Sons and Lovers

[Virgil]

When we are able to trace the autobiographical hints in a novel, our attention is turned to themes and moments that we may not have noticed otherwise.

I've had this discussion with Janine. And to no one's surprise, she disagees with me. To me, autobiagraphical details can be interesting but only incedental. A work should stand on itself. I don't get wraped up in biographical reflections in a work of literature.

[Janine]

I've had this discussion with Janine. And to no one's surprise, she disagees with me. To me, autobiagraphical details can be interesting but only incedental. A work should stand on itself. I don't get wraped up in biographical reflections in a work of literature.

Virgil.....And I still disagree....hahaha ..... I do get wrapped up in authobiograhical connections and reflections. I think it adds much scope to the artist's work and my interest in it is magnified. Sorry, but that is just me. I think if you are inclined, as I am, to find it more interesting and to satisfy a curiousity, then you should explore the author's life. If you don't give a hoot about his life or his beliefs, then just keep the work isolated and evaluate it that way. I can't divorce Lawrence's work from himself and his life...sorry...not in this point of my knowledge of the author and his ideas. When I first started to read "Sons and Lovers", I knew nothing about Lawrence and therefore (for me personally), the book did not grab my interest and draw me in, as I hoped it would. Since now I do know so much about Lawrence's life and a friend had told me it was basically authobiographical, I could not wait to soak up every line. When I read "Women in Love" I did not know anything much about the author. But I can tell you, that now that I have read more about him, I found my reading much more meaningful, deeper and richer.
I do agree that a story or novel should stand on it's own merits and surely I agree that Lawrence's do just that. I am not disputing this one bit. I just think that it is interesting to know something more about the author and about his life in order to embrace the full scope of his thoughts and ideas.

[Alexei]

Sometimes to know about the authors life really helps to understand the ideas better, but I m usually not interested. I prefer to give my attention to the work. I try not to read biographies, because it makes me search for the authors life reflected in the book, it actually spoils my reading, because I miss too many other things in the process.

[Virgil]

Virgil.....And I still disagree....hahaha ..... I do get wrapped up in authobiograhical connections and reflections. I think it adds much scope to the artist's work and my interest in it is magnified. Sorry, but that is just me. I think if you are inclined, as I am, to find it more interesting and to satisfy a curiousity, then you should explore the author's life. If you don't give a hoot about his life or his beliefs, then just keep the work isolated and evaluate it that way. I can't divorce Lawrence's work from himself and his life...sorry...not in this point of my knowledge of the author and his ideas. When I first started to read "Sons and Lovers", I knew nothing about Lawrence and therefore (for me personally), the book did not grab my interest and draw me in, as I hoped it would. Since now I do know so much about Lawrence's life and a friend had told me it was basically authobiographical, I could not wait to soak up every line. When I read "Women in Love" I did not know anything much about the author. But I can tell you, that now that I have read more about him, I found my reading much more meaningful, deeper and richer.
I do agree that a story or novel should stand on it's own merits and surely I agree that Lawrence's do just that. I am not disputing this one bit. I just think that it is interesting to know something more about the author and about his life in order to embrace the full scope of his thoughts and ideas.

An excellent rebuttal Janine. You almost made me change my mind, and admit I'm wrong.

[amalia1985]

Janine, you are absolutely right. Mrs. Morel's reaction is totally justified in my eyes. Although, I am only 22, and therefore, too young to be a parent, I know how my own mother-and father, of course- will deal with my leaving to London next Semptember for post-graduate studies on theatre.

There is nothing stronger than the parent-child relationship, provided it is a healthy one. The issue is that there certainly must be a balance, because there is a thin red line, where justifiable anxiety may easily change to oppression with obvious and inevitable consequences...

[Janine]

An excellent rebuttal Janine. You almost made me change my mind, and admit I'm wrong.

Thanks Virgil, coming from you that's nice (M,B,&D to know); I will gladly accept that and if you do change your mind, then let me be the first to know.

I also was thinking last night, of how much you know about Lawrence and, for instance, his 'blood philosophy', just one aspect of his thinking and how you do incorporate this added knowledge often in your various insightful posts, so I would think knowing of the author and his life and times and development has added greatly to those intuitive posts of yours.

Janine, you are absolutely right. Mrs. Morel's reaction is totally justified in my eyes. Although, I am only 22, and therefore, too young to be a parent, I know how my own mother-and father, of course- will deal with my leaving to London next Semptember for post-graduate studies on theatre.

There is nothing stronger than the parent-child relationship, provided it is a healthy one. The issue is that there certainly must be a balance, because there is a thin red line, where justifiable anxiety may easily change to oppression with obvious and inevitable consequences...

amalia, that is very well put and I totally agree. Somewhere along the line, and especially in this particular instance in this story, the relationships between the mother and the children became possessive and overbearing, probably more prominent when they all hit adolescence. Then after the death in the family, I feel this 'inbalance' became prominent to a greater degree.

[amalia1985]

It became prominent because any feeling-however vulnerable that may be- of security and permanency is shuttered, the mother feels that there must be something for her to cling upon...

[Janine]

It became prominent because any feeling-however vulnerable that may be- of security and permanency is shuttered, the mother feels that there must be something for her to cling upon...

*Note: Spoiler - tells later key events of the story.

amalia, I think that is very true. Once the oldest son dies she is shattered and her world is shaken and in a sense caves in. It is a very sad thing when this happens. It seems they always say people die inside when they lose hope. I think that Mrs. Morel had great hope in her oldest son and she had to be effected greatly by his demise. The scene when they bring him home for burial is truly heartbreaking. I hope I am not spoiling this for anyone. I will add spoiler at the top of this post, just in case.

I had to go out today to a doctor appointment, but my doctor was quite late, so I got a lot of S&L reading done in the office waiting room. I am to the part when Mr. Morel got seriously injured in the mine and is now on the mend. Tomorrow I will try to comment on some of that part of the book. I found the mixed feelings the wife and the children has interesting and the semblance of peace they enjoyed while he was in the hospital recovering.

[Virgil]

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

[Janine]

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

Lawrence who?

[stella]

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

i dont know about the whole career ....but the i loved everything that concerened William and i loved that scene it was so touching .......

[Janine]

stella and Virgil, Yes, I thought that scene was amazing from beginning to end. No doubt it was one of the best things Lawrence ever wrote. It was brilliant writing and so full of emotion and realistic pathos. It was almost too hard to take - all that deep down suffering the family was feeling and experiencing as the scene unfolded.

[Pensive]

Pensive, do ask the question. That is what this discussion is for. I would love to hear and discuss the issue and the question.

Surely, I would like to put it here but it deals with the later part of story so I would like to wait until we reach that part.

Janine, Lawrence called that scene where they bring Wlliam's body home one of his best written pieces of his career. It is a masterpiece, and I remember it well.

Good of you to mention it, Virgil. This part is indeed very touching and plays with the reader's sentiments most easily. I also remember it, and think that it would be a shame not to compliment the effective nature of that part when the talk turns towards Sons and Lovers!

[manolia]

I have come to the part where Miriam is defeated (to use the name of the chapter) and Paul concetrates on Clara.
Clara is a very interesting person..can we see her as a man hater or a feminist? She strikes me as a feminist , although Paul says ironically that she just thinks that she is.

Something i don't quite get..why Mrs Morel continually says that Miriam will absorb Paul? Is it just Miriam or every woman that comes near him? I am asking this, since up to the chapter i am currently reading she seems to have a particular issue with Miriam and not Clara. She seems to have a positive opinion of Clara (the only problem being the age difference).
What i also find a bit odd is the mother and son relationship..it seems a bit abnormal in places..what do you all think? Paul slights Miriam (the woman who seems to understand him best, who shares his love for art, who understands and amires his artistic talent, who brings his better self on the surface) for the sake of his mother. Is it "normal"? His mother, on the other hand who seems to cling desperately on her son (now that William is dead..wow that was a wonderful scene indeed!!) and wants "compensation" for her failure of a wedding..

