June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[manolia]

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. .

Yes i looked too. They don't have it

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. .

Thank you very much Janine. You can of course e-mail me any time you like

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.............................................. .............
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.

We definately agree on this one. I've just read ch 28 (or was it 29?) and it has again the same idea introduced somewhere

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

I've read ch 28 (or 29?) but i just realised that ch 30 is huge!!

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.

I haven't thought about that, but it is quite true .The nymph theme is introduced in the book (i don't remember where right now but both nymphs and dryads are mentioned). The same for the wrestlers theme.

[Janine]

Yes i looked too. They don't have it
Thank you very much Janine. You can of course e-mail me any time you like

Yes, manolia, pity they don't have the extras, but I figured they would not include them on here. I bought my new book primarily for the extras, since my WIL book was in a collection which was heavy, a large hardback. This paperback is much more portable and I like reading the extra pages of commentary. I will read those when I complete the book, and the extras in the back of the book. Sort of like getting into the 'Special Features' on a DVD Yes, I can email them to you if they scan ok. Did you get my last email? Hope they are not floating off into cyberspace

We definately agree on this one. I've just read ch 28 (or was it 29?) and it has again the same idea introduced somewhere

Oh good, we are in agreement. I did read that other reference as well, plus considering the material from the other novel I think it clearly indicates Lawrence's own fears in this respect. The women's names further emphasis the idea. One has to take several sources and sort of form an opinion/concept from that. Add it all together.

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.

I've read ch 28 (or 29?) but i just realised that ch 30 is huge!!

I think that I recall that chapter, and it taking me awhile to get through. I don't like the long chapters. I read one or so a night and when one is long it seems it goes on forever. I would rather read 2 short ones than one long one...silly really but it paces you,...plus this is such concentrated writing hard to comprehend so much text at one time.

I haven't thought about that, but it is quite true .The nymph theme is introduced in the book (i don't remember where right now but both nymphs and dryads are mentioned). The same for the wrestlers theme.

Yes, very good Virgil, I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out.

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.

Duh, well that is good to know. I guess senility is still a few years away. I am glad much of what I said makes sense. Thanks for reading it. Yes, these posts on Lawrence are particularly involved and taxing. I was exhausted last night from writing so much.

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

I knew you would appreciate this one.

[Virgil]

Yes i looked too. They don't have it

I don't have a Prologue in my Penguin edition, I have a Forward written by Lawrence. Is this the same thing? The first sentence of the Forward is "This novel was written in its first form in the Tyrol." Sad to say I will have to buy a new book. This one has fallen apart. It is twenty-five years old. I'll have to look into the edition you have janine. Only problem is all these notes I've taken in here. I will have to keep this together with a rubber band for reference.

Oh good, we are in agreement. I did read that other reference as well, plus considering the material from the other novel I think it clearly indicates Lawrence's own fears in this respect. The women's names further emphasis the idea. One has to take several sources and sort of form an opinion/concept from that. Add it all together.

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.

Chapter 34? I only have 31 chapters in the entire novel. I'm up to chapter 22.

Yes, very good Virgil, I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out.

It may be a very long pursuit and one that will never be completely resolved. But I wish you luck.

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.

I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said. It kind of sticks in your head. I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

[manolia]

Sort of like getting into the 'Special Features' on a DVD Yes, I can email them to you if they scan ok. Did you get my last email? Hope they are not floating off into cyberspace

I really like it when you talk in film terms Yes it is exactly like watching the special features.

I am on chapter 34; a little ahead of you and Virgil, so that is why I hold off posting any new quotes. I don't want to give away the story or the ending. Maybe I will take a break today so you can catch up to me. I am tired out from all my commenting anyway. I think we are all going along fine - right on schedule. It is only the 18th of the month and we are all nearly done the book.

Chapter 34? I only have 31 chapters in the entire novel. I'm up to chapter 22.

My book has 31 chapters too Why??

I think that I recall that chapter, and it taking me awhile to get through. I don't like the long chapters. I read one or so a night and when one is long it seems it goes on forever. I would rather read 2 short ones than one long one...silly really but it paces you,...plus this is such concentrated writing hard to comprehend so much text at one time.

