• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

August 2008: D.H. Lawrence: Sons And Lovers

Libra said:
I agree, Gertrude has latched on Paul like a wife on a husband.
She is only more calm with Clara because he demanded it.

Paul is a phsychological mess.

He is trying to be there for his mother, because his father was not.
Click to expand...

So the Wikipedia entry on this book says that this work was semi-autobiographical and that Lawrence reworked 4 times. I think it's interesting that Lawrence may have had a similar relationship with his Mom. Sons and Lovers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I have 1 other book by him here, The Lost Girl, and will try to read it soon. I would like to see how much of Sons And Lovers was his writing style and how much was the story.
 
You should check out the link above.

Women in Love is supposed to be a good one too.
 
I have 50 pages to go and I find it sad what this mother has done to Paul.

Annie is not talked about much in the book. A mother can do alot of damage.
 
Ronny said:
I just finished and I must say I liked the first half of the book much more than the second half. At first I was very wrapped up in the story, even though none of the characters were particularly likable they certainly held my interest but as the book carried on and became more repetitive I lost that interest in the characters.
Click to expand...

That echoes my thoughts. Part 1 was kind of interesting in its portrayal of working-class life in the coal fields of England. The characters seemed realistic.

But in Part 2, it seemed like everything ground to a halt while they stopped to smell the roses.... and the daffodils, crocuses, jonquils, violets, carnations, dahlias, lilacs, chrysanthemums, daisies, .... And not just smelled them, but "touched them in worship", "gather[ed] them, tenderly, passionately", "breathed [them] ... as if she and the flower were loving each other", "caressing [them] with her mouth and cheeks and brow ... fondling them lavishly all the while", "plucked them lovingly, lingering over them ... want[ing] to drink them".

Finally, following page after page of ravishing the flowers comes the deflowering of Merriam. ... And there is nothing there. No sensuality, no sympathy, no love - just physical relief.

And it gets no better with Clara.

The sad thing is, it was probably these scenes in Part 2 that kept the book from getting the obscurity it deserved.
 
Libra said:
I have 50 pages to go and I find it sad what this mother has done to Paul.

Annie is not talked about much in the book. A mother can do alot of damage.
Click to expand...

Arthur too, he is hardly mentioned at all. Actually in the end he gets less page time than Annie.
 
oskylad said:
That echoes my thoughts. Part 1 was kind of interesting in its portrayal of working-class life in the coal fields of England. The characters seemed realistic.

But in Part 2, it seemed like everything ground to a halt while they stopped to smell the roses.... and the daffodils, crocuses, jonquils, violets, carnations, dahlias, lilacs, chrysanthemums, daisies, .... And not just smelled them, but "touched them in worship", "gather[ed] them, tenderly, passionately", "breathed [them] ... as if she and the flower were loving each other", "caressing [them] with her mouth and cheeks and brow ... fondling them lavishly all the while", "plucked them lovingly, lingering over them ... want[ing] to drink them".

Finally, following page after page of ravishing the flowers comes the deflowering of Merriam. ... And there is nothing there. No sensuality, no sympathy, no love - just physical relief.

And it gets no better with Clara.

The sad thing is, it was probably these scenes in Part 2 that kept the book from getting the obscurity it deserved.
Click to expand...

There was a lot of physical contact and emotion put forth with the flowers but not so much between the characters. Miriam always was descride as putting the flowers to her face, her mouth, she was practically making out with them in a few scenes, I did find that odd and highly contrasting to the need to then describe all the hate and cruelty played out between the characters. It was like all the positive emotions, contact and interplay went to nature and all the negative feelings were for people and described in excruciating detail.
 
Perhaps I am incorrect here but I cannot understand why some refer to this book as a depiction of the Oedipus syndrome. In Oedipus, Jocasta had (at first) no idea he was her son, while Mrs. Morel has every knowledge of, indeed flagrantly uses, the natural bond and further mutates it rather disturbingly to the unnatural.

Also the phsyical lover aspect was present in Oedipus, while in Sons and Lovers it was never actually spelled out; one is left thinking it merely mental affection, (thank goodness for small favors) though of the soul-wrenching type.
 
meredithgreene said:
Perhaps I am incorrect here but I cannot understand why some refer to this book as a depiction of the Oedipus syndrome. In Oedipus, Jocasta had (at first) no idea he was her son, while Mrs. Morel has every knowledge of, indeed flagrantly uses, the natural bond and further mutates it rather disturbingly to the unnatural.

Also the phsyical lover aspect was present in Oedipus, while in Sons and Lovers it was never actually spelled out; one is left thinking it merely mental affection, (thank goodness for small favors) though of the soul-wrenching type.
Click to expand...

That's where the name come from, but an Oedipus complex doesn't involve or doesn't have to involve sex. An Oedipus complex is when a child has love and attachment to the parent of the opposite sex, and hates the same sex parent. What can result is the confusion, I think Freud called a neurosis, that we see in Paul.
 
Ronny said:
Arthur too, he is hardly mentioned at all. Actually in the end he gets less page time than Annie.
Click to expand...

They're not important characters in the story. What is important is Gertrudes relationship to her husband then then to her boys; first William and then Paul after William died.
 
Robert said:
They're not important characters in the story. What is important is Gertrudes relationship to her husband then then to her boys; first William and then Paul after William died.
Click to expand...

True and the entries linked above said Paul was always intended to be the main character, the book was at first named after him even if I remember correctly. I just wish there had been a little more wrap up on the siblings story instead of them just being dropped.
 
meredithgreene said:
Perhaps I am incorrect here but I cannot understand why some refer to this book as a depiction of the Oedipus syndrome. In Oedipus, Jocasta had (at first) no idea he was her son, while Mrs. Morel has every knowledge of, indeed flagrantly uses, the natural bond and further mutates it rather disturbingly to the unnatural.

Also the phsyical lover aspect was present in Oedipus, while in Sons and Lovers it was never actually spelled out; one is left thinking it merely mental affection, (thank goodness for small favors) though of the soul-wrenching type.
Click to expand...

Some of the interactions, besides her overbearing jealousy, between Paul and his Mother definitely crossed over out of the norm, some of the kisses he describes, the pet names he was calling her like My Love.
 
Ronny said:
Some of the interactions, besides her overbearing jealousy, between Paul and his Mother definitely crossed over out of the norm, some of the kisses he describes, the pet names he was calling her like My Love.
Click to expand...


It got weird in some places.I felt bad for Paul in the sence that he could not find inner peace.
 
Libra said:
It got weird in some places.I felt bad for Paul in the sence that he could not find inner peace.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did too. And towards the end it seemed Gertrude did as well. She regretted that he would not be with someone once she was gone but she knew that it was too late for him, how sad.
 
The ending was sad, but I'm not sure it is too late for Paul. He is confused, but he isn't giving in so who knows?
 
Robert said:
The ending was sad, but I'm not sure it is too late for Paul. He is confused, but he isn't giving in so who knows?
Click to expand...

I thought he would do something bad to himself and I really wanted to stop reading, but I think he was strong enough in some sence to try and go on somehow.
 
I think that was the purpose of the final paragraph. It left hope that he would turn his life around and to Miriam, who never gave up on him.
 
I have to say this is one of my favorite reads. As a parent you do some self analyzing, at least I did.

Alot of emotions and feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top