What does /lit/ think of Lady Chatterley's Lover?
I thought the writing was occasionally shit, too much telling and not enough showing, lazy summing up of adjectives etc, as if the text wasn't rewritten enough.
For example:
>"[...]she said, with startling abruptness, looking into his eyes with her big blue eyes. His big blue eyes took on a the frightened look of a man whose social conscience is not quite clear.
(four paragraphs later)
>[...]looking into her father's eyes. They were big blue eyes rather like her own, but with...
Would the novel enjoy its current status if it hadn't been so controversial?
>>8090201
I would always hear praise for Laurence and after finally trying out Lady Chatterley I could not go through with it. It feels like college level writing, but maybe his themes and overall structure of the book is good. can anyone confirm?
>>8090201
"Sons and Lovers" was his only readable book - and just barely.
>>8090350
Themes are interesting but mostly all on the surface, not a lot of structural problems. But yes it's college level writing?
>>8090367
why do you think he sucks?
The best example i can think about cuckterature.
>>8090201
You don't like those long passages when the dirty well built game warden scotsman is grabbin her snatch and tell her how much he loves her "cunt" and how it makes him absolutely devoted to it--and how he could never quit fuckin her cunt, and how he loves the cunt--as how he express his absolute love for a dog by tenderly petting/pulling its ears.
It was the characters I couldn't stand. I mean yes I wanted Lady Chatterly to get some sweet D, but basically everyone was boring and I couldn't make myself care about them.
I liked women in love better. The underlying ideas in WiL are deeper than what Lawrence was going for in Chatterly, the latter basically being "sensual pleasure can be spiritual," while the former dwells on heavier themes like male friendship, death, determinism...
If Chatterly is your only work of Lawrence, I would give women in love a shot if you're still curious. If you really didn't like chatterly, I would drop him altogether. That said I haven't read sons and lovers
>>8091709
How would you compare the writing between Chatterly and WiL? Is it much different?
>>8091731
The writing style is similar, which is why I said if you really don't like chatterley then WiL will probably not be worth reading. The tension in Chatterly is fairly pedestrian in Chatterley - a wife fettered by a disabled and impotent husband finds thr sublime in the sensual pleasures of a strong lover (and industrialism isbad?). In WiL the tension is simply more interesting - four people develop relationships with each other in the context of their temperaments and theit experiences, leading to deeper and more meaningful thought.
But the writing itself is similar, Lawrence is great at creating characters and is fixated on his characters struggling to access the ineffable (Chatterley in Chatterly and Birkin in WiL). On the flipside all of his characters give verrryyy meaningful looks like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, eyes are filled with lots of emotion, and there is a lot of "telling" as opposed to showing
>>8091108
and don't forget her talking to his dick and calling it john thomas and the novel ending with a letter where the game keeper anticipates the ruinion of john thomas and her cunt
>>8090201
Hit a little too close to home, cuck?
I felt the prose was scintillating for the most part and I thoroughly enjoyed the read.
