Decompressing
I have accomplished much this week. I finished Harry Potter, and I loved it. I will say no more in the interest of preserving people's rights to discover for themselves what a wonderfully written, superb portrayal of adolescence and the
struggle to understand Rowling has created. I turned in my drafts for grad school - at the point of abandonment rather than perfection, but you know how it is. I went to see
Pirates of the Carribean last night and totally fell for Johnny Depp
again. Will was less enthusiastic about the movie, but then he has conceptions of what a swashbucckler should be, while my only pirate frame of reference is
The Pirate Movie. If you haven't seen it, you should just to see where I am coming from. As for
Carribean, it was a fun little movie, and Depp stole the show. He is perhaps at his most endearing since
Edward Scissorhands. Just beautiful. I kept looking for him even when it wasn't his scene.
Unrelatedly, I'm having a bit of a literary dilemma. More of a strange emotional, moral, ethical connundrum.
Lady Chatterley's Rapist?
In junior high I was introduced to D.H. Lawrence through one of his short stories in Junior Great Books: "
The Rocking Horse Winner." I loved that story (still do) and decided I really liked Lawrence, but didn't seek out anything else of his to read. Then in high school, my American Lit teacher used to have us read his criticism (silently, of course) of American lit stories and novels that we had read. I well remember her sitting at the front of class after 20 minutes of silent reading (We were all quite terrified of her, though she was my favorite teacher.) demanding, "Don't any of you people have a sense of humor?" Lawrence actually was quite funny in that charming, British, condescending, Monty Python sort of way, we were all just too afraid to make any noise. So, I liked Lawrence more definitely. I go to find out what he has written. Being a teenager, I self-select
Lady Chatterly's Lover from the public library. And here I find something in Lawrence I can't quite like.
Decades-old SPOILER. The climax of the book (in more ways than one) is a scene between the aforementioned Lady and her lover, the groundskeeper. Though her physical and mental health have improved markedly by having sex with him (her husband is paralyzed and unable to satisfy that need for her), she decides she cannot live as a social outcast without any money, and she dumps him. So, he accosts her on her walk home through the woods after visiting an inane society neighbor, rapes her, during which they both acheive orgasm and thus changes her mind. At sixteen, I am a little weirded out by this. Not the rape itself so much, but the implication that "no" might not always mean "NO." The complexity of the situation is not lost on me, even at sixteen, but I am so uncomfortable with the ambiguity represented here that I decide that it is better, perhaps, for me to stick to Lawrence's nonfiction. Novel written off as mysoginist, product-of-its-time, blah,blah, blah...
Enter the connundrum. In a BBC tv/film adaptation of the novel
Sean Bean plays the groundskeeper. Do I need to say more? I haven't even seen the production, but the reel of that troublesome scene in my mind has changed oh-so-subtly. I am unable to call up the righteous indignation I felt for that part of the book. I have become a victim of my preferences, my mind held hostage by something more forceful, more primal. Damn. I'd like to think that this is really only possible because Lawrence has woven the story in such a way that people are constantly wavering between the sensible and the passionate - they never coincide in his work - one minute they are determined to do the "right" thing, which the reader can see is patently wrong, and the next minute they do the "desired" thing, which the characters wrongheadedly think society has the right to forbid them. I hope that this is so because if it isn't, a careful casting of
Atlas Shrugged could potentially cause my whole worldview to tremble at its foundation. (There aren't any republicans reading this, are there? I'd hate to be planting ideas.)
Anyway, it has brought to my notice the disturbing way in which troublesome (at best) or repulsive actions can be made palatable by having the "right person" at the helm. Not that I didn't know this already (don't we always want the bank robbers to get away?), but it seems to be more subtle, possibly more dangerous here. Or maybe, at sixteen, I didn't read the subtext well and this is all just a product of youthful misinterpretation.
One can hope.