June / Lawrence Reading: 'Women in Love'

[blazeofglory]

In June we will be reading Women in Love by DH Lawrence:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/pro...0742461&sr=1-1

Online Copy

Book Club Regulations

He is one of my unfavorites and he had greatly influenced me. Many of my ideas about life and the world are formed and shaped by Lawrence. One of th e creations of him that touched me beyond limits is Piano. This poem is so deeply rooted that I feel like crying whenever I read this, so nostalgically presented, a perfect relationship between mother and son. When e read his poems we get transported to the domain he writes about.

[Janine]

Blaze, did you mean to write 'unfavorites'? I am curious. I am sorry I have missed that other thread in which we were discussing Lawrence's work and ideas and nature. I have been preoccuppied with two other Lawrence threads that are currently very active - Sons and Lovers and Short Stories. I will try to post something in your thread about Lawrence's domain tomorrow. I did not mean to be absent from there so long.

[caspian]

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

[Janine]

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

Nice to see you back, caspian! Glad you are further exploring the novels or my favorite author - DHL....good writing, eh? Yes, the men were fully-fleshed out - you are correct on that observation, I believe. Your plan to read "The Rainbow" is a good one. Virgil will probably comment in here since he loves that novel best of all of L's novels. I now think I love them all but before "Women in Love" has been my favorite. I read in the same sequence that you are reading - WIL first and the TR next. It will not hurt to do so since both novels are quite complete without each other although a deeper understanding might be said to be acquired by reading both. I would think so since L conceived both stories to be one novel orginally, and then split them up, knowing they would be too long, for just one novel (together).

I think it a good plan after reading TR to go back, as you say, and reread WIL for refreshing. I read the novel twice and I acquired a lot more from it the second time around. I just bought a new copy of TR, so it is on my reading list for probably next year unless sooner. I read it before, as I said, but now it is time for a rereading - definitely, because I am sure my perspective on Lawrence has changed significantly since I first read this novel in my youth. Lawrence, himself, felt that all novels or great works should be read at least twice; I read this acknowlegement in a letter he wrote. I can truly see his point now and agree whole-heartedly.

I saw the film and so did Virgil. We both agree that it did fluctuate much from the original story and Virgil felt it feel very short of getting some of the ideas across. I recall the film being quite progressive and acclaimed in it's day so I think it set out to show some of what Lawrence was saying but films always do fall short. Still at the time it was a bit of a revelations and a well made film I think. I own the film but now when watching it I am sure I will see how very very different it is from the story. For one thing Gerald is blond in the book and dark haired brooding in the film. Yes, at times Rupert is clownish in the film or funny but in the book there were shred of that in his way I think but not so much. Also one whole scene with the fig - I wondered where they even got that from - it was not in the text of the book at all! Film-makers can be so funny in that I suppose they have to appeal to an audience and the masses when making films and lose sight sometimes of the orginal book. But all in all I don't feel it was a bad production - just limited. They did get the wrestling scene pretty accurate and also the ending. That was something quite amazing.

I think that V read "Rabbit, run" so I will let him comment on that.
"Owen Meany" I liked but probably would never read again. I had some issues with that book and it seemed so long, at times. You can read my comments in the OM thread. I do like Irving to some degree - basically he is a good writer, with interesting ideas, but I don't think heis great, but I am not normally one to read contemporary authors too often, so I am biased in that way.
Virgil might comment also on OM, but then again this is a WIL thread. haha - how we all overlap - right?
Nice to see this thread reoppened again - by that I mean active. I believe these threads should continue forever, you know.

[Virgil]

Hey guys! I got "rainbow" yesterday. It should help me to puzzle Brangwen sisters out.
I finished WIL in July, while I was on a vacation. the last two chapters were hardest- those snowy, icy (+deadly) pages didn't go with my beachy, sunny environment and mood at all -anyway I did finish it. Well-done men (Gerald and Birkin) don't leave any questions, but not sisters. there's gap regarding their family, their old house. I need to fill up that gap to feel complete about WIL. I'll take my time with "rainbow", then I'll probably reread WIL for refreshing.
....and I watched the movie, that clownish birkin was not what i had pictured. but in general I feel the influense of the movie (music), now WIL comes to me more in ballet.
By the way, while i was away, though I didin't show up with comments I was reading "Rabbit, run" along with you and finished "prayer for Owen Meany". I loved Irving so much!

I'm glad you're reading The Rainbow. That is actually my favorite of Lawrence's novels. I guess it would be hard to read the ending of Women In Love while at the beach. Seems incongruous.

Any questions or comments of A Prayer for Owen Meany are supposed to go here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...any#post403911

And on Rabitt, Run here:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=27094&page=2

[heraclitus]

Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.

