What do you think?
Rate this book
毓卮賷賯 丕賱賱賷丿賷 鬲卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賵丕賱睾噩乇賷 賵丕賱丨爻賳丕亍
鬲夭賵噩鬲 賰賵賳爻鬲賳爻 囟丕亘胤賸丕 毓賳丿賲丕 賯賮賱 乇丕噩毓賸丕 賲賳 賲賷丿丕賳 丕賱賯鬲丕賱 賱賷賯囟賷 卮賴乇賸丕 賮賷 丕賱乇丕丨丞 賵丕賱丕爻鬲噩賲丕賲貙 賮兀賲囟賷丕 卮賴乇 丕賱毓爻賱 賴匕丕 賮賷 賲鬲毓丞 賵賴賳丕亍 賵賱匕丞. 孬賲 毓丕丿 丕賱夭賵噩 兀丿乇丕噩賴 廿賱賶 爻丕丨 丕賱賵睾賶 賱賷氐丕亘 亘毓丿 爻鬲丞 兀卮賴乇 賵賷購賳賯賱 廿賱賶 賲賳夭賱賴 賲賲夭賯 丕賱噩爻丿! 賵賰丕賳鬲 賰賵賳爻鬲賳爻 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱丨賷賳 丕賲乇兀丞 賷丕賮毓丞 賱丕 鬲鬲毓丿賶 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賵丕賱毓卮乇賷賳.
鬲賲爻賰 丕賱夭賵噩 丕賱賲丨胤賲 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞.. 賮賱賲 賷賲鬲.. 賵鬲乇丕亍賶 兀賳 丕賱兀卮賱丕亍 丕賱賲賲夭賯丞 賯丿 鬲噩賲賾毓鬲 孬丕賳賷丞 賮賷 噩爻丿 賲鬲賲丕爻賰. 賵賱亘孬 丕賱胤亘賷亘 賷毓丕賱噩賴 賵賷卮乇賮 毓賱賷賴貙 丨鬲賶 廿匕丕 賲乇賾鬲 爻賳鬲丕賳 噩賴乇 亘乇兀賷賴 賵賯乇丕乇賴 賵兀毓賱賳 賱賱噩賲賷毓 兀賳 丕賱禺胤乇 夭丕賱 賵賱賰賳 丕賱噩爻丿 卮購賱賻賾 賯爻賲賴 丕賱兀爻賮賱.
賴賰匕丕 賯賵賾囟鬲 丕賱丨乇亘 丿毓丕卅賲 亘賷鬲 賰賵賳爻鬲賳爻 賮爻賯胤 毓賱賶 乇兀爻賴丕貙 賵兀賷賯賳鬲 亘毓丿 兀賳 噩乇賮賴丕 鬲賷丕乇 丕賱賲氐丕卅亘 兀賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賲乇亍 兀賳 賷丨賷丕 賵兀賳 賷鬲毓賱賾賲..
賰賷賮 毓丕卮鬲.. 賵賲丕匕丕 鬲毓賱賾賲鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱夭賵噩丞 丕賱卮丕亘丞責
鬲賲爻賰 丕賱夭賵噩 丕賱賲丨胤賲 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞.. 賮賱賲 賷賲鬲.. 賵鬲乇丕亍賶 兀賳 丕賱兀卮賱丕亍 丕賱賲賲夭賯丞 賯丿 鬲噩賲賾毓鬲 孬丕賳賷丞 賮賷 噩爻丿 賲鬲賲丕爻賰. 賵賱亘孬 丕賱胤亘賷亘 賷毓丕賱噩賴 賵賷卮乇賮 毓賱賷賴貙 丨鬲賶 廿匕丕 賲乇賾鬲 爻賳鬲丕賳 噩賴乇 亘乇兀賷賴 賵賯乇丕乇賴 賵兀毓賱賳 賱賱噩賲賷毓 兀賳 丕賱禺胤乇 夭丕賱 賵賱賰賳 丕賱噩爻丿 卮購賱賻賾 賯爻賲賴 丕賱兀爻賮賱.
賴賰匕丕 賯賵賾囟鬲 丕賱丨乇亘 丿毓丕卅賲 亘賷鬲 賰賵賳爻鬲賳爻 賮爻賯胤 毓賱賶 乇兀爻賴丕貙 賵兀賷賯賳鬲 亘毓丿 兀賳 噩乇賮賴丕 鬲賷丕乇 丕賱賲氐丕卅亘 兀賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賲乇亍 兀賳 賷丨賷丕 賵兀賳 賷鬲毓賱賾賲..
賰賷賮 毓丕卮鬲.. 賵賲丕匕丕 鬲毓賱賾賲鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱夭賵噩丞 丕賱卮丕亘丞責
319 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1928
12k people are currently reading
114k people want to read
About the author
D.H. Lawrence
1,833听books4,004听followersDavid Herbert Richards Lawrence was an English writer of the 20th century, whose prolific and diverse output included novels, short stories, poems, plays, essays, travel books, paintings, translations, literary criticism, and personal letters. His collected works represent an extended reflection upon the dehumanizing effects of modernity and industrialisation. In them, Lawrence confronts issues relating to emotional health and vitality, spontaneity, human sexuality and instinct.
Lawrence's opinions earned him many enemies and he endured official persecution, censorship, and misrepresentation of his creative work throughout the second half of his life, much of which he spent in a voluntary exile he called his "savage pilgrimage." At the time of his death, his public reputation was that of a pornographer who had wasted his considerable talents. E. M. Forster, in an obituary notice, challenged this widely held view, describing him as "the greatest imaginative novelist of our generation." Later, the influential Cambridge critic F. R. Leavis championed both his artistic integrity and his moral seriousness, placing much of Lawrence's fiction within the canonical "great tradition" of the English novel. He is now generally valued as a visionary thinker and a significant representative of modernism in English literature.
Lawrence's opinions earned him many enemies and he endured official persecution, censorship, and misrepresentation of his creative work throughout the second half of his life, much of which he spent in a voluntary exile he called his "savage pilgrimage." At the time of his death, his public reputation was that of a pornographer who had wasted his considerable talents. E. M. Forster, in an obituary notice, challenged this widely held view, describing him as "the greatest imaginative novelist of our generation." Later, the influential Cambridge critic F. R. Leavis championed both his artistic integrity and his moral seriousness, placing much of Lawrence's fiction within the canonical "great tradition" of the English novel. He is now generally valued as a visionary thinker and a significant representative of modernism in English literature.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,742 reviews
November 2, 2011
WARNING: This review contains a discussion of the c-word, and I plan to use it. Please don't read this if you do not want to see the word spelled out. Thanks.
This is less a review than an homage to my crazy mother (now I have you really intrigued, don't I?)
It was 1983, and I was in my first Catholic school. I'd spent my first six years of school in a public school, but my "behavioral issues" coupled with my lack of growth made me a target for bullies, so my parents were advised to move me to another school where no one knew me.
So off I went to the home room of a fallen nun, who'd given up her habit for a family. She wasn't much of a teacher. She was an old school Catholic educator who practiced punitive teaching, which included kicks to the shins, yanking of ears, pulling of hair, and screaming from close range.
I kept my head down and tried to blend in with my new surroundings, but my Mother made that difficult from the get go. I was a voracious reader, and she passed on the disease to me. From grade two on she had been recommending great books to me. I was reading everything before most everyone else, but my Mom's recommendation of in my first month of Catholic school was probably her most outrageous and unforgettable recommendation.
She bought me a copy at the book store in the mall, and that's where I met one of my favourite words of all time -- cunt.
Back in 1983, cunt was not a word in your average child's vocabulary. Sure we'd heard it, and maybe even seen it, but it was not something that was regularly used by kids, and its usage was pretty vague to every 13 year old I knew.
But there it was in . It was all over the place. So as I read the story and absorbed the way Lawrence used cunt, his usage became my usage. Lawrence used cunt beautifully; it was not a term of denigration; it was not used to belittle; it was not an insult nor something to be ashamed of; cunt was lyrical, romantic, caring, intimate. And I came to believe that cunt was meant to be used in all these ways. That the poetic use of cunt was the accepted use of cunt, the correct use of cunt, and suddenly cunt was part of my vocabulary.
I was thirteen.
Now I didn't just start running around using cunt at every opportunity. I did what I always did with new words that I came to know and love. I added them to my vocabulary and used them when I thought it was appropriate.
And when I whispered it to Tammy, the girl I had a crush on, a few weeks later, thinking that it was the sort of romantic, poetic language that made women fall in love with their men (I can't remember what I said with it, but I know it was something very much like what Mellors would have said to Constance), she turned around with a deep blush, a raised eyebrow and a "That's disgusting" that rang through the class (I can still see the red of autumn leaves that colored her perfectly alabaster skin under a shock of curly black hair, aaaah...Tammy. Apparently she had a better sense of cunt's societal taboos than I did). Mrs. C--- was on her feet and standing parallel to the two of us in a second, demanding to know what was going on.
To her credit, Tammy tried to save me -- sort of. She said "Nothing." Then Mrs. C--- turned on me; I was completely mortified (I'd obviously blown it with the first girl I loved in junior high school), and while I was in this shrinking state, Mrs. C--- demanded to know what was happening and what I had said.
I tried to avoid repeating what I had said. I admitted I shouldn't have been talking. I admitted that I should have been working. I tried to divert her attention. But she was a scary lady, and I couldn't help myself. I repeated what I had said -- as quietly as I could -- but as soon as Mrs. C--- heard "cunt" I was finished. That was the moment I knew "cunt" was the catalyst for the whole debacle.
Now...I'd known before that the word was taboo, but I didn't think it would generate the response it did. I really thought that Tammy would be flattered. And I certainly didn't expect that I would be dragged to the office by an angry ex-nun. Silly me.
I got the strap. It was the first time (although there would be another). Three lashes to the palm of the hand.
I didn't use "cunt" in public or private for a long time after that, but my punishment couldn't diminish my love for the word. Lawrence made such and impression on my young mind that neither humiliation nor physical pain could overcome my appreciation of cunt's poetic qualities.
To me the word is and always will be a beautiful and, yes, gentle thing.
Every time that event was recounted at the dinner table over the years, whether it was amongst family, or with my girlfriends or my future wife, my Mom always got this sly little grin on her face and indulged in a mischievous giggle before refusing to take the blame for me getting the strap. After all, "Who was the one who was stupid enough to use the word, Brad? Not me."
I love her response as much as I love the word.
And in case you were wondering, my Mom never stopped recommending books to me. She was an absolute kook. I miss her.
I can't wait to pass on Lady Chatterly's Lover to my kids...but I think it's going to have to be in grade three if it's going to have the same effect it had on me...hmmm...I wonder how that will go over.
This is less a review than an homage to my crazy mother (now I have you really intrigued, don't I?)
It was 1983, and I was in my first Catholic school. I'd spent my first six years of school in a public school, but my "behavioral issues" coupled with my lack of growth made me a target for bullies, so my parents were advised to move me to another school where no one knew me.
So off I went to the home room of a fallen nun, who'd given up her habit for a family. She wasn't much of a teacher. She was an old school Catholic educator who practiced punitive teaching, which included kicks to the shins, yanking of ears, pulling of hair, and screaming from close range.
I kept my head down and tried to blend in with my new surroundings, but my Mother made that difficult from the get go. I was a voracious reader, and she passed on the disease to me. From grade two on she had been recommending great books to me. I was reading everything before most everyone else, but my Mom's recommendation of in my first month of Catholic school was probably her most outrageous and unforgettable recommendation.
She bought me a copy at the book store in the mall, and that's where I met one of my favourite words of all time -- cunt.
Back in 1983, cunt was not a word in your average child's vocabulary. Sure we'd heard it, and maybe even seen it, but it was not something that was regularly used by kids, and its usage was pretty vague to every 13 year old I knew.
But there it was in . It was all over the place. So as I read the story and absorbed the way Lawrence used cunt, his usage became my usage. Lawrence used cunt beautifully; it was not a term of denigration; it was not used to belittle; it was not an insult nor something to be ashamed of; cunt was lyrical, romantic, caring, intimate. And I came to believe that cunt was meant to be used in all these ways. That the poetic use of cunt was the accepted use of cunt, the correct use of cunt, and suddenly cunt was part of my vocabulary.
I was thirteen.
Now I didn't just start running around using cunt at every opportunity. I did what I always did with new words that I came to know and love. I added them to my vocabulary and used them when I thought it was appropriate.
And when I whispered it to Tammy, the girl I had a crush on, a few weeks later, thinking that it was the sort of romantic, poetic language that made women fall in love with their men (I can't remember what I said with it, but I know it was something very much like what Mellors would have said to Constance), she turned around with a deep blush, a raised eyebrow and a "That's disgusting" that rang through the class (I can still see the red of autumn leaves that colored her perfectly alabaster skin under a shock of curly black hair, aaaah...Tammy. Apparently she had a better sense of cunt's societal taboos than I did). Mrs. C--- was on her feet and standing parallel to the two of us in a second, demanding to know what was going on.
To her credit, Tammy tried to save me -- sort of. She said "Nothing." Then Mrs. C--- turned on me; I was completely mortified (I'd obviously blown it with the first girl I loved in junior high school), and while I was in this shrinking state, Mrs. C--- demanded to know what was happening and what I had said.
I tried to avoid repeating what I had said. I admitted I shouldn't have been talking. I admitted that I should have been working. I tried to divert her attention. But she was a scary lady, and I couldn't help myself. I repeated what I had said -- as quietly as I could -- but as soon as Mrs. C--- heard "cunt" I was finished. That was the moment I knew "cunt" was the catalyst for the whole debacle.
Now...I'd known before that the word was taboo, but I didn't think it would generate the response it did. I really thought that Tammy would be flattered. And I certainly didn't expect that I would be dragged to the office by an angry ex-nun. Silly me.
I got the strap. It was the first time (although there would be another). Three lashes to the palm of the hand.
I didn't use "cunt" in public or private for a long time after that, but my punishment couldn't diminish my love for the word. Lawrence made such and impression on my young mind that neither humiliation nor physical pain could overcome my appreciation of cunt's poetic qualities.
To me the word is and always will be a beautiful and, yes, gentle thing.
Every time that event was recounted at the dinner table over the years, whether it was amongst family, or with my girlfriends or my future wife, my Mom always got this sly little grin on her face and indulged in a mischievous giggle before refusing to take the blame for me getting the strap. After all, "Who was the one who was stupid enough to use the word, Brad? Not me."
I love her response as much as I love the word.
And in case you were wondering, my Mom never stopped recommending books to me. She was an absolute kook. I miss her.
I can't wait to pass on Lady Chatterly's Lover to my kids...but I think it's going to have to be in grade three if it's going to have the same effect it had on me...hmmm...I wonder how that will go over.
February 27, 2024
I honestly think that if this book hadn't been banned for obscene content, no one would have ever read it. Yes, there are lots of sex scenes (omg scandalous) but all the stuff in between is, for the most part, ungodly boring. The book gets points for having some very intellectual discussions of class and the differences between men and women, and Lawrence's characters talk about sex with more honesty than any other book I've ever read, but that's about all it has going for it. I was about fifty pages into the book when I realized that I really didn't like either of the title characters (Lady Chatterley and her Lovah), and it didn't get much better from there. Mellors started to grow on me towards the end, when he discovered sarcasm, but Lady Chatterley (aka Connie) was one of the most boring protagonists ever. She was almost completely personality-deficient, and Lawrence worked hard at the beginning to convince us that she was intelligent, a task at which he fails miserably. Example? At one point in the book, when Connie and Mellors have just finished having hot sex and are in bed together, he starts a rant about the class system. Connie's response? She observes that Mellors' chest hair and pubic hair are different colors.
Fascinating.
Basically, the book can be summed up like this: Blah blah SEX blah blah class blah SEX SEX blah blah class England's economy SEX SEX SEX SCANDAL arguement arguement SCANDAL Vacation time! blah blah blah SEX arguement SCANDAL blah blah the end.
Fascinating.
Basically, the book can be summed up like this: Blah blah SEX blah blah class blah SEX SEX blah blah class England's economy SEX SEX SEX SCANDAL arguement arguement SCANDAL Vacation time! blah blah blah SEX arguement SCANDAL blah blah the end.
October 15, 2023
"Afternoon, m'lady - dust tha fancy a quick un over yon five barred gate?"
"Oh you earthy gamekeepers, well I don't know... oh alright... but only if you mention my private parts in a rough yet tender manner and clasp them enthusiastically betwixt your craggy extremities."
Lord Chatterley, from a mullioned window: "Grr, if I wasn't just a symbol of the impotent yet deadening power of the English aristocracy I'd whip that bounder to within an inch of an orgasm."
40 years later :
Barrister in full periwig : "Is this a book you would want your wife or your servant to read?"
Jury : "Well, it's not one of his best, that's for sure, but it isn't bad, crudely propagandistic but it does trenchantly place its finger on a particular moment in the shift of class consciousness in Britain."
Judge : "Cut the crap, guilty or not guilty?"
Jury : "Guilty pleasure!"
"Oh you earthy gamekeepers, well I don't know... oh alright... but only if you mention my private parts in a rough yet tender manner and clasp them enthusiastically betwixt your craggy extremities."
Lord Chatterley, from a mullioned window: "Grr, if I wasn't just a symbol of the impotent yet deadening power of the English aristocracy I'd whip that bounder to within an inch of an orgasm."
40 years later :
Barrister in full periwig : "Is this a book you would want your wife or your servant to read?"
Jury : "Well, it's not one of his best, that's for sure, but it isn't bad, crudely propagandistic but it does trenchantly place its finger on a particular moment in the shift of class consciousness in Britain."
Judge : "Cut the crap, guilty or not guilty?"
Jury : "Guilty pleasure!"
May 29, 2022
D.H. Lawrence, what have you done to me? This book was so much more than I thought it was going to be. This was an experience that I wanted to devour quickly, but that would mean not being able to soak up and bathe in Lawrence's every word, so it quickly became apparent that I needed to take my time.
I found this book in a used bookstore, and even when I picked it up, my Dad raised an eyebrow at me. I said 'Oh come on Dad, I'm thirty-three'. I thought it was just going to be a book with countless sex scenes and not much else. I was wrong though, of course, as although the sex was heavy, it intertwined perfectly with the plot.
"My soul softly flaps in the little Pentecost flame with you, like the peace of fucking. We fucked a flame into being"
I just love that quote. It's just so painfully raw and that is what I love and appreciate about Lawrence's writing style. He is confident in his style, and hell, it shows. He is writing completely from a woman's perspective too, which is a challenge for any male author, and I have great respect for that.
The two main characters, Lady Chatterley and Mellors, are very frank about their sexual experiences, and I think this is what makes the book so desirable. The words "Fuck" and "cunt" are used countless times, but these words fit in beautifully with the scenes. They are both for the most part, very believable, apart from when Lady Chatterley remarks about her womb rather a lot, and possibly some of the sexist remarks that come from Mellors.
The sexual scenes were beautifully written, long and drawn out, and to me, they were even a little sad. I did laugh a little at Lawrence's grand effort to describe the female orgasm. It really was excellently done, though.
I think what I love most about this book, is the way sex is openly talked of, without absolutely no shame. This is how sex ought to be discussed. It's natural, beautiful and we all have needs and desires, and this book shows us just that in the most erotic and incredible way possible.
I found this book in a used bookstore, and even when I picked it up, my Dad raised an eyebrow at me. I said 'Oh come on Dad, I'm thirty-three'. I thought it was just going to be a book with countless sex scenes and not much else. I was wrong though, of course, as although the sex was heavy, it intertwined perfectly with the plot.
"My soul softly flaps in the little Pentecost flame with you, like the peace of fucking. We fucked a flame into being"
I just love that quote. It's just so painfully raw and that is what I love and appreciate about Lawrence's writing style. He is confident in his style, and hell, it shows. He is writing completely from a woman's perspective too, which is a challenge for any male author, and I have great respect for that.
The two main characters, Lady Chatterley and Mellors, are very frank about their sexual experiences, and I think this is what makes the book so desirable. The words "Fuck" and "cunt" are used countless times, but these words fit in beautifully with the scenes. They are both for the most part, very believable, apart from when Lady Chatterley remarks about her womb rather a lot, and possibly some of the sexist remarks that come from Mellors.
The sexual scenes were beautifully written, long and drawn out, and to me, they were even a little sad. I did laugh a little at Lawrence's grand effort to describe the female orgasm. It really was excellently done, though.
I think what I love most about this book, is the way sex is openly talked of, without absolutely no shame. This is how sex ought to be discussed. It's natural, beautiful and we all have needs and desires, and this book shows us just that in the most erotic and incredible way possible.
October 11, 2022
Definitely worth a read because of how much this book rebelled against contemporary expectations - not only sex, but the musings on modern society (which I really enjoyed) provide a critique of the taboos around the body which still exist today. Also some great nature descriptions - I think this would be best read in Spring.
It wasn't very fast-paced (because it doesn't lead with plot). Parts of this are more like reading a really engaging philosophy essay. Not a bad thing, but not what I was expecting.
It wasn't very fast-paced (because it doesn't lead with plot). Parts of this are more like reading a really engaging philosophy essay. Not a bad thing, but not what I was expecting.
December 11, 2024
You know, if you've grown up around adults whose plainly virtuous lives have subconsciously bequeathed a living sense of morality into you, it can become for you a sense of the Japanese ideal of joriki - inner strength and independence.
So if you've been so positively infected, books like this can leave a sour taste in your gullet!
I read two famous novels in the Summer of 1971: this, and Thomas Wolfe鈥檚 Look Homeward Angel.
Both were passionately written novels written by angst-driven, poor lost souls.
The first one I completed was Chatterley.
A darkly impassioned, brooding work, one wishes repeatedly, during its endlessly extended panegyrics to the brute force of nature, for a breath of fresh air - a moment of unconsidered spontaneity, an escape to cooler and less feverish climes.
It鈥檚 as if Lawrence, and his dark antihero Mellors, are trying to punch their futile way out of a huge dark paper bag, but are so lost and weakened by their lonely self-centredness that the task has become Olympian and thus unattainable.
Lawrence, like so many we know, made his name - like Shakespeare - by playing to the Pit of the Fallen. A sure panacea for a Loner鈥檚 Angst. Shakespeare, though, later changed his ways with the restless questioning of his Middle Plays.
And found Lasting Peace and Reconciliation with the Late Plays, like The Tempest.
And you know what else?
I keep getting the feeling that Lawrence is trying to ground his Life in Passion. To find a foundation in it. You can鈥檛 do that.
For, as ancient Heraklitos said, 鈥測ou can鈥檛 step into the same river twice.鈥� In fact, you鈥檒l be swept away by the wintry Void in old age - if you get there鈥�
For 鈥渁sh on an old man鈥檚 sleeve/ Is all the ash the burnt roses leave!鈥�
It鈥檚 a losing game that leaves the bitter taste of burnt ash in one鈥檚 mouth. Give it up!
Open your windows!
Let in the fresh air and sunlight!
I had two maiden aunts where I first read Chatterley - at, of all places, their forever home in Victoria - Auntie Carmen (Aunt Crisp - as Dad wryly called her) and Aunt Wilhelmina.
Aunt Carmen, the dreamer, was aghast at my reading Chatterley, outr茅 cause c茅l猫bre of her youth. Her more practical sister was not. She had quite possibly read it in her youth.
And I? Ever the Aspie Dreamer, I ended up loathing it, like Aunt Carmen. And I wonder if W.H. Auden was thinking of poor, depressive Lawrence when he wrote "never give a gun to a melancholic bore?"
Better days will always await the man that faces each new day with a smile on his face..
Quite unlike the perennial loner - grim, dour Mellors, Lawrence's doppelganger!
Maybe Mellors just needed a woman to clean up after him?
It鈥檚 just too bad Mellors and I hadn鈥檛 learned to stand up straight.
And you just have to wonder what good girls like the noble Lady Chatterley saw in his type!
Probably just common unbridled lust.
So if you've been so positively infected, books like this can leave a sour taste in your gullet!
I read two famous novels in the Summer of 1971: this, and Thomas Wolfe鈥檚 Look Homeward Angel.
Both were passionately written novels written by angst-driven, poor lost souls.
The first one I completed was Chatterley.
A darkly impassioned, brooding work, one wishes repeatedly, during its endlessly extended panegyrics to the brute force of nature, for a breath of fresh air - a moment of unconsidered spontaneity, an escape to cooler and less feverish climes.
It鈥檚 as if Lawrence, and his dark antihero Mellors, are trying to punch their futile way out of a huge dark paper bag, but are so lost and weakened by their lonely self-centredness that the task has become Olympian and thus unattainable.
Lawrence, like so many we know, made his name - like Shakespeare - by playing to the Pit of the Fallen. A sure panacea for a Loner鈥檚 Angst. Shakespeare, though, later changed his ways with the restless questioning of his Middle Plays.
And found Lasting Peace and Reconciliation with the Late Plays, like The Tempest.
And you know what else?
I keep getting the feeling that Lawrence is trying to ground his Life in Passion. To find a foundation in it. You can鈥檛 do that.
For, as ancient Heraklitos said, 鈥測ou can鈥檛 step into the same river twice.鈥� In fact, you鈥檒l be swept away by the wintry Void in old age - if you get there鈥�
For 鈥渁sh on an old man鈥檚 sleeve/ Is all the ash the burnt roses leave!鈥�
It鈥檚 a losing game that leaves the bitter taste of burnt ash in one鈥檚 mouth. Give it up!
Open your windows!
Let in the fresh air and sunlight!
I had two maiden aunts where I first read Chatterley - at, of all places, their forever home in Victoria - Auntie Carmen (Aunt Crisp - as Dad wryly called her) and Aunt Wilhelmina.
Aunt Carmen, the dreamer, was aghast at my reading Chatterley, outr茅 cause c茅l猫bre of her youth. Her more practical sister was not. She had quite possibly read it in her youth.
And I? Ever the Aspie Dreamer, I ended up loathing it, like Aunt Carmen. And I wonder if W.H. Auden was thinking of poor, depressive Lawrence when he wrote "never give a gun to a melancholic bore?"
Better days will always await the man that faces each new day with a smile on his face..
Quite unlike the perennial loner - grim, dour Mellors, Lawrence's doppelganger!
Maybe Mellors just needed a woman to clean up after him?
It鈥檚 just too bad Mellors and I hadn鈥檛 learned to stand up straight.
And you just have to wonder what good girls like the noble Lady Chatterley saw in his type!
Probably just common unbridled lust.
Want to read
January 20, 2024reading this for science (finding out what old-timey smut is like)
November 1, 2021
Lady Chatterley's Lover, David Herbert Richards = (D.H.) Lawrence
Lady Chatterley's Lover is a novel by D. H. Lawrence, first published privately in 1928 in Italy, and in 1929 in France and Australia. An unexpurgated edition was not published openly in the United Kingdom until 1960.
The story concerns a young married woman, the former Constance Reid (Lady Chatterley), whose upper class husband, Sir Clifford Chatterley, described as a handsome, well-built man, has been paralysed from the waist down due to a Great War injury.
In addition to Clifford's physical limitations, his emotional neglect of Constance forces distance between the couple.
Her emotional frustration leads her into an affair with the gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors. The class difference between the couple highlights a major motif of the novel which is the unfair dominance of intellectuals over the working class.
The novel is about Constance's realization that she cannot live with the mind alone; she must also be alive physically. ...
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦賮丕爻賯 禺丕賳賲 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦賮丕爻賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦毓丕卮賯 禺丕賳賲 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦毓丕卮賯 亘丕賳賵 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦賲毓卮賵賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丿蹖賵蹖丿 賴乇亘乇鬲 (丿蹖.丕趩.) 賱丕乇賳爻貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵夭 爻蹖 賵 蹖讴賲 賲丕賴 跇丕賳賵蹖賴 爻丕賱1972賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲毓卮賵賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖貨 丿蹖賵蹖丿賴乇亘乇鬲 賱丕乇賳爻貨 賲鬲乇噩賲賴丕 賳丕賴蹖丿 賵 丕賮爻丕賳賴 賯丕丿乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賲鬲蹖爻貙 爻丕賱1398貨 丿乇570氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786008928447貨 賲賵囟賵毓 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴20賲
乇賲丕賳 芦毓丕卮賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貙 丕孬乇蹖 丕夭 芦丿蹖.丕趩 賱丕乇賳爻禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳卮 亘賴 爻丕賱1928賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘乇賲蹖鈥屭必� 賳爻禺賴 蹖 賳禺爻鬲 乇賲丕賳貙 亘賴 胤賵乇 倬賳賴丕賳蹖 賵 夭蹖乇夭賲蹖賳蹖貙 亘丕 蹖丕乇蹖 芦噩賵夭倬賴 丕賵乇蹖賵賱蹖禄貙 丿乇 芦賮賱賵乇丕賳爻 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕禄 亘賴 趩丕倬 乇爻蹖丿貨 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 丿乇 爻丕賱1929賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 賳爻禺賴鈥� 丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 亘丕夭 賴賲 倬賳賴丕賳蹖 鬲賵爻胤 賳卮乇 芦賲丕賳丿丕乇讴賽 丕蹖賳讴蹖 丕爻鬲賮賳爻賳禄貨 丿乇 丿爻鬲乇爻 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇丕賳 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲貨 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 賳爻禺賴 蹖 讴丕賲賱 賵 亘丿賵賳 爻丕賳爻賵乇 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳貙 鬲丕 爻丕賱1960賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 丿乇 芦丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴贁 丌賲乇蹖讴丕禄 賵 芦亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕禄 賯丿睾賳 亘賵丿貨 毓丕卮賯 芦賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄 讴賴 蹖讴 丕孬乇 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕爻鬲貙 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭賵丿 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 賲丨鬲賵丕蹖 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳 乇賵丕亘胤 噩爻賲蹖 賲蹖丕賳 賲乇丿蹖 丕夭 胤亘賯賴 讴丕乇诏乇貙 賵 夭賳蹖 丕夭 乇丿賴 賴丕蹖 亘丕賱丕 賵 賲乇賮賴 丕爻鬲貙 鬲賵氐蹖賮 氐乇蹖丨 賵 亘蹖鈥屬矩必囐� 氐丨賳賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖貙 賵 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賵丕跇诏丕賳 賯亘蹖丨 賵 賲亘鬲匕賱貙 亘賴 卮賴乇鬲蹖 噩賳噩丕賱鈥� 亘乇丕賳诏蹖夭 乇爻蹖丿貨 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 乇禺鈥屫ж囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮禺氐蹖 芦賱丕乇賳爻禄 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賲囟丕賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 夭丕丿诏丕賴卮丕賳 芦丕蹖爻鬲賵賵丿 賳丕鬲蹖賳诏賴丕賲鈥� 卮丕蹖乇乇禄 丕賱賴丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥� 丕賳丿貨 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇賳丿貙 讴賴 丕賱賴丕賲鈥屫ㄘ� 芦賱丕乇賳爻禄 亘乇丕蹖 丌賮乇蹖賳卮 賯賴乇賲丕賳 乇賲丕賳 芦賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貙 芦賱蹖丿蹖 丕賵鬲賵賱丕蹖賳 賲乇賱禄 亘賵丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貨 毓丕卮賯 芦賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄 讴賴 丿乇 爻賴 賳爻禺賴 蹖 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 趩丕倬 卮丿賴鈥� 丕爻鬲貙 丌禺乇蹖賳 賵 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 芦賱丕乇賳爻禄 丕爻鬲貨
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 芦毓丕卮賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄 乇賵丕蹖鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 夭賳蹖 噩賵丕賳貙 賵 賲鬲兀賴賱 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻 (賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖)禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 賴賲爻乇 丕卮乇丕賮鈥屫藏ж団€� 丕卮 芦讴賱蹖賮賵乇丿 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貙 丿乇 丕孬乇 噩賳诏貙 賯胤毓 賳禺丕毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賳丕鬲賵丕賳蹖 噩賳爻蹖貙 賵 爻乇丿蹖 丕丨爻丕爻 芦讴賱蹖賮賵乇丿禄 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻 (讴丕賳蹖)禄貙 丿蹖賵丕乇 賮丕氐賱賴 賲蹖丕賳 丕蹖賳 夭賵噩 乇丕 亘丕賱丕 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必� 芦讴丕賳蹖禄 讴賴 丕賲蹖丕賱 噩賳爻蹖 丕卮 乇丕 爻乇讴賵亘 卮丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗀� 丿賱亘丕禺鬲賴贁 卮讴丕乇亘丕賳 卮賵賴乇卮 芦丕賱蹖賵乇 賲賱賵乇夭禄貙 讴賴 賲乇丿蹖 丕夭 胤亘賯丕鬲 倬丕蹖蹖賳 丕爻鬲貙 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 乇賲丕賳貙 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻禄 賴賲爻乇卮 乇丕 鬲乇讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲丕 乇賵丕亘胤 毓丕卮賯丕賳賴 蹖 鬲丕夭賴 丕蹖 乇丕 亘丕 芦賲賱賵乇夭禄 丕夭 爻乇 诏蹖乇丿貨 鬲賮丕賵鬲 爻胤丨 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賲蹖丕賳 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻禄 賵 芦賲賱賵乇夭禄貙 讴賴 亘賳鈥屬呚й屬� 蹖 丕氐賱蹖 乇賲丕賳 丕爻鬲貙 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賳賲賵丿 爻賱胤賴 蹖 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇 胤亘賯賴 蹖 賳禺亘賴 賵 亘丕賱丕丿爻鬲貙 亘乇 胤亘賯賴 蹖 讴丕乇诏乇 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖讴賳丿
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 03/10/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 09/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Lady Chatterley's Lover is a novel by D. H. Lawrence, first published privately in 1928 in Italy, and in 1929 in France and Australia. An unexpurgated edition was not published openly in the United Kingdom until 1960.
The story concerns a young married woman, the former Constance Reid (Lady Chatterley), whose upper class husband, Sir Clifford Chatterley, described as a handsome, well-built man, has been paralysed from the waist down due to a Great War injury.
In addition to Clifford's physical limitations, his emotional neglect of Constance forces distance between the couple.
Her emotional frustration leads her into an affair with the gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors. The class difference between the couple highlights a major motif of the novel which is the unfair dominance of intellectuals over the working class.
The novel is about Constance's realization that she cannot live with the mind alone; she must also be alive physically. ...
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 丿乇 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦賮丕爻賯 禺丕賳賲 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦賮丕爻賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦毓丕卮賯 禺丕賳賲 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦毓丕卮賯 亘丕賳賵 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 芦賲毓卮賵賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丿蹖賵蹖丿 賴乇亘乇鬲 (丿蹖.丕趩.) 賱丕乇賳爻貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵夭 爻蹖 賵 蹖讴賲 賲丕賴 跇丕賳賵蹖賴 爻丕賱1972賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 賲毓卮賵賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖貨 丿蹖賵蹖丿賴乇亘乇鬲 賱丕乇賳爻貨 賲鬲乇噩賲賴丕 賳丕賴蹖丿 賵 丕賮爻丕賳賴 賯丕丿乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 賲鬲蹖爻貙 爻丕賱1398貨 丿乇570氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786008928447貨 賲賵囟賵毓 丿丕爻鬲丕賳賴丕蹖 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴20賲
乇賲丕賳 芦毓丕卮賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貙 丕孬乇蹖 丕夭 芦丿蹖.丕趩 賱丕乇賳爻禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 趩丕倬 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳卮 亘賴 爻丕賱1928賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 亘乇賲蹖鈥屭必� 賳爻禺賴 蹖 賳禺爻鬲 乇賲丕賳貙 亘賴 胤賵乇 倬賳賴丕賳蹖 賵 夭蹖乇夭賲蹖賳蹖貙 亘丕 蹖丕乇蹖 芦噩賵夭倬賴 丕賵乇蹖賵賱蹖禄貙 丿乇 芦賮賱賵乇丕賳爻 丕蹖鬲丕賱蹖丕禄 亘賴 趩丕倬 乇爻蹖丿貨 賴賲鈥屭嗁嗃屬� 丿乇 爻丕賱1929賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 賳爻禺賴鈥� 丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 亘丕夭 賴賲 倬賳賴丕賳蹖 鬲賵爻胤 賳卮乇 芦賲丕賳丿丕乇讴賽 丕蹖賳讴蹖 丕爻鬲賮賳爻賳禄貨 丿乇 丿爻鬲乇爻 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇丕賳 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲貨 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 賳爻禺賴 蹖 讴丕賲賱 賵 亘丿賵賳 爻丕賳爻賵乇 丕蹖賳 乇賲丕賳貙 鬲丕 爻丕賱1960賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 丿乇 芦丕蹖丕賱丕鬲 賲鬲丨丿賴贁 丌賲乇蹖讴丕禄 賵 芦亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕禄 賯丿睾賳 亘賵丿貨 毓丕卮賯 芦賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄 讴賴 蹖讴 丕孬乇 讴賱丕爻蹖讴 丕爻鬲貙 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭賵丿 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 賲丨鬲賵丕蹖 丿丕爻鬲丕賳貙 讴賴 亘蹖丕賳 乇賵丕亘胤 噩爻賲蹖 賲蹖丕賳 賲乇丿蹖 丕夭 胤亘賯賴 讴丕乇诏乇貙 賵 夭賳蹖 丕夭 乇丿賴 賴丕蹖 亘丕賱丕 賵 賲乇賮賴 丕爻鬲貙 鬲賵氐蹖賮 氐乇蹖丨 賵 亘蹖鈥屬矩必囐� 氐丨賳賴鈥� 賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖貙 賵 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 丕夭 賵丕跇诏丕賳 賯亘蹖丨 賵 賲亘鬲匕賱貙 亘賴 卮賴乇鬲蹖 噩賳噩丕賱鈥� 亘乇丕賳诏蹖夭 乇爻蹖丿貨 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 乇禺鈥屫ж囏й� 夭賳丿诏蹖 卮禺氐蹖 芦賱丕乇賳爻禄 丕爻鬲貙 賵 賲囟丕賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 夭丕丿诏丕賴卮丕賳 芦丕蹖爻鬲賵賵丿 賳丕鬲蹖賳诏賴丕賲鈥� 卮丕蹖乇乇禄 丕賱賴丕賲 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥� 丕賳丿貨 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲賳鬲賯丿丕賳 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇賳丿貙 讴賴 丕賱賴丕賲鈥屫ㄘ� 芦賱丕乇賳爻禄 亘乇丕蹖 丌賮乇蹖賳卮 賯賴乇賲丕賳 乇賲丕賳 芦賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貙 芦賱蹖丿蹖 丕賵鬲賵賱丕蹖賳 賲乇賱禄 亘賵丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貨 毓丕卮賯 芦賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄 讴賴 丿乇 爻賴 賳爻禺賴 蹖 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 趩丕倬 卮丿賴鈥� 丕爻鬲貙 丌禺乇蹖賳 賵 賲卮賴賵乇鬲乇蹖賳 乇賲丕賳 芦賱丕乇賳爻禄 丕爻鬲貨
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 芦毓丕卮賯 賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄 乇賵丕蹖鬲 夭賳丿诏蹖 夭賳蹖 噩賵丕賳貙 賵 賲鬲兀賴賱 亘賴 賳丕賲 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻 (賱蹖丿蹖 趩鬲乇賱蹖)禄 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 賴賲爻乇 丕卮乇丕賮鈥屫藏ж団€� 丕卮 芦讴賱蹖賮賵乇丿 趩鬲乇賱蹖禄貙 丿乇 丕孬乇 噩賳诏貙 賯胤毓 賳禺丕毓 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賳丕鬲賵丕賳蹖 噩賳爻蹖貙 賵 爻乇丿蹖 丕丨爻丕爻 芦讴賱蹖賮賵乇丿禄 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻 (讴丕賳蹖)禄貙 丿蹖賵丕乇 賮丕氐賱賴 賲蹖丕賳 丕蹖賳 夭賵噩 乇丕 亘丕賱丕 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘ必� 芦讴丕賳蹖禄 讴賴 丕賲蹖丕賱 噩賳爻蹖 丕卮 乇丕 爻乇讴賵亘 卮丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫ㄛ屬嗀� 丿賱亘丕禺鬲賴贁 卮讴丕乇亘丕賳 卮賵賴乇卮 芦丕賱蹖賵乇 賲賱賵乇夭禄貙 讴賴 賲乇丿蹖 丕夭 胤亘賯丕鬲 倬丕蹖蹖賳 丕爻鬲貙 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖 乇賲丕賳貙 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻禄 賴賲爻乇卮 乇丕 鬲乇讴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲丕 乇賵丕亘胤 毓丕卮賯丕賳賴 蹖 鬲丕夭賴 丕蹖 乇丕 亘丕 芦賲賱賵乇夭禄 丕夭 爻乇 诏蹖乇丿貨 鬲賮丕賵鬲 爻胤丨 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賲蹖丕賳 芦讴賳爻鬲丕賳爻禄 賵 芦賲賱賵乇夭禄貙 讴賴 亘賳鈥屬呚й屬� 蹖 丕氐賱蹖 乇賲丕賳 丕爻鬲貙 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賳賲賵丿 爻賱胤賴 蹖 賳丕亘乇丕亘乇 胤亘賯賴 蹖 賳禺亘賴 賵 亘丕賱丕丿爻鬲貙 亘乇 胤亘賯賴 蹖 讴丕乇诏乇 丿乇 噩丕賲毓賴 乇丕 亘丕夭诏賵 賲蹖讴賳丿
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 03/10/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 09/08/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
June 19, 2022
鈥淐onnie walked dimly on. From the old wood came an ancient melancholy, somehow soothing to her, better than the harsh insentience of the outer world. She liked the inwardness of the remnant of forest, the unspeaking reticence of the old trees. They seemed a very power of silence, and yet a vital presence. They, too, were waiting: obstinately, stoically waiting, and giving off a potency of silence. Perhaps they were only waiting for the end; to be cut down, cleared away, the end of the forest, for them the end of all things. But perhaps their strong and aristocratic silence, the silence of strong trees, meant something else鈥s she came out of the wood on the north side, the keeper鈥檚 cottage, a rather dark, brown stone cottage, with gables and a handsome chimney, looked uninhabited, it was so silent and alone. But a thread of smoke rose from the chimney, and the little railed-in garden in the front of the house was dug and kept very tidy. The door was shut鈥ow she was here she felt a little shy of the [keeper], with his curious far-seeing eyes鈥︹€�
- D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover
The difficulty in discussing D. H. Lawrence鈥檚 Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is that it has long since ceased being a mere book. Originally banned as obscene in the United Kingdom and the United States 鈥� among other countries 鈥� it represents a watershed moment in the movement towards free speech and anticensorship. Today, you are just as likely to read this in law school as in an English literature class.
