Talk:Lady Chatterley's Lover/Archive 1

Archive 1

Issues raised in the trial

The Lady Chatterley's Lover trial had issues raised on whether or not the book was an obscene book within the meaning of the law. Questions posed whether this book should be tolerated in the sense that it may tend to deprave, corrupt or induce promiscuity within a conservative contemporary society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.133.109.178 (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for rewording

The paragraph immediately following the "Controversy" heading[1] seems like it has been cut from the paragraph which follows it. There are references to the outcome of the trial before mention of the trial itself is made. It is rather confusing, and needs to be reworded. I am not going to fix this problem, since I don't know much about the subject material, but someone should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.224.241 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Millett's Sexual Politics

There should be a reference to Kate Millett's discussion of this book in her Sexual Politics. --Bailamor (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An anachronistic caption

quite frankly i do not think there was any such thing as a "dvd cover" in 1981! (see picture caption[2]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.41.237 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs more on characters, settings, themes and controversy

I'm definitely going to try and do something with this page. I'm new to all this, but it seems to me that this article needs more on characters, settings, themes- especially industrialisation which (if I remember my A-levels correctly!) Lawrence had a lot to say about- as well as more about the controversy surrounding the novel as there has been so much written about it. It's a bit of an undertaking- so any suggestions will be helpful! considerable~powers (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of the whole book are Lady Chatterleys feelings towards the gamekeeper. I wouldn't delete the relevant passages. You might as well just burn the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.170.132 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of a current publisher in the lead

Grove Press may be a notable publisher of the book, but this mention in the article's lead section of them being "the current US publisher" seemed unwarranted and spammy, so I deleted it. (Besides, isn't the book in the public domain in the U.S.(?), in which case a publisher couldn't really be "the publisher"?) --83.253.248.109 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other versions of the novel

How do John Thomas and Lady Jane and The First Lady Chatterley differ? Шизомби (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently writing my Masters dissertation on the subject. I would say, in a few words, that the main differences are:

1. John Thomas and Lady Jane (JTLJ) is a much longer version than The First Lady Chatterley (FLC); almost every paragraph of FLC has been expanded in JTLJ.
2. The scenes and characters of FLC are much more superficial - sketched I would say - than in JTLJ.
3. The ending is different: FLC ends with Constance alone thinking about Parkin, deciding to leave Clifford and hoping to live with Parkin in the future; JTLJ ends with Constance and Parkin together but preparing to go their own ways.
4. JTLJ is generally considered to be the most lyrical of the three versions (see descriptions of natural landscapes and Constance's reaction to them.
5. The themes are the same but the emphasis shifts: FLC stresses the industrial and social topic (i.e. class distinction and destructive industrialism); JTLJ stresses the cosmic topic (i.e. men must come into contact with the cosmos surrounding them and with other men); the final version - although you did not ask - stresses the "resurrection of the body" and the need to rehabilitate sexual consciousness and the language of sex.

DHLfanatic (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What kind(s) of sex?

Given that the sexual passages of the book are given such importance, shouldn't there be a mention in our article of what actually goes on? Personally, I haven't read and have no particular interest in reading the book, but my mother recalls that they did "everything". I suspect her definition of "everything" of being rather more narrow than yours or mine, but I can't be sure without any clarification of what was involved in these contentious passages. Anyone? - Vague | Rant 10:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there need to be a part on what sex happens in the book- as the main concerns were to do with the word fuck and the fact that the relationship was so socially inequal. FYI- I think oral, vaginal and anal about covers it ;) considerable~powers (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have suitable references at hand, but one incident in the book appears to imply anal intercourse. I've read what seemed like well-informed speculation that the topic was so utterly taboo that some people involved in the obscenity trial--possibly including the judge--actually did not know what anal intercourse was, and did not recognize it in the passage that was being described... and that it was so taboo that the prosecution did not dare to put it plainly... and that had the jury understood it the trial could well have gone the other way.

It seems to me that this goes beyond the use of the f-word and that the article probably should deal with this passage (pun intentional). Dpbsmith (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not read this book, however I understand from one discussion on TV I have heard that there is a passage which would be taken by many people to imply anal sex, which the defence team at the trial considered to be the biggest problem. They decided to argue that it could be interpreted as meaning "doggy sex" i.e. vaginal sex from the rear. PatGallacher (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a passage on anal intercourse in the book although for obvious reasons it is implicit: "It was a night of sensual passion, in which she was a little startled and almost unwilling (...) Burning out the shames, the deepest, oldest shames, in the most secret places. It had cost her an effort to let him have his way and his will of her." (Penguin Books 1977, p.258)

  The presence of this passage is justified a few lines below the above quotation: "She had often wondered what Abélard meant, when he said that in their year of love he and Héloïse had passed through all the stages and refinements of passion." (p.258) DHLfanatic (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Main characters section blatantly copied from SparkNotes

I don't know what is considered appropriate action, just thought I'd point this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.29.40 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be correct about this; the oldest archive of the text at SparkNotes is from January 2001, and it was copied into this article in January 2010. And SparkNotes' non-permissive licence terms are here.

The appropriate action can be found by typing "WP:plagiarism" into the Wikipedia search field. --80.217.2.199 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lord Chamberlain's Office censorship

I moved the LCO censorship material from the Lord Chamberlain's Office article to this article. It may be of relevance here, but it isn't there. --Tysto (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It was promptly deleted from this article with the comment: "Wayyy too much detailed quotation. Try to summarize main salient points and back up with quotes, but don't throw in the entire letter willy-nilly". But here it is:

The Lord Chamberlain's Office and Lady Chatterley

In Great Britain, the Lord Chamberlain's Office was responsible for censorship of books and plays. One play which did eventually receive a license to be performed in a public theatre was Lady Chatterley, the dramatization by playwright John Harte. It was licensed on 12 August 1960 to be performed at Wyndham's Theatre in London's West End—but only on the following strict conditions, failing which the producer was warned, the theatre could be closed down.

The following is the text of a letter sent to the producer, Miss Wauna Paul, on September 5, 1961 as negotiations proceeded:

Lord Chamberlain's Office St James's Palace, S.W.1. Dear Madam, "Lady Chatterley" I am desired by the Lord Chamberlain to inform you that he is prepared to license the play "Lady Chatterley" subject to your undertaking to comply with his requirements noted on the annexed sheet. Where matter is to be substituted for that deleted, it must first be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain, and in any case I am to ask for the submission of the dialogue it is proposed to insert at III-4 Yours faithfully

Appendix to letter to Miss Wauna Paul Dated 5 September 1961 "LADY CHATTERLEY" The following is disallowed: Act II-6A. The word ' ..cunt.. ' (twice) The phrases 'It's thee down there. And what I get when I'm inside thee. And what tha gets when I'm inside thee.' Act II-33. The words ' .. Sir John Thomas.' Act II-34. The word ' .. maidenhair ..' Act II-36. The word ' .. fucking ..' Act II-37. The word ' .. fucking ..' (twice) An assurance is required that the stage directions given in the manuscript will be implicitly followed, and notably: (a) that they will not be exceeded by Connie and Mellors at Act II pages 4–5. (b) the MS at Act II pages 33–37 speaks of a hayloft and 'we see nothing but straw', with Connie wear- ing a slip. In this scene: (i) no bed either actual or makeshift will be allowed, the only covering being straw. (ii)Connie must never wear less than the stated slip, which must be opaque, cover her breasts and be of adequate length. (iii)Mellors must be reasonably clothed, at least in pants. (iv)the action between Connie and Mellors must not exceed that described in the stage directions submitted.

None of that was unexpected. But, in fact, John Harte had decided at the outset not to include the infamous four-letter words which, he felt, were not needed. On the contrary, they would be likely to receive unwanted laughter from audiences at the most inappropriate times, which would interrupt the play. Frieda Lawrence had raised no objections to their exclusion. The subject never even arose. But the charade had to be continued with The Lord Chamberlain's Office to ensure that certain incidents onstage would not be banned when the play transferred from The Arts Theatre (technically a membership club) to a public theatre. For example;

"Aye!" says Mellors in Act II-26; sitting up, his chest bare.

That was not allowed:

"Mellors must wear an upper garment which may be open to his chest."

And when Connie puts on her slip over her head:

"Not allowed. Connie must throughout wear an upper garment completely covering her torso."

After they made love, Mellors was not allowed to stand by the door in his shirt and bare feet:

"Disallowed. Mellors must wear under garments visible below his shirt."

When Connie starts to dress, hurriedly pulling on her stockings;

"This dressing must not include putting on of drawers, which must be understood to be
on throughout."

The Assistant Comptroller went to great lengths on 10 October 1961 to ensure by letter that the Lord Chamberlain's wished would be carried out:

"From what I say above" [regarding exposed chests, Connie putting her slip over her head,
completely covering her torso, Mellors wearing pants, and Connie getting dressed in classical
Arletty form - in her French movies - by pulling on her stockings, and not forgetting to pull on
her drawers]; "you will appreciate, and in fact I am to make quite plain to you, that the Lord
Chamberlain will not allow 'Mellors' and 'Connie' to appear to be together under a blanket
in a naked condition whether this actually is or is not so. In allowing them to appear on the
stage under a blanket the Lord Chamberlain is making a very definite concession, and because
of this he asks me to give a particular warning that no love making beyond that actually noted
in the Stage Directions submitted will be allowed."

The official license was signed by "Scarborough, Lord Chamberlain" (otherwise Lawrence Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough).

Bye the way, what source is it from, originally? (Here's the material as first pasted into the LCO article.) --83.255.59.153 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bourgeois Lady?

