Lady Chatterley's Lover

[osho]

I have been reading this book for the last one week. This, the one most disputed and censored in the UK, was later on acclaimed by E.M. Foster and a veteran critic F. R. Leavis. Of course there is some obscene if you judge them by our establishments and yet reading it detachedly and disinterestedly I like the art and philosophy of the book. The writer had amply used some generally considered offensive words.

All these things apart I enjoy the book and find the philosophy of life sex, love defined by Lawrence quite revealing.

I want you to put forth your comments or opinions on the novel

[cacian]

May I ask for some examples of what you consider rude or offensive by the writer?

I was introduced to D.H. Lawrence book , Sons and Lovers at University and I thought at the time what a strange twisted thing to write because it verges on the obscene if you like and that is of

INCEST'

For anything else after ths is neither offensive or out of order.
To think that the UK censored Lady Chatterley's Lover but did not with Sons and Lovers is rather unconvining to what the meaning of a Ban or Censor is all about.

[blazeofglory]

May I ask for some examples of what you consider rude or offensive by the writer?

I was introduced to D.H. Lawrence book , Sons and Lovers at University and I thought at the time what a strange twisted thing to write because it verges on the obscene if you like and that is of
For anything else after ths is neither offensive or out of order.
To think that the UK censored Lady Chatterley's Lover but did not with Sons and Lovers is rather unconvining to what the meaning of a Ban or Censor is all about.

They are not offending to me and I enjoy and yet I find this thru some olden critical lens. He was candid and straightforward and I second his philosophy and the discussions held there quite illuminating

[osho]

May I ask for some examples of what you consider rude or offensive by the writer?

I was introduced to D.H. Lawrence book , Sons and Lovers at University and I thought at the time what a strange twisted thing to write because it verges on the obscene if you like and that is of
For anything else after ths is neither offensive or out of order.
To think that the UK censored Lady Chatterley's Lover but did not with Sons and Lovers is rather unconvining to what the meaning of a Ban or Censor is all about.

In fact they are said beautifully and every line is full of something we can find mesmerizing

[cacian]

In fact they are said beautifully and every line is full of something we can find mesmerizing

would you have an example of what you mean and in what sense?

[blazeofglory]

It is so nice of Osho to start discussing a novel I always wanted myself and the fact this books needs some elucidations is it was once immensely disputed and D H Lawrence was even considered pornographic, which he is not though there may be some room for the criticism, and had no reputation the way he earned it posthumously. He was forthright; he took a great ascent and placed himself at a height no other writers could have peaked and from that acme he visualized the truth few other did.

[osho]

would you have an example of what you mean and in what sense?

What I said is obvious and plain and no elaboration is wanting. The book itself is there before us to read and realize and everything in the book is said touchingly and the philosophy of the book deepens with the proceedings of every chapter. My OP may sound I was critical of him; on the contrary I am appreciative and recommend the rest if you have not read it

[osho]

It is so nice of Osho to start discussing a novel I always wanted myself and the fact this books needs some elucidations is it was once immensely disputed and D H Lawrence was even considered pornographic, which he is not though there may be some room for the criticism, and had no reputation the way he earned it posthumously. He was forthright; he took a great ascent and placed himself at a height no other writers could have peaked and from that acme he visualized the truth few other did.

Thank you Blaze for your approving words.

[osho]

I am expecting your comments if you have gone through this book. This book is one of the kind that transformed immensely and in fact it changed my attitude about life, romance, sex and the like. The writer is so much body -sensitive and he throughout the novel lays so much emphasis on body not on mind. He is against the platonic kind of love and he said Jesus was the one to finish it off and he wants this primordial, prehistorical pleasure or physical sex is reinvented and the ecstasy born of physical touch is relived.

We are today rationalizing our drives and in fact we are living mechanically far from our own real selves and some of the questions I always raised got answered here in this book and I am sure some of you might have gone through this magnum opus and give your opinions if you have.

[ftil]

I am expecting your comments if you have gone through this book. This book is one of the kind that transformed immensely and in fact it changed my attitude about life, romance, sex and the like. The writer is so much body -sensitive and he throughout the novel lays so much emphasis on body not on mind. He is against the platonic kind of love and he said Jesus was the one to finish it off and he wants this primordial, prehistorical pleasure or physical sex is reinvented and the ecstasy born of physical touch is relived.

We are today rationalizing our drives and in fact we are living mechanically far from our own real selves and some of the questions I always raised got answered here in this book and I am sure some of you might have gone through this magnum opus and give your opinions if you have.

I haven’t read this book. I may read it not to…change my attitude about life or sex, though. I think that we should find own truth rather than following others. I am curious that the author put as you said so much emphasis on body not on mind. Shouldn’t a balanced person appreciate the body and the mind?
I always feel suspicious of those who write about it. Shouldn’t ecstasy be experienced …rather than being in a realm of one’s dreams and writings?

I wouldn’t agree as you said that”we are today rationalizing our drives and in fact we are living mechanically far from our own real selves” generalizations are always dangerous. Some people may live that way, others don’t.

