June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[manolia]

manolia, How about when she slapped him. What did you think of that and his reaction?

I liked the whole scene very much. I even pictured it in my mind like a movie scene (i do this when i read. I choose faces in the beginning of the book and i play certain scenes in my mind while i read - i should have been a director ) . Her reaction was very interesting. Gudrun is a wild tiger, is she not? She is very angry with the fact that Gerald is trying to tame her (and she is aware that he is very successful in doing it).
I haven't yet read the island chapter . I'll come back to the rest of your post when i do

EDIT chapter 16

The hot narrow intimacy between man and wife was abhorrent. The way they shut their doors, these married people, and shut themselves in to their own exclusive alliance with each other, even in love, disgusted him. It was a whole community of mistrustful couples insulated in private houses or private rooms, always in couples, and no further life, no further immediate, no disinterested relationship admitted: a kaleidoscope of couples, disjoined, separatist, meaningless entities of married couples. True, he hated promiscuity even worse than marriage, and a liaison was only another kind of coupling, reactionary from the legal marriage. Reaction was a greater bore than action..

Another bold opinion (considering the time the book was published) concerning marriage. I liked this part (not that i necessarily agree). I wonder how the church and religious groups in general reacted to this book.

It was intolerable, this possession at the hands of woman. Always a man must be considered as the broken off fragment of a woman, and the sex was the still aching scar of the laceration. Man must be added on to a woman, before he had any real place or wholeness....

I think this paragraph is another biblical reference. It reminds me how Eve was created from the side of Adam (although it seems that Lawrence thinks it was the other way around ).

And why? Why should we consider ourselves, men and women, as broken fragments of one whole? It is not true. We are not broken fragments of one whole. Rather we are the singling away into purity and clear being, of things that were mixed. Rather the sex is that which remains in us of the mixed, the unresolved. And passion is the further separating of this mixture, that which is manly being taken into the being of the man, that which is womanly passing to the woman, till the two are clear and whole as angels, the admixture of sex in the highest sense surpassed, leaving two single beings constellated together like two stars...

The same biblical reference, but this time it seems that L disagrees completely. Woman and man are different indipendant entities, not pieces of the same body.

[nmolive]

How about chapter 14 Water- party??? This was a strangely-filled chapter. I don't even know where to begin. At first, what struck me was all the romantic-erotic scenes, all the implied love between the two couples. It was so real, and yet so fantasized. I loved it!! But then, as you go futher down the chapter you get this paradox, from romantic and airy to deathly. It was soo unusual for me to read this all in one chapter. Why, I wonder, would DHL decide to throw everything right at his readers in one chapter. There is sooo much in this chapter...so much depth. The submissiveness of Gundrun, all the melodramtic scences of women being aggressive to men...and yet it was said that DHL was much of the aggressor toward women. Very intersting. I can't wait to read everyone else's take on the read of this explosive chapter.
(Sorry I am not adding quotes from the story, if need be I will try.)

[Virgil]

How about chapter 14 Water- party??? This was a strangely-filled chapter. I don't even know where to begin. At first, what struck me was all the romantic-erotic scenes, all the implied love between the two couples. It was so real, and yet so fantasized. I loved it!! But then, as you go futher down the chapter you get this paradox, from romantic and airy to deathly. It was soo unusual for me to read this all in one chapter. Why, I wonder, would DHL decide to throw everything right at his readers in one chapter. There is sooo much in this chapter...so much depth. The submissiveness of Gundrun, all the melodramtic scences of women being aggressive to men...and yet it was said that DHL was much of the aggressor toward women. Very intersting. I can't wait to read everyone else's take on the read of this explosive chapter.
(Sorry I am not adding quotes from the story, if need be I will try.)

Olive, I skimmed the chapter last night. I will read it properly tonight. I remember this chapter from my reading of the novel 25 years ago. It is a great chapter and so much is packed into this. I'm sure I'll be getting into the details in the coming days.

What I wanted to let you know from your last parenthetical statement is that we take the quotes write off the electronic version of the novel here on lit net. I'm not sure if you realized that. You can find it here: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_...women_in_love/

[Janine]

I liked the whole scene very much. I even pictured it in my mind like a movie scene (i do this when i read. I choose faces in the beginning of the book and i play certain scenes in my mind while i read - i should have been a director ) . Her reaction was very interesting. Gudrun is a wild tiger, is she not? She is very angry with the fact that Gerald is trying to tame her (and she is aware that he is very successful in doing it).
I haven't yet read the island chapter . I'll come back to the rest of your post when i do

So funny, manolia, I do the same thing - the conjuring up of movie scenes in my mind. Well, especially easy to do is this book, since I read the book, then saw the film version years ago. I also bought this British film version on DVD (directed by Ken Russell) last year, and have watched it three times. I see now that much has been left out, however the film stays true to the essense and characters of the book. It is a very good film, if you can get a chance to view it, but only after you finish the book.
Back to the book itself. Yes, I too see Gudrun as a sort of tigress, definitely. Also, there have been reference's before to her unique name and to Teutonic Legend. In my book, in the Explanatory Notes is says: "the 'white armed' Gudrun of Teutonic legend (re-told by Wagner and William Morris), daughter of the kind of the Nibelungs, eventually murdered her husband Atli." Interesting. I think that Gudrun is a deliberate name Lawrence chose to suggest the fierce temperment of Gudrun. Gerald has a boldness as well and they both want to be tamed (?) in a way by each other, do you think? Or do they simply want to dominate each other? I think this meeting at the tree, showed to Gerald how somewhat alike they are in their natures. They both have very strong wills. Do you recall the railroad/horse scene when Ursuala was appalled, but Gudrun rather had moments of being thrilled or stimulated by it?