The other thing i wanted to comment on is Paul's sexual frustration. I don't quite get (again) why Miriam doesn't want to be engaged to him. She seems very much in love with him. Why does she insist on this platonic love? Is it her upbringing and her religious background? (she is a devout christian and in many places Paul is "having fun" dissilusioning her and bringing forth his "religious agnosticism"). There is also a scene, where Paul is eating a flower. I rember reading here on Lit net, that flower eating is a sign of sexual frustration..So is Paul turned to Clara because of this, because of her magnificent personality (she reminds me a bit of Gudrun, she is untamable and she shuns men), or both of them?

[Janine]

I have come to the part where Miriam is defeated (to use the name of the chapter) and Paul concetrates on Clara.
Clara is a very interesting person..can we see her as a man hater or a feminist? She strikes me as a feminist , although Paul says ironically that she just thinks that she is.

Hi manolia, I have not gotten as far as you in your reading, but if memory serves me correctly, I do believe that Clara is a feminist and all for women's rights such as voting and independence. Isn't Clara married or am I mixing her up with someone else? I thought she was separated from her husband when Paul pursues her. Opps, answered my own question. Additionally this might help you further understand her postion with Paul. I just found this in the book: Who's Who in D.H.Lawrence Graham Holderness, page 35.

DAWES, CLARA: A blonde with a sullern expression and a defiant air, with scornful grey eyes, and a skin like white honey; a full mouth, with a slightly lifted upper lip, that 'did not know whether it was raised in scorn of all men, of out of eagerness to be kissed'. But Clara believes the former: separated from a frustrating, unfulfilled marriage, she becomes a passionate devotee of Women's Rights, and a confirmed manhater. But in her love-affair with Paul Morel, she experiences transcendent ecstasies of passion --'the naked hunger and inevitability of his loving her, something strong and blind and ruthless in its primitiveness, made the hour almost terrible to her.' But she wants a relationship more permanent than Paul can offer: she craves for surety, stability; in her love for Paul she discovers herself, and can stand distinct and complete, having 'received her confirmation', but she never believes that her life belongs to him. There is not stability in Paul: at least her husband has a kind of 'manly dignity', whereas Morel is evanescent, not sure ground for a woman to stand on. She visits Baxter in the hospital, wanting to make restitution; he can offer her a relationship of permanence and stability. if it is only a permanence and stability of self-sacrifice. Sons and Lovers.

manolia's quote:

Something i don't quite get..why Mrs Morel continually says that Miriam will absorb Paul? Is it just Miriam or every woman that comes near him? I am asking this, since up to the chapter i am currently reading she seems to have a particular issue with Miriam and not Clara. She seems to have a positive opinion of Clara (the only problem being the age difference).
What i also find a bit odd is the mother and son relationship..it seems a bit abnormal in places..what do you all think? Paul slights Miriam (the woman who seems to understand him best, who shares his love for art, who understands and amires his artistic talent, who brings his better self on the surface) for the sake of his mother. Is it "normal"? His mother, on the other hand who seems to cling desperately on her son (now that William is dead..wow that was a wonderful scene indeed!!) and wants "compensation" for her failure of a wedding..

Again from the same book here is what Holderness says about Miriam:

