What BOOK are you reading right now?

Clary, you are right, The Da Vinci Code is a page turner. Although I admire those who are, I've never been a word puzzle lover so I've not spent time trying to work on that aspect of the novel.

So far I'm still wondering what all the fuss is about from the church. I guess I can see why the hierarchy of the Catholic Church might not like the publicity about its secret or semi-secret societies. This story has that in common with The Statement, which was a mostly true story about the church's hiding of WWII Nazis.

So far, what I see is a well written, fast moving, gripping story.

Hazlitt, I agree that Faulkner is greater. What I should have said is that Vidal is our greatest LIVING writer--there is nobody else who has written so well in so many genres and forms. Don't forget that he is an accomplished playwright and screenwriter in addition to being our best essayist and our greatest historical novelist. The only writer who comes close to Vidal for all-around accomplishment is Mailer, but he has written a lot of junk, too, which subtracts from his merit.

Hello, Hazlitt, nice to see YOU, too!

I'm curious: What did you make of Women in Love on 2004? I last read it quite a long time ago & wondered what I'd make of it now? Badly dated?
But I think Sons & Lovers is timeless. Lawrence's depiction of the mother's influence on her family was masterful.

Hi Msolga,

I have somehow gotten interested in the origins of Modernism, a term that, as you know, defies definition. If we grant that Modernism came into its own after WWI, this puts Lawrence right in that period. He was in fact one of the authors writing about people trying to make some sense out of life in the new rootless atmosphere.

One of the things that always bothered me during my working career (I worked in the printing industry) was that life in a manufacturing plant, an office, or even as part of a sales force seemed oppressively mechanical. Stifling, actually. This I think is a part of life as it has developed in our century. A part of the problem is that as this new sort of life began to develope, many of the comforting and orienting religious and philosophical ideas of the past were cut from under us.

I found that Lawrence was dealing with these problems. All those long and involved conversations between the sisters, the lovers, and the two men were in many cases reflective of the way I had agonized over the same problems in my 20s and 30s. Questions of the rational versus feelings, the rational versus the will, the whole mish-mash of how we try to make sense of things, and when we think we have, we find our solutions unsatisfactory and subject to change.

One thing to which a novel like this gives context, for me, is that about 1948 or so, as a high school student, I embraced fundamentalist Christianity and for the first time in my life began a titanic (If indeed, anything going on in my little mind could be thought of as titanic--but it was for me) struggle of feelings, emotions, and ideas. The worst was over in five or six years, but a novel like this one gives me a broader idea of the intellectual pea soup in which I was trying to swim at the time.

So, I found it a very absorbing read.

Thank you for such a thoughtful answer, Hazlitt. Yes, I can understand where you're coming from in your interest in Lawrence's writing. I'm in the process of attempting to recall the details of the plot, right now. I guess Lawrence's thoughts on the relationship between the sexes over-shadowed the aspects of his work that interest you so much. (Though there's plently of inter-connection.) I may just revisit some to those Lawrence novels I read such a long time ago. Interesting.

Lawrence
Msolga, I can't really judge, but Lawrence's descriptions of sex in Women In Love were bland by todays standards (Except that Burkin's airing of his homosexual longings had to be pretty daring for the time). Yet they were important to the novel. Here were fairly ordinary people, two school teachers, a scholar of sorts, and a wealthy industrialist (maybe he's not that typical). They are trying to decide what it means to be in love. What did marriage mean? Should they marry or just live together? They were at sea. They were not just intellectually questioning the norms of society. The problem was more with their feelings. They just didn't fit in with the old conventions. The story is literally a muddle. They are trying to muddle through their many conflicts and still carry on some kind of life and be in love even if they undecided about what that was or meant.

Somehow, I think Lawrence probably caught the feel of the time--at least how it was for some people.

Hazlitt

I am relying on memory from long ago reading of Lawrence's novels, but he seemed to have difficulty in coping with assertive women is his questioning about the nature of love. Gudrun, in Women in Love, for example. A certain "hardness" about her seemed to be part of what destroyed Birkin. In Lady Chatterly's Lover, Mellors (?) recoils at the idea of women he perceives to be assertive, or demanding in love & sex. Neither Miriam nor Clara, in Sons and Lovers, meet the full approval of Paul (The Lawrence figure). Miriam is too emotionally demanding, too draining & obsessive, while Clara (the suffragette) is sexually satisfying, but lacking in spirituality. In Lady Chatterly's Lover Lawrence speaks at length of women & their (sexual & emotional) demands. It almost felt as though he found such women quite distasteful when compared with say, Ursula or Connie (Lady Chatterly).

And then there was that expressed need for a male to have a closeness, or love, with another male as well as a love with a woman. As Birkin says to Ursula, love between a man & a woman is not enough. That idea comes up a number of times, in different novels.

But, to me, the most harrowing, powerful love in all his novels was between Paul Morel & his mother in Sons & Lovers. What a hold she had on her son & what a disappointment her coarse, uneducated husband was to her! Paul is to remain devoted to her until her death frees him.