[osho]

I haven’t read this book. I may read it not to…change my attitude about life or sex, though. I think that we should find own truth rather than following others. I am curious that the author put as you said so much emphasis on body not on mind. Shouldn’t a balanced person appreciate the body and the mind?
I always feel suspicious of those who write about it. Shouldn’t ecstasy be experienced …rather than being in a realm of one’s dreams and writings?

I wouldn’t agree as you said that”we are today rationalizing our drives and in fact we are living mechanically far from our own real selves” generalizations are always dangerous. Some people may live that way, others don’t.

If you haven't, I think you will find it a wonderful read, something singular in English literature. As you rightly said the writer throughout the entire novel laid emphasis on ecstasy. The main character Lady Chartterly has always been seeking for love; the sensuous, the physical only satisfied her though she came across a few. Finally the one she madly in love with comes from a working class and she finds in him the sturdy type she has been eternally craving. She was married to a crippled, paralyzed man whose down from the waist was completely paralyzed. He could intellectually, even emotionally gratify her but not physically and the writer through this novel puts forth his philosophy of life and he eternalizes the body and is against this modern world rife with platonic or catholic trashes.

[ftil]

If you haven't, I think you will find it a wonderful read, something singular in English literature. As you rightly said the writer throughout the entire novel laid emphasis on ecstasy. The main character Lady Chartterly has always been seeking for love; the sensuous, the physical only satisfied her though she came across a few. Finally the one she madly in love with comes from a working class and she finds in him the sturdy type she has been eternally craving. She was married to a crippled, paralyzed man whose down from the waist was completely paralyzed. He could intellectually, even emotionally gratify her but not physically and the writer through this novel puts forth his philosophy of life and he eternalizes the body and is against this modern world rife with platonic or catholic trashes.

Hm…I don’t know what you mean by platonic and catholic trashes. Are you talking about the medieval ages? This book was first published in 1928 and it is December of 2011. Haven't you read about sexual revolution in 60’s?

Anyway, I can’t make any comments about book but I read others opinion. Richard Hoggart sees it in a very different way as he emphasizes the search for integrity and wholeness. It is not just about as you wrote, “pleasure or physical sex is reinvented and the ecstasy born of physical touch is relived”

I guess you have tried to simplify the author intentions.

Richard Hoggart argues that the main subject of Lady Chatterley's Lover is not the sexual passages that were the subject of such debate but the search for integrity and wholeness. Key to this integrity is cohesion between the mind and the body for "body without mind is brutish; mind without body...is a running away from our double being." Lady Chatterley's Lover focuses on the incoherence of living a life that is "all mind", which Lawrence saw as particularly true among the young members of the aristocratic classes, as in his description of Constance's and her sister Hilda's "tentative love-affairs" in their youth:

So they had given the gift of themselves, each to the youth with whom she had the most subtle and intimate arguments. The arguments, the discussions were the great thing: the love-making and connection were only sort of primitive reversion and a bit of an anti-climax.

The contrast between mind and body can be seen in the dissatisfaction each has with their previous relationships: Constance's lack of intimacy with her husband who is "all mind" and Mellors's choice to live apart from his wife because of her "brutish" sexual nature. These dissatisfactions lead them into a relationship that builds very slowly and is based upon tenderness, physical passion, and mutual respect. As the relationship between Lady Chatterley and Mellors develops, they learn more about the interrelation of the mind and the body; she learns that sex is more than a shameful and disappointing act, and he learns about the spiritual challenges that come from physical love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover

[osho]

Hm…I don’t know what you mean by platonic and catholic trashes. Are you talking about the medieval ages? This book was first published in 1928 and it is December of 2011. Haven't you read about sexual revolution in 60’s?

Anyway, I can’t make any comments about book but I read others opinion. Richard Hoggart sees it in a very different way as he emphasizes the search for integrity and wholeness. It is not just about as you wrote, “pleasure or physical sex is reinvented and the ecstasy born of physical touch is relived”

I guess you have tried to simplify the author intentions.

In fact I did not try to simplify but try to mirror his thoughts; yet the depth of his novel is unfathomable for me and I am really stirred up, a little disturbed by his revolutionary idea and the way he dealt with the burning question of male-female relationship in this chaotic world.

[kelby_lake]

Richard Hoggett is right: it's about the search for fulfillment, which Connie finds in Mellors. In all the Lawrence novels I've read, they explore the clash between physical and spiritual love, and the impossibility of finding both in the same person.

[ftil]

In fact I did not try to simplify but try to mirror his thoughts; yet the depth of his novel is unfathomable for me and I am really stirred up, a little disturbed by his revolutionary idea and the way he dealt with the burning question of male-female relationship in this chaotic world.

Well, the way you wrote it sounded that it was just about sexual love where love, deep intimacy, and mind was not that important. Hoggart’s understanding made me curious to read this book. Please, don’t forget that it was a different reality than that of today. We have quite different issues and problems but the search for wholeness and integrity is as valid as it was in 1928.