Pick-a-Shelf discussion

Bea and I are going to try to read D. H. Lawrence's Sons and Lovers this month. It's on the American literature shelf, even though both author and setting are British.

It turns out the copy the library sent me is 498 pages long, though other versions may do the paging differently.

In particular, my 1992 paperback claims to be the first time offering the book "in its complete form. When it was first published in 1913 eighty passages had been cut out. These have now been restored, making it a tenth longer than all previous editions." So if you have a preference either for shorter or for more complete, be warned.

Here's what I propose as a way to break it up:
Week 0: now-Sept 7 - any notes or introduction from your own edition (and time to get it from the library if you need to)
Week 1: Sept 8-14 - Chapters 1-5 (approx 140 pages)
Week 2: Sept 15-21 - Chapters 6-10 (approx 181 pages)
Week 3: Sept 22-28 - Chapters 11-15 and appendix (in my book Lawrence's 7-page foreward is given as an appendix) (approx 159 pages)

Bea, does this timing sound workable to you?

Anyone else who's interested, let us know by posting on this thread.

Susan, my copy has 416 pages. There is no appendix, but it does have an introductiion.

The schedule looks good and do-able. My reading will be first week 112 pages; the second week 164 pages; and the third week 140 pages. I suspect the difference is in the type.

I just wanted to chime in to say that I'm glad you guys feel that you can do this in the group ("make yourself at home!") :) :) :)

Good luck with your buddy read & have lots of fun discussion, I hope xo

I am glad to see others buddy reading, too. I wish I could join you, but I am reading The Woman in White this month with another group, and that is daunting enough for me, lol. I was really hoping that it was mis-shelved on this shelf, but Nope...

readinghearts (Lyn M) wrote: "I am glad to see others buddy reading, too. I wish I could join you, but I am reading The Woman in White this month with another group, and that is daunting enough for me, lol. I was ..."

That book is on my TBR also.

I completed my intro and have mixed feelings about it. I enjoyed learning more about DH Lawrence but wish it had not told me so much of the story.

Since I am reading a number of books simultaneously, perhaps I can forget what the intro said about the story and just enjoy it.

Bea wrote: "I completed my intro and have mixed feelings about it. I enjoyed learning more about DH Lawrence but wish it had not told me so much of the story.

Since I am reading a number of books simultaneously, perhaps I can forget what the intro said about the story and just enjoy it.."

I often feel the same way about introductions, Bea. In this case, I found myself skipping over many paragraphs, deciding I could come back to it later if I wanted to. But I like to experience a book myself first, before I absorb anyone else's analysis. And this introduction was full of stuff I wasn't ready for.

I'm doing the same thing you are with multiple reads -- first, the next section of 1Q84, then I'll come back to this before our week to read it is up.

Bea, I guess it's just you and me. I've finished our first week's section. Let me know when you do. I won't post anything about it until then.

Oh, my goodness. I did not expect you to finish so quickly so I have been lollygagging along. Will get busy reading.

No rush at all. I'm alternating among this, Steinbeck's East of Eden, and 1Q84. Finding it quite interesting to be switching back and forth.

I will be reading chapter 5 today. Currently I have about 7 books going. Four are due at the library soon. Two are books that I want to get done - Les Miserables and this one. And, one is for fun, and has been hanging around my bookshelf a long time!

Finished the first five chapters. I vacillate between feeling compassion and pity for Mrs. Morel and thinking how much she made her own life hard. She comes across regarding her relationship with her husband and being unbending and unforgiving. I felt that she was more at fault for the atmosphere of the home than she should have been.

I hadn't thought about that, Bea, but I think I agree with you. The introduction to my copy talked a lot about Mrs. Morel transferring her love from her husband to her sons.

My primary reaction was how depressing it all was. How miners and their families were forced to live, in a way that really didn't seem to give anyone a chance to succeed. At least a few of my ancestors were coal miners - not in England, as far as I know, but in West Virginia. Reading this makes you wonder how anyone survived unscathed.

I'm really not liking the book much, which is not the same as saying it's not well-done. It is well-done, in that it's painting a vivid picture of the situation it's describing. At first, I was thinking I'd just rather not have to experience how horrible things were. Then, in later chapters, as the sons grow up a bit, it's more like I just can't find much to care about in their lives. This is a great contrast to East of Eden, which is much longer, but keeps me caring deeply about many of the characters. I'm not sure if I can explain the difference.

I get it, Susan. So far none of the family members are sympathetic to me. The two sons do not strike me as emotionally healthy, which is understandable due to the dysfunctional family dynamics.

I felt that Mr. Morel's character was a bit cookie cutter of what Mr. Lawrence thought a miner of that time should be. He made no attempt to develop the father and his various ways of dealing with his life and family felt more like snapshots of different men rather than a composite person.

I am trying to without judgement on the writing, but overall this story is not my cup of tea. It perhaps does reflect the early 1900s when it was written.

BTW, my grandfather and uncle spent part of their adult lives in the coal mines of West Virginia also.

Bea wrote: "I felt that Mr. Morel's character was a bit cookie cutter of what Mr. Lawrence thought a miner of that time should be. He made no attempt to develop the father and his various ways of dealing with his life and family felt more like snapshots of different men rather than a composite person."

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense to me. So the set-up is rich girl marries down, and she can't handle what all the other wives are used to having to put up with. In that case, she may be something of a stereotype, too.

I do think it's good that Mr. Morel is not painted as all bad. Even though he hits his kids and wife, and drinks, and all that (supposedly miner) stuff, there are times when he is shown to love them, to be trying to figure out how to express it. I'm reminded of my (West Virginia) grandfather, who was very gruff: I never knew him to express any affection outwardly to anyone, but I know he was devoted to my grandmother, and I saw it in the ways he took care of her when she was sick.

That's interesting, that we both have the West Virginia background. I wonder if that's part of what drew each of us to put this book on our lists. Though I don't remember knowing that coal mining was the setting.

Susan wrote: "That's interesting, that we both have the West Virginia background. I wonder if that's part of what drew each of us to put this book on our lists. Though I don't remember knowing that coal mining was the setting."

I, too, find that connection interesting.

I had not thought of Mrs. Morel being a stereotype, but I can see how that might be.

I think Mr. Morel was a deeply conflicted simple man. He did not know how to express what he felt so fell back on what everyone else did.

Now onto learning how the kids turn out.

Susan, I had a hard time getting through this week's reading assignment - especially the airy-fairy writing about love. I realize this is a book written in 1918, but really!

That said, these five chapters seem to me to be more about the sons - William and Paul - and their emotional development. Annie features as a side note and seems to be better balanced than either of the boys; but, since not much is written about her, it is hard to tell for sure.

Mrs. Morel develops heart issues and now seems more a normal worrying mom over her sons and her place in their lives, and Mr. Morel has become a more moderate man.

I was glad to complete the reading today so that I can have a couple days break from D H Lawrence's writing style. I probably only kept going this week in reading due to having a buddy and looking forward to a few days off. :)

Bea wrote: "Susan, I had a hard time getting through this week's reading assignment - especially the airy-fairy writing about love. I realize this is a book written in 1918, but really!

I'm not done with this week's yet, but have had the same reaction you have. I'm glad we're doing this together, because I would probably never have completed it, either. I was at our faculty book club yesterday, and mentioned to my friends there that I was struggling through a D.H. Lawrence work. One of the teachers there said, "Oh, I tried so many times!" So we're not alone.

At least we're 2/3 done (or, you are, and I hope to be today). I, too, will go back to something more riveting (1Q84 for me), and then be able to tackle the last 3rd next week.

LOL! Sure am glad you suggested doing the buddy read! At least we both have fewer pages to read this week. And, I looked ahead - the last chapter is really short! Yay!

Bea wrote: "LOL! Sure am glad you suggested doing the buddy read! At least we both have fewer pages to read this week. And, I looked ahead - the last chapter is really short! Yay!"


Yay, indeed!

Four chapters to go. Mumbling: "I can do this. I can do this. I can do this."

I know. The thing I decided I hated(!) worst in the second section we read was how Lawrence overused the word "hate" in describing someone's emotions. Paul kept hating Miriam or his mother when this or that thing happened. It just seems like the wrong word to me somehow. I guess I don't think of hate as something that comes and goes so easily.

Susan, I agree. I think the use of several words like hate must have really differed in the early 20th century. Overall, though, it seems to me the D. H. Lawrence had difficulty writing about emotion.

I am enjoying the third section much more.

Good reminder, Bea, although I can't say I've noticed this in other works from that time.

I think the difference with the third section is that there's actually some action, some changes going on, rather than just talking (in awkward and often conflicting ways) about how people are feeling as they keep on doing the same old things.

Agreed, Susan. There is definitely more action and conversation that part 2 had.

I recently read Ernest Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms. He could write description but not dialogue. D.H. Lawrence had the opposite talent. Too bad Hemingway could not have taken lessons from Lawrence. His own work would have been better.

I've finished it. The ending was as ineffectual as was the part 2 section we read. I was sorry for that. Perhaps he did not know how to pull the story together.

I'm done, too. Thank goodness!

Did your copy have the introduction Lawrence wrote to the first edition? What's with that? No wonder the story came out so messed up. I literally couldn't understand what he was saying -- paragraph after paragraph about God and Christ and the Word and knowing Flesh through Woman. Only the last paragraph gave any insight into the work. Basically, if a man is too much in love with his mother, then he can't really love any other woman. And if he marries and has kids, he perpetuates the problem because his wife will turn their son(s) into (a) lover(s). I wonder if that's what Lawrence thought happened to him.

Susan wrote: "I'm done, too. Thank goodness!...
I wonder if that's what Lawrence thought happened to him."

Perhaps.

Thank you for reading this book with me, Susan. I doubt I would have finished it except that you were reading it too.

Bea wrote: "Thank you for reading this book with me, Susan. I doubt I would have finished ..."

And the same thanks back to you. I feel exactly the same way!