Another bold opinion (considering the time the book was published) concerning marriage. I liked this part (not that i necessarily agree). I wonder how the church and religious groups in general reacted to this book.

I can't imagine that the church would like Lawrence's book very well; but many writers of the day offended the church(s). Lawrence's books were often banned and he had a hard time getting them published, especially in his native country, England. In fact, most were published through a New York publisher in the US. Some revision was done to many or all novels; of recent years original texts have been recovered. You can imagine what the book would have been like before revisions. Also, you can imagine what the reaction must have been like when these novels first came out in that time period. It did cause quite a stir to say the least. Interesing to note is that it was not unusual for L to re-write books from scratch 2 and 3 times. Amazing, isn't it, considering the complexity of his texts?

I think this paragraph is another biblical reference. It reminds me how Eve was created from the side of Adam (although it seems that Lawrence thinks it was the other way around ).

I thought so, too, when first reading it. I read in several of my biographies that Lawrence actually had a 'fear of women' due to his overbearing mother and his childhood. Although he deeply loved his mother, she was extremely controlling in his life as an adolescent, especially. In many of his books men are frightened of women's control. It is an interesting thing to consider. Therefore, this might be why he writes the biblical references in reverse.

The same biblical reference, but this time it seems that L disagrees completely. Woman and man are different indipendant entities, not pieces of the same body.

I actually like this last passage, you have quoted, best of all. I do think it is taught about the two halves of a whole, but I also think there is individuality in a good marriage. I think basically this is what L is getting at but hope that Virgil comments further on these passages, so that I can learn more about Lawrence's thoughts on this and marriage. I think he could site instances from "The Rainbow" that are similiar to this passage and it's ideal.

How about chapter 14 Water- party??? This was a strangely-filled chapter. I don't even know where to begin. At first, what struck me was all the romantic-erotic scenes, all the implied love between the two couples. It was so real, and yet so fantasized. I loved it!! But then, as you go futher down the chapter you get this paradox, from romantic and airy to deathly. It was soo unusual for me to read this all in one chapter. Why, I wonder, would DHL decide to throw everything right at his readers in one chapter. There is sooo much in this chapter...so much depth. The submissiveness of Gundrun, all the melodramtic scences of women being aggressive to men...and yet it was said that DHL was much of the aggressor toward women. Very intersting. I can't wait to read everyone else's take on the read of this explosive chapter.
(Sorry I am not adding quotes from the story, if need be I will try.)

Spoiler if you have not read chapter "The Water Party"

Hi Olive,

manolia earlier cited this abrupt change in mood in one of her posts. I agree that this chapter is full of much to think about, so much meaning, deep meaning and suggestions of things to come, as well. I was waiting for this chapter to emerge, since I knew it as a memorable part in book, having read this book 30 yrs back (I beat Virgil by 5 yrs). This chapter always stood out for me starkly with the disasterous ending. I think it quite brilliant that Lawrence put all of this into one chapter - the picnic on the hill with emotions running taunt and magnetic and then the stark reality of death emerging again to bring all characters back into the present and reality. It seems to be a sort of see-saw effect emotionally, don't you think? Just when something significant might occur romantically between the two couples they are interrupted and drawn back to the main throng of the party-goers and the desperate circumstances and then back into reality and not a dream world of idealism. I think this is all contained in one chapter since the entire day is devoted to "The Water Party" and the day has this stark contrast of light and dark, day and night. The drowning takes place at night with murky/muddy water as the vehicle of death. The lanterns lend a romantic air to the scenes at first, but then if you notice, all are extinquished to aid in the search. The search is very dark and black. The closing scenes with the young man and woman entwined and Gerald's comment that 'she killed him' would also go along with my last post to manolia and the idea of man being frightened by the control of women. Certainly we have seen this control in Hermione before and she could be deadly in her wrathful (deadly) actions towards Birkin.

I have an added answer about Lawrence's real way with women, but I must think about it to word it correctly. I will quote your posting remark later and expound on that idea. The answer is not at all simple.

**Of interest might be something I just read - that the drowning was actually based on a real event of a child drowning (at a similiar water party)with an adoescent boy trying to save her, also drowning. The teenage boy was the son of a prominent doctor. Apparently Lawrence got into some trouble for writing this. It did not go over well with the actual parents of the deceased.

