WeBuzz
Reader discussion: Sons and Lovers
Public reader discussion about Sons and Lovers in the WeRead Catalog by D. H. Lawrence.
Calling parents "mater" and "pater" in Edwardian English literature
By Small-Mug1980
I’m working through *Sons and Lovers* right now, and Paul keeps calling his mother “Mater.” It instantly made me think of *Howards End*, where you get the same “Mater”/“Pater” thing too, and it feels kind of normal and affectionate in the scenes.
I can’t remember seeing those terms anywhere else in other novels, and I haven’t been able to figure out if it was actually a thing people did in early 20th-century Britain. When I tried searching around, I ended up on a discussion about *Call the Midwife* (set in the 1930s), where someone wonders why Chummy uses “Mater/Pater.”
Does anyone know of other books or shows where characters say “Mater” or “Pater”? I’d really like to understand when it started, what kind of context people used it in, and when it seemed to fade out.
Favorite classic book?
By EnzymeShore2004
Trying to keep building my collection—this is what I’ve read so far:
I Never Promised You a Rose Garden – Joanne Greenberg
The Picture of Dorian Gray – Oscar Wilde
Pride and Prejudice – Jane Austen
Letters to a Young Poet – Rainer Maria Rilke
Of Mice and Men – John Steinbeck
East of Eden – John Steinbeck
The Stranger – Albert Camus
Silence – Shusaku Endo
The Secret Garden – Frances Hodgson Burnett
And here are the ones I’ve got that I’m planning to read pretty soon:
North and South – Elizabeth Gaskell (like 60% in)
The Count of Monte Cristo – Alexandre Dumas
Crime and Punishment – Dostoevsky
The Book of Disquiet – Fernando Pessoa
Madonna in a Fur Coat – Sabahattin Ali
The Grapes of Wrath – John Steinbeck
Stoner – John Williams
The Bell Jar – Sylvia Plath
Frankenstein – Mary Shelley
Jane Eyre – Charlotte Brontë
Wuthering Heights – Emily Brontë
Emma – Jane Austen
Sense and Sensibility – Jane Austen
Persuasion
Northanger Abbey
Mansfield Park
White Nights – Dostoyevsky
Notes from Underground
The Brothers Karamazov
A Tale of Two Cities – Charles Dickens
Great Expectations – Charles Dickens
Tess of the d’Urbervilles – Thomas Hardy
D. H. Lawrence's 27 PDF books collection (Public domain) including : Sons and Lovers and Lady Chatterley's Lover
By WildHeron1980
I think I’ll give this a shot. I’m just finishing The Dubliners right now.
Sons and Lovers
By indigoFrog89
What was the point of the ending? I read it right after *Lady Chatterley’s Lover*, so my brain was already expecting some parent/child stuff. And yeah, it’s there, just not in the way I thought—more like all that emotional stuff bleeding into everything.
I don’t even know where to start because the whole book feels messy to me. The first part is mostly Mrs. Morel’s POV, and then a lot shifts to Paul, but it still feels like part 2 is more about how Paul feels than the actual straight-up sequence of events from part 1. Also the time skips were so frequent I kinda gave up on tracking their ages.
Walter Morel is one confusing character. Sometimes he seems like a normal loving husband, and other times he’s an outright abusive jerk. Is he lovebombing, or is the book just making him look extra inconsistent? Either way, I couldn’t figure out what to make of him.
Mrs. Morel, at least, feels more steady in a way—she loves her husband, until she doesn’t, and then it turns into this whole overprotective mother vibe. But then it also slides into that emotional incest thing with William and Paul, like she’s basically living through them and telling herself that they’re what her life is supposed to be. She shares everything with her sons. And the way the ending plays out with Paul feels more like parents fighting with each other as a couple than parent vs child.
With the romantic parts, I also can’t tell what Paul is even doing half the time. With Miriam being called his “personal thrashing ground,” and then the stuff with Mrs. Dawes not really being satisfied sexually, it comes off like Paul just wants the physical act. Like, sure, he gets his emotional needs from his mom… but does he not know how to love a woman, or can he only love his mom?