I prefer short chapters too..i usually read before i sleep (no insomnia problems anymore ) and when i encounter long chapters i am forced to read them till a certain point and then continue the next day.

Yes, very good Virgil, I like this idea and the references. Also, fits in well with the whole novel/poetry thing. I still don't see the wrestling match as truly homosexual. I think it will be my life pursuit now to figure it all out.

You don't have to agree with us on this one or to be convinced. That's the nice thing with a work of art (like a painting or a good book like this one), they create different thoughts and feelings to different persons.

I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said. It kind of sticks in your head. I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

That seems like a valid theory to me. After all a lot can be explained when one considers the subconscious ehhmmm thingy.

[Janine]

I am not up to this same section as you ladies are, but I think I know what you may be referring to. Now this is according to my teacher back in college, but I remember him telling us about what Lawrence considers natural fears between men/women relationships. Men have this fear of being swallowed up by women and women have this fear of being hurt by men. It is in the subconscious for Lawrence, and it stems from the sexual intercourse act. You can see why i've never forgotten what my professor said. It kind of sticks in your head. I hate to be so graphic but here goes. In the sexual act a man enters the woman and fears he will be consumed by her, and the woman is being penetrated and fears she will be punctured/hurt by him. This subconsciously translates into male and female relationship fears, the man thinking that the woman will overwhelm his freedom and the woman thinking that the man will hurt her. A lot of subconscious hokyness if you ask me but you can see how Lawrence conceptualizes it. Again this was from my teacher and i'm not sure i've personally come across in the literature.

Virgil, Yes, that about sums it up. Sometimes we do have to be specific and I am not offended one bit. It is too sketchy to beat around the bush. How interesting your professor talked about this in college. Back in my college days, I also had a professor who was very much into pyschologoy and the Id concept and the 'returning to the safety of the womb ideas. However, it seems to be reversed in Lawrence's mind of the being swallowed up and the act being fatal to the male. Perhaps that stemmed from his clinging mother who tried to control his life. Mostly the other theory was getting back to the safety of the womb, as I said. I don't recall much about those studies and they were just discussions in college - actually the professor was kind of kooky - he was my Literature professor. Well, it was art school so you can imagine how way out that got. I can imagine you in those classes telling them you thought anything psychological and subscious was a bunch of hooey.

If somehow you could read "The White Peacock", you would see more clearly some of these blantant ideas of Lawrence's. I will see if I can scan the pages referring directly to this idea. It was rather shocking to me at first. This first novel was quite revealing and surprising at times. The only part I don't see in that book is any empathy for the woman getting hurt. In this book, WIL, I probably do. I think you will come to a scene with Gundrun on the excursion to the snowy mountains where she is speaking her mind to Gerald about his effect on her sexually. It should tie right in with this idea, I believe.

I really like it when you talk in film terms Yes it is exactly like watching the special features.

manolia, I knew you could relate. It is so funny, I don't think in terms of chapters either, but in terms of scenes and scenarios. We should be film directors!

My book has 31 chapters too Why??

I went to check and I was thinking 37, sorry I meant to write 27. My book has 32 chapters....I still haven't figured out which chapter was added to this newer edition. There is suppose to be two actually - but the one is the 'Prologue' which they placed at the end of this book in 'extra features' stuff. Hey, I will have to read a whole chapter more than you and Virgil, and everyone else, so reading the book will take me longer. What chapter are you reading presently? I may take a break tonight from reading or just finish up this chapter 31, I am currently on. I have a good movie to watch - you know how that goes

I prefer short chapters too..i usually read before i sleep (no insomnia problems anymore ) and when i encounter long chapters i am forced to read them till a certain point and then continue the next day.

Oh so glad that insomnia left you at last. Yes, we read on the same schedule in different time zones! Haha. I stop reading the chapter when my eyes will no longer remain open. Happens a lot. With audiobooks I wake up with the headphones still on hours later.

You don't have to agree with us on this one or to be convinced. That's the nice thing with a work of art (like a painting or a good book like this one), they create different thoughts and feelings to different persons.

I know. It just does not settle well with me. I will probably read more biographies and be convinced one way or the other. It is just that in "Women in Love" if Birkin were homosexual I don't think he would concentrate on his relationship developing with Ursula. I suppose the only way to really know is if Lawrence were here now resurrected and we could ask him - "hey, what is the meaning of all this?"

That seems like a valid theory to me. After all a lot can be explained when one considers the subconscious ehhmmm thingy.

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.

Hey, are we having fun yet?

[Virgil]

Virgil, Yes, that about sums it up. Sometimes we do have to be specific and I am not offended one bit. It is too sketchy to beat around the bush. How interesting your professor talked about this in college. Back in my college days, I also had a professor who was very much into pyschologoy and the Id concept and the 'returning to the safety of the womb ideas.

Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb. We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense.

However, it seems to be reversed in Lawrence's mind of the being swallowed up and the act being fatal to the male. Perhaps that stemmed from his clinging mother who tried to control his life. Mostly the other theory was getting back to the safety of the womb, as I said. I don't recall much about those studies and they were just discussions in college - actually the professor was kind of kooky - he was my Literature professor. Well, it was art school so you can imagine how way out that got.

How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians? Now I'm starting to get way out myself.

I can imagine you in those classes telling them you thought anything psychological and subscious was a bunch of hooey.

Oh I was young and gullable in those days and believed whatever my teachers told me.

If somehow you could read "The White Peacock", you would see more clearly some of these blantant ideas of Lawrence's. I will see if I can scan the pages referring directly to this idea. It was rather shocking to me at first. This first novel was quite revealing and surprising at times. The only part I don't see in that book is any empathy for the woman getting hurt.

Well perhaps some day.

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.

Hey, are we having fun yet?

I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too. I'm having fun.

[manolia]

I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too. I'm having fun.

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.

Hey, are we having fun yet?

Hehehe i use the word thingy when i am too lazy to think of the correct word . I can't even imagine what you guys thought i meant

[Janine]

Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb. We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense.

Virgil, How funny, well it was the era. My professor was suppose to be teaching us literature. I can only recalling read some contemporary poetry and Herman Hesse; he must have been big on Hesse. I did actually enjoy Hesse, but you know - all that 'psychobabble' stuff you abhore. Mostly, my crazy professor played his guitar with some other guy; they jammed some days. They played classical flamingo; pretty good stuff. I think most likely they both were high on something or should I say some 'thingie'.

How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians? Now I'm starting to get way out myself.

No, they talked from both sides - men/women. In fact it was not just men wanting to return to the womb. You are looking at it too literally. It was only symbolic and they sited how many people die in the fetal position or sleep that way - and so it is in the womb. They long for the comfort and security of the womb. I don't know I am a sleeper so maybe I want to go back to that too. Somedays I don't feel like being conscious and somedays on here I am only partically conscious I believe.

Oh I was young and gullable in those days and believed whatever my teachers told me.

Well, I listened and believed some, but always with a suspicious eye. Often though I viewed it as quite extraordinary and unigue having come from a very conservative background. I suppose for awhile I believed much of it, too and felt I had my eyes open or exposed to things foreign to me prior to this time. I am glad I did study those books, ideas, etc. I think in a way it did change my life or influence it. It all adds into the mix of life experience.

Well perhaps some day.

Ok, good. I just think you would find some parts extremely interesting. Of course the book is not as mature as his others but I found it to hold many of the seeds of what would eventually be fullblown in his other novels. I looked at the book more analytical but it was an enjoyable read actually...more pastoral in a sense since he was exploring different styles of writing. The woodlands/fields/flowers are magnificently portrayed in that book. Many of the flower passages have much symbolism as well. You would notice so much symbolism in this first book.

I'm wondering what the "thingy" is too. I'm having fun.

Funny, manolia, I use that word all the time, too. Maybe we heard it on a movie Special Features - haha Yes, lets not touch on what manolia meant in this context referring to "thingie".

Virgil and manolia, do you have a chapter 30 called "Snow"? I found out this one is apparently the additional chapter. I also have chapter 31"Snowed Up"...one chapter after that, making 32 chapters in my book. How many do you two have?
Odd, I have been investigating this, and apparently in my book they divided up the chapter "Snowed Up" into two chapters. I have compared some of the text and it seems to be the same. I am still not sure if something is added. Will let you know if I find it.