[manolia]

So funny, manolia, I do the same thing - the conjuring up of movie scenes in my mind. Well, especially easy to do is this book, since I read the book, then saw the film version years ago. I also bought this British film version on DVD (directed by Ken Russell) last year, and have watched it three times. I see now that much has been left out, however the film stays true to the essense and characters of the book. It is a very good film, if you can get a chance to view it, but only after you finish the book.

Hehehe Janine, i was sure that you had already watched at least two adaptations of the book . Thanx for the info. I'll watch it.

Back to the book itself. Yes, I too see Gudrun as a sort of tigress, definitely. Also, there have been reference's before to her unique name and to Teutonic Legend. In my book, in the Explanatory Notes is says: "the 'white armed' Gudrun of Teutonic legend (re-told by Wagner and William Morris), daughter of the kind of the Nibelungs, eventually murdered her husband Atli." Interesting. I think that Gudrun is a deliberate name Lawrence chose to suggest the fierce temperment of Gudrun. Gerald has a boldness as well and they both want to be tamed (?) in a way by each other, do you think? Or do they simply want to dominate each other? I think this meeting at the tree, showed to Gerald how somewhat alike they are in their natures. They both have very strong wills. Do you recall the railroad/horse scene when Ursuala was appalled, but Gudrun rather had moments of being thrilled or stimulated by it?

I agree with what you say about the choice of the name (Gudrun). This can't be a coincidence. Gudrun (in the book) is a very 'lethal' character . I won't be much surprised if she does something really bad till the end of the book.
It seems that Lawrence was very fond of mythology (by the way i have spotted more references. He mentions Aphrodite in ch 14, the godess of beauty).
I believe that both Gudrun and Gerald want to dominate and be tamed. It is a very powerful and wierd combination and i prefer this couple to the other one.
I remember the scene with the horse. Was it me or L was making a parallel between the horse and Gudrun (that somehow they will have the same fate, both tamed by Gerald. That's why Gudrun was angry in the end of the scene, right?)

I can't imagine that the church would like Lawrence's book very well; but many writers of the day offended the church(s). Lawrence's books were often banned and he had a hard time getting them published, especially in his native country, England. In fact, most were published through a New York publisher in the US. Some revision was done to many or all novels; of recent years original texts have been recovered. You can imagine what the book would have been like before revisions. Also, you can imagine what the reaction must have been like when these novels first came out in that time period. It did cause quite a stir to say the least. Interesing to note is that it was not unusual for L to re-write books from scratch 2 and 3 times. Amazing, isn't it, considering the complexity of his texts?.

I was sure that this would be the case.What he says in this book (his opinions on pretty much everything) must have been a shock to his contemporaries. Thanx again for the info. He was 'forced' to rewrite the book?? I didn't know that.

[Virgil]

Wow, I can't keep up with you guys. I can't respond to everything but since you bring up the horses i found this exchange in chapter 12 on the horses even more interesting than the actual scene where Gerald spurrs her:

And Ursula, recovering from her ill- humour, turned to Gerald saying:

`Oh, I hated you so much the other day, Mr Crich,'

`What for?' said Gerald, wincing slightly away.

`For treating your horse so badly. Oh, I hated you so much!'

`What did he do?' sang Hermione.

`He made his lovely sensitive Arab horse stand with him at the railway- crossing whilst a horrible lot of trucks went by; and the poor thing, she was in a perfect frenzy, a perfect agony. It was the most horrible sight you can imagine.'

`Why did you do it, Gerald?' asked Hermione, calm and interrogative.

`She must learn to stand -- what use is she to me in this country, if she shies and goes off every time an engine whistles.'

`But why inflict unnecessary torture?' said Ursula. `Why make her stand all that time at the crossing? You might just as well have ridden back up the road, and saved all that horror. Her sides were bleeding where you had spurred her. It was too horrible --!'

Gerald stiffened.

`I have to use her,' he replied. `And if I'm going to be sure of her at all, she'll have to learn to stand noises.'

`Why should she?' cried Ursula in a passion. `She is a living creature, why should she stand anything, just because you choose to make her? She has as much right to her own being, as you have to yours.'

`There I disagree,' said Gerald. `I consider that mare is there for my use. Not because I bought her, but because that is the natural order. It is more natural for a man to take a horse and use it as he likes, than for him to go down on his knees to it, begging it to do as it wishes, and to fulfil its own marvellous nature.'

OK, that's fair enough, and somewhat conventional logic. But notice this after:

`Quite,' said Birkin sharply. `Nothing is so detestable as the maudlin attributing of human feelings and consciousness to animals.'

`Yes,' said Hermione, wearily, `we must really take a position. Either we are going to use the animals, or they will use us.'

`That's a fact,' said Gerald. `A horse has got a will like a man, though it has no mind strictly. And if your will isn't master, then the horse is master of you. And this is a thing I can't help. I can't help being master of the horse.'

`If only we could learn how to use our will,' said Hermione, `we could do anything. The will can cure anything, and put anything right. That I am convinced of -- if only we use the will properly, intelligibly.'

`What do you mean by using the will properly?' said Birkin.

`A very great doctor taught me,' she said, addressing Ursula and Gerald vaguely. `He told me for instance, that to cure oneself of a bad habit, one should force oneself to do it, when one would not do it -- make oneself do it -- and then the habit would disappear.'

`How do you mean?' said Gerald.

`If you bite your nails, for example. Then, when you don't want to bite your nails, bite them, make yourself bite them. And you would find the habit was broken.'

OK this is rather interesting but it too signals how Hermione is a very "willful" person. And we know that already. But notice this:

`It is fatal to use the will like that,' cried Birkin harshly, `disgusting. Such a will is an obscenity.'

Hermione looked at him for a long time, with her shadowed, heavy eyes. Her face was soft and pale and thin, almost phosphorescent, her jaw was lean.

`I'm sure it isn't,' she said at length. There always seemed an interval, a strange split between what she seemed to feel and experience, and what she actually said and thought. She seemed to catch her thoughts at length from off the surface of a maelstrom of chaotic black emotions and reactions, and Birkin was always filled with repulsion, she caught so infallibly, her will never failed her. Her voice was always dispassionate and tense, and perfectly confident. Yet she shuddered with a sense of nausea, a sort of seasickness that always threatened to overwhelm her mind. But her mind remained unbroken, her will was still perfect. It almost sent Birkin mad. But he would never, never dare to break her will, and let loose the maelstrom of her subconsciousness, and see her in her ultimate madness. Yet he was always striking at her.

`And of course,' he said to Gerald, `horses haven't got a complete will, like human beings. A horse has no one will. Every horse, strictly, has two wills. With one will, it wants to put itself in the human power completely -- and with the other, it wants to be free, wild. The two wills sometimes lock -- you know that, if ever you've felt a horse bolt, while you've been driving it.'

`I have felt a horse bolt while I was driving it,' said Gerald, `but it didn't make me know it had two wills. I only knew it was frightened.'

Hermione had ceased to listen. She simply became oblivious when these subjects were started.

`Why should a horse want to put itself in the human power?' asked Ursula. `That is quite incomprehensible to me. I don't believe it ever wanted it.'

`Yes it did. It's the last, perhaps highest, love-impulse: resign your will to the higher being,' said Birkin.

`What curious notions you have of love,' jeered Ursula.

`And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition.'

`Then I'm a bolter,' said Ursula, with a burst of laughter.

`It's a dangerous thing to domesticate even horses, let alone women,' said Birkin. `The dominant principle has some rare antagonists.'

First i think it's somewhat clear that Lawrence supports the breaking of the horse's will. At least that's how i read it. Second, he associates women's will to a horse's will. The concept of two wills, one as subjected and the other as free and wild, is incredibly imaginative and I think new. The fact that a woman's will is also of two wills (both subjected and free) here is not surprising for Lawrence. He seems to be saying that woman's wills must be controlled like that of a horse by men. Hermione represents what is wrong with modern women (this is Lawrence not me, ), willful and uncontrolled. Needless to say Lawrence was not a feminist. I think the relationship between Gudrun and Gerald is an acting out of this attempt to controll the free and wild female.

[Janine]

Hehehe Janine, i was sure that you had already watched at least two adaptations of the book . Thanx for the info. I'll watch it.

Hi Manolia, Hahaha! You know me so well. I knew you could relate, seeing we both see so many films. No, only one version of WIL, and I actually saw it years ago (after reading the book, mind you) at an art theater in Philadelphia on South St. TLA. They would show unusual and foreign films there. It was fantastic on a big screen and back then they actually had big screens! I was blown away by the film. I only bought the DVD a year ago and was thrilled to find this rare film out on DVD.
Only "Hamlet" that I have seen 4, or is it 5, adaptations of by now...I own four, one courtesy of Virgil. Hope you can find the film WIL to watch sometime...

I agree with what you say about the choice of the name (Gudrun). This can't be a coincidence. Gudrun (in the book) is a very 'lethal' character . I won't be much surprised if she does something really bad till the end of the book.
It seems that Lawrence was very fond of mythology (by the way i have spotted more references. He mentions Aphrodite in ch 14, the godess of beauty).

ch 14 - so it was in the 'Water-Party' scene? I do recall it's reference, but somehow I thought it was in 'An Island' scene. I was wondering what you made of that scene; when Birkin takes Ursula over to the little island. He goes on quite extensively about his thoughts and philosophies; but towards the end I get the feeling he is not totally definite about his beliefs yet. What did you think? I found that scene highly interesting.

I believe that both Gudrun and Gerald want to dominate and be tamed. It is a very powerful and weird combination and i prefer this couple to the other one.
I remember the scene with the horse. Was it me or L was making a parallel between the horse and Gudrun (that somehow they will have the same fate, both tamed by Gerald. That's why Gudrun was angry in the end of the scene, right?)

