In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS but the weakness of each version seems more evident to me on rereading . Although The First Lady Chatterley has the solid integration one would expect in a short novel, it is saddled with the insistent ideology of class warfare. It could easily be mistaken for a neo-Marxist novella, a sign (as Lawrence apparently would realize) of how unLawrencean is its informing spirit and plot resolution. In John Thomas and Lady Jane—as if he begins to feel the inadequacies of the first version—Lawrence intrusively attempts to write off the earlier emphasis on class barriers with the unpersuasive ending of Parkin promising to come to Italy. In Lady Chatterley's Lover, Lawrence begins with the resonant title Tenderness, and soon he abandons it for the more naked statement of the novel's depiction of an urgent infidelity. It is not just the explicitness of the sex scenes that establishes contrast with the early versions of the novel, but also the crucial inclusion of the Wragby discussions, and the affair with Michaelis. In addition, the disturbing infantilism of Clifford is more prominent in Lady Chatterley's Lover, as are the pathetic interactions between Clifford and Mrs. Bolton. By the time of this final version Lawrence also recognizes the necessity of giving both Connie and Mellors more experienced histories that make them more credible as lovers and individuals: Mellors has a more tangled sexual past, and he has read books and can talk intelligently about them; Connie has developed into a complicated woman with a continental education and a list of former lovers. There is also the perfectly nuanced uncertainty at the end of the novel, with the muted and cathartic tone of a long letter from Mellors to Connie that we surely hear—even through the distance between them—as the revealing, ruminative essence of the woodkeeper's soul. Lawrence's deft touch at the end of version 3 is a signature of the organic integrity of this novel. The Cambridge publication of the earlier versions no doubt offers an important resource, but it ignores the opportunity to provide more context, consideration, and comparative judgment. Peter Balbert ________________ Trinity University Late-Victorian Aesthetics & Eros Richard Dellamora, ed. Victorian Sexual Dissidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. ν + 329 pp. Cloth $50.00 Paper $20.00 THE CONTRIBUTORS to this excellent collection advance two major claims. They convincingly argue that Walter Pater's aesthetics, specifically his emphasis on Greek eros, not only contributed to ho241 ELT 44 : 2 2001 moerotic desire between men but also aided "women interested in turning Greek eros to their own purposes." They also argue that Victorian sexual dissidence not only clarified normative behavior for Victorians but also provided the means to formulate new questions and to doubt Victorian medical, juridical, and economic pronouncements about sexual orientation. The contributors adeptly demonstrate how sexual dissidence resists familiar binary oppositions, such as "liberatory and conservative aestheticisms," and "takes many, sometimes, contradictory, forms." In the first part of this review, I'll focus on the contributors' two major claims. Then I'll discuss the contributors' insights regarding a variety of art forms and the clarity with which they produce their insights. I'll end by addressing a couple of minor reservations regarding the place of Jonathan Dollimore and his groundbreaking Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault (1991) in this collection and the curious omission of a selected bibliography. Richard Dellamora has assembled a superb cast of literary scholars. Kathy Psomiades, Yopie Prins, Martha Vicinus, Thaïs Morgan, Regenia Gagnier, Oliver Buckton, Andrew Hewitt, and Christopher Lane have already made noteworthy contributions to gender studies. Others— Dennis Denisoff, Eric Haralson, Julia Saville, and Robert Sulcer—are currently engaged in major projects involving gender studies. The contributors take chances—that is, they advance radical but defensible ideas—and they converse with one another. This conversation makes the collection engaging and exciting. The female contributors primarily examine how Greek eros, such as that conveyed by Pater in The Renaissance (1873) and Greek Studies (1895), is played out in female writers and artists. The male contributors primarily examine how Victorian same-sex discourses challenge Republican or orthodox views and contribute to creative...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 241-246
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Archive Status
Ceased Publication
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.