And Miriam… was she really that bad? She’s religious and she’s described like she wants to take something out of him, like she’s feeding off him. Paul can’t seem to actually meet that energy, so maybe he feels trapped? But then it makes me wonder how Clara fits in. I thought Clara liked Paul, but Paul seems to think he’s getting something emotional from her—when it ends up feeling more physical.
At the end, Paul just seems like a mess on a spiral. But then somehow he gets the willpower and stubbornness to not die like his mom did, so it feels like there’s a little plot armor keeping hope alive. And honestly, it’s baffling that the book is mostly about his relationships—because I thought once his mom was gone he’d finally be able to love Miriam/Clara for real. Instead he pushes Clara back to her husband and rejects Miriam.
Idk. It’s such a dysfunctional family, and it starts with Walter and his wife. Just… yikes all around.
What D.H. Lawrence should I read?
By Paper-Teal83
Where do I even start with Lawrence? I haven’t read any of his stuff before, so I’m kinda lost—can someone point me in the right direction?
For context, I usually like Bukowski, and I also really enjoyed Hemingway and Kerouac.
Is On the Road a good book? From I have seen, the opinions are very divided
By BlackSpurgall
I think I missed the “what” part in the title.
D.H. Lawrence’s Women in Love
By FeatherWhispers7
Just wrapped up my first (and pretty sure my last) D.H. Lawrence novel, and I’m left with this feeling that he gets a ton of thoughts across without actually saying much. Like every so often there’s a line that hits way too close and I get that “oh wow, I totally know what you mean” reaction, but for the most part it’s pretty much the opposite.
There’s this part where Birkin hears that his friend Gerald’s 14-year-old sister might’ve drowned, and he basically responds like it doesn’t matter whether she’s alive or dead. Then him and Ursula jump into this big philosophical back-and-forth, and I actually felt like I wanted to hurl the book across the room.
And I know Birkin is sort of based on Lawrence himself, so I can’t help thinking Lawrence may have been insufferable.
Anyone else read D.H. Lawrence—did you feel the same way, or am I missing something?
Today is D.H.Lawrence's birthday!
By WrenThunder44754
Is anyone else planning to read more of his books? I’m curious what novels people think are his best and how many of them they’ve actually read. For me, I like Sons and Lovers the most. And today seems like a decent day to dive back into D. H. Lawrence, since it’s his 135th birthday—he feels a bit ignored as a modern writer.
Tips/Background needed for reading D.H. Lawrence's Sons and Lovers?
By rapid_sun2003
Seeing the recent “Heart of Darkness” thing made me want to jump into some classic literature, and for some occult reason I picked Lawrence first. I’m trying to squeeze a bunch of books in before I’m out of school, and I really want to understand what he’s getting at and the whole mindset he had when he wrote it the first time. I’ve read the entire wiki page, but I don’t really know what to do next, lol. A friend told me you kind of need some background first before going into a classic—does anyone agree, and is there any better advice on how to approach it?
Sons and Lovers by Lawrence
By black_bee1987
Curious what people think of *Sons and Lovers*.
I read *The Rainbow* last fall, and then I’ve been working my way through Lawrence to hopefully get into a seminar next fall. This one felt like a slow burn, but it was also kind of emotionally weird/surreal in a way I can’t fully pin down. There’s a ton happening, but also it doesn’t quite “move” the way you expect—it’s going to take me a while to digest.
My quick take after finishing:
- the opening and the ending feel way stronger than the middle, which you sometimes have to just push through
- the working-class stuff in England around the turn of the century feels really vivid and immersive
- the way it portrays love is uncomfortably relatable and realistic, but also kind of fuzzy and messy/complicated
- the whole idea of instinct and trying to grab onto something impersonal feels ahead of its time to me—Lawrence gets so surreal it almost feels psychedelic (which is something I’ve also thought about with Woolf)
- he also writes emotional states you don’t usually clock—like that relationship between two men who really hate each other, and then what’s underneath all that
I have read all of D. H. Lawrence's novels
By crescentkalendae
I just finished going through all of D. H. Lawrence’s novels, so I guess I’m doing my own little rundown of them.
