Lady Chatterley's Lover

[George Armstrong Custer]

D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover was one of the titles chosen last year by Penguin to be republished in a 'designer' limited edition of 100 copies each to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Penguin Classics. A specially commissioned Introduction by Doris Lessing appears in this edition, and is of interest for the attention it draws to the novel being shot through with the consequences of the Great War - how the novel's characters and the world they live in have been shaped and changed forever by the war. Here are extracts of Lessing's references to the influence of the war of 1914-18 on Lawrence's novel - a novel which was written, in various versions, between 1926-29. The extracts I've chosen end with Lessing movingly relating a passage from the novel to her own father (a Great War veteran) and her mother, both of whom were lastingly effected by the First World War:

Lawrence could be funny, but certainly not in Lady Chatterley's Lover, his testament. The nearest he got to it was something like:

'Ours is a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically.'

Yes, I think there is a small wry smile in there, perhaps. Which announces what I think is the major theme of the novel, usually overlooked.

This is the beginning of the novel:

'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 gpt to live, no matter how many skies have fallen.'

The skies have fallen. This novel is permeated with the First World War, the horror of it, like so much of his work. 'we are among the ruins,' says Lawrence, opening the tale which is supposed to be all about sex, which will save us - tender-hearted sex.

Very often a central or major theme is not noticed. The other day I listened to a group of sensitive, intelligent young people discussing The Lord of the Flies, on radio, scarcely mentioning why Golding had written it, the pain that inspired it. Golding had been been romantic and idealistic - as young people tend to be - when the Second World War began but he had seen what humans may do to each other, culminating in the Nazi death camps, and he had his old heart blasted out of him. The result was The Lord of the Flies. But the children of peace, people who had never suffered that great shock to the heart and the mind, could discuss the novel for an hour and not mention the central experience. It was the strangest thing, if one had known William Golding and heard him talk about what had happened to him.

And so with Lady Chatterley's Lover and the First World War.

Great public disasters that mark the psyches of a people, a country, live in people's nightmares but take time to come out into consciousness - we do not deal easily with horror. More recently we have seen countries after the Second World War take their time to acknowledge what happened to them - Germany, France. The trenches of the First World War did not at once give up their horrors. My father, the old soldier, used to mock with 'the Great Unmentionable' - the soldiers' phrase for the general reluctance of the civilians to talk about the war at all. It took decades for the First World War to enter public consciousness; meanwhile it had become history, the story of fathers and grandfathers. But in the 1920's, there in France, in Belgium, the soil held millions of rotting corpses of mostly very young men, and if talk of the war was being channelled safely into war memorials and Remembrance Days, people who had been near to the nightmare would have had to remember. Lawrence's wife was German, and for them there could be no simple good-and-bad patriotism.

And against the horrors, the rotting bodies, the senseless slaughter of the trenches, the post-war poverty and bleakness - against the cataclysm, 'the fallen skies', Lawrence proposes to put in the scales love, tender sex, the tender bodies of people in love; England would be saved by warm-hearted ****ing.

The tale begins with Constance marrying her soldier, in 1917. He was shipped back from the trenches six months later 'more or less in bits'. He was paralysed from the hips down, 'paralysed for ever'. [.........] Tender and faithful marriage will save us all, save England: against thoughts of the millions of rotting bodies over there across the Channel; against 'the cataclysm', the falling skies, we will put tender sex and warm contact between men and women and between men and men too. [.....] But what Lawrence saw as an invocation to sex and love does not read so unambiguously. What we are left with is images of a man and a woman, both damaged by war, by the cataclysm, orphans in the storm, survivors, sheltering in each other's arms; and what does Lawrence make Mellors say, writing to his love?

'I'm frightened, really. I feel the devil in the air, and he'll try to get us. Or not the devil - Mammon: which I think, after all, is only the mass-will of people, wanting money and hating life....There's a bad time coming. There'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 the industrial masses. I feel my inside turn to water sometimes.....'

Well, yes, a bad time was coming. Lawrence wrote the novel less than ten years after the end of the First World War, and ten years ahead was the Second World War. The Fascist blackshirt mobs were already at large in Italy: Lawrence described them in Aaron's Rod. The mobs of Nazi brownshirts would soon be on the streets of Germany. Very close was Hitler's Germany and the crematoriums, and Stalin's Russia where the death camps were already filling. The world's arsenals were at their work. There was a phrase much in use between the wars, now it seems forgotten - and how odd that is! - 'the armament-makers'. It was used, cynically, by the citizens of all the countries in Europe, and, yes, the armament-makers were getting fat.

Now, looking back from our perspective of over sixty years after that second terrible war, we see Mellors, who was a soldier in India in the First World War, and Constance Chatterley with her war-crippled husband, clinging on to each other, and just ahead the next war that would involve the whole world - though probably future historians will see the two wars as a continuum, one war brewing up the next.

[.........] We have all experienced reading a book and then on re-reading perhaps years later, finding something completely different. It is not that once having seen how war overshadows this tale, threatens these lovers, the love story loses its poignancy, but for me it is no longer the central theme, despite what Lawrence intended. Two defenceless people, their lives already wounded by war, fly into each other's arms, fugitives from such horrors, trying to find a little safe place, like small animals fleeing from a forest fire, the wings of flame already close behind them, clouds of smoke blackening the sun.

Now I think this is one of the most powerful anti-war novels ever written. How was it I had not seen that, when I first read it?

'And dimly she realised one of the great laws of the human soul: that when the emotional soul receives a wounding shock, which does not kill the body, the soul seems to recover as the body recovers. But this is only appearance. It is, really, only the mechanism of re-assumed habit. Slowly, slowly the wound to the soul begins to make itself felt, like a bruise which only slowly deepens its terrible ache, till it fills all the psyche. And when we think we have recovered and forgotten, it is then that the terrible after-effects have to be encountered at their worst.'

How could I have missed that! But I hadn't. I remember reading it and thinking - Yes, that's my father (and it was my mother too, but I was years off seeing that). And now we are beginning to recognise how many men and women survive wars apparently intact, but inside they are bruised and may never recover. Millions of them everywhere.

Although last year's collectors edition for which Lessing's Introduction was commissioned came in at £100 (and that edition of 100 copies are now changing hands for several times that), the text, including the full Introduction, has now been published by Penguin in a cheap paperback format. I recommend a re-read of Lady Chatterley's Lover with these observations from Doris Lessing's Introduction in mind. As for the novel's famous sexual content - well, you may still not think it a suitable book to put in the hands of your wife or servants!

ciao,

GAC

[dycer]

That brings back memories.

We clubbed together to buy a copy in the early 60's and I got the job of identifying the "naughty" pages before circulating it.

Happy days

George

[Steven Broomfield]

Unfortunately, my servants pinched my copy before I get to it

[George Armstrong Custer]

Unfortunately, my servants pinched my copy before I get to it

Bad show! Honestly, one can't get the staff these days. You must try to get hold of a copy on their day off, Steven - maybe a rummage round in the servants quarters whilst they're down the bookies or wherever they go on their day off will turn one up!

ciao,

GAC

[dycer]

wherever they go on their day off will turn one up!

ciao,

GAC

GAC,

Is that a Freudian slip in view of the Books contents?

George

[Dragon]

[Para edited out by me]

Although the War is clearly relevant and important, the theme of attrition of a known world can be applied to a much wider range of issues within the novel. Mining is attacking the rural world of the protagonists from all sides and from underneath.

I also found it life-affirming. It's years since I did Lawrence and so I would have to look again at the novel before making any constructive comments on Doris Lessing's observations.

Gwyn

[George Armstrong Custer]

GAC,

Is that a Freudian slip in view of the Books contents?

George

Ahh, not intentionally George - but then it's the lack of intent that makes a slip Freudian, isn't it?

BTW - were your chums disappointed with their stake in the book when they perused the marked up pages?

ciao,

GAC

[Dragon]

I wouldn't have bothered trying to dredge up a literary comment if I'd known that the predominant discussion on the novel was going to be sex. I thought that the point of the initial post was to draw attention to other themes and open up a discussion relevant to this forum.

The sex in the novel is boring, boring, boring.

Gwyn

[dycer]

GAC,

No, they enjoyed the action but found the writing a bit old-fashioned

I used a brown paper cover from a School English Text Book to hide it(We had to make our own book covers in those days,none of this plastic rubbish).I would offer the cover to Gwyn if I still had it but it was well worn and tatty when I got the Book back for a second reading.

George

[George Armstrong Custer]

I wouldn't have bothered trying to dredge up a literary comment if I'd known that the predominant discussion on the novel was going to be sex. I thought that the point of the initial post was to draw attention to other themes and open up a discussion relevant to this forum.

The sex in the novel is boring, boring, boring.

Gwyn

Steady on there, Gwyn - after all, you did preface your own response with an amusing anecdote grounded in the novel's sexual themes!

In fact, my response to George was being written as yours was posted - and I can now respond to the literary themes you allude to when you write:

Although the War is clearly relevant and important, the theme of attrition of a known world can be applied to a much wider range of issues within the novel. Mining is attacking the rural world of the protagonists from all sides and from underneath.

I agree that these themes, of industrialization and it's impact on the rural environment, are concurrent in the book with those of the shadow of the Great War and the possibility of new conflicts looming. In fact Lessing addresses these in her Introduction, and goes further, seeing a connection between the forces which created the industrial wasteland across swathes of rural Britain and the industrialised slaughter of the late war. I didn't include these references in the extracts for reasons of brevity and relevance. Lessing also, of course adresses the sexual themes of the book - but even if these had an important enough relevance to the theme of the Great War, I couldn't have quoted them, as Lessing is even more disarmingly frank in her language than Lawrence's novel!

I had, however, anticipated when I made the post that there would inevitably be some banter on the novel's sexual reputation, and make no apology for responding to George in kind. I think we're all grown up enough here not to overstep the bounds of what's acceptable on a forum used by all ages.

Finally, I do agree with you that ultimately this is a very life-affirming novel - and those who haven't yet read it will find many facets to it other than the Great War themes highlighted by the quoted exerpts from Lessing's Introduction to the new edition.

ciao,

GAC

[bantamforgot]

What's sex ?

Colin

[Jim Clay]

Colin

Sex is what posh people have their coal delivered in.

Jim

[bantamforgot]

Thanks Jim, I'll remember that when my 23 year old cleaner calls , she will be interested !!

Colin

[ralphjd]

What's sex ?

Colin

It is what posh people have their coal delivered in. (Damn Colin beat me to it)

[Justin Moretti]

Interesting, what Lessing says about "Lord of the Flies" - we were never told at school what had happened to Golding to motivate him to write that. It was a surprise to me. Perhaps Lessing's 'sensitive, intelligent young people' simply didn't KNOW.

The phrase "Sensitive, intelligent young people discussing (literature)", makes me sick with disgust.

And I think she misses the whole point of "Lady Chatterley". Which isn't the sex (which is boring, yes, but I'd rather have that than what's in the "Regeneration" trilogy).

Now I think this is one of the most powerful anti-war novels ever written. How was it I had not seen that, when I first read it?

Because the first time you read it, Ms Lessing, you probably weren't trying to shoehorn it into the category of an anti-war novel. And stop wringing your hands with guilt over the fact that you've changed your viewpoint.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Interesting, what Lessing says about "Lord of the Flies" - we were never told at school what had happened to Golding to motivate him to write that. It was a surprise to me. Perhaps Lessing's 'sensitive, intelligent young people' simply didn't KNOW.

I think that's exactly the point Lessing was making, Justin - literature is too often taught without proper reference to the circumstances and context which produced it being properly explored.

You then state:

The phrase "Sensitive, intelligent young people discussing (literature)", makes me sick with disgust..

Why? I don't see anything reprehensible or unusual - particularly in someone of Lessing's generation (she's 88) - describing inquiring young minds in that way, and would suggest that your response says more about your own prejudices than it does about Lessing.

You then go on to say:

And I think she misses the whole point of "Lady Chatterley". Which isn't the sex (which is boring, yes, but I'd rather have that than what's in the "Regeneration" trilogy).

Well that's a fair enough position to take - but it would be more convincing if you supported it by saying what you think is 'the whole point' of "Lady Chatterley."

Your final assertion reads:

[Quoting Lessing]: 'Now I think this is one of the most powerful anti-war novels ever written. How was it I had not seen that, when I first read it?'

Because the first time you read it, Ms Lessing, you probably weren't trying to shoehorn it into the category of an anti-war novel. And stop wringing your hands with guilt over the fact that you've changed your viewpoint.

I disagree entirely with your take on this, which takes no account of Lessing going on to qualify that statement - she didn't miss these 'anti-war' themes in her original reading of the novel, but she now recognises them as being more important than she originally realised. She writes:

'How could I have missed that! But I hadn't. I remember reading it and thinking - Yes, that's my father (and it was my mother too, but I was years off seeing that). And now we are beginning to recognise how many men and women survive wars apparently intact, but inside they are bruised and may never recover. Millions of them everywhere.'

In other words Lessing is not 'wringing her hands with guilt' over changing her view point, but bringing to the fore her original reaction to these themes in the book in which she recognised the impact the Great War had had on her own parents. Lessing was born in 1919; her father was a crippled war veteran and her mother had served as a nurse. I'd suggest, therefore, that her personal experiences within her family of the long term impact of the war on peoples lives makes Lessing well qualified to comment on the validity of the themes she identifies as 'anti-war' in Lawrence's novel. You are certainly entitled to disagree with her conclusions, but you cannot support that disagreement by misrepresenting what she's actually saying - and the personal reality she bases it on - and dismissing her as a retrospective 'hand-wringer' who is 'shoehorning' the novel into an anti-war category.

ciao,

GAC

.

[Dragon]

It's interesting to compare the Forward extract quoted above with this piece from The Guardian in 2006. It too is an extract, but here she shows that she is aware of other themes which contribute to the intensity of the novel. (This is not a criticism of GAC for selective quotation - this is a Great War forum - but merely contextualising what he extracted.)

I'm not sure what Doris Lessing means when she describes 'LC'sL' as Lawrence's 'testimony' and having read more of the introduction, I still don't know.

I have said elsewhere on the forum what I think is the point of the sex in the 'Regeneration' Trilogy - or, to be accurate, particularly in 'The Eye in the Door'. Personally, as a female product of my time, as a member of a generation who can say 'sex' without blushing or sniggering, I found the sex in 'Lady Chatterley' repetitive and wholly unerotic when I first read it aged 16 or 17 and revisited it as an adult. However, I find interesting parallels between Oliver Mellors and Billy Prior. The Great War has given both of them power over the social classes who considered themselves superior; they have the power of the sexual fulfilment (of a sort) and release that the lady of the estate or the officer need; they are the sign that the social stratifications are under attack and will not be the same again. They signify the time which is to come.

Gwyn

[dycer]

Gwyn,

Re the smut/literary discussion debate.Can I pose a question.

In your post regarding a colleague discussing the Book in an English Class you refer to the Students.

Will they remember reading the Book in 40 years time?

If my experience is anything to go by I doubt it.I studied Chaucer/Shakespeare,etc at School and like many of my generation are unlikely to re-read or attend a Play or even remember what we read .If you push I'll admit to enjoying re-reading R.L. Stephenson(Treasure Island,Christmas Carol),Kenneth Graham(A Wind in the Willows).Not because I was "forced" to read them at School but because I was introduced to them at the right age and enjoyed them.

You are,of course,correct we bought Lady C not for it's literature but for,in the 60's, it's topical fame/infamy and contents.

However,having not been forced to read it I could now dust it of the shelf and now re-read it as a work of literature.

I do wonder if the Students of today will be able to share that enjoyment having been forced to "read" the Book.

Does the old adage not apply.It does not matter what you are reading as long as you read?

George