[Janine]

Very interested in D.H. Lawrence's overall perspective. He has some affinity to Freud; yes, one cannot escape the importance of the sexual life in his writings. But I don't think he is a full fledged Freudian. He seems much more in definance of the modern world. Freud would see Lawrence as a discontent in civilizition. I would place Lawrence in more of a Nietzshien perspective. The death of God opens up the possiblity of new gods being born. In Women in Love, Birkin speaks about this death, letting the dead bury the dead, Leaving the world behind, ect. There is a possible escape from the dead modern life, an opening here in the relationships between men and women, but not to the extent that Birken wants it to be an fulfillment, note how he struggles against Ursula's notion of love as the be all and end all of existence. It seems that the sexual (let's say "unconscious/subconscious") is not the end, but a beginning for Lawrence. the unconscious is part of our being which Lawrance is exploring , but not as a scientist. Note how Birken at the end of the novel looks toward the relationship of Men, lets say new open seas, new potential, life serving. It looks as if he's not looking for fulfillment but a stepping stone to a new form of transcendence. Is Lawrence coming from a religious perspective? Any thoughts would help me.

Fantastic! Hello heraclitus, and welcome to this great forum. As you may have surmised, I am a huge Lawrence fan, from my signature and photo above it - called the Lawrence tree by Georgia O'Keefe, which someone has recently pointed out to me is actually hanging upside-down; I just have not changed it yet.
Anyway, I have read many Lawrence biographies and most of what Lawrence has written and your questions are not easy ones to answer. There is another person, as interested as I am, in Lawrence work, Virgil;he wrote his thesis on Lawrence and L's ideas of 'Transfiguration' in his later works. Unfortunately, V is temporarily away from the computer this weekend, but will be back next week, and active on the site I am sure.

At anyrate, you have come to the right place to discuss Lawrence work, although this particular discussion on "Women in Love" basically took place nearly one year ago; however threads never technically close and I still love to discuss this great book, so if I see someone comment I come in a try to address the post. "Women in Love" has always been my favorite Lawrence book, but the more I learn, myself, about Lawrence, the more I see his ideas presented in other books, I can see that in WIL ,they were far from definitive or final for Lawrence. You have to understand that indeed, Lawrence was influenced in his early years and beyond by Freud and by Nietzche, but Lawrence never truly adopted their philosophies precisely; remember he was just 'influenced' by their writings. Lawrence very much had his own set of ideas, which changed and developed in the space of his short life span. He died of TB in his early 40's. If you were to read more of his books, and I don't know how much you have read, you would see this exploration of Lawrence's beliefs and know it is not a simple question that you present here on your forum post. Actually, much of what you say is good and true, but actually Lawrence did feel he was a highly religious person, but his religion was not of the conventional or easily explained aspect. Lawrence did believe in a higher power or powers; it is very complicated to explain and only by absorbing more of his writings can one come up with their own conclusion to just what exactly Lawrence did believe in. It has been a long pursuit for me and I still soak up whatever I can find to read of Lawrence's because of my own curiosity on the subject.

Currently, I would like to alert you to other Lawrence discussions - one active now Lawrence short stories thread, which has been running now over a year and is very successful. If you are inclined, feel free to come and and join in our discussions; we discuss one story monthly; this month is "The Blind Man" and can be found on this very site, under Lawrence's main page. You will actually learn much about how Lawrence thought and believed from those stories. We have all learned much and continue to do so. Plus the discussions are a lot of fun.

In the near spring we plan on reading "The Rainbow" and discussing that novel. Have you read it? It actually is the prequel to "Women in Love" but most definitely can be read independently. I read it that way actually; read WIL firstly. Later on, perhaps in the summer, we planned a reading of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". I hope all of these novels interest you. I, especially love to recruit newcomers to the Lawrence threads. Hope you can join us.

[reading]

everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy

[Janine]

everyone here appears to be a dh lawrence fan, well i thought i put out there that i finished a really good book of his called the virgin and the gipsy, it was found after he died. its a short read only 146 pgs but i got hooked right away, and its a good though short read, hope you enjoy

Well hello reading and welcome to the forum!

Yes, you are absolutely correct assuming that. I am probably the biggest fan of all of Lawrence's on this site, along with Virgil; I have made it my life goal to read all that Lawrence has written (at least, all that I can find available). I did read several biographies and started a 4th. I'm rather addicted by now, to say the least. Lawrence is my favorite author.

Oddly enough, I just finished "The Virgin and the Gipsy". I read this book years ago and loved it, but strange as it may seem when I picked it up again, I could not recall much from my earlier reading.