We take for granted the idea that governments should not tell us what to think, write, and read, but when Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover was first published privately in 1929, such was not the case. Outlawed by legislators, tarred by moralists and scolds, demand for Lawrence鈥檚 final novel paradoxically grew in tandem with the efforts to suppress it.
This demand eventually led to a legal fight. In 1960, in the famed case of R v. Penguin Books, Ltd., a jury in the United Kingdom determined that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover was not obscene. Around the same time, a United States District court found that its publication was protected by the First Amendment. These decisions, along with others, are now recognized as a turning point in the liberalization of speech, a journey that has led us 鈥� for better or worse 鈥� to the untamed frontiers of the internet.
In short, Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover has more baggage than a 19th century tycoon traveling around the world. The challenge, in finally reading it, is to judge it based solely on its merits, rather than its larger impact.
Ultimately, I found that to be impossible.
I liked Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover fine enough. More than that, I respected it, and appreciated it, because Lawrence鈥檚 willingness to say the unsayable pushed back against the then-acceptable notion of closeminded bureaucrats and prudish lawmakers determining the legitimacy of art. Nevertheless, since its legacy is so well known, I鈥檒l try to stick to the substance of Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover, not its historical echoes.
***
Once you鈥檝e peeled back the layers, the most surprising thing about Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is how basic it is at the storytelling level. Lawrence鈥檚 tale relies on archetypes, tropes, and cliches, combining the standard love-triangle with a class-transcending romance, all set against the background of fading British aristocrats bemoaning an industrializing world.
The main character is Constance (Connie) Reid, the titular Lady Chatterley, who finds herself in a constricted, near loveless marriage to the immensely rich Sir Clifford. During the First World War, Sir Clifford received a paralyzing injury below the waist. Unlike in Hemingway鈥檚 The Sun Also Rises, Lawrence is not coy about the consequences. Specifically, Clifford is impotent, and compensates by retreating into a life of the mind, inviting an endless procession of artists and intellectuals to his estate at Wragby.
Connie quickly grows tired of the tedious, pedantic discussions that arise from these meetings 鈥� a feeling I shared, as this starts slow 鈥� and seeks solace in long walks in the nearby forest. It is in this Edenic parcel that she meets Oliver Mellors, the gamekeeper. Mellors is a pointed example of the hypocrisies of the British class system. Born to a low station, he lifted himself through his military service in India, but finds that however much he climbs, high society will never accept him. Cynically understanding this, Mellors throughout the novel switches between a near-incomprehensible vernacular 鈥� which is extremely frustrating to read 鈥� and proper English.
Within no time, Connie and Mellors are trysting like rabbits. They are also 鈥� or so Lawrence wants us to believe 鈥� falling madly in love with each other. Whether or not you believe in the fundamentals of their connection (I certainly did not), they certainly achieve a special union through their lovemaking.
And that鈥檚 really why we鈥檙e here, isn鈥檛 it?
For the sex?
***
Obviously, sex is a basic biological function, necessary for the continuation of a species. For humans, though, it is so much more. It is a powerful motivating force, and a key facet of identity. It can be a consuming compulsion. Channeled healthily, sex can be profoundly meaningful; channeled wrong, and it can lead to dark places. Sex makes people do unwise things without hesitation. It can lead a person to disrupt the status quo, to destroy everything they have, to lie, and to betray.
Unsurprisingly, sex figures largely in fiction 鈥� and not simply in romances and erotica 鈥� because so much can hinge on this single act.
But even if sex belongs in a mainstream novel, it does not necessarily follow that you want to read about the mechanics of the deed. Dramatic imperatives can still be achieved with the bedroom door closed.
With that said, a warning: if you prefer novelistic carnal knowledge to be transmitted by implication, Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is not for you. In this book, Lawrence flings the bedroom door wide open, and just sort of stands there, unmoving, and unblinking.
***
Lawrence鈥檚 sex scenes have often been described as 鈥済raphic for their time.鈥�
I disagree.
They鈥檙e explicit by any measure, including the modern day. To be sure, some of their impact is diluted by unintentionally hilarious euphemisms, including references to the 鈥渕ound of Venus,鈥� 鈥渃rises,鈥� and 鈥渓oins.鈥� But they are also exhaustively recounted, closely observed, and quite numerous. There is a stretch in the middle where it鈥檚 just one bedroom session after another, with Mellors exhibiting the refractory abilities of a twenty-year old. There is also a lot of language, with enough f-bombs and c-words to make you wonder if you鈥檝e stumbled onto an episode of Game of Thrones.
***
Accepting that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is softcore uplifted by the trappings of themes, sense of place, and high-level sentence structure, the success or failure of the work as a whole depends on the success or failure of the sex scenes.
In my mind, sex scenes serve three big purposes: (1) to propel the plot; (2) to reveal character; and (3) to stimulate, arouse, or otherwise elicit a response.
The 鈥渨orst鈥� sex scenes do only the third thing, substituting shock and gratuity for substance. Good scenes usually manage some combination of two out of three.
Sex is best used in a novel when all three elements are joined.
That鈥檚 what happens here.
First, Lawrence鈥檚 sex scenes not only propel the plot, they are the plot. Without them, there is no conflict. They are used to set up the drama, to move things forward, and to drive the narrative to its 鈥� pun intended, sorry 鈥� climax.
Second, Lawrence uses his breathless descriptions of consensual adult activity to excavate Connie鈥檚 being, unearth her motivations, and vividly reveal the arc of her maturation.
Finally, the sex scenes are evocative. Despite the dated language, a misunderstanding of 鈥渢he bowels鈥� as a source of desire, the regrettable overuse of the word 鈥減hallus,鈥� and a certain repetitiveness, they are expressing a lot.
***
All of this is to say that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover lives up to its reputation in realms both highbrow and low. Unlike, say, Tropic of Cancer, which I found to be emptily provocative, Lawrence uses his R-and-X-rated materials for entirely sincere and legitimate purposes. It is for this very reason, after all, that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover became such an effective ram to batter down the imposing walls that had bounded and constrained artistic expression for hundreds of years. It is why it will always have a place in the history of both literature and the law.
- D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover
The difficulty in discussing D. H. Lawrence鈥檚 Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is that it has long since ceased being a mere book. Originally banned as obscene in the United Kingdom and the United States 鈥� among other countries 鈥� it represents a watershed moment in the movement towards free speech and anticensorship. Today, you are just as likely to read this in law school as in an English literature class.
We take for granted the idea that governments should not tell us what to think, write, and read, but when Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover was first published privately in 1929, such was not the case. Outlawed by legislators, tarred by moralists and scolds, demand for Lawrence鈥檚 final novel paradoxically grew in tandem with the efforts to suppress it.
This demand eventually led to a legal fight. In 1960, in the famed case of R v. Penguin Books, Ltd., a jury in the United Kingdom determined that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover was not obscene. Around the same time, a United States District court found that its publication was protected by the First Amendment. These decisions, along with others, are now recognized as a turning point in the liberalization of speech, a journey that has led us 鈥� for better or worse 鈥� to the untamed frontiers of the internet.
In short, Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover has more baggage than a 19th century tycoon traveling around the world. The challenge, in finally reading it, is to judge it based solely on its merits, rather than its larger impact.
Ultimately, I found that to be impossible.
I liked Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover fine enough. More than that, I respected it, and appreciated it, because Lawrence鈥檚 willingness to say the unsayable pushed back against the then-acceptable notion of closeminded bureaucrats and prudish lawmakers determining the legitimacy of art. Nevertheless, since its legacy is so well known, I鈥檒l try to stick to the substance of Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover, not its historical echoes.
***
Once you鈥檝e peeled back the layers, the most surprising thing about Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is how basic it is at the storytelling level. Lawrence鈥檚 tale relies on archetypes, tropes, and cliches, combining the standard love-triangle with a class-transcending romance, all set against the background of fading British aristocrats bemoaning an industrializing world.
The main character is Constance (Connie) Reid, the titular Lady Chatterley, who finds herself in a constricted, near loveless marriage to the immensely rich Sir Clifford. During the First World War, Sir Clifford received a paralyzing injury below the waist. Unlike in Hemingway鈥檚 The Sun Also Rises, Lawrence is not coy about the consequences. Specifically, Clifford is impotent, and compensates by retreating into a life of the mind, inviting an endless procession of artists and intellectuals to his estate at Wragby.
Connie quickly grows tired of the tedious, pedantic discussions that arise from these meetings 鈥� a feeling I shared, as this starts slow 鈥� and seeks solace in long walks in the nearby forest. It is in this Edenic parcel that she meets Oliver Mellors, the gamekeeper. Mellors is a pointed example of the hypocrisies of the British class system. Born to a low station, he lifted himself through his military service in India, but finds that however much he climbs, high society will never accept him. Cynically understanding this, Mellors throughout the novel switches between a near-incomprehensible vernacular 鈥� which is extremely frustrating to read 鈥� and proper English.
Within no time, Connie and Mellors are trysting like rabbits. They are also 鈥� or so Lawrence wants us to believe 鈥� falling madly in love with each other. Whether or not you believe in the fundamentals of their connection (I certainly did not), they certainly achieve a special union through their lovemaking.
And that鈥檚 really why we鈥檙e here, isn鈥檛 it?
For the sex?
***
Obviously, sex is a basic biological function, necessary for the continuation of a species. For humans, though, it is so much more. It is a powerful motivating force, and a key facet of identity. It can be a consuming compulsion. Channeled healthily, sex can be profoundly meaningful; channeled wrong, and it can lead to dark places. Sex makes people do unwise things without hesitation. It can lead a person to disrupt the status quo, to destroy everything they have, to lie, and to betray.
Unsurprisingly, sex figures largely in fiction 鈥� and not simply in romances and erotica 鈥� because so much can hinge on this single act.
But even if sex belongs in a mainstream novel, it does not necessarily follow that you want to read about the mechanics of the deed. Dramatic imperatives can still be achieved with the bedroom door closed.
With that said, a warning: if you prefer novelistic carnal knowledge to be transmitted by implication, Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is not for you. In this book, Lawrence flings the bedroom door wide open, and just sort of stands there, unmoving, and unblinking.
***
Lawrence鈥檚 sex scenes have often been described as 鈥済raphic for their time.鈥�
I disagree.
They鈥檙e explicit by any measure, including the modern day. To be sure, some of their impact is diluted by unintentionally hilarious euphemisms, including references to the 鈥渕ound of Venus,鈥� 鈥渃rises,鈥� and 鈥渓oins.鈥� But they are also exhaustively recounted, closely observed, and quite numerous. There is a stretch in the middle where it鈥檚 just one bedroom session after another, with Mellors exhibiting the refractory abilities of a twenty-year old. There is also a lot of language, with enough f-bombs and c-words to make you wonder if you鈥檝e stumbled onto an episode of Game of Thrones.
***
Accepting that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover is softcore uplifted by the trappings of themes, sense of place, and high-level sentence structure, the success or failure of the work as a whole depends on the success or failure of the sex scenes.
In my mind, sex scenes serve three big purposes: (1) to propel the plot; (2) to reveal character; and (3) to stimulate, arouse, or otherwise elicit a response.
The 鈥渨orst鈥� sex scenes do only the third thing, substituting shock and gratuity for substance. Good scenes usually manage some combination of two out of three.
Sex is best used in a novel when all three elements are joined.
That鈥檚 what happens here.
First, Lawrence鈥檚 sex scenes not only propel the plot, they are the plot. Without them, there is no conflict. They are used to set up the drama, to move things forward, and to drive the narrative to its 鈥� pun intended, sorry 鈥� climax.
Second, Lawrence uses his breathless descriptions of consensual adult activity to excavate Connie鈥檚 being, unearth her motivations, and vividly reveal the arc of her maturation.
Finally, the sex scenes are evocative. Despite the dated language, a misunderstanding of 鈥渢he bowels鈥� as a source of desire, the regrettable overuse of the word 鈥減hallus,鈥� and a certain repetitiveness, they are expressing a lot.
***
All of this is to say that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover lives up to its reputation in realms both highbrow and low. Unlike, say, Tropic of Cancer, which I found to be emptily provocative, Lawrence uses his R-and-X-rated materials for entirely sincere and legitimate purposes. It is for this very reason, after all, that Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover became such an effective ram to batter down the imposing walls that had bounded and constrained artistic expression for hundreds of years. It is why it will always have a place in the history of both literature and the law.
December 18, 2023
Lady Chatterley's Lover has been one of the most controversial books of 20th-century classical literature. Branded as pornography and called "the foulest book in English literature", the book has faced severe censure as no other written piece of British literature. Its copies were hunted down. It is true that the book didn't conform to the accepted standard of morality of English literature, but it is by no means "pornography". If you go by the 21st-century standard, you can laugh at the description, for this is no Fifty Shade of Grey. There is nothing erotic in the book, although Lawrence's expression on sex and sensuality is quite bold, perhaps, too bold, for the time it was written.
In criticizing the book for its choice of subject matter and its blunt language, however, those who were responsible for stigmatizing the book have totally failed to appreciate the sensitive themes Lawrence wanted to explore and expose. There is a lot Lawrence says in this comparatively short book, but among all, I would like to see the book foremost as one written about a woman's loneliness, a woman's awakening to sexuality, and a woman's yearning for motherhood.
Constance Reid is stuck in a marriage in which she feels physically and mentally isolated. Her woman's idea of intimacy is constantly thwarted by Clifford, her crippled husband, with his philosophical ideas of intimacy. Constance is affectionate, but this is returned only in half degrees. And in Clifford's pursuance of a life of his own, bending towards success and money, what tenderness and affection remain in them die a slow death. Constance is aware of a void in her life, and a strong need to fill it. She yearns for affection, tenderness, and real intimacy, both physical and mental; she yearns for the fulfillment of herself as a woman; she yearns for motherhood. And she chooses one man, not in her status, not even in her class, to fill her womanly desires, womanly needs. She defies convention and compromises dignity for happiness. Judged by the strict British moral standards, Constance Reid was in the wrong. She had no business to feel the way she did and desert her husband. Women were seldom seen as having an identity of their own, so their needs, their wants were considered unimportant. In a society, where the woman was defined by the standards set by men, it is not surprising that Constance Reid and her story are chastised.
Lawrence's portrayal of Constance Reid (Lady Chatterley) is strong. Her inner feelings are exposed to the minutest detail. We feel her struggle as it was our own, and can both sympathize and empathize with her. In contrast to the strong female character, Lawrence's men are weak. Both Clifford and Oliver Mellors are in a sense impotent and need Constance to define them. But Lawrence has a reason for making his men weak, for he truly believes they are weak because they are dehumanized by industrialization. When men pursue success ('bitch goddess' in Lawrences's words) and prostitute them to reap their reward of money, they become inhuman, with no capacity to feel affection for others, let alone for a woman. Accordingly, human intimacy is killed. This is what happens to Clifford. But, Oliver, on the other hand, is one who swims against the tide, and severely battered for daring to pursue such a path. He needs an anchor to tie him to the ground to prevent him from being washed away by the tide, and Constance is that anchor, the strength that helps him to hold on to the ground.
As I've said earlier, Lawrence talks of many issues through this book, and class distinction plays a key role. Lawrence chooses Lady Chatterley's lover from the working class, to show how severe this distinction operated. If Constance wanted a man, she should have done better to choose one equal in class. This seems to be the general unspoken opinion. The unbelievable hypocrisy of it all was what Lawrence was driving at.
The book is quite expressive on sex and sensuality, and Lawrence's language is, perhaps, indelicate for early 20th-century British literature, but were those the real reasons for censure? Didn't the story bring out the nakedness and hypocrisy of society? Wasn't the very social and political core of Britain subtly attacked? It is said that none other than the then Home Secretary himself, who carried out a "moral crusade" against the distribution of the book on English soil. And why does a man of such power take it upon himself to suppress and censure a piece of literature on sex and sensuality? There is certainly more to the censure than meets the eye, for I think, if the book is controversial, it is truly controversial for all the political, economic, and social truths that it exposes.
In criticizing the book for its choice of subject matter and its blunt language, however, those who were responsible for stigmatizing the book have totally failed to appreciate the sensitive themes Lawrence wanted to explore and expose. There is a lot Lawrence says in this comparatively short book, but among all, I would like to see the book foremost as one written about a woman's loneliness, a woman's awakening to sexuality, and a woman's yearning for motherhood.
Constance Reid is stuck in a marriage in which she feels physically and mentally isolated. Her woman's idea of intimacy is constantly thwarted by Clifford, her crippled husband, with his philosophical ideas of intimacy. Constance is affectionate, but this is returned only in half degrees. And in Clifford's pursuance of a life of his own, bending towards success and money, what tenderness and affection remain in them die a slow death. Constance is aware of a void in her life, and a strong need to fill it. She yearns for affection, tenderness, and real intimacy, both physical and mental; she yearns for the fulfillment of herself as a woman; she yearns for motherhood. And she chooses one man, not in her status, not even in her class, to fill her womanly desires, womanly needs. She defies convention and compromises dignity for happiness. Judged by the strict British moral standards, Constance Reid was in the wrong. She had no business to feel the way she did and desert her husband. Women were seldom seen as having an identity of their own, so their needs, their wants were considered unimportant. In a society, where the woman was defined by the standards set by men, it is not surprising that Constance Reid and her story are chastised.
Lawrence's portrayal of Constance Reid (Lady Chatterley) is strong. Her inner feelings are exposed to the minutest detail. We feel her struggle as it was our own, and can both sympathize and empathize with her. In contrast to the strong female character, Lawrence's men are weak. Both Clifford and Oliver Mellors are in a sense impotent and need Constance to define them. But Lawrence has a reason for making his men weak, for he truly believes they are weak because they are dehumanized by industrialization. When men pursue success ('bitch goddess' in Lawrences's words) and prostitute them to reap their reward of money, they become inhuman, with no capacity to feel affection for others, let alone for a woman. Accordingly, human intimacy is killed. This is what happens to Clifford. But, Oliver, on the other hand, is one who swims against the tide, and severely battered for daring to pursue such a path. He needs an anchor to tie him to the ground to prevent him from being washed away by the tide, and Constance is that anchor, the strength that helps him to hold on to the ground.
As I've said earlier, Lawrence talks of many issues through this book, and class distinction plays a key role. Lawrence chooses Lady Chatterley's lover from the working class, to show how severe this distinction operated. If Constance wanted a man, she should have done better to choose one equal in class. This seems to be the general unspoken opinion. The unbelievable hypocrisy of it all was what Lawrence was driving at.
The book is quite expressive on sex and sensuality, and Lawrence's language is, perhaps, indelicate for early 20th-century British literature, but were those the real reasons for censure? Didn't the story bring out the nakedness and hypocrisy of society? Wasn't the very social and political core of Britain subtly attacked? It is said that none other than the then Home Secretary himself, who carried out a "moral crusade" against the distribution of the book on English soil. And why does a man of such power take it upon himself to suppress and censure a piece of literature on sex and sensuality? There is certainly more to the censure than meets the eye, for I think, if the book is controversial, it is truly controversial for all the political, economic, and social truths that it exposes.
May 26, 2017
螆谓伪 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏慰 渭蠀胃喂蟽蟿蠈蟻畏渭伪 渭蔚 蟺位慰蠉蟿慰 伪喂蟽胃畏蟽喂伪蟽渭慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟽蠀谓伪喂蟽胃畏渭维蟿蠅谓. 螆谓伪蟼 蠉渭谓慰蟼 蟽蟿慰谓 苇蟻蠅蟿伪 魏伪喂 蟿伪 蟺维胃畏 蟿畏蟼 蟽维蟻魏伪蟼 渭蔚 胃伪蠀渭伪蟽蟿萎 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻伪蠁萎,蠂蠅蟻喂蟼 蠀蟺蔚蟻尾慰位苇蟼 伪蟺慰未委未蔚蟿伪喂 畏 蟽蔚尉慰蠀伪位喂魏畏 苇谓蠅蟽畏 未蠀慰 魏慰蟻渭喂蠋谓 蟽蔚 苇谓伪 魏伪喂 蟺伪蟻慰蠀蟽喂维味蔚蟿伪喂 蠅蟼 蠁位慰纬蔚蟻蠈 伪喂蟽胃畏蟽喂伪魏蠈 蟺伪喂蠂谓委未喂 蟿慰蠀 渭蠀伪位慰蠉 魏伪喂 蟿慰蠀 蟽蠋渭伪蟿慰蟼 蠂蠅蟻喂蟼 蠂蠀未伪喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪.
螒魏蠈渭畏 魏喂 蠈蟿伪谓 蠂蟻畏蟽喂渭慰蟺慰喂蔚委 位苇尉蔚喂蟼 渭蔚 蟺蟻蠈蟽蟿蠀蠂畏 "畏胃喂魏萎" 蟽畏渭伪蟽委伪 蟽蟿慰谓 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏 蟺蔚蟻谓慰蠉谓 蔚蠉魏慰位伪 蟽蟿慰 蟺位伪委蟽喂慰 蟺慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻维蠁慰谓蟿伪喂.
螚 喂蟽蟿慰蟻喂伪 渭伪蟼 伪蟺位萎.
螘委渭伪蟽蟿蔚 蟽蟿畏 尾蟻蔚蟿伪谓喂魏萎 蔚蟺伪蟻蠂委伪 蟿畏谓 蟺蔚蟻喂慰未慰 蟿畏蟼 尾喂慰渭畏蠂伪谓喂魏萎蟼 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼.
