June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[manolia]

Here is who Hermione was (i feel really ashamed that i didn't remember this..but ancient greek myths are endless..one can't possibly remember all this by heart)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermione_%28mythology%29

[Janine]

Here is who Hermione was (i feel really ashamed that i didn't remember this..but ancient greek myths are endless..one can't possibly remember all this by heart)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermione_%28mythology%29

manolia, I quite agree - how could one be expected to learn all that and remember it, too. It is so complicated. I hardly recall any mythology, not that I had very in-depth studies of it at all. Thanks for looking that up. I could not access that link, so I had to look it up in Wikipedia, no problem. It was quite interesting, I thought, the fact Hermoine was, in Greek Legend/Mythology, a daughter of Menelaus and Helen, of Troy. Lawrence keeps describing Hermione as beautiful in physical appearance. Wasn't Helen suppose to be the most beautiful woman in the world? She was 'dangerous' too, since they waged a war in her behalf.

The early mythology you looked up is excellent and quite revealing as well. manolia, you will have to be our official mythology research expert! It is good you are aboard this time.

Virgil, I liked your paragraph and reference (mythologically) to the star constellations and the significance they have to the story. Yes, I would imagine at the end, they will shine forth prominently. I think I recall a certain star of great importance in one of the closing scenes.

[nmolive]

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.

Yes, I believe you are right on with this. He even does this with his choice of diction. He uses the same word over and over within the same paragraph. I knew it must be for a reason, so thanks for noting all that you did about this. Very interesting!!

[Virgil]

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.

It's in the first few pages of chapter 9. Let me know what the verdict is if you re-read it.

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.

It could be a male thing. That crossed my mind too. Quite interesting about the animal cruelty thing. I seem to remember a fox is hunted in his short novel The Fox.

Yes, I believe you are right on with this. He even does this with his choice of diction. He uses the same word over and over within the same paragraph. I knew it must be for a reason, so thanks for noting all that you did about this. Very interesting!!

Oh no problem. You are definitely right about the diction repetitions. It creates a web of meaning. This is why I consider this more of a poem-novel.

Thanks manolia for the Hermione allusion to greek myth. I had never known that and I thought I knew greek mythology fairly well.
Now here is something else that is interesting that I wish to point out. It's the flower imagery and smbolism of flowers that runs through the novel. It relates to what Lawrence means as being "complete" of "final." In chapter eleven Birkin and Ursula are talking about whether they are happy.

`I do enjoy things -- don't you?' she asked.

`Oh yes! But it infuriates me that I can't get right, at the really growing part of me. I feel all tangled and messed up, and I can't get straight anyhow. I don't know what really to do. One must do something somewhere.'

`Why should you always be doing?' she retorted. `It is so plebeian. I think it is much better to be really patrician, and to do nothing but just be oneself, like a walking flower.'

`I quite agree,' he said, `if one has burst into blossom. But I can't get my flower to blossom anyhow. Either it is blighted in the bud, or has got the smother-fly, or it isn't nourished. Curse it, it isn't even a bud. It is a contravened knot.'

A walking flower, burst into blossom. And then in chapter 12 they talk about love and Birkin says his notable statement that love is not the final conclusion:

`Yes, it does. At the very last, one is alone, beyond the influence of love. There is a real impersonal me, that is beyond love, beyond any emotional relationship. So it is with you. But we want to delude ourselves that love is the root. It isn't. It is only the branches. The root is beyond love, a naked kind of isolation, an isolated me, that does not meet and mingle, and never can.'

Notice the flower metaphor in there. And then a little furthere down;

`There is,' he said, in a voice of pure abstraction; `a final me which is stark and impersonal and beyond responsibility. So there is a final you. And it is there I would want to meet you -- not in the emotional, loving plane -- but there beyond, where there is no speech and no terms of agreement. There we are two stark, unknown beings, two utterly strange creatures, I would want to approach you, and you me. And there could be no obligation, because there is no standard for action there, because no understanding has been reaped from that plane. It is quite inhuman, -- so there can be no calling to book, in any form whatsoever -- because one is outside the pale of all that is accepted, and nothing known applies. One can only follow the impulse, taking that which lies in front, and responsible for nothing, asked for nothing, giving nothing, only each taking according to the primal desire.'

And then in chapter 14:

`Do you smell this little marsh?' he said, sniffing the air. He was very sensitive to scents, and quick in understanding them.

`It's rather nice,' she said.

`No,' he replied, `alarming.'

`Why alarming?' she laughed.

`It seethes and seethes, a river of darkness,' he said, `putting forth lilies and snakes, and the ignis fatuus, and rolling all the time onward. That's what we never take into count -- that it rolls onwards.'

`What does?'

`The other river, the black river. We always consider the silver river of life, rolling on and quickening all the world to a brightness, on and on to heaven, flowing into a bright eternal sea, a heaven of angels thronging. But the other is our real reality --'

`But what other? I don't see any other,' said Ursula.

`It is your reality, nevertheless,' he said; `that dark river of dissolution. You see it rolls in us just as the other rolls -- the black river of corruption. And our flowers are of this -- our sea-born Aphrodite, all our white phosphorescent flowers of sensuous perfection, all our reality, nowadays.'

`You mean that Aphrodite is really deathly?' asked Ursula.

`I mean she is the flowering mystery of the death-process, yes,' he replied. `When the stream of synthetic creation lapses, we find ourselves part of the inverse process, the blood of destructive creation. Aphrodite is born in the first spasm of universal dissolution -- then the snakes and swans and lotus -- marsh-flowers -- and Gudrun and Gerald -- born in the process of destructive creation.'

`And you and me --?' she asked.

`Probably,' he replied. `In part, certainly. Whether we are that, in toto, I don't yet know.'

`You mean we are flowers of dissolution -- fleurs du mal? I don't feel as if I were,' she protested.

He was silent for a time.

`I don't feel as if we were, altogether,' he replied. `Some people are pure flowers of dark corruption -- lilies. But there ought to be some roses, warm and flamy. You know Herakleitos says "a dry soul is best." I know so well what that means. Do you?'

`I'm not sure,' Ursula replied. `But what if people are all flowers of dissolution -- when they're flowers at all -- what difference does it make?'

`No difference -- and all the difference. Dissolution rolls on, just as production does,' he said. `It is a progressive process -- and it ends in universal nothing -- the end of the world, if you like. But why isn't the end of the world as good as the beginning?'

`I suppose it isn't,' said Ursula, rather angry.

`Oh yes, ultimately,' he said. `It means a new cycle of creation after -- but not for us. If it is the end, then we are of the end -- fleurs du mal if you like. If we are fleurs du mal, we are not roses of happiness, and there you are.'

`But I think I am,' said Ursula. `I think I am a rose of happiness.'

`Ready-made?' he asked ironically.

`No -- real,' she said, hurt.

`If we are the end, we are not the beginning,' he said.

`Yes we are,' she said. `The beginning comes out of the end.'

`After it, not out of it. After us, not out of us.'

`You are a devil, you know, really,' she said. `You want to destroy our hope. You want us to be deathly.'

`No,' he said, `I only want us to know what we are.'

If you can piece those scenes together, I think you will see that Lawrence's understanding of completeness and finale is to be as a flower, without a will, blossomed in the sunshine of nature. That is the ultimate goal of life, the culmination in a heaven as a spiritual being. Flowers do not have wills; horses and humans have wills and they are incomplete. The goal then is to lose that will, to cast it off.

[Janine]

It's in the first few pages of chapter 9. Let me know what the verdict is if you re-read it.

Virgil, I found this paragraph 2 of Coal Dust ch.9:

"Whilst the two girls waited, Gerald Crich trodded up on a Red Arab Mare........(sentence 4) He saluted the two girls, and drew up to the crossing to wait for the gate, looking down the railway for the approaching train.”
So this is what led me to think that maybe Gerald was acting that way for the benefit of the woman, especially Gudrun. He would be showing his male superiority and his dominent will.

It could be a male thing. That crossed my mind too. Quite interesting about the animal cruelty thing. I seem to remember a fox is hunted in his short novel The Fox.

I think this animal cruelty thing crops up often in Lawrence’s work, oddly enough. Wonder why? Have you any clear ideas on that?

Oh no problem. Thanks for the Hermione allusion to greek myth. I had never known that and I thought I knew greek mythology fairly well. You are definitely right about the diction repetitions. It creates a web of meaning. This is why I consider this more of a poem-novel.

Yes, magnolia found it online – Wikepedia, I think. Did you read the whole entry – very interesting and I think significant. Funny, the girl in Harry Potter is also named Hermione. manolia, you do great mythology research!

Now here is something else that is interesting that I wish to point out. It's the flower imagery and smbolism of flowers that runs through the novel. It relates to what Lawrence means as being "complete" of "final." In chapter eleven Birkin and Ursula are talking about whether they are happy.

First off, flower themes run through all of Lawrence’s novels, I have often noticed that and he uses them metaphorically and symbolically, always. As I read this passage, and I have read it twice, I still don’t totally understand what Birkin is getting at, not entirely. I understand most of it, but I find it hard to fully comprehend all the floral/metaphor significance here. Am I the only one who is a little confused? I feel even Birkin is not 100% sure of what he is saying… he sounds preachy again and he seems to be struggling with the whole concept or at least relaying it to Ursula, but maybe it is just my perception of the scene. Was this the scene in “An Island” chapter?

A walking flower, burst into blossom. And then in chapter 12 they talk about love and Birkin says his notable statement that love is not the final conclusion:

It is Birkin saying he is no where near what he would like to be, no even a bud.... is that correct? Is it Ursula who feels she is a “walking flower”?

Notice the flower metaphor in there. And then a little furthere down;

Virgil, can you explain to me this metaphor of the flower? I am not real clear on the point he is trying to make...partly I get it but not in totality.

And then in chapter 14:

If you can piece those scenes together, I think you will see that Lawrence's understanding of completeness and finale is to be as a flower, without a will, blossom
in the sunshine of nature. That is the ultimate goal of life, the culmination in a heaven as a spiritual being. Flowers do not have wills; horses and humans have wills and they are incomplete. The goal then is to lose that will, to cast it off.

I like this idea and would like to believe it is what Lawrence means, but I am not sure. Is it just the will Lawrence wants to cast off? Not sure of that either. Seems to me he wants to cast off the whole individual and be as non- beings naked, vulnerable and like nothing they have ever been before – "There we are two stark, unknown beings, two utterly strange creatures, I would want to approach you, and you me." - appart and separate and 'inhuman beings'.

The longest quote you posted, I must think more about. There is a lot going on there. It seems that the two are not in agreement on Birkin's idea. What is meant by 'flower of dissolution'?

*Please bear with me in this post; I could not check back to all the quotes. I am having connection problems tonight with my server or else it is my computer.

[Schokokeks]

Am I the only one who is a little confused?

If I may take that question out of the context you put it in and apply it to a wider one: No, you aren't . "A little confused" pretty well sums up my feelings towards the book as a whole. I'm currently in the middle of Chapter XVII "The Industrial Magnate" and I'm constantly being irritated by the characters and the way their thoughts evolve with the events - I find it so very forced. Papaya has already mentioned the scene in the school room in chapter 3 *. Althought it is explained why Hermione came there, I found the discussion to be "shifted away from the plot" in order for the characters to have space to preach their opinions on life, knowledge, etc
. Of course this serves as a characterisation, but I find the beginnings and the end of these discussions are only very loosely attached to the plot line, which in my eyes makes them forced. It almost seems like Lawrence had a note book with all his collected opinions on all things whatsoever beside his typewriter and tried to stuff them all in at different places via the characters while he was writing.
It's so much telling, and so far I liked the chapters where he is showing a lot better. In fact, I think that Gerald Crich overall is a character (the only ?) more shown than told, and I think Lawrence painted him very deftly .

However, it might also be that I'm so irritated by the book because I don't have time at the moment to fully concentrate on it. I've got three mid-term essays looming behing me, and a Homer translation (eh, Manolia ? ), which "slightly" keep me from my reading. I hope that I won't be forced to give it up for a certain time altogether... Meanwhile I'll read a page or two every evening and see how I get along .




*Another passage for me was the end of chapter XV - Ursula being "possessed" by a fit of hatred against Birkin (whom she's kind of in love with, or did I get that wrong ?). Here it is said that she herself doesn't know the reason for her sudden hatred, but why is this passage there in the first place ?

[Virgil]

Virgil, I found this paragraph 2 of Coal Dust ch.9:

"Whilst the two girls waited, Gerald Crich trodded up on a Red Arab Mare........(sentence 4) He saluted the two girls, and drew up to the crossing to wait for the gate, looking down the railway for the approaching train.”
So this is what led me to think that maybe Gerald was acting that way for the benefit of the woman, especially Gudrun. He would be showing his male superiority and his dominent will.

Oh good find Janine. You're right, he is aware they are watching him. Do you think he's showing off? I take him at his word, that he's training the mare. But I'm not sure now.

I think this animal cruelty thing crops up often in Lawrence’s work, oddly enough. Wonder why? Have you any clear ideas on that?

My only thought is that it's part of the natural world. Like my wife likes to say when we watch a nature show and animals hunt and kill or die from starvation or something, "nature is cruel."

First off, flower themes run through all of Lawrence’s novels, I have often noticed that and he uses them metaphorically and symbolically, always. As I read this passage, and I have read it twice, I still don’t totally understand what Birkin is getting at, not entirely. I understand most of it, but I find it hard to fully comprehend all the floral/metaphor significance here. Am I the only one who is a little confused? I feel even Birkin is not 100% sure of what he is saying… he sounds preachy again and he seems to be struggling with the whole concept or at least relaying it to Ursula, but maybe it is just my perception of the scene. Was this the scene in “An Island” chapter?

and

Virgil, can you explain to me this metaphor of the flower? I am not real clear on the point he is trying to make...partly I get it but not in totality.

I mention the chapter numbers; I don't have the book handy to find the titles. As to the flower metaphor, think of it this way. When a person dies, a soul lives on, and that soul is like a flower. It has no will. Only a live person has a will. The goal of life is to reach this existence where the soul in whatever heaven Lawrence invisions is blossomed and beautiful. A live person has a will which inhibits the soul. That's why Lawrence stories never end with a finality; live people remain and their wills go on.

It is Birkin saying he is no where near what he would like to be, no even a bud.... is that correct? Is it Ursula who feels she is a “walking flower”?

No that is Birkin.

I like this idea and would like to believe it is what Lawrence means, but I am not sure. Is it just the will Lawrence wants to cast off?

I beleive this is all Lawrence speaking through Birkin.

The longest quote you posted, I must think more about. There is a lot going on there. It seems that the two are not in agreement on Birkin's idea. What is meant by 'flower of dissolution'?

Actually this is the first time I've ever seen this in Lawrence, so I'm not as sure as above here. But I think he is distinguishing between those that will achieve this spiritual nirvana (Birkin and Ursula) and those that will not (Gerald and Gudrun). They too will lose their wills when they die, but apparantly their souls will have a negative flower, and if I were to stretch the metaphor myself, a flower that is unblossomed, shriveled, and wilted.

*Please bear with me in this post; I could not check back to all the quotes. I am having connection problems tonight with my server or else it is my computer.

Of course.

[manolia]

[Wasn't Helen suppose to be the most beautiful woman in the world? She was 'dangerous' too, since they waged a war in her behalf.

Yes she was supposed to be very beautiful. Even Aphrodite the godess of beauty was jealous of her.

The early mythology you looked up is excellent and quite revealing as well. manolia, you will have to be our official mythology research expert! It is good you are aboard this time.

Don't mention it Janine . If i had a better memory i might be more useful.

EDIT

. Althought it is explained why Hermione came there, I found the discussion to be "shifted away from the plot" in order for the characters to have space to preach their opinions on life, knowledge, etc .
Of course this serves as a characterisation, but I find the beginnings and the end of these discussions are only very loosely attached to the plot line, which in my eyes makes them forced. It almost seems like Lawrence had a note book with all his collected opinions on all things whatsoever beside his typewriter and tried to stuff them all in at different places via the characters while he was writing.

Hehe. I have the same feeling sometimes. I like it though. Each character is like a real person. Each one has his/ hers own theories about everything. We must admit that L is very succesful in describing characters. They are so life-like. But i can see what you mean. In some instances this can be annoying since, as you said, it deviates a lot from the main plot line.

.
It's so much telling, and so far I liked the chapters where he is showing a lot better. In fact, I think that Gerald Crich overall is a character (the only ?) more shown than told, and I think Lawrence painted him very deftly .

Yes Gerald is more shown than told. He is the more silent character so far. Gudrun also. They are alike don't you think?

.
and a Homer translation (eh, Manolia ? ), which "slightly" keep me from my reading.

I'll be glad to help (if i can).

.
*Another passage for me was the end of chapter XV - Ursula being "possessed" by a fit of hatred against Birkin (whom she's kind of in love with, or did I get that wrong ?). Here it is said that she herself doesn't know the reason for her sudden hatred, but why is this passage there in the first place ?

I think that Ursula is very angry because she waits from Birkin to make a move..to come to her..to seek her out. She keeps looking at the door but noone is there. And of course he doesn't do anything (so far, that is). (I am not sure if that is what you asked)

[Virgil]

Let me address some of your concerns Schoky, and i'm shifting the order of your comments a bit.

. Of course this serves as a characterisation, but I find the beginnings and the end of these discussions are only very loosely attached to the plot line, which in my eyes makes them forced. It almost seems like Lawrence had a note book with all his collected opinions on all things whatsoever beside his typewriter and tried to stuff them all in at different places via the characters while he was writing.
It's so much telling, and so far I liked the chapters where he is showing a lot better. In fact, I think that Gerald Crich overall is a character (the only ?) more shown than told, and I think Lawrence painted him very deftly .

Like most great modern novels of the early 20th century, this is not a novel that is heavily plot driven. The significant idea/theory which the early moderns were infatuated with was psychology and especially Freud and the notion of the subconscious. What many moderns (Joyce, Woolf, Conrad, Lawrence, Faulkner Hemingway, etc.) are after is a new understanding of human nature, an understanding of what drives human beings. This requires less plot (which was thought of as very Victorian and therefore old) and more layering of characterization. Joyce took this to the ultimate extreme with Ulysses, where it is mostly about a single day in the life of Bloom. If you get to read Woolf's To The Lighthouse, it is about two days, and two rather insignificant days as far as plot is concerned. Yes, the dialectic banter in almost every chapter of Women In Love can be annoying, especially if you don't understand what's being discussed. I've had the advantage of knowing Lawrence's body of work, and studying him specifically like no other writer I have ever studied. For a first attempt at Lawrence this is probably not the right novel to start with. I would have picked Sons and Lovers or The Rainbow. The greatness of Women In Love is the unique conceptualization of human nature and of life that Lawrence has and how he puts that vision into art (i.e., the characters, the imagery, the symbolism, and the structure of the novel). Also, this has to be the most beautiful english prose that I have ever read. In some parts it is literally breath taking. It is Lawrnce's finest writing and i can't think of a single writer of english prose that has ever matched this for me. I had not remembered it being this beautifully written.

If I may take that question out of the context you put it in and apply it to a wider one: No, you aren't . "A little confused" pretty well sums up my feelings towards the book as a whole. I'm currently in the middle of Chapter XVII "The Industrial Magnate" and I'm constantly being irritated by the characters and the way their thoughts evolve with the events - I find it so very forced.

I agree, sometimes it is. However, think of the plot in this respect. Instead of the plot heading toward a resolution of conflicting opponents, it is heading toward a resolution of the each character's being, the the conclusion of their natures.

However, it might also be that I'm so irritated by the book because I don't have time at the moment to fully concentrate on it. I've got three mid-term essays looming behing me, and a Homer translation (eh, Manolia ? ), which "slightly" keep me from my reading. I hope that I won't be forced to give it up for a certain time altogether... Meanwhile I'll read a page or two every evening and see how I get along .

Well, your school work is more important. Please ask in this thread for any help I may be able to give. I'm way behind you all in chapter 14. I hope my posts here have been helpful. Lawrence is not an easy writer. He went through most of his career unappreciated and it wasn't until over 20 years after his death that critics really began (and only began) to understand and appreciate him. At the height of his critical reputation, he was the equal of james Joyce in reputation. He has been scaled back a bit in recent years (mostly because the feminist hate him and feminists pretty much rule college universities today) but I still think he's the equal of Joyce and in shear beauty of prose surpasses him.

[grace86]

Has anyone else noticed Lawrence's use of the word "inchoate" in describing Hermione and/or her surroundings.

He uses it a lot and it really does justice to describing her character.

Inchoate: newly begun, incomplete, not organized

He uses it a lot for Hermione....

The Breadalby Chapter

"A sort of constraint came over Ursula in the big, strange bedroom. Hermione seemed to be bearing down on her, awful and inchoate, making some appeal."

Lawrence also used this in the previous chapters in describing her demeanor.

Any thoughts on why he would be so repetitious with this one adjective?? Is the redundancy terribly important?

[Janine]

........
Like most great modern novels of the early 20th century, this is not a novel that is heavily plot driven. The significant idea/theory which the early moderns were infatuated with was psychology and especially Freud and the notion of the subconscious. What many moderns (Joyce, Woolf, Conrad, Lawrence, Faulkner Hemingway, etc.) are after is a new understanding of human nature, an understanding of what drives human beings. This requires less plot (which was thought of as very Victorian and therefore old) and more layering of characterization. Joyce took this to the ultimate extreme with Ulysses, where it is mostly about a single day in the life of Bloom. If you get to read Woolf's To The Lighthouse, it is about two days, and two rather insignificant days as far as plot is concerned. Yes, the dialectic banter in almost every chapter of Women In Love can be annoying, especially if you don't understand what's being discussed. I've had the advantage of knowing Lawrence's body of work, and studying him specifically like no other writer I have ever studied. For a first attempt at Lawrence this is probably not the right novel to start with. I would have picked Sons and Lovers or The Rainbow. The greatness of Women In Love is the unique conceptualization of human nature and of life that Lawrence has and how he puts that vision into art (i.e., the characters, the imagery, the symbolism, and the structure of the novel). Also, this has to be the most beautiful english prose that I have ever read. In some parts it is literally breath taking. It is Lawrnce's finest writing and i can't think of a single writer of english prose that has ever matched this for me. I had not remembered it being this beautifully written.


....... Instead of the plot heading toward a resolution of conflicting opponents, it is heading toward a resolution of the each character's being, the the conclusion of their natures.


......Lawrence is not an easy writer. He went through most of his career unappreciated and it wasn't until over 20 years after his death that critics really began (and only began) to understand and appreciate him...........

Virgil, Bravo! You could not have answered this any better. It is perfect. I explains all very well. I was trying to formulate a response to Schokokeks. I also was thinking that this is not a plot driven book, as you expounded on nicely. You explained that in such concrete and precise terms. You are right in that the other authors you mentioned such as Woolf and Joyce, do not rely on plot, but characterization and inner thoughts of the characters and that Lawrence fits right into this group of 20th century authors. I had not thought of that since his writing is so unique. Of course, the others are unique too....each with their unique ideas on human existence, etc.
I especially liked this line:

....a new understanding of human nature, an understanding of what drives human beings.

Everything else you wrote is beautifully written and insightful and so true. I especially liked what you pointed out about the ending of the book.

manolia has mentioned to me that she would like better to read this book in a peaceful time, such as the summer months, to better absorb the book and it's meaning. I think this is probably true of your situtation, Schokokeks, since it would be extremely difficult in my eyes to be learning several other things, especially Greek, when one is trying to understand this novel's deeper meaning, let alone studying for exams. Wow - it overwhelms me to think of it. I am only concentrating on this one writing presently, and I cannot totally understand it either at times; and I have studied Lawrence and also read this book before this. As an introduction to Lawrence's work, this novel is difficult. I read it as my first L book and I loved it, but at the time I was older (late 20's), far after I had to concentrate on other things, such as final exams. At the time I read it very slowly. It is hard to read here for a one month discussion group. I think to myself it needs longer than a month to fully discuss and to understand. Ideally one month of solid reading and then one month of discussion would be preferable but here we must adhere to a monthly schedule.

Yes, the dialectic banter in almost every chapter of Women In Love can be annoying, especially if you don't understand what's being discussed. I've had the advantage of knowing Lawrence's body of work, and studying him specifically like no other writer I have ever studied.

Virgil, This is very true.

Schokokeks, Yes, and even I find it annoying at times, yet I love this book and L's writing. I think it is true that Lawrence was very 'preachy' at times or tended to be that way. I feel Birkin often goes around in circles trying hard to get to his point. He is a great 'explainer' and a 'commenter' as well, but at times I feel he is not 100% sure of what he is trying to say or that it does not come out just as he is intending it to. Of course, this natually confuses Ursula, as well as me. In one ccene (end of ch. 18 Moony; you may have read ch.18 yet) the two sisters verbally say what they think of this aspect of Birkin's personality, speeches...one woman (I think Ursula) even exclaims about his being too 'preachy' and 'exhausting'. It is quite an interesting observation by them; as though Lawrence is actually poking some fun at himself and knows his own faults quite well. He looks at them from a woman's perpective, and there is much truth in this conversation and these observations by the two women.

Also, this has to be the most beautiful english prose that I have ever read. In some parts it is literally breath taking. It is Lawrnce's finest writing and i can't think of a single writer of english prose that has ever matched this for me. I had not remembered it being this beautifully written.

I fully agree. I think this is Lawrence's masterpiece!

Yes she was supposed to be very beautiful. Even Aphrodite the godess of beauty was jealous of her.

Hi manolia, gee, even Aphrodite was jealous or her...hummm....that is quite interesting. Funny how she is described in the book as so beautiful. Now in the 'film version' (know you can relate to film, manolia - ha!) she is not so outstanding in beauty, in my opinion. How disappointing. I had not picked up on that before, in my reading or the film. Well, anyway, films never get it completely right and the film is much pared down as compared to the intricacy of the book; I see that now. Probably in casting they did not want Hermione to overshadow the two main women leads.

Don't mention it Janine . If i had a better memory i might be more useful.

Oh, I'd like you to be our 'mythology advisor' at least - you do such a good job of it. You know more than most of us know. I have to look up everything -early senility and all...

Hehe. I have the same feeling sometimes. I like it though. Each character is like a real person. Each one has his/ hers own theories about everything. We must admit that L is very succesful in describing characters. They are so life-like. But i can see what you mean. In some instances this can be annoying since, as you said, it deviates a lot from the main plot line.

I know, I see each person as 'a real person', too. I see the struggles within themselves and with others and I don't just see it written on the page - I feel as I read that I am going through it with them - even their confusions and doubts. At times this is where I can fully relate to these characters and many of their feelings and innner-workings of their minds and souls. I can feel their longings and their yearning for something more, something finer and better. I think this is the real magic of reading Lawrence's work. One does not merely read but absorb what is being written. It does go deeper, much deeper and more into the blood/the core, even beyond the heart and seniment, as he described his own writing and philosophy. Not sure I described that correctly, but hoping Virgil can comment and expound on this idea of Lawrence's and the 'blood' philosophy. I think the characters were described so lifelike since most were fashioned in L's mind after read live people. This is a fact and obviously he copied what he saw and did a fine job of it. He was a master at prose and description, don't you think?

Yes, Gerald is more shown than told. He is the more silent character so far. Gudrun also. They are alike don't you think?

This is true and it is almost like Birkin is a narrator of the story taking on Lawrence's persona and his (sometimes random) thoughts/philosophies. I think Gudrun and Gerald are much alike - but as they say 'like' repells 'like' - as magnets do. So in someways they also have components in their being that are distinctively unalike - maybe even opposite. I am not sure yet, I need to read more.

I think that Ursula is very angry because she waits from Birkin to make a move..to come to her..to seek her out. She keeps looking at the door but noone is there. And of course he doesn't do anything (so far, that is). (I am not sure if that is what you asked)

Good answer to her question. He leaves her for quite sometime also and Ursula feels lost.

[Virgil]

OK Janine has been pushing me to explain th blood consciousness idea of Lawrence's. I posted this in a thread on one of Lawrence's poems, "The Elephant is Slow to Mate". You can find that discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...light=elephant. But I will post the entire post that explains blood consciousness.

Let me provide a little background on Lawrence's ideas. In a letter to Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, Lawrence put forth the central thesis of his ideas. I think if you understand this paragragh, you understand 50% of D.H. Lawrence. Please excuse any typos, I had to type this out myself.


Quote:
From 8 December 1915 letter to Bertrand Russell,
page 470 of The Letters of D.H. Lawrence: June 1913-October 1916.

I have been reading Frazer’s Golden Bough and Totemism and Exogamy. Now I am convinced of what I believed when I was about twenty—that there is another seat of consciousness than the brain and nerve system: there is a blood-consciousness which exists in us independently of the ordinary mental consciousness, which depends on the eye as its source or connector. There is the blood-consciousness, with the sexual connection, holding the same relation as the eye, in seeing, holds to the mental consciousness. One lives, knows, and has one’s being in the blood, without any reference to nerves and brain. This is one half of life, belonging to the darkness. And the tragedy of this our life, and of your life, is that the mental and nerve consciousness exerts a tyranny over the blood-consciousness, and that your will has gone completely over to the mental consciousness, and is engaged in the destruction of your blood-being or blood-consciousness, the final liberating of the one, which is only death in result. Plato was the same. Now it is necessary for us to realise that there is this other great half of our life active in the darkness, the blood-relationship: that when I see, there is a connection between my mental-consciousness and an outside body, forming a precept; but at the same time, there is a transmission through the darkness which is never absent from the light, into my blood-consciousness: but in seeing, the blood-percept is not strong. On the other hand, when I take a woman, then the blood-percept is supreme, my blood-knowing is overwhelming. There is a transmission, I don’t know of what, between her blood and mine, in the act of connection. So that afterwards, even if she goes away, the blood-consciousness persists between us, when the mental consciousness is suspended; and I am formed then by my blood-consciousness, not by my mind or nerves at all.

Let me also say that Russell felt completely insulted by this letter and pretty much ended his friendship with Lawrence.

Now how do you read this poem, given this context?

So Lawrence understands experience between mental consciousness and blood consciousness. It comes across in the novel in several places.

[Janine]

OK Janine has been pushing me to explain th blood consciousness idea of Lawrence's. I posted this in a thread on one of Lawrence's poems, "The Elephant is Slow to Mate". You can find that discussion here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...light=elephant. But I will post the entire post that explains blood consciousness.

Virgil, great idea posting this letter. I actually recently read this letter in my selected book of DHL letters. He was quite young when he wrote this, wasn't he? It should explain much about how Lawrence thought and perceived things and formed his own ideas on what he meant by "blood consciousness". Why did Russell take this so personally and disown Lawrence as a friend, I wonder? Did he think Lawrence was insane?

So Lawrence understands experience between mental consciousness and blood consciousness. It comes across in the novel in several places.

Very good and helpful. Thanks for typing all of that out for us.

Has anyone else noticed Lawrence's use of the word "inchoate" in describing Hermione and/or her surroundings.

He uses it a lot and it really does justice to describing her character.

Inchoate: newly begun, incomplete, not organized

Lawrence also used this in the previous chapters in describing her demeanor.

Any thoughts on why he would be so repetitious with this one adjective?? Is the redundancy terribly important?

Hi Grace, glad to see you back with comments, questions. I noticed the use of the word 'Inchoate' quite often, as you did. If you read back to one of Virgil's posts he remarks that he feels Lawrence does word repetition often and in this style, the novel reads very much like poetry. The definition you posted really seems to fit Hermione, yes, I think it, too. Hermione is 'incomplete' as a person and in ways she is 'newly begun'. She seems like someone 'not organised' in her own mind and soul. I don't know for sure, but she seems to like to intimidate Ursula and to bear down on her or close in on her in her overbearing way, such as in your quote:

"A sort of constraint came over Ursula in the big, strange bedroom. Hermione seemed to be bearing down on her, awful and inchoate, making some appeal."

Perhaps Virgil will have more to say concerning this use of the word. It is an interesting word indeed and makes perfect sense in the context of the story. It has to be very significant, in the mere fact that Lawrence repeats it so often.

[manolia]

Virgil, great idea posting this letter. I actually recently read this letter in my selected book of DHL letters. He was quite young when he wrote this, wasn't he? It should explain much about how Lawrence thought and perceived things and formed his own ideas on what he meant by "blood consciousness". Why did Russell take this so personally and disown Lawrence as a friend, I wonder? Did he think Lawrence was insane?

I don't know why Russell turned Lawrence down, but i'd bet my money that he thought him pervert or vulgar or both.

I think the blood theory (lets call it like this in absence of a better term) is better understood when one pays attention at the description of the african figurines in one of the first chapters of the book. It has something to do with sexual union, procreation, fertility etc (at least i perceived it that way). It has to do with our primal instincts i think.
Virgil nice post

*EDIT* Cybele (Κυβέλη) is mentioned in the book. For anyone who is interested to learn who Cybele was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele

Janine remember our talk about Birkin not having clear ideas. These passages were quite revealing for me. If you have read chapter 21, read the following quote. You get to see what each one of the 4 main characters think about love and marriage.

SPOILERS Chapter 21

*EDIT* Gudrun and Gerald are talking about Birkin

`Exactly! But that is his trouble, exactly! Instead of wanting a woman for herself, he wants his ideas fulfilled. Which, when it comes to actual practice, is not good enough.'

`Oh no. Best go slap for what's womanly in woman, like a bull at a gate.' Then he seemed to glimmer in himself. `You think love is the ticket, do you?' he asked.

`Certainly, while it lasts -- you only can't insist on permanency,' came Gudrun's voice, strident above the noise.

`Marriage or no marriage, ultimate or penultimate or just so-so? -- take the love as you find it.'

`As you please, or as you don't please,' she echoed. `Marriage is a social arrangement, I take it, and has nothing to do with the question of love.'

His eyes were flickering on her all the time. She felt as is he were kissing her freely and malevolently. It made the colour burn in her cheeks, but her heart was quite firm and unfailing.

`You think Rupert is off his head a bit?' Gerald asked.

Her eyes flashed with acknowledgment.

`As regards a woman, yes,' she said, `I do. There is such a thing as two people being in love for the whole of their lives -- perhaps. But marriage is neither here nor there, even then. If they are in love, well and good. If not -- why break eggs about it!'

`Yes,' said Gerald. `That's how it strikes me. But what about Rupert?'

`I can't make out -- neither can he nor anybody. He seems to think that if you marry you can get through marriage into a third heaven, or something -- all very vague.'

`Very! And who wants a third heaven? As a matter of fact, Rupert has a great yearning to be safe -- to tie himself to the mast.'

`Yes. It seems to me he's mistaken there too,' said Gudrun. `I'm sure a mistress is more likely to be faithful than a wife -- just because she is her own mistress. No -- he says he believes that a man and wife can go further than any other two beings -- but where, is not explained. They can know each other, heavenly and hellish, but particularly hellish, so perfectly that they go beyond heaven and hell -- into -- there it all breaks down -- into nowhere.'

`Into Paradise, he says,' laughed Gerald.

Gudrun shrugged her shoulders. `Fe m'en fiche of your Paradise!' she said.

`Not being a Mohammedan,' said Gerald. Birkin sat motionless, driving the car, quite unconscious of what they said. And Gudrun, sitting immediately behind him, felt a sort of ironic pleasure in thus exposing him.

`He says,' she added, with a grimace of irony, `that you can find an eternal equilibrium in marriage, if you accept the unison, and still leave yourself separate, don't try to fuse.'

`Doesn't inspire me,' said Gerald.

`That's just it,' said Gudrun.

`I believe in love, in a real abandon, if you're capable of it,' said Gerald.

`So do I,' said she.

`And so does Rupert, too -- though he is always shouting.'

`No,' said Gudrun. `He won't abandon himself to the other person. You can't be sure of him. That's the trouble I think.'

`Yet he wants marriage! Marriage -- et puis?'

`Le paradis!' mocked Gudrun.

[Janine]

I don't know why Russell turned Lawrence down, but i'd bet my money that he thought him pervert or vulgar or both.

manolia, I wondered that, also. I suppose it would come off as being perverted or vulgar. I think I shall have to investigate my "Selected Letters" book, I purchased recently, and find this letter and see if there is additonal correspondense between Russell and Lawrence; also will check my biographies on the point. Now I am curious.

I think the blood theory (lets call it like this in absence of a better term) is better understood when one pays attention at the description of the african figurines in one of the first chapters of the book. It has something to do with sexual union, procreation, fertility etc (at least i perceived it that way). It has to do with our primal instincts i think.
Virgil nice post

I think usually Virgil calls it blood theory too. That is fine. I fully agree about the importance/significance of those figurines. Yes, I too think Lawrence/Birkin are trying to express the idea of 'primal instincts'. Remember that Lawrence lived in a time of great intellectual learning and study. King Tut's tomb was opened and the world encompassed this great understanding of ancient cultures and learning. This event, along with other great discoveries sparked much travel and intellectualism. Travel and communication had improved in the past 20 or so years, and now the railway, ships, phones, etc. made travel easier and one went to visit cultures to be educated. It was quite posh to think of one's self as all knowledgable and intellectual. It raised the person with means even higher in their own self-esteem. I think of Hermione representing the masses of people feeling they must encompass all this learning; but the problem is that they felt it was their their total ultimate goal in life. Hermione envisions herself as a kind of high priestess of learning and culture. She is really a phony and only uses her emense body of knowledge to distinguish herself from others in condenscending ways, such as the use of the Italian to shut Ursula out and align herself with Birkin. She is interested, firstly, in the 'power' she believes it give her over others. In the end her true core/being is empty and without real substance. During this time period that Lawrence is writing this book, much emphasis was placed on the mind and not on the senses. I always think Lawrence is striving back to the basic and core idea of sensuality and the senses, and yes, you are quite right - from a primal sense. I see this 'blood philosophy' as the basic and simple truth that Lawrence longs to embrace. When all masks are removed and one is 'naked and vulnerable' and 'mindless' they can truly meet on a 'sensual' plane. He wants this with Ursula. He does love her deeply, but he wants this and not the clinging type love he has seen and experienced before, because he knows that type love is destructive. He wants both he and she to meet in the middle and maintain their separate selves. I have to agree with this part of L's philosophy. Many people feel they must give over and be lost in the other person. I think that Ursula took Birkins ideas wrongly at first and that he really wants the union without the possessiveness. With Hermoine she would serve him and give herself up to his evey whim, but she would cling to him as if he were a possession, not a human being or a man. He knows that Ursula is sensitive and will be able to eventually comprehend his true meaning, at least to some degree. Since Birkin is sensitive also I think he picks up on Ursula's deep craving for something better in life.

*EDIT* Cybele (Κυβέλη) is mentioned in the book. For anyone who is interested to learn who Cybele was

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele

I am very interested and will check the thread. Which of the characters was referred to as Cybele? Thanks for looking it up.

Janine remember our talk about Birkin not having clear ideas. These passages were quite revealing for me. If you have read chapter 21, read the following quote. You get to see what each one of the 4 main characters think about love and marriage.

SPOILERS Chapter 21

*EDIT* Gudrun and Gerald are talking about Birkin

Yes, I read this last night and I found it of great interest, too. It is strange that now the alignment is with Gudrun and Gerald. Do you believe his agreeing with Gudrun is true and honest? I feel always as though Gerald does not know what he craves or wants in life.
Ok, you must have come to ch.20, and what did you think of that scene? It is a very significant scene, I believe. I felt at the beginning of that scene as though Gerald was lost and knew not what he craved from his life. Birkin seemed to lead him and then to give him contact and comfort and establish the closeness Birkin wants of Gerald, temporarily at least; it seems also in this scene that Gerald wants that closeness, as well. Therefore it is curious to me that in chapter 21, while riding in the car sitting behind Birkin, he is agreeing with Gudrun. Obviously Birkin does not hear the conversation, due to the noise of the motor car. Is Gerald merely placating Gudrun by agreeing? Also, is he influenced by his magnetism towards her, his great desire in wanting her physically, at this point?

Also, earlier the scene between Gudrun and her sister when they discuss Birkin and his preaching, I found this seems to question all of Birkin's theories/ideas. I feel that this novel is so totally balanced and Lawrence shows all sides of the coin to us, even going as far as showing us that all Birkin says may be not quite accurate, but still developing and vague and difficult to comprehend at certain points...perhaps even half-baked at this point, when the women talk about him.

SPOILERS Chapter 21

In retrospect, after completing ch. 24, I think that all of the characters go through a transformation from the beginning of this book to the end, even Birkin, who seems so sure of his theories. In ch. 23 you will encounter this and his own words about his own ideas/philosophy. Ursuala and Birkin have it out and their heated discussion is beneficial to the end results. It is a going through a 'darkness' in order to come back out into the 'light'. I think not only does Ursula learn from Birkin, but Birkin learns from Ursula. It is a mutual exchange in finality and this in actuality is what Birkin really has wanted all along, that they each come to one another and meet on equal ground. One small part of me thinks Birkin may have compromised to some extend, but I prefer to think that he modified his ideas and the result is what he wanted to begin with.