June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[Virgil]

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

You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

[Janine]

You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

Virgil, So did Lawrence break the friendship off or did Russell? I would like to read those other letters involving the quarrel. I will have to see if my book contains them. I have read of one account of a suspected laisson with a man in Cornwall, I believe that is where it took place. I will try to find it in my book, but it is still only conjecture on that biographer's part. I don't know if he is alluding to homosexuality in his books or not; I have never concluded in my own mind if he was talking about the closeness of man to man, as in this novel, as homosexual or just primal closeness. Have you come to the wrestling match? I think I feel this was in this scene, that it was not a homosexual encounter, but rather something much different/more meaningful to Lawrence. Let me know what you think after reading it.

Virgil, did you read manolia's and my last posts? Wondered what you thought of our observations/discussion on the blood philosophy, etc?

[Virgil]

Virgil, So did Lawrence break the friendship off or did Russell? I would like to read those other letters involving the quarrel. I will have to see if my book contains them. I have read of one account of a suspected laisson with a man in Cornwall, I believe that is where it took place. I will try to find it in my book, but it is still only conjecture on that biographer's part. I don't know if he is alluding to homosexuality in his books or not; I have never concluded in my own mind if he was talking about the closeness of man to man, as in this novel, as homosexual or just primal closeness. Have you come to the wrestling match? I think I feel this was in this scene, that it was not a homosexual encounter, but rather something much different/more meaningful to Lawrence. Let me know what you think after reading it.

No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.

Virgil, did you read manolia's and my last posts? Wondered what you thought of our observations/discussion on the blood philosophy, etc?

I think you guys got it. I didn't think there was anything for me to comment on.

[Janine]

No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.

You know this is an excellent way of putting it. I agree with these thoughts on the issue. My view is he was not a homosexual or even had tendencies towards it. Good way of thinking - '...was not afraid to put himself out there.......clear about it". That's a good point.

I think you guys got it. I didn't think there was anything for me to comment on.

Good; so you think we do understand the blood theory and the primal instinct that ties in with it? Were we accurate in our assessments/comments?

I have also been discussing "Sons and Lovers" with Pensive. Drop by if you can. She completed the book and liked it very much.
Been fun.... but going to bed now - tired of writing

[Virgil]

You know this is an excellent way of putting it. I agree with these thoughts on the issue. My view is he was not a homosexual or even had tendencies towards it. Good way of thinking - '...was not afraid to put himself out there.......clear about it". That's a good point.

Just finished this chapter earlier. I got to say that it is very suggestive of homosexuaity. I just don't know what Lawrence is trying to say with it. I have given up trying to understand where he's at with this. If anyone has any good ideas, let me know.

Good; so you think we do understand the blood theory and the primal instinct that ties in with it? Were we accurate in our assessments/comments?

I think so.

I have also been discussing "Sons and Lovers" with Pensive. Drop by if you can. She completed the book and liked it very much.
Been fun.... but going to bed now - tired of writing

Yes I go and look. A really fine novel.

[caspian]

good discussion, guys. I avoid reading the last 3 pages, I should come back after reading those chapters.
so, I,ve finished 8 ch. and here's my opinion for now. I still find Lawrence very different. but honestly i'm not impressed so much. he's very good, and very different at describing feelings and I liked it. but when it comes on his narrating in general, he's kind of boring. especially that entertainment part with dancing and swimming at hermione's place was awful- of course for me. ready for stones! there's still the rest of the book, hopefully my opinion is not gonna be same.

hi, janine. nice to see you here, you're so friendly encouraging. Actually I bazed on Schok.'s post from previous thread.

Don't worry, caspian, I'm equally ignorant as to Lawrence . I had only heard his name before.
I read his wikipedia entry the other day in order to get at least some ideas on him before we start reading, and I must say it only made me hungrier to read one of his works. It seems Lawrence is mad, bad, and dangerous to know , and who can help being interested in the bad guys .

So far this book is quite timeless, theres stalking and kids playing with guns, pretty topical no?

and there's a woman sharing a small place with several men. that's quite typical for paris than for london.

[Virgil]

Well, to each his own caspian. Lawrence is not for everyone.

I can't point out stuff in every chapter. But there is something important in chapter 17, The Industrial Magnate I should point out. I think most can see that Lawrence is establishing here the modern social order, based on industry, and how each level of society fits in and the pressure to reach equality.

The men were not against him, but they were against the masters. It was war, and willy nilly he found himself on the wrong side, in his own conscience. Seething masses of miners met daily, carried away by a new religious impulse. The idea flew through them: `All men are equal on earth,' and they would carry the idea to its material fulfilment. After all, is it not the teaching of Christ? And what is an idea, if not the germ of action in the material world. `All men are equal in spirit, they are all sons of God. Whence then this obvious disquality?' It was a religious creed pushed to its material conclusion. Thomas Crich at least had no answer. He could but admit, according to his sincere tenets, that the disquality was wrong. But he could not give up his goods, which were the stuff of disquality. So the men would fight for their rights. The last impulses of the last religious passion left on earth, the passion for equality, inspired them.

Notice how Lawence sees society in terms of religious integration. And the Godhead in modern life is integrated with the machine:

Seething mobs of men marched about, their faces lighted up as for holy war, with a smoke of cupidity. How disentangle the passion for equality from the passion of cupidity, when begins the fight for equality of possessions? But the God was the machine. Each man claimed equality in the Godhead of the great productive machine. Every man equally was part of this Godhead. But somehow, somewhere, Thomas Crich knew this was false. When the machine is the Godhead, and production or work is worship, then the most mechanical mind is purest and highest, the representative of God on earth. And the rest are subordinate, each according to his degree.