Brown-eyed and dark-haired, Miriam is intensely romantic, in her imagination a princess turned into a swine girl. Her life is all imagination, mysticism and religion, and she recoils from the vulgarity, the commonness, the drudgery of her ordinary life. She is exceedingly sensitive, and the slightest physical grossness makes her recoil in anguish. She seems always like a maiden in bondage in some dreamy take, 'her spirit dreaming in a land far awy and magical'. For Miriam, all experiences must be kindled in her imagination before she feels she possesses them; her intensity is incapable of accepting emotion on a normal plane --everything about her is 'gripped stiff' with intensity, and the effort overcharged, recoils on itself. She loves paul absorbedly, with a clinging affection; she desires always to embrace him, but only in so far as he does not want her physically. To Paul it seems that she never realises him, that he could be a mere object to her--that she never appreciates or understands the male that he is. She prefers instead to create moments of intense emotional communion with Paul, especially in relation to nature, in which she experiences little stillnesses of ecstasy; but Paul remains detached and uncomfortable. Eventually she relinquishes herself to him sexually, but as a sacrifice in which she feels something of horror. Her soul stands apart. 'She lay to be sacrificed because she loved him so much. And he had to sacrifice her.' When Paul breaks off their relationship she is hurt, but almost glad: she had always felt in a kind of bondage to him, which she hated because she could not control it. 'Deep down, she hated him, because she loved him, and he dominated her.' Sons and Lovers

So, I don't think Paul's mother, with her negative influence towards Miriam, is the only or key reason Paul breaks off with Miriam. I feel it is like the above statements by Hollerness that so well describes what is going on between them and how they are not meeting with each other's expectations. I think their relationship is quite complex and that they both want very different things in the end, therefore their parting was inevitable.
I do think with Clara that Mrs. Morel is not threatened by any spirituality or sense of the qualities that scare her or threaten her about Miriam. Clara and Miriam are quite different. I will have to wait until I get to that part before I can fully assess why I think this is true and why Mrs. Morel seems to like Clara but not Miriam. It is a very interesting question. Hopefully someone else will come up with some thoughts on it and also on your other questions, manolia.

I do, however, think that the relationship between Paul and his mother are at times quite abnormal. Most critics and readers of Lawrence agree upon this idea. Thus many site the Odeipus complex idea and other phychological reasons for the closeness. They are unusually close and intense with each other, especially as the book progresses. It turns out not to be a heathy thing for Paul. In later books, Lawrence deeply explored this whole idea of his mother's dominence and of women dominating men. This is not an easy question you have asked about the mother's position with Paul. I think that the book leads us to believe and understand just how Mrs. Morel came to be this way and how Paul reacted to her control. The death of the oldest son was a key element or reason Paul and his mother became so close, also the unhappy marriage of Mrs. Morel, but I think from the beginning she knew that there was something very special about Paul.

The other thing i wanted to comment on is Paul's sexual frustration. I don't quite get (again) why Miriam doesn't want to be engaged to him. She seems very much in love with him. Why does she insist on this platonic love? Is it her upbringing and her religious background? (she is a devout christian and in many places Paul is "having fun" dissilusioning her and bringing forth his "religious agnosticism").

I think the quote above from the book helps in explaining the 'why'. Yes, I am sure that Paul is frustrated sexually, at this point, with Miriam. Although she has given herself to him physically, it appears to him and to her as a sacrifice and not a true meeting of the two in a union or love. I do think it is her upbringing and her own inclination to be 'dreamy' and 'mystical' and 'religious' in her thinking. Actually she is young and not too realistic about Paul. She seems to shun the physicality of him as a man.

Manolia's quote:

There is also a scene, where Paul is eating a flower. I rember reading here on Lit net, that flower eating is a sign of sexual frustration..So is Paul turned to Clara because of this, because of her magnificent personality (she reminds me a bit of Gudrun, she is untamable and she shuns men), or both of them?

That is quite interesting about the flower-eating. I think I had heard of this before. I recall when the topic was mentioned in another thread. She has some similarity perhaps to Gudrun, but I think she is more focused and knows in the end what she wants as a woman, whereas Gundrun is still searching for that at the end of WIL, don't you think?

I hope all this makes sense. I did my best. This book helped and made it a little clearer even for myself. Of course this is just one commentators opinion but I thought it was pretty accurate.

Hi Pensive, I did not mean to skip over your post. I agree, as I see manolia does as well, about the death scene with William and the burial. It was amazing and so full of truth and heart. I think only someone who has gone through this type experience can so accurately describe how it is. Lawrence shone in these passages and one travels through the same experience, minute by minute, feeling all the sadness of the family, as it unfolds.