, I tried to take out a collection of D.H. Lawrence's short stories at the public library today, so I could join your group. but it was either taken out or they don't have it. I'll try again at my univ library tomorrow. which story are you discussing at the moment/ will you be discussing next?
Also, so far all the stories we have dicussed here can be found online, if you are unable to get a book.
We are currently discussing The Blind Man
Sure thing. Take your time. I hope you can find your book, but if not, the full-text is on this site. There still is a few more days left in this month, until we go onto a new story. Virgil, can I choose the new one again? I can email you and let you know, which ones I might be considering. I had read a number of L's stories last month, when I was sick and recouperating, so I could choose from one of those. Also, I plan on reading a few more in the next few days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I am taking a sort of short break from posting currently. I need a rest badly. I will start up next month. This week may be quite busy for me, but I will check in when you post your comments on the climax. Will be interested to hear what you have to say about that scene.
I read your post (both posts), and I think that's a good description of their problems. Thanks for filling in this part of the story with some biographical info. I didn't respond to it earlier because I agreed with it; and, with so many posts, it would get tedious nodding to everything that's well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Did we not comment on that? I guess it depends on what you call the climax.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If that fails, you could always pick up a cheap used copy on Amazon. Or, you could do what Janine does and print off the story straight from LitNet. In any case hope you can join in. We need some new people, or else we're going to get all cliqueish in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
Hi there SleepWitch, so glad to see you here and certainly hope you can join in next month. You will love these discussions. So far they have been great. We have a good group and you will be an added asset for certain. I think the beginning of April would be a good time for you to start. We are pretty much done with this current story, even though it is a fine story and you might want to read it anyway, on your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
I will probably pick the next story, since I read quite a number of L's short stories last month, in order to find some good/interesting ones for the thread. I will probably read more this week or by Monday and post something on Monday; that is if, everyone is in agreement that I can, once again, choose the story. I know so many of them and own all three of the books in the "Lawrence Complete Short Stories" set, so I guess I have earned 'Lawrence seniority'. In Chekhov thread, Quark has 'Chekhov seniority'.;) We are waiting on him now to pick a new story, right Q?
As Quark, pointed out, I have been printing out the stories in the Chekhov thread, for myself. I also do this: I copy the story first to my Word program and then send a 'short-cut' to my desktop. This really makes it easy when reviewing the text and posting quoted passages.
When I choose the next L story, I will also post a link to the story text online. Most can be found right here on this site, but some we needed to find other places on the internet.
Yes, the more participants the more interesting the thread is. Glad you found your way here SW! Welcome!:)
that's a really neat idea! But as for reading them, I can't read on the comp. at all. I'm sure I can get them at the English department's library, though :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I don't know anything about Lawrence or short stories in general :( will check in a Lit encyclopedia at univ today
Oh, sorry I couldn't be on last night. I had a personal emergency. Mom got a blood clot in her leg (for those that don't know she's been in rehab after a hip replacement operation at the beginning of the month) and had to be taken to the emergency room.
Quark, I take the climax to be the touch exchange between Maurice and Bertie. I have a point or two to make about it.
Sleepy: Glad to have you on board. Janine would like to pick the next story. I didn't think we did this on a monthly basis but on whenever we felt we had exhausted a particular story. I think we are near completing the current story, "The Blind Man."
Janine: Let me know which story you would like to discuss next.
Glad you like the suggestion. It came to me one day; it would be so much easier that way. I can keep it minimized on my bottom bar and bring it up periodically, when I need to refer to the text, or quote something. Also, once I made two shortcuts, used one to highlight the areas I wanted to discuss and then wrote a commentary, as I reviewed the text in another window. I am sort of window happy somedays!;) One can tile vertically also, to pull all the windows up at once on the screen.Quote:
Originally Posted by SleepyWitch
SleepyWitch, I can't read well from the screen either; we 'glasses' folks can't. I even wear biofocals and can't see the type right. I usually have to take them off to see the screen and sit close, then I get a backache.:( Anyway, I can only read and review segments on the screen, so I print out the whole story and usually read it in bed, before I go to sleep.
