G’s Rainbow

August 8, 2010

I thought I posted this last week, but apparently didn’t. I’m further along in the book, and loving it, but no closer to understanding it. I think I need to talk it out in person.

My friend G. and I have decided that, since we were both interested in reading D.H. Lawrence’s The Rainbow, we would read it together, posting (at least, since they’re so long and dense) every 4 chapters. I’m in the midst of the 4th chapter right now, and remembering how much I loved Lawrence in school and wondering why I didn’t read more (just Sons and Lovers, and a couple short things). Probably because it’s so dense. Hard work, but it feels so good.

G. says that he’s drawn to the pastoral elements of the text: all the talk of nature. I find that most of my notes from my first attempt at reading it are about Lawrence’s writing about relationships. He just really, really captured the poetic essence of human relations.

But there was a passage that I questioned before, and I’m still not sure about it:

“…But so she lived, within a potent, sensuous belief that included her family and contained her destiny.

To this she had reduced her husband. He existed with her entirely indifferent to the general values of the world. Her very ways, the very mark of her eyebrows were symbols and indication to him. There, on the farm with her, he lived through a mystery of life and death and creation, strange, profound ecstasies and incommunicable satisfactions, of which the rest of the world knew nothing; which made the pair of them apart and respected in the English village…”

Reduced? I mean, I get it if it means heightened, made essential. But for someone who’s so precise with his diction…I’m just still thinking on that word, that’s all I’m saying.


One Response to “G’s Rainbow”

  1. G said

    I love the title of this post. 😉

    We will definitely be having coffee this week at some point. As far as your trouble with understanding this narrative; I believe the trouble is that this work lacks one.

    Up until now it’s been a series of familial vignettes. That’s not to say that this is a bad thing. Maybe we just have to throw out our expectations of such a story.

    As I wrote in my post: I feel like I know these characters intimately and yet they’ve only spoken a handful of times and with each other, even less.

    This text would also benefit from an Oedipal/Freudian reading. The relationship between Anna and her father. {creepy!}

    Still a few chapters behind you, but I’m catching up. So glad I’m reading this in the summer. It is very fitting is it not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: