June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[Janine]

D.H.Lawrence's ranch in New Mexico...http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ranium/lawrence/brown1.html In case there is need to know, D.H. spent two years(?) in this state near Taos. quasimodo1

Hi quasimodo, Virgil and I both know well about Lawrence's time in NM. In fact in the several biographies I read I can say his home there was his favorite and he longed to his dying day to get back there. His ashes are buried there in a little chapel with a memorial to DHL. Interesting, isn't it?
Unfortunately, your link does not work for me but I found some pictures before in Wikipedia of the ranch and also of the memorial. If you go to Nottingham University Library they have an online exhibit of Lawrence artifacts and photos - very nice. Sorry, your link does not work but maybe you could just tell us the site so we can look it up through google search. Thanks anyway.

Chapter eight is in a way a flip side of chapters six and seven. In the previous two chapters we see the sterility of city life with its loose sexual mores. In chapter eight we get the sterility of intellectualism and devotees of high culture. Hermione is the opposite of Minette. But both are dead ends to that "completeness" that Birkin is longing for. Here's an important passage (Birkin is in the middle of talking to Gerald about how Gerald's soul feels the need to close the Minette affair):

Virgil, Interesting thoughts on opposites - Hermione and Minette. I had not thought of them quite that way.

And then this exchange:

We see that Gerald's life is fragmented ("all in bits"), incomplete.

The same can be said for Hermione in her life of high culture and searching for knowledge. Notice this echange between Hermione and Birkin when she finds him alone in his room and she finds Rupert's copy of a picture:

"The ghastliness of dissolution" is synonymous with "all in bits." Gerald's way of life and Hermione's way of life are quite different, but they both lead to dead ends. Neither reach that "finality" that Lawrence keeps mentioning.

Yes, I can see how "all in bits" does relate to "ghastliness of dissolution" and are synonymous, or at least similiar....interesting....had not thought of the two charcters quite this way. I think as you read, that you will find some confusion in all the characters; no one is truly definite in his/her view or life. Birkin is struggling with his thoughts and his ideas and ideals. Ursula is reacting to Birkin in ways that you would not fully expect, yet she too is struggling with Birkins words and in some ways she is "in bits" also...emotionally speaking. To some degree they all must come apart within themselves to assimulate back into a whole. Eventually, you will begin to see who can and who cannot achieve that wholeness in the end.

[papayahed]

I don't know how far into the book you are, but I think to make an assessment of 'like' or 'dislike' this early on, is a dire mistake. The characters are so multilayered and you have to see them in the light of the day they lived and in the social context. They are presented here as 'real' people with mysteries and complex workings in their mind and not 'perfect' people, but all with flaws and weaknesses. I don't think you have to like the characters to enjoy or understand the book. Sometimes we relate better to people with human weaknesses better, than we do to totally sunny dispositions and fairytale like worlds where everyone is nice and sweet and likable. Is this not like real life, encountering all types of personalities?

What is this a PSA for an after school special?

[Virgil]

What is this a PSA for an after school special?

I'm sorry Papaya. I'm probably as much to blame. We happen to know a lot about D.H. Lawrence's work and so we really notice the nuances that go on. On top of that, he is not an easy writer to pick up. Even most lit majors really get overwhelmed. Sort of like James Joyce and William Faulkner.

[Gracewings]

I'm behind already in reading the book (still in Ch 1) and the posts but hope to catch up to the rest of you over the weekend.

[Janine]

I'm behind already in reading the book (still in Ch 1) and the posts but hope to catch up to the rest of you over the weekend.

Hi Gracewings, Welcome to the discussion. Glad to see a new face here and don't be discouraged. I am usually the one way behind in my reading. Keep on reading - you have lots of time.
How did you like chapter one? Talk about it if you want. You might want to add to the posts and comments we already made or you might have questions.

Just curious - what kind of a flower is that in your avatar? I think it is unusual and very lovely. Love the color.

[Yorick Jenkins]

Hello everybody -this is my first time in these literature network forum. Iam British, 52 years old and live in Colognbe Germany.


1) I am the member of a small literary society here in Cologne and I am supposed to be giving a talk on DH Lawrence at the end of July and it would help me to read a biography. There are plenty on the market-do members of this forum recommend anyone specially or would warn against any one of them specially?
2) Am I right in thinking that this forum is so far the only one on DH Lawrence or are there other ones here hiding under another name?