A few others I have read lately have been the same way. I read "Love Among the Haystakes" a couple of weeks ago; another repeat reading and I liked that book very much, as well. Have you read any other of his books? I have been trying to read his shorter works of fiction, such as the length of "The Virgin and the Gipsy". Also, on this forum is a discussion thread of Lawrence's short stories, which I have been active in since the beginning. I recently dropped out for a time, due to some problems that cropped up and I need a rest myself. It is also possible the thread will take a rest until fall; that is not certain so don't quote me.

This is odd; I came into this thread the other day, actually to see if it still existed. This was last year's discussion on the novel "Women in Love"; this discussion group was great; the discussion highly sucessful. How in the world did you ever find this thread? Probably by just putting 'Lawrence' into the search, right? The participants in this thread had expressed a desire to discuss another full-length Lawrence novel in the future. The one that will probably be discussed next will be "The Rainbow" since we did discuss "Sons and Lovers", as one of the regular monthly reads (also a very enlightening discussion). If you have not read that novel, I would highly recommend it to you. It was Lawrence's first well known novel and basically it is drawn from his his own life and family (basically autobiographical in origin).

If you are just beginning to discover D.H.Lawrence, let me suggest a few short works you may want to begin with. I would highly recommend these pieces of shorter fiction (Novellas):

Love Among the Haystakes
The Fox
The Ladybird

And any or all of the short stories. You can take a peek in the short story thread to see the ones we have discussed in the past year. One one of the pages we did list those. I will try and find that page and list them here for you. There are a lot of posts to wade through to find them but I think I know about where they are in that thread.

Hope all this helps. It might be fun to start a separate thread on "The Virgin and the Gipsy", if I do I will let you know. There is a movie adaptation of the book which I am considering buying. I saw it on Amazon.

[Janine]

Glad to see this thread is still open but I am frankly confused as to why the 'Lawrence Short Story' thread is closed or appears to be. I am posting here now to assure this stays open because I wish to copy this thread to my hard-drive - the discussion was so good.

[Carpalim]

First, sorry if the following has been gone over before, but I didn't want to go back over the whole thread till I've finished the book. Too many spoilers.

What excites me principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown at times as an overbearing preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But am I right?

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing genitals through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover that glaring ommission of the great 18th and 19th century novelists: sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. Amongst its many other achievements, WIL is a brave stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex. The powerful scene where Gerald, on the brink of the void, goes to Gudrun's room and pours his 'poison' into her, and is relieved, exposes a vital truth; it's an overwhelming vindication for the advent of the sex scene in literature.

[Virgil]

What I love principally in Lawrence is his dialogue. All of it is just electrifying. Gerald and Birkin together - sublime. Birkin's brilliantly mordant wit has me laughing out loud in places. As does his over-intensity. I remarked somewhere else that I have a feeling that not only is B a self-portrait, he is also a figure of fun for Lawrence. The author appears to display a high degree of objectivity regarding him. Note that Birkin is practically ridiculed by Gudrun in the back of his car - and Lawrence likes Gudrun. Birkin is shown as a preacher and is put down as such by both sisters in their discussion of him. If I'm right, then this light self-mockery shows Lawrence's clear-headedness and a certain detachment from Birkin's more extreme ideas. But am I right?

I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.

Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.

[Carpalim]

I think the self mockery is toward the personality [his own as reflected in Birkin] but not toward Birkin's ideas. I think Birkin's ideas are essentially Lawrence's. Lawrence is making fun of himself as a preacher-type but not of the preaching.

A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)


[/QUOTE]Quite right. I think that is part of what Lawrence is after. I will say that if one looks carefully enough there is quite a bit of sex in Victorian literature. It is not blatent. One just has to read Hardy to see a lot of sex. Nonetheless i think Lawrence would share your perspective.[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are sprinklings here and there. 'Nana' by Zola comes to mind. Don't remember much in Hardy, but then I only read him at school - perhaps they only gave us 'clean' ones (Mayor of Casterbridge, Return of the Native).

[Janine]

Glad to see a newcomer to the Women in Love thread. Welcome Carpalim! It is good to see a new face here. "Women in Love" happens to be my favorite Lawrence novel and I have read nearly all of them by now. In fact, I am working now on the more obscure ones. You can't tell I am a Lawrence fanatic, can you? Anyway, I enjoyed reading your very well thoughtout and written post. I think that definitely "Women in Love" is a kind of grabbling towards Lawrence's true goals and perspective in life, and he is stuggling with his beliefs. He has already been accused, at this point, of being too 'preachy' and so he is definitely projecting his personality onto Birkin. The majority of critics will agree that Birkin most certain does represent Lawrence. This does not say it shows us a Lawrence without doubts and flaws - to the contrary, Lawrence know what they are. In a sense from the beginning of this novel to the end is a personal journey for Lawrence. He is working out his own existence in the pages and he is also seeing the characters around him as only he could perceive them. For instance, Hermoine Rondice is also representative of Lady Ottoline Morrel, who later Lawrence had a falling-out with. You can well see why, when she recognised her character in the novel. Of course, she and L did not have an affair or sexual relationship, but she very much portrays her personality. Ursula is of course, representative of Lawrence real wife, Frieda. At anyrate, you are correct, in thinking that at times in the novel Lawrence is poking some fun at himself. I agree about the humor in the conversations, even though there is a great deal of gravity and meaning, as well. Many people do not realise just how humorous Lawrence was in real life. He could actually be the life of the party and loved mimicry and charades. I think that Birkin's playful personality does indeed reflect that of Lawrence, at times in the novel.

I remember that when we discussed this book awhile back, a few people started out not liking Birkin at all. I did not quite understand that, since I did like his character from the start and found him amusing, and I saw Lawrence immediately in his character. I also saw the very human aspects of the man trying desperately to break out of the norm and find his own unique world and way.

This is a good observation:

A good distinction, yes. Though I only meant some of his more extreme ideas such as the unison-without-love thing, where he's telling Ursula he wants to unite with her on some abstract plane but never wants to see her face or hear her voice! You can sort of see what Birkin's getting at, but Lawrence makes it come over in the end as offensive near-gibberish, which ultimately collapses about him as he kisses her and says, 'I love you.' Which almost jerked a tear to my eye, I might add. (The relief of simple joy after a bout of agonised mental twisting{I know it well} is always evoked so beautifully by Lawrence in this book)

I think a distinctive scene is when Ursula comes back at Birkin after they go off for a picnic and he had given her the rings - she really brings to light the failings in his idealogy. She tells him to go back to his spiritual wives. I just love that scene. After that Birkin does change his tune. We have all been there sometime in our lives and know that same feeling, I believe...and yes, Lawrence knew just how to beautifully express all of that and not make it ridiculous - instead it is always so truthful and totally human.

Another fascinating aspect of this novel is how, in the name of truth, it wants to depict the physical act of sex, but cannot, as it's still too early in the century, but breaks ground anyway by showing it through 'obscenely' graphic flower symbolism. Lawrence is trying to cover the one thing missing from the great 18th and 19th century novelists. Sexual intercourse. It's a crucial, searing event in human experience, but a novel like 'David Copperfield', otherwise so perfect in its charting of a child's growth to early manhood must tip-toe round this most profound rite-of-passage completely. And Henry James in 'The Portrait of a Lady' doesn't want to go anywhere near it, even though love and marriage are his main themes. Lawrence desperately wants to put it under the microscope, and, of course, did in the end. But even here, he does have the characters 'come to each other', though the scenes are awash with euphemistic veil-drawing. WIL is a fascinating stepping stone from Victorian prudery to the modern engagement with the reality of sex.

I think he was restrained by the times as is evident when he pulled out all the stops or some in "Lady Chatterly's Lover" which he had to have printed and published with his own money. However, in this part of Lawrence's career when he wrote WIL, I think the book is perfect in what it does reveal sexually. You must know that Lawrence himself was sometimes called a prude and he was certainly old-fashioned in some views. He was very much for marriage and to one woman for life. I think that by showing the plants in such a sensual way is totally Lawrence's style and it serves to not only suggest the sexual union but also to bring nature into play with humanity and I think that he is showing us that we are not any different than nature and the animal kingdom - there is the interconnectivity of all and the heavens. Lawrence abhored pornography and he did not blantantly set forth sex in his books in a pornographic way at all. He was not out to make the reader have thrills or a shock over his more intimate scenes. Instead he stayed true to his form and indeed the suggestion is much more effective. I can not imagine WIL written in any other manner. He said just enough and the text is beautiful - the scenes stand out as intense images in our minds long after the last page is read. To me this book had a great impact on my life at the time I first read it. I have since read it again and it no less has impressed me. If anything, I have been affected more so by it. Now that is a 'great' book.

[Carpalim]

Glad to have contributed something useful!

The 'pornography' question is huge and probably beyond the bounds of this thread. But I'd just respond that for me the sudden cessation of the graphic recording of reality which occurs whenever sex happens strikes me as inconsistent, a break in the otherwise seamless recording of reality, a sudden evasion of objective reality, and I suspect this rupturing irritated Lawrence, perhaps directly causing him to leave the camera running for Lady C. Not that he wanted to show sex per se - especially if he disliked 'porn' - rather that he had no choice if he wanted to attain a seamless sense of reality.