[manolia]

I went to check and I was thinking 37, sorry I meant to write 27. My book has 32 chapters....I still haven't figured out which chapter was added to this newer edition. There is suppose to be two actually - but the one is the 'Prologue' which they placed at the end of this book in 'extra features' stuff. Hey, I will have to read a whole chapter more than you and Virgil, and everyone else, so reading the book will take me longer. What chapter are you reading presently? I may take a break tonight from reading or just finish up this chapter 31, I am currently on. I have a good movie to watch - you know how that goes

I am relieved (i thought that my copy was a few chapters short). I am reading ch 29 now. This is the huge chapter i was telling you about. It is the one with the trip to Germany. I have read a few pages only.

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?

Oh so glad that insomnia left you at last. Yes, we read on the same schedule in different time zones! Haha. I stop reading the chapter when my eyes will no longer remain open. Happens a lot. With audiobooks I wake up with the headphones still on hours later.

Thanx for your concern Janine

Me too! yes, that good old 'subconscious ehhhmmm thingy'....no way am I going to ask you what precisely you are referring to.
Hey, are we having fun yet?

I was looking for a word with the meaning of "decoding" or "further study" but not quite..i am still missing that word

Actually I had an art teacher who told us that too, in reference to Monet, I believe, his late works. So sex is a desire to get back in the womb. We push our way out, and then spend the rest of our lives trying to get back in. So don't you see why I think it's a bunch of hooey[edit: psychology that is, not sex ]. If one theory makes just as much sense as an opposite theory then what are you left with? Nonsense.


How come all these professors only talk from the male perspective. Do women want that same womb security? And does that make them lesbians? Now I'm starting to get way out myself.

That was very funny

Virgil and manolia, do you have a chapter 30 called "Snow"? I found out this one is apparently the additional chapter. I also have chapter 31"Snowed Up"...one chapter after that, making 32 chapters in my book. How many do you two have?
Odd, I have been investigating this, and apparently in my book they divided up the chapter "Snowed Up" into two chapters. I have compared some of the text and it seems to be the same. I am still not sure if something is added. Will let you know if I find it.

I am not sure.. but i don't remember a chapter with that name.

*EDIT*
I just checked. I have the "Snowed up" chapter but not the "Snow" chapter. Total number of chapters 31

[Janine]

I am relieved (i thought that my copy was a few chapters short). I am reading ch 29 now. This is the huge chapter i was telling you about. It is the one with the trip to Germany. I have read a few pages only.

Hi manolia! I am on 29 and it is called "Continental" - my chapter is not long at all. They must have combined this chapter with "Snow" in your version/volume. It is quite curious but not unusal to have some differences in L books. I read two versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I think there are actually 3. It seems these Cambridge scholars got together, retrieved some material that had been cut when WIL was originally published and now published it with parts re-established in the text. So far I have not found any differences, but maybe they are subtle ones. Like I said I will let you know if I notice anything particularly different or revealing. I am sure your book is fine.

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?

Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world. She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.
*A note of interest: Frieda's sister ran off and left her husband for her lover, a psychologist who studied with Freud, I believe, or was a colleague of his. (Now Virgil is going to love this part ) The lover later went insane and committed suicide. Don't quote me on this - it is in my memory of what I read from one biography, but I will recheck the details tonight.


Thanx for your concern Janine

I was concerned. I felt badly for you; not good to have insomnia for so long. Probably your allergy meds that did it, right? You need to find that natural suppliment I told you about. It really helped me.

I was looking for a word with the meaning of "decoding" or "further study" but not quite..i am still missing that word

manolia, you are a riot!

That was very funny

Yes, wasn't it? Especially the part where he wonders if it means they are Lesbians. Virgil, you are too much!!! Yes, you were getting a little too far 'out there'.

I am not sure.. but i don't remember a chapter with that name.

*EDIT*
I just checked. I have the "Snowed up" chapter but not the "Snow" chapter. Total number of chapters 31

Thanks, like I said - I think they are just separated in my volume. Good, shorter chapters for me, that way. I can't wait to get to "Snow" tonight. You are there now with "Continental" with "Snow" part your chapter. We are running neck to neck now. We will all be finished reading the book soon enough, but of course there is still much to talk about...endless really.....

[Virgil]

This reminds me of something i wanted to ask everyone. Is Gudrun supposed to be a woman of loose morals? I didn't have this impression till i read in ch 27 or 28 where Birkin says to Ursula that Gudrun is fit for a mistress and not for a wife. Moreover in a previous ch where Gerald and Gudrun sleep together it says that Gudrun had other lovers as well (it doesn't specify if they were lovers in the "victorian" sense of the word or if they had sexual contact. In ch 29, when Gerald and Gudrun have a drink in the London cafe it is said that many men look at Gudrun, some of them smiling and waving, some laughing ironically..so i am a bit confused. Considering the fact that the novel was written around 1920 (and it speaks of that era), how could one describe a woman like Gudrun? Is she chaste enough?

I would characterize Gudrun's sexual mores as somewhere between Pussom's (you guys catch the sexual suggestion in that name? ), who obviously is very loose, and Ursula's, who while not prude but certainly is restraint. Gudrun is a bohemian artist, and that carries certain attitudes. Remember she returned home from living in London and the suggestion is that she hung out with Pussom's type of crowd. But she is disatisfied with that life, and I take it she is dissatisfied with that loose sexuality. Ursula is a country girl, a school ma. I think those details are important. In The Rainbow, Ursula has had her sexual experience and is dissatisfied with it.

You bring up a good issue Manolia. Sexual mores are a consistant theme in the novel. I wonder how Hermione fits in?

Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world. She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.

Well, this was written before the 1920s. But every era is probably more sexual than the general perception. Lawrence was banned for really just being honest. I don't see any pornography in any of his writing. Perhaps Lady Chatterly in a spot or two really pushed it.

I took Frieda, L's wife, that Janine says was the model for Ursula, as being more sexually loose than Ursula. After all she left her husband and three children for Lawrence. I couldn't imagine Ursula doing that.

*A note of interest: Frieda's sister ran off and left her husband for her lover, a psychologist who studied with Freud, I believe, or was a colleague of his. (Now Virgil is going to love this part ) The lover later went insane and committed suicide. Don't quote me on this - it is in my memory of what I read from one biography, but I will recheck the details tonight.

Oh I do love that...

You guys are way ahead of me. I'm in chapter 23. And most of my reading comes on the weekend.

[grace86]

I've just finished Chapter 14 Water Party. You all made me feel like that was a terribly important chapter. Feel like I have come over a milestone.

*****SPOILERS (For those who are slow like me anyhow)****

Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.

Interestingly enough I like Birkin more than I like Gudrun. They both seem to have crummy views of humanity though. Birkin's hate of humanity seems more intelligent, striving and needy than does Gudrun's though. She seems hungry for something more but also just kind of stubborn.

Sorry I am just kind of blithering away my thoughts on the chapter .

*I am optimistic I will be finished here soon. The novel is kind of taking off with my interest now!

[manolia]

Hi manolia! I am on 29 and it is called "Continental" - my chapter is not long at all. They must have combined this chapter with "Snow" in your version/volume. It is quite curious but not unusal to have some differences in L books. I read two versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I think there are actually 3. It seems these Cambridge scholars got together, retrieved some material that had been cut when WIL was originally published and now published it with parts re-established in the text. So far I have not found any differences, but maybe they are subtle ones. Like I said I will let you know if I notice anything particularly different or revealing. I am sure your book is fine.

Oh i see..i haven't checked here in litnet to compare my book and see if it is the same 'version'. There are 3 versions of "Lady Chaterley's lover"?? I wonder which one i have. We can organise a reading of this book too. It would be fun if we could read it and discuss it simultaneously. But not now (i never read books of the same author in a row. I have certain un-written rules while i read and this is rule number 1 Perhaps next winter?)