螘魏蔚委 蟽蔚 魏维蟺慰喂慰 伪蟺慰 蟿伪 蟺位慰蠉蟽喂伪 魏伪喂 位喂纬慰蟽蟿维 蟽蟺委蟿喂伪 蟿蠅谓 蟺蟻慰谓慰渭喂慰蠉蠂蠅谓 畏 伪蟻喂蟽蟿慰魏蟻维蟿喂蟽蟽伪 位伪委未畏 渭伪蟻伪味蠋谓蔚喂 魏伪喂 蟺谓委纬蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿慰 蟺位蔚蠀蟻蠈 蟿慰蠀 伪谓维蟺畏蟻慰蠀 伪蟺慰 蟿慰谓 蟺蠈位蔚渭慰 蟽蠀味蠉纬慰蠀 蟿畏蟼.
螣 螝位委蠁慰蟻谓蟿 韦蟽维蟿蔚蟻位喂 蔚喂谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 蟽蠉味蠀纬慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪谓萎魏蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 维蟻蠂慰蠀蟽伪 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蟿维尉畏 蟿畏蟼 蔚蟺慰蠂萎蟼 魏伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 苇蠂蔚喂 渭慰谓伪未喂魏萎 蔚蟺喂未委蠅尉畏 蟿慰 魏苇蟻未慰蟼 蟿畏谓 伪蠀蟿慰蟺蟻慰尾慰位萎 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 蟺维蟿伪尉畏 蟿畏蟼 魏伪蟿蠋蟿蔚蟻畏蟼 蟻维蟿蟽伪蟼 - 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟽蠀谓畏胃委味蔚喂 谓伪 伪蟺慰魏伪位蔚委 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚蟻纬维蟿蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 纬蔚谓喂魏蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 蟿畏谓 渭维味伪 蟿蠅谓 蠁蟿蠅蠂蠋谓 魏伪喂 伪纬蟻伪渭渭维蟿蠅谓.
螘喂谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 维谓蟿蟻伪蟼 伪谓委魏伪谓慰蟼 蟽蔚尉慰蠀伪位喂魏维 伪位位维 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪谓委魏伪谓慰蟼 纬喂伪 蠄蠀蠂喂魏萎 蔚蟺伪蠁萎 魏伪喂 蔚谓蟽蠀谓伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏.
螝维蟺慰蠀 蔚未蠋 渭蟺伪委谓蔚喂 蟽蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿畏蟼 位伪委未畏蟼 慰 蔚蟺喂蟽蟿维蟿畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏蟿萎渭伪蟿慰蟼 魏伪喂 胃伪 蟿畏 蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟽蔚 蟽蟿蔚谓萎 蔚蟺伪蠁萎 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 胃畏位蠀魏萎 - 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 蠉蟺伪蟻尉畏 蟽蔚 尾伪胃渭蠈 蟺慰位蠀蔚蟺委蟺蔚未慰 魏伪喂 蟽蔚 渭慰蟻蠁萎 未喂慰谓蠀蟽喂伪魏萎蟼 苇魏蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼.....
螒蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 伪尉委味蔚喂 谓伪 蟽畏渭蔚喂蠅胃蔚委 蔚喂谓伪喂 畏 慰渭慰喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿蠅谓 慰喂魏慰谓慰渭喂魏蠋谓 - 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂魏蠋谓 魏伪喂 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏蠋谓 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿维蟽蔚蠅谓 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼.
螣喂 伪位位伪纬苇蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪 伪蟺慰 蟿慰 魏伪魏蠈 蟽蟿慰 蠂蔚喂蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻慰. 螚 伪渭维胃蔚喂伪, 畏 伪渭慰蟻蠁蠅蟽喂维, 畏 蠂蠀未伪喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委味蔚喂 蟿喂蟼 蠂伪渭畏位苇蟼 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂魏苇蟼 蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 慰喂 慰蟺慰委蔚蟼 魏伪蟿伪蟺喂苇味慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 蟿畏谓 维蟻蠂慰蠀蟽伪 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎 魏伪喂 慰喂魏慰谓慰渭喂魏萎 未蠉谓伪渭畏 魏伪喂 胃蠀蟽喂维味慰蠀谓 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿慰蠀蟼,蟿畏谓 蔚位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟿伪 未喂魏伪喂蠋渭伪蟿伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 蠈位畏 蟿畏谓 蠀蟺蠈蟽蟿伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀蟼 未慰蠀位蔚蠉慰谓蟿伪蟼 谓蠀蠂胃畏渭蔚蟻蠈谓 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟺伪蟻伪渭苇谓慰蠀谓 蔚尉伪胃位喂蠅渭苇谓慰喂 魏伪喂 蠁蟿蠅蠂慰委.
螚 蟺喂慰 蔚喂蟻蠅谓喂魏萎 蠈渭蠅蟼 慰渭慰喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿慰蠀 蟿蠈蟿蔚 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼 蔚喂谓伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 蟿伪 蟺蟻慰尾位萎渭伪蟿伪 蟽蟿喂蟼 蟽蠂苇蟽蔚喂蟼 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠅谓 魏伪喂 魏蠀蟻委蠅蟼 蟿蠅谓 味蔚蠀纬伪蟻喂蠋谓.
螘蟺喂魏蟻伪蟿慰蠉谓 蟺伪蟻伪渭慰蟻蠁蠅渭苇谓蔚蟼,蠄蔚蠉蟿喂魏蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰未蠅渭蔚谓蔚蟼 蟽蠂苇蟽蔚喂蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟿蠀蟺喂魏维 蠁伪谓蟿维味慰蠀谓 蟿苇位蔚喂蔚蟼 伪位位维 慰蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 畏 蔚蟺喂胃蠀渭委伪 纬喂伪 蔚蟽蠅蟿蔚蟻喂魏萎 伪谓伪味萎蟿畏蟽萎 魏伪喂 蟽蔚尉慰蠀伪位喂魏萎 伪蟺蠈位伪蠀蟽畏 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 慰未畏纬慰蠉蟽蔚 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 尾伪胃喂维 蔚蟺喂魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪 伪纬维蟺畏蟼 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿伪谓蠈畏蟽畏蟼 位维渭蟺蔚喂 未喂伪 蟿畏蟼 伪蟺慰蠀蟽委伪蟼 蟿畏蟼.
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏.
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼.
螒魏蠈渭畏 魏喂 蠈蟿伪谓 蠂蟻畏蟽喂渭慰蟺慰喂蔚委 位苇尉蔚喂蟼 渭蔚 蟺蟻蠈蟽蟿蠀蠂畏 "畏胃喂魏萎" 蟽畏渭伪蟽委伪 蟽蟿慰谓 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏 蟺蔚蟻谓慰蠉谓 蔚蠉魏慰位伪 蟽蟿慰 蟺位伪委蟽喂慰 蟺慰蠀 蟺蔚蟻喂纬蟻维蠁慰谓蟿伪喂.
螚 喂蟽蟿慰蟻喂伪 渭伪蟼 伪蟺位萎.
螘委渭伪蟽蟿蔚 蟽蟿畏 尾蟻蔚蟿伪谓喂魏萎 蔚蟺伪蟻蠂委伪 蟿畏谓 蟺蔚蟻喂慰未慰 蟿畏蟼 尾喂慰渭畏蠂伪谓喂魏萎蟼 蔚蟺伪谓维蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼.
螘魏蔚委 蟽蔚 魏维蟺慰喂慰 伪蟺慰 蟿伪 蟺位慰蠉蟽喂伪 魏伪喂 位喂纬慰蟽蟿维 蟽蟺委蟿喂伪 蟿蠅谓 蟺蟻慰谓慰渭喂慰蠉蠂蠅谓 畏 伪蟻喂蟽蟿慰魏蟻维蟿喂蟽蟽伪 位伪委未畏 渭伪蟻伪味蠋谓蔚喂 魏伪喂 蟺谓委纬蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿慰 蟺位蔚蠀蟻蠈 蟿慰蠀 伪谓维蟺畏蟻慰蠀 伪蟺慰 蟿慰谓 蟺蠈位蔚渭慰 蟽蠀味蠉纬慰蠀 蟿畏蟼.
螣 螝位委蠁慰蟻谓蟿 韦蟽维蟿蔚蟻位喂 蔚喂谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 蟽蠉味蠀纬慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 伪谓萎魏蔚喂 蟽蟿畏谓 维蟻蠂慰蠀蟽伪 蟺谓蔚蠀渭伪蟿喂魏萎 蟿维尉畏 蟿畏蟼 蔚蟺慰蠂萎蟼 魏伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 苇蠂蔚喂 渭慰谓伪未喂魏萎 蔚蟺喂未委蠅尉畏 蟿慰 魏苇蟻未慰蟼 蟿畏谓 伪蠀蟿慰蟺蟻慰尾慰位萎 魏伪喂 蟿畏谓 蟺维蟿伪尉畏 蟿畏蟼 魏伪蟿蠋蟿蔚蟻畏蟼 蟻维蟿蟽伪蟼 - 蠈蟺蠅蟼 蟽蠀谓畏胃委味蔚喂 谓伪 伪蟺慰魏伪位蔚委 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚蟻纬维蟿蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏伪喂 纬蔚谓喂魏蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 蟿畏谓 渭维味伪 蟿蠅谓 蠁蟿蠅蠂蠋谓 魏伪喂 伪纬蟻伪渭渭维蟿蠅谓.
螘喂谓伪喂 苇谓伪蟼 维谓蟿蟻伪蟼 伪谓委魏伪谓慰蟼 蟽蔚尉慰蠀伪位喂魏维 伪位位维 蟺蔚蟻喂蟽蟽蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪谓委魏伪谓慰蟼 纬喂伪 蠄蠀蠂喂魏萎 蔚蟺伪蠁萎 魏伪喂 蔚谓蟽蠀谓伪委蟽胃畏蟽畏.
螝维蟺慰蠀 蔚未蠋 渭蟺伪委谓蔚喂 蟽蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿畏蟼 位伪委未畏蟼 慰 蔚蟺喂蟽蟿维蟿畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 魏蟿萎渭伪蟿慰蟼 魏伪喂 胃伪 蟿畏 蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟽蔚 蟽蟿蔚谓萎 蔚蟺伪蠁萎 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 胃畏位蠀魏萎 - 蔚蟻蠅蟿喂魏萎 蟿畏蟼 蠉蟺伪蟻尉畏 蟽蔚 尾伪胃渭蠈 蟺慰位蠀蔚蟺委蟺蔚未慰 魏伪喂 蟽蔚 渭慰蟻蠁萎 未喂慰谓蠀蟽喂伪魏萎蟼 苇魏蟽蟿伪蟽畏蟼.....
螒蠀蟿蠈 蟺慰蠀 伪尉委味蔚喂 谓伪 蟽畏渭蔚喂蠅胃蔚委 蔚喂谓伪喂 畏 慰渭慰喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿蠅谓 慰喂魏慰谓慰渭喂魏蠋谓 - 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂魏蠋谓 魏伪喂 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏蠋谓 魏伪蟿伪蟽蟿维蟽蔚蠅谓 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼.
螣喂 伪位位伪纬苇蟼 蟽蟿畏谓 魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪 伪蟺慰 蟿慰 魏伪魏蠈 蟽蟿慰 蠂蔚喂蟻蠈蟿蔚蟻慰. 螚 伪渭维胃蔚喂伪, 畏 伪渭慰蟻蠁蠅蟽喂维, 畏 蠂蠀未伪喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟺慰蠀 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻委味蔚喂 蟿喂蟼 蠂伪渭畏位苇蟼 魏慰喂谓蠅谓喂魏苇蟼 蟿维尉蔚喂蟼 慰喂 慰蟺慰委蔚蟼 魏伪蟿伪蟺喂苇味慰谓蟿伪喂 伪蟺慰 蟿畏谓 维蟻蠂慰蠀蟽伪 蟺慰位喂蟿喂魏萎 魏伪喂 慰喂魏慰谓慰渭喂魏萎 未蠉谓伪渭畏 魏伪喂 胃蠀蟽喂维味慰蠀谓 蟿畏 味蠅萎 蟿慰蠀蟼,蟿畏谓 蔚位蔚蠀胃蔚蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀蟼, 蟿伪 未喂魏伪喂蠋渭伪蟿伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 魏伪喂 蠈位畏 蟿畏谓 蠀蟺蠈蟽蟿伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀蟼 未慰蠀位蔚蠉慰谓蟿伪蟼 谓蠀蠂胃畏渭蔚蟻蠈谓 纬喂伪 谓伪 蟺伪蟻伪渭苇谓慰蠀谓 蔚尉伪胃位喂蠅渭苇谓慰喂 魏伪喂 蠁蟿蠅蠂慰委.
螚 蟺喂慰 蔚喂蟻蠅谓喂魏萎 蠈渭蠅蟼 慰渭慰喂蠈蟿畏蟿伪 蟿慰蠀 蟿蠈蟿蔚 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺慰蠂萎 渭伪蟼 蔚喂谓伪喂 蠁蠀蟽喂魏维 蟿伪 蟺蟻慰尾位萎渭伪蟿伪 蟽蟿喂蟼 蟽蠂苇蟽蔚喂蟼 渭蔚蟿伪尉蠉 蟿蠅谓 伪谓胃蟻蠅蟺蠅谓 魏伪喂 魏蠀蟻委蠅蟼 蟿蠅谓 味蔚蠀纬伪蟻喂蠋谓.
螘蟺喂魏蟻伪蟿慰蠉谓 蟺伪蟻伪渭慰蟻蠁蠅渭苇谓蔚蟼,蠄蔚蠉蟿喂魏蔚蟼 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰未蠅渭蔚谓蔚蟼 蟽蠂苇蟽蔚喂蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟿蠀蟺喂魏维 蠁伪谓蟿维味慰蠀谓 蟿苇位蔚喂蔚蟼 伪位位维 慰蠀蟽喂伪蟽蟿喂魏维 畏 蔚蟺喂胃蠀渭委伪 纬喂伪 蔚蟽蠅蟿蔚蟻喂魏萎 伪谓伪味萎蟿畏蟽萎 魏伪喂 蟽蔚尉慰蠀伪位喂魏萎 伪蟺蠈位伪蠀蟽畏 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 慰未畏纬慰蠉蟽蔚 蟽委纬慰蠀蟻伪 蟽蔚 渭喂伪 尾伪胃喂维 蔚蟺喂魏慰喂谓蠅谓委伪 伪纬维蟺畏蟼 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿伪谓蠈畏蟽畏蟼 位维渭蟺蔚喂 未喂伪 蟿畏蟼 伪蟺慰蠀蟽委伪蟼 蟿畏蟼.
螝伪位萎 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏.
螤慰位位慰蠉蟼 伪蟽蟺伪蟽渭慰蠉蟼.
June 6, 2023
I usually quite tolerable towards old classics and try to ignore things unacceptable in modern books. But I couldn't find anything good in this one. Even ignoring sexism and homophobia, the story about love has too much hate in it.
First, the toxic masculinity is strong in this one: constant wining that 'real man' are dead, women don't act like they suppose to and humanity is doomed. All this Apocalyptic moods along with romantisizing the past getting more and more annoying with every page.
Second, endless insinuations about love and passion come from a narrator who doesn't believe that women can have sexual desires and describes sex as just an act of submission. And do you really think that their first sexual encounter was consensual? I mean, she was crying and was speechless! How can any of it be romantic if the love interest is an asshole...
Then there's constant lecturing about mental vs physical life. All the characters disagree with each other and there's no middle ground.
Last but not least, absolutely laughable description of orgasm and lust.
First, the toxic masculinity is strong in this one: constant wining that 'real man' are dead, women don't act like they suppose to and humanity is doomed. All this Apocalyptic moods along with romantisizing the past getting more and more annoying with every page.
Second, endless insinuations about love and passion come from a narrator who doesn't believe that women can have sexual desires and describes sex as just an act of submission. And do you really think that their first sexual encounter was consensual? I mean, she was crying and was speechless! How can any of it be romantic if the love interest is an asshole...
Then there's constant lecturing about mental vs physical life. All the characters disagree with each other and there's no middle ground.
Last but not least, absolutely laughable description of orgasm and lust.
September 22, 2022
It is a novel, as we like them, with a heroine who wants to live her life physically and morally, but the early twentieth century in England did not allow this kind of situation. Moral values concerning marriage did not let people have extra-marital relations despite the worst that could have happened to one of the two spouses.
The author knew how to go beyond these values and rightly wrote a magnificent novel with the most exciting descriptions of human relations, whether moral or physical.
The author knew how to go beyond these values and rightly wrote a magnificent novel with the most exciting descriptions of human relations, whether moral or physical.
May 11, 2013
Ah, D.H. Lawrence, why are you so awesome?
I think Lawrence is one of those writers you either love or hate, and this is possibly even more true of Lady Chatterley's Lover, his last novel. The author's confidence speaks on every page: firstly, Lawrence has no qualms about interjecting his opinion in the narration throughout. Secondly, the book is from the perspective of a woman, a challenge for any male author, and thirdly (and possibly most famously), the book makes liberal use of "fuck" and "cunt." It's not just that the book is about sexual awakening, it's really about how frank the book's two central characters are about their sexual experiences. Lawrence succeeds more often than not in creating a believable female pscyhe in the figure of Lady Constance Chatterly, and though, as some have pointed out, some moments ring less true than others (as when she refers insistently to her womb), overall she's quite believable. Mellors, the game-keeper she has an affair with, is also quite believable, whether or not you agree with some of his more sexist attitudes towards women. As for the sex bits, I laughed several times at the sheer effort Lawrence goes through to try to describe what a female orgasm might feel like. Really, a bravura performance! As a woman, I can say that to my mind he gets it pretty right. Even where the language is stilted or embarassing, I could see what Lawrence was trying at: a totally frank, unashamed look at sex. His book is a big cry against all those who would rather not talk about it, and maybe that's triumph enough. But the book is engaging, frequently funny, and finally, as a last novel, a beautiful piece of hopefulness from a notoriously cynical author.
I think Lawrence is one of those writers you either love or hate, and this is possibly even more true of Lady Chatterley's Lover, his last novel. The author's confidence speaks on every page: firstly, Lawrence has no qualms about interjecting his opinion in the narration throughout. Secondly, the book is from the perspective of a woman, a challenge for any male author, and thirdly (and possibly most famously), the book makes liberal use of "fuck" and "cunt." It's not just that the book is about sexual awakening, it's really about how frank the book's two central characters are about their sexual experiences. Lawrence succeeds more often than not in creating a believable female pscyhe in the figure of Lady Constance Chatterly, and though, as some have pointed out, some moments ring less true than others (as when she refers insistently to her womb), overall she's quite believable. Mellors, the game-keeper she has an affair with, is also quite believable, whether or not you agree with some of his more sexist attitudes towards women. As for the sex bits, I laughed several times at the sheer effort Lawrence goes through to try to describe what a female orgasm might feel like. Really, a bravura performance! As a woman, I can say that to my mind he gets it pretty right. Even where the language is stilted or embarassing, I could see what Lawrence was trying at: a totally frank, unashamed look at sex. His book is a big cry against all those who would rather not talk about it, and maybe that's triumph enough. But the book is engaging, frequently funny, and finally, as a last novel, a beautiful piece of hopefulness from a notoriously cynical author.
October 24, 2022
"Ella hubiera pensado que una mujer habr铆a muerto de verg眉enza. En lugar de eso, la verg眉enza muri贸.
Sinti贸 que el diablo retorc铆a la cola y fingi贸 que eran los 谩ngeles que le sonre铆an."
"El amante de lady Chatterley" es una de las novelas m谩s pol茅micas y escandalosas del siglo XX ya que D.H. Lawrence la public贸 en 1928 luego de una intensa batalla legal contra la censura por abordar con alto voltaje el tema de la sexualidad expl铆cita ya desde las primeras p谩ginas.
Lo que para otros autores (Flaubert con su "Madame Bovary" es el caso m谩s conocido) fue un verdadero dolor de cabeza, para Lawrence tambi茅n fue objeto de inconvenientes, ataques y repudio e incluso proviniendo de otros escritores, tal es el caso de Virginia Woolf.
Es que fue una maniobra realmente arriesgada publicar este libro sin que los editores hicieran caso omiso, puesto que el desenfreno er贸tico de algunas escenas cuando Constance Chatterley se encuentra con su amante, el guardabosques Oliver Mellors exceden la imaginaci贸n de muchos en esa 茅poca.
Si muchos creen que "Cincuenta sombras de Grey" es la novela er贸tica m谩s importante, deber铆an leer este libro si tenemos en cuenta que Lawrence lo escribi贸 hace 92 a帽os atr谩s.
Trayendo a colaci贸n la novela de Flaubert, debo reconocer que Lawrence empuja la cuesti贸n del adulterio much铆simo m谩s all谩 que el escritor franc茅s (que ya se hab铆a arriesgado demasiado para 1857, puesto que fue llevado a juicio por ofender la moral y religi贸n francesas) ya que Constance Chatterley es una aut茅ntica descendiente de Emma Bovary, con el agregado de que es m谩s osada y su desparpajo de adulterio est谩 orientado a la plena satisfacci贸n sexual sin importarle las consecuencias y resulta imposible no comparar (al menos no de manera exhaustiva) ambas novelas ya que uno va encontrando ciertas analog铆as y similitudes dado que el tema central del adulterio se replica.
