The issues of the modern world that permeate Lawrence's fiction are social and political. To name a few, they are Collectivism, Industrialization, Commercialism, Materialism, Urbanization (and the resulting blight to the countryside) and Secularism. Where is the place of the individual in all this, according to Lawrence? What characters in his novels achieve individualism, if any do? And finally, because the beginnings of the modern world were hovering on the horizon in the 19th century, how is Lawrence's treatment of this different from Hardy's?
Again, please excuse the late post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Obviously the advantages, as well as the disadvantages, of the modern world were on the brink of the horizon during the nineteenth century setting of The Rainbow. Lawrence's writings show the difficulties that the characters experienced, the challenges they faced, and the struggles they endured. The beginning of his novel describes the culture of society as well as the physical appearance of the land as it had always been. Throughout the novel, however, the individual characters struggle with trying to stay with the familiar ways of life or embrace the newer, more modern lifestyles. Both the traditional and the new age have their advantages and disadvantages. And I think that Lawrence is trying to show that in both situations, people are never truly individuals. No matter what, they are influenced by their surroundings. The traditional characters remain in a certain expected role and mold themselves to fit into it. Even though the more new-age individuals, such as Ursula, break away from the traditional roles, their actions are still influenced by their society. I don't think that any character truly achieves individualism. Everyone is too much affected by their own society and culture, whether it be agriculture or factory.
I don't really know if this is what you are asking for or if I even answered the questions. It just kinda came to mind (plus im a little tired). Sorry.
Wow, those were some big names thrown out there for the issues that have a role in The Rainbow. It's a lot to think about, but I believe that the individual is deeply influenced by all of these things, because a person is only a product of modern society, whether they are trying to fight it or be a part of it. I don't really think the characters in his novel successfully achieve individualism because they are all acting on what is going on around them. Of course there is the occasional risque affair, but even these are brought about by the characters' needs to fit in with society. They might do some things that test the norm, but it is still all a part of cause and effect, at least in my opinion. I hope I am making some sense, because I've had a long day, but now to discuss Lawrence vs. Hardy. Obviously Lawrence is more daring when it comes to putting some things down on paper. Maybe Hardy tried to keep the modern world and the old world in a certain balance. He introduced some new things, like a woman running a farm, but he didn't do it in such a dramatic way as Lawrence did. Lawrence's style of writing may have been a slap in the face at the time, while Hardy's in comparison was just food for thought.
In response to Erin,
"People are never truly individuals." What a bold statement. But I think I know what you mean by that.
I like that you mention Ursula. She is a prime example of someone trying to be "different", but then again, aren't rebels put into a class of their own with other rebels? And then again, if we are all "different", are we not all the same in this case?
The themes of social upheaval predominantly affect the characters of The Rainbow. They struggle to find themselves in this changing, modernized world. Lawrence uses relationships to connect the characters in the novel. More importantly, Lawrence uses religion as a centerpiece for individualism; although characters like Anna and Skrebensky fail in their spiritual quests, I think Lawrence is trying to make us see the bigger picture: there are other social conventions that help people achieve individualism besides only religion.
I think the obvious difference in Lawrence and Hardy's works is the treatment of nature; Hardy implements the natural world in much of his characterization with Oak and Bathsheba. Lawrence focuses more on the supernatural and symbolical figures, like the rainbow itself.
Each character tries to find their way during a time of social changes. Industrialization, Commercialism and Urbanization all played a part in how the characters reacted to the world around them. Ursula's character tries to break away from the mold that was placed on woman, achieving the freedom that she wanted.
Lawrence actually put into effect what Hardy skimmed on. At least for women, he created the ability to be able to balance individualism while taking care of the homefront. But because society is slow towards change, the characters had to achieve their individualism carefully so as not to disrupt the norms of society. Lawrence showed that you can adapt to societies wishes without giving up a part of one's true self.
In response to Shelley,
I like how you commented that Lawrence gave a more bold statement about society whereas Hardy only touched on it. I think this can help us see how literature has evolved. This goes hand in hand with the statement that society changes slowly and individuals have to be careful in their own changing so as not to disrupt the cultural expectations. However, I don't think that I agree with the idea that Lawrence's novel shows readers how a person "can adapt to societies wishes without giving up a part of one's true self." I don't think that that is possible.
Claudia, I agree with your assertion that all characters became a product of their society some way or another. However, you have to give Ursula the credit she deserves and say that she reached some form of individualism. She was able to fully express her independence, unlike her predecessors in the family tree. Throughout her home life as the eldest of Will and Anna, at school, and during her relationship with Skrebensky, Ursula developed into a strong-willed individual who you could almost say achieved personal autonomy.
In Lawrence's The Rainbow, the individual seems, for the most part, to be fodder for the new institutions rising up in a world at this dawning of a new era. This is especially exemplified in Ursula’s thoughts when she visits her uncle in the mining town and sees all the people as inhuman shells, interchangeable and expendable cogs in a machine that is fueled by the individual's very soul... or something like that. Lawrence seems to be saying that the institutions coming into prominence (Collectivism, Industrialization, Commercialism, Urbanization, etc.) push the individual out of the way to make room for its monstrous growth - or the institutions simply consume the individual, either killing them or enveloping them into the machine. As far as Secularism goes, or the rise of Secularism in this time period concerning individualism, it would seem that Secularism strengthens the individualism of an, uh, individual. Secularism and individualism both celebrate the achievements of man, they are concerned with the tangible wonders of this world, and when Tom begins to lose his religion (thanks to his wife's prodding) he clings onto the material thing, the cathedrals and churches themselves. Even Tom's religious endeavors and passions are actually Secular and humanistic. I’m pretty sure I had an awesome point to throw on the end of that, but it has escaped me at the moment... the world's loss, I suppose.
I believe Ursula achieves individualism in that she is consciously not governed by societal standards and expectations. She is determined to make her own way, to create her own destiny, to not settle for what is expected. She almost does settle, at the end of the novel, when she decides to give in and marry Skrebensky. However, when she find out he is already married (he can't wait to fulfill his expected roll in society and appropriately rotates one cog out of the position to replace it with another), she thinks it is just as well and continues to see a bleak version of the budding industrialization in her strange new world; however, she also sees a ray of light on the horizon of her dark landscape.
And finally, in Hardy the characters work with nature, they are a part of it. Industrialization is not so much a concern, the people farmed the land, they past time outside, they were in tune with nature. In Lawrence, some of his characters (mostly at the beginning) are in tune with nature, working the land and communing with the great outdoors, but as the novel progresses, the characters move away from this oneness with nature and create their own systems, which takes from nature rather than works in harmony with it. As a result, the people have poisoned themselves and their land, they have lost their connection with nature and some would say with God, they have sold their souls for industry.
In response to Claudia...
Being one who prides themselves on not following the heard, going against the grain and so on, I would like to believe that your view of an individual and their roll in society (that everyone is a product of their society, either fighting it or fitting into it) is not true. I’d like to believe that people completely control their own destinies regardless of where or when or how they grew up, I’d like to believe that decisions an individual makes are not based on what others around them would think... I would also like to believe that I’m going to grow another six inches in the next few years, but, on all accounts, I must sigh and accept the sad truth: You're right and I’m short. Everyone is affected by their society; even hermits who drop out of society altogether still chose to live like that because of their previous society. Religious affiliation (or lack thereof), career decisions, who to marry, all of these important decisions and thousands more big and little issues are swayed by what society one lives in. One could never separate themselves fully from their society; at least in the sense that part of one’s self - the defining characteristics of an individual - is shaped and molded in some way by the society in which one has been raised. I have more but I’ve already said too much - they're listening....
Hardy focussed more on the natural world and how individuals fit into it. Lawrence was one of the first authors to primarily explore the individuals inner struggles and emotions. Lawrence uses symbolism and religion to explore the relationships between people. A critic of the industrialized world Lawrence's characters fall victim to the materialistic world. I feel that none of the characters achieve individualism for this very reason. Society is to much strong of an influence.
I agree with what martin says. The modernized world does prove to be quite the obstacle for the characters of the Rainbow in seeking individualism.
Lawrence establishes religion as a prerequisite for one to achieve individualism. The Rainbow's characters are unable to achieve this because the religious dedication is to often compromised by the secular society.