Well, I don't think that Gudrun was a chaste woman. First off, I read that Gudrun was based on Frieda's sister and I know for a fact that she was far from being chaste. She considered herself a modern woman and she thought to be chaste was to be inhibited. 'Times, they were a changin' - woman's rights were being recognised and the world was experiencing a sort of sexual revolution at that time. Freud was in vogue and so were other books about sexual inhibitions being bad for a person's mental health. Everyone thinks it happened in the 1960's 70's - wrong! It started way before that time. Remember the Roaring 20's? Ok, so Ursula is suppose to be based on Frieda and Gundrun on her sister, also her character had certain traits taken from Katherine Mansfield, a close friend of Lawrence's. I would not exactly call her loose, but you may. She had certainly had lovers, and not in the Victorian sense of the word. No, I am sure she had sexual encounters and lovers in the past. She had been away on her own for several years so she was not naive and her eyes were certainly open to the world.

I would characterize Gudrun's sexual mores as somewhere between Pussom's (you guys catch the sexual suggestion in that name? ), who obviously is very loose, and Ursula's, who while not prude but certainly is restraint. Gudrun is a bohemian artist, and that carries certain attitudes. Remember she returned home from living in London and the suggestion is that she hung out with Pussom's type of crowd. But she is disatisfied with that life, and I take it she is dissatisfied with that loose sexuality. Ursula is a country girl, a school ma. I think those details are important. In The Rainbow, Ursula has had her sexual experience and is dissatisfied with it.

Very helpful comments. I know about the roaring 20's (have seen many films ), but i didn't have this in mind when i read those passages, thanx Janine. And of course Gudrun is a bohemian artist, you are right Virgil (and hanging out with people like Pussum (very suggestive name Virgil ) means that she somehow shared some of their qualities. And yes Ursula is a school ma (more calm and sweet and reserved).

She had the option in her mind to not marry and to stay single. We saw evidence of that when she was speaking outright to Gerald in the car. By the time you come to the end of the book you will pretty much know how Gudrun thinks in terms of relationships.

Yes, i have read some passages that insinuate that Gudrun is in fact jealous of Birkin's and Ursula's relationship and that she perhaps has begun to think differently concerning marriage..but i guess i'll see the whole picture towards the end.

I wonder how Hermione fits in?.

That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?

Well, this was written before the 1920s. But every era is probably more sexual than the general perception. Lawrence was banned for really just being honest.

Yes i agree. Most authors tend to depict their era as being nicer and purer than it actually is.

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.

Hi Grace!
My interpretation for this interesting event is that Gudrun is falling in love with Gerald and her world is turning upside down. Gudrun being a wild tiger revolts to the idea and has these moments of hate towards Gerald. For some further explaination on why Gudrun behaves like that you might want to check a few pages back in the thread and also the above posts of Janine and Virgil. The expanations they gave about Gudrun's morals and the historical background is part of the answer to what you ask.

[Virgil]

I've just finished Chapter 14 Water Party. You all made me feel like that was a terribly important chapter. Feel like I have come over a milestone.

Yes, that chapter is a milesotne.

Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.

Why in the world did Gudrun back hand Gerald?! They seem to fall within that SMBD idea. I like how Lawrence makes his characters very human though...like when Gudrun was treating Gerald badly but was unsure why she was doing so at the same time.

Well, I think you would have to assume that it comes out from her subconscious. It also symbloizes the self-destructive nature not just of Gudrun but of gerald who I think actually gets turned on by it.

*I am optimistic I will be finished here soon. The novel is kind of taking off with my interest now!

Great!

That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?

Yes, Woman To Woman was the chapter and i found that a great chapter. So intense the conflict between the two ladies! Yes, Hermione believes she would submit, but i think we can tell from her personality that it would never happen. She would dominate and control.

[Janine]

Hi Grace, welcome back. I am delighted to read your post today. I knew, given enough time, you would be able to get more interested in the book. I am happy to hear you will be finishing it. I think that by the end you will see that many things have changed or developed. For one thing, I have now noticed that Birkin no longer goes on his long tirades or preaching, which is rather refreshing. He has gone through a definite transformation. Also, many of his idea/thoughts have been explored by the others and there are some new opinions on what he has said. I keep thinking that Birkin, who represents Lawrence himself, puts the ideas out there in the first half or so of the book and then he becomes quieter and sits back and allows others to take his words and either criticise or consider them. It is interesting to me that Lawrence had the insight to do this. I think it rather brilliant actually. First one gives the ideas in speeches and then sits back and sees the consequences of his words either be rejected or actualized by the characters.

Birkin is beginning to frustrate me a little bit here. He was very preachy and ended up falling into Ursula's arms anyhow toward the end of the chapter. He is very hard headed and it does kind of seem that even though he speaks out against humanity he is anxious and is still destined to fall into it...because he's human after all?? Ursula looks like she tries to understand, but maybe she levels him off just a little bit.

I answered some of this above. You are right though he falls into Ursula's arms by the end of the chapter, but all is still not right with them. As you said "he's human after all?" I do so agree. Birkin is not always completely definite about his theories or his philosophy on life. One has to understand that in the book he is developing them as he goes along. So at times he is floundering and trying to find the correct words to explain himself. I think this is why he goes on and on and sometimes seems to be going around in circles. He probably bores himself, as much as us with all his conceptualising but out of that comes some wonderful ideas. We may feel frustrated with him at times simply because he is actually feeling so himself, what do you think? Remember that all the characters in the book are not perfect; they are all human with flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths, confusions as well as confirmations.

*Warning - this may be a SPOILER for you: Ch. 23

I actually love this chapter when Ursula comes back at Birkin and tells him her mind. I don't want to spoil it for you, but it is quite significant I believe and no one has really addressed that chapter and the way things seem to happen for them. Finally, Birkin is quite speakless when Ursula takes a stand and challenges his ideas and preaching.


To your other questions it seems everyone has answered them so well.

Oh i see..i haven't checked here in litnet to compare my book and see if it is the same 'version'. There are 3 versions of "Lady Chaterley's lover"?? I wonder which one i have. We can organise a reading of this book too. It would be fun if we could read it and discuss it simultaneously. But not now (i never read books of the same author in a row. I have certain un-written rules while i read and this is rule number 1 Perhaps next winter?)

Hi manolia, I came on to check the threads and said "WOW!", things were really progressing in the posts. Your post is great. Good answers for Grace.

Yes, I read that there are three versions - full versions - of LCL. I think they actually have different titles. It is funny, years ago I read the book and liked it. Then recently I found another copy and read it and thought - this seems different to me, somehow. I don't know if it truly is a different text, I read but some texts say the full-length uncut version - sort of like in films - you know - like Directors Cut. The book I read second time said this. I am experiencing this with WIL, but I read that book first over 30 yrs ago, so who knows? I may have just forgotten much of the plot. The book seems longer to me and more involved, but that also might be my own perception, since in the past few years I have the vision of the film version in my mind, which is quite trimmed down; even combines dialogue from certain scenes. It is a very good film, but I suppose one has to watch it without the book's plot totally in mind. Most of the ideas are there, but not as developed; a two hour film cannot capture all of this.
manolia, yes, definitely we will do LCL - next year would be great! I love the idea!

Very helpful comments. I know about the roaring 20's (have seen many films ), but i didn't have this in mind when i read those passages, thanx Janine. And of course Gudrun is a bohemian artist, you are right Virgil (and hanging out with people like Pussum (very suggestive name Virgil ) means that she somehow shared some of their qualities. And yes Ursula is a school ma (more calm and sweet and reserved).

I bet you have (referring to the films). Virgil said it is a little ahead of the 20's but I still think women's rights were being explored and people were being exposed to Freud and the Id concepts and Neizthe (sp?) and there was a sort of sexual upheaval at the time for women. Also the fact of Gudrun being a bohemian artist. Definitely that was significant. I am an artist so I know just what that world encompasses. As Virgil said in his post Ursula has had her affair or relationship. She is wanting something more permanent in life. She is definitely "more calm and sweet and reserved" than Gudrun. The two sisters contrast nicely and realistically I believe. I have two sisters and I can relate to this. No I was not the wild one

Yes, i have read some passages that insinuate that Gudrun is in fact jealous of Birkin's and Ursula's relationship and that she perhaps has begun to think differently concerning marriage..but i guess i'll see the whole picture towards the end.

