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

[oskylad]

Perhaps the most humorous scenes in the book (especially for BAR super-readers) occur when William brings Lily home at Whitsuntide.

After the mandatory flower scene, when Paul threaded daisies and a touch of ragged robin in Lily's hair, and the scenes where William "hates" Lily because of her treatment of Annie and because of Lily's profligate ways, we find William saying:

"Read a book!-Why she's never read a book in her life!"

"'Er's like me," chimed in Morel. "'Er canna see what there is i' books, ter sit borin' your nose in 'em for, nor more can I!" ...

"Be quiet, William," said his mother. "The very idea!"

"But she can't mother!" he cried, bitterly. "She can't take it in, when she reads. She can't read and she can't talk. There's not a thing you can talk to her about. She only thinks in frocks and how folk admire her."

"It's only fools as sits wi' their noses stuck i' books, that's what I say," added Morel.

And the poor girl remained in ignominy. ... She could understand nothing but love making and chatter. So, when he wanted companionship, and was asked in reply to be the billing and twittering lover, he hated his betrothed.

Soon thereafter, we find William saying:

"She's religious-she has blue velvet prayerbooks-and she's not as much religion, or anything else, in her than that table leg. Get's confirmed three times, for show, to show herself off. And that's how she is in everything, everything!"

 

[Libra]

Perhaps the most humorous scenes in the book (especially for BAR super-readers) occur when William brings Lily home at Whitsuntide.

After the mandatory flower scene, when Paul threaded daisies and a touch of ragged robin in Lily's hair, and the scenes where William "hates" Lily because of her treatment of Annie and because of Lily's profligate ways, we find William saying:



Soon thereafter, we find William saying:

I liked that part with Arthur and Bea, it was a very happy , flirty scene comparing to the gloom around.

 

[silverseason]

I found the ending a bit of a cop out. Paul couldn't resolve his difficulties and the author had run out ideas, so he just abandoned Paul with a faint hope for the future.

I did not care for the structure of the book. Part 1 was a family story and struck me as very authentic in its details. In that section, Paul had his difficulties - as did everyone else - but seemed normal enough.

Part 2 revolved around Paul and his three women, Miriam, Clara and his mother. Throughout, Paul just dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole. I am not persuaded that this followed naturally from Part 1, meaning the tone was much more abnormal in Part 2, more frantic.

 

[Ronny]

I found the ending a bit of a cop out. Paul couldn't resolve his difficulties and the author had run out ideas, so he just abandoned Paul with a faint hope for the future.

I did not care for the structure of the book. Part 1 was a family story and struck me as very authentic in its details. In that section, Paul had his difficulties - as did everyone else - but seemed normal enough.

Part 2 revolved around Paul and his three women, Miriam, Clara and his mother. Throughout, Paul just dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole. I am not persuaded that this followed naturally from Part 1, meaning the tone was much more abnormal in Part 2, more frantic.

The 2 parts were very different, I wonder if maybe he reworked the first half more than the second? Maybe since the book and Paul were representative of Lawrence's life, it was too difficult to rewrite the parts covered in the second half?

 

[gonewiththewind]

"I found the ending a bit of a cop out. Paul couldn't resolve his difficulties and the author had run out ideas, so he just abandoned Paul with a faint hope for the future.

I did not care for the structure of the book. "

My understanding is that Lawrence was in fincial straits and really needed to wrap the book up. I wonder if this is not why the book's ending just sort of stops. I also wonder how many other books might have been different in history were it not for the author's money problems.

 

[Robert]

"I found the ending a bit of a cop out. Paul couldn't resolve his difficulties and the author had run out ideas, so he just abandoned Paul with a faint hope for the future.

I did not care for the structure of the book. "

My understanding is that Lawrence was in fincial straits and really needed to wrap the book up. I wonder if this is not why the book's ending just sort of stops. I also wonder how many other books might have been different in history were it not for the author's money problems.

I don't think he ran out of ideas, I think he took the story to what he saw as the conclusion. Why go on when the very thing the story is about has ended?

 

[Robert]

The 2 parts were very different, I wonder if maybe he reworked the first half more than the second? Maybe since the book and Paul were representative of Lawrence's life, it was too difficult to rewrite the parts covered in the second half?

I think Lawrence gives us the first part because we need to understand Gertrude and what drives her; and then to see that William has the same issue caused by his abnormal relationship with his mother that Paul had in the second Part. Gertrude's relationship with Paul really didn't start until after Williams death which is of course where part 2 picks up.

 

[silverseason]

We have talked a lot about the psychology of the characters. I would like to comment on Lawrence's use of language.

I find it uneven.

Even though he overdoes it with the flowers sometimes, he is skillful in showing us the natural world.

(Chapter 7) "There was a yellow glow over the mowing-grass, and the sorrel-heads burned crimson. Gradually, as they walked along the high land, the gold in the west sank down to red, the red to crimson, and then the chill blue crept up against the glow."

At other times, in trying to convey the force of events, his language becomes so grandiose I don't know what he talking about. Is this about sex?

(Chapter 13) "It was as if he, and the stars, and the dark herbage, and Clara were licked up in an immense tongue of flame, which tore onwards and upwards. Everything rushed along in living beside him; everything was still, perfect in itself, along with him."

And, as many people have observed, he repetitively uses hate and love when describing interactions between people.

(Chapter 12) "Something in him hated her again for submitting him to this torture of nearness. [They are sitting together in the theater.] And he loved her as she balanced her head and stared straight in front of her, pouting, wistful, immobile, as if she yielded herself to her fate because it was too strong for her."

He generally overwrites his emotional scenes. Or maybe it is just that my taste is for a more restrained presentation. I got tired of Paul. He was like an adolescent girl who carries on for too long about her problems.

 

[meredithgreene]

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.

Neurosis confirmed... I agree with that 100%. However, the question I brought up was more one of motive than actually pointing out the lack of 'relations', so to speak. I meant that Jocasta had neither the motive nor inclination to 'trap' her son by the once-natural bond and, perhaps this is because I am a mother myself, it thusly appears that the Oedipus parallel cannot be drawn, at least not in its entirety.

Having read comments on this book online, from those more educated than myself, it seems rather lazy to just slap paint over the book with the unique and ghastly Oedipus brush. I found far more in-depth insights into this piece in this thread; at the very least most of said posters had the courage to be original with their comments, in lieu of dragging up long-dead tragic plots from Greek playwrights of yore and attempting to somehow cut and paste them over the piece being discussed.

 

[Wells83]

Perhaps the most humorous scenes in the book (especially for BAR super-readers) occur when William brings Lily home at Whitsuntide.

After the mandatory flower scene, when Paul threaded daisies and a touch of ragged robin in Lily's hair, and the scenes where William "hates" Lily because of her treatment of Annie and because of Lily's profligate ways, we find William saying:



Soon thereafter, we find William saying:

I loved William. He was probably my favorite character. I very much enjoyed the beginning of the book (the first part) but once William died, I became bored.

While I found the psychology of the second part fascinating, it was a bit redundant for me.

I don't think he ran out of ideas, I think he took the story to what he saw as the conclusion. Why go on when the very thing the story is about has ended?

I agree with Robert in regards to the ending. It seemed the logical ending point to me. It is definitely more of an ambiguous ending, which can sometimes irk me but was appropriate here, I think.

 

[Robert]

Neurosis confirmed... I agree with that 100%. However, the question I brought up was more one of motive than actually pointing out the lack of 'relations', so to speak. I meant that Jocasta had neither the motive nor inclination to 'trap' her son by the once-natural bond and, perhaps this is because I am a mother myself, it thusly appears that the Oedipus parallel cannot be drawn, at least not in its entirety.

Having read comments on this book online, from those more educated than myself, it seems rather lazy to just slap paint over the book with the unique and ghastly Oedipus brush. I found far more in-depth insights into this piece in this thread; at the very least most of said posters had the courage to be original with their comments, in lieu of dragging up long-dead tragic plots from Greek playwrights of yore and attempting to somehow cut and paste them over the piece being discussed.