Yes, your university should have the stories or can you request your library get them for you? Lawrence's short stories are usually in 3 separate volumes I,II,III. I bought 2 of mine cheap from Amazon, used ones.
Good idea to read a little about Lawrence's biography, in the Lit encyclopedia; also online there is much information. This site has a short biop and Wikipedia is helpful with a longer biop and links to other sites.Quote:
I don't know anything about Lawrence or short stories in general :( will check in a Lit encyclopedia at univ today
Quote by Virgil:
How is she today?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I think you told us in an earlier post that was what you considered as the climax. I will be anxious to hear what you have to say about it.Quote:
Quark, I take the climax to be the touch exchange between Maurice and Bertie. I have a point or two to make about it.
Thanks, so you are in agreement I can pick again. Well, let's just say, if it runs over the month, then we can sometimes continue and wait til we pick the next one, especially with the longer stories - such as "The Prussian Officer" that was three parts and about what - 30+ pages. I think with this particular story, which is fairly short, if we discuss it much longer we will be quilty of 'beating it to death'. So we should wrap up discussions soon on this story, what do you think, V? Post your final comments on the ending and the climax; then we will move on.Quote:
Sleepy: Glad to have you on board. Janine would like to pick the next story. I didn't think we did this on a monthly basis but on whenever we felt we had exhausted a particular story. I think we are near completing the current story, "The Blind Man."
I have to review them this week/weekend and let everyone know. I have read quite a few so far. I will be thinking about it in the next few days, so I will email you with suggestions,V, ok?Quote:
Janine: Let me know which story you would like to discuss next.
I will try to keep it to a short one again for everyone's sake. I know I will be busy this coming month, with spring arriving, etc.
Well, I read The Blind Man, seeing as that appears to be what you are discussing at the moment... and I have to say I quite liked it... Lawrence does seem to almost lose himself inside the characters at times and it is something I love in a writer (explaining my love for Dostoevsky), so if you all don't mind and have space for another lost soul wandering aimlessly on a literary highway, could I please, please join the discussion!:D
well, as I see you are just wrapping up with this story as well, I guess I will just say what I took from it, some basic thoughts... By the way, in reading over the posts previously made upon this story, there is a lot there that helps make the story even more interesting, things I didn't think of, or notice.. so thank you all...
I found the gulf between Maurice and Isabel to be quite interesting... it seems as though the nearness necessitated by his blindness and their ensuing failure to retain friendship with anyone else, it seems it only drives a further wedge between them on another level... It is almost as though they strive too hard to retain and keep the intense passion burning, as though they, almost to an insincere and faked, degree are only interested in one another and all else bores them, or at least they seem to try and convince themselves to make up for possible shortcomings... or so i found...
But the problem I found for them, is that Maurice seems unable to relate to Isabel in a physical/visceral sense any longer although he depends on it, and Isabel seems to be always wondering if there is something deeper inside Maurice that is hidden from even her, inaccessible to all... and the biggest issue in all this is that Maurice is more of a corporeal nature sort, whereas Isabel is more of strength of mind, explaining her friendship with Bertie and her sometimes disillusionment with the slow nature of Maurice... But I found Maurice, now blind cannot express his thoughts and feelings, and their moments of intense happiness are those when he does not have to... but being blind he cannot depend on this any longer, and he broods as to whether he can make her happy, whether she is sad with him, and that explains why he asks Bertie at the end... and Isabel knows he is constantly brooding and somewhat melancholy outside of their moments of being completely alone with the passion of viscerality, but she cannot understand it, cannot relate, cannot comprehend this, for Maurice cannot let it out, is unable to explain, and she, seems unable to search his depths for it, maybe due to the fact she can no longer look into his eyes... they seem lost with each other when others are around, or when thinking of what they are doing to one another, it is only when they let go of all this, and allow passion to rule that they are happy and content with one another, and can think of other as such as well...
the climax, I found to be Bertie's hands held to Maurice's eyes... It is quite a powerful scene.. Maurice has brought Bertie into an intimacy no one else, besides Isabel, and maybe not even the same with Isabel, but no one else has seen or felt, or known... He has made Bertie a lover of sorts, and Bertie is unable to handle this intimacy, it almost destroys him... in a sense it does... but on the contrary it rejuvenates Maurice, it allows him to relate again to someone, and I believe allows him to draw closer to Isabel and relax his grip on melancholy brooding on her happiness... and all this because he cannot realize Bertie's reaction of dread.. though you would think he would feel it... hmmm... maybe he does but it is irrelevant to him, he loves him with friendship all the same, having opened himself up in the only way he knows, the physical body... and now he knows Bertie is okay... he isn't the aloof, ironical, somewhat superior scotsman he had thought... For even I found Bertie's questioning about
I found that to be slightly offensive, not awful, definitely not malignant or on purpose, but I believe it would have bothered and offended Maurice,... and then Bertie continues with it at Isabel when Maurice leaves... and I think he doesn't understand it for neither can explain, Maurice knows it, Isabel sense it but can't understand it, and Bertie feels the power of it, through the new intimacy at the end... his reserve has been cracked and not by a woman... but by a blind man, he feels that something else and his "insane reserve" wilts against its power... he is helpless, and his self in that sense is destroyed... whereas Maurice is elated by knowing someone else can feel it... and Isabel is torn between the two.. the elation of Maurice, and the destruction of Bertie...Quote:
'And that is a relief,' said Bertie. 'But what is there in place of the bothering? What replaces the activity?'
There was a pause. At length the blind man replied, as out of a negligent, unattentive thinking:
'Oh, I don't know. There's a good deal when you're not active.'
'Is there?' said Bertie. 'What, exactly? It always seems to me that when there is no thought and no action, there is nothing.'
Again Maurice was slow in replying.
'There is something,' he replied. 'I couldn't tell you what it is.'
Lastly I do believe Bertie is homosexual, though I could be entirely out in left field here, but I believe it is implied... which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..
Great story.. and I look forward to reading more your thoughts... and of course, the next story..
cheers:)
Hey welcome to the conversation Climber. I'm glad you liked the story and D.H. Lawrence. He really is a great short story writer. I'm also glad you pushed the conversation to the climax. I've been meaning to, but some personal issues have really preoccupied me lately. Let me see if I can respond to some of your thoughts.
Yes, the more one reads Lawrence the more one finds this uncanny ability he has to get into the consciousness, and though I hate this term, the unconsciousness of the key characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Are you saying the nearness between the married couple drives a wedge between them? My interpretation has been that they are quite satisfied with each other and the relationship but that the outside world seems to intrude. But I think that requires some modification which I think your observation suggests. It's like they have done that (be happy with each other) so what's next? It's been a year or so, now what? They as a couple need to do something else because they can't remain static. Human longings take over, although I suspect that maurice would be quite happy in his elemnt if he were left alone. But he's not alone, he's married and linked with Isabel and as a couple they can't just remain static.Quote:
I found the gulf between Maurice and Isabel to be quite interesting... it seems as though the nearness necessitated by his blindness and their ensuing failure to retain friendship with anyone else, it seems it only drives a further wedge between them on another level... It is almost as though they strive too hard to retain and keep the intense passion burning, as though they, almost to an insincere and faked, degree are only interested in one another and all else bores them, or at least they seem to try and convince themselves to make up for possible shortcomings... or so i found...
I'm not sure I see that. Where in the text do you think that's suggested? He's certainly has impregnated her, so they have intimacy.Quote:
But the problem I found for them, is that Maurice seems unable to relate to Isabel in a physical/visceral sense any longer
That I completely agree with. It's that other world consciousness that Maurice has.Quote:
and Isabel seems to be always wondering if there is something deeper inside Maurice that is hidden from even her, inaccessible to all...
I think this has been discussed and we pretty much agree.Quote:
and the biggest issue in all this is that Maurice is more of a corporeal nature sort, whereas Isabel is more of strength of mind, explaining her friendship with Bertie and her sometimes disillusionment with the slow nature of Maurice... But I found Maurice, now blind cannot express his thoughts and feelings, and their moments of intense happiness are those when he does not have to... but being blind he cannot depend on this any longer, and he broods as to whether he can make her happy, whether she is sad with him, and that explains why he asks Bertie at the end... and Isabel knows he is constantly brooding and somewhat melancholy outside of their moments of being completely alone with the passion of viscerality, but she cannot understand it, cannot relate, cannot comprehend this, for Maurice cannot let it out, is unable to explain, and she, seems unable to search his depths for it, maybe due to the fact she can no longer look into his eyes... they seem lost with each other when others are around, or when thinking of what they are doing to one another, it is only when they let go of all this, and allow passion to rule that they are happy and content with one another, and can think of other as such as well...
