" You can't have two kinds of love. Why should you ! " " It seems as if I can't," he said. " Yet I wanted it." *' You can't have it, because it's false, impossible," she said.
*' I don't believe that," he answered.
--------------------
(my commentary):
THE other pair that survived is left with a gaping hole betwixt them. The woman has been programmed to love a male forever and the male, in this case, has spent much of his time hanging out with aristocracy where male bonding is not forbidden and is held in higher esteem than in the milk cow mud fields of England. The story is called woman but it's about men and their control of women so that in the end, they can never receive nor give or offer another woman infinite unbounded love that they give and taste from other men in their bonding and respect for one another in this bond of control over women--who are in love but not really, are trained in a cloistered environment and are not able to spread their wings and fly to other realms of concept or identity. DH Lawrence wrote a quote about beating women if they respond with hostility towards a man, in the marriage. He doesn't mention what grounds a woman may have for such a reaction towards the man. That infinite desire to bond into a special unit of one solidarity remains an unfolded flower, a gem uncut and a promise eternally broken by a divinity that is as uncompromising in lackadaisical unconcern as the father in the book is towards his questioning and outspoken daughter--punishing for not doing what one is told, and beaten for questioning authority--and the men can only love one male god and truly love other men while women remain as Eve in the fallen garden, left out of the conversation, left ignorant and left without the information to make informed consent a possibility of kicking these men to the curb and finding independence from codified attachment and meaning in the mysterious concept of Love and of, in fact, the love that men hold for other men and their lessor love for women, unless they play the Madonna love nurturing mother figure to them until they are ready for the final diaper stage of old age. That, in essence, is my rendition of a commentary on DH Lawrences Women in Love and his resounding in-the-closet book on how badly he wants to break free of the bonding rituals and of society's thrust into his desires and foregoing his Hobbit Shires of the glorification of the mundane bourgeoise existence of conformity to the boundaries of acceptable love and it's practical and violent assumptions about women--who are trained to love abusers while men love abusers as well. In reality, when the situation is set out of the Shires of postcard bliss, the real love is reserved for the cold, dead hearts of those who cannot love but master the animals and tame the throbbing desires of other men until it's a cold, death-like experience of love restrained and women can't dare complain. Thus, in order to get away, they kill those they cannot love who cannot love them but cling to them for the sake of appearances and are unable to love those they control--other men with woman falling far down the food chain of desire, unity and unification of true love abandoned and lost.
--------------
(my commentary--out of sync and order on my Facebook page but I will add it at the end, although the paragraph above was intended to be the last. If it turns out in this hacked and haphazard way, it's because I will take this as a form of synchronicity that the mention of God is contemplated and commented upon by the poetic lover who can really only love a cold, dead God and a colder dead would-be male lover, love unrequited and thus, to him, the infinite potentials of love are lost in his miserable state of regret and disappointment in his former bliss in the unification of the woman he has chosen to be his one and only --mommy remembrance of nurturing love unconditional and unspoiled by knowledge of the forbidden fruit of knowledge. Near the end of Women in Love...Birkin the living bemoans to himself the loss of his near Brokeback Mountain moment, eulogizing about the love's labor lost:
" "God can do without man. God could do without the ichthyosauri and the mastodon. These monsters failed creatively to develop, so God, the creative mystery, dis- pensed with them. In the same way the mystery could dis- pense with man, should he too fail creatively to change and develop. The eternal creative mystery could dispose of man, and replace him with a finer created being. Just as the horse has taken the place of the mastodon.
It was very consoling to Birkin, to think this. If humanity ran into a cul de sac, and expended itself, the timeless creative mystery would bring forth some other being, finer, more wonderful, some new, more lovely race, to carry on the embodiment of creation. The game was never up. The mystery of creation was fathomless, infallible, in- exhaustible, forever. Races came and went, species passed away, but ever new species arose, more lovely, or equally lovely, always surpassing wonder. The fountain-head was incorruptible and unsearchable. It had no limits. It could bring forth miracles, create utter new races and new species, in its own hour, new forms of consciousness, new forms of body, new units of being. To be man was as nothing compared to the possibilities of the creative mys- tery. To have one's pulse beating direct from the mystery, this was perfection, unutterable satisfaction. Human or inhuman mattered nothing. The perfect pulse throbbed with indescribable being, miraculous unborn species.
Birkin went home again to Gerald. He went into the room, and sat down on the bed. Dead, dead and cold !...Then suddenly he lifted his head, and looked straight at Ursula, with dark, almost vengeful eyes.
^* He should have loved me," he said. " I offered him."
She, afraid, white, with mute lips answered :
" What difference would it have made ! "
" It would !" he said. " It would."
He forgot her, and turned to look at Gerald. With head oddly lifted, like a man who draws his head back from an insult, half haughtily, he watched the cold, mute, material face. It had a bluish cast. It sent a shaft like ice through the heart of the living man. Cold, mute, material ! Birkin remembered how once Gerald had clutched his hand, with a warm, momentaneous grip of final love. For one second — then let go again, let go for ever. If he had kept true to that clasp, death would not have mattered. Those who die, and dying still can love, still believe, do not die. They live still in the beloved. Gerald might still have been living in the spirit with Birkin, even after death. He might have lived with his friend, a further life.
But now he was dead, like clay, like bluish, corruptible ice. Birkin looked at the pale fingers, the inert mass. He remembered a dead stallion he had seen : a dead mass of maleness, repugnant. He remembered also the beautiful face of one whom he had loved, and who had died still having the faith to yield to the mystery. That dead face was beautiful, no one could call it cold, mute, material. No one could remember it without gaining faith in the mystery, without the soul's warming with new, deep life- trust.
And Gerald ! The denier ! He left the heart cold, frozen, hardly able to beat. Gerald's father had looked wistful, to break the heart : but not this last terrible look of cold, mute Matter. Birkin watched and watched"
*my final commentary on this book about men in love (or not):
And that's the story of women in love and the men who love other men and their fathers who beat animals, women, wives, daughters and control and keep regurgitating more children in that old marriage system as the pondering philosophers stuck in the suburbs or yet worse the rural areas have to ponder alone the existence of God or whether God cares just like father doesn't care in the household to their womenfolk--(following the plot and the line of violence and activity in the book--not my personal commentary on existence, rural kinfolk and their disputes or on homosexuality in general).
No comments:
Post a Comment