I never thought the parallels between the play and the psychological condition were very good. Oedipus didn't know the man he killed was his father, nor did he know that the woman he later married was his mother. Poor guy.

There was no motive to create an Oedipus complex in this story any more then in Oedipus Rex. It happened in sons and lovers because Gertrude was just too close to her son. Gertrudes emotional needs that weren't being fulfilled by Walter were redirected to her oldest son, first to William and then to Paul. Most of us today would fear for a boy who shares his bed with his mother like Gertrude did with her sons.

 

[Libra]

Taking out the "weird" moments ,the book was very deep. Dealing with this woman that instead of having a life with her husband as a couple, turned all her attention to her sons. Her dreams, her passions, her thoughts, her feelings ,practically living through them, trying to provide other things for them to do then becoming miners, but I think it had the opposite affect to the point where they could not have their own life, because they were too attached to her.
Her sons were her life, smothering them with attention, in the process, forgeting their phsycological well being.

*even the weird moments were understandable at the end, it was the love and emotions that were so deep that we attach it to some kind of sexual inuendos.*

 

[LibraMoon]

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.

The Oedipal Complex was thought up by Freud, way after Oedipus was written. He felt that when a boy was born, he at first had some kind of attraction to his mother, and resentment towards his father for being his mother's husband. It works the same way with a girl, but backwards, of course. He just named it the Oedipal Complex because of the storyline in Oedipus. So, really, this novel is a perfect example of it- Paul loves his mother and resents his father.

 

[SFG75]

I definitely thought I saw Sigmund Freud across from me when I was reading Sons and Lovers.:whistling: Perhaps it was the passage where it was mentioned that he would sometimes sleep with his mother at night, or the weird-eery mentioning of them living together.....forever. Or perhaps it had to do with the Oedipal desire to kill the simple minded father, though Paul(like D.H.) lacked the physical stature. You can't escape the psychology of this book and it turns out that there are some interesting links regarding it. One of the more interesting facts was that Lawrence couldn't stand that his work was interpreted psychoanalytically.

Radicalizing Lawrence

Sons & Lovers; A Freudian Appreciation

D.H. Lawrence: Self and Sexuality article

Gonewiththewind:

Mirium lived in her head. That is where she kept all her love and passion. She just could not relate if it became physical. It occurred to me that Mirium would have made a good Nun in that her relationship would have been entirely cerebral with no physicality. I did not like Mirium very much. She never tried to figure out her feelings. No real self analysis. No attempt to understand Paul or his feelings. It seemed that just because she assumed something it should be that. Clara seemed more honest to me. More real

Each of the ladies around him had their own share of flaws. She struck me as being more of a weather vane to him. She was agreeable in nature to him and wouldn't really assert herself or state what it was that she wanted in a given situation. She had no opinion or knowledge of anything and that is what drove him nuts. Paul would press the issue when it came to pointing out a beautiful flower. He would say: "Which one?" and she wouldn't have a clue. A few examples like that were laced throughout the book and he loathed her for that. Clare was definitely a more strident and assertive woman, though Paul & his mother agreed that she would "tire him out."

The author's attitude towards marraige in this book is an interesting one and it is definitely not a "pro" argument. I can't help but believe that the idea that instead of blazing their own path, people "settle" for marriage and then lead lives of grave imprisonment, is of central importance in this book. Paul's mother is a case in point. It should also not go without mentioning that routinely in the book, both Mariam and Clare to some degree, do not want to marry Paul, and that they even hate him. The feeling is mutual as well on his part. The topic of marriage rears up and while one may be for it, the other isn't. The bitterness towards Paul and vice versa with a given girl occurs when Mariam would just wish that he would make up his mind and for Clare, that he would not be so wooden or mechanical. I'm not certain if it was towards Clare, but I do distinctly remember that being a criticism of him. The very last line in the book highlights Paul's bold steps to go it alone, and not to go down the road of marraige which would be his ruin.