Por un lado, lo que a Emma la atormenta, ""驴Por qu茅, Dios m铆o, me habr茅 yo casado?" Se preguntaba si no hubiera sido posible, gracias a otras combinaciones del azar, encontrar otro marido; y trataba de imaginarse cu谩les habr铆an sido entonces aquellos acontecimientos no realizados, aquella vida diferente, aquel marido que no conoc铆a. No todos los hombres, en efecto, eran parecidos al suyo", adquiere significaci贸n en la psique de Connie: "Para Connie, todo en su mundo y su vida parec铆a agotado, y su insatisfacci贸n era m谩s antigua que las colinas".
Ese constante inconformismo y la necesidad de despegarse de sus maridos (Charles Bovary, Clifford Chatterley), las arrastrar谩 a esa necesidad de saciar su pasi贸n con ese amante que las saque del letargo matrimonial que est谩n viviendo.
P谩rrafo aparte, debemos resaltar que se nota claramente las ideas radicales que Lawrence centra durante el proceso de escritura de la novela, ya que se declaraba abiertamente homosexual y hab铆a sido atacado sin piedad por la sociedad de su 茅poca como en el siglo anterior le hab铆a sucedido a Oscar Wilde.
De manera casi contestataria, los temas inherentes a la sexualidad eran disparadas a trav茅s de las acciones y los pensamientos de sus personajes del mismo modo que lo hac铆a el gran escritor irland茅s.
En el caso de Connie, esta comienza a impregnarse del mismo inconformismo que de Emma Bovary. Ya nada la satisface y Clifford nada puede hacer. Su objetivo es amar otro hombre y para ello se vale de cualquier herramienta que le sea v谩lida, especialmente la seducci贸n con la que termina atrapando a Mellors.
Se puede establecer tambi茅n ciertas congruencias entre Clifford y Charles Bovary, ambos, los grandes "perjudicados" a causa de los actos ad煤lteros de sus mujeres.
Pero lo que diferencia a Clifford de Charles es que el marido de lady Chatterley, confinado a una silla de ruedas y sin posibilidad ya de acercamientos 铆ntimos con su mujer es de una mentalidad abierta a punto tal de que le ofrece a Connie la posibilidad de quedar embarazada de otro hombre (propuesta verdaderamente indecente de por s铆 y muy discutida tambi茅n), mientras que Charles nunca se entera de nada sino hasta el final de la novela.
Las acciones de esta novela transcurren entre dos locaciones de Inglaterra, que son Wragby y Tevershall y lo que los diferencia es que Wragby goza de cierta reputaci贸n, mientras que Tevershall es un peque帽o pueblo de gente minera y de esta forma Lawrence establece las diferencias sociales imperantes en sus a帽os con el contraste que eso genera entre las personas.
Adem谩s de las distintas tem谩ticas abordadas en esa novela en donde la sexualidad y el adulterio son las m谩s importantes para Lawrence, el autor hace tambi茅n mucho 茅nfasis en su resistencia al modernismo y el progreso.
La visi贸n negativa de Oliver Mellors sobre el futuro y el progreso, adem谩s de la condena que hace con el tema del dinero es la de Lawrence mismo, ya que el autor declara al dinero como el generador de todos los males del mundo as铆 tambi茅n como la escala en las posiciones sociales o manejo indiscriminados de las masas a trav茅s del poder y la riqueza en detrimento de toda calidad humana.
El mensaje de Lawrence no puede ser m谩s pesimista pero incre铆blemente, sus vaticinios se hicieron realidad dos a帽os m谩s tarde cuando estalla la crisis financiera del '30 en los Estados Unidos. Este descalabro econ贸mico ser谩 tomado por otros autores en sus novelas, tal es el caso de Francis Scott Fitzgerald y William Faulkner.
Lawrence enfatiza su desprecio por el dinero, por el efecto corruptor que genera en el hombre y en cierto modo lo afirma a trav茅s de Melllors cuando dice "No creo en el mundo, ni en el dinero, ni en el progreso ni en el futuro de nuestra civilizaci贸n. Para que la humanidad tenga un futuro es preciso ser谩 preciso que cambie mucho con respecto a lo que ahora es. El dinero envenena cuando se tiene, y mata de hambre cuando se carece de 茅l."
Volviendo a la historia de Constance, Clifford y Mellors, destaco nuevamente la osad铆a y la valent铆a de Oliver para describir en 1928 escenas no er贸ticas sino expl铆citamente sexuales, durante los encuentros de Connie con su amante el guardabosques, dado que entendamos lo que signific贸 para Inglaterra, un pa铆s conservador, flem谩tico y muy pacato en lo que a la tem谩tica de la sexualidad ata帽e, encontrarse con una novela de este calibre en la segunda d茅cada del siglo XX.
Al abordar tambi茅n su visi贸n particular de la naturaleza de las mujeres, el autor tambi茅n se meti贸 en problemas, especialmente con aquellos grupos de feministas quienes lo destrozaron p煤blica y literariamente al sentirse atacadas por frases como esta: "Cuando una mujer queda absolutamente pose铆da por su voluntad, con la proa contra todo se transforma en un ser temible al que debiera estar permitido matar a tiros."
Es indudablemente que frases como esta iban a caer mal y debido a esto sacaron a la luz la condici贸n homosexual de Lawrence para difamarlo y denigrarlo p煤blicamente. La novela tuvo tres versiones distintas hasta que con el correr de los a帽os (y del progreso mental de mucha gente) se public贸 sin censuras tal como la podemos leer hoy.
Como 煤nico punto flojo de esta novela puedo decir que en cierto modo el final es muy abrupto y abierto, como si a Lawrence se le hubieran terminado las ideas o la posibilidad de escribir un final m谩s logrado, ya que deja la historia en suspenso y decide terminarla con una carta. Me llevar铆a mucho tiempo encontrar una novela que termine as铆, ya que en cierto modo borronea todo lo bueno que leemos en todo el resto del libro, pero que m谩s all谩 de todo, deja bien claro que como sostengo al principio, "El amante de lady Chatterley" es pionera, pol茅mica, escandalosa y arriesgada, pero sobre todas las cosas, digna de ser le铆da.
Sinti贸 que el diablo retorc铆a la cola y fingi贸 que eran los 谩ngeles que le sonre铆an."
"El amante de lady Chatterley" es una de las novelas m谩s pol茅micas y escandalosas del siglo XX ya que D.H. Lawrence la public贸 en 1928 luego de una intensa batalla legal contra la censura por abordar con alto voltaje el tema de la sexualidad expl铆cita ya desde las primeras p谩ginas.
Lo que para otros autores (Flaubert con su "Madame Bovary" es el caso m谩s conocido) fue un verdadero dolor de cabeza, para Lawrence tambi茅n fue objeto de inconvenientes, ataques y repudio e incluso proviniendo de otros escritores, tal es el caso de Virginia Woolf.
Es que fue una maniobra realmente arriesgada publicar este libro sin que los editores hicieran caso omiso, puesto que el desenfreno er贸tico de algunas escenas cuando Constance Chatterley se encuentra con su amante, el guardabosques Oliver Mellors exceden la imaginaci贸n de muchos en esa 茅poca.
Si muchos creen que "Cincuenta sombras de Grey" es la novela er贸tica m谩s importante, deber铆an leer este libro si tenemos en cuenta que Lawrence lo escribi贸 hace 92 a帽os atr谩s.
Trayendo a colaci贸n la novela de Flaubert, debo reconocer que Lawrence empuja la cuesti贸n del adulterio much铆simo m谩s all谩 que el escritor franc茅s (que ya se hab铆a arriesgado demasiado para 1857, puesto que fue llevado a juicio por ofender la moral y religi贸n francesas) ya que Constance Chatterley es una aut茅ntica descendiente de Emma Bovary, con el agregado de que es m谩s osada y su desparpajo de adulterio est谩 orientado a la plena satisfacci贸n sexual sin importarle las consecuencias y resulta imposible no comparar (al menos no de manera exhaustiva) ambas novelas ya que uno va encontrando ciertas analog铆as y similitudes dado que el tema central del adulterio se replica.
Por un lado, lo que a Emma la atormenta, ""驴Por qu茅, Dios m铆o, me habr茅 yo casado?" Se preguntaba si no hubiera sido posible, gracias a otras combinaciones del azar, encontrar otro marido; y trataba de imaginarse cu谩les habr铆an sido entonces aquellos acontecimientos no realizados, aquella vida diferente, aquel marido que no conoc铆a. No todos los hombres, en efecto, eran parecidos al suyo", adquiere significaci贸n en la psique de Connie: "Para Connie, todo en su mundo y su vida parec铆a agotado, y su insatisfacci贸n era m谩s antigua que las colinas".
Ese constante inconformismo y la necesidad de despegarse de sus maridos (Charles Bovary, Clifford Chatterley), las arrastrar谩 a esa necesidad de saciar su pasi贸n con ese amante que las saque del letargo matrimonial que est谩n viviendo.
P谩rrafo aparte, debemos resaltar que se nota claramente las ideas radicales que Lawrence centra durante el proceso de escritura de la novela, ya que se declaraba abiertamente homosexual y hab铆a sido atacado sin piedad por la sociedad de su 茅poca como en el siglo anterior le hab铆a sucedido a Oscar Wilde.
De manera casi contestataria, los temas inherentes a la sexualidad eran disparadas a trav茅s de las acciones y los pensamientos de sus personajes del mismo modo que lo hac铆a el gran escritor irland茅s.
En el caso de Connie, esta comienza a impregnarse del mismo inconformismo que de Emma Bovary. Ya nada la satisface y Clifford nada puede hacer. Su objetivo es amar otro hombre y para ello se vale de cualquier herramienta que le sea v谩lida, especialmente la seducci贸n con la que termina atrapando a Mellors.
Se puede establecer tambi茅n ciertas congruencias entre Clifford y Charles Bovary, ambos, los grandes "perjudicados" a causa de los actos ad煤lteros de sus mujeres.
Pero lo que diferencia a Clifford de Charles es que el marido de lady Chatterley, confinado a una silla de ruedas y sin posibilidad ya de acercamientos 铆ntimos con su mujer es de una mentalidad abierta a punto tal de que le ofrece a Connie la posibilidad de quedar embarazada de otro hombre (propuesta verdaderamente indecente de por s铆 y muy discutida tambi茅n), mientras que Charles nunca se entera de nada sino hasta el final de la novela.
Las acciones de esta novela transcurren entre dos locaciones de Inglaterra, que son Wragby y Tevershall y lo que los diferencia es que Wragby goza de cierta reputaci贸n, mientras que Tevershall es un peque帽o pueblo de gente minera y de esta forma Lawrence establece las diferencias sociales imperantes en sus a帽os con el contraste que eso genera entre las personas.
Adem谩s de las distintas tem谩ticas abordadas en esa novela en donde la sexualidad y el adulterio son las m谩s importantes para Lawrence, el autor hace tambi茅n mucho 茅nfasis en su resistencia al modernismo y el progreso.
La visi贸n negativa de Oliver Mellors sobre el futuro y el progreso, adem谩s de la condena que hace con el tema del dinero es la de Lawrence mismo, ya que el autor declara al dinero como el generador de todos los males del mundo as铆 tambi茅n como la escala en las posiciones sociales o manejo indiscriminados de las masas a trav茅s del poder y la riqueza en detrimento de toda calidad humana.
El mensaje de Lawrence no puede ser m谩s pesimista pero incre铆blemente, sus vaticinios se hicieron realidad dos a帽os m谩s tarde cuando estalla la crisis financiera del '30 en los Estados Unidos. Este descalabro econ贸mico ser谩 tomado por otros autores en sus novelas, tal es el caso de Francis Scott Fitzgerald y William Faulkner.
Lawrence enfatiza su desprecio por el dinero, por el efecto corruptor que genera en el hombre y en cierto modo lo afirma a trav茅s de Melllors cuando dice "No creo en el mundo, ni en el dinero, ni en el progreso ni en el futuro de nuestra civilizaci贸n. Para que la humanidad tenga un futuro es preciso ser谩 preciso que cambie mucho con respecto a lo que ahora es. El dinero envenena cuando se tiene, y mata de hambre cuando se carece de 茅l."
Volviendo a la historia de Constance, Clifford y Mellors, destaco nuevamente la osad铆a y la valent铆a de Oliver para describir en 1928 escenas no er贸ticas sino expl铆citamente sexuales, durante los encuentros de Connie con su amante el guardabosques, dado que entendamos lo que signific贸 para Inglaterra, un pa铆s conservador, flem谩tico y muy pacato en lo que a la tem谩tica de la sexualidad ata帽e, encontrarse con una novela de este calibre en la segunda d茅cada del siglo XX.
Al abordar tambi茅n su visi贸n particular de la naturaleza de las mujeres, el autor tambi茅n se meti贸 en problemas, especialmente con aquellos grupos de feministas quienes lo destrozaron p煤blica y literariamente al sentirse atacadas por frases como esta: "Cuando una mujer queda absolutamente pose铆da por su voluntad, con la proa contra todo se transforma en un ser temible al que debiera estar permitido matar a tiros."
Es indudablemente que frases como esta iban a caer mal y debido a esto sacaron a la luz la condici贸n homosexual de Lawrence para difamarlo y denigrarlo p煤blicamente. La novela tuvo tres versiones distintas hasta que con el correr de los a帽os (y del progreso mental de mucha gente) se public贸 sin censuras tal como la podemos leer hoy.
Como 煤nico punto flojo de esta novela puedo decir que en cierto modo el final es muy abrupto y abierto, como si a Lawrence se le hubieran terminado las ideas o la posibilidad de escribir un final m谩s logrado, ya que deja la historia en suspenso y decide terminarla con una carta. Me llevar铆a mucho tiempo encontrar una novela que termine as铆, ya que en cierto modo borronea todo lo bueno que leemos en todo el resto del libro, pero que m谩s all谩 de todo, deja bien claro que como sostengo al principio, "El amante de lady Chatterley" es pionera, pol茅mica, escandalosa y arriesgada, pero sobre todas las cosas, digna de ser le铆da.
January 18, 2025
Is love all, nothing else matters , no rules, customs, loyalty and the old-fashioned if you excuse me, word, morals. In Lady Chatterley's Lover this is the presumed subject of the 1928 controversial book by the British writer D.H. Lawrence, banned as too explicit and censored for forty years in America and numerous other nations. However the world never stops but it moves forward or backwards depending on your point of view but it moves. Today the novel would not cause a small ripple on a smooth , clear pond. Sir Clifford Chatterley an aristocrat, a wounded soldier of the recent World War 1, paralyzed from the waist down living in a Manor House , a beautiful wife Constance , plenty of money and servants during the roaring 20s, the age of Jazz and the Flapper, what glorious luck and happiness he enjoys...except for a little malfunction, life with be perfect. Enter our third main character the lowly gamekeeper a peasant and ardent nonconformist Oliver Mellors. He resides in a slight but comfortable shack alone, employed on Sir Clifford's estate with his dog Flossie, female naturally, still a persistent visitor eases his isolation. The unhappy, bored Lady Chatterley, starts a strange liaison not her first, and instantly commences with a lower class individual, scandalous not a proper choice , a married sensual man whose slutty wife left to be with another, a messy situation, a secret for how long? Hilda, Constance's older sister is not pleased, disgusted even but is powerless. Mrs. Bolton a widow becomes nurse to the disabled husband and soon admirer. Sounds like a silly soap opera but the real object by Mr. Lawrence is ostensibly sexual freedom, still wrong again folks, it's a male fancy of licentious indulges , silly laughable sex scenes where women become things to play with and love banded about to make them feel liberated from the outside, appalled world. The taboo is gone so is the merits of this, the philosophy doesn't compute in modern times or make sense. This classic is not that anymore but an obtuse narrative which embarrasses.
October 31, 2022
Though this maybe looked at as the book that bought sex writing to the masses, 'Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover' delivers more than just the oohs and aahs of an elicit love affair, it can also be seen as a parable of post-war England, and the steady rise in modernism. It even features a dog called Flossie. Why is this significant to me? Because I once had a childhood dog with the same name, bless her soul.
Slammed and banned for being pornographic back in the day, this caused a storm. Now it's just a small ripple in a teacup. As compared to the work of today it's sexual nature barely raises the eyebrows. It does contain many a rude word that I can image would have left folk back then with rosy red blushed cheeks. But today, I am sure even a nun wouldn't be overly shocked by it's naughty bits.
Lady Chatterley (Constance, Connie) is the bored wife of Sir Clifford, a war cripple who returns to his family estate, amid the decay and unemployment of the industrial towns in middle England.
He takes to books as a way to withdraw, and applies himself feverishly to an attempt to retrieve his coal mines by the application of different methods. He is clearly an unhappy man, who suffers inner turmoil that he can't take to pleasuring his wife. She in turn is unfulfilled, and one fine day bumps into the gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors, and feelings start to bubble up inside towards this man, whom she knows little about. Surrounded by woodland, where it's easy to wander off undetected, Connie slowly is drawn sexually to Mellors, who has his way with her, opening her to an awakening that Sir Clifford simply could not provide.
Mellors, a child of the collieries and whom also served in the forces, slips into disillusion away from his wife and leads a solitary existence with just his dog for company. Sir Clifford, who since he is unable to give Connie a child himself, accepts the fact an illegitimate child is an option. But the last person on his mind would have been Mellors, he has no inkling of his wife's affair, but is open to the idea of another man having sex with her. Does he truly love her? or is this just a ploy so he can proudly gain his heir. Does Mellors love her? or just after the sex. For Connie, difficult decisions would arise. And with her sister, takes a break to Venice to ponder on her future.
Lawrence鈥檚 treatment of his subject's is done with a manner of intelligence, and compared to the likes of an E. M. Forster, does a good job of presenting his characters as flawed and believable.
The story is raw with power, yes, but also brings to the table the age old problem of melodrama.
It's not huge, but for me, did affect the overall feel for the story. Each in their own way on a more positive note, the three main characters do carry a certain heroic dignity, a symbolical importance
that's difficult to ignore. Lawrence utilizes the self-affirmation and triumph of life in the teeth of all the destructive powers that be, industrialism, physical depletion, dissipation, careerism and cynicism鈥攐f modern England, and in general, he has given a noble account of it. There is more like two stories in one going on here, the mixture of romance and sexually explicit details and the double background of the collieries and the English forests, possesses both solid reality and poetic grandeur.
This is so much more than a novel with fruity bits, it is a work which explores how the naturalness of love and sexual attraction is distorted and perverted by society. It has me pondering a lot on the non-sexual aspects of the story. There's a lot of insight here, and plenty of social commentary, so reading this purely because of the smutty reputation it gained then prepare be disappointed.
Beautifully written for the most part, although Mellors is a hard nut to crack with his use of dialogue at times, and some aspects of the story seemed unnecessary, but just glad to have now finally read it, to see what all the fuss was about.
February 6, 2017
3.5 Stars
Well.........I can certainly see why LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER was banned soon after publication back in 1928.
So okay, you already know or anticipate that this particular classic is going to contain vulgarity and erotic situations, but for the life of me, I never thought it would be a combination of tedium and humor.
The story is rather unremarkable in itself, and pretty much given away in the book summary, so no spoiler here......
Aristocratic (and highly superior in his own mind) upperclass man marries well-to-do spoiled and free-spirited daddies girl. He goes off to war, comes back injured and impotent. Fickle, bored and depressed young wife finds comfort elsewhere.........
What will stick in my mind is not the plot or actual sexual encounters, but the many priceless conversations from 'the boys' point of view on morality, distinctions between social classes and ridiculous beliefs about intimate relationships. (Lady Chatterley's opinion of the uninspiring male physique is pretty memorable too)
Check out this quote: "I can't see I do a woman any more harm by sleeping with her than by dancing with her.....or even talking to her about the weather."......and that's just one example, but worst of all......the one exclamation that really stands out......is lover #1's exasperating ranting and raving about Lady C's prolonged mode of sexual exertions that inconvenienced him. Oh. My. God!
Anyway, my first D. H. Lawrence novel was indeed entertaining, but slow going and repetitive with not much of a storyline. Glad I finally read it though and love my Penguin Classics book cover!
September 19, 2017
Book Club Read for November for Sit in Book Club.
I finished this book only because it was a bookclub read and in order to discuss a book at meetings I really feel I need the full story. I thought this book was crap and I will try to explain my reasons why.
The Novel was banned and I do think that if it hadn't been banned this book would have had no impact what so ever and very few people would have bothered to pick it up to read.
The book was written back in the 1920s and I really do think that D H Lawerence set out to shock his readers and I can imagine for a book of its time he succeeded in doing so. The Novel really doesn't have any of the qualities of what I have come to expect a classic to have, The language is coarse, the characters boring and dull and the plot is poor. I never got a sense of time or place that a classic normally delivers. It was extremely repetitive. I don't think the book has stood the test of time for the right reasons and I cant see much of a discussion in this Novel. This is only my opinion and time will tell how the group rates the book.
A boring and dull read and didn't compare with any of the other classics I have read previously.
I finished this book only because it was a bookclub read and in order to discuss a book at meetings I really feel I need the full story. I thought this book was crap and I will try to explain my reasons why.
The Novel was banned and I do think that if it hadn't been banned this book would have had no impact what so ever and very few people would have bothered to pick it up to read.
The book was written back in the 1920s and I really do think that D H Lawerence set out to shock his readers and I can imagine for a book of its time he succeeded in doing so. The Novel really doesn't have any of the qualities of what I have come to expect a classic to have, The language is coarse, the characters boring and dull and the plot is poor. I never got a sense of time or place that a classic normally delivers. It was extremely repetitive. I don't think the book has stood the test of time for the right reasons and I cant see much of a discussion in this Novel. This is only my opinion and time will tell how the group rates the book.
A boring and dull read and didn't compare with any of the other classics I have read previously.
February 20, 2021
賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 丿賷賮賷丿 賴乇亘乇鬲 賱賵乇賳爻 賰丕賳鬲 鬲購毓丿 氐丕丿賲丞 賮賷 兀賵丕卅賱 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳
丕賴鬲賲 毓賲賵賲丕 亘丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘賲禺鬲賱賮 兀卮賰丕賱賴丕 賵禺丕氐丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱賲乇兀丞
亘噩丕賳亘 乇丐賷鬲賴 賵賳賯丿賴 賱賱兀丨賵丕賱 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賮賷 亘賱丿賴 丕賳噩賱鬲乇丕
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱賷丿賷 鬲卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賵丨丕乇爻 丕賱氐賷丿 賮賷 丕賱兀乇囟 丕賱賲賲賱賵賰丞 賱夭賵噩賴丕
賷毓乇囟 賱賵乇賳爻 丕賱鬲賵丕夭賳 亘賷賳 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱噩爻丿賷 賵丕賱毓賯賱賷 賮賷 丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳
丕賱乇睾亘丕鬲 賵丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 丕賱鬲賷 賷丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賷賴丕 賰賱 卮禺氐 亘丨爻亘 胤亘賷毓鬲賴
丨丕賱丕鬲 丕賱囟毓賮 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 賲賳 丕賱丕爻鬲丨賵丕匕 賵丕賱鬲賲賱賰 賱賱丌禺乇賷賳
賵毓乇囟 兀賷囟丕 亘賲賴丕乇丞 氐賵乇丞 毓丕賲丞 賱賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞
丕賱毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱爻丕丿丞 賲購賱丕賰 丕賱兀乇囟 賵丕賱賲賳丕噩賲, 賵丨賯賷賯丞 賳馗乇丞 賰賱 賲賳賴賲 賱賱丌禺乇
乇賵丕賷丞 賳購卮乇鬲 毓丕賲 1928 賲賰鬲賵亘丞 亘兀爻賱賵亘 賴丕丿卅 賵噩賲賷賱
廿丿丕賳丞 賱賱丨乇賵亘 賵丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱胤亘賯賷, 賵丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賳丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丕賱 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳丞
賵乇賮囟 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱匕賷 賷丿毓賵 賱賱鬲爻丕賲賷 賱賰賳賴 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲氐賳購毓 賵丕賱夭賷賮
丕賴鬲賲 毓賲賵賲丕 亘丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘賲禺鬲賱賮 兀卮賰丕賱賴丕 賵禺丕氐丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱賲乇兀丞
亘噩丕賳亘 乇丐賷鬲賴 賵賳賯丿賴 賱賱兀丨賵丕賱 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丞 賮賷 亘賱丿賴 丕賳噩賱鬲乇丕
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱賷丿賷 鬲卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賵丨丕乇爻 丕賱氐賷丿 賮賷 丕賱兀乇囟 丕賱賲賲賱賵賰丞 賱夭賵噩賴丕
賷毓乇囟 賱賵乇賳爻 丕賱鬲賵丕夭賳 亘賷賳 丕賱噩丕賳亘 丕賱噩爻丿賷 賵丕賱毓賯賱賷 賮賷 丨賷丕丞 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳
丕賱乇睾亘丕鬲 賵丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 丕賱鬲賷 賷丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賷賴丕 賰賱 卮禺氐 亘丨爻亘 胤亘賷毓鬲賴
丨丕賱丕鬲 丕賱囟毓賮 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 卮賷亍 賲賳 丕賱丕爻鬲丨賵丕匕 賵丕賱鬲賲賱賰 賱賱丌禺乇賷賳
賵毓乇囟 兀賷囟丕 亘賲賴丕乇丞 氐賵乇丞 毓丕賲丞 賱賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞
丕賱毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱爻丕丿丞 賲購賱丕賰 丕賱兀乇囟 賵丕賱賲賳丕噩賲, 賵丨賯賷賯丞 賳馗乇丞 賰賱 賲賳賴賲 賱賱丌禺乇
乇賵丕賷丞 賳購卮乇鬲 毓丕賲 1928 賲賰鬲賵亘丞 亘兀爻賱賵亘 賴丕丿卅 賵噩賲賷賱
廿丿丕賳丞 賱賱丨乇賵亘 賵丕賱鬲賲賷賷夭 丕賱胤亘賯賷, 賵丕賱鬲毓丕賱賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賳丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丕賱 賵丕賱賲賰丕賳丞
賵乇賮囟 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱匕賷 賷丿毓賵 賱賱鬲爻丕賲賷 賱賰賳賴 賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲氐賳購毓 賵丕賱夭賷賮
September 10, 2007
I bought this book in high school because it was cheap and I thought that because I was going to be a big, bad Enlglish major in college, I should probably expand my literary repertoire. I also thought it might be a little racy, given the title, which piqued my interest. Fast forward seven and a half years and I am now a big, bad graduate of American Studies (Chaucer killed me on the spot, and I changed majors immediately), and I had yet to read this book. I picked it up off my shelf about 2 weeks ago, and had trouble putting it down until I was finished. I love this book for its philsophical interrogation of the class system, which even 80 years later is still quite relevant, and because it questions what true love really is. Is it physical? Is it mental? Can you have one without the other? It's not perfectly written, and some parts are a little too stream of consciousness for my liking, but overall, it really moved me in a weird way. And, yes, it's quite racy, even by today's standards. No wonder it was banned until 1960!
July 29, 2008
Okay, DH, so I was sort of with you at the beginning. I was amused by or interested in watching you create a tale that seemed to be a love child of the Lost Gen and existentialist authors that instead turned out a rebelliously nostalgic Romantic, a perverted Wordsworth in a Bacchanalian temple. I rolled my eyes at, yet went along with, the endless repetition, of "everything is nothing," by your twit of a main character, Connie, or at poor Sir Clifford who builds endless castles of theories in the air to escape every basic feeling in his life, or even at first the brooding, fighting "hero," in Oliver Mellors. I excused it as Lost Gen disillusionment, a depiction of people afraid to feel after the masses' passion overflowed in the horror that was WWI. I was even sort of rooting for you against the cold, cold people who can't let go enough to feel something. The one thing I did like was the way you could conjure up ecstatic joy in earthiness. I'm on board with that.
But unfortunately, after the love scene/pagan naming ceremony of which we shall not speak, and the comments about how women with "too much will" are lesbians and/or invalid women somehow, you made the ecstatic love you celebrated absolutely ridiculous by the end. I can't even bring myself to discuss that last scene in the book, but if you've read it you know what our payoff was. Really? Really?
The obscenity trials are the best thing that ever happened to this book.
But unfortunately, after the love scene/pagan naming ceremony of which we shall not speak, and the comments about how women with "too much will" are lesbians and/or invalid women somehow, you made the ecstatic love you celebrated absolutely ridiculous by the end. I can't even bring myself to discuss that last scene in the book, but if you've read it you know what our payoff was. Really? Really?
The obscenity trials are the best thing that ever happened to this book.
April 14, 2025
鈥淭here's a bad time coming, boys, there's a bad time coming! If things go on as they are, there's nothing lies in the future but death and destruction, for these industrial masses.鈥�
I first read Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover when I was 14, in 1967. I felt I had to hide it well from my mother, so kept it between my mattresses. It was the first book I read with explicit sexual passages, and the first time I had read words no one in my house or neighborhood yet used, visceral words used proudly and unashamedly to describe what were for Lawrence holy acts and body parts. But the first third of it is not focused on sex; much of it describes conversations among characters about politics, art, class, and sure, sex. Lawrence connected the dots between industrialization, certain aspects of masculinity we now call "toxic", class, war, in conflict with and shaping the arts, love, relationships, and sex. Huh? This guy the literary establishment now largely dismisses for various reasons may still remind us of where we went wrong. First published privately in 1928, it was banned in many countries. In 1960 there was an obscenity trial with this book at the center, and the publisher, Penguin, won their case, after which it sold 3 million copies in the first year.
Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles鈥� first LP鈥擯hilip Larkin
Lady Chatterley was born Connie Reid, raised as an upper-middle class bohemian, familiar early on with free love/affairs and a generally liberal approach to politics and social ideas. In 1917 (with WWI still on), she marries Clifford Chatterley, an aristocrat who goes to war one month after they are married, and is paralyzed from the waist down, impotent. He becomes a successful writer, he becomes a coal baron, and drifts apart from Connie, who hates her husband鈥檚 writing, and the coal industry, especially what owners do to workers. She has a short, unsatisfying affair with Michaelis, a playwright, but finds her ideal physical and spiritual man in Oliver Mellors, the gamekeeper on Chatterley's estate, also newly returned from serving in the army.
Mellors was well-educated, but he came back from the war to separate from an unsatisfactory relationship with his wife Bertha, and live alone鈥攚ithout women, but also outside of society and its empty materialism. He chooses to live as a working-class man, and to speak in the manner of his Darby upbringing and to be honest about his preference for the body and nature over the life of the mind and society. He and Connie choose each other, and begin an affair that is still well known in literary fiction for good reason. Sexual healing! And in a hut, not a mansion! Better?! Obviously!
Roughly 100 years later we are aware of some of his ideas as not quite up to contemporary feminist standards, but Connie chooses him because he is tender-hearted as lover and generally as a man. And socialist, anti-materialist; oh, and the kind of lover she is looking for. The original title of the book was Tenderness, and this is the central theme of the novel for relationships and society, the feeling of complete yielding and sensitivity to each other that can happen in a tender-hearted relationship.
So what does the roughly cynical and somewhat callous Mellors believe, finally?
鈥淚 believe in that little flame between us.鈥� This 鈥渇lame鈥� was created by mutually satisfying sex and nurtured through 鈥渢enderness.鈥�
Mellors is initially skeptical that a woman with as much money as Connie could ultimately give it all up for him, but in time they both see that their passionate relationship can set them apart from society and feed each other鈥檚 needs. Sex is seen as pure creativity, as a kind of sacrament.
Some other themes that are familiar in Lawrence here: Body is better than mind; nature is better than machines; materialism, money, and the greed of the upper classes are destroying the planet. How to regenerate? Good democratic relationships, integrity, wholeness. Anarchism, socialism, communism as alternatives to capitalism. Class issues are addressed throughout. Lawrence sides with the working class, for sure.
鈥淭heir whole life depends on spending money, and now they鈥檝e got none to spend. That鈥檚 our civilization and our education: bring up the masses to depend entirely on spending money, and then the money gives out.鈥�
鈥淚f you could only tell them that living and spending isn't the same thing! But it's no good. If only they were educated to live instead of earn and spend, they could manage very happily. . .鈥�
Obscenity? Two, to my mind even better Lawrence books, The Rainbow and Women in Love also were seen as pornographic. So at one point Mellors redefines obscenity in his own terms in this book:
鈥淥bscenity only comes in when the mind despises and fears the body, and the body hates and resists the mind.鈥�
After being accused of writing pornography in those earlier books, D. H. Lawrence defiantly makes his most explicit book. Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover was inspired by Frieda von Richthofen, who left her husband to marry Lawrence. But it鈥檚 less romance than a commentary on contemporary society in case you wanted more of a steamy romance. Lots of social criticism undermine that buzz, sorry.
鈥淭here, in the world of the mechanical greedy, greedy mechanism and mechanized greed, sparkling with lights and gushing hot metal and roaring with traffic, there lay the vast evil thing, ready to destroy whatever did not conform. Soon it would destroy the wood, and the bluebells would spring no more. All vulnerable things must perish under the rolling and running of iron.鈥�
I think The Rainbow and Women in Love are better books, but I still think this is a great book. It introduced me, as a young teen, looking for obscenity, to, well, that, for sure, but also to a world of ideas perfect for growing up in the sixties with its exploration of alternatives to racism and materialism and war. Make love, not war, was the sixties cry, back to nature, and this book was an anthem to those cries. Love one another? Lawrence saw it would save us all from war and the alienation of civilization. Huh! Maybe he had something, there.
I first read Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover when I was 14, in 1967. I felt I had to hide it well from my mother, so kept it between my mattresses. It was the first book I read with explicit sexual passages, and the first time I had read words no one in my house or neighborhood yet used, visceral words used proudly and unashamedly to describe what were for Lawrence holy acts and body parts. But the first third of it is not focused on sex; much of it describes conversations among characters about politics, art, class, and sure, sex. Lawrence connected the dots between industrialization, certain aspects of masculinity we now call "toxic", class, war, in conflict with and shaping the arts, love, relationships, and sex. Huh? This guy the literary establishment now largely dismisses for various reasons may still remind us of where we went wrong. First published privately in 1928, it was banned in many countries. In 1960 there was an obscenity trial with this book at the center, and the publisher, Penguin, won their case, after which it sold 3 million copies in the first year.
Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the "Chatterley" ban
And the Beatles鈥� first LP鈥擯hilip Larkin
Lady Chatterley was born Connie Reid, raised as an upper-middle class bohemian, familiar early on with free love/affairs and a generally liberal approach to politics and social ideas. In 1917 (with WWI still on), she marries Clifford Chatterley, an aristocrat who goes to war one month after they are married, and is paralyzed from the waist down, impotent. He becomes a successful writer, he becomes a coal baron, and drifts apart from Connie, who hates her husband鈥檚 writing, and the coal industry, especially what owners do to workers. She has a short, unsatisfying affair with Michaelis, a playwright, but finds her ideal physical and spiritual man in Oliver Mellors, the gamekeeper on Chatterley's estate, also newly returned from serving in the army.
Mellors was well-educated, but he came back from the war to separate from an unsatisfactory relationship with his wife Bertha, and live alone鈥攚ithout women, but also outside of society and its empty materialism. He chooses to live as a working-class man, and to speak in the manner of his Darby upbringing and to be honest about his preference for the body and nature over the life of the mind and society. He and Connie choose each other, and begin an affair that is still well known in literary fiction for good reason. Sexual healing! And in a hut, not a mansion! Better?! Obviously!
Roughly 100 years later we are aware of some of his ideas as not quite up to contemporary feminist standards, but Connie chooses him because he is tender-hearted as lover and generally as a man. And socialist, anti-materialist; oh, and the kind of lover she is looking for. The original title of the book was Tenderness, and this is the central theme of the novel for relationships and society, the feeling of complete yielding and sensitivity to each other that can happen in a tender-hearted relationship.
So what does the roughly cynical and somewhat callous Mellors believe, finally?
鈥淚 believe in that little flame between us.鈥� This 鈥渇lame鈥� was created by mutually satisfying sex and nurtured through 鈥渢enderness.鈥�
Mellors is initially skeptical that a woman with as much money as Connie could ultimately give it all up for him, but in time they both see that their passionate relationship can set them apart from society and feed each other鈥檚 needs. Sex is seen as pure creativity, as a kind of sacrament.
Some other themes that are familiar in Lawrence here: Body is better than mind; nature is better than machines; materialism, money, and the greed of the upper classes are destroying the planet. How to regenerate? Good democratic relationships, integrity, wholeness. Anarchism, socialism, communism as alternatives to capitalism. Class issues are addressed throughout. Lawrence sides with the working class, for sure.
鈥淭heir whole life depends on spending money, and now they鈥檝e got none to spend. That鈥檚 our civilization and our education: bring up the masses to depend entirely on spending money, and then the money gives out.鈥�
鈥淚f you could only tell them that living and spending isn't the same thing! But it's no good. If only they were educated to live instead of earn and spend, they could manage very happily. . .鈥�
Obscenity? Two, to my mind even better Lawrence books, The Rainbow and Women in Love also were seen as pornographic. So at one point Mellors redefines obscenity in his own terms in this book:
鈥淥bscenity only comes in when the mind despises and fears the body, and the body hates and resists the mind.鈥�
After being accused of writing pornography in those earlier books, D. H. Lawrence defiantly makes his most explicit book. Lady Chatterley鈥檚 Lover was inspired by Frieda von Richthofen, who left her husband to marry Lawrence. But it鈥檚 less romance than a commentary on contemporary society in case you wanted more of a steamy romance. Lots of social criticism undermine that buzz, sorry.
鈥淭here, in the world of the mechanical greedy, greedy mechanism and mechanized greed, sparkling with lights and gushing hot metal and roaring with traffic, there lay the vast evil thing, ready to destroy whatever did not conform. Soon it would destroy the wood, and the bluebells would spring no more. All vulnerable things must perish under the rolling and running of iron.鈥�
I think The Rainbow and Women in Love are better books, but I still think this is a great book. It introduced me, as a young teen, looking for obscenity, to, well, that, for sure, but also to a world of ideas perfect for growing up in the sixties with its exploration of alternatives to racism and materialism and war. Make love, not war, was the sixties cry, back to nature, and this book was an anthem to those cries. Love one another? Lawrence saw it would save us all from war and the alienation of civilization. Huh! Maybe he had something, there.
September 29, 2024
Love is the music that persuades us to dance in another's arms. Listen. Can you hear it? To some it is as long as symphonies full of violins. To others it is a quick drum beat made with bare hands. Two whistled notes might make one person jump and whirl like a top. For someone else, love is a more intricate tune. This book is a testimony to that.
D. H. Lawrence lets us into the most private moments which apart from death anyone can have. He makes us look into that hut in the woods where these lovers lie. And in the mud, too. Oh, but the flowers! There are so many and such different kinds.
It's not an easy read. Some passages, I'll admit, took me several tries. But it is worth the effort. Ours as readers. His as a writer. Lawrence claims he wanted to call it "Tenderness." That surprised me at first. Then, I thought it's true. "To me," Lawrence has said, "it is beautiful and tender and frail as the naked self is." He didn't mention any music. That's for us to imagine.
D. H. Lawrence lets us into the most private moments which apart from death anyone can have. He makes us look into that hut in the woods where these lovers lie. And in the mud, too. Oh, but the flowers! There are so many and such different kinds.
It's not an easy read. Some passages, I'll admit, took me several tries. But it is worth the effort. Ours as readers. His as a writer. Lawrence claims he wanted to call it "Tenderness." That surprised me at first. Then, I thought it's true. "To me," Lawrence has said, "it is beautiful and tender and frail as the naked self is." He didn't mention any music. That's for us to imagine.
January 25, 2023
Pu貌 sembrare un romance, ma nulla di pi霉 lontano.
脠 a tutti gli effetti una denuncia verso la societ脿 patriarcale dell'inizio 900.
Si parla di rivendicazione del proprio corpo e della propria voce, di essere pi霉 di una moglie o di un organo in grado di generare eredi, di piacere femminile, di salute mentale e di abbandono.
Pubblicato inizialmente nel 1928, messo al bando per poi essere ripubblicato solo nel 1960 (30 anni dopo la morte dell'autore), parla di aborto, precauzione anticoncezionale e fecondazione in vitro. Contiene contenuti sessuali, anche se presentati con linguaggio aulico e mai troppo esplicito, ma credo che il vero motivo per cui fosse stato bandito dipese dalla relazione adulterina tra la moglie di un nobile e un uomo appartenente alla classe lavoratrice.
Una scrittura a tratti troppo lenta e a tratti frenetica. L'interpretazione di Alberto Onofrietti (Audible) 猫 molto godibile, ma non fa miracoli nei paragrafi pi霉 descrittivi.
Ho odiato ogni personaggio maschile in questo libro, compreso Mellors.
Nel complesso 猫 un libro che mi ha fatto pensare, ma che mi ha lasciato non poco interdetta. Non credo di averlo amato, ma nemmeno odiato.
3 stelle piene
脠 a tutti gli effetti una denuncia verso la societ脿 patriarcale dell'inizio 900.
Si parla di rivendicazione del proprio corpo e della propria voce, di essere pi霉 di una moglie o di un organo in grado di generare eredi, di piacere femminile, di salute mentale e di abbandono.
Pubblicato inizialmente nel 1928, messo al bando per poi essere ripubblicato solo nel 1960 (30 anni dopo la morte dell'autore), parla di aborto, precauzione anticoncezionale e fecondazione in vitro. Contiene contenuti sessuali, anche se presentati con linguaggio aulico e mai troppo esplicito, ma credo che il vero motivo per cui fosse stato bandito dipese dalla relazione adulterina tra la moglie di un nobile e un uomo appartenente alla classe lavoratrice.
Una scrittura a tratti troppo lenta e a tratti frenetica. L'interpretazione di Alberto Onofrietti (Audible) 猫 molto godibile, ma non fa miracoli nei paragrafi pi霉 descrittivi.
Ho odiato ogni personaggio maschile in questo libro, compreso Mellors.
Nel complesso 猫 un libro che mi ha fatto pensare, ma che mi ha lasciato non poco interdetta. Non credo di averlo amato, ma nemmeno odiato.
3 stelle piene
September 4, 2022
I only had 26% left of this book but I feel myself struggling with almost everybook I currently reading and it's not doing so great with my mental health. So for that reason I've decided to pick about 5 away. I have a tendency to continue books I don't feel completely hooked on but sometimes it's not just worth it
---
3.5 stars. Constance Chatterley is stuck in a marriage that isn't intimate in anyway. Not mentally and not sexually. She yearns it and finds it with another man. When this was published in 1928 this was shocking and taboo (a woman having sexually desire? Oh my) and banned in many countries for the constant. But not surprisingly its not extreme nowdays. Maybe the cheating part but quite understandable taking the context to the time it was written and the little progress women's life had progressed. I liked the themes and so on. But I didn't find it very entertaining to read but I'm very glad I've read it. I confused this book with madam bovery, that I've read years ago and therefore thought I've already read it. It wasn't until it didn't end as I suspected that I realised it was a complete different book.
