Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928)

I heard, it's a book of fame for its sensuality. But in my opinion, rather, it's a book of escaping the despair of the rotten world. Through the world of sensuality, they saw hope.

The book starts with rather dismay or low situation, makes you think, the ending has to be lifted up, 'cause the chances are just higher at the other half. Clifford and Connie both were struggling in their settings, or in the chasm between their idealisms and their realities. Both painfully realized how repulsive or disgusting the reality was, both pursuing their ideal "kingdom". Though Clifford started out actively, Connie passively. She was doubting from beginning (not very beginning though, otherwise she wouldn't marry him) that his effort could get him anywhere. At the end, Clifford sank hopelessly in his own helplessness, which was reflected by his strange relationship with Mrs. Bolton. Connie, though, wakened by the ecstasy of sensual world, actively sought after the new relationship between her and Mellors.

In one way, Lawrence definitely expressed his view of pure intellectual - cold, dry, lifeless and hopeless - in the character of Clifford, who was intelligent in many ways but totally disconnected from the sensual world, because of his disability. I don't think he meant that a person with disability would lead a lifeless life. He just used Clifford as an experiment to test out his theory, that pure intellectual can't save a wrecked life. Especially, at later part of the book, it described more of Clifford's vacancy of his soul. Like Connie's father said "there is nothing in it". Later he invested his intellectual power into coal mining, despite the success, but it can't even be used to maintain his class "dignity" (What a blow to learn that Connie preferred Mellors to him!)

Connie with her instincts, eventually penetrated his intellectual nothingness. Her attitude toward him changed from a little fear and admiration at the beginning to despise and hate at the end. She had much richer world of consciousness than Clifford's, which situated her at superior position at the end (she understood the world of Clifford but not vice versa). The world of consciousness is the spiritual world in my opinion. Though religion wasn't even touched in the whole book. I wonder what was Lawrence's view regarding spiritual and religion.

The consciousness of characters in the book was expressed mostly in form of narratives. The narrator penetrated the characters' consciousness in way of omnipotence. The characters themselves sometimes are not even aware of his/her own limitations. This is probably the details I enjoyed the most. The subtleties of every turn of human thoughts, naturally flow with the characters, each in its own cunning way, and inevitable by their circumstances.

Example 1:

Clifford -
"You and I are married, no matter what happens to us, We have the habit of each other. And habit, to my thinking, is more vital than any occasional excitement. The long, slow, enduring thing ..."

"Connie sat and listened in a sort of wonder, and a sort of fear...The long slow habit of intimacy, formed through years of suffering and patience..."

At intellectual level, Clifford probably believed such thing. But at deeper level, he himself was not sure. This was the product of his brain during the moment of its peak performance, which can't be maintained. Connie's reaction was unpredictable, at least to me, until it was spelled out so naturally by the narrator.

Example 2:

"He thought how handsome she looked, but also he shrank from her...He sat square and well-groomed in his chair, his hair sleek and blond, and his face fresh, his blue eyes pale, and a little prominent, his expression inscrutable, but well-bred. Hilda thought it sulky and stupid, and he waited. He had an air of aplomb, but Hilda didn't care what he had an air of;..."

How beautifully the narrator drew the image of Clifford: confident appearance, though low self-esteem inside; longing to impress Hilda, though really afraid to get closer...

There were hundreds of these subtle details, sometimes I do feel I had the exactly the same inner workings. Lawrence definitely studied the psychology of his character carefully, since they were so real, and falling to their places so naturally. It was one of the true treasures of the book.

Mellors had a pessimistic view of the world through his own sufferings. Connie had an apparent optimistic view of the new relationship. Conflicts would be inevitable, but they were no longer Lawrence's concern. His job was done: raising their hopes. If that hope is another illusion, or isn't strong enough to uphold life's many tragedies, then that's up to other authors to prove or disprove it.

But how did the sensual experience change Connie's perspective of life? I still don't have a convincing answer. The best I can get is: people's warmheartedness is just appearance, when relationship is getting closer, more and more ugliness would sink any naively conceived relation-ship, then how do you know the true noble heart? the warmhearted to the core? I guess, through the most intimate act - sex. ( )

dull ( )

Still making my mind up about this, might change it to 3 stars later. ( )

Here's what I think happens with this book: I think people think it's Victorian. The title sounds Victorian, right? And it's about...I think we call them the landed gentry*? and their dissolution, which is a major theme of the late Victorians. Lawrence even puts sort of a Victorian feel into his writing, which I believe (and hope) he's doing on purpose. (Does he do that in his other books?)

* which I always thought meant, you know, they had landed somewhere. Like Iceland? I always pictured well-dressed ladies and gentlemen stepping off boats. So that's a confusing thing to call them.

So I think two things happen when people read this book, or decide not to read it:
a) They think it's stuffy, because on the surface it sortof is;
b) The sex bits are totally incongruous - again, I think, on purpose - and people either don't realize what's happening or they do realize it and are confused by it.

Seriously, I've heard people disliking this book and I think they thought they were reading a stuffy old Victorian thing with bizarrely out of place smut shoved into it. And if you think that's what this is, then...well, that sounds great to me, but your mileage may vary.

Anyway, it's not that. It's set in the aftermath of WWI. There's a Brave New World reference.* Lawrence is a contemporary of Hemingway and Steinbeck and Faulkner; this is a modern novel. And I think - I'm not totally sure yet, I'm only 1/4 of the way through - I think he's being ironic. I mean, I think he has serious things to say about the nature of relationships between men and women, and how they're changing, and how women are taking control of their sexuality, but I think he's put it in this anachronistic setting to help make his point. It's sharper than people think it is, is what I'm saying.

* Astute people might note that Lady Chatterley's Lover was published in 1928 and Brave New World wasn't even written until 1931, so wtf? Lawrence and Huxley were apparently friends, so my best guess is that Lawrence saw an early draft. It is not a We reference; the quote is, "Olive was reading a book about the future, when babies would be bred in bottles, and women would be 'immunized.'" That can only be Brave New World.

Also, Lady Chatterley feels a lot of things in her womb. Every time she sees a hot guy her womb, like, twitches. I didn't realize wombs were this jumpy. ( )

This wasn't quite what I expected. It is certainly difficult to see what made it quite so controversial when first published; the sex is by no means explicit and is dealt with briefly. Maybe the fact the lady of the house had an affair with the gamekeeper worried the solid men who argued against it...



I thought it was a good read, as the characters evolve throughout the book. Connie grows as Clifford withdraws from her and life. The whole thing balances on several axes. ( )