Many thanks for your help!

[Janine]

Hello everybody -this is my first time in these literature network forum. Iam British, 52 years old and live in Colognbe Germany.


1) I am the member of a small literary society here in Cologne and I am supposed to be giving a talk on DH Lawrence at the end of July and it would help me to read a biography. There are plenty on the market-do members of this forum recommend anyone specially or would warn against any one of them specially?
2) Am I right in thinking that this forum is so far the only one on DH Lawrence or are there other ones here hiding under another name?

Many thanks for your help!

Welcome Yorick! I am a very enthusiasic fan of Lawrences and have read three biographies and am planning a third. I don't have the time right now to list the ones I read but I thought they all were good, of course you always have to sift through the material and decide just what is true and exaggerated or contrived. I certainly can suggest the books to you and reading a book of selected letters is also very good.

There are several other threads devoted to Lawrence's work. One is on 'Lawrence Short Stories' and quite active - we just posted a new story to read and discuss. Please do come and join that discussion and it would help greatly to read the posts in that thread to get a real sense of Lawrence and his ideas, life and work. Soon I hope to start a 'Lawrence Tortoise Poems' thread, probably on Monday. There is some discussion in 'Sons and Lovers' thread, also and in the original thread of book of the month when we voted. You might want to check out all of these.

I will get back to you on the list of biographies. Virgil may know of some more. He did his thesis on aspects of Lawrence. I am sure he can help you as well.

Online there is another forum on just Lawrence called the Rananim Society. You might want to check that out as well.

Hi Yorik, I am back. Here are the books I read:

1. The Intelligent Heart by Harry T. Moore
The Life of D.H.Lawrence 1954, 1962

The reason I read this biography was because a good friend, who has studied Lawrence in University, told me his professor highly rated this biography. Although an older book, (I am sure you can find more recent biographers) I thought the book was excellent and very concise. I enjoyed reading it very much. It gave a good overview of the author's complex life and travels. I bought a used copy on Amazon.

2.D.H.Lawrence The Story of a Marriage by Brenda Maddox
1994

This book can easily be found on Amazon and although some will review it and say it is not wholely truthful, I found it to be well-written and very informative. As to whether this account is a little exaggerated, as far as Lawrence and Frieda's marital bliss is concerned, I took everything I read with doubts to absolute truth, at all times. The book will always be tainted with the view of the biographer, that cannot be helped. I found this book very close to the first biography I have listed and yet it expanded much more on Lawrence's life and ways and the marriage and involvements with various people. It was well documented and I liked that very much. I think this biography kept my utmost attention. Also, filled with many pages of excellent photos.

3.The phoenix and the flame: D.H. Lawrence; a biography

Pub Info Viking 1973 by Trease Geoffrey
Edition 1st edition

I picked this book up in my library. It is more symplified than the other biographies I have mentioned. It is a good overview and reads quickly. I believe it to be in accordance with the other biographers but not as involved in all aspects of Lawrence's life and career.

4. D.H.Lawrence The Early Years by John Worthen Cambridge. 1991

I have not read this book yet. I believe this will be the most involved and concise since it is part of a continuing series on Lawrence, coming out of Cambridge. It has the benefit of newly found documents and letters and much more information. I am anxious to read it, but it will be very detailed and the first book is long - 461 pages, plus an additional section of detailed information about his works - tables, lists, apendix's, etc. Also, the book contains a number of wonderful photos in the center section.

The last book is well-worth purchasing (I bought mine from Amazon) but you would need to read the whole series to get the whole story of Lawrence's life. You won't have time for that now before your lecture. Better to stick with a book that will give you an overview and full biography not weighted down by too many details. There are many fine biographies listed on Amazon, but the first one I mentioned would be my choice of the four I listed, if you are able to find it; being an older book it might be hard to come by.

Hope this helps ~ Janine

What is this a PSA for an after school special?

Hi papayahed duh, I feel dumb.....I know I am not up on abreviations, but what is PSA?

Sorry if my post overwhelmed you....just was trying to explain.

[Virgil]

I couldn't leave chapter eight without commenting on that great scene where Hermione whacks Birkin over the head with a ball of lapis lazuli. First what instigates the conflict is this exchange:

If,' said Hermione at last, `we could only realise, that in the spirit we are all one, all equal in the spirit, all brothers there -- the rest wouldn't matter, there would be no more of this carping and envy and this struggle for power, which destroys, only destroys.'