---
3.5 stars. Constance Chatterley is stuck in a marriage that isn't intimate in anyway. Not mentally and not sexually. She yearns it and finds it with another man. When this was published in 1928 this was shocking and taboo (a woman having sexually desire? Oh my) and banned in many countries for the constant. But not surprisingly its not extreme nowdays. Maybe the cheating part but quite understandable taking the context to the time it was written and the little progress women's life had progressed. I liked the themes and so on. But I didn't find it very entertaining to read but I'm very glad I've read it. I confused this book with madam bovery, that I've read years ago and therefore thought I've already read it. It wasn't until it didn't end as I suspected that I realised it was a complete different book.
February 23, 2021
丕賱賱賷丿賷 賰賵賳賷 锟斤拷卮丕鬲乇賱賷 , 丕賲乇兀丞 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 , 賵夭賵噩丞 賱賱爻賷乇 鬲卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賵賴賵 賲丕賱賰 丕乇囟 賮賷 丕賳噩賱鬲乇丕
賮賷 爻賳 23 貙 鬲夭賵噩鬲 賰賵賳賷 賲賳 賰賱賷賮賱賵乇丿 貙 賵 亘毓丿 卮賴乇 丕賱毓爻賱 貙 兀購乇爻賱 廿賱賶 丕賱丨乇亘 貙 賵毓丕丿 賲卮賱賵賱賸丕 賲賳 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱爻賮賱賷 賱噩爻丿賴 賱賷氐亘丨 兀爻賷乇丕 賱賰乇爻賷 丕賱毓噩賱丕鬲貙 賵毓丕噩夭丕 毓賳 兀丿丕亍 賵丕噩亘丕鬲賴 丕賱夭賵噩賷丞
賷鬲丨賵賱 賰賱賷賮賵乇丿 賱賱賰鬲丕亘丞 賱賷氐亘丨 賰丕鬲亘賸丕 賳丕噩丨賸丕 貙 亘賷賳賲丕 鬲卮毓乇 賰賵賳賷 亘丕賱毓夭賱丞 賵丕賱賵丨丿丞
鬲鬲賵賯 賰賵賳賷 賱賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 廿鬲氐丕賱 亘卮乇賷 丨賯賷賯賷 賵毓賱丕賯丞 噩賲賷賱丞 毓丕胤賮賷丞
鬲夭丿丕丿 丕賱賲爻丕賮丞 亘賷賳 賰賵賳賷 賵賰賱賷賮賱賵乇丿 丕賱匕賷 丕氐亘丨 賴賵爻賴 鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱賳噩丕丨 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴 , 賱鬲賳賲賵 賮噩賵丞 亘賷賳賴賲丕 毓丕胤賮賷賸丕 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 丕賱鬲賯丕乇亘 丕賱賮賰乇賷 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇賷 亘賷賳賴賲丕
賮賷 丕賱賮乇丕睾 賵丕賱賵丨丿丞 丕賱毓丕胤賮賷丞 丕賱匕賷 鬲毓賷卮賴 賰賵賳賷 貙 賷馗賴乇 丨丕乇爻 睾丕亘丞 丕乇囟 夭賵噩賴丕 兀賵賱賷賮乇 賲賷賱賵乇夭
. 賲賷賱賵乇夭 卮禺氐賷丞 匕丕鬲 胤亘賷毓丞 賲賳毓夭賱丞 賵爻丕禺乇丞貙 毓丕丿 賲賳 丕賱丨乇亘 丨丿賷孬賸丕 賵賵噩丿 毓賲賱 賷鬲賳毓賲 賮賷賴 亘賵噩賵丿賴 賱賵丨丿賴 丿賵賳 丕囟馗乇丕乇賴 賱賱鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 丕賱亘卮乇
賲毓 丕賱賵賯鬲 , 鬲卮毓乇 賰賵賳賷 亘賮囟賵賱 賵廿賳噩匕丕亘 賱賴 亘賳亘賱賴 賵毓夭賱鬲賴 丕賱賴丕丿卅丞
鬲亘丿兀 卮毓賱丞 睾乇賷亘丞 亘賷賳賴賲丕 , 賵鬲亘丿兀 賰賵賳賷 賮賷 夭賷丕乇丕鬲賴丕 丕賱賲鬲賰乇乇丞 賱賱賰賵禺 丕賱匕賷 賷毓賷卮 賮賷賴 賲賷賱賵夭 賱鬲氐丕丨亘賴 亘乇丕丨丞 賱賵丨丿賴賲丕
鬲賳卮兀 亘賷賳賴賲丕 毓賱丕賯丞 丨賲賷賲賷丞 賮賷 兀丨囟丕賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 賵賷亘丿丌賳 賲毓丕賸 丨賷丕丞 噩丿賷丿丞
賱賰賳 賲丕鬲夭丕賱 賴賳丕賰 賲爻丕賮丞 鬲賮氐賱 亘賷賳賴賲丕
毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 匕賱賰 , 鬲乇賷丿 賰賵賳賷 丕賳 鬲丨賲賱 亘胤賮賱 賲賳 賲賷賱賵乇夭 , 賱兀賳賴 亘賳馗乇賴丕 乇噩賱 丨賯賷賯賷 , 毓賱賶 毓賰爻 丕賱賲孬賯賮賷賳 丕賱禺丕賱賷賷賳 賲賳 丕賱毓賵丕胤賮 亘丿賵賳 丕賱氐賮丕鬲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賲賳 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賷丕 賲孬賱 夭賵噩賴丕 , 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷賲丕賳毓 丕賳 鬲丨馗賶 夭賵噩鬲賴 亘毓賱丕賯丕鬲 毓丕胤賮賷丞 丕禺乇賶 賵丨鬲賶 亘丕賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賶 胤賮賱 賲賳 丕丨丿賶 毓賱丕賯丕鬲賴丕 賱賷噩毓賱賴 賵乇賷孬 賱賴 , 亘卮乇胤 丕賳 賱丕 賷毓乇賮 賲賳 賴賵 丕賱兀亘 賵丕賱丨賮丕馗 毓賱賶 賳馗丕賲 丨賷丕鬲賴賲丕
毓賳丿賲丕 鬲毓噩亘鬲 賰賵賳賷 賲賳 鬲賮賰賷乇 賰賱賷賮賱賵乇丿 亘賴匕賴 丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 賵亘毓丿賲 丕乇丕丿鬲賴 亘賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱兀亘 , 賮爻乇 賱賴丕 兀賳賴 賷孬賯 亘胤亘賷毓鬲賴丕 賮賷 丕賱廿丨鬲卮丕賲 賵丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕亍貙 亘兀賳賴丕 賱賳 鬲丿毓 丕賱賳賵毓 丕賱丿賳賷亍 賲賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賷賱賲爻賴丕 , 賵丕賱賳賵毓 丕賱丿賳賷亍 賲賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賮賷 賳馗乇賴 賱賷爻 賮賰乇賷賸丕 丕賵 丕禺賱丕賯賷賸丕 , 亘賱 丕賱丿賳賷亍 亘丕賱賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賵丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷 亘賰賵賳賴 禺丕乇噩 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱丕乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞 賵 兀丨丿 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賵 丕賱毓丕賲賱賷賳
丨賷賳賲丕 丨丕賵賱 賱賵乇賳爻 賳卮乇 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 乇賮囟 丕賱賳丕卮乇賷賳 毓賲賱賴貙 亘丨噩丞 丕賱廿亘丕丨賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賵氐賮 亘賴丕 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱丨賲賷賲丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賱賷丿賷 鬲卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賵毓卮賷賯賴丕貙 賲賲丕 丿賮毓賴 廿賱賶 胤亘丕毓鬲賴丕 爻乇丕 賵鬲賵夭賷毓賴丕 , 孬賲 兀毓丕丿 賰鬲丕亘鬲賴丕 賲乇丞 孬丕賳賷丞 賵孬丕賱孬丞 賵兀氐乇 毓賱賶 毓丿賲 丨匕賮 兀賷 賰賱賲丞 賲賳 乇賵丕賷鬲賴
賰丕賳 賱賵乇賻賳爻 賷賰乇賴 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞 丕賱廿賳噩賱賷夭賷丞 賵丕賱鬲丨賷夭 丕賱胤亘賯賷 賵丕賱丕丨鬲卮丕賲 丕賱賲鬲賰賱賮 賮賷 丕賱丨丿賷孬 毓賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱丨賲賷賲賷丞
鬲丿賵乇 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 亘亘爻丕胤丞 毓賳 胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 亘賷賳 丕賱乇噩賱 賵丕賱賲乇兀丞貙 賵氐乇丕毓 丕賱丨亘 賵丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賵氐乇丕毓 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞
毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱丨亘 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 鬲賲乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賲馗丕賴乇 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲囟毓 賮賵丕氐賱 賵賮賵丕乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賯丕賱賷丿 丕賱夭丕卅賮丞 賵丕賱鬲氐賳毓 賵丕賱鬲賷 賮毓賱賷賸丕 亘爻亘亘賴丕 鬲賲 賲賳毓 賳卮乇 乇賵丕賷鬲賴 賱丕 賱噩乇兀鬲賴丕 丕賵 鬲卮噩賷毓賴丕 賱賱賮噩賵乇 賵禺丿卮 丕賱丨賷丕亍 賱兀賳 賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 賰丕賳鬲 爻丕卅丿丞 賮賷 丕賵乇賵亘丕 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賱夭賲賳 , 亘賱 賱鬲丨胤賷賲賴丕 丕賱丨賵丕噩夭 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 亘賰鬲丕亘丞 乇賵丕賷丞 賮賷賴丕 毓賱丕賯丞 鬲噩賲毓 亘賷賳 夭賵噩丞 爻賷丿 廿乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 乇賮賷毓 丕賱賲賰丕賳丞 亘丨丕乇爻 毓丕丿賷 賲賳 丕賱毓丕賲丞 賵賮賷 匕賱賰 丕賴丕賳丞 賱賴匕丕 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱廿乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷
毓噩夭 賰賱賷賮賵乇丿 噩丕亍 乇賲夭賷賸丕 亘丕賱卮賱賱 , 賰丕賳 丕賱卮賱賱 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷 賴賵 卮賱賱 賲卮丕毓乇賴 賵胤乇賷賯丞 鬲賮賰賷乇賴 丕賱毓賯賷賲丞 毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 賰賵賳賴 賰丕鬲亘 賲孬賯賮 賵賱賰賳 賰丕賳 賱賴 賮賰乇 毓賳氐乇賷 胤亘賯賷 賷馗賳 丕賳 丕賱毓丕賲賱賷賳 賲噩乇丿 丕賱丌鬲 賵丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賱廿賲孬丕賱賴 賲賳 丕賱兀孬乇賷丕亍 賵丕氐丨丕亘 丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 賵丕賱兀乇丕囟賷 賵賰丕賳 賷禺賷賮賴 鬲賰賵賷賳 毓賱丕賯丕鬲 鬲鬲毓丿賶 丨丿賵丿 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞
鬲睾丕囟賷賴 毓賳 乇睾亘丞 賰賵賳賷 丕賱賲賱丨丞 亘賵噩賵丿 毓賱丕賯丞 丨爻賷丞 毓丕胤賮賷丞 亘賷賳賴賲丕 賰丕賳 毓噩夭 丕禺乇 賵賱丕 毓賱丕賯丞 賱賴匕丕 賮賯胤 亘廿賴賲丕賱賴 賱賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱丨賲賷賲賷丞 亘賷賳 丕賱夭賵噩賷賳 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 卮賱賱賴 , 賮賴賵 賳賮乇 賲賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賵丕賱丨爻賷丞 賵丕賱賮賷夭賷丕卅賷丞 亘毓丿 卮賱賱賴 賵丕乇睾賲 賰賵賳賷 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賰鬲賮丕亍 亘丕賱毓賱丕賯丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 亘賷賳賴賲丕
賵賱賷夭賷丨 毓賳賴 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱匕賳亘 賱丨乇賲丕賳賴丕 賲賳 丕賱丨亘 賵丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 鬲丨鬲丕噩賴丕 , 爻賲丨 賱賴丕 亘兀賳 鬲丨馗賶 亘丕賷 毓賱丕賯丞 鬲乇賷丿 賲毓 兀賷 乇噩賱 兀禺乇 賵賴賷 毓賱賶 匕賲鬲賴 賮兀賵賴賲 賳賮爻賴 丕賳賴丕 丕匕丕 丕卮亘毓鬲 丨丕噩鬲賴丕 丕賱噩爻丿賷丞 賵丕乇丕丨鬲賴 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱毓亘卅 爻鬲賰賵賳 爻毓賷丿丞 賵賲賰鬲賮賷丞 賵爻鬲亘賯賶 賲毓賴 賱賱兀亘丿
賴匕賴 丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱賮馗賷毓丞 亘賴匕丕 丕賱毓賲乇 丕賱氐睾賷乇 噩毓賱鬲 賰賵賳賷 噩丕卅毓丞 賱賱丨亘 賵丕賱毓丕胤賮丞 賲毓 乇噩賱 丨賯賷賯賷 賷丨亘賴丕 賵賱丕 賷鬲禺賱賶 毓賳賴丕
賰丕賳鬲 丕賱賱賷丿賷 鬲卮丕鬲乇賱賷 鬲乇賶 賳賮爻賴丕 鬲卮賷禺 賵噩爻丿賴丕 賷匕亘賱 賮賷 丕賱亘賷鬲 丕賱廿乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賴匕丕
乇賵丨賴丕 賵噩爻丿賴丕 賰丕賳丕 賷賳鬲毓卮丕賳 賵賷毓賵丿丕賳 賱賱丨賷丕丞 賮賷 睾丕亘丞 丕賱丨丕乇爻
賴匕賴 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 鬲毓賰爻 賳馗乇丞 賱賵乇賳爻 亘兀賳賴 賷乇賶 丕賳 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱氐賳丕毓賷 賵丕賱胤亘賯賷 賲賲賷鬲 賵丕鬲亘丕毓 丕賱睾乇丕卅夭 丕賱毓丕胤賮賷丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵丿 賱賱丨亘 賴賷 丕賱丨丕噩丞 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷丞 賱賱乇噩丕賱 賵丕賱賳爻丕亍 .
亘丕賱賳賴丕賷丞 賷噩亘 丕賳 賷賰賵賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 睾賷乇 爻胤丨賷 賵丕賳 賷賮乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱廿亘丕丨賷 丕賱乇禺賷氐 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賮賰乇丞 賲賳賴 賵丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱噩乇賷亍 丕賱匕賷 丕鬲賶 賲賳 賲噩鬲賲毓 賵毓丕賱賲 賱丕 賷卮亘賴 毓丕賱賲賳丕 亘賮賰乇丞 賲毓賷賳丞
丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 鬲鬲賲丨賵乇 丨賵賱 毓賱丕賯丞 睾賷乇 卮乇毓賷丞 賵賴賷 丕賲乇 睾賷乇 賲賯亘賵賱 丕禺賱丕賯賷賸丕 賵丿賷賳賷賸丕 賷噩亘 丕賳 賳賮乇賯 亘賷賳 賮賰乇丞 賯亘賵賱 丨丿賵孬 賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲 賵鬲卮噩賷毓賴丕 賵賮賰乇丞 賯乇丕卅鬲賴丕 賵丕禺匕 丕賱賮丕卅丿丞 賵丕賱噩賲丕賱 丕賱毓丕胤賮賷 賲賳賴丕 亘丿賵賳 丕氐丿丕乇 丕賱兀丨賰丕賲 賵丕賱鬲賴賵賷賱 賮賲丕 賳賯乇兀 賴賵 亘丕賱賮毓賱 賷丨丿孬 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱賵丕賯毓賷丞
September 12, 2019
Before I can say anything about the novel, I have to talk about the novel's first paragraph. I love novel openings sometimes more than I love novels themselves. This novel has one of the best first paragraphs ever, to be ranked with "A Tale of Two Cities".
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen."
It almost seems like this is a first paragraph for another novel entirely -- certainly not a novel about bored housewives and sexual affairs. The first paragraph, of course, is a reference to the end of WWI, but it could speak to any of a number of times...the end of the French Revolution, the end of the Second World War, or even our own times. It is certainly not a paragraph about ennui.
But in the wake of that first paragraph, I do need to think about the novel as a complete novel...and in this way, I feel like the first paragraph is an obstacle, because this is a novel about ennui, sexual desire, married life...and at times, also about class antagonisms and the relentlessness of progress.
This latter themes -- class antagonism and the relentlessness of modernity -- clearly put the book in its late 1920s milieu. Presumably, the book was finished before the start of the Great Depression. But you can see the anxieties about the onset of the industrial world. You can see the intellectual class's mixed feelings toward Bolshevism. These themes come out in rich -- and often moralizing -- language.
"This is history. One England blots out another. The mines had made the halls wealthy. Now they were blotting them out as they had already blotted out the cottages. The industrial England blots out the agricultural England. One meaning blots out another. The new England blots out the old England. And the continuity is not organic, but mechanical."
How would we write this passage today?
"This is (e)history (as seen from an updated Wikipedia post, which may or may not have been written by a hack). One world (digital) blots out another (analog). Now the anonymous "they" were posting their messages over truth. Now data wrangling was used to make truth anolog, disposable. The digital was blotting out the world. Fake, truth, digital, analog...in the great tide of (e)history, everyone's worlds were becoming private, mobile, cellular, applications to consume, worlds were becoming endlessly self-referential. There was no continuity, only the endless stream of streaming data that refused to flow in any kind of logic the (analog) world had known."
Is that how D.H. Lawrence would have written about our times. LOL :) #D.H. Lawrence Deletes his Facebook Account ;)
And, even in the shadow of the book's great first paragraph, I feel like the book is a great one.
It is, however, excessively ponderous in its word choice...it is full of internal monologue, narration (telling not showing), romantic language...it is a modern book written in Victorian language.
...for me, this is fine. Because modern writing, which frowns on the excessive and unnecessary often leaves me unfulfilled (not unlike Lady Chatterley). A book about dirty, sordid sex, shouldn't be too modern...it should smack of the Victorian.
A final word about D.H. Lawrence -- I wonder how women feel about this book. If he does succeed at writing the character of Lady Chatterley, if women think he pulls this off as good as or better than female writers, then he has really done something marvelous as a writer -- something I'm not sure I'd be able to pull off myself.
"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen."
It almost seems like this is a first paragraph for another novel entirely -- certainly not a novel about bored housewives and sexual affairs. The first paragraph, of course, is a reference to the end of WWI, but it could speak to any of a number of times...the end of the French Revolution, the end of the Second World War, or even our own times. It is certainly not a paragraph about ennui.
But in the wake of that first paragraph, I do need to think about the novel as a complete novel...and in this way, I feel like the first paragraph is an obstacle, because this is a novel about ennui, sexual desire, married life...and at times, also about class antagonisms and the relentlessness of progress.
This latter themes -- class antagonism and the relentlessness of modernity -- clearly put the book in its late 1920s milieu. Presumably, the book was finished before the start of the Great Depression. But you can see the anxieties about the onset of the industrial world. You can see the intellectual class's mixed feelings toward Bolshevism. These themes come out in rich -- and often moralizing -- language.
"This is history. One England blots out another. The mines had made the halls wealthy. Now they were blotting them out as they had already blotted out the cottages. The industrial England blots out the agricultural England. One meaning blots out another. The new England blots out the old England. And the continuity is not organic, but mechanical."
How would we write this passage today?
"This is (e)history (as seen from an updated Wikipedia post, which may or may not have been written by a hack). One world (digital) blots out another (analog). Now the anonymous "they" were posting their messages over truth. Now data wrangling was used to make truth anolog, disposable. The digital was blotting out the world. Fake, truth, digital, analog...in the great tide of (e)history, everyone's worlds were becoming private, mobile, cellular, applications to consume, worlds were becoming endlessly self-referential. There was no continuity, only the endless stream of streaming data that refused to flow in any kind of logic the (analog) world had known."
Is that how D.H. Lawrence would have written about our times. LOL :) #D.H. Lawrence Deletes his Facebook Account ;)
And, even in the shadow of the book's great first paragraph, I feel like the book is a great one.
It is, however, excessively ponderous in its word choice...it is full of internal monologue, narration (telling not showing), romantic language...it is a modern book written in Victorian language.
...for me, this is fine. Because modern writing, which frowns on the excessive and unnecessary often leaves me unfulfilled (not unlike Lady Chatterley). A book about dirty, sordid sex, shouldn't be too modern...it should smack of the Victorian.
A final word about D.H. Lawrence -- I wonder how women feel about this book. If he does succeed at writing the character of Lady Chatterley, if women think he pulls this off as good as or better than female writers, then he has really done something marvelous as a writer -- something I'm not sure I'd be able to pull off myself.
September 1, 2021
丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 毓賳 賲毓丕賳丕丞 丕賲乇兀丞 賲毓 夭賵噩賴丕 丕賱賲毓丕賯 噩賻爻賻丿賽賷賸賾丕貙 丕賱賲丕賰乇 匕賽賴賿賳賽賷賸賾丕貙 丕賱賲購丨亘 賱噩賲毓 賱賲丕賱 乇睾賲 兀賳賴 賲賳 胤亘賯丞 兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞. 賵賰賷賮 鬲購氐亘丨購 丨賷丕丞 鬲賱賰 丕賱夭賵噩丞 賲毓 夭賵噩賴丕 丕賱賲購毓丕賯 噩丨賷賲賸丕 賱丕 賷購胤丕賯貙 禺氐賵氐賸丕 毓賳丿賲丕 賷爻鬲賳賮丿 賰賱 胤丕賯鬲賴丕 丕賱賳賮爻賷賾丞 賵丕賱賲毓賳賵賷賾丞. 賰丕賳 丕賱夭賵噩 賷乇賮囟 兀賷 賲爻丕毓丿丞 賮賷 卮丐賵賳 丨賷丕鬲賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞 廿賱丕 賲賳賴丕 賴賷. 賵賰兀賳賴 賷乇賷丿購 賲毓丕賯亘鬲賴丕 毓賱賶 匕賳亘 賱賲 鬲賯鬲乇賮賴購 兀賱丕 賵賴賵 廿毓丕賯鬲賴.
丕賱賱賵乇丿 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賰賲丕 賵氐賮賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰丕賳 賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘禺氐丕賱 爻賷卅丞. 賰丕賳 噩卮毓賸丕 賲購丨賽亘賸賾丕 賱噩賲毓賽 丕賱賲丕賱 乇睾賲 兀賳賴 賲賳 胤亘賯丞 兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞. 賵丨亘 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀丨亘賴丕 賰胤賮賱貙 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賷鬲禺賱賾賶 毓賳 丿賲賷鬲賴購 丕賱噩賲賷賱丞. 賵亘賲丕 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 毓丕噩夭 噩賽賳賿爻賽賷賸賾丕貙 賰丕賳 賷丨孬 夭賵噩鬲賴 賵賻賷購賱賽丨賾 毓賱賷賴丕 兀賳 鬲丨賲賱 亘胤賮賱 賲賳 乇噩賱 丌禺乇! 賲賳 兀賷 卮禺氐 鬲禺鬲丕乇賴購! 賮賯胤 賱賷丨賲賱 丕爻賲 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賵賷賰賵賳 賵乇賷孬賸丕 賱毓丕卅賱丞 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞.
兀購氐賷亘 丕賱賱賵乇丿 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 亘氐丿賲丞 毓賳賷賮丞 毓賳丿賲丕 兀毓賱賲鬲賴 夭賵噩鬲賴 兀賳賴丕 丨丕賲賱 賲賳 丨丕乇爻 丕賱胤乇丕卅丿 賲賷賱乇賵夭 .... 賴賳丕 馗賴乇 噩賱賷賾丕 丕賱鬲賲丕賷夭 丕賱胤亘賯賷 丕賱匕賷 賷賳鬲賲賷 廿賱賷賴 丕賱夭賵噩 丕賱賲購毓丕賯貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 賷賳馗乇 亘丕夭丿乇丕亍 賵賮賵賯賷丞 毓賱賶 賲賳 賴賲 兀丿賳賶 賲賳賴. 賮丕賱賱賵乇丿 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賱賷爻 賱丿賷賴 賲丕賳毓 賲賳 兀賳 鬲毓丕卮乇 夭賵噩鬲賴 賲賳 鬲卮丕亍貙 賵鬲丨賲賱 賮賷 兀丨卮丕卅賴丕 亘匕乇丞 賲賳 乇噩賱 丌禺乇貙 賷賴亘賴 丕爻賲賴 賵孬乇賵鬲賴貙 卮乇賷胤丞 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賳 賳賮爻 胤亘賯鬲賴 丕賱兀爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞.
乇賵丕賷丞 兀丿亘賷丞 噩賲賷賱丞貙 丨賷孬 賮賳賾丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 毓丕賱賲賷賳貙 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賵毓丕賱賲 丕賱亘乇賵賱賷鬲丕乇賷丕 兀賵 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賰丕丿丨丞. 賮丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 噩賲毓鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賯賷賲 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘賴丕 丕賱兀購賳丕爻 丕賱毓丕丿賷賷賳貙 賵亘賷賳 丕夭丿乇丕亍 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賱賴賲貙 賰賲丕 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨乇賵亘貙 賵賲丕 鬲禺賱賮賴 賲賳 賲丌爻賷 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟.
丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱噩賲賷賱丞 丕賱賳賯賷丞 賱賱賲乇兀丞 賰丕賳鬲 兀毓馗賲 亘賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賷 丨亘 噩賳爻賷. 賵丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱爻賷亍 賮賯胤 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賷賱丕丨賯賵賳 丕賱賳爻賵丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱卮兀賳. 廿賳賴賲 賷賱丨賾賵賳 毓賱賶 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱噩賳爻賷 賲孬賱 丕賱賰賱丕亘.
賱賰賳 匕賱賰 賲丕賴購賲 毓賱賷賴 丕賱乇噩丕賱. 賲賲鬲毓囟賵賳 賵睾賷乇 賯丕賳毓賷賳. 毓賳丿賲丕 賱丕 鬲賲賱賰賴賲 賷賰乇賴賵賳賰 賱兀賳賰 鬲賲賱賰賴賲貙 賵毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賲賱賰賴賲 賷賰乇賴賵賳賰 賱爻亘亘 丌禺乇. 兀賵 賲賳 丿賵賳 兀賷 爻亘亘 兀亘丿丕賸 爻賵賶 兀賳賴賲 兀胤賮丕賱 爻丕禺胤賵賳貙 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 廿乇囟丕卅賴賲 賲賴賲丕 亘賱睾 賲丕 賷丨氐賱賵賳 毓賱賷賴貙 賵賲賴賲丕 亘匕賱鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賳 廿賲賰丕賳賷鬲賴丕.
丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賲鬲賲丿賳 賲噩賳賵賳貙 丕賱賲丕賱 賵賲丕 賷爻賲賶 丕賱丨亘 賴賲丕 賴賻賵賻爻丕賴 丕賱賰亘賷乇丕賳貙 賵丕賱賲丕賱 賴賵 丕賱兀賵賱 賵丕賱爻丕亘賯 丕賱兀賰亘乇. 賮丕賱賮乇丿 賷丐賰丿 賳賮爻賴 賮賷 噩賳賵賳賴 丕賱爻丕禺胤 亘賴匕賷賳 丕賱賳賲胤賷賳: 丕賱賲丕賱 賵丕賱丨亘.
賰賱 丕賱乇噩丕賱 兀胤賮丕賱 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲氐賱賷賳 廿賱賶 兀毓賲丕賯賴賲.
兀丨賷丕賳丕賸 賷賲賱锟斤拷賴丕 賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱乇毓亘: 乇毓亘 賲賳 丕賱噩賳賵賳 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 賱賱兀噩賳丕爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞.
亘丿丕 賰兀賳 賮賷賴 乇毓亘丕賸 毓氐亘賷丕賸 亘兀賳賴丕 爻賵賮 鬲鬲乇賰賴. 賮丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱胤賷賳賷 賲賳賴貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱毓丕胤賮賷 丕賱賮乇丿賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賷賴丕 亘乇毓亘貙 賲孬賱 丕賱胤賮賱貙 兀賵 亘丕賱兀丨乇賶 賲孬賱 兀亘賱賴. 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰貙 賴賳丕賰 賮賷 乇丕睾亘賷貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 丕賱賱賷丿賷 卮丕鬲乇賱賷貙 夭賵噩鬲賴. 賵廿賱丕 胤丕卮 氐賵丕亘賴 賲孬賱 兀亘賱賴 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賳賯毓.
賯丿 賷賳亘孬賯 丕賱賮乇丿 賲賳 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵賱賰賳 丕賱廿賳亘孬丕賯 賱丕 賷睾賷乇 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇. 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇. 賵賴匕賴 丨賯賷賯丞 賲賳 兀禺胤乇 丨賯丕卅賯 毓賱賲 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓.
賲丕 賳丨鬲丕噩 兀賳 賳鬲禺匕賴 丕賱賷賵賲 賴賵 丕賱爻賷丕胤 賵賱賷爻 丕賱爻賷賵賮. 賱賯丿 丨購賰賲鬲 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賲賳匕 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱夭賲賳貙 賵爻賵賮 賷購丨賰賲賵賳 丨鬲賶 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱夭賲賳. 賮賲賳 丕賱賳賮丕賯 賵丕賱鬲禺乇賷賮 丕賱賯賵賱 廿賳賴賲 賷爻鬲胤賷毓賵賳 兀賳 賷賻丨賰賲賵丕 兀賳賮爻賴賲.
囟毓賷 兀賷 胤賮賱 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞 賵爻賵賮 賷賳賲賵 丨丕賰賲丕賸 亘賲賯丿丕乇 賯賵丕賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞. 囟毓賷 兀亘賳丕亍 丕賱賲賱賵賰 賵丕賱兀丿賵丕賯 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇貙 賵爻賵賮 賷賰賵賳賵賳 賲賳 丕賱睾賵睾丕亍貙 賲賳 廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇. 廿賳賴 囟睾胤 丕賱亘賷卅丞 丕賱賲賴賷賲賳.
賰賱 賲丕 賷賮毓賱賵賳賴 賯賻鬲賿賱 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賵毓亘丕丿丞 丕賱卮賷卅 丕賱賲賷賰丕賳賷賰賷. 丕賱賲丕賱. 丕賱賲丕賱. 丕賱賲丕賱. 廿賳 賰賱 丕賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 賯鬲賱 丕賱卮毓賵乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賲賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 噩丕毓賱賷賳 賲賳 丌丿賲 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賵丨賵丕亍 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱丨賲丕賸 賲賮乇賵賲丕賸.
廿賳 丕賱賲丕賱 賷爻賲賲賰 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲爻毓賶 賱賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賷賴貙 賵鬲賲賵鬲 噩賵毓丕賸 廿賳 賱賲 鬲丨氐賱 毓賱賷賴.
丕賱賱賵乇丿 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賰賲丕 賵氐賮賴 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賰丕賳 賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘禺氐丕賱 爻賷卅丞. 賰丕賳 噩卮毓賸丕 賲購丨賽亘賸賾丕 賱噩賲毓賽 丕賱賲丕賱 乇睾賲 兀賳賴 賲賳 胤亘賯丞 兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞. 賵丨亘 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱賲乇兀丞 丕賱鬲賷 兀丨亘賴丕 賰胤賮賱貙 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 兀賳 賷鬲禺賱賾賶 毓賳 丿賲賷鬲賴購 丕賱噩賲賷賱丞. 賵亘賲丕 兀賳賴 賰丕賳 毓丕噩夭 噩賽賳賿爻賽賷賸賾丕貙 賰丕賳 賷丨孬 夭賵噩鬲賴 賵賻賷購賱賽丨賾 毓賱賷賴丕 兀賳 鬲丨賲賱 亘胤賮賱 賲賳 乇噩賱 丌禺乇! 賲賳 兀賷 卮禺氐 鬲禺鬲丕乇賴購! 賮賯胤 賱賷丨賲賱 丕爻賲 丕賱毓丕卅賱丞 賵賷賰賵賳 賵乇賷孬賸丕 賱毓丕卅賱丞 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞.
兀購氐賷亘 丕賱賱賵乇丿 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 亘氐丿賲丞 毓賳賷賮丞 毓賳丿賲丕 兀毓賱賲鬲賴 夭賵噩鬲賴 兀賳賴丕 丨丕賲賱 賲賳 丨丕乇爻 丕賱胤乇丕卅丿 賲賷賱乇賵夭 .... 賴賳丕 馗賴乇 噩賱賷賾丕 丕賱鬲賲丕賷夭 丕賱胤亘賯賷 丕賱匕賷 賷賳鬲賲賷 廿賱賷賴 丕賱夭賵噩 丕賱賲購毓丕賯貙 丨賷孬 賰丕賳 賷賳馗乇 亘丕夭丿乇丕亍 賵賮賵賯賷丞 毓賱賶 賲賳 賴賲 兀丿賳賶 賲賳賴. 賮丕賱賱賵乇丿 卮丕鬲乇賱賷 賱賷爻 賱丿賷賴 賲丕賳毓 賲賳 兀賳 鬲毓丕卮乇 夭賵噩鬲賴 賲賳 鬲卮丕亍貙 賵鬲丨賲賱 賮賷 兀丨卮丕卅賴丕 亘匕乇丞 賲賳 乇噩賱 丌禺乇貙 賷賴亘賴 丕爻賲賴 賵孬乇賵鬲賴貙 卮乇賷胤丞 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賳 賳賮爻 胤亘賯鬲賴 丕賱兀爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷丞.
乇賵丕賷丞 兀丿亘賷丞 噩賲賷賱丞貙 丨賷孬 賮賳賾丿 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 毓丕賱賲賷賳貙 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賵毓丕賱賲 丕賱亘乇賵賱賷鬲丕乇賷丕 兀賵 丕賱胤亘賯丞 丕賱賰丕丿丨丞. 賮丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 噩賲毓鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賯賷賲 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賲鬲毓 亘賴丕 丕賱兀購賳丕爻 丕賱毓丕丿賷賷賳貙 賵亘賷賳 丕夭丿乇丕亍 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱兀乇爻鬲賯乇丕胤賷 賱賴賲貙 賰賲丕 鬲鬲賳丕賵賱 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丨乇賵亘貙 賵賲丕 鬲禺賱賮賴 賲賳 賲丌爻賷 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟.
丕賯鬲亘丕爻丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱噩賲賷賱丞 丕賱賳賯賷丞 賱賱賲乇兀丞 賰丕賳鬲 兀毓馗賲 亘賰孬賷乇 賲賳 兀賷 丨亘 噩賳爻賷. 賵丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱爻賷亍 賮賯胤 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱乇噩丕賱 賷賱丕丨賯賵賳 丕賱賳爻賵丞 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱卮兀賳. 廿賳賴賲 賷賱丨賾賵賳 毓賱賶 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱噩賳爻賷 賲孬賱 丕賱賰賱丕亘.
賱賰賳 匕賱賰 賲丕賴購賲 毓賱賷賴 丕賱乇噩丕賱. 賲賲鬲毓囟賵賳 賵睾賷乇 賯丕賳毓賷賳. 毓賳丿賲丕 賱丕 鬲賲賱賰賴賲 賷賰乇賴賵賳賰 賱兀賳賰 鬲賲賱賰賴賲貙 賵毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賲賱賰賴賲 賷賰乇賴賵賳賰 賱爻亘亘 丌禺乇. 兀賵 賲賳 丿賵賳 兀賷 爻亘亘 兀亘丿丕賸 爻賵賶 兀賳賴賲 兀胤賮丕賱 爻丕禺胤賵賳貙 賵賱丕 賷賲賰賳 廿乇囟丕卅賴賲 賲賴賲丕 亘賱睾 賲丕 賷丨氐賱賵賳 毓賱賷賴貙 賵賲賴賲丕 亘匕賱鬲 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賲賳 廿賲賰丕賳賷鬲賴丕.
丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱賲鬲賲丿賳 賲噩賳賵賳貙 丕賱賲丕賱 賵賲丕 賷爻賲賶 丕賱丨亘 賴賲丕 賴賻賵賻爻丕賴 丕賱賰亘賷乇丕賳貙 賵丕賱賲丕賱 賴賵 丕賱兀賵賱 賵丕賱爻丕亘賯 丕賱兀賰亘乇. 賮丕賱賮乇丿 賷丐賰丿 賳賮爻賴 賮賷 噩賳賵賳賴 丕賱爻丕禺胤 亘賴匕賷賳 丕賱賳賲胤賷賳: 丕賱賲丕賱 賵丕賱丨亘.
賰賱 丕賱乇噩丕賱 兀胤賮丕賱 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲氐賱賷賳 廿賱賶 兀毓賲丕賯賴賲.
兀丨賷丕賳丕賸 賷賲賱锟斤拷賴丕 賳賵毓 賲賳 丕賱乇毓亘: 乇毓亘 賲賳 丕賱噩賳賵賳 丕賱亘丿丕卅賷 賱賱兀噩賳丕爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞.
亘丿丕 賰兀賳 賮賷賴 乇毓亘丕賸 毓氐亘賷丕賸 亘兀賳賴丕 爻賵賮 鬲鬲乇賰賴. 賮丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱胤賷賳賷 賲賳賴貙 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱毓丕胤賮賷 丕賱賮乇丿賷 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賷毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賷賴丕 亘乇毓亘貙 賲孬賱 丕賱胤賮賱貙 兀賵 亘丕賱兀丨乇賶 賲孬賱 兀亘賱賴. 賷噩亘 兀賳 鬲賰賵賳 賴賳丕賰貙 賴賳丕賰 賮賷 乇丕睾亘賷貙 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 丕賱賱賷丿賷 卮丕鬲乇賱賷貙 夭賵噩鬲賴. 賵廿賱丕 胤丕卮 氐賵丕亘賴 賲孬賱 兀亘賱賴 毓賱賶 賲爻鬲賳賯毓.
賯丿 賷賳亘孬賯 丕賱賮乇丿 賲賳 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賵賱賰賳 丕賱廿賳亘孬丕賯 賱丕 賷睾賷乇 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇. 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲睾賷賷乇. 賵賴匕賴 丨賯賷賯丞 賲賳 兀禺胤乇 丨賯丕卅賯 毓賱賲 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓.
賲丕 賳丨鬲丕噩 兀賳 賳鬲禺匕賴 丕賱賷賵賲 賴賵 丕賱爻賷丕胤 賵賱賷爻 丕賱爻賷賵賮. 賱賯丿 丨購賰賲鬲 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇 賲賳匕 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱夭賲賳貙 賵爻賵賮 賷購丨賰賲賵賳 丨鬲賶 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱夭賲賳. 賮賲賳 丕賱賳賮丕賯 賵丕賱鬲禺乇賷賮 丕賱賯賵賱 廿賳賴賲 賷爻鬲胤賷毓賵賳 兀賳 賷賻丨賰賲賵丕 兀賳賮爻賴賲.
囟毓賷 兀賷 胤賮賱 亘賷賳 丕賱胤亘賯丕鬲 丕賱丨丕賰賲丞 賵爻賵賮 賷賳賲賵 丨丕賰賲丕賸 亘賲賯丿丕乇 賯賵丕賴 丕賱禺丕氐丞. 囟毓賷 兀亘賳丕亍 丕賱賲賱賵賰 賵丕賱兀丿賵丕賯 亘賷賳 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇貙 賵爻賵賮 賷賰賵賳賵賳 賲賳 丕賱睾賵睾丕亍貙 賲賳 廿賳鬲丕噩 丕賱噩賲丕賴賷乇. 廿賳賴 囟睾胤 丕賱亘賷卅丞 丕賱賲賴賷賲賳.
賰賱 賲丕 賷賮毓賱賵賳賴 賯賻鬲賿賱 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賵毓亘丕丿丞 丕賱卮賷卅 丕賱賲賷賰丕賳賷賰賷. 丕賱賲丕賱. 丕賱賲丕賱. 丕賱賲丕賱. 廿賳 賰賱 丕賱兀噩賷丕賱 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 賯鬲賱 丕賱卮毓賵乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賲賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 噩丕毓賱賷賳 賲賳 丌丿賲 丕賱賯丿賷賲 賵丨賵丕亍 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賱丨賲丕賸 賲賮乇賵賲丕賸.
廿賳 丕賱賲丕賱 賷爻賲賲賰 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲爻毓賶 賱賱丨氐賵賱 毓賱賷賴貙 賵鬲賲賵鬲 噩賵毓丕賸 廿賳 賱賲 鬲丨氐賱 毓賱賷賴.
February 10, 2017
_Lady Chatterley's Lover_
There are no words to describe how much i love this book. I mean, i really, really, really do love this book, even if it became vulgar and indelicate at some point, even when i thought it was too much. I couldn't put it down, i had to keep reading, i had to keep reading D. H. Lawrence's words and sentences and paragraphs. I had the need to keep reading.
This man did something amazing in the begining of this book. Nobody has ever understood a female's temperament and mentality like he did. "Yes, this is exactly how a woman feels". And he was dead for so many years and i wish i lived in his era or he lived in mine but then i thought he was the way he was bcz he lived at that era. And i am the way i am cz i live in this era. And this couldn't have worked otherwise. It's amazing how a person is dead for about a century but leaves pieces of himself behind and here i am, picking them up. "I can feel what you feel." And this happens with Greek authors a lot but not with authors from different countries. He is the exception.
This is a masterpiece, a great book, an amazing, truly emotional, truly raw, truly authentic love story. The characters feel and i feel with them. And it will make you angry and sad and happy. This book gave me so much love and so much to love.
God.. I adore it.
There are no words to describe how much i love this book. I mean, i really, really, really do love this book, even if it became vulgar and indelicate at some point, even when i thought it was too much. I couldn't put it down, i had to keep reading, i had to keep reading D. H. Lawrence's words and sentences and paragraphs. I had the need to keep reading.
This man did something amazing in the begining of this book. Nobody has ever understood a female's temperament and mentality like he did. "Yes, this is exactly how a woman feels". And he was dead for so many years and i wish i lived in his era or he lived in mine but then i thought he was the way he was bcz he lived at that era. And i am the way i am cz i live in this era. And this couldn't have worked otherwise. It's amazing how a person is dead for about a century but leaves pieces of himself behind and here i am, picking them up. "I can feel what you feel." And this happens with Greek authors a lot but not with authors from different countries. He is the exception.
This is a masterpiece, a great book, an amazing, truly emotional, truly raw, truly authentic love story. The characters feel and i feel with them. And it will make you angry and sad and happy. This book gave me so much love and so much to love.
God.. I adore it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,742 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.