jethrien: (Default)
Title: Lady Chatterley's Lover
Author: D. H. Lawrence
Genre: Classic...erotica?
Thingummies: 3.5

Synopsis: Married to an emotionally distant paraplegic, Lady Chatterly fights Lost Generation-ennui by scandalously falling in love with her husband's groundkeeper.

Thoughts: Banned from multiple countries for sex scenes that are pretty much standard in most romance books today and language you can hear in any R-rated movie, this book is one of the great legends of erotica. I was interested to see how it held up.

It rather reminds me of Brideshead Revisited, in that melancholy-people-ruining-their-lives kind of way. It's so very much an artifact of its time. There's a vague longing for good-old-days-that-never-were, a disillusionment with life, a distrust of glamour, and a despair at the destruction of the old order by the forces of modernization that permeates literature from the period between the World Wars. After awhile, you start feeling it in the oddest of places--not only Hemingway and Fitzgerald, but in Waugh and Wharton and even Tolkein. The loss of countryside to industry and the nobility before the masses (nevermind that nobility's enclosure laws starved most of the villages and gave them no choice but to embrace industrialization) is seen as a loss of innocence and purity.

Lady Chatterley's Lover is not about smut at all, but about how dehumanizing the modern world has become. Constance's affair with Mellors has less to do with either of their feelings for each other and more to do with a blind groping for someone possessing both the strength and tenderness that mechanization and the anesthetizing effect of capitalism has driven out of the people around them.

It's surprisingly lyrical, both in descriptions of fields of wildflowers and in descriptions of sex scenes. Lawrence manages descriptions that somehow manage to be profound and hot without ever resorting to ridiculous euphemisms. Some fairly objectionable language is used in incredibly tender ways (leaving me to wonder if some of the words have shifted over the following century).

There are a couple of speeches that Mellors makes that portray female sexuality in a way that I found revolting. (Basically, if you can't come simultaneously with the guy, after being almost completely passive in bed, you're an emasculating, unnatural harpy. Thanks for that.) I will admit, it is not clear to me whether this is the author's own belief, or if it's just the character's. Similar speeches about how chasing money has led to a cold and unfeeling society and how the war dehumanized everyone are clearly the author's own beliefs. But Mellors is not an entirely sympathetic character, and this could have been an indication of the groundkeeper's own flaws and bad assumptions.

I'm rather annoyed at the edition I read. The book ends abruptly and sadly (as could probably be guessed from the way all the books I compared it to ended). But my edition had some essays and the documents from the obscenity ruling in the back, which I did not realize. So when I turned the last page, fully expecting another 30 pages of book, to find an appendix, I was rather shocked and had to go back and re-read the last two pages now realizing that this was the ending.

Date: 2011-07-14 04:51 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] ivy03.livejournal.com
What, you mean you don't obsessively track how far along in a book you are by constantly checking the number of the final page when you read? What's wrong with you?

(Incidentally--I have always done this. I usually know what percentage of the way through a book I am at all times.)

Date: 2011-07-14 06:56 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] jethrien.livejournal.com
It wasn't non-fiction--I assumed the end of the book was in fact the end of the book. I know, I know, bad assumption.

(I frequently keep track of the percentage, also--dunno why I didn't this time. It was a fast read.)

Date: 2011-07-15 08:07 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] momerath4.livejournal.com
I do that too—not necessarily calculating the percentage, but I like to know exactly how many pages I have left to read.

Thus far, Lady Chatterley is the only Lawrence that I've liked. I read The Rainbow and Women in Love a few years ago, and found all the characters to be so self-absorbed and unlikeable (and the character that is supposedly the stand-in for Lawrence most of all) that I didn't really care what happened to any of them.

Date: 2011-07-15 08:38 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] jethrien.livejournal.com
The characters in Lady Chatterly were also pretty self-absorbed, but tolerable. Thanks for the warning--I won't bother reading any of the others.

Date: 2011-07-15 10:06 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] momerath4.livejournal.com
Well, take my opinion with a grain of salt—I have very little patience for modernist literature as a whole (which I guess makes sense, insofar as modernist lit is a reaction against Victorian lit, and I love the Victorians). But yeah, if you were already disinclined to read more Lawrence, don't waste your time.

Date: 2011-07-16 02:24 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] jethrien.livejournal.com
I've got mixed feelings on modernist lit. I like some bits, but find a lot of it self-indulgent.

Date: 2011-07-15 12:03 am (UTC)From: [identity profile] mithras03.livejournal.com
I bought this book for a plane trip. My dad told me not to let anyone on the plane see me reading it... o.O

Date: 2011-07-15 12:07 pm (UTC)From: [identity profile] jethrien.livejournal.com
Seriously, most stuff written today is way more graphic, from romance novels to thrillers. Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? Seriously more shocking.

Profile

jethrien: (Default)
jethrien

January 2026

S M T W T F S
     123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 18th, 2026 02:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios