Quote:
Originally Posted by
Janine
Hi Pensive, Yes, and I do think Miriam seemed to be controlling in a quiet way. Lawrence seemed to perceive her as a threat. This plays into Lawrence's own theories on woman and his deeper (psychological) fears regarding them. I read Lawrence’s first novel “The White Peacock” and this was quite a prominent theme in the book. Lawrence seemed to feel women a definite threat to men, and yet he was drawn to them from the start. In Lawrence’s writing there is always a great deal of conflict – between characters and within the characters themselves. So it was with Miriam. There is a lot of duality in L's writings.
Yes, I have also noticed the conflicts a lot. This really makes me wonder what were Lawrence's religious views? In the book, Paul's own religious views are not much highlighted. As far as I remember, there was this passage in which Paul's religious views seemed to be having a conflict.
Quote:
I still have not checked this, but I will. I have been so busy with the other threads. Sorry about that. Also, I told you I would try to scan a picture of Lousia (Louie) Burrows for you. My book has a lovely photo of her; she was quite pretty. There is another woman who comes to mind who was good friends with Jessie. I believe her name was Helen Cork. I forget if Lawrence showed interest in her as a lover to Helen, I think maybe he did. I know for certain he was engaged (not in the ring sense) to Louie.
Oh I can understand. You must be discussing Women in Love as well. I have checked it out in my local book-shop, couldn't find it there, but have asked for it. It might be available soon. Or else I have decided I wouldn't wait and read it online.
It would be nice of you if you can post the picture. Thanks. :)
Quote:
Good news; I went to my library tonight and found some research books on some of Lawrence’s writings. I found one book that has much about “Sons and Lovers” – critical analysis. I am anxious to see if it can give me some additional insight into the novel.
This is a really good news! :D
Quote:
Pensive, you are quite perceptive. Definitely, there is much psychology in Lawrence’s books…all of them. In WIL the book is filled with a more developed sense of the psychology and Lawrence’s personal philosophy, as well. Our current discussions are quite intense and complex with all the psychological elements and the symbolism to discuss.
Complex books encourage complex thoughts, and complex thoughts encourage a complex discussion. :)
Quote:
Many critics state that Lawrence was interested in the psychology between the son and the mother and cite the Odiepus complex as a prominent theme in the book. At the time that Lawrence was writing “Sons and Lovers” this sort of thinking was very popular, with Freud’s ideas of the subconscious being newly introduced into society. Biographers say that Lawrence had a ‘unnaturally’ close relationship with his own mother and this is reflected in the book. I don’t personally see this, but many do. The mother did seem to cling to the son for the lack of her relationship with the husband. It is so true that much is evident in regard to the subconscious and psychology of each character, especially Paul and his mother.
Interesting! I just checked out wikipedia, and read some of Freud's theory. I am not sure if people would agree with me here but his theories didn't seem very sane to me. By my own personal experience, those I know, my obervations, I get this feeling his theories don't seem to apply. Same seems to be the case in Sons and Lovers. The son was closer to his mother because she was the one who spent time with him. A person like Morel, who worked hard in the mines, then came home late mostly, he would hardly have time to share things with his son. Mother who remained at home was more likely to do so. As for the mother preferring son, there can be several reasons for that. It is I think mentioned in the book also, when her children were born she found a way to divert attention from her husband. And the kind of woman Mrs. Morel was, it was not difficult to figure out that she considered men as the bread-earner, not the women. Men were considered physically powerful as well. I think that's the reason why she was closer to her sons than Annie.
The other reason as to why Lawrence was so close to her mother can also be the death of William. I remember fairly well that after that incident, they got even more close. This is also natural for a mother to feel more protected of her son after such a terrible death of her son at a young age. I don't think Freud's theory has got anything to do with this.
Quote:
I will try checking too. I know it is in one of my biographies. It is hard to find the exact quote – they are thick volumes and I never mark any book. I should take notes, but I forget to and later I am really sorry I did not at least note the page of particular interest.
Oh no problem. It's okay. :)
Quote:
Yes, my thoughts too were that she was very fragile and nearly gone, really at the threshold of ‘death’s door’, and if they increased her medication I certainly sympathise with them. They were only thinking of her own terrible suffering and wanted to put an end to it. It was such a sad part of the book. I felt like I was there with them. It made my heart ache for Lawrence and his sister.
Yes, the book had turned very emotional.
Quote:
Yes, it did cover all of those themes and aspects of a family life and growing up and going out into the world for the first time. I loved that it was so complete and encompassed so much. Again that is what made it feel quite real.
I agree.
Quote:
Exactly. I suppose every author steps on some toes along the way; I don’t think it can be helped. In the name of art it just happens and ‘you can’t please all the people all of the time’, as the saying goes. Yes, it is true that L did not like to be exposed himself. I felt badly for Miriam and for the father and perhaps some others. Lawrence sometimes contradicted himself and was a very complex man, not easy to figure out. I am sure as a friend it was the same. A good biography would give you better insight into what type a person Lawrence actually was. You might better understand his motives. Many authors do write about what they know and who they know. It is not that unusual when one reads the biographies. I know that Thomas Hardy actually wrote about real incidents. It would seem inevitable that some people would be offended.
Yes, I might try his biography but Women in Love at first. :p I am quite excited about that.
Quote:
Same with you; take your time to reply. I will be busy researching more about S&L in the library books I found tonight. I hope it proves interesting. :)
Me too! :D
Thanks quasmodo, though I feel as if I don't agree with all points. But still it's a good review. :)
Quote:
Freud & Oedipus Complex
’’ When Lawrence began the novel he had only passing knowledge of the Freudian theories regarding the mother-son relationship(Oedipus Complex). Essentially the author was writing from experience: the psychic bond between Mrs. Morel and her son, Paul, was very similar to the bond shared by Lawrence and his mother. This bond between son and mother amounts almost to a husband and wife sort of love - without the sex - and prevents the son from ever achieving a fully satisfactory relationship with another woman because of the hold the mother has on the son’s soul. It is not until the mother is dead that the son is able to begin to free himself from her hold. The novel, then, is the story of that struggle. ’’
I have given my views about it in my earlier post.
Quote:
Drawbacks
The initial chapters are good and the descriptions are refreshing but later the book drags along. SONS AND LOVERS is not a ’’feel good’’ read, and Paul’s inability to break free from the psychological bondage with his mother is frustrating and sometimes exasperating. Paul’s obsession, frustration, and indecision about the women in his life at times seem ridiculous especially that with Miriam.
I agree with what you have said here, but I wouldn't call this the draw-back of the novel. On the other hand, I feel this is the good thing about it. :) It's real.
Quote:
Uniqueness
It is a peep into the life of the author, D.H. Lawrence who has written a woman’s thoughts better than many female writers have. May be it was his close relationship with his mother that he was able to understand women so well . Lawrence is very vulnerable here because he not only exposes himself as the son, but also inevitable as the lover.
In a way I agree. He has certainly expressed the women he knew very well. A very deep insight of women he knew. But there were some general statements he made about females which I didn't like very much. And this makes me feel as if feminists do have a point if they critisize his attitude towards women. Here is this passage I previously quoted, but now this seems relevant to it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons and Lovers
"Oh, I don't think it won't be a great deal. Only you'll find
earning your own living isn't everything."
"No," she said, swallowing with difficulty; "I don't suppose
it is."
"I suppose work CAN be nearly everything to a man," he said,
"though it isn't to me. But a woman only works with a part of
herself. The real and vital part is covered up."
"But a man can give ALL himself to work?" she asked.
"Yes, practically."
"And a woman only the unimportant part of herself?"
"That's it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Janine
Also, there are a couple of other letters that will be of great interest to you, Pensive, about the Miriam/Paul - Jessie/Lawrence relationship. One is shorter in Lawrence's words and the other Jessie wrote, and is a more than two pages long. Again another typing job.
Perhaps you can type only some parts of it? The ones you think are most interesting.
Quote:
Good news Pensive - I found an entire book on commentary on "Sons and Lovers" in my library last night. It is an older book, but has some excellent letters and other information about the book and characters.
One thing I found out in my initial reading is that that Clara was not actually based on anyone in particular, but a combination of three women Lawrence knew. She is basically a totally fictional character, or so this book claims.
It's a striking news. I had no idea it would be so! Thanks a lot for giving this piece of information.
Quote:
Yes, this is also quite good. I like the worship part especially and how Miriam viewed Paul. I believe it was so also of Jessie towards Lawrence. The passage by Jessie in my book reveals some of this idea and shows how her image of him becomes tarnished or shattered. As I said, I will be typing this out for all to read.
That's nice of you. :)
Quote:
How well put this is! I believe that is why he so often appeals to women, although I have know some men who love his work, as well. However, the feminists seem to have turned against Lawrence in the past; he offended many of their principles. It may have been partly grave misunderstanding, but I do see some of his philosophies as ones they would greatly oppose. The last statement of this quote is also very interesting in terms of 'son and lover'.
I don't call myself a feminist, but there are things in which I agree with their principles. And I feel I agree with them again in the matter of this book. The views of Paul, though highly interesting, but seemed very particular, confined to the study of some women he knew, very much to me. But I van be wrong of course in this feeling. I have explained it in my earlier than the earlier post. :)