Completely agree. When I get home tonight (I'm at work now) hopefully I'll have time to go through that climax scene and pull out further thoughts.Quote:
the climax, I found to be Bertie's hands held to Maurice's eyes... It is quite a powerful scene.. Maurice has brought Bertie into an intimacy no one else, besides Isabel, and maybe not even the same with Isabel, but no one else has seen or felt, or known... He has made Bertie a lover of sorts, and Bertie is unable to handle this intimacy, it almost destroys him... in a sense it does... but on the contrary it rejuvenates Maurice, it allows him to relate again to someone, and I believe allows him to draw closer to Isabel and relax his grip on melancholy brooding on her happiness... and all this because he cannot realize Bertie's reaction of dread.. though you would think he would feel it... hmmm... maybe he does but it is irrelevant to him, he loves him with friendship all the same, having opened himself up in the only way he knows, the physical body... and now he knows Bertie is okay... he isn't the aloof, ironical, somewhat superior scotsman he had thought... For even I found Bertie's questioning about
What is it you find offensive?Quote:
I found that to be slightly offensive, not awful, definitely not malignant or on purpose, but I believe it would have bothered and offended Maurice
Yes I wanted to bring this out about Bertie. Why is he destroyed by this simple exchange? His identity rests soley on a mental consciousness, and the touch with this other worlld, this blood consciousness, this world that animals reside in, is as repelant as oil and water. This contact aniliates (sp?) his very identity. While Maurice enlarges his world by the contact, Bertie shrinks from it.Quote:
and then Bertie continues with it at Isabel when Maurice leaves... and I think he doesn't understand it for neither can explain, Maurice knows it, Isabel sense it but can't understand it, and Bertie feels the power of it, through the new intimacy at the end... his reserve has been cracked and not by a woman... but by a blind man, he feels that something else and his "insane reserve" wilts against its power... he is helpless, and his self in that sense is destroyed... whereas Maurice is elated by knowing someone else can feel it... and Isabel is torn between the two.. the elation of Maurice, and the destruction of Bertie...
Not at all out of field. The story behind the story is that Bertie is modeled on Bertram Russell, the philosopher, who at one point was friends with Lawrence, and which they had a famous break. Lawrence realized Russell was pure mental consciousness (especially the type of philosophy Russell was involved with) and was removed from tangible real life, and one who complete doesn't grasp what Lawrence referred to as blood consciousness.Quote:
Lastly I do believe Bertie is homosexual, though I could be entirely out in left field here, but I believe it is implied...
Can you elaborate on that? I've wondered why Bertie is incapeable of intimacy and it's linked by implication to his homosexuality. Homosexuality creeps into a number of Lawrence's works and some critics have thought he was a closet homosexual or a repressed homosexual. My reading of Lawrence is that he isn't, but i guess it's a contrversy. I think people confuse our current understanding of homosexuality with whatever notion Lawrence had of it. I think Lawrence has a particualr understanding of homosexuality in this story, and i'm not sure I know what it is. For instance, Maurice gets a sort of pleasure out of this exchange, and we know he's not homosexual.Quote:
which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..
Hey look, I was not the only one. When we first started talking about the story, the very first thing I said, was that I got the impression that he was a homoxexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
And they all laughed at me :(
Nah, I kid, it was all in good fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I agree completely, this is what I was trying to say, you just put it much better...Quote:
Are you saying the nearness between the married couple drives a wedge between them? My interpretation has been that they are quite satisfied with each other and the relationship but that the outside world seems to intrude. But I think that requires some modification which I think your observation suggests. It's like they have done that (be happy with each other) so what's next? It's been a year or so, now what? They as a couple need to do something else because they can't remain static. Human longings take over, although I suspect that maurice would be quite happy in his elemnt if he were left alone. But he's not alone, he's married and linked with Isabel and as a couple they can't just remain static.