Lawrence's problem with the modern world is what it has done to religion:

Immediately he saw the firm, he realised what he could do. He had a fight to fight with Matter, with the earth and the coal it enclosed. This was the sole idea, to turn upon the inanimate matter of the underground, and reduce it to his will. And for this fight with matter, one must have perfect instruments in perfect organisation, a mechanism so subtle and harmonious in its workings that it represents the single mind of man, and by its relentless repetition of given movement, will accomplish a purpose irresistibly, inhumanly. It was this inhuman principle in the mechanism he wanted to construct that inspired Gerald with an almost religious exaltation. He, the man, could interpose a perfect, changeless, godlike medium between himself and the Matter he had to subjugate. There were two opposites, his will and the resistant Matter of the earth. And between these he could establish the very expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical repetition, repetition ad infinitum, hence eternal and infinite. He found his eternal and his infinite in the pure machine-principle of perfect co-ordination into one pure, complex, infinitely repeated motion, like the spinning of a wheel; but a productive spinning, as the revolving of the universe may be called a productive spinning, a productive repetition through eternity, to infinity. And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.

To be even more specific, the problem with the modern world is that the "machine-prnciple" is a repetittive loop which mankind is trapped in. The Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence out of repetition.

But they submitted to it all. The joy went out of their lives, the hope seemed to perish as they became more and more mechanised. And yet they accepted the new conditions. They even got a further satisfaction out of them. At first they hated Gerald Crich, they swore to do something to him, to murder him. But as time went on, they accepted everything with some fatal satisfaction. Gerald was their high priest, he represented the religion they really felt. His father was forgotten already. There was a new world, a new order, strict, terrible, inhuman, but satisfying in its very destructiveness. The men were satisfied to belong to the great and wonderful machine, even whilst it destroyed them. It was what they wanted. It was the highest that man had produced, the most wonderful and superhuman. They were exalted by belonging to this great and superhuman system which was beyond feeling or reason, something really godlike. Their hearts died within them, but their souls were satisfied. It was what they wanted. Otherwise Gerald could never have done what he did. He was just ahead of them in giving them what they wanted, this participation in a great and perfect system that subjected life to pure mathematical principles. This was a sort of freedom, the sort they really wanted. It was the first great step in undoing, the first great phase of chaos, the substitution of the mechanical principle for the organic, the destruction of the organic purpose, the organic unity, and the subordination of every organic unit to the great mechanical purpose. It was pure organic disintegration and pure mechanical organisation. This is the first and finest state of chaos.

The real Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence, a breaking free of the repetetive cycle of mankind. There are many natural cycles to life (eating, sleeping, seasons, menstruation, planting, harvesting, day, night birth, death, etc.), and these are to be trascended as well. These are natural and there is a certain satisfaction, if not completeness, to be achieved. But the machine has accentuated this further, a degeneration. Completeness is a breaking free of the cycles of life, a religious experience. It is sort of like the breaking free of reincarnation, the wheel of life, that Hindu religious men strive for. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was aware of Hindu religious ideas.

So notice the structure of the novel, cycles of recurring scenes. The central premise of the novel is which characters are able to transcend and which are caught in the cycles forever repeating life. Remember the opening scene where Ursula and Gudrun are talking about marriage and experience. The marriage that will climax this novel is a marraige of transcending religion (not the formal church marriage of the openning chapters) and the experience will be to transcend beyond the cycles to a "star" existence in the beyond.

I hope that makes sense.

[Janine]

Hi Virgil, I read your post and I will comment tomorrow. There is so much here and I am so tired now and can't think clearly. I was out all day today and need rest now.

Hi caspian, nice to see you on here also and thanks for your nice compliment. I really do try to be helpful to everyone. Sorry the book is not to your liking. It is a very deep and difficult book to comprehend. You may have been bored with the chapter seeing it with difference eyes; we have been exposed to more of Lawrence and are well aquainted with his style of writing, his symbolism and his theories. Of course this helps one to understand better what is going on in the story and what Lawrence is getting at. As Virgil, said 'Lawrence is not for everyone'; and some other authors come to mind as well, such as James Joyce and William Faukner, Virginia Wolfe - Virgil mentioned these sometime back, since he pointed out that this book is not plot driven. That is not to say it is 'plotless', far from it, nor pure 'stream-of-consciousness' style either, but it incorporates both in a very unique way. I hope this gives you some insite, but if you do not care for this book or understand it fully it is quite understandable. This is why we are having such indepth discussions. Lawrence is not easy to understand or explain. Remember we all have our separate tastes in literature; I respect that.

[manolia]

You think Russell thought Lawrence a pervert? There are many letters between the two. They did not stop being friends over philosophic reasons. If you read the context of the letters, Russell's homosexuality is at the center of their quarrel. They were friends until Russell brought Lawrence over to a party with Russell's homosexual friends. I think Russell claims that Lawrence was fascinated with homosexuality and felt tha Lawrence might be homosexual. Whatever it was Lawrence reacted against it. It is really hard to know exactly what Lawrence thinks about homosexuality. It is suggested in many of his works. Several critics think Lawrence a closet homosexual, but I'm not aware of any homosexual laisson or relationship. And he did react negatively against Russell's homosexuality.

Oh so it was Russell who turned L down? I thought that Russell was "disqusted" by L's blood theory (maybe he misunderstood it). But if it is the other way around..it seems that i misunderstood your previous post (you were talking both about blood theory and their friendship coming to an end and i connected the two facts) anyway you know better

No I have not come to the wrestling match but I do remember it. Yes, it's confusing as to whether he's referring to outright homosexuality. I tend to doubt it though. Lawrence was not afraid to put himself out there. He already risked sensors with sexuality. If he wanted to put homosexulality out I think he would have been clear about it. I just don't think he was personally homosexual. First of all it is not something one just turns on and off. He clearly had heterosexual relationships.

Just finished this chapter earlier. I got to say that it is very suggestive of homosexuaity. I just don't know what Lawrence is trying to say with it. I have given up trying to understand where he's at with this. If anyone has any good ideas, let me know.

Homosexuallity is implied in this part i think (and in other parts of the book), but one can't be sure. Maybe L was doing it on purpose (to let different groups of people read this book and come to their own conclusions). Maybe he was "experimenting" with the idea (having, as you said an homosexual friend) maybe he was trying to figure homosexuallity out (to understand better what leads to it *- back then there was no idea that one might be born a homosexual-scientists are not sure even as we speak). What i am trying to say is, that his not putting himself out there, wasn't out of fear of censorship (i agree with you, he has proved that he didn't much care) but merely because he himself didn't have a clear, formed opinion on the matter.

*It gave me the impression, that while describing the scene where the two men fight naked, that maybe he was pondering with the idea if the spectacle of a perfect naked male body can attract another male who is in direct proximity with it. In many instances it is obvious that Birkin admires Gerald's body and appearance in general.

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

If i remember correctly it is Ursula (Cybele is mentioned by Birkin. He might be reffering to all women-Cybele was the mother of all the gods- but we know which particular woman he has in his mind)

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.

Hmmm i wouldn't put it like that (that he doesn't know what he wants). I'd say that Gerald is the character who undergoes a big change (due to his father's illness and his fear of death..in ch 24 his mother who knows him better, admits that he isn't made for that kind of things..being subjected to the gruesome spectacle of his father slowly dying, that is). Moreover Gerald being successful as a bussinessman, which was his first goal in life and having nothing more to achieve in this aspect of his life, is suffering from boredom and feels empty. That's were Gudrun steps in.

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? .

I think that it's clear by the glimering of his eyes (L says something to that effect) that he actually agrees 100% with Gudrun. As for the scene between the two men in ch 20, i believe that we never get to know what Gerald really thinks about many things. For Birkin we have endless passages..but for Gerald not! As schokokeks has already mentioned, Gerald is more shown than told. That was pretty accurate. We never get to know what Gerald is actually thinking. We have his body language described, the expession of his eyes and of course his words (but he doesn't talk much either).

I just finished chapter 24

*EDIT*
Another referance in mythology. Gerald is called Hermes (don't remember in which chapter. In greek mythology Hermes was the messanger of gods and also the god of commerce and of thieves!!)

There is another reference to Damocles. We have this expression in greek "Δαμόκλειος σπάθη" (Sword of Damocles). We use it in every day speech as well and it indicates "imminent danger" (like a sword which is hanging over your head and is ready to fall).

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

[Janine]

Oh so it was Russell who turned L down? I thought that Russell was "disqusted" by L's blood theory (maybe he misunderstood it). But if it is the other way around..it seems that i misunderstood your previous post (you were talking both about blood theory and their friendship coming to an end and i connected the two facts) anyway you know better

manolia, I am so glad you jumped in here; I was feeling rather spent and talked out (yes, actually me saying that - ha!). Anyway, I want others to have their say and hear their opinions, too. You are doing a good job in reading and thinking hard on the meanings. I always enjoy hearing your take on the scenes, etc.

Yes, I too am still not completely clear on whether Lawrence dropped Russell or visa versa. I thought I read now several times that it was Russell that broke with Lawrence. Perhaps he felt he was about to be exposed to the world in someway if he indeed was homosexual himself of had homosexual friends. He may have thought Lawrence was referring somehow to homosexualtiy as well as heterosexuality.
I agree that another issue is his understanding it. Lawrence was venturing in untrod territory. He may have felt it 'so far out there' to want to be associated anymore with L.

Homosexuallity is implied in this part i think (and in other parts of the book), but one can't be sure. Maybe L was doing it on purpose (to let different groups of people read this book and come to their own conclusions). Maybe he was "experimenting" with the idea (having, as you said an homosexual friend) maybe he was trying to figure homosexuallity out (to understand better what leads to it *- back then there was no idea that one might be born a homosexual-scientists are not sure even as we speak). What i am trying to say is, that his not putting himself out there, wasn't out of fear of censorship (i agree with you, he has proved that he didn't much care) but merely because he himself didn't have a clear, formed opinion on the matter.

*It gave me the impression, that while describing the scene where the two men fight naked, that maybe he was pondering with the idea if the spectacle of a perfect naked male body can attract another male who is in direct proximity with it. In many instances it is obvious that Birkin admires Gerald's body and appearance in general.

I agree about the attractiveness of the man's body to Birkin and probably visa versa. I address that more extensively later in this post. Here and there it does seem that homosexual ideas are implied, but I have never thought it really was a truly homosexual scene - the naked wrestling match in particular. If you notice Birkin speaks of cultures where this type of naked contact/closeness is quite natural and acceptable, renewing the body and spirit of a man. What I might want to ask is pretty outspoked. Do you envision his man to man closeness and 'full complete relationship' that Birkin speaks of as one with the potential for actual sexual intercourse between the two? This I could never really see happening, knowing the two men are so very much attracted to women, but maybe I am being naive. I have seen it more brotherly, but deeply so, and with no fear of actual touching and being physically close, as with children; no inhibitions. There is one instance in WIL when Birkin says to Ursula something to do with going away and even to a place where they would not need clothing and could feel free, totally free.
There are other authors who you many not have read who posed similar questions about their characters, making the reader wonder if certain passages referred to homosexuality or friendship. One author I think of is Evelyn Waugh, in "Brideshead Revisited". You may not have read the book, but Virgil has. In this book, two men are extremely close, love each other, but one wonders at times if the magnetism is homosexual, especially when they were younger. With Charles, I feel he is basically heterosexual, but would it be so unusual to have homosexual desires at a certain time in ones life being a man, or a greater pure love for a man, than he did for the woman? As far as Sebastian is concerned, I have stronger feelings about him being homosexual. Waugh himself finally admitted to his own homosexualtiy. I only cite this as an example and parallel case.
Actually, though Lawrence never came off in real life as homosexual, being married faithfully to one woman for his entire life. Yes, there have been biographers who tried to cite evidence that he had a male encounter or perhaps more than one. He certainly was very close to one man well depicted in his novel, "Sons and Lovers", also in his first novel "The White Peacock". Both prominent characters in these books in actuality was based on one of the Chamber's sons (I forget which one), brother to Jessie Chambers (his friend and first love/girlfriend). She was Miriam in "Sons and Lovers". This young man was very close to Lawrence in his youth.

*From Introduction to “The White Peacock” c.1911

*Cyril knows ‘the unending miseries of the poor’ too well affected by ideas of ending them. Again, it has been pointed out how Cyril’s reaction to George in the chapter ‘A Poem of Friendship’ is similar to that of Birkin towards Gerald in the *‘Prologue’ to “Woman in Love,” with the same insistence upon a man’s love for a man as superior to that for a woman and accompanies a stress upon the ways in which women ‘undermine man’s hold on life.’……….

Here this commentator cited several examples of this from various Lawrence stories and novels with certain key characters, including “Women in Love”;...it was too long to type from the book....
then it goes on to say:

Significantly, Lawrence wrote to Jessie Chambers while finishing the final version of the novel (White Peacock), to say ‘ “I have always believed it was the woman who paid the price in life. But I’ve made a discover. It is the man who pays, not the woman”’

*began writing novel 1906-8 (21 to 23 yrs of age) completed, published when he was 26yrs of age)
*main narrative character in White Peacock
* which chapter does your book begin with? In my edition the “Prologue” is included in the back of the book, being a chapter that was originally cut for publication of the book.

From "The White Peacock" c.1911

“We stood and looked at each other as we rubbed ourselves dry. He was well proportioned, natuarally of handsome physique, heavily limbed. He laughed at me, telling me I was like one of Audrey Beardsley’s long, lean ugly fellows. I referred to him to many classic examples of slenderness, declaring myself more exquisite than his grossness, which amused him.
But I had to give in, and bow to him, and he took on an indulgent, gentle manner. I laughed and submitted. For he knew how I admired the noble, white fruitfulness of his form. As I watched him, he stood in white relief against the mass of green. He polished his arm, holding it out straight and solid; he rubbed his hair into curls, while I watched the deep muscles of his shoulders, and the bands stand out in this neck as he held it firm; I remember the story of Annable.
He saw I had forgotten to continue my rubbing, and laughing he took hold of me and began to rub me briskly, as if I were a child, or rather, a woman he loved and did not fear. I left myself quite limply in his hands, and, to get a better grip of me, he put his arm round me and pressed me against him, and the sweetness of the touch of our naked bodies one against the other was superb. It satisfied in some measure the vague, indecipherable yearning of my soul; and it was the same with him. When he had rubbed me all warm, he let me go, and we looked at each other with eyes of still laughter, and our love was perfect for a moment, and more perfect than any love I have known since, either for man or woman.”

This passage would certainly indicate a closeness to man was perhaps more desirable to Lawrence at the time and obviously he was still considering it in “Women in Love”. In “The White Peacock” George’s bodily description reminds me of his description of Gerald, Cyril's of Birkin. They seem to correspond to some degree. You know I have been plagued for the entire time I have read Lawrence concerning this homosexual question. I have even discussed it with friends who feel that it was not truly what Lawrence was getting at. But as I have plunged deeper into Lawrence’s early works and his life I am even more miffed. My actually personal conclusion is that Lawrence and his male characters are not homosexual, yet they do prefer the closeness of men. It seems that the damaging effects of Lawrence’s own overbearing mother helped form some of these ideas of perfect love and woman just did not seem to fit the bill entirely. It seems that Lawrence felt he could not be totally furfilled in woman and so he has portrayed this in his characters. That is just my own opinion having done the research. There is a recurring theme of woman as 'all devouring' of the male. It is evident in his first somewhat flawed novel, acting as a prelude to what is to come in more complete novels. In WIL it is very prominent an idea with the symbolism referring often to the women more than the man. Gudrun as the all powerful woman warrior, Hermoine, and Ursula with their connections to strong Greek mythological woman and gods.

If i remember correctly it is Ursula (Cybele is mentioned by Birkin. He might be reffering to all women-Cybele was the mother of all the gods- but we know which particular woman he has in his mind)

This is good and further supports the ideas I have layed out previously. I also think in the scene when Gerald comes to Gurdrun in the night at her house there are womb references back to a mother. This too is very significant considering Lawrence’s own life and his own mother relationship and how he felt about her smothering ways.

Hmmm i wouldn't put it like that (that he doesn't know what he wants). I'd say that Gerald is the character who undergoes a big change (due to his father's illness and his fear of death..in ch 24 his mother who knows him better, admits that he isn't made for that kind of things..being subjected to the gruesome spectacle of his father slowly dying, that is). Moreover Gerald being successful as a bussinessman, which was his first goal in life and having nothing more to achieve in this aspect of his life, is suffering from boredom and feels empty. That's were Gudrun steps in.

True, what you wrote here. I did not put it quite right, yet still there are passages where Gerald seems to be looking down an abyss or void. I will try to find them. He is bored and feels empty. This is so true. He knows not how to proceed with his life at this point. I feel he is ‘lost’ in some great way and I think by the end of the novel you will understand this better. Gerald seems drawn to seeing his father’s 'eyes of death' and wanting to experience the death; he does not seem to be able to help himself. This too is very prophetic and one will eventually see where it leads. Gerald has been surrounded his whole life by death – his young brother, his sister, his father and now it seems his mother is like a dead person, as well. Even though he reviles it he seems drawn to it as inevitable. Only Winifred seems to me to be of life and light in that family. Sad, isn’t it? Did you come to the part when Gerald visits Gudrun to spend the night in her house? I will comment on that part later. I have some insight into something one biographer/analysis pointed out about this scene and others that correspond to it in other L novels.

I think that it's clear by the glimering of his eyes (L says something to that effect) that he actually agrees 100% with Gudrun. As for the scene between the two men in ch 20, i believe that we never get to know what Gerald really thinks about many things. For Birkin we have endless passages..but for Gerald not! As schokokeks has already mentioned, Gerald is more shown than told. That was pretty accurate. We never get to know what Gerald is actually thinking. We have his body language described, the expession of his eyes and of course his words (but he doesn't talk much either).

I am still not completely sure if he is in total accord with what Gudrun states, but to most of it he may be. His 'sparkling eyes' also seem to indicate to me that he is aligning himself with Gudrun in a kind of secretive union and it is drawing them closer. This scene is very much of a flirtation between them as well, don’t you think? Both her body language and his is obvious and indicate much more than what they are saying in words. It certainly gives us a clearer idea of how Gudrun feels about marriage, if in fact she is being truthful about those feelings.

I just finished chapter 24
*EDIT*
Another referance in mythology. Gerald is called Hermes (don't remember in which chapter. In greek mythology Hermes was the messanger of gods and also the god of commerce and of thieves!!)

There is another reference to Damocles. We have this expression in greek "Δαμόκλειος σπάθη" (Sword of Damocles). We use it in every day speech as well and it indicates "imminent danger" (like a sword which is hanging over your head and is ready to fall).

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

Good work again, magnolia. I will read the wikipedia entry. Hermes is very significant and also I had noticed Damocles mentioned and something about a sword. These references are very interesting, don't you think?

[manolia]

. If you notice Birkin speaks of cultures where this type of naked contact/closeness is quite natural and acceptable, renewing the body and spirit of a man.

Yes you are right. But fighting naked is not a part of Gerald's and Birkin's culture (they are both englishmen, right?)

What I might want to ask is pretty outspoked. Do you envision his man to man closeness and 'full complete relationship' that Birkin speaks of as one with the potential for actual sexual intercourse between the two? This I could never really see happening, knowing the two men are so very much attracted to women, but maybe I am being naive. I have seen it more brotherly, but deeply so, and with no fear of actual touching and being physically close, as with children; no inhibitions.

No i don't think that in their case it is a proof of homosexuality. I believe that Birkin and especially Gerald were meant to be heterosexuals. But i also believe, like i said in the previous post, that L was 'experimenting" with the idea of homosexuality. Not necessarily in his real life (the only things i know about his real life is what i have read in your posts and Virgil's). As for their being brotherly and all, i agree since it is said earlier in the book that Birkin wanted to be brothers by blood with Gerald (a 'ritual' where each one cuts his hand and they join the two wounds).

* which chapter does your book begin with? In my edition the “Prologue” is included in the back of the book, being a chapter that was originally cut for publication of the book.

I am afraid that my copy doesn't have this 'extra' chapter . I'll have a look if it can be found here in litnet.

From "The White Peacock" c.1911


It seems that the damaging effects of Lawrence’s own overbearing mother helped form some of these ideas of perfect love and woman just did not seem to fit the bill entirely. It seems that Lawrence felt he could not be totally furfilled in woman and so he has portrayed this in his characters. That is just my own opinion having done the research. There is a recurring theme of woman as 'all devouring' of the male. It is evident in his first somewhat flawed novel, acting as a prelude to what is to come in more complete novels. In WIL it is very prominent an idea with the symbolism referring often to the women more than the man. Gudrun as the all powerful woman warrior, Hermoine, and Ursula with their connections to strong Greek mythological woman and gods.

I have a copy of "The white peacock". I have a book with L's short stories (some of them) but i haven't read it yet .
Anyway what you say about L's mother sounds plausible. After all an oppressing mother (parents in general) and perhaps an unhappy childhood account for many things.

True, what you wrote here. I did not put it quite right, yet still there are passages where Gerald seems to be looking down an abyss or void. I will try to find them. He is bored and feels empty. This is so true. He knows not how to proceed with his life at this point. I feel he is ‘lost’ in some great way and I think by the end of the novel you will understand this better. Gerald seems drawn to seeing his father’s 'eyes of death' and wanting to experience the death; he does not seem to be able to help himself. This too is very prophetic and one will eventually see where it leads.

Yep. I noticed the abyss and void references. It made me think that maybe Gerald won't have a happy ending..So actually it is prophetic, eh? Don't answer now, i'll see in a few chapters

This scene is very much of a flirtation between them as well, don’t you think? Both her body language and his is obvious and indicate much more than what they are saying in words. It certainly gives us a clearer idea of how Gudrun feels about marriage, if in fact she is being truthful about those feelings.

Yes i agree. They start talking about Birkin but what they actually do is letting each other know their views about love and marriage . So you might say that this is actually a flirtation scene.

[Janine]

manolia, I want to address each thing you wrote later tonight, but for now let me say that you won't find the "Prologue" on this site. I believe I already looked. I bought a paperback Penquin Camridge edition, recently from Amazon which did cost me nearly $10 new. It contains some extra material which was not published, and is suppose to actually have two full chapters that are not in most of the published volumes. I have counted one in the body of the book. These chapters apparently were in L's orginal manuscripts and his publishers took these out or made L do so.
Apparently L would have had the book start with this "Prologue" chapter. I only read a small portion of it, but when I complete the book I will read it entirely and then reveal what I have read. Perhaps I can even scan the pages for you. It is too long to retype. I did not want to read it now, because I thought it might change some of my views on the book or clarify things like the Gerald/Birkin relationship issue and I felt it unfair that I would have this additional chapter and others would not. There are two additions at the end of the book that are revealed to have been included in L's original manuscripts: this "Prologue" and part of another chapter (that being in the published book). I also want to read the preface when I complete the book and then I may have more comments on all the things we have been discussing. We can always go back and review certain scenes, chapters, etc.
The other thing I wanted to tell you now is that in the short stories there is a story called "Wintery Peacock". That is not the same as "The White Peacock", the full-length novel. I only found out about it in my biography research and had to track down a used copy on Amazon. I was glad I did, since it has much that is prophetic of the novels to follow, and my being so into studying Lawrence, I found his first novel fascinating. It contains the seeds of his later more developed work.

I can't point out stuff in every chapter. But there is something important in chapter 17, The Industrial Magnate I should point out. I think most can see that Lawrence is establishing here the modern social order, based on industry, and how each level of society fits in and the pressure to reach equality.

Virgil, yes, can't point out everything although I would love to. We would be here a year!
In this first paragraph is presented the idea of the religion being exploited as the banner for the workers to use to justify their want of equality. In other words they carry this 'religious impulse' whose proclaimation is 'All men are created equal', this being the teaching of Christ, to promote their own welfare. Gerald's father, Thomas Crich 'could but admit, according to his sincere tenets, that the disquality was wrong'. Then, does this mean that he felt equality was justified, but if he then truly admits this, even to himself, he would have to 'give up his goods, which were the stuff of disquality'? This he cannot do; therefore, he at last had no answer.' I envision him having this inner turmoil and 'no win' struggle within himself, concerning his moral behavior and beliefs. Thus there is another inner conflict set up, which can never be resolved. This recalls me to Sebastian's mother/s similiar dilema in "Brideshead Revisited." She had to be charitable out of her quilty conscious in having so much weath and power. I am reminded of the part where she speaks of the bibilical verse about the eye of the needle, the camel and admittence into heaven, creating inner turmoil. I think later we see the same dilemma set up for Gerald's father. In this case, Thomas Crich and management of the company and 'the machine' represent the Godhead in concept- is that accurate to say?

Notice how Lawence sees society in terms of religious integration. And the Godhead in modern life is integrated with the machine:

(see Virgil's previous quote)
Yes, and no wonder he was friends with Huxley who saw the world turning unnatural and machine driven. This particular paragraph reminds me of The Crusades, the way the mob reacts in their holy war. In this instance, however the end result is that the Godhead cannot be a thing shared by the masses but must stand alone and rule the workers in order that the machine would function efficiently. Is this correct? Thomas Crich knows this.

Lawrence's problem with the modern world is what it has done to religion:

(see V's previous quote)

So, now the concentration is on Gerald running the company and his own ideas and concepts on running it, which differ some from his fathers and he sees as his religion.

He had a fight to fight with Matter, with the earth and the coal it enclosed.......................................... ............................................
It was this inhuman principle in the mechanism he wanted to construct that inspired Gerald with an almost religious exaltation. He, the man, could interpose a perfect, changeless, godlike medium between himself and the Matter he had to subjugate. There were two opposites, his will and the resistant Matter of the earth. And between these he could establish the very expression of his will, the incarnation of his power, a great and perfect machine, a system, an activity of pure order, pure mechanical repetition, repetition ad infinitum, hence eternal and infinite...................................And this is the Godmotion, this productive repetition ad infinitum. And Gerald was the God of the machine, Deus ex Machina. And the whole productive will of man was the Godhead.

To be even more specific, the problem with the modern world is that the "machine-principle" is a repetittive loop which mankind is trapped in. The Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence out of repetition.

Ok, now I see - this is a good way of summing it up. Yes, now I can understand the 'transcendence out of repetition' idea Lawrence is presenting here and in other parts of the book. That makes it a lot clearer.

The real Godhead for Lawrence is a transcedence, a breaking free of the repetetive cycle of mankind. There are many natural cycles to life (eating, sleeping, seasons, menstruation, planting, harvesting, day, night birth, death, etc.), and these are to be trascended as well. These are natural and there is a certain satisfaction, if not completeness, to be achieved. But the machine has accentuated this further, a degeneration. Completeness is a breaking free of the cycles of life, a religious experience. It is sort of like the breaking free of reincarnation, the wheel of life, that Hindu religious men strive for. I'm pretty sure Lawrence was aware of Hindu religious ideas.

This is good, citing the natural cycles in life. These directly relate to the cycles in the book and the repetitions/rhythms, as well. I found a short preface, that Lawrence wrote himself to "Women in Love" in my book. Does your volume have this preface? He mentions his use of repetition and why it exists in the book. The preface is too long to type, but I will try to scan this preface if you do not have it. It is very interesting and somewhat revealing of Lawrence's intentions.
I like your final references to Hindu religion and the breaking free of the wheel of life and reincarnation. I am sure L was aware of the Hindu religious ideas, among many others. He was well read on word religions, etc.

So notice the structure of the novel, cycles of recurring scenes. The central premise of the novel is which characters are able to transcend and which are caught in the cycles forever repeating life. Remember the opening scene where Ursula and Gudrun are talking about marriage and experience. The marriage that will climax this novel is a marraige of transcending religion (not the formal church marriage of the openning chapters) and the experience will be to transcend beyond the cycles to a "star" existence in the beyond.

I hope that makes sense.

You make perfect sense. Thanks for such a great post - I learned much here. I am going to call you the "Philosopher Laurette" (sp?) of the discussion group. You really have it down now, from doing your thesis, I believe. Hey, Virgil, you could do a second thesis on Lawrence. Then I might have to call you Dr.Virgil .

Your last line about the marriage is excellent and accurate. Makes the "star" existence clearer to me.

Yes you are right. But fighting naked is not a part of Gerald's and Birkin's culture (they are both englishmen, right?)

Hi again manolia,
This is true, but Gerald seemed to have no qualms about stripping and swimming nude in the lake. I don't think in this era, it was that unusual. The woman also went swimming nude in the scene of the Water-Party, when they are quite isolated. I think the way Lawrence presents these scenes does not indicate to me that he means them to be homosexual. I feel the 'knowledge' of each other and other deeper/primal feelings go far beyond the physical/sexual ideas or possibilities. In the wrestling scene I don't feel sexual tension in that sense. If it were truly homosexual, I feel we would see and feel it in that scene. I felt the scene to be quite pure and beautiful.

No i don't think that in their case it is a proof of homosexuality. I believe that Birkin and especially Gerald were meant to be heterosexuals. But i also believe, like i said in the previous post, that L was 'experimenting" with the idea of homosexuality. Not necessarily in his real life (the only things i know about his real life is what i have read in your posts and Virgil's). As for their being brotherly and all, i agree since it is said earlier in the book that Birkin wanted to be brothers by blood with Gerald (a 'ritual' where each one cuts his hand and they join the two wounds).

This experimenting is something I am not too sure about. I say this because it feels like Lawrence is pretty sure of his ideas, and not experimenting with any of them. His writing seems definite and I don't feel he would hide this from us, nor would he be experimenting with homosexual ideas in this novel. He may have written more specifically and the publishers made him cut it from his book, who knows? But I feel it is unlikely. I definitely think he wrote from a deep personal well within himself and he would never just throw in the homosexual issue for the benefit of his readers. He believed his books to be art. Everything written in WIL is meant to be there and is either revealing or symbolic, etc. and always intentional. He would not write just to appease his readers either, so this does not settle quite right with me. Also, the 'blood brother' idea is mentioned again, I believe, in the scene of the wrestling match. In this way it further emphasised the point.

Don't worry, I have not read all of Lawrence's short stories, either....probably not even one third of them. I am working on it since we started that thread.

Anyway what you say about L's mother sounds plausible. After all an oppressing mother (parents in general) and perhaps an unhappy childhood account for many things.

Yes, but the point is that Lawrence had this ingrained feeling towards woman - that a man could be suffocated. It was a real fear to him of the woman consuming his life. In "The White Peacock" he meets a man, a landowner/keeper from a neighboring farm who tells him about how women consume men and ruin them. I don't know the exact words, but he feels this strange fear of women in this novel. Now comes WIL and women are depicted as the ones to be somewhat feared/controlling/fatal to men, don't you think it? He uses all these symbolic names that seem to perpetuate this notion further. I feel this is true, but I am not sure I am explaining it correctly. I also read something in one of my biographies that substantiates this idea in refernce to L's novels. It is certainly clear in his novel "Sons and Lovers", and in WIL I feel that Birkin is wanting his relationship to be different and not all comsuming. He does not want to be controlled by the woman/comsumed by her. This he knows to be fatal. So in WIL he goes a step further than his other novels and finds a way to break out of convention and be as 'two stars' - equal and opposite each other.

Yep. I noticed the abyss and void references. It made me think that maybe Gerald won't have a happy ending..So actually it is prophetic, eh? Don't answer now, i'll see in a few chapters

I won't say anymore... but yes, very significant. Are you nearly done the book? I have about 5 more chapters, I think.

Yes i agree. They start talking about Birkin but what they actually do is letting each other know their views about love and marriage . So you might say that this is actually a flirtation scene.