**The White Peacock (1911):** his first one, so it’s not really the strongest. You can tell there are some Lawrence-y ideas in there, but a lot of it still feels pretty standard and kind of average for that time. The scenery parts were the best.
**The Trespasser (1912):** second novel, and it seems tied to Helen Corke’s experience. I feel like this one doesn’t get talked about enough. It kind of shows the style that comes more clearly later, especially like in *Sons and Lovers*. Also it’s his shortest, so it feels like an easier entry point if someone hasn’t read him.
**Sons and Lovers (1913):** honestly, this one’s great. It’s about a family in a mining town, and the whole struggle dynamic really hit close to home for me.
**The Rainbow (1915):** this is the first one that got banned, mainly because of the “Shame” chapter. It feels really saga-like, following generations of a family, with all those biblical references and images. It also touches on teaching since he had that experience, and it has (to me) the most uplifting ending of any Lawrence novel. If you like him, I’d say this one is a must.
**Women in Love (1920):** people usually treat this as his best, but I don’t totally agree. Compared to *The Rainbow*, it feels a bit like a step back and it mainly focuses on just two relationships. Gerald stood out to me the most. Birkin feels like Lawrence himself, and I like his rants about love and the universe but sometimes they go on a bit too long. Also it’s his longest, so I wouldn’t point new readers at this one first. And weirdly, it was first published in the US because British publishers were scared to put it out after the earlier backlash.
**The Lost Girl (1920):** this is the one Lawrence basically abandoned for a while (people mix it up with *The Rainbow* a lot). It’s pretty typical Lawrence: an English heiress is fed up with all the “small” and common life around her. She ends up traveling to Italy, before the war. The town is Woodhouse (another name connected to Eastwood). And yeah, she gets watched by the gov, which felt like it might’ve been personal for him.
**Aaron’s Rod (1920):** first of the “Leadership” stuff. This one probably reads the most like it could be called fascist, though there are signs it’s not quite that simple. It’s also a post-war novel, with another Italy journey, and it’s about power and love. There are some surprising moments that really dig into love between men. Also it’s the first one where Lawrence basically acknowledges the reader directly, like calling out “gentle reader.”
**Mr. Noon:** unfinished, written between *The Lost Girl* and *Aaron’s Rod*. It’s about his early life with Frieda and their trip across Europe (including Italy). I think it’s the most creative of his books. He keeps talking to the reader and doing that fourth-wall breaking thing, and it’s also the funniest one overall. It spends more time on his ideas about marriage and love too, and he’s not into that soft “spoony” kind of love. It’s unfinished, but he seemed to have a pretty clear plan for how it would end.
**Kangaroo (1923):** kind of like a fictionalized travel book from his Australia visit. Somers feels like another version of Lawrence. People accuse it of being anti-Semitic, but I’m not sure I see it the same way—at least to me it’s still mostly about love and power. He’s also rejecting fixed ideas like Christianity and democracy, and doubting whether he even wants brotherhood. It leans into this idea of how lonely and isolated humans really are. It’s gorgeous, like *The Plumed Serpent* in places. “Nightmare” is basically his full experience of Britain—being watched by officials. It fits in the “Leadership” category.
**The Boy in The Bush (1924):** collaboration—he rewrote Mollie Skinner’s manuscript. This one feels more about Australia than *Kangaroo* does. It’s kind of like an Aussie version of *Sons and Lovers*, with Jack Grant as the main character (for once, he’s a youth). There are still some Lawrence touches, but there’s also way more Australian history. The big thematic idea seems to be the “lord of the dead,” like a non-Christian god idea.
**The Plumed Serpent (1926):** I think this is his best novel. It’s about Mexico and this imagination for a post-Christian world, where Aztec gods come back to replace Christ. Like the other “Leadership” novels, it has some pretty intense violence, but this one actually shows political change in a real way. The lake descriptions always pull me in. The inserted songs/poems are also a fun addition. It’s more experimental with its form. There’s this struggle of a “native European” who’s totally drawn in by the darker Mexican civilization. I also thought it was interesting how Lawrence seems to be one of the first major Europeans to really understand that native life could exist alongside Western life—but also potentially overtake it. It felt kind of similar to Rosario Castellanos’ *Book of Lamentations* (though that one had a Mayan uprising). And yeah, I feel like academia underrates this book and is too harsh. One thing I noticed: in all three “Leadership” novels, whenever something sounds fascist, the other characters push back pretty often, and sometimes the narrator doesn’t even really say whether it’s true.
**Lady Chatterley’s Lover (1928):** his last novel, and the one that got banned all over the place and turned into this famous trial. Because of his illness (I’m guessing the tuberculosis), he seems to soften a bit on the power/love theme and starts admitting there should be tenderness in love. It’s not his absolute best, but I do think it’s better than some of the others. The scenery is still great, and I actually like his humor, especially when he uses curses.
And yeah, I’ve now read all of it—his plays, poems, novels, travel books, even his paintings. I’ve only got his letters and reviews left now.
Sons and Lovers
By Reader_Hill
Just wrapped up this modernist Lawrence novel, and it honestly felt pretty close to what I remember from “Lady Chatterley’s Lover.” A lot of the same stuff comes up—like he’s really pushing this idea that the body and the “higher” side of you can’t be separated. The mind/soul don’t feel complete without the body, and a relationship isn’t fully there unless it includes both the physical part and some kind of deeper sharing.
It also seems like he’s going after the whole Western split between mind and body. A lot of that feels tied to religion—like the body is temporary and you’re supposed to treat physical desire as kind of bad, while the soul is the real, eternal thing. Lawrence flips that and basically argues you only get real fulfillment when you’re letting a lover in on both levels. For him, sex without that deeper giving of the soul is kind of just a momentary thrill.
And I get why people would’ve freaked out about sex in his books back then. The whole ban thing and the way “Lady Chatterley” took forever to come out says a lot. In both novels, sex isn’t treated like something dirty or trivial—it’s shown as meaningful, tied to how lovers connect and how they bond, almost like the “soul talk” happens through the physical too. Also, I was a little surprised by how unjudgmental he is when his women end up having affairs outside marriage—he doesn’t really frame it as a failure, more like something that’s emotionally necessary.
Anyway, has anyone else read this one recently? I’m sure I missed plenty, because there’s a lot going on in it.
88/100 Sons and Lovers
By tide_scragger
This was my first Lawrence book, and I also picked up that Centaur one from the 100 greatest list. From what I’ve heard, it’s his most autobiographical novel, and it honestly feels like Paul is so lived-in that you can tell even before you dig into what Lawrence’s life was like.
It really paints working-class family life in the early 1900s—way before cars, electricity everywhere, and all the modern heating/AC/refrigeration stuff. It makes you realize how much those changes affected everyday life and even the way books get written. I felt like I could see some Austen and Hardy in there at times, but it still ends up finding its own voice. Also, you don’t forget how narrow the options were for working-class women, and how intense the rules were around sex and what was expected before marriage.
Overall it kind of lands as a semi-tragedy with a love story that stumbles along in two directions. Really well written, too—apparently he rewrote it four times. I’m definitely going to try another Lawrence later. The female characters and Paul are going to stick with me for a while.
Favorite D. H. Lawrence Film Adaptation?
By luckywindow1990
I’ve watched three movie versions of Lawrence novels: *Sons and Lovers* (1960), *Women in Love* (1969), and *Lady Chatterley’s Lover* (1981). Out of the three, I think *Women in Love* is my favorite, and *Lady Chatterley’s Lover* is probably the one I liked least.
What’s your favorite adaptation?
D. H. Lawrence’s characters
By silent_hammer
I’m reading Sons and Lovers right now, and I do think the story is good, but I can’t really connect with the characters. Like with Miriam and Paul’s whole relationship—I just don’t understand what they’re doing or why it feels the way it does. A lot of it honestly annoyed me, and it brought back the same vibe I got when I read Lady Chatterley’s Lover. It feels like Lawrence’s characters’ feelings don’t line up in a way that makes it hard for me to fully get into the book.
Is anyone else like that?