This speech was received in silence, and almost immediately the party rose from the table. But when the others had gone, Birkin turned round in bitter declamation, saying:

`It is just the opposite, just the contrary, Hermione. We are all different and unequal in spirit -- it is only the social differences that are based on accidental material conditions. We are all abstractly or mathematically equal, if you like. Every man has hunger and thirst, two eyes, one nose and two legs. We're all the same in point of number. But spiritually, there is pure difference and neither equality nor inequality counts. It is upon these two bits of knowledge that you must found a state. Your democracy is an absolute lie -- your brotherhood of man is a pure falsity, if you apply it further than the mathematical abstraction. We all drank milk first, we all eat bread and meat, we all want to ride in motor-cars -- therein lies the beginning and the end of the brotherhood of man. But no equality.

Lawrence does not favor democracy. People are not equal to him. This is somewhat shocking at first to people. Some of his later novels (The Plumed Serpent, for instance) seem to suggest facism and he has been accused of being sympathetic to it.

Another point is that Hermione really wants to kill him. It's not just a her taking a crack at him, but her really trying to murder him, and it comes from her unconscious, deep within her:

Terribly shocks ran over her body, like shocks of electricity, as if many volts of electricity suddenly struck her down. She was aware of him sitting silently there, an unthinkable evil obstruction. Only this blotted out her mind, pressed out her very breathing, his silent, stooping back, the back of his head.

A terrible voluptuous thrill ran down her arms -- she was going to know her voluptuous consummation. Her arms quivered and were strong, immeasurably and irresistibly strong. What delight, what delight in strength, what delirium of pleasure! She was going to have her consummation of voluptuous ecstasy at last. It was coming! In utmost terror and agony, she knew it was upon her now, in extremity of bliss. Her hand closed on a blue, beautiful ball of lapis lazuli that stood on her desk for a paper-weight. She rolled it round in her hand as she rose silently. Her heart was a pure flame in her breast, she was purely unconscious in ecstasy. She moved towards him and stood behind him for a moment in ecstasy. He, closed within the spell, remained motionless and unconscious.

Then swiftly, in a flame that drenched down her body like fluid lightning and gave her a perfect, unutterable consummation, unutterable satisfaction, she brought down the ball of jewel stone with all her force, crash on his head. But her fingers were in the way and deadened the blow. Nevertheless, down went his head on the table on which his book lay, the stone slid aside and over his ear, it was one convulsion of pure bliss for her, lit up by the crushed pain of her fingers. But it was not somehow complete. She lifted her arm high to aim once more, straight down on the head that lay dazed on the table. She must smash it, it must be smashed before her ecstasy was consummated, fulfilled for ever. A thousand lives, a thousand deaths mattered nothing now, only the fulfilment of this perfect ecstasy.

It reminds of what Birkin said to Gerald about taking two to make a murder, both the murderer and the murderee agreeing to it inside their unconsciousness. But the language Lawrence uses to show Birkin's reaction is fascinating:

He was shattered, but he was not afraid. Twisting round to face her he pushed the table over and got away from her. He was like a flask that is smashed to atoms, he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits. Yet his movements were perfectly coherent and clear, his soul was entire and unsurprised.

`No you don't, Hermione,' he said in a low voice. `I don't let you.'

He saw her standing tall and livid and attentive, the stone clenched tense in her hand.

`Stand away and let me go,' he said, drawing near to her.

As if pressed back by some hand, she stood away, watching him all the time without changing, like a neutralised angel confronting him.

She has murder inside her soul but he does not have the soul of a murderee. Notice also that "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits." This echoes Gerald's "all in bits" and Hermione's "ghastliness of dissolution" that i mentioned earlier But there is a very important difference. Yes under the stress of being attacked Birkin person is fragmented, but he goes on and reintegrates himself throug nature.

Yet he wanted something. He was happy in the wet hillside, that was overgrown and obscure with bushes and flowers. He wanted to touch them all, to saturate himself with the touch of them all. He took off his clothes, and sat down naked among the primroses, moving his feet softly among the primroses, his legs, his knees, his arms right up to the arm-pits, lying down and letting them touch his belly, his breasts. It was such a fine, cool, subtle touch all over him, he seemed to saturate himself with their contact.