I'm not sure.. for some reason I get the feel the physical intimacy they have Maurice seems to be hurt by it at times, again it is just a feeling I got witht nothing really to back it up... it seems though they are intimate, he broods on it as well..Quote:
I'm not sure I see that. Where in the text do you think that's suggested? He's certainly has impregnated her, so they have intimacy.
I don't know if offensive was the right way to put it... it just seems that Bertie is being the ironic and too smart Scot that Maurice disliked so much in earlier explanation of why the two men disliked each other... it seems he is prodding and Maurice is uncomfortable with it... so maybe not offensive, just not the right way to behave with Maurice at the time...Quote:
What is it you find offensive?
I agree completely:thumbs_upQuote:
Yes I wanted to bring this out about Bertie. Why is he destroyed by this simple exchange? His identity rests soley on a mental consciousness, and the touch with this other worlld, this blood consciousness, this world that animals reside in, is as repelant as oil and water. This contact aniliates (sp?) his very identity. While Maurice enlarges his world by the contact, Bertie shrinks from it.
Quote:
By Virgil
Not at all out of field. The story behind the story is that Bertie is modeled on Bertram Russell, the philosopher, who at one point was friends with Lawrence, and which they had a famous break. Lawrence realized Russell was pure mental consciousness (especially the type of philosophy Russell was involved with) and was removed from tangible real life, and one who complete doesn't grasp what Lawrence referred to as blood consciousness.
Quote:
which is why it is the man who cracks his mollusk shell, and melts away his reserve, and he is terrified of this intimacy because of it... I believe it is hinted at all the way to this point, with all the comments about his inability to be anything but a friend of women, and the end clinches it..
Can you elaborate on that? I've wondered why Bertie is incapeable of intimacy and it's linked by implication to his homosexuality. Homosexuality creeps into a number of Lawrence's works and some critics have thought he was a closet homosexual or a repressed homosexual. My reading of Lawrence is that he isn't, but i guess it's a contrversy. I think people confuse our current understanding of homosexuality with whatever notion Lawrence had of it. I think Lawrence has a particualr understanding of homosexuality in this story, and i'm not sure I know what it is. For instance, Maurice gets a sort of pleasure out of this exchange, and we know he's not homosexual.
I found this on wikipedia about Lawrence...Quote:
By Quark
I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.
I don't know how accurate wikipedia always is but I found this interesting... It seems to fit Bertie though (the greatness part)... Bertie approaching greatness as a barrister tends towards homosexuality as Lawrence states here, though he may not know it.. seems like a very greco-roman statement to me... interesting to say the least...Quote:
While writing Women in Love, Lawrence developed a sexual relationship, in the town of Tregerthen, with a Cornish farmer named William Henry Hocking.[citation needed] The affair, though brief, seems to indicate that Lawrence's fascination with themes of homosexuality related to his own sexual orientation. Indeed, in a letter written during 1913, he writes, "I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not…" [5] He is also quoted as saying, "I believe the nearest I've come to perfect love was with a young coal-miner when I was about 16."
I think you are right Virgil, Lawrence's understanding of homosexuality is different from modern times, but then so was Whitman's homo-eroticism in "Leaves of Grass" and to a degree Oscar Wilde's homosexuality... It is almost not homosexuality, but a lack of a definite direction either way, kind of a bisexuality maybe... I think they saw it as eroticism, sensuality could be found through either sex... but that doesn't presuppose or necessarily indicate sexuality also... and that is what is shown here... I'm sure Maurice is not gay, though he derives much pleasure from the intimacy here, but he is a sensualist you could say, by this point, having lost his sight, and does not link it to sexuality, just sensuality...