Lady Chatterley bourgeois? Is she not a member of the aristocracy, being a "Lady"? I can't remember what her hubby's rank was. Will someone fix it, or do I need to read the book again? (Ick.) Trxi (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir Clifford was a baronet, which is aristocracy. I shall change it. --"MRB" Florida2georgiaguy (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the significant passage: "Clifford Chatterley was more upper-class than Connie. Connie was well-to-do intelligentsia, but he was aristocracy. Not the big sort, but still it. His father was a baronet, and his mother had been a viscount's daughter." --Adam 141.243.60.12 (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "aristocratic woman" in the intro to "upper class" woman, by-passing both bourgeois and aristocratic, although she is probably most accurately described as bourgeois. As the above user quotes, Connie is not herself from the aristocracy, but rather has married up. Lawrence is very insistent on the differences between her background and her husband's, and how that affects their very different world-views. Winter Maiden (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A reviewer disappointed in too little gamekeeping lore?

Was there really a review expressing disappointment that the story doesn't contain more gamekeeping lore? Can it be cited? Is it worth mentioning? —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I read that there was one review which commented that the description of gamekeeping techniques was rather dated. This may be apocryphal. PatGallacher (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be apocryphal, but there are other examples of reviews like this in gentleman's magazines of the late 19th century-- I'd have to root out some RS, remaindered bookshops are a good place to look for things like this. (No Fish! The book of hilarious reviews from the Gentleman's Magazine, 1850-1920, now 50p). But if well quoted they can be quite handy for this kind of reference (I tend to get them at Christmas from tightwad aunts). I think, though could not prove, that the review so deliberately missed the point that intelligent readers would read between the lines, and go out to buy the book.

(Yes I realise Chatterley was not late 19th century but I am just saying I think it was quite a common technique then in polite society). SimonTrew (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Although written many years ago, Lady Chatterley's Lover has just been reissued by the Grove Press, and this fictional account of the day-to-day life of an English gamekeeper is still of considerable interest to outdoor minded readers, as it contains many passages on pheasant raising, the apprehending of poachers, ways to control vermin, and other chores and duties of the professional gamekeeper. Unfortunately, one is obliged to wade through many pages of extraneous material in order to discover and savor these sidelights on the management of a Midlands shooting estate, and in this reviewer's opinion this book cannot take the place of J.R. Miller's Practical Gamekeeping.

– Ed Zern in the column "Exit Laughing", Field & Stream magazine, November 1959. Reprinted in Best of Ed Zern: Fifty Years of Fishing and Hunting from One of America's Best-Loved Outdoor Humorists (ISBN 1585743429).

Like that perhaps? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 11:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is mentioned (and reprinted) in the bibliography by Roberts and Poplawski, saying: "No account of Lady Chatterley's Lover can be complete without some notice of the most memorable review of the novel by Ed Zern which appeared in Field and Stream ...", concluding that "Hereafter no Lawrence collection can be said to be complete without a copy of Miller's Practical Gamekeeping to place alongside Lady Chatterley's Lover!".

See also the blog post "When Field and Stream Magazine Reviewed Lady Chatterley's Lover". --83.255.59.153 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Literary reviews

This request from 5 years ago didn't generate any response until now. So let's consider it a new topic, which is why I moved it down to the end of the talk page. --80.217.15.92 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some information on literary reviews of the book. Do critics think the book has any merit beyond the sexuality? Unjedai (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Magnificent review: "Testament of love" – Doris Lessing on Lady Chatterley's Lover, The Guardian, 2006 (an edited extract from Lessing's introduction to the 2006 Penguin Classic edition) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.239.2 (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• A short review from The Observer, October 2010, by Nicola Barr who finds "raw power" in the book. --83.255.59.153 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Since the Ed Zern quote from Field & Stream posted here by Twospoonfuls isn't really a literary review, and since it answers the question of the topic A reviewer disappointed in too little gamekeeping lore? above, I have moved Twospoonfuls' post up to that topic.) --83.255.59.153 (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote about not wanting one's gamekeeper to read the book?

I have heard a story that when a defense lawyer in the obscenity trial was asked if Lady Chatterley's Lover was a book he would want his wife or servants to read, he responded "I would not object to my wife reading it, but I would have some concerns about my gamekeeper". Does anyone know if this is a real quote or if it is apocryphal? Is it worth mentioning as an apocryphal story if it cannot be confirmed? 205.172.21.142 (Lesley College) 18:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

In the trial, the prosecutor asked the jury:

"Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?"

According to the Banned Books website[3], in Foolish Figleaves? Pornography in and out of Court (1967), Richard H. Kuh tells that:

when the House of Lords debated the trial that cleared the novel, with its sexual episodes between a lady and her gamekeeper, a peer who agreed with the decision was asked, "Would you want your wife to read it?" He replied, "I would not object to my wife reading it, but I don't know about my gamekeeper."

--83.255.59.153 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The trial deserves a separate article

Given that the Chatterley trial was the most famous and certainly the most important obscenity trial in English legal history, surely it should have its own article. --Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.126.123 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

R v Penguin Books Ltd. --83.255.59.153 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"I know it when I see it"?

Was it not in this trial that the judge (or perhaps one of the barristers) defined pornography (obscenity?) as "I know it when I see it"? Or was that the "Special kids issue" trial? (Forgot the name of the magazine – John Mortimer defending.) SimonTrew (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The expression in question was uttered neither at the OZ magazine "Schoolkids Issue" trial where Mortimer defended, nor at the Chatterley trial.

I know it when I see it – from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  --83.255.59.153 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)