Well, I find them more definite or more defined than Birkin and Ursula, especially Ursula. I think by the end of the book both Birkin and Ursula will emerge more definite and with more clarity. Gundrun has been more subjected to the outside world than Ursula has and so has Gerald as you will find out in ch.17, therefore they share more in common. Ursuala has been more sheltered, don't you think?

For Virgil mostly but read if you don't mind knowing something about the ending.
*Note - this part of paragraph could be spoiler for "The Rainbow" - tells the ending - sorry) Or having read "The Rainbow", do you think she has experienced much in her past? In my explanatory notes in this book it refers to her name and a person in history/lore: "St. Ursula led 1,000 virgins on an embassy to the Huns, who murdered them near Cologne - but DHL's Ursula would overcome the near tragedy of The Rainbow, at whose end she is recovering from breakdown and learning to wait for a 'son of god' to appear in her life."

Also, in the notes is this reference: "Artemis...Hebe... Virgin goddess of chastity (Diana to the Romans), daughter of Zeus...youthful cup-bearer to the gods, harnesser of horses, generally useful about the gods' abode."

What do you make of that? harnesser of horses...humm. I am not sure where it came up in the text nor to which sister it is referring to. Do you? Also it relates directly to what Virgil has to say in his post about horses and their relationship to women.

I was sure that this would be the case.What he says in this book (his opinions on pretty much everything) must have been a shock to his contemporaries. Thanx again for the info. He was 'forced' to rewrite the book?? I didn't know that.

Quite a shock indeed! Yes, apparently he did have to edit - but that is not unusual, is it? - most great writer's of anything remotely contraversial have to edit out text. My book Penquin Cambridge edition, I recently bought from Amazon, claims to have two addition chapters. I have counted one, but in the back the book has 2 more chapters one with additions ('Wedding') and one is the very beginning of the book, not titled 'Sisters', but rather it is titled 'Chapter 1 Prologue'. Apparently and originally Lawrence intented to start the book this way and it was edited out or he was made to edit the entire chapter. I only briefly read the beginning of this chapter, to see what it entailed, and it seems to be about Gerald and Birkin and their close relationship. I have not read it yet out of fairness to all that do not own this edition. I will certainly read it at the finish of the book.

This should be of interest to Virgil particularly, since he knows the history of L's life. Lawrence's good friend, John Middleton Murry, thought himself the model for Gerald, but actually the book says not wholly, although Lawrence did draw on certain characteristics of Murry and his wife Katherine Mansfield. Murry also claimed that the idea of a relationship between men addtional to marriage 'is more or less what Lawrence said to me' (Between Two Worlds 1935, pg 412).
Further reference can be linked to Katherine Mansfield in this quote from my book notes:
"Although Gudrun (and her relationship with Gerald) was in the first "Sisters", finished before DHL met Katherine Mansfield, the final characterization was influenced by having known her: e.g. the striking looks and the stylish dress, the art of carving in miniature (analogous to the art of the short story), the habitual irony, sharpness of tongue and liking to pin people down in a phrase, and Lawrence's perception of an uncertainty of self behind the apparent confidence and sophistication."
Virgil, I don't know about you, but I find all of this significant and fascinating.

Virgil, I read your post and you bring up some great points. I will answer it later tonight. J

[Janine]

Wow, I can't keep up with you guys. I can't respond to everything but since you bring up the horses i found this exchange in chapter 12 on the horses even more interesting than the actual scene where Gerald spurrs her:

Virgil, You can keep up! I probaby won't read as much tonight; watching a movie instead. Take your time to respond to things you might have missed. I like to hear your take on the points we covered last night. The horse references in that conversation between Hermoine, Ursula, Gerald, and Birkin were very interesting. Seemed to me like a followup to just what Gerald's intentions were at the railroad crossing. But at the time he did act this way with the horse, I also felt he was acting it out to demonstrate his dominence over the horse (more significantly representative of Gerald's dominence (consider his dominence as an employer in the mines), but especially his dominence towards a women. He was aware of Ursula and Gudrun viewing his behavior before he acted that way with the horse - am I correct? This part you are now quoting fully clarifies his motives. Remember in "The Prussian Officer", how when the officer was mounted high upon his horse, it symbolised his dominince of power over his soldiers and especially his abused orderly.

OK, that's fair enough, and somewhat conventional logic. But notice this after:

True.

OK this is rather interesting but it too signals how Hermione is a very "willful" person. And we know that already. But notice this:

It does do that. I agree.

First i think it's somewhat clear that Lawrence supports the breaking of the horse's will. At least that's how i read it. Second, he associates women's will to a horse's will. The concept of two wills, one as subjected and the other as free and wild, is incredibly imaginative and I think new. The fact that a woman's will is also of two wills (both subjected and free) here is not surprising for Lawrence. He seems to be saying that woman's wills must be controlled like that of a horse by men. Hermione represents what is wrong with modern women (this is Lawrence not me, ), willful and uncontrolled. Needless to say Lawrence was not a feminist. I think the relationship between Gudrun and Gerald is an acting out of this attempt to controll the free and wild female.

Does Lawrence support that - do you really think so? I am not sure about it. He seems to show both sides of the issue. He definitely does associate women's will to the horse's will. Birkin blantantly states so doesn't he? Yet he goes a step further in my opinion.
'And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition.'
This seems to clarify what you said and also note the duality within the woman herself.
Why does Birkin say earlier in that passage: 'It is fatal to use the will like that,' cried Birkin harshly, `disgusting. Such a will is an obscenity.' Isn't he opposing Gerald's blantant cruelity towards the animal in this statement. Birkin seemed to be agreeing with Gerald at first but now I get the impression he is not in total agreement.

[Virgil]

He was aware of Ursula and Gudrun viewing his behavior before he acted that way with the horse - am I correct?

For some reason I thought he wasn't. I could be wrong.

Does Lawrence support that - do you really think so? I am not sure about it. He seems to show both sides of the issue. He definitely does associate women's will to the horse's will. Birkin blantantly states so doesn't he? Yet he goes a step further in my opinion.
'And woman is the same as horses: two wills act in opposition inside her. With one will, she wants to subject herself utterly. With the other she wants to bolt, and pitch her rider to perdition.'
This seems to clarify what you said and also note the duality within the woman herself.
Why does Birkin say earlier in that passage: 'It is fatal to use the will like that,' cried Birkin harshly, `disgusting. Such a will is an obscenity.' Isn't he opposing Gerald's blantant cruelity towards the animal in this statement. Birkin seemed to be agreeing with Gerald at first but now I get the impression he is not in total agreement.

I seemed to think he was supporting Gerald but opposing Hermione. It is perplexing. I can't resolve the two statements.

For Virgil mostly but read if you don't mind knowing something about the ending.
*Note - this part of paragraph could be spoiler for "The Rainbow" - tells the ending - sorry) Or having read "The Rainbow", do you think she has experienced much in her past? In my explanatory notes in this book it refers to her name and a person in history/lore: "St. Ursula led 1,000 virgins on an embassy to the Huns, who murdered them near Cologne - but DHL's Ursula would overcome the near tragedy of The Rainbow, at whose end she is recovering from breakdown and learning to wait for a 'son of god' to appear in her life."

Ursula is a major character in The Rainbow, but Gudrun is only a minor character. I'm not sure i understand the significance of Ursula's name. That is an interesting legend.

Also, in the notes is this reference: "Artemis...Hebe... Virgin goddess of chastity (Diana to the Romans), daughter of Zeus...youthful cup-bearer to the gods, harnesser of horses, generally useful about the gods' abode."

What do you make of that? harnesser of horses...humm. I am not sure where it came up in the text nor to which sister it is referring to. Do you? Also it relates directly to what Virgil has to say in his post about horses and their relationship to women.

There might be an association of the sisters with Diana/Artemis. I think there is a case to make for both sisters.

This should be of interest to Virgil particularly, since he knows the history of L's life. Lawrence's good friend, John Middleton Murry, thought himself the model for Gerald, but actually the book says not wholly, although Lawrence did draw on certain characteristics of Murry and his wife Katherine Mansfield. Murry also claimed that the idea of a relationship between men addtional to marriage 'is more or less what Lawrence said to me' (Between Two Worlds 1935, pg 412).
Further reference can be linked to Katherine Mansfield in this quote from my book notes:
"Although Gudrun (and her relationship with Gerald) was in the first "Sisters", finished before DHL met Katherine Mansfield, the final characterization was influenced by having known her: e.g. the striking looks and the stylish dress, the art of carving in miniature (analogous to the art of the short story), the habitual irony, sharpness of tongue and liking to pin people down in a phrase, and Lawrence's perception of an uncertainty of self behind the apparent confidence and sophistication."
Virgil, I don't know about you, but I find all of this significant and fascinating.

There is no doubt that Gerald and Gudrun are modeled on Murry and Mansfield. It may be fascinating to those who study Lawrence's biography but I don't think it has any significance to the novel.

[manolia]

ch 14 - so it was in the 'Water-Party' scene? I do recall it's reference, but somehow I thought it was in 'An Island' scene. I was wondering what you made of that scene; when Birkin takes Ursula over to the little island. He goes on quite extensively about his thoughts and philosophies; but towards the end I get the feeling he is not totally definite about his beliefs yet. What did you think? I found that scene highly interesting.

I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).

Well, I find them more definite or more defined than Birkin and Ursula, especially Ursula. I think by the end of the book both Birkin and Ursula will emerge more definite and with more clarity. Gundrun has been more subjected to the outside world than Ursula has and so has Gerald as you will find out in ch.17, therefore they share more in common. Ursuala has been more sheltered, don't you think?

I just read ch 17. So far it's my favourite chapter. You get to see L opinions on industrial revolution, marxism (the colliers' being dissappointed end revolting against the system- here Mr Crich, is definately an allusion to marxism). This chapter reinforces Virgil's opinion that Lawrence was sympathetic to fascism.

Also, in the notes is this reference: "Artemis...Hebe... Virgin goddess of chastity (Diana to the Romans), daughter of Zeus...youthful cup-bearer to the gods, harnesser of horses, generally useful about the gods' abode."

What do you make of that? harnesser of horses...humm. I am not sure where it came up in the text nor to which sister it is referring to. Do you? Also it relates directly to what Virgil has to say in his post about horses and their relationship to women.

In ancient greek mythology (the roman gods were derived directly from the ancient greek gods. Only the names change, in most cases) Artemis was the godess of hunt. She was a virgin and was very hostile towards men (sometimes she killed the men that came near her, to flirt her). Hebe ("Ηβη"), the other name means "young" or "youth" . The english word "eve" was derived from this word. If i remember correctly, the lady that was drowned (Gerald's sister) was named Diana. So this allusion was for that girl. If you remember, she has also drowned the doctor's son (her arms were round his neck). That's why L calls her Diana (Artemis). She eventually kills the man who approaches her.

[Virgil]

I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).

You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.

[Janine]

I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).

manolia, yes, then we do agree about how she was feeling at the time. I felt them both at odds with each other and also a confusion in both their minds. When you get to "Moony" let me know because again we have a scene with Birkin and Ursula alone, this time at night, by the pond. I want to see how you feel about the two in comparison. I just read it this morning in part; I have not finished that chapter yet.

I just read ch 17. So far it's my favourite chapter. You get to see L opinions on industrial revolution, marxism (the colliers' being dissappointed end revolting against the system- here Mr Crich, is definately an allusion to marxism). This chapter reinforces Virgil's opinion that Lawrence was sympathetic to fascism.

Go manolia, go! I am starting 19. You know I did not find ch. 17 to be my favorite chapter, in fact I had a hard time getting through that one, being a long chapter. However, it certainly did reveal and clarify much about Gerald and his family and their background and his own ideas of life and work, didn't it? You are right in noticing the political connotations with the Marxism. Could he also be called a socialist in his benevolence to the poor?
Did you notice all the religious references and submissions of guilt on the father's part, about the lowly worker being entitled to a place in heaven, whereas he, being rich, doubted his own admission past the pearly gates? This reminds me of another book I read, which explored this idea even more extensively, "Brideshead Revisited". It seems that in both books the character acts out of 'charity' with the basic goal of saving their own soul.

In ancient greek mythology (the roman gods were derived directly from the ancient greek gods. Only the names change, in most cases) Artemis was the godess of hunt. She was a virgin and was very hostile towards men (sometimes she killed the men that came near her, to flirt her). Hebe ("Ηβη"), the other name means "young" or "youth" . The english word "eve" was derived from this word. If i remember correctly, the lady that was drowned (Gerald's sister) was named Diana. So this allusion was for that girl. If you remember, she has also drowned the doctor's son (her arms were round his neck). That's why L calls her Diana (Artemis). She eventually kills the man who approaches her.

This is excellent. I had a feeling you would know this background and be able to expound on what I had copied from my book notes. This is great and reveals so much about the characters. Fascinating! Also, so interesting is the fact that Diana was the drowned sister's name and so this makes perfect sense in the way they found them - her arms around his neck; as Gerald observed "She killed him." It is now so great to know each name picked for the characters has definite meaning. I wonder about Hermione's name. Do you think it also has roots in mythology? Eve being derived from Hebe - now that is definitely interesting, don't you think?

[manolia]

You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.

Thanx Virgil for the explanation. You are right. Too much water and people drowning or feel like they are drowning (haven't you already said something to that effect in a previous post?). I have also noticed that he mentions the stars often..any ideas?

manolia, You are right in noticing the political connotations with the Marxism. Could he also be called a socialist in his benevolence to the poor?

No i don't think so. The way he describes the poor colliers (i don't remember the exact words but he gives the impression that they are slightly deformed) and the way he mentions how ungrateful they were towards their benevolent benefactor (Mr Crich) makes clear that Lawrence doesn't approve their actions and their claim that all men are equal.
Gerald strikes me as a capitalist (and you know capitalism - considering the era the book was written was a rather progressive idea).

This is excellent. I had a feeling you would know this background and be able to expound on what I had copied from my book notes. This is great and reveals so much about the characters. Fascinating! Also, so interesting is the fact that Diana was the drowned sister's name and so this makes perfect sense in the way they found them - her arms around his neck; as Gerald observed "She killed him." It is now so great to know each name picked for the characters has definite meaning. I wonder about Hermione's name. Do you think it also has roots in mythology? Eve being derived from Hebe - now that is definitely interesting, don't you think?

Hermione is a greek name Janine (i think). But i admit that i don't remember anything concerning that name. I'll have a look in the net and i'll tell you

[Virgil]

Thanx Virgil for the explanation. You are right. Too much water and people drowning or feel like they are drowning (haven't you already said something to that effect in a previous post?). I have also noticed that he mentions the stars often..any ideas?