whereas Bertie I find is denying something inside him, (this is in response to your post Quark) and as it is implied women have tried to get intimate with him before and he has pushed them away, but they did not break him, they did not destroy his very identity, and I believe this is because Bertie felt no sexual or sensual appeal for them, it was easy to push them away with little consequence for himself, he was not drawn in to them, was not overpowered by them... but I believe the homosexuality is implied by the very fact that it is a man, Maurice, who Bertie is powerless to avoid intimacy with, of whatever kind, this is sensuality, but if Maurice was interested in taking that sensuality into the realm of sexuality, I don't believe Bertie could have said no... though that is completely beside the point here... Bertie seems so unable to be okay with who he is on an intimate level, but it does take a man to shatter this shell he has sheltering him from the sensual world... and it destroys him, but maybe there is something beyond that, something that would come out later, a new found acceptance of self, and maybe that is implied too, though I don't see it.. I think I see the asexual or neuter type that you mention Quark as a way homosexuality was explained away and hidden at the time... To wrap this up though, I think Virgil hit the nail on the head, when he said that our current notion of homosexuality is quite different from Lawrence's notion of it... I think Lawrence though of it as I said above more as homoeroticism and sensuality that was there to be found in men and women... but in this story Bertie can push it away with women, but though it destroys his identity is powerless against it with men...
Well, I have to say I agree with you,... and hey! what's funner then being laughed at on occasion??? Yep, nothing at all:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Ok, I don't have much time now - going out; it is a busy week. I apologise for that fact. I wish I could be more active in this discussion. I did read all of your posts. Glad to see so many in here today.
I have read a lot of 'pros and cons', in my biography books on the notion of Lawrence having homosexual encounters. So who really knows? He certainly knew many homosexuals (this is true); but then again who doesn't and especially in the literary field? He had a ton of friends and acquaintances, and he did believe in a 'perfect love' in addition to man/wife love, between a two men. It is hard to exactly interpret, what he meant by that 'perfect union of love'. If you do read "Women in Love", Islandclimber, I think you would get better insight into Lawrence's ideas on this notion/idea, especially in the scene "Gladiatorial", when Birkin(who represents Lawrence) wrestles nude with Gerald before the blazing fireplace. No one can deny that is a very sensual scene and yet it is not sexual, at least the way it is presented to the reader. Therefore, I like very much how you made that distinction with Lawrence, between 'sexual' and 'sensual'; I think that is vitally important to understand; there is a marked difference. I personally do not think Lawrence was a 'closet homosexual', nor a 'bisexual'; this is after absorbing three full biographies. I just don't see it or feel it. What you said seems to describe perfectly, how I feel about Lawrence's attitude towards the whole matter. We discussed this idea extensively in the WIL discussion and came up with the idea of a 'blood brother' or, and - the word evades me now, there is a German word for it (Virgil, help!). This perfect union with a male who would encompass total loyalty/devotion/love/closeness for a lifetime, to the male partner in a 'blood consciousness' manner still does not seem to me to be a homosexual ideal. Touching/physicality/sensuality may be a big part of this, but that is only part of the picture.
I also tend to quote Wikipedia; and then wonder at it's accuracy. In this case, I wonder just who they are quoting. I do know the first set of facts and it seems true enough, about Henry Hocking. I have read much on that time in Lawrence life, but still have not definitively come up with the fact it was a homosexual encounter or relationship. The two broke suddenly, as well and it did not seem like a broken love affair for either of them. In the letters quoted in Wikipedia, I am leary. I only see part of the letter and I don't see what proceeds/follows those words. I don't like it when someone takes the author's words out of context. People have done that to Lawrence before, and been way off the mark and have distorted the truth of what Lawrence actually was saying. This caused him much grief and misunderstandings. Besides, when he was speaking of 'greatness' who is to say he was not talking about other great and 'genius' authors, not referring to himself? Futhermore, I don't know who that coal-miner was he referred to at age 16. At around that age, he was very close to the brother of Jesse (the model for Miriam in S&L). I know they were close and worked in the fields together; but he was not a coal miner, rather a farmer. Lawrence's first published book, "The White Peacock", also explores this close relationship with the model he used for his main male character in that book, also a farmer. This again, would be fashioned partly after Jesse's brother, who indeed Lawrence was very close to when young (probably about that age).Quote:
I found this on wikipedia about Lawrence...
