June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[Janine]

Don't know when I am going to finish Women in Love, but I know it will be within the next week!

Regarding Don Quixote Janine, I have an old Penguin copy translated by J.M. Cohen, but when I broke that copy I got a new Penguin translated by John Rutherford. They are both pretty good. I have heard different opinions on the new Edith Grossman (?) translation. I didn't know you planned on participating with Don Quixote Janine!!! Yay!!

After WIL and Don Quixote though I am going to of course cover the new HP and then The Count of Monte Cristo....if any of you should feel interested in joining...I leave that all up to you...I've a big summer reading list.

Oh, and Everyman is just a publisher of hardcovers. That is the publisher of the Lawrence stories I will look into at the library.

Grace, now that I think of it, weren't you reading about 4 books at once or do I have you mixed up with someone else? If so you are doing pretty darn good. I was so slow on "Owen Meany" and barely got the book read by the last day. I had to readly push. What does HP stand for?

Glad that you can get the Lawrence short story book in your library. Mine does not even have it; shamefully it has so little Lawrence.

Thanks for the rundown on the translations of DQ. I don't know; I will have to see about reading it. I don't have a burning desire to and presently I picked up "To the Lighthouse" at the library and after WIL, I will read that through quickly; I read it two years ago, but actually it might take me more time than I care to spend still I don't find Woolf's writing easy going for some reason. I tend to wander off with her 'stream-of-consciousness' style and long sentences. I like the story and the ideas and I know she is a great writer, but I have trouble absorbing her prose. With Lawrence, I always feel there is a certain rhythm I am in tune with; and I think I agree with Virgil that his writing is like a poem/novel. It really flows easily for me. Does anyone else feel the same way?

[manolia]

Afer WIL and Don Quixote though I am going to of course cover the new HP and then The Count of Monte Cristo....if any of you should feel interested in joining...I leave that all up to you...I've a big summer reading list.

Grace "The count of Monte Cristo" is one of my fav books!!! I simply love this book. I read it a few months back and I didn't want it to end. I'll defiantely participate if you open a new thread about this one

Last night I read chapter 24, "Death and Love." I was completely captivated. It is a long chapter, so I had not intended to read the entire thing before dozing off. But I couldn't put it down. I read the whole thing. It was so marvelously written, it was beautiful and intense. I didn't want it to end. I could have read that chapter forever if it never finished. I just have post some passage that shows how great a writer Lawrence is. I could have chosen many, but here's one.



And then that great scene follows where he stumbles in the dark to Gudrun's house and sneaks in to her. This is among the best English prose I have ever read.

Yes Virgil, this was an amazing chapter. The scenes described are so intense. And the dialogues are as they ought to be. Short and meaningful.

Janine i bet these were the best scenes in the film

[Virgil]

Just finished chapter 28, "Gudrun in the Pompadour." Another delighful chapter. Here's a quick excerpt where the Pussom London crowd reads Birkin's letters.

`Do you remember,' came the quick voice of the Russian, `the letters he used to send. "Desire is holy--"'

`Oh yes!' cried Halliday. `Oh, how perfectly splendid. Why, I've got one in my pocket. I'm sure I have.'

He took out various papers from his pocket book.

`I'm sure I've -- hic! Oh dear! -- got one.'

Gerald and Gudrun were watching absorbedly.

`Oh yes, how perfectly -- hic! -- splendid! Don't make me laugh, Pussum, it gives me the hiccup. Hic! --' They all giggled.

`What did he say in that one?' the Pussum asked, leaning forward, her dark, soft hair falling and swinging against her face. There was something curiously indecent, obscene, about her small, longish, dark skull, particularly when the ears showed.

`Wait -- oh do wait! No-o, I won't give it to you, I'll read it aloud. I'll read you the choice bits, -- hic! Oh dear! Do you think if I drink water it would take off this hiccup? Hic! Oh, I feel perfectly helpless.'

`Isn't that the letter about uniting the dark and the light -- and the Flux of Corruption?' asked Maxim, in his precise, quick voice.

`I believe so,' said the Pussum.

`Oh is it? I'd forgotten -- hic! -- it was that one,' Halliday said, opening the letter. `Hic! Oh yes. How perfectly splendid! This is one of the best. "There is a phase in every race --"' he read in the sing-song, slow, distinct voice of a clergyman reading the Scriptures, `"When the desire for destruction overcomes every other desire. In the individual, this desire is ultimately a desire for destruction in the self" -- hic! --' he paused and looked up.

