June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[Janine]

Thanks grace86 - I don't want to give it up yet. haha....*keep me hangin on*...need music notes. Seriously I think we kind of trailed off at the end without discussing fully the climax scene "Snowed Up" and the final scene....so I keep hoping. Virgil said he wanted to comment definitely on "Snowed Up" but I realise he has been busy, me too - we both are overwhelmed a bit.

Hey, grace86, I found too goodies at my library - two huge volumes on Understanding Literature - over 1000 pages each - textbooks and look like they never were even used or opened. They are in the freeby give-away bin. I was so thrilled to get them. Bad news is not too much L in them but a wealth of other information on zillions of authors, plus tons of short stories, poetry, commentary, etc. How cool is that and all free?

Glad to see you over there in Tortoise poems. I laughed to see you there. Yes, I am really stimulating your brain about L's works. I have just been researching online some ideas I have on the poem. Wow, I get deeper and deeper into it.

Glad the map helped. I like maps and it interested me about Lawrence's area/plus how they relate to his novels/stories. I found some direct references to the "The Shades of Spring" in my book today - the fact that indeed, Syson is Lawrence's alter-ego. I can't wait to post in there tonight, but first I have to scan that part of the book - too much to type, I think.

[Virgil]

I wanted to look more closely on chapter 30, "Snowed Up", the climatic chapter. Look at the first few paragraphs:

WHEN URSULA and Birkin were gone, Gudrun felt herself free in her contest with Gerald. As they grew more used to each other, he seemed to press upon her more and more. At first she could manage him, so that her own will was always left free. But very soon, he began to ignore her female tactics, he dropped his respect for her whims and her privacies, he began to exert his own will blindly, without submitting to hers.

So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."

When Ursula had gone, Gudrun felt her own existence had become stark and elemental. She went and crouched alone in her bedroom, looking out of the window at the big, flashing stars. In front was the faint shadow of the mountain-knot. That was the pivot. She felt strange and inevitable, as if she were centred upon the pivot of all existence, there was no further reality.

Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

And they shortly have their first battle:

`Are you alone in the dark?' he said. And she could tell by his tone he resented it, he resented this isolation she had drawn round herself. Yet, feeling static and inevitable, she was kind towards him.

`Would you like to light the candle?' she asked.

He did not answer, but came and stood behind her, in the darkness.

`Look,' she said, `at that lovely star up there. Do you know its name?'

He crouched beside her, to look through the low window.

`No,' he said. `It is very fine.'

`Isn't it beautiful! Do you notice how it darts different coloured fires -- it flashes really superbly --'

They remained in silence. With a mute, heavy gesture she put her hand on his knee, and took his hand.

`Are you regretting Ursula?' he asked.

`No, not at all,' she said. Then, in a slow mood, she asked:

`How much do you love me?'

He stiffened himself further against her.

`How much do you think I do?' he asked.

`I don't know,' she replied.

`But what is your opinion?' he asked.

There was a pause. At length, in the darkness, came her voice, hard and indifferent:

`Very little indeed,' she said coldly, almost flippant.

His heart went icy at the sound of her voice.

`Why don't I love you?' he asked, as if admitting the truth of her accusation, yet hating her for it.

`I don't know why you don't -- I've been good to you. You were in a fearful state when you came to me.'

Her heart was beating to suffocate her, yet she was strong and unrelenting.

`When was I in a fearful state?' he asked.

`When you first came to me. I had to take pity on you. But it was never love.'

It was that statement `It was never love,' which sounded in his ears with madness.

`Why must you repeat it so often, that there is no love?' he said in a voice strangled with rage.

`Well you don't think you love, do you?' she asked.

He was silent with cold passion of anger.

`You don't think you can love me, do you?' she repeated almost with a sneer.

`No,' he said.

`You know you never have loved me, don't you?'

She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.

`I don't know what you mean by the word `love,' he replied.

`Yes, you do. You know all right that you have never loved me. Have you, do you think?'

`No,' he said, prompted by some barren spirit of truthfulness and obstinacy.

`And you never will love me,' she said finally, `will you?'

There was a diabolic coldness in her, too much to bear.

`No,' he said.

`Then,' she replied, `what have you against me!'

He was silent in cold, frightened rage and despair. `If only I could kill her,' his heart was whispering repeatedly. `If only I could kill her -- I should be free.'

It seemed to him that death was the only severing of this Gordian knot.

`Why do you torture me?' he said.

She flung her arms round his neck.

`Ah, I don't want to torture you,' she said pityingly, as if she were comforting a child. The impertinence made his veins go cold, he was insensible. She held her arms round his neck, in a triumph of pity. And her pity for him was as cold as stone, its deepest motive was hate of him, and fear of his power over her, which she must always counterfoil.

Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

[Janine]

I wanted to look more closely on chapter 30, "Snowed Up", the climatic chapter. Look at the first few paragraphs:

So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."

Hi Virgil,glad to see you back. This is good. Yes, it is very much a "contest of wills" they are actively engaged in.

Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

This is excellent! Your explanation seems accurate to me. I had been wondering what the significance of the "mountain-knot" and the word "pivot" was and this is perfect. It clears up many questions in my mind. Interesting observation "unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied." I must think about this line more.

And they shortly have their first battle: (see Virgil's post for dialogues/quote)

She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.

Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

Terrific! I had not thought of this either. It makes perfect sense to me now. Again the whole idea of a knot. How interesting.
I will wait to hear what you add to this. It is all very enlightening to me.

[Virgil]

I am sorry I had to miss out on the discussion as well as the reading. My mother passed away last month.

I reverted to some short reads since then and have just picked up Women in Love again. Never got too far in it... off to check out the other group reads now.

My deepest sympathy, Gracewings. I lost my father in September, and it was not easy. I know how you feel. May she be in a better place.

Hi Virgil,glad to see you back. This is good.

Thank you for your encouragement Janine.

[Janine]

Virgil, Another thought on the knot. Does it not mimic the couple who drown in the lake - were they not intertwined like a knot, causing death?

[Virgil]

Virgil, Another thought on the knot. Does it not mimic the couple who drown in the lake - were they not intertwined like a knot, causing death?

Great thought Janine. There are lots of interconnections like that throughout the novel.

[grace86]

What I noticed in "Snowed Up" was how self destructive and selfish Gudrun was. Gerald did love her, so when she twisted the logic up and made him admit that he didn't, I was like "what the heck is going on?"

Why would she be so self destructive?

That whole chapter was filled with tension...I think definitely it was the climactic chapter in the book...things just kind of rupture.

Help me out guys, I think it was in "Woman to Woman" or the previous chapter to "Snowed Up," but I think Ursula and Gudrun were having a conversation and Ursula had the thought that Gudrun would never experience love....it was something like that...I can't remember exactly.

[Janine]

Great thought Janine. There are lots of interconnections like that throughout the novel.

Virgil, Yes, I agree there are 'interconnections throughout the novel'. You know, the more I read other Lawrence work, as well, the more I see the same the same sort of images running throught them, such as this knot, moon, sun, flower references, mythical symbolism, etc. many seemingly 'set' images in the authors mind/subscious ( ) perhaps.

Grace, I think Gudrun intentionally begins to distance Gerald and sabatoge/undermine their relationship, then make it seem, even to herself and her own satisfaction, that Gerald is the one at fault. Why would she act this way? It is life - people do act this way. They don't always do the logical thing. I think from the beginning Gudrun had the potennial for this sort of behavior, perhaps passive aggressive. I did not feel shocked by it; rather I felt it destined to take place that she would be the one to reject him and in such a cruel way. I think she had it in her all the time to be strong-willed and dominent - just look at the scene when she gives him the back-handed slap and the comments she makes. As, Virgil, pointed out with the this couple, Gudrun and Gerald, from the start, it has been a 'war of wills' and a test for each at whole would hold out longer. I think part of the reason Gudrun was so drawn to Gerald was the challenge to beat him at his own game of 'will'. When he first came to her in the night he was willful, don't you think? I think always they go back and forth lording the power over each other. As Virgil said they have not accomplished the magnificence/beauty of love and a relationship that works such as Birkin and Ursula have.
Grace, 'rupture' is a good word to use at the climax.
I will look up that chapter. I think it was further back in the book or maybe even the very first conversation the women had when coming out of their house, in the chapter "The Sisters".

[Virgil]

Help me out guys, I think it was in "Woman to Woman" or the previous chapter to "Snowed Up," but I think Ursula and Gudrun were having a conversation and Ursula had the thought that Gudrun would never experience love....it was something like that...I can't remember exactly.

I'm afraid I don't recall, Grace.

What I noticed in "Snowed Up" was how self destructive and selfish Gudrun was. Gerald did love her, so when she twisted the logic up and made him admit that he didn't, I was like "what the heck is going on?"

Why would she be so self destructive?

But Grace Gerald is just as self destructive. Once Gudrun has shut him out (or was it a smultaneous shutting of each other?) Gerlad goes through these cycle of thoughts. Some more from "Snowed Up," chapter 30:

It seemed to him that Gudrun was sufficient unto herself, closed round and completed, like a thing in a case. In the calm, static reason of his soul, he recognised this, and admitted it was her right, to be closed round upon herself, self-complete, without desire. He realised it, he admitted it, it only needed one last effort on his own part, to win for himself the same completeness. He knew that it only needed one convulsion of his will for him to be able to turn upon himself also, to close upon himself as a stone fixes upon itself, and is impervious, self-completed, a thing isolated.

"In the calm, static reason of his soul" he realizes that she is not dependant on him. Remember Ursula and Birkin are in static opposition, autonomous but in love. Those caught in the cycle of love require dependence, actually interdependence. (This is all Lawrentian thought, so take it as not reality, unless of course you buy into Lawrence's world view.) Interdependence brings us back to that knot, the wrapping of each lover's subconscious with each other. Notice the metaphor. They are both going static not in perfect star love, but as a stone, impervious and isolated.

This knowledge threw him into a terrible chaos. Because, however much he might mentally will to be immune and self-complete, the desire for this state was lacking, and he could not create it. He could see that, to exist at all, he must be perfectly free of Gudrun, leave her if she wanted to be left, demand nothing of her, have no claim upon her.

This affects his very soul, his subconscious starts to affect his person.

But then, to have no claim upon her, he must stand by himself, in sheer nothingness. And his brain turned to nought at the idea. It was a state of nothingness. On the other hand, he might give in, and fawn to her. Or, finally, he might kill her. Or he might become just indifferent, purposeless, dissipated, momentaneous. But his nature was too serious, not gay enough or subtle enough for mocking licentiousness.

It brings out in him what was deep inside, the will to kill. He killed his brother in childhood, and the chaos has brought that nature out.

And then a great paragraph:

A strange rent had been torn in him; like a victim that is torn open and given to the heavens, so he had been torn apart and given to Gudrun. How should he close again? This wound, this strange, infinitely-sensitive opening of his soul, where he was exposed, like an open flower, to all the universe, and in which he was given to his complement, the other, the unknown, this wound, this disclosure, this unfolding of his own covering, leaving him incomplete, limited, unfinished, like an open flower under the sky, this was his cruellest joy. Why then should he forego it? Why should he close up and become impervious, immune, like a partial thing in a sheath, when he had broken forth, like a seed that has germinated, to issue forth in being, embracing the unrealised heavens.

"Rent," "torn" - remember earlier in the novel he was described as fragmented, broken. I forget where that was, but I pointed it out in an ealier post. He cannot give in to her and lose his individuality. He must also press his will on her.

[Janine]

Virgil, good post. I will comment on it tomorrow. I am too tired out now. I quite agree with most of what you have said. Question - which chapter did you take the last quote from - about how far into the chaper? I don't recall reading that part - maybe I was a half asleep when I read it. It is a great passage.

[manolia]

So we see that the Gerald/Gudrun relationship is a "contest" and it is a contest of "wills."


Notice the symbols here. The stars (Ursula and Birkin relationship) set against "the mountain-knot" the Gerald and Gudrun realtionship. The stars are clear and static. The ice world is described in mechanized, kinematic terms, "pivot". A "mountain-knot" is a new reference here, knot representing both the never ending cycle that Gudrun and Gerald are caught in and the unfathomable mystery that is unclear and enigmatic, that which cannot be untied.

