Although there is much interesting commentary surrounding the shape and substance of the Modernist literary period, the discourse regarding the definition of the artistic era is particularly intriguing. Stephen Kern’s summation of the era includes the idea that it is “primarily a set of new ways of seeing and interpreting the world” (2) while Bradbury and McFarlane argue that the period incorporates “the linguistic chaos that ensues when public notions of language have been discredited” (27). Yet while many definitions for the literary era have been proposed, writer John Barth offers a very specific, substantive summation of the period upon noting that it incorporates representation of “the opposition of inward consciousness to rational, public, objective discourse” (199). This definition is effective in describing the textual realities that surface in a plethora of literary works from the Modernist period. However, Barth’s summation fails to hone in on the fact that the textual pattern of tension between internal modes of being and knowing and externally prescribed ways of thinking and speaking is 1. perpetual and 2. unresolved. This fact becomes plain upon consideration of two texts from the period, D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover and James Joyce’s Ulysses. In each of these texts, a primary element of the plot is the ongoing, unresolved tension that results from characters who possess an inner consciousness riddled with a desire for sexual liberality and a public discourse which imposes repressive sexual prescriptions and proscriptions on the society in which the dissident subjects exist.
Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover is a narrative rife with representations of individuals whose internal thought processes and inclinations stand in stark contrast to the publicly acceptable modes of discourse which shape human boundaries for thinking and acting. Although there are many examples of this dualism in the novel, the ongoing adulterous affairs of Lady Chatterley may be the most salient illustration. While Constance’s motivations for engaging in extramarital sex are diverse, two of the primary reasons include her dissatisfaction with her husband’s class elitist outlook on life as well as their inability to have sex due to physical injuries he suffered during the war. Despite the fact that the novel was written during the era of the “New Woman,” the period in which Constance lived was still one marked by strict social mores regarding how human sexuality should transpire. Specifically, marriages were defined as unions between men and women, and adultery was considered to be socially impermissible. This fact becomes plain when one considers that divorces were only deemed permissible on grounds of adultery. Nevertheless, Constance’s profound dissatisfaction with her marriage functions as her impetus to defy rational, public discourse in order to heed the sexually deviant edicts of her inner consciousness.
Constance’s dissatisfaction with her marriage becomes plain throughout the text. Her life with Clifford is described as “vague,” and the reader learns that she devotes most of her life to helping him prepare manuscripts that will be published for the purpose of developing his career as the writer. The work she completes with him to prepare his manuscripts constitutes a “void” in her life (18). Moreover, Clifford is described as an individual who is “not in actual touch with anything or anybody…” while his writings are deemed “meaningless” (16). Constance’s immersion in this vacuous world results in her acquiring a spectral existence in which there is “no substance to her or anything—no touch, no contact” (18). This existential vacuity eventually produces within Constance a “growing restlessness” rooted in her sense of being disconnected from the world (20). Additionally, she finds her marriage dissatisfying insomuch as “she wanted a good deal from the life of a man, and this Clifford did not give her: could not” (31). The lack of emotional and intellectual stimulation between Constance and Clifford is compounded by the fact that they cannot copulate due to physically injuries he suffered during the war. The multiple vacuities Constance experiences in her marriage to Clifford thus become the impetus for her affair with Michaelis, an acquaintance of Clifford’s who comes to visit their home. Constance’s sexual encounters with Michaelis are “enough to keep them connected” (30), with this connectivity effectively muting the sense of emptiness and isolation she experiences within the world she and Clifford share. The passion induced by the affair result in Constance acquiring a “self-assurance,” “confidence in her own prowess,” and “great cheerfulness” (30). Nevertheless, Constance recognizes that her decision to engage in an adulterous affair transcends the realm of social acceptability. This reality becomes clear when she asks Michaelis that they not reveal the affair to Clifford: “But we needn’t let Clifford know, need we?” she pleaded. “It would hurt him so. And if he never knows, never suspects, it hurts nobody” (27). In asking Michaelis to remain silent about their affair, Constance reveals the clear tension that exists between her inner consciousness and the realm of rational, public discourse. While she may inwardly experience and even acquiesce sexual desires for a man who is not her husband, articulating this reality aloud is inadvisable and unacceptable because it would constitute a deviation from social norms regarding human sexuality. In addition to transgressing social norms, Constance’s activity would potentially damage her husband’s self-esteem and weaken the already tenuous intellectual and emotional connection they share, thereby shattering the substance of their marriage. Thus while Constance’s inward consciousness goads her towards an adulterous affair that alleviates the sense of restlessness and disconnection she experiences in her relationship with Clifford, this socially deviant reality cannot be articulated aloud because it violates the principles of sanctity and monogamy ascribed to marriage.
In considering Constance’s adulterous affair with Michaelis, the pertinence of John Barth’s definition of Modernism becomes plain. Indeed, the extramarital affair reveals a profound disparity between Constance’s inner consciousness and rational, public, objective discourse. Immersed in a realm of subjectivity which guides her to use sex as a medium through which to escape the vacuity of her own marriage, Constance’s mode of being and knowing stands in stark contrast to a realm of public discourse which would include the ongoing veneration of marriages marked by monogamy. That her inner consciousness and the acts it leads her to do not fall within the parameters of acceptable public discourse becomes plain upon consideration of the fact that she takes strides to ensure that the affair is not articulated out loud. However, the salient opposition between inner consciousness and public discourse created by Constance’s infidelity is not confined to one textual event. Rather, it is a perpetual, unresolved occurrence within the narrative. This fact becomes plain when one considers her ongoing relationship with Oliver Mellors.
Constance’s adulterous affair with Oliver Mellors begins in chapter ten of the text. At this point, Constance’s affair with Michaelis has ended long ago and her dissatisfaction with her marriage to Clifford is in full effect. In recognizing that her husband has become immersed in the modern industrial and financial worlds, Constance is left “completely stranded” (110). Annoyed by the ongoing void that exists between them, she flees “as much as possible to the wood” (112). These acts cause her to continually come into contact with the keeper, Oliver Mellors. Their relationship becomes increasingly intimate and finally evolves into a sexual union. Yet unlike Constance’s affair with Michaelis, this sexual union is ongoing as the two become enamored with each other such that their relationship evolves into a site of unresolved tension. Eventually, Constance makes the reality of the relationship plain to Clifford in a letter that reads “Dear Clifford, I am afraid what you foresaw has happened. I am really in love with another man, and I do hope you will divorce me” (288). That the couple’s sexual relationship is indeed a site of perpetual portentousness becomes plain when one considers two factors. First, Constance’s extramarital sexual relationship with Oliver evolves into a romantic union that she does not wish to end. Throughout the text, Clifford voices his assent to Constance having a fleeting affair. However, what Clifford has not assented to is an ongoing extramarital relationship. He makes this fact plain upon noting that “But what do the occasional connections matter? And the occasional sexual connections especially! If people don’t exaggerate them ridiculously, they pass like the mating of birds…It’s the living together from day to day, not the sleeping together once or twice. You and I are married, no matter what happens to us” (44). As made plain by this elocution, Clifford views occasional affairs as acceptable but wouldn’t tolerate the idea or reality of Constance pursuing a long-standing union with another man. Yet this is exactly what she seeks. The second reason that Constance’s affair with Mellors constitutes a perpetual, unresolved tension results from the fact that he impregnates her. The reality of Constance having sex with Mellors and carrying his child is rendered problematic due to the class structures and binaries that shape the world of the text. As Schwarzmann notes, “Clifford’s embarrassment at his wife’s affair is as much about his comparative lack of sexual potency as it is about the class discrepancy between the lovers” (85). As “the help,” Mellors is deemed socioculturally and economically inferior to Constance, and her affair with him enrages the class conscious Clifford. While Clifford has already stated that he would be willing to allow her to have sex with another man for the purpose of impregnating her with a child that they would raise as a married couple, he does not deem Mellors a suitable sexual mate. As Journet notes in summarizing the transgressive nature of the relationship, Mellors is “outside the social rules” (62). Thus because Constance wishes to pursue a long-standing relationship with Mellors as well as the fact that she is impregnated by him, their extramarital affair becomes the site of a perpetual, unresolved tension evincing the opposition between her inner consciousness and the rational, public discourse advocating the maintenance of class boundaries. This discourse is directly explicated through Clifford’s voiced opposition to the relationship, which functions as a microcosmic replication of the macrocosmic social order.
That Constance’s adulterous affair with Mellors constitutes an ongoing problem becomes plain as the story nears conclusion. In realizing that Constance wants a divorce, Clifford grows enraged and insists that she return from her vacation from London to talk things over. As Constance realizes through their exchange of letters, “He would not divorce her, and the child would be his, unless she could find some means of establishing its illegitimacy” (293). Upon returning home and discussing the affair openly with Clifford, he again asserts that he will not divorce her. The novel then concludes with a letter from Mellors to Constance expressing his frail hope that Clifford will eventually spew her out “as the abominable thing” (302). Yet this does not happen as the narrative comes to conclusion. Rather, the reader is left with the reality of a perpetual, unresolved tension between the inner consciousness of Constance and the rational, public mode of discourse which advocates sexual monogamy while frowning on divorce. In this case, Clifford comes to embody the realm of rational, objective discourse, “seeing himself the incarnation of good, and people like Connie and Mellors the incarnation of mud, of evil” (296). Within this socially constructed realm of morality and immorality, Clifford’s goodness is rooted in a desire to preserve the marital union which the general public deems appropriate and admirable. His unwillingness to divorce Constance thus comes to exist as the public discourse which stands in diametric opposition to her independent, socially deviant desire to end the marriage and pursue a longstanding relationship with a man outside of her class. As the novel concludes, we learn that the divorce still has not been granted, thereby leaving Constance’s relationship with Mellors in jeopardy while also putting her marital misery in perpetuity. It is here that the reader understands that the opposition between inner consciousness and rational, public, objective discourse has become a perpetual, unresolved reality.
Just as Lady Chatterley’s Lover depicts the perpetual, unresolved nature of the opposition between an individual’s subjective mental world and rational, public, objective discourse, James Joyce’s Ulysses is replete with the same theme. While this idea is evident at numerous points in the text, it becomes conspicuous as the novel concludes with Episode 18. There, Molly Bloom engages in an internal monologue delineated in an intimate, intricate stream-of-consciousness format rife with topics that stand in stark contrast to the subject matter and sentiment that would be considered appropriate to articulate aloud. The stream of consciousness mode in which Molly’s socially deviant thoughts transpire is one of the most salient representations of a departure from the realm of conventional, accepted discourse. As Kern notes in his explication of stream of consciousness, this mode of thinking involves moving “erratically in multiple directions both temporally and spatially with no fixed path” (87). In discussing the presence of stream of consciousness in William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Kern cites a passage in which the ostensibly deranged Quentin pines over his sister, Caddy. The passage reads: “you thought it was them but it was me listen I fooled you all the time it was me you thought I was in the house where that damn honeysuckle trying not to think the swing the cedars the secret surges the breathing locked drinking the wild breath the yes Yes Yes” (qtd. in Kern 89). As Kern notes, “This passage dissolves conventional grammar, syntax, and rational thinking to capture the unraveling of Quentin’s mind and the decline of his family…” (89). In making this observation, Kern draws attention to the role stream of consciousness plays in demonstrating the opposition between an individual’s inner consciousness and the mode of speech (with respect to both form and content) that is deemed acceptable, articulable discourse. This same opposition is present in the internal monologue of Molly Bloom, with her thoughts being expressed in a steady stream-of-consciousness format that transcends the realm of rational, logical thought given the omission of punctuation that would indicate the clear beginning and completion of a single thought followed by a similar sequence of sentences with definitive “starts” and “stops.” The presence of this non-linear, non-rational inner consciousness and thought expression becomes plain upon consideration of sentences such as “Yes because he never did a thing like that before as ask to get his breakfast in bed with a couple of eggs since the City Arms hotel when he used to be pretending to be laid up with a sick voice doing his highness to make himself interesting for that old faggot Mrs Riordan” (Locations 10361-10363). In this thought sequence, the end of one thought is not punctuated with a period that signifies a conclusion and the beginning of a new rumination. Rather, multiple thoughts are expressed in an ongoing sequence that reflects the highly specific, subjective musings of a thinking subject rather than the prescribed, generic dictates regarding how rational discourse should transpire. By expressing thoughts regarding a plethora of distinct subjects (what her husband wants for breakfast, the fact that he feigns illness, and his ingratiating proclivities) without separating them into distinct, single sentences that would appear rational, protagonist Molly Bloom’s stream of consciousness mode of cognition reflects the opposition between her inner conscience and the external world.
In considering the fact that Molly Bloom’s stream of consciousness mode of cognition constitutes a representation of the contrast between one’s inner world and the prescribed, rational mode of discourse advocated by external society, it is important to note that this textual reality is not limited to a specific section of Episode 18. Rather, Molly Bloom’s subversive mode of self-expression is a perpetual, unresolved element of the text that underscores the narrative’s deviance from prototypically rational, public, objective discourse. This idea becomes plain upon consideration of passages such as
“can you feel him trying to make a whore of me what he never will he ought to give it up now at this age of his life simply ruination for any woman and no satisfaction in it pretending to like it till he comes and then finish it off myself anyway and it makes your lips pale anyhow its done now once and for all with all the talk of the world about it people make its only the first time after that its just the ordinary do it and think no more about it” (Location 10408 of 11291).
As with the narrative’s opening thought sequence, this passage continues the stream of consciousness format that constitutes a clear departure from cognitive modalities incorporating the breaks or “sutures” in rumination signified by periods (or other modes of punctuations such as exclamation points and quotation marks). Rather than paralleling the clear, sequential, logical elocutions that came to characterize the sphere of rational, public discourse, this mode of thinking incorporates disseminating thoughts regarding a plethora of topics without separating each subject into unique categories via punctuation. Indeed, Molly’s cognitive modality involves traversing three subjects (feeling that she is being made into a whore, difficulty in reaching orgasm through intercourse, and the prosaic nature of sex) without separating the topics into disparate groups that would promote understanding of the ideas as distinct themes or propositions. This mode thus stands in opposition to the categorical differentiation of distinct subjects which one finds in traditional, rational discourse. As made plain by Molly’s inner consciousness, her manner of conceptualizing the world transcends the pocketing of subjects into neat categories and rather incorporates a mode of reflection that involves viewing unique concepts and realities in a fluid, continuous manner such that disparate ideas and ideologies coexist in unicity despite their distinct attributes and significations. Thus as Kern notes in describing the effect of other stream of consciousness passages in Ulysses, this one also reflects a recollection of “widely separated thoughts, memories, utterances, sights, sounds and smells compressed into a moment of exceptional intensity” (90).
In addition to manifesting the opposition between inner consciousness and rational, public discourse through its appropriation of stream of consciousness, Episode 18 of Ulysses reflects the disparity between individual consciousness and socially approved discourse through its inclusion of Molly Bloom’s ruminations about human sexuality. In an era still widely influenced by conservative values regarding sexuality that precluded open discussion about ostensibly deviant sexual acts while also advocating monogamous marriages as the appropriate realm through which subjects could express themselves as erotic beings, Bloom’s expressed thoughts constituted a substantive departure from conventional ideologies and praxis regarding intercourse. This idea becomes plain at numerous points in the narrative, such as when the reader learns that Molly is having an affair with a man named Boylan. Molly discusses the affair throughout the text, at one point stating that “my hole is itching me always when I think of him (Location 10805). Additionally, Molly takes time to mention the large size of Boylan’s penis upon noting that “I never in all my life felt anyone had one the size of that to make you feel full up” (Locations 10434-10435). Both the reality of Molly’s affair and her silent thoughts regarding subjects such as the penis size of her lover reflect a stark contrast between her inner consciousness and the type of marriage-reverencing discourse that would be acceptable in public.
As made plain by Molly’s inner dialogue regarding her adulterous sexual life, her ruminations and mode of existence are diametrically opposed to the aspect of rational, public discourse which advocated female ignorance regarding sexuality while also placing primacy on female chastity. O’Brien draws attention to this reality upon noting that “Joyce did not create a text that supported patriarchal or colonial ideologies shaping regulatory norms for femininity” (22). Rather, she argues, he created a mutable, plenary character who is “free from social constraints and conventions” (22). And indeed, this is the mode of being and knowing that Molly’s sexually deviant thoughts and acts seem to convey. Nevertheless, it is important to note that her inner consciousness (which drives her to pursue sexual fulfillment through extramarital intercourse) still stands in contrast to social edicts advocating that erotic satisfaction be attained within the confines of a monogamous marriage. Insomuch as this is the case, the presence of a binary between inner consciousness and rational, public discourse (and the acts such discourse prescribes and proscribes) becomes plain.
Although Molly’s ruminations regarding her adulterous affair with Boylan are substantively deviant, these are not the only sexually subversive cogitations she engages. She also contemplates a plethora of other subjects that would not be considered acceptable topics of discussion in public, including the reality of sexual positions deemed deviant to conventional modes of intercourse. At one point in the text, Molly reflects on her own sex life and concludes that it is better for her partner to “put it into me from behind the way Mrs Mastiansky told me her husband made her like the dogs do it and stick out her tongue as far as ever she could” (Locations 10566-10567). Molly’s deviant inner monologue also includes her desire to perform fellatio on a statue. In considering the matter, she thinks “I could look at him all day long curly head and his shoulders…I often felt I wanted to kiss him all over also his lovely young cock there so simple I wouldnt mind taking him in my mouth if nobody was looking as if it was asking you to suck it so clean and white” (Locations 11026-11028). Molly’s socially deviant sexual discourse also involves her interest in becoming a man and experiencing intercourse with a woman this way. She expresses this idea upon noting that “I wouldnt mind being a man and get up on a lovely woman” (Location 10926). Additionally, Molly reflects on the fact that she has masturbated with a banana (Locations 10756-10757). These are just a few of many textual manifestations indicating Molly’s sexually deviant inner consciousness and its stark opposition to rational, public discourse.
In considering the opposition between Molly’s sexually deviant thought life and rational, public discourse, it is important to note that her socially deviant cognitions do not constitute a “phase” that she grows out of. As made plain by the narrative, her ostensibly “deviant” sexual desires and activities are a perpetual, unresolved aspect of the text, thereby riddling it with palpable tension. As the novel concludes, we learn that Molly reveres her husband and fondly remembers his proposal to her. Nevertheless, her adulterous affair with Boylan has not come to conclusion and she does not appear to be fully satisfied with the romantic and sexual components of her marital life. In fact, the reader learns that she and her husband Leopold Bloom have not had intercourse in nine years. Apparently, Molly seeks to bring a resolution to the perpetual, unresolved tension between herself and her husband by having an affair that will engender jealousy and provoke him to rekindle their romantic/sexual union. Hall draws attention to this reality upon noting that Molly’s “liason with Blazes Bolan is, in a characteristically contradictory way, a furious plea. By taking up with a man who is but a coarse and bland substitute for Bloom and by making the affair unmistakably obvious, she hopes to goad her husband into reasserting himself” (582). Yet the narrative doesn’t conclude with this type of clear resolution. Rather, the tension between Molly and Leopold Bloom continues as she goes on asserting her dissatisfaction with the marriage. Molly’s dissatisfaction becomes particularly salient in the narrative’s concluding paragraph. There, she unveils her lack of passion for her husband as, when recalling the period during which he proposed to her, she thought to herself “well as well him as another” (Location 11152). Nevertheless, the story’s denouement involves her emphatic, affirmative response to his marriage proposal as she recalls her response: “yes I said yes I will Yes” (Location 11154). In reflecting on this denouement, the perpetual, unresolved nature of the opposition between inner consciousness and rational, public discourse becomes plain. Specifically, Molly’s internal world is marked by reflections on her ongoing adulterous affair as well as other socially deviant sexual practices that she would like to engage in. These sexual desires are at least in part realized for the purposing of bringing new life to her sexually dead relationship with her husband, Leopold. Yet as the story concludes, there is no indication that Molly’s deviant sexual desires have been annihilated by an intimate, sexually fulfilling relationship with her husband. Nor is there an