`I hope he's going ahead with the destruction of himself,' said the quick voice of the Russian. Halliday giggled, and lolled his head back, vaguely.

`There's not much to destroy in him,' said the Pussum. `He's so thin already, there's only a fag-end to start on.'

`Oh, isn't it beautiful! I love reading it! I believe it has cured my hiccup!' squealed Halliday. `Do let me go on. "It is a desire for the reduction process in oneself, a reducing back to the origin, a return along the Flux of Corruption, to the original rudimentary conditions of being --!" Oh, but I do think it is wonderful. It almost supersedes the Bible--'

`Yes -- Flux of Corruption,' said the Russian, `I remember that phrase.'

`Oh, he was always talking about Corruption,' said the Pussum. `He must be corrupt himself, to have it so much on his mind.'

`Exactly!' said the Russian.

`Do let me go on! Oh, this is a perfectly wonderful piece! But do listen to this. "And in the great retrogression, the reducing back of the created body of life, we get knowledge, and beyond knowledge, the phosphorescent ecstasy of acute sensation." Oh, I do think these phrases are too absurdly wonderful. Oh but don't you think they are -- they're nearly as good as Jesus. "And if, Julius, you want this ecstasy of reduction with the Pussum, you must go on till it is fulfilled. But surely there is in you also, somewhere, the living desire for positive creation, relationships in ultimate faith, when all this process of active corruption, with all its flowers of mud, is transcended, and more or less finished --" I do wonder what the flowers of mud are. Pussum, you are a flower of mud.'

What is fasacinating about this little scene is that Lawrence does so much here simultaneously. First he gets out another batch of Birkin's/Lawrence's philosophy. Second he does it without Birkin once again preaching and boring us . Third it is incredibly enetertaining, the funny banter. Four, it drives Gudrun and Gerald to oppose that crowd and so creates tension and contrast. Five it has a self-deprecating humor in that the fun they poke at Birkin is indirectly lawrence poking fun at himself. I'm not sure lawrence was good at poking fun at himself. I don't see too much of it in his other works (at least I don't recall it) and I know he was not good at taking jokes from his friends and acquaintances.

A wonderful scene.

[Janine]

Geace "The count of Monte Cristo" is one of my fav books!!! I simply love this book. I read it a few months back and I didn't want it to end. I'll defiantely participate if you open a new thread about this one

Grace and manolia, Oh darn, there never is enought time to do it all. I don't think I can participate in that one and I am sure that book is amazing, too like DQ. I am already feeling so overwhelmed and my poor house has dust 3 inches thick that needs immediate attention. I told Virgil I would do "To the Lighthouse"; I figured that was short enough to swing this month coming up.

Yes Virgil, this was an amazing chapter. The scenes described are so intense. And the dialogues are as they ought to be. Short and meaningful.

Janine i bet these were the best scenes in the film

Hmmmm, yes, quite something, I liked the scene under the bridge best. I like the other one, but it is not an altogether happy/serene scene when Gerald comes to Gudrun in the night. Of course first time viewing it seeing him sneak in the house is pretty suspenseful. Yes, it is a good scene. Now that I have read the book over, I realise how much of the plot is left out of the movie and one scene is in the film that is not in the book, odd; but that scene is captivating, none-the-less; I keep wondering where the director/screen writer came up with that scene. Maybe it is something happened in L's real life, who knows? Also, other scenes are incorporated into one, such as the dialogue from one scene inserted into another scene; that's a bit strange; and the whole story moves along much quicker than in the book. It does get most of the points across. Odd too, is the fact that Gerald is played by Oliver Reed (the film is from the 1980's, not recent) and Oliver Reed has dark brown hair, not fair blond hair, as Gerald is described. In spite of all these descrepancies the film is quite interesting and enjoyable; I think the director could only aim at the essense of the book and the characters and visually it is quite stunning. I always loved the wheatfield, fir grove scene with Birkin. The Water-Party is great, too.
Other notable actors are Alan Bates (Birkin), Glenda Jackson (Gudrun), Jennie Linden (Ursula). Director Ken Russell.