Quote:
Quote:
While writing Women in Love, Lawrence developed a sexual relationship, in the town of Tregerthen, with a Cornish farmer named William Henry Hocking.[citation needed] The affair, though brief, seems to indicate that Lawrence's fascination with themes of homosexuality related to his own sexual orientation. Indeed, in a letter written during 1913, he writes, "I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not…" [5] He is also quoted as saying, "I believe the nearest I've come to perfect love was with a young coal-miner when I was about 16."
Again, I don't know how accurate Wiki is either, or who wrote those comments. Anyone can contribute there, just like here. However, just being 'great' does not predispose one to homosexuality. Many a great barrister was heterosexual and not homosexual; so I am not sure what you are saying here. When Lawrence made that statement, if he indeed did, I would think he would be referring to artists and novelists, where homosexuality is quite common and perhaps prevalent.Quote:
I don't know how accurate wikipedia always is but I found this interesting... It seems to fit Bertie though (the greatness part)... Bertie approaching greatness as a barrister tends towards homosexuality as Lawrence states here, though he may not know it.. seems like a very greco-roman statement to me... interesting to say the least...
Quote:
I think you are right Virgil, Lawrence's understanding of homosexuality is different from modern times, but then so was Whitman's homo-eroticism in "Leaves of Grass" and to a degree Oscar Wilde's homosexuality... It is almost not homosexuality, but a lack of a definite direction either way, kind of a bisexuality maybe... I think they saw it as eroticism, sensuality could be found through either sex... but that doesn't presuppose or necessarily indicate sexuality also... and that is what is shown here... I'm sure Maurice is not gay, though he derives much pleasure from the intimacy here, but he is a sensualist you could say, by this point, having lost his sight, and does not link it to sexuality, just sensuality...
Yes, I agree, also, with Virgil on most of what he has pointed out in response to your post, but I also like what you stated at the end of this comment of yours - yes, I can see the difference between true homosexuality and 'homoeroticism and sensuality', also - but then again I am not quite sure of the first word. It is a difficult thing to interpret in Lawrence's work.Quote:
whereas Bertie I find is denying something inside him, (this is in response to your post Quark) and as it is implied women have tried to get intimate with him before and he has pushed them away, but they did not break him, they did not destroy his very identity, and I believe this is because Bertie felt no sexual or sensual appeal for them, it was easy to push them away with little consequence for himself, he was not drawn in to them, was not overpowered by them... but I believe the homosexuality is implied by the very fact that it is a man, Maurice, who Bertie is powerless to avoid intimacy with, of whatever kind, this is sensuality, but if Maurice was interested in taking that sensuality into the realm of sexuality, I don't believe Bertie could have said no... though that is completely beside the point here... Bertie seems so unable to be okay with who he is on an intimate level, but it does take a man to shatter this shell he has sheltering him from the sensual world... and it destroys him, but maybe there is something beyond that, something that would come out later, a new found acceptance of self, and maybe that is implied too, though I don't see it.. I think I see the asexual or neuter type that you mention Quark as a way homosexuality was explained away and hidden at the time... To wrap this up though, I think Virgil hit the nail on the head, when he said that our current notion of homosexuality is quite different from Lawrence's notion of it... I think Lawrence though of it as I said above more as homoeroticism and sensuality that was there to be found in men and women... but in this story Bertie can push it away with women, but though it destroys his identity is powerless against it with men...
Dark Muse, I did not laugh at you for suggesting the homosexual aspect initially; I just feel that if Bertie were homosexual, it would not make a much difference to the interpretation of the story. I think the main theme is that Bertie is 'defective', in that he cannot connect with human beings, women or men. I like what Quark pointed out in his post:
Quote by Quark:
I also, considered the same effect at the end - he would maybe give into to contact with Maurice, the man, if Bertie were indeed a 'closet' homosexual and being touched intimately.Quote:
I thought the point with Bertie is that he's incapable of intimacy with women and men. Homosexuality would clash with the characterization of him as a nervous, distant type of person because it would mean that he really does desire relationships--just not in the usual sense. The other characters look at him as asexual or neuter, and this is probably closer to the truth. Besides, if he were gay, he probably would be turned on by that last scene.
Hehe oh I know, I was just messing around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine