Talk:Lady Chatterley's Lover

Novels Start‑class Top‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has an infobox template in need of a 1st Edition Cover!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A real quote or apocryphal?

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

Sorry I am a bit new to editing so please excuse if I am off form. I have no knowledge of that quote and have several books of quotations. Since John Mortimer died just yesterday morning it might be worth tracking it cos it is the kind of thing if he didn't say, one of his characters would. I will try to listen out for it. Otherwise try Alan Bennett who is also pretty good but I have read all his stuff and not remembered that-- it is the kind of thing I am likely to remember. So my *guess* is it is apocryphal-- ~~but then it still stands as a quote, somebody must have said it,~~ maybe you invented it! SimonTrew (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Will try to do something with this page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Literary reviews?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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. Mortimer defending.) SimonTrew (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it when I see it – from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

I put a couple of red links[3][4] for an article about the trial into the article. The title Lady Chatterley trial is just my tentative suggestion. --83.253.248.109 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mention of a current publisher in the lead

Is there a reason to mention one specific current publisher in the introduction?
I deleted it. --83.253.248.109 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]