By the way, did you ever see the film of Women in Love, Hazlitt? It is quite beautiful visually & very engaging.

My objection to Lawrence is that he insists in all of his novels and short stories that men must dominate women, both sexually and emotionally. He can't imagine a strong woman who is also healthy--Gudrun in Women In Love is strong, but he presents her as literally life-threatening to Gerald. That said, he is a powreful writer, not easily dismissed even though his sexual politics are reactionary. His view of sex is very romantic--he would be appalled by today's casual promiscuity since he believed that sex was a huge committment between a man and a woman more exclusive than traditional matrimony. I think, ultimately, that Lawrence was too much a creature of his time to be one of the greatest novelists--he does not transcend his time the way some of his contemporaries like Joyce, Woolf, Waugh, and Greene did.

Lawrence
Msolga

The way I understood the characters in Women in Love was that Gudren was a woman whose will and determination took precedence over her feelings and maybe over love itself. She was also and artist. Gerald, her romantic counterpart, was a rich owner of coal mines. He cared deeply for Gudren, but was a promiscuous man who had also paid attention to his parents rather unsatisfactory marriage. He did not want marriage with Gudrun. Yet, he expected to dominate her. In the pursuit of her artistic interests, Gudrun came to see that she wanted artistic freedom more than she wanted to be married to or to be dominated by Gerald. Somehow, she got herself trapped in this struggle of wills with him. She seemed to feel that she would be personally destroyed if she did not make him know that his power over her was broken. She drove him to suicide. She goes of to a semi Bohemian artistic life.

Ursula on the other hand feels love much more conventionally marries Birkin, who sees love and marriage as permanent but as lose and very abstracted. In the end, he announces to Ursula that love with a woman is not enough.

All this is a long time happening in the novel.

It is possible that I have misunderstood the novel, and if so let me know.

Larry,

Your summary of Lawrence's view of women fits in pretty well with my reading of Women in Love. I agree with you that Lawrence saw a sexual relationship as a commitment and as something permanent. This comes out especially in conversations between Birkin and Ursula.

I see all this as part of the literary effort to understand how we have dealt with the vast changes of our times. It was not the best effort, but it was a good and useful one. These writers were defining out times.

Oh, yes, Msolga, I did see the movie of Women in Love. The movie was beautiful. Being a Ken Russell movie it was heavy on the visual aspects of sex, and to good effect, but light on letting us know how all this came about. But then, how could anyone do complete justice to so complex a novel.

Thanks to both Msolga and Larry for a good conversation.

Now, I'm reading Transfer of Power by Vince Flynn. A great page turner. I've managed to read over 400 pages in a day!

J. Supervielle, "Comme des Voiliers" , (1910).

Hazlitt--you are almost correct in your reading of Women In
Love, but not quite. Start instead from the assumption that
Lawrfence passionately believed that men should dominate women, both sexually and intellectually. Gudrun is the woman who will not be dominated--she is therefore evil, and drives Gerald to his death. Her sister Ursula on the other hand is Lawrence's ideal woman, who wants to be dominated by Birkin, and so she is the "good" woman of the book according to Lawrence's sexual theories. Incidentally I don't find this a particularly complex novel, not compared to MIDDLEMARCH or any of the great 19th century Russian novels. Lawrence simplifies his situations to the point of caricature, which is why Ken Russell, an unsubtle direc tor if ever there was one, was able to make an effective movie of WOMEN IN LOVE.

The only thing that I really remember about DH Lawrence is his sardonic short story, "The Rocking Horse Winner." which I read as a child and still remember. Excellent!

deleted post

Hazlitt

No, of course you haven't misunderstood the novel. In fact you've just improved my understanding of it. I read it such a long time ago, when very young & missed some of the nuances you've commented on here. (Also confused Birkin with Gerald in my post! )

Thanks Hazlitt & Larry for a very interesting coversation. I haven't thought about Lawrence's writings for years & enjoyed it.

A thought, Hazlitt: One hopes that Gudrun didn't go on to become a Hermione type of "artist"!

Letty

I've never read The Rocking Horse Winner. Intriguing title, but!

Olga, that was Lawrence stepping out of character.

"Now take me to where there is luck; Now take me" Wow! That child (the illusive character) felt responsible for the entire misfortune of the family. That short story takes no time to read and is the most powerful thing!

Lady Chatterly's Lover? I read it because I was a kid and it was x-rated. Can't remember too much about it, so obviously it didn't quite turn me on....

The Partly Cloudy Patriot, by Sarah Vowell, and The Crimson Petal and the White, by Michael Faber... might not finish either one.

Nice to see you again, Wy, and welcome back, Larry Richette.

I'm reading A Cook's Tour by Anthony Bourdain this weekend.

Now I'll have to read this story, Letty. That sounds like a pretty accurate description of my childhood!