And they shortly have their first battle:

She destroys him with logic and words, all in a knot of logic. She was the one who introduced the thought that he never loved her. It's actually untrue, but the logic of the exchange has him accept it.
Now we see why Birkin is skeptical of love. Love for most (those that cannot achieve the star love like Birkin and Ursula) is a cycle, you love, you don't, you love you don't, another mechanized loop.

And Lawrence gives us several of these cycles in this climatic battle in this chapter. I have more still to say on the climax, but I'll stop here for now.

Grace, I think Gudrun intentionally begins to distance Gerald and sabatoge/undermine their relationship, then make it seem, even to herself and her own satisfaction, that Gerald is the one at fault. Why would she act this way? It is life - people do act this way. They don't always do the logical thing. I think from the beginning Gudrun had the potennial for this sort of behavior, perhaps passive aggressive. I did not feel shocked by it; rather I felt it destined to take place that she would be the one to reject him and in such a cruel way. I think she had it in her all the time to be strong-willed and dominent - just look at the scene when she gives him the back-handed slap and the comments she makes. As, Virgil, pointed out with the this couple, Gudrun and Gerald, from the start, it has been a 'war of wills' and a test for each at whole would hold out longer. I think part of the reason Gudrun was so drawn to Gerald was the challenge to beat him at his own game of 'will'. When he first came to her in the night he was willful, don't you think? I think always they go back and forth lording the power over each other. As Virgil said they have not accomplished the magnificence/beauty of love and a relationship that works such as Birkin and Ursula have.

Nice and helpful posts. I agree with both of you concerning the fact that Gerald actually loved Gudrun and she was the one who was trying to convince him that he didn't. She was literally puting words in his mouth, wasn't she???

[Janine]

Hi manolia and Virgil, nice to see you here again. I keep popping in periodically. Glad these posts have been helpful to you.

Yes, perhaps by Gundrun 'putting the words in his mouth', as you say manolia, she was playing the ultimate power-game with Gerald, for she was controlling his actual responses to her. At this point I see both individuals going into a non-logical state. They are tied up in a 'web' or 'knot' of emotions with no solution. By additional reading I have gathered some new ideas or cleared up some thoughts in my own mind. I have ideas on the Gudrun/Gerald relationship. In Lawrence's book "Apogalypse", which is much later than WIL, Lawrence's expresses clearly his deepest thoughts on mankind and relationships, towards the end of this book. Lawrence believed there were two modes of being in man - the 'collective' and the 'individual'. I believe WIL with the two relationships demonstrates his idea. Ursula and Birkin are both separate yet part of the collective universe and orbiting like stars in perfect harmony with each other. The follow text is part of his concept, but to understand his whole meaning, I may have to quote additional text, some parts leading up to this. For now this is his conclusion on the individual and love. He states that individuals cannot exist in love relationships thus:

Chapter Twenty-Three
6.To have an ideal for the individual which regards only his individual self and ignores his collective self is in the long run fatal. To have a creed of individuality which denies the reality of the hierarchy makes at last for more anarchy. Democratic man lives by cohesion and resistence, the cohesive force of 'love' and the resistent force of the individual 'freedom'. To yield entirely to love would be to be absorbed, which is the death of the individual: for the individual must hold his own, or he ceases to be 'free' and individual. So that we see, what our age has proved to its astonishment and dismay, that the individual cannot love. The individual cannot love: let that be an axiom. And the modern man or woman cannot conceive of himself, herself, save as an individual. And the individual in man or woman is bound to kill, at last, the lover in himself or herself. It is not that each man kills the thing he loves, but each man, by insisting on his own individuality, kills the lover in himself, as the woman kills the lover in herself.

Later in the passage he concludes:

Or when he loves, when she loves, he must take it back, she must take it back.

This is the way in which Lawrence views the whole love concept in 'individuals'. These ideas are purely his and of course much more complicated in the full text of the book. Ofcourse, it benefits to read the whole chapter these came from to see just how Lawrence thought or came to this conclusion. I figure this much will give you all something to think about.

This is what has come to me. Gerald and Gurdrun both want to love and do love truly but wish to maintain their own individuality and power at the same time. Therefore this fits in with what Lawrence has said in his "Apogalypse".

Also, I find the last line particularly interesting since 'love is given and then taken back'. So in my eyes now, I would say both did truly love each other, but then withdrew that love out of maintaining their own individuality and sense of power. This was a destructive type of love that could only end tragically.

It also struck me that Loerke represents the individual who will never truly 'love' but keep separate and free in his individuality. Did he not mention often to Gudrun the idea of maintaining her individuality, or is this just a sense I get from him? Also I get the impression that Loerke can never have a full and complete relationship with anyone and will always remain appart and individual throughout his life. Therefore, he does not threaten Gundrun with the same type relationship - this love tug of war - she is now rejecting in Gerald and herself. Loerke is a free-spirit and cares little for others, his main concern is his own art and his individuality, or am I reading him wrong? It seems to me at the end that Gudrun will go the same route now as Loerke has gone with her own sense of free individuality minus responsibilites to another human being.

PS: manolia, guess what film I took out of the library on Friday?

[papayahed]

18 pages???? How the heck am I suppossed to keep up with 18 pages???? I'm almost done I'm on XXVIII. Have we already taked about Geralds reaction to the statues way back in VI?

[manolia]

Also, I find the last line particularly interesting since 'love is given and then taken back'. So in my eyes now, I would say both did truly love each other, but then withdrew that love out of maintaining their own individuality and sense of power. This was a destructive type of love that could only end tragically.

It also struck me that Loerke represents the individual who will never truly 'love' but keep separate and free in his individuality. Did he not mention often to Gudrun the idea of maintaining her individuality, or is this just a sense I get from him? Also I get the impression that Loerke can never have a full and complete relationship with anyone and will always remain appart and individual throughout his life. Therefore, he does not threaten Gundrun with the same type relationship - this love tug of war - she is now rejecting in Gerald and herself. Loerke is a free-spirit and cares little for others, his main concern is his own art and his individuality, or am I reading him wrong? It seems to me at the end that Gudrun will go the same route now as Loerke has gone with her own sense of free individuality minus responsibilites to another human being.

Wonderful explanation Janine! Thanx!
On a side note, i believe that you are reading Loerke correctly! After all, it is clearly stated in the book that he is a "free spirit" and he is very like Gudrun, so i believe your explanation is correct.

PS: manolia, guess what film I took out of the library on Friday?

Hmmmm.. let me see..Was it "Mulholland Drive"?

[Janine]

18 pages???? How the heck am I suppossed to keep up with 18 pages???? I'm almost done I'm on XXVIII. Have we already taked about Geralds reaction to the statues way back in VI?

papayahed, I am glad to see you are nearly done the book, that you stayed with it. Everyone finished at a different time, which is just fine. Yikes, are there really 16 pages? We sure were ambitious this past month! As Virgil told me, these threads never close or end. A few of us seem to be trying to keep this one going and Virgil still has some things to discuss on the chapter "Snowed Up" I believe. I don't totally recall Gerald's reactions, but vaguely I do, so if you have questions or want to discuss it, I am totally open to reviewing that part of the book and talking more about it. It is quite significant and there are some posts, if I recall correctly, referring to that part of the story and chapter. Quite a number of times the idea of the primative art was brought up - just to recap our discussions. Virgil knows much about this total concept and what was in Lawrence's mind concerning the art, and I posted a 'Introduction' to my book, which is a good commentary; I believe there it also mentions the idea behind the art pieces/statues in chapter VI. I am going out now, but will look all of this up for you later on tonight and direct you to those specific references. Hope to be of some help to you. Yes, 16 pages is too much to wade through.

manolia, glad you liked the explanation and agreed with it. Of course in quoting from the other book and of Lawrence's philosophical ideas this is only a portion of it taken out of complete context, but it is the essense of what he is saying and getting at in WIL, in my opinion. Glad I was accurate about Loerke or at least those were both our impressions of the way he was.

Yes, the movie just might be that one!