But they were too soft. He went through the long grass to a clump of young fir-trees, that were no higher than a man. The soft sharp boughs beat upon him, as he moved in keen pangs against them, threw little cold showers of drops on his belly, and beat his loins with their clusters of soft-sharp needles. There was a thistle which pricked him vividly, but not too much, because all his movements were too discriminate and soft. To lie down and roll in the sticky, cool young hyacinths, to lie on one's belly and cover one's back with handfuls of fine wet grass, soft as a breath, soft and more delicate and more beautiful than the touch of any woman; and then to sting one's thigh against the living dark bristles of the fir-boughs; and then to feel the light whip of the hazel on one's shoulders, stinging, and then to clasp the silvery birch-trunk against one's breast, its smoothness, its hardness, its vital knots and ridges -- this was good, this was all very good, very satisfying. Nothing else would do, nothing else would satisfy, except this coolness and subtlety of vegetation travelling into one's blood. How fortunate he was, that there was this lovely, subtle, responsive vegetation, waiting for him, as he waited for it; how fulfilled he was, how happy!

And so on.

[Janine]

I couldn't leave chapter eight without commenting on that great scene where Hermione whacks Birkin over the head with a ball of lapis lazuli. First what instigates the conflict is this exchange:

Then this part:

Another point is that Hermione really wants to kill him. It's not just a her taking a crack at him, but her really trying to murder him, and it comes from her unconscious, deep within her::

*note I did not requote - please read in above orig. post by Virgil

Hi Virgil, I could not wait until this scene came up. I kept reading and reading, and wondering when this scene would happen. It is so significant a moment in Birkin's life. Yes, I had not recalled just how violent Hermione is in this scene - it certainly did read as though she actually wanted to kill him; wipe him out of her very existence. It really shocked me. The paperweight of lapis lazuli seemed appropriate a weapon. I don't think I shall look at the mineral quite the same ever again. The scene reminded me of the moment of supreme violence in "The Prussian Officer" when the violence happened (seemingly) suddenly, but was earier provoked, having built up over a period of time of antagonism between the two parties. I think just the fact that Birkin came back in the room and was lounging about, saying little, really added 'insult to injury'. He thought he was being nicer, but it only feed fuel to her fire. The whole scene, and the way both reacted to her action, was so well expressed. Both sets of feelings and reactions were so complex.

Lawrence does not favor democracy. People are not equal to him. This is somewhat shocking at first to people. Some of his later novels (The Plumed Serpent, for instance) seem to suggest facism and he has been accused of being sympathetic to it.

I believe this is due to being influenced by L's reading of Darwin and his theory/observations on 'natural selection'. I saw this Darwin book in the bookstore the other night and had a desire to buy it, just to see various ideas that influenced Lawrence's thinking. I still may purchase the book, since it highly interests me, asside from Lawrence studies. Yes, true many people saw Lawrence as a facist, or sympathetic to that movement (at the time) but he really ended up hating the facists. I don't think Lawrence's political views actually, ever were solidly established. What would be your thoughts on this?
I don't think I read "The Plumed Serpent". That is another story I hope to read in the coming months.

It reminds of what Birkin said to Gerald about taking two to make a murder, both the murderer and the murderee agreeing to it inside their unconsciousness. But the language Lawrence uses to show Birkin's reaction is fascinating:

She has murder inside her soul but he does not have the soul of a murderee.

Again, this is like what is occurring in "The Prussian Officer" and Birkin's statements to Gerald, earlier in this novel. Yes, good observation and pointing out the difference. Birkin does not have the soul of a murderee, you are right. What an interesting word too -'murderee' - did Lawrence make that word up, or is there actually a word 'murderee'?

Notice also that "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits." This echoes Gerald's "all in bits" and Hermione's "ghastliness of dissolution" that i mentioned earlier But there is a very important difference. Yes under the stress of being attacked Birkin person is fragmented, but he goes on and reintegrates himself throug nature.

Virgil, this is another good observation on the key words and phrases. "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits" does echo Gerald's "all in bits" - interesting. And it seems his "smashed to bits" is worse than Gerald's state, but it certainly gives the men a common bond, doesn't it? As some say "misery loves" company. I think that it makes Birkin now more needy, in is impending periods of illness from the blow, and more vulnerable in Gerald's eyes/perception. It also gives Gerald the role of being more nurturing to his friend. The bond between them grows even stronger after this incident. I won't go too far with this, since you and others may not have reached those chapters, such as "Man to Man", Chapter XVI.