I read this part also, and thought of posting along with my comments, but you know I was too tired to look up the chapter and the quote. Wasn't she at the mill at the time? She had been having tea with Ursula at Birkin's abode and she got domestic feelings and sort of envied her sister. She explored in her mind the possibility of marriage to Gerald, right? Wow, now that I am near the end of the book, that seems like eons ago.

That's a good question. From what i gathered, Hermione is just pretending to be indipendant and modern. She just follows the trend but concerning Birkin and their long term sexual relationship, i am sure that she has marriage in her mind. Although she never admits it and pretends to be modern and easy going, the fact that she is trying to control his life shows that she regards him as belonging to her and her only. She strikes me as the type of woman who would do anything just to get married with the man she chooses. Isn't she thinking in the chapter "Woman to woman" (i think this is the ch) ,where she confronts Ursula, that she would submit entirely to Birkin if he only asked for it (or something to that effect, don't remember right now)?

Good observation, I agree totally in what you wrote here. Hermoine is such a phony, always pretending to herself and others.

Yes i agree. Most authors tend to depict their era as being nicer and purer than it actually is.

They do - even as far back as Thomas Hardy, and he told the truth and was chastised for it; for instance in "Jude the Obscure". Also, I have to think that divorce in Hardy's time was pretty much forbidden and in Lawrence's time was still scorned and looked down on. If one could not get a divorce then, they eloped and lived together or else the woman went to lovers to find any bit of human comfort; it was not just sex, I believe. Virgil pointed out that Lawrence, himself, ran off with another man's wife (his professors' to be exact). She had three children and left them behind. All sound terribly cruel but actually the husband would not give her a divorce, she was shunned by society for leaving him, even though it was a dead marriage. Her children, the husband used as pawns, legally keeping them from her. Basically, it was like that. If one happened to fall in love and leave the marriage it was not like today with lawyers and joint-custody and quick divorces. Woman were crucified, if they were the ones to leave. So woman began to seek more equality and rights of their own - even sexual, so to Gundrun she belonged to this newer society of thought.
Since you came to the chapter where they are spending the holiday at the hostile in the mountains, don't you see a more relaxed atmostphere - the people are much freer and expressive, as compared to the stiff proper society of England. One section they even discuss England and how different it is. The dance seems to be significant to me, in showing how unreserved, unihibited the Europeans are.

Hi Grace!
My interpretation for this interesting event is that Gudrun is falling in love with Gerald and her world is turning upside down. Gudrun being a wild tiger revolts to the idea and has these moments of hate towards Gerald. For some further explaination on why Gudrun behaves like that you might want to check a few pages back in the thread and also the above posts of Janine and Virgil. The expanations they gave about Gudrun's morals and the historical background is part of the answer to what you ask.

I fully agree, and also that she seems to be living up to her names reference and image. Gudrun feels dangerous to me at this point and agressive. Gerald mades a remark that she struck the first blow and he will strike the last - I did not look up the quote, but didn't it go something like that? I think the blow was a sort of signal and 'prophetic' of the challenge, between them, that will most definitely ensue.
Quote by Virgil

To be honest, that is the reason I have always been so-so on this novel, that is Birkin's likability. I can't see why anyone really would like him, but the other ladies here disagree. So it just may be my perception.

Virgil, I would not expect you to like him. You are a man. But seriously, you have more the engineering type mind and so why would Birkin appeal to your sensibilites? Maybe by the end you may like him a bit more, who knows? Think you may be outnumbered on this one. This discussion has only your male ideas to counterbalance us - the females. Poor Virg - uneven odds again! How do you put up with all us women folk - don't answer that - you know you love it!

But you know I do wonder, do we have to actually 'like' any of the characters in a novel to like the novel?

Well, I think you would have to assume that it comes out from her subconscious. It also symbloizes the self-destructive nature not just of Gudrun but of gerald who I think actually gets turned on by it.

Very well stated. I agree.
But, Virgil....what...that word 'subconscious'.... comes up again. You just can't seem to help yourself using that word...

Yes, Woman To Woman was the chapter and i found that a great chapter. So intense the conflict between the two ladies! Yes, Hermione believes she would submit, but i think we can tell from her personality that it would never happen. She would dominate and control.

Definitely!