Yes, manolia,...how funny, I think I just wrote a movie review.
I wish someone would remake it into a miniseries length - that would be so cool, but I doubt it will be done, although I heard there is a new version of LCL coming out on DVD. I have the BBC version and it is quite good and follows the book closely enough. That one is also directed by Ken Russell. manolia, Can you think of someone to play the blond haired Gerald? I could not come up with anyone who would fit the bill. Has to be someone blond and tall and handsome and strong. I just could not get an image of who.

OK, finally - great news! I finished the novel last night. I was only going to read to the end of "Snowed Up", but of course, I could not put the book down by then and went on to finish. I think it was about 4 in the morning - birds were singing outside and I could not see straight by then.

Now I am reading the "Introduction" to WIL by John Worthen 1995. I also found a book in my library with commentary on WIL which is quite good. They both make clearer many of the elements and the symbolism and ideas in the book. I can probably scan some of the pages, edit and post remarks soon.

Also, I have been a 'busy beaver' last night and scanned two pictures for Pensive of Jessie Chambers, L's friend and first girlfriend, and Louie Burrows, L's finance. But most notable is below this - a letter from Lawrence that explains his complicated family life and his close relationship with his mother. If interested, please check out the thread "Sons and Lovers" and read this very revealing letter. Pensive and I have been discussing it and also Virgil pops in occassionally to comment.

Well, I am overwhelmed and my head is spinning with all these threads, this one being the most active. I can hardly keep up. I will probably wait until everyone catches up, unless a few of you want to discuss the ending of the book, but remember put 'Spoiler' before your post; I know Virgil's not done yet and maybe others.

Just finished chapter 28, "Gudrun in the Pompadour." Another delighful chapter.

What is fasacinating about this little scene is that Lawrence does so much here simultaneously. First he gets out another batch of Birkin's/Lawrence's philosophy. Second he does it without Birkin once again preaching and boring us . Third it is incredibly enetertaining, the funny banter. Four, it drives Gudrun and Gerald to oppose that crowd and so creates tension and contrast. Five it has a self-deprecating humor in that the fun they poke at Birkin is indirectly lawrence poking fun at himself. I'm not sure lawrence was good at poking fun at himself. I don't see too much of it in his other works (at least I don't recall it) and I know he was not good at taking jokes from his friends and acquaintances.

A wonderful scene.

Virgil, I found this scene totally fascinating, too. It is very well paced towards the end of the novel with the recap of Birkin's/Lawrence's philosophy presented again by a altogether different person interpretting it. You have brought out all good points and true about the scene.
Also, this recalls me to the scene in the car with Gudrun and Gerald discussing Birkin's speeches and the other scene with Gudrun and Ursula criticising Birkin's ego and his preaching. This takes us a step futher and I think it is somewhat like Lawrence looking straight into the face of his enemies - the critics and laughing, in a sense, or saying - I don't care what you say about me, I will continue to write what I please. I think Lawrence was very capable of doing this. Did you know (I just read this last night in one commentary) that at the time Lawrence was writing WIL, he did not have any intentions of getting this book published? I also found reference of this being said by Lawrene in a letter. I will find the letter again and post some quotes from it. He thought it futile to even try for publication. At this time, he was furious and fed-up with the critics, and the police who came to confiscate "The Rainbow", which was banned in England and in America. It took Lawrence 4 years after completion of "Women in Love" to get it published in the US and only privately, then followed another court case. This is from my book Introduction:

Only weeks after it was published in 1915 "The Rainbow" was charged with obscenity and destroyed, by order of the Bow Street Magistrates Court -- a verdict almost comprehensible now. It was not available in England again until 1926. No publisher would risk "Women in Love" for four years after completion; and when it did come out it was a private edition in America, followed by another court case. Few major novels have had such difficult births.
What was it that seemed so unacceptable about these books--and not only to reviewers and policemen? Ostensibly it was the subject: sexual relations, treated with what seemed then daring openness. Yet in the late twentieth century, after a revolution in attitudes to sex which Lawrence helped bring about, the novels can still cause almost visceral disturbance. The trouble clearly lay deeper than the subject. What can still disturb is to be shown "civilized" human beings as by no means fully under their own control, but impelled by forces within them well below the level of their conscious will or choice. Lawrence, in these novels, no longer contained the beginnings of such insight within the definite characterization of "Sons and Lovers", which had been widely admired, but set out to change our very conception of characters.

Interesting, isn't it? I think that in this passage you quoted from WIL Lawrence is basically thumbing his nose at these critics. He said he worked out his frustrations and problems in his novels. This is stated in another letter and I will look it up. I will find the exact quote/letter and post it. It is interesting that Birkin, himself, stays quiet in the second half of the book. I pointed this out earlier. Now others seem to mouth his words.
I liked it when Gundrun went to retrieve the letter; as you said it put she and Gerald into alliegance with each other, interesting. It also demonstrated her strength of 'will' to Gerald.

[Virgil]

Interesting, isn't it? I think that in this passage you quoted from WIL Lawrence is basically thumbing his nose at these critics.

Good point. So add a sixth accomplishment by that scene.

He said he worked out his frustrations and problems in his novels. This is stated in another letter and I will look it up. I will find the exact quote/letter and post it. It is interesting that Birkin, himself, stays quiet in the second half of the book. I pointed this out earlier. Now others seem to mouth his words.

Yes, thank God he did publish it.

[manolia]

Five it has a self-deprecating humor in that the fun they poke at Birkin is indirectly lawrence poking fun at himself. I'm not sure lawrence was good at poking fun at himself.
A wonderful scene.

Now you mention it he IS poking fun at himself! It hadn't occured to me while reading this chapter (i was a bit angry with the low lives who were ridiculing Birkin's letter ). So the whole part is like L's inside joke?

Grace and manolia, Oh darn, there never is enought time to do it all. I don't think I can participate in that one and I am sure that book is amazing, too like DQ. I am already feeling so overwhelmed and my poor house has dust 3 inches thick that needs immediate attention. I told Virgil I would do "To the Lighthouse"; I figured that was short enough to swing this month coming up.

Janine i have a copy of "To the lighthouse" and having read "Mrs Dalloway" i can safely say that i do like Virginia Woolf very much, but i won't participate in the reading this time. I think that a Woolf book is too much after a Lawrence book. My poor brain needs a rest (i have started the "name of the rose". This isn't actually light reading..but it is lighter than Woolf and Lawrence)

Yes, manolia,...how funny, I think I just wrote a movie review.

You did and a good one!

Now I am reading the "Introduction" to WIL by John Worthen 1995. I also found a book in my library with commentary on WIL which is quite good. They both make clearer many of the elements and the symbolism and ideas in the book. I can probably scan some of the pages, edit and post remarks soon.

Yes do scan them Janine. I am too waiting for Virgil to finish so we can all discuss the ending

[Janine]

Now you mention it he IS poking fun at himself! It hadn't occured to me while reading this chapter (i was a bit angry with the low lives who were ridiculing Birkin's letter ). So the whole part is like L's inside joke?

Hi manolia, last night I finished reading the commentary in my book and I have more information on the two scenes when Birkin was being criticised. It is quite interesting, but I did not scan it in yet; I will soon and edit. I might go out today to a park so I may not have time to do it till later. The commentary was quite informative. I will share much of it with you gladly, now that I know I can scan the pages and then transfer to my program easily to edit. No typing - yeah! So I can't fully answer this till I do that. Put basically I think L is doing that to a degree - yes, sort of like an 'inside joke', but very intentional in the book and that scene. In other words, not just for his amusement, but appropriate to the book and the plot. More on this later on.

Janine i have a copy of "To the lighthouse" and having read "Mrs Dalloway" i can safely say that i do like Virginia Woolf very much, but i won't participate in the reading this time. I think that a Woolf book is too much after a Lawrence book. My poor brain needs a rest (i have started the "name of the rose". This isn't actually light reading..but it is lighter than Woolf and Lawrence)

Oh my, I know what you mean. My brain feels like it is in a vise just about now (sqeezing out the last bits of knowledge I am capable of ); I am not altogether sure I can handle Woolf at this point. When I read the book I found it difficult - both books really - and I think to read them again and right after this difficult book, would be an achievement. I took TTLH from my library the other day to look at and review and see if I can read it again, but now I think it might be a bit doubtful. What I might do is read so much during the course of the month and pop in once in awhile to post something, hopefully that makes some sense. I know the book and story well by now - saw the film version a couple of times ....No I won't give another movie review...not yet....

Who wrote "name of the rose"...is it lower case letters or are you too lazy to type the uppers?
Anyway, has anyone else, while reading WIL, noticed the 'rose' being mentioned quite often? You know the 'rose' is a symbol in the church for Mary Magdalene and my commentator had a few words to say about that, as well. Too tired out and rushed now to find the passage. Promise it later on.

You did and a good one!

thanks!

Yes do scan them Janine. I am too waiting for Virgil to finish so we can all discuss the ending

Yes, me, too - hurry up slowpoke. I can't wait to discuss that. In the meantime, I do have this short break to scan this 'Introduction' for everyone. Also, I can explore those other two books of commentary. They are older ones, but still bring out some very interesting points. Maybe your library has access to some commentary too. It really helps out. Of course reading it is like reading a whole other book - ugh. I think I am nearly all read out this month.

How did you like the quote about the book being banned and WIL meeting so much opposition to be published? Hope you read that post.

Virgil, did you read the quote I posted in "Sons and Lovers" from a letter by L and his opinion of one reviewer about psychoanalysis? You will absolutely love it.

[Virgil]

Janine i have a copy of "To the lighthouse" and having read "Mrs Dalloway" i can safely say that i do like Virginia Woolf very much, but i won't participate in the reading this time. I think that a Woolf book is too much after a Lawrence book. My poor brain needs a rest (i have started the "name of the rose". This isn't actually light reading..but it is lighter than Woolf and Lawrence)

Really? I thought The Name of the Rose was pretty hard. Oh I don't think To The Lighthouse is that hard. I think it would be fun to read it together.

Yes, me, too - hurry up slowpoke. I can't wait to discuss that.

Oh don't wait on me. I know how it ends. Plus I never get hung up on it being spoiled. I tend to want to know how it ends so i can assess what I'm readng.

Virgil, did you read the quote I posted in "Sons and Lovers" from a letter by L and his opinion of one reviewer about psychoanalysis? You will absolutely love it.

No, not yet. I'll got there in a minute.

[grace86]

Please don't wait for me either. Real life has called this past week and a half and I am afraid I might not finish in time. I will jump in the conversation when I can!

Janine...I was reading three books at once for a while. I stopped to read WIL.

[Janine]

Really? I thought The Name of the Rose was pretty hard. Oh I don't think To The Lighthouse is that hard. I think it would be fun to read it together.

Virgil, Well, that is true. The book is not that hard to read. I was thinking I can accomplish the reading part, since it is only 200 pages or so long. I will probably try at anyrate. It is true also it would be fun if we all could read it together. This is such a great group!
Hey, Virgil, you better not neglect the L short story thread next month; I really want to keep that going. And I have been thinking what is happening with Shakespeare thread? Shouldn't we be on a new play by now?

Oh don't wait on me. I know how it ends. Plus I never get hung up on it being spoiled. I tend to want to know how it ends so i can assess what I'm readng.

Manny, Oh, so you must be one of those people who reads the last page before they are done the book or maybe even before they start reading.
Good, I am sure manolia will love to talk about the ending with me.
I was out tonight to a park and then to a friend's house so just got on to check these threads. Actually I was on earlier at my friend's house trying to convince her to join up, showing her the site, etc. She loves books, movies, and one of her jobs is at a library. I sure hope she joins soon. She is really nice and funny, too.

Manny, I saw your got a good laugh out of L's quote. I am sure, in reading my book of selected letters, I will come across other gems.

Thanks Grace, your so kind and considerate of us, who have finished the book. We can write 'Spoiler' before our posts, then you will have the option to read it or not. Just keep with the book. You will like how it develops and not regret finishing it.

Virgil, just curious - what did you mean in your earlier post when you said "Good point. So add a sixth accomplishment by that scene." ?
What is a 'sixth accomplishment'?

Here is an interesting fact I found in the chronology of my book, referring to L

1916 - Writes Women in Love between April and October.

Can anyone here imagine writing a book this complex in just 5,6 months? It amazes me. That has to be true genius.

I just looked at the date and we only have about 7 more days to wrap up this discussion. This month went by so quickly. Wow, 'time sure does fly when you are having fun!' Do you realise we have posted nearly 200 posts on this book? Good work everyone !

[Virgil]

Virgil, Well, that is true. The book is not that hard to read. I was thinking I can accomplish the reading part, since it is only 200 pages or so long. I will probably try at anyrate. It is true also it would be fun if we all could read it together. This is such a great group!
Hey, Virgil, you better not neglect the L short story thread next month; I really want to keep that going. And I have been thinking what is happening with Shakespeare thread? Shouldn't we be on a new play by now?

Yes, and we have all summer to read To The Lighthouse. Won't you join us manolia? I happen to know that novel fairly well (not like Lawrence but still well) and I can point out stuff you might not catch on your own.

Let's see DQ, To The Lighhouse, Lawrence S.S., and Shakespeare play. I've got a busy summer.

Manny, Oh, so you must be one of those people who reads the last page before they are done the book or maybe even before they start reading.

Well, sometimes. My enjoyment comes not so much from the surprise, but from looking at what the writer is doing paragraph by paragraph, and how he is reaching his climax. Knowing the climax is helpful.

Good, I am sure manolia will love to talk about the ending with me.
I was out tonight to a park and then to a friend's house so just got on to check these threads. Actually I was on earlier at my friend's house trying to convince her to join up, showing her the site, etc. She loves books, movies, and one of her jobs is at a library. I sure hope she joins soon. She is really nice and funny, too.

Hey we can always use another person.

Virgil, just curious - what did you mean in your earlier post when you said "Good point. So add a sixth accomplishment by that scene." ?
What is a 'sixth accomplishment'?

If you look at the my post before that say that, you will see I list five things that L accomplishes with that scene. Your thought about getting back at his critics is a sixth accomplishment.

Here is an interesting fact I found in the chronology of my book, referring to L
Can anyone here imagine writing a book this complex in just 5,6 months? It amazes me. That has to be true genius.

That is incredible. Now here is something I wanted to bring up. He is writing this in the midst of WWI and in England the Germans are completely hated at this time. So why the scenes in Germany and the sympathetic German characters? Coincidence? Oversight on Lawrence's part because his wife is German and he knew her family? Or is there a political point he's making?

I just looked at the date and we only have about 7 more days to wrap up this discussion. This month went by so quickly. Wow, 'time sure does fly when you are having fun!' Do you realise we have posted nearly 200 posts on this book? Good work everyone !

There is no time limit on these discussion Janine. We can come back to this thread and continue all we want.

[manolia]

Who wrote "name of the rose"...is it lower case letters or are you too lazy to type the uppers?
Anyway, has anyone else, while reading WIL, noticed the 'rose' being mentioned quite often? You know the 'rose' is a symbol in the church for Mary Magdalene and my commentator had a few words to say about that, as well. Too tired out and rushed now to find the passage. Promise it later on.

The book is called "The Name of the Rose" and is written by Umberto Eco (an italian writer). I have read his other novel "Fucaults's Pendulum" and i liked it very much. This one i am reading now was on my list (and on my shelf ) for months.

How did you like the quote about the book being banned and WIL meeting so much opposition to be published? Hope you read that post.

It was very interesting. I am going to read now what you posted in "Sons and lovers" thread.

Really? I thought The Name of the Rose was pretty hard. Oh I don't think To The Lighthouse is that hard. I think it would be fun to read it together.

Pretty hard? Well it has many historical references and excerpts from ancient texts but i am already aware of the story (i have seen the movie with Son Connery ) and i always enjoy a good conspiracy theory when i find one. But i can see what you mean. It surely isn't as light as i expected (lighter than "Fucault's pendulum" but not light enough).

Yes, and we have all summer to read To The Lighthouse. Won't you join us manolia? I happen to know that novel fairly well (not like Lawrence but still well) and I can point out stuff you might not catch on your own.

I didn't know that we have all summer to read it! I might read it if that's the case (always glad to learn more things from a nice discussion).

That is incredible. Now here is something I wanted to bring up. He is writing this in the midst of WWI and in England the Germans are completely hated at this time. So why the scenes in Germany and the sympathetic German characters? Coincidence? Oversight on Lawrence's part because his wife is German and he knew her family? Or is there a political point he's making?

Hmmm his wife was german? Maybe he is trying to point out that not all people in Gemany were the same. But i incline to believe that he wanted to make a political point. I mean isn't it ironic all these scenes of merriment while people were being killed in battlefields. Maybe he wanted to point out how fascism managed to take a footing in Germany (the people weren't paying much attention in politics and weren't considering how much harm they are doing in the world). Or quite the contrary (considering that he might have been friendly towards fascism) how good was the system for german people. What do you think? This is actually a hard symbolism..i can't quite grasp its meaning.

[Janine]

The book is called "The Name of the Rose" and is written by Umberto Eco (an italian writer). I have read his other novel "Fucaults's Pendulum" and i liked it very much. This one i am reading now was on my list (and on my shelf ) for months.

Thanks manolia, that clears up that question. The book sounds interesting.

It was very interesting. I am going to read now what you posted in "Sons and lovers" thread.

Think you will find those posting quite interesting. Go back a page or so and you can see photos of Jesse/Miriam and of Louie Burrows - both former women of Lawrence's from his youthful days. Our discussion in that thread is slower than this one (fine with me) but it is going along great. If you read "Sons and Lovers" you must go back to the thread and read the posts. Many will give you some insight into the book.

Pretty hard? Well it has many historical references and excerpts from ancient texts but i am already aware of the story (i have seen the movie with Son Connery ) and i always enjoy a good conspiracy theory when i find one. But i can see what you mean. It surely isn't as light as i expected (lighter than "Fucault's pendulum" but not light enough).

Funny, I never find Lawrence at all hard to read; I feel his prose flows like poetry. I do, however, struggle with Woolf; my mind tends to wander off with her writing. Conspiracy theories fascinate me, also. But I am sure to discuss her will make me more interested and understand the book much better. I like thrillers and psychological dramas in film

I didn't know that we have all summer to read it! I might read it if that's the case (always glad to learn more things from a nice discussion).

I did not know that either - wonderful news. That should make it simplier and yes, Virgil...we have three things to concentrate on but please don't forget the L poem or the short story! So really you have 5 altogether and so do I. What Shakespeare play is up for discussion currently? I have completely lost track of that.

Hmmm his wife was german? Maybe he is trying to point out that not all people in Gemany were the same. But i incline to believe that he wanted to make a political point. I mean isn't it ironic all these scenes of merriment while people were being killed in battlefields. Maybe he wanted to point out how fascism managed to take a footing in Germany (the people weren't paying much attention in politics and weren't considering how much harm they are doing in the world). Or quite the contrary (considering that he might have been friendly towards fascism) how good was the system for german people. What do you think? This is actually a hard symbolism..i can't quite grasp its meaning.

Ok, this is the complicated issue and questions. I have some very interesting information on thest thoughts, I acquired recently from my commentary readings. I will scan some and extract the best parts and post later, hopefully, tonight. Scanning takes time and I wish to share this with you. Good observation about Lawrence's wife being German. It had a great bearing and significance and shaped many aspects of his writing - most definitely. This will play into the novel, especially the violence and the power issues.

Also, manolia, as we discuss the ending I have some great information on that that I read in the Introduction and in another book of commentary on WIL. Also, brings up points about The Rainbow that will interest Virgil.
Yes, Virgil, the war had a great significance on this book.

Be back soon with this valuable and insightful information.

[manolia]

Think you will find those posting quite interesting. Go back a page or so and you can see photos of Jesse/Miriam and of Louie Burrows - both former women of Lawrence's from his youthful days. Our discussion in that thread is slower than this one (fine with me) but it is going along great. If you read "Sons and Lovers" you must go back to the thread and read the posts. Many will give you some insight into the book.

I saw the letter and the pictures. Interesting information

SPOILERS TELLS ENDING

Janine i admit that i was a bit perplexed reading the last two chapters..both Gudrun and Gerald underwent so many changes..and some of the things they said to each other seemed to be contradicting their actions in previous chapters.
For instance when they have that discussion Gudrun seems sure that Gerald doesn;t love her and won't love her and while Gerald is enraged he doesn't contradict her, deny what she is saying. So was Gerald's interest in Gudrun solely carnal? And if so why does he attempt to strangle her? Is his male pride speaking?

[Janine]

I saw the letter and the pictures. Interesting information

SPOILERS TELLS ENDING

Janine i admit that i was a bit perplexed reading the last two chapters..both Gudrun and Gerald underwent so many changes..and some of the things they said to each other seemed to be contradicting their actions in previous chapters.
For instance when they have that discussion Gudrun seems sure that Gerald doesn;t love her and won't love her and while Gerald is enraged he doesn't contradict her, deny what she is saying. So was Gerald's interest in Gudrun solely carnal? And if so why does he attempt to strangle her? Is his male pride speaking?

Manolia, Glad you enjoyed the pictures and writings in the other post.

You bring up some very good questions here, and you are surely not the only reader who has been perplexed with the last few chapters of WIL. To answer is quite complicated. Yes, things do get very perplexing in the last chapters; I agree. I have just been reading several critics ideas and observations on this aspect of the book. One of these aspects is the total changablily of all the characters in the novel from beginning to end. Think about that aspect. It is quite true and interesting. The other idea is the fact that in showing the contrasting relationships, Lawrence is making his point, that of which type relationship works and triumphs and which is defective and will fail in the end. In concentrating more on the aspects of Gerald and Gudrun's relationship, especially evident in the second half of the book, he is showing us the failure of their relationsip, in order to drive home the whole point of the book. In other words he is saying this is not the way to live and have a relationsip. Their relationship is destructive, whereas the other is not totally correct either, but for the time being the better solution, for the two of the four individuals concerned. As many of you have commented that they felt Gudrun and Gerald's relationship more interesting, also these two characters more enthralling, it is of particular note that this one reviewer fully agrees with that idea. He says in so many words that the more evil aspects usually are and stand out more starkly to us. Therefore when the failure of their relationship is made evident, then Lawrence is stating more graphically what he earlier preached in this novel. That this kind of relationship is of all dissolution and destructive. Gudrun tries to dominate Gerald from the start and feels she can do it. In the end she has succeeded at just that, until Gerald also rejects her and his whole world/existence along with it. So to what expense was Gudrun's love or affection, which was based also on need and not true furfillment? Likewise the powerplay between them also makes their relationship one of total 'inbalance' and utimately brings havoc to each of their worlds, so that in their own way both are now lost, or at least that is how Lawrence sees it and the point he is trying to make in their final parting.

With Ursula and Birkin there is some compromise on Birkin's part, in loving Ursula, by the end. However they are not altogether happy; this is made evident by the last scene of the novel. A question still exists and can never be fully resolved for Birkin. Lawrence felt this to be how novels should end. I will look up his exact quote. It explains it better than I have and also why he felt this way. Again I have to hunt throught my readings to find that exact passage. Funny, because I read this exact idea of L's somewhere else long ago.
Also, after I scan some parts of this commentary and Introduction, you will better understand all of what I have written in this post.

To attempt to directly answer your question is difficult.
First - "So was Gerald's interest in Gudrun solely carnal?" I actually think it was to some degree and he was healing himself through his sexual contact with Gudrun. Remember and note that initially he went after times of deepest diress. First, during the dying of his father and second after his father's death and burial. He was in great need of her, especially at this time.
In the end, she felt 'used' and I can understand why, although I felt more sorrow and sympathy for Gerald when she seemed to be playing 'mind games' with him. However, I do think it went both ways, with Gerald using Gudrun for the comfort he so desperately needed, and Gundrun using Gerald to weld her power over him. Gundrun perhaps represented the 'womb' and the 'mothering' he did not get from his own cold distant mother. In the end Gudrun was just as cold, ironically. I think when she did show him rejection he could not deal with it without the inherent violence coming out in Gerald, thus the thoughts of killing her and the actual attemped strangling which resulted and surfaced from the depths of his being. In our short story thread we read one story - "The Prussian Officer" - that story deals with this idea of being driven to ones limits and then reacting with violence from a subconscious depth of being. I read something to the effect that Lawrence believed that all people possessed the potenial for violence subconsciouly, and certainly in this novel it is evident in those scenes.
I also thought in concrete down-to-earth terms that Gerald simply could not handle being shut out of Gudruns life forever. I don't know if it was love or simply male pride. Gerald certainly had a lot of male ego and pride. He forced the horse at the railroad gate showing his male dominence over the horse and over the natural disposition of the horse. He trumphed over nature and so did Gudrun - also evident in the scene "Rabbit" . Both wished to master the animals. There are other instances of the 'nature' being suppressed by Gudrun and Gerald whereas 'nature' is celebrated by Ursula and Birkin. Another thing to think about. I pretty much found this idea in my additional reading and thought it a quite important aspect to consider.