RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE
RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE
8 mother. All she does in relation to her sons is done, the critic says, with ‘vicarious joy'. In short, the mother is almost treated as a 'saint'. The same quotation Millet uses to express her point about the mother's non-possessiveness proves in fact exactly the contrary: "Now she had two sons in the world. She could think of two places... and feel she put a man into each of them, that these men would work out what she wanted...” (Sons and Lovers, p.101 - My underlining). If Millet had been more careful she certainly would not have quoted the last sentence. It proves the high degree of possessiveness in the mother. In relation to The Rainbow Millet's ideas are weaker. She claims (without evidence) that Lawrence's theory of education matches school. Mr Harby's, Ursula's superior in Brinsley Street The critic also says that the idea of the new woman in Lawrence's novel is the one of the woman-castrator. According to Millet, the role of women in this novel is to destroy men. Ursula's main quest is what the critic calls "big want", i.e., a husband. As Skrebensky is only an empty shell, Ursula destroys him and will wait for the real 'son of God' personified by Birkin, the protagonist of Women in Love. Millet also considers Ursula's initiation into the 'man's world' as repellent and says that Lawrence can only sympathize provisionally, stipulating that the moment Ursula "proves herself" (he will allow her to survive but not to succeed), she must consent to withdraw from his territory on the instant she has satisfied her perverse little desire to try the water (p.261). And this occurs, says the critic, because Ursula is not looking for her independence as a woman. Her "want", as I pointed out before, is a husband.
Millets' tendentious criticism states that in Ursula's homosexual affair with her 'fellow spirit', Winifred Inger, what Lawrence wants is to illustrate the dangers of feminism. She argues that "Lawrence has recourse here to adjectives such as "corruption" and entitles the chapter where it occurs as "Shame"" (ibid). Millet does not state in her argument that the pernicious invasion of industrialism in Wiggiston, the dehumanization of men and the rottenness of Uncle Tom are also important factors. This, I believe, is the reason why the chapter is entitled "Shame". Millet's analysis here seems unfair. In Women in Love, Millet considers that the book is a compaign against modern women who, according to her, are represented by Hermione Roddice and Gudrun Brangwen. "Ursula", she says, "shall be saved by becoming Birkin's wife and echo" (p.263). Birkin's theory of the new kind of relationship "is in effect a denial of personality in the woman" (p.264). Millet does not mention Ursula's awareness of Birkin's view of 'star polarity' between man and woman. Ursula indeed knows that Birkin wants not a balanced relation but the woman as a satellite of the man. Millet does not see this. Her reading is directed to saying that when Ursula and Birkin marry, it is a question of Ursula being 'tamed' and setting women towards 'extinction'. In the end of the novel Ursula is viewed by Millet as a 'model wife' who 'naively' responds to her superior husband. I do not agree with her due to the fact that both Ursula and Birkin are indeed searching for a different kind of relationship. The fact that the book has presented several occasions in which they are seen arguing and defending their points of view plus the ending of the book which shows them disagreeing with each other show
- Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATAR
- Page 3 and 4: iii A todas as pessoas que ainda a-
- Page 5 and 6: V AGRADECIMENTO ESPECIAL Ao Profess
- Page 7 and 8: vii relationships. Yet, the partner
- Page 9 and 10: ix Lawrence mostra uma tentativa de
- Page 11 and 12: CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF PROBLEM When
- Page 13 and 14: 3 because of this, this phase is co
- Page 15 and 16: 5 The views of these above mentione
- Page 17: 7 female reader will remember herse
- Page 21 and 22: 11 Everyone who writes on Lawrence
- Page 23 and 24: 13 As for homosexuality (which Moor
- Page 25 and 26: 15 two thirds of the book [Huxley]
- Page 27 and 28: 17 in this dissertation. Vivas' vie
- Page 29 and 30: 19 lack of evidence to prove his po
- Page 31 and 32: 21 text and supported by the text.
- Page 33 and 34: 23 kind of bridge for her search. H
- Page 35 and 36: 25 As for the affair between Gudrun
- Page 37 and 38: 27 a position Lawrence could not de
- Page 39 and 40: 29 the love of the powerful mother,
- Page 41 and 42: 31 can be associated with Dr Franks
- Page 43 and 44: 33 indifferent to human life. Yet h
- Page 45 and 46: 35 he says "Yet at the end, when Ci
- Page 47 and 48: 37 spiritual, or aggressive women a
- Page 49 and 50: CHAPTER II THE PATTERN OF CONFLICT
- Page 51 and 52: 41 and mind superiority. She is wha
- Page 53 and 54: 43 father was serving beer in a pub
- Page 55 and 56: 45 the control the whole family wit
- Page 57 and 58: eturning home drunken and certainly
- Page 59 and 60: to reconcile the children with the
- Page 61 and 62: more persuasive to her sons in the
- Page 63 and 64: succeed in life. This is an unconsc
- Page 65 and 66: to strengthen the relation. This me
- Page 67 and 68: eally wants. He goes from one decis
Millets' tendentious criticism states that in Ursula's<br />
homosexual affair with her 'fellow spirit', Winifred Inger, what<br />
Lawrence wants is to illustrate the dangers of feminism.<br />
She<br />
argues that "Lawrence has recourse here to adjectives such as<br />
"corruption" and entitles the chapter where it occurs as<br />
"Shame"" (ibid).<br />
Millet does not state in her argument that the<br />
pernicious invasion of industrialism in Wiggiston, the<br />
dehumanization of men and the rottenness of Uncle Tom are also<br />
important factors.<br />
This, I believe, is the reason why the<br />
chapter is entitled "Shame".<br />
Millet's analysis here seems<br />
unfair.<br />
In Women in Love, Millet considers that the book is a<br />
compaign against modern women who, according to her, are<br />
represented by Hermione Roddice and Gudrun Brangwen.<br />
"Ursula",<br />
she says, "shall be saved by becoming Birkin's wife and echo"<br />
(p.263).<br />
Birkin's theory of the new kind of relationship "is in<br />
effect a denial of personality in the woman" (p.264).<br />
Millet<br />
does not mention Ursula's awareness of Birkin's view of 'star<br />
polarity' between man and woman.<br />
Ursula indeed knows that<br />
Birkin wants not a balanced relation but the woman as a satellite<br />
of the man. Millet does not see this. Her reading is directed<br />
to saying that when Ursula and Birkin marry, it is a question<br />
of Ursula being 'tamed' and setting women towards 'extinction'.<br />
In the end of the novel Ursula is viewed by Millet as a 'model<br />
wife' who 'naively' responds to her superior husband.<br />
I do not<br />
agree with her due to the fact that both Ursula and Birkin are<br />
indeed searching for a different kind of relationship.<br />
The fact<br />
that the book has presented several occasions in which they are<br />
seen arguing and defending their points of view plus the ending<br />
of the book which shows them disagreeing with each other show
Change language