I think it is a fliration and a way to share an intimacy in which they are attracted and drawn to each other in a sexual tension. This scene recalls me to the earlier scene when Gerald is drawn to the woman in the pub, but of course Gudrun is more of an intellectual match for Gerald. Now here, I do feel sexual tension exists between Gerald and Gudrun, that I don't feel this exists between Birkin and Gerald in the wrestling match scene. In this car scene I do admit it is interesting the way they do reveal their ideas on Birkin's philosophy and his opinions, but mostly doesn't Gudrun do the talking or commenting and then Gerald agrees? It made me laugh a little or raise my eyebrows reading this scene.

manolia, hope this makes sense. If it does not let me know. I was struggling to express some parts of it. Getting tired now.

[Virgil]

Just a quick thought about the two men wrestling naked and the two sisters swiming naked. On the surface it again recalls classical allusions. Male wrestlers in ancient greece wrestled nude. The two sisters swimming naked recalls greek nymphs, lesser dieties, although I think this is not as strong an idea as the wrestlers. I say on the surface, because lawrence takes the wrestlers to a point of homosexuality.

You make perfect sense. Thanks for such a great post - I learned much here. I am going to call you the "Philosopher Laurette" (sp?) of the discussion group. You really have it down now, from doing your thesis, I believe. Hey, Virgil, you could do a second thesis on Lawrence. Then I might have to call you Dr.Virgil .

Your last line about the marriage is excellent and accurate. Makes the "star" existence clearer to me.

Oh, thank you Janine. Yes I really learned Lawrence by studying for my thesis. If I can package all my lit net Lawrence posts into a thesis and it would be acceptable than what the heck i would do it.
Janine you said:

In this first paragraph is presented the idea of the religion being exploited as the banner for the workers to use to justify their want of equality.

I don't think that Lawrence would use the word "exploited." I think he sees the religion as integrated with their state of existence, as if there is a psychological connection between what the people believe and their state of existence. It is a relationship between their subconscious and their actions, decisions, and life.

[Janine]

Oh, thank you Janine. Yes I really learned Lawrence by studying for my thesis. If I can package all my lit net Lawrence posts into a thesis and it would be acceptable than what the heck i would do it. [QUOTE

Yeah, really I think we have nearly written a book by now between us. Hey, maybe I could do the same thing and get a masters, what do you think Dr. Virg?


Janine you said:


I don't think that Lawrence would use the word "exploited." I think he sees the religion as integrated with their state of existence, as if there is a psychological connection between what the people believe and their state of existence. It is a relationship between their subconscious and their actions, decisions, and life.

Virgil, You are absolutely right. 'Integrated' is the perfect word to use. I was struggling with that whole reply to your very long and complex post. It was taxing my feeble little brain and now I have 'brain freeze-up'. It was not easy writing all that and somethings may not be quite clear. I hope some of what I wrote does make sense, for all my labored effort.
You are correct, about this statement; I did not feel I was wording that at all right, sorry. Let me say I meant more or less what you were saying, like with the Crusades, the way throngs of men/soldiers went to the Holy Lands. Their motivation was deeply ingrained in their religious subconscious that told them it was the right/holy thing to do. Just an example.
'subsconscious' - hey you actually used that word - what subconscious?

I was thinking how all of this chapter probably is much like "Kangaroo" - that dealt also with the machine, the workers, the Godhead and the mob. I am now quite anxious to read that book. It might prove very interesting after reading WIL.

Hey all, was just internet browsing and found this. Thought the statements by others and Lawrence of interest. One goes along with Virgil's idea of the book being a long narrative poem or poem/novel; I thought that was particularly interesting.

Women in Love
With an Introduction by Joyce Carol Oates
foreword by the author
Commentary by Carl van Doren, Rebecca West,
Aldous Huxley, and Henry Miller

It is . . . the world of the poets and the preponderance of the poet in [Lawrence] that is the key to his work. He magnified and deepened experience in the manner of a poet," wrote Anaïs Nin in 1934.
Privately printed in 1920 and published commercially in 1921, Women in Love is the novel Lawrence himself considered his masterpiece. Set in the English Midlands, the novel traces the lives of two sisters, Ursula and Gudrun, and the men with whom they fall in love. All four yearn for fufillment in their romantic lives, yet struggle in a world that is increasingly violent and destructive. Commenting on the novel, which was composed in the midst of the First World War in 1916, Lawrence wrote, "The bitterness of the war may be taken for granted in the characters." Rich in symbolism and lyrical prose, Women in Love is a complex meditation on the meaning of love in the modern world.
To the critic Alfred Kazin, "No other writer of [Lawrence's] imaginative standing has in our time written books that are so open to life."

[Virgil]

Virgil, You are absolutely right. 'Integrated' is the perfect word to use. I was struggling with that whole reply to your very long and complex post. It was taxing my feeble little brain and now I have 'brain freeze-up'. It was not easy writing all that and somethings may not be quite clear. I hope some of what I wrote does make sense, for all my labored effort.

I know. It's not easy writing long posts. And don't be so humble, your brain is not feeble. Your effort makes a lot of sense.

You are correct, about this statement; I did not feel I was wording that at all right, sorry. Let me say I meant more or less what you were saying, like with the Crusades, the way throngs of men/soldiers went to the Holy Lands. Their motivation was deeply ingrained in their religious subconscious that told them it was the right/holy thing to do. Just an example.
'subsconscious' - hey you actually used that word - what subconscious?

Yes, indeed, what subconcious? I was presenting Lawrence's view on the subject.