The nature scene is one of my favorites in the book and actually in the film version I have seen many times of the book. It is beautifully depicted, and to me the ultimate in freedom and sensuality. The sense of touch in the field and in the grove of trees is heightened by Birkin's state (soul/mind/spirit, or maybe what Lawrence's terms the deeper 'blood' state). Here he is at a pinacle and longs to free himself from all evils and conventions, and he takes the plunge to do so. It is a kind of death of which he will emerge cleaner and more wholesome. Up until now he has only talked about it. This scene is key to the central theme of the story, I believe. It is a major turning point for Birkin in his freedom and his divorcing himself entirely from Hermione's domination over him. The scene is brilliantly written, don't you agree?

[Virgil]

The scene reminded me of the moment of supreme violence in "The Prussian Officer" when the violence happened (seemingly) suddenly, but was earier provoked, having built up over a period of time of antagonism between the two parties.

I was thinking the same thing.

I believe this is due to being influenced by L's reading of Darwin and his theory/observations on 'natural selection'.

I had not thought that was a big influence on Lawrence; at least I had not seen that before. I wouldn't think Lawrence would be big on scientific studies. Did you come across that in your studies? My thought on his anti-democracy was that it was instilled by his mother who was sort of aristocratic pretentious.

Yes, true many people saw Lawrence as a facist, or sympathetic to that movement (at the time) but he really ended up hating the facists. I don't think Lawrence's political views actually, ever were solidly established. What would be your thoughts on this?

I do think he was sympathetic but he died way before WWII and I don't think he would have been sympathetic by then.

Birkin does not have the soul of a murderee, you are right. What an interesting word too -'murderee' - did Lawrence make that word up, or is there actually a word 'murderee'?

Now this is a little off topic, but don't you see why I find these psychology theories rediculous. As if people have a wish to be murdered in their soul, sort of like the Freudian death wish silliness. But it makes for interesting characters.

Virgil, this is another good observation on the key words and phrases. "he seemed to himself that he was all fragments, smashed to bits" does echo Gerald's "all in bits" - interesting. And it seems his "smashed to bits" is worse than Gerald's state, but it certainly gives the men a common bond, doesn't it? As some say "misery loves" company.

Yes but like I point out there is a big difference in that Birkin reintegrates himself.

The nature scene is one of my favorites in the book and actually in the film version I have seen many times of the book. It is beautifully depicted, and to me the ultimate in freedom and sensuality. The sense of touch in the field and in the grove of trees is heightened by Birkin's state (soul/mind/spirit, or maybe what Lawrence's terms the deeper 'blood' state). Here he is at a pinacle and longs to free himself from all evils and conventions, and he takes the plunge to do so. It is a kind of death of which he will emerge cleaner and more wholesome. Up until now he has only talked about it. This scene is key to the central theme of the story, I believe. It is a major turning point for Birkin in his freedom and his divorcing himself entirely from Hermione's domination over him. The scene is brilliantly written, don't you agree?

I agree, and very well said Janine.

[Janine]

I was thinking the same thing.

Virgil, I thought you might be. The night I read that scene I thought of it right away.

I had not thought that was a big influence on Lawrence; at least I had not seen that before. I wouldn't think Lawrence would be big on scientific studies. Did you come across that in your studies? My thought on his anti-democracy was that it was instilled by his mother who was sort of aristocratic pretentious.

Yes, I did see it in one of my biographies. I will have to locate just where and who said it. In fact I have run across it, I believe in several of them. I will look under the index at the back - under origin of species and natural selective. I am sure I will come up with something. Possibly, but I don't think his mother being aristocratic and pretentious in her ways was the only influence in his attitude towards democracy. He was also opposed to capitalism.

I do think he was sympathetic but he died way before WWII and I don't think he would have been sympathetic by then.

I have often thought of this and how he would have changed his mind with that war.

Now this is a little off topic, but don't you see why I find these psychology theories rediculous. As if people have a wish to be murdered in their soul, sort of like the Freudian death wish silliness. But it makes for interesting characters.[

To some extend I do agree with you, like this concept of the 'murderer and the murderee'. Theory is interesting, but I doubt it truly holds up. It does seem a bit ridiculous. It might only happen if the murderee truly wanted to die such as a forced sort of suicide with another carrying it out.
I think that some psychology is valid; what about dreams at night when we are sleeping? The subconscious plays a role in that, doesn't it? Now next you will tell me dreams don't exist or that you never have them. I feel them strongly and do feel they spring from the subconscious. What about hypnotism and the subconscious? What about suppressing really traumatic events and losing conscious memory of them? These have been proven and well documented.
We could debate all of this, but it is going off topic, like you already said.