In a world of Collectivism, Industrialization, Commercialism, Materialism, Urbanization, and Secularism, an individual must make a life for themselves. I believe Lawrence is trying to get that point across in his work. He wants his readers to understand how in the beginning, before Industrialization, there wasn’t room for individualism. People were at one with nature and their land. Everyone followed a norm; but that’s because no other world was known. Then came along modernization and people were forced to become individuals. Individuals actually saw how very different they were from one another and how it was important to establish individualism. One had to become one with oneself.
I believe Ursula best achieves individualism because she realizes the importance of moving away from social expectations. Others around her, for some reason or another, keep their way of thinking—their way of life. I believe they had already settled in their ways while Ursula, educated (another form of modernity to females), refuses to accept the standards.
It seems as if Lawrence wanted to break away from the norms while Hardy wanted to retain them. Lawrence is saying yeah before Industrialization the world was better off, but now there’s modernity and it actually has more to offer. Each author rationalizes the importance they place on both ends of the spectrum (old vs. new).
In response to those who believe an individual is what society makes them:
Have you all not taken Ethics and philosophy? Classes like these teach you to have a mind of your own. What about government and history? Classes like these teach you how things in the past were and how getting involved in the NOW can make a difference. Where we are now in life is not how it was when both author's wrote these books. We have come along way. Even in Lawrence's novel, Ursula--who happens to be female--is able to get an education. Education is what so many of our female foremothers have fought extremely hard to afford to all of the female race. I, for one, am appreciative of their struggles. And the fact that I am black, I have more to be proud of then to just sit back and let society have its way with me. I have already put my foot down and said Hell No I Won't Go. I refuse to be a statistic; I refuse to follow standards; I refuse to let each one you sit here and say that You are what society has made you. If that's the case then you don't deserve what it has to offer you because you're not going to use it for the benefit and the progression of the world anyhow. It feels good to break away from the norm. If I'd followed society, I would be a job hopping, uneducated single mom on welfare, sitting at home watching talk shows, and eating bom-boms all day, everyday. Because the family that I am from has sat back and let society rule them. I cannot relate to my family members, especially my mom. Each female family member had aspirations, but settled to take care of family. How 18th century is that? Not I and I have 3 kids. I figure I might as well break the chain so tightly etched into my family. Apparently, they do not realize that we were set free years ago. I know society may seem one way, but if we all work together, we can mold society into what we are.
Sorry for any grammatical errors, I am just upset.
In response to Claudia:
I agree with what you said concerning Lawrence vs. Hardy. Figuratively, Hardy remains far from the edge of the cliff while Larence waltzes on the edge. There is far more riaque detail in Lawrence's text itself as well as the storyline/characters than in Hardy -- Lawrence is bold while Hardy is afraid to do anything but dabble in the "forbidden pool."
I think Ursula truly achieves individualism as opposed to the other characters. She certainly examines what is available to her over traditional choices. As far as modernism goes, Lawrence almosts paints a picture of conflict between modernism and traditionalism. It is more like the challenges that come with adapting to new changes. As the generations continue passing, modern changes bring greater expansion and broader outlooks for the residents and the newer generations are not interested in staying and becoming farmers.
Hardy doesn't have a lot conflict with industrialism. The characters seem to be a little removed from it and they live the traditional life of farmer and farm hand. The changes don't seem to greatly effect them.
lady t,
In response to your response, I understand where you are coming from, to a point. I am obviously not black but there are just as many white people who have come from stereotypical 'white trash, trailer trash' families who have broken the mold. Color has no bearing on how a person lives their lives. It's all a matter of personal choice. Unfortunately those choices were not always available to women in particular, regardless of color. The right to vote, to work, or have any personal gains outside the family and home where next to impossible for us woman. I do understand that it was harder for a black woman since blacks in particular where held back because of slavery and prejudice. But white women have had their share of obstacles and have also had to break the molds and have had to refuse to conform to societies expectations. I absolutely agree with you that "if we all work together, we can mold society into what we are." Regardless of color, we all need to get involed to make a difference so that our children have examples that they can be proud of.
Post a Comment