Yes actually. The stars are another allusion to greek myths. Constellations are represented as greek heroes or gods or legends. In a way it is a method of taking a hero and permanently fixing him in heaven or in the heavens. I believe this will be an important symbol for Birkin's and Ursula's relationship toward the end of the novel.

[Janine]

For some reason I thought he wasn't. I could be wrong.

Hi Manny, do you recall which chapter that was from - the part with the railroad crossing and the horse? I just flipped through my book but I can't seem to recall the name of that chapter. I thought at the time he had seen them and in a way he was putting on a show for their behalf partly. But I may have read that incorrectly and assumed it.

I seemed to think he was supporting Gerald but opposing Hermione. It is perplexing. I can't resolve the two statements.

Oh, good point. Do you think then he said so as a 'man thing' opposing the controlling female, who he was greatly at odds with by now? So he aligned himself with Gerald. I can't picture Birkin taking the same action towards an animal but then again there is much animal abuse in many of Lawrence's novels and man does seem to be held supreme always in relationship to animals. When you read the chapter "Rabbit" you will again encounter this. In 'The White Peacock", Lawrence's first novel, begun when he was only 22, I was amazed at all the blantant animal cruelity, not instigated by the Lawrence/Cyril character, but by the boy on the neighboring farm and others.

Ursula is a major character in The Rainbow, but Gudrun is only a minor character. I'm not sure i understand the significance of Ursula's name. That is an interesting legend.

I am not entirely clear on the significance of Ursula's name but manolia shed some enligthening facts on names and their references today. I found the Hebe or Eve reference quite interesting.

There might be an association of the sisters with Diana/Artemis. I think there is a case to make for both sisters.

manolia cites the connection with Diana who drowned, Gerald's sister. I think you could be right though about it meaning more that that. The drowning may only represent the graphic idea of the role Diana plays and may fortell other outcomes to the story. I think there more direct reference to the two sisters, especially Gudrun.

There is no doubt that Gerald and Gudrun are modeled on Murry and Mansfield. It may be fascinating to those who study Lawrence's biography but I don't think it has any significance to the novel.

Well, I wrote this primarily for your interest, but I do think it has some significance in fact.
The reference I refer to says to some degree Murry and Katherine were based on these real-life friends, but surely not entirely. Murry's book actually is not that substianted, from what I have read about it. Murry at one time tried to have an affair with Lawrene's wife (some say successfully) after the death of Katherine Mansfield (early to TB). I don't think L and Murry exactly ended well. But most definitely L took characteristics from various real people and sometimes painted them as one character. Ursula's character is believed to be mostly drawn from Frieda, and Gudrun is suppose to represent his wife, Freida's real sister, Else. You know, the mention of the colored stockings that seem to reappear often in the book? Lawrence liked Freida to wear these thick woolen stocking in bright colors. Odd guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia

I just remembered the chapter ("Island"). Yes you are right. I got the same feeling while reading it. Probaly Ursula got the same feeling too (that's why they end up in each others arms).

You guys are not going crazy mixing up the scenes. Lawrence is purposefully organizing scenes in repetition, for instance in this novel recurring water scenes. In The Rainbow he organizes that novel with recurring night moon scenes. This gives each novel a cohesion and shows progress through differences within the repetition. It is a remarkable technical innovation in my opinion. I don't recall any novelist doing this before. Tolstoy does something similar in that he alternates between war and peace in War and Peace and between country and city in Anna Karinina. But Tolstoy does it to show contrast. Lawrence seems to be doing it for repetition, which gives the reader the sense he is going deeper and deeper into subconscious of the characters. In affect it presents layers. It makes the novels The Rainbow and Women In Love much closer to poems. They strike me as Poem-Novels rather than plain novels.

No, not mixing up scenes, if that was meant to be a question. Just went back to discuss "An Island" scene; a few things we missed. I can see the progression of the water scenes as you have pointed out; wonderful observation; quite brilliant of Lawrence, isn't it? He keeps building and building the novel in such fine layers and intricate weavings of characters with nature, much like real life, I think; nothing is simple or beyond the complex. Someone today mentioned reading the posts and said he was amazed at Lawrence's 'intensity'.
I did not recall "The Rainbow" having the recurring moon scenes, but I don't recall much about that book, for some odd reason. Seems I really do need to re-read it soon. I am sure it will take on a whole new world of significance for me. Did you come up to ch. 19, "Moony"? I am sure you will find that of great interest, now that you mentioned the moon element in "The Rainbow." Now that I think about it, as the novel progresses, it seems so much of the story revolves around that lake/water on the Crich property. The drowning gave it great significance and seems in my mind to centralise the lake as representative of the theme(s) of the book. I like the last part you wrote especially about "going deeper and deeper into the subconscious of the characters". Interesting idea of the novels acting as long poems or what you term 'Poem-Novels'. Not sure I entirely agree with that idea, but I do find it a unique way of writing in prose and with all the imagery I do think it seems to be "poetic", definitely.