Yes but like I point out there is a big difference in that Birkin reintegrates himself.

Most definitely and this will determine the outcome of the book and each life. Birkin shares somethings with Gerald and there is a bond, but definitely they still remain separate and at odds in their concepts of life.

I agree, and very well said Janine.

Thank you. You know working on these posts is not easy. I tend to know what I would like to convey, but I struggle sometimes saying exactly what I mean. It really is taxing, but rewarding, as well. Been a long time since I attended school and actually I did not study Lawrence there at all.
I won't post anymore - I believe I might be ahead of you in reading and maybe others, too. I don't want to spoil any of the book for anyone.

Virgil, let me just say, that beyond Chapter 8, there are some chapters that I think you will find of particular interest - in what Birkin speaks of and proposes. His ideas are distinctly expressed. When you get to a point I need to ask you about the meaning of some of the concepts and words he is using.

[papayahed]

Hi papayahed duh, I feel dumb.....I know I am not up on abreviations, but what is PSA?

Public Service Announcement

[Virgil]

Public Service Announcement

I thought it was a prostate test:

What is the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test?

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein produced by the cells of the prostate gland. The PSA test measures the level of PSA in the blood. The doctor takes a blood sample, and the amount of PSA is measured in a laboratory. Because PSA is produced by the body and can be used to detect disease, it is sometimes called a biological marker or tumor marker.

It is normal for men to have low levels of PSA in their blood; however, prostate cancer or benign (not cancerous) conditions can increase PSA levels. As men age, both benign prostate conditions and prostate cancer become more frequent. The most common benign prostate conditions are prostatitis (inflammation of the prostate) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (enlargement of the prostate). There is no evidence that prostatitis or BPH cause cancer, but it is possible for a man to have one or both of these conditions and to develop prostate cancer as well.

PSA levels alone do not give doctors enough information to distinguish between benign prostate conditions and cancer. However, the doctor will take the result of the PSA test into account when deciding whether to check further for signs of prostate cancer.


Why is the PSA test performed?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the PSA test along with a digital rectal exam (DRE) to help detect prostate cancer in men age 50 and older. During a DRE, a doctor inserts a gloved finger into the rectum and feels the prostate gland through the rectal wall to check for bumps or abnormal areas. Doctors often use the PSA test and DRE as prostate cancer screening tests; together, these tests can help doctors detect prostate cancer in men who have no symptoms of the disease.

The FDA has also approved the PSA test to monitor patients with a history of prostate cancer to see if the cancer has come back (recurred). An elevated PSA level in a patient with a history of prostate cancer does not always mean the cancer has come back. A man should discuss an elevated PSA level with his doctor. The doctor may recommend repeating the PSA test or performing other tests to check for evidence of recurrence.

It is important to note that a man who is receiving hormone therapy for prostate cancer may have a low PSA reading during, or immediately after, treatment. The low level may not be a true measure of PSA activity in the man’s body. Men receiving hormone therapy should talk with their doctor, who may advise them to wait a few months after hormone treatment before having a PSA test.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f.../Detection/PSA

I was trying to figure what you meant by that Papaya.

[Janine]

Papayahed,

Thanks, so this is how it reads:
"What is this a Public Service Announcement for an after school special?"

I will have to think about that one; I don't really understand it's relationship to what I wrote, but it is no matter really.

[grace86]

Wow Janine and Virg, your posts are awfully long ones

It is rather difficult to get into Lawrence. At first glance I almost thought his work like Austen's (who I cannot read) but the characters seem to be layered a bit more.

I am not all that far into it right now, I've just finished chapter 3. The conversation between Hermione and Rupert was a tad strange. I know he is a misanthrope but I am not entirely sure I understand Hermione. Was Rupert's anger with her simply because of her being hypocritical in her statements or does it have to do with the fact that he no longer wants the relationship with her?

You know, even though he isn't a very personable character, I think Rupert is my favorite character so far.

(lol I know there is a bunch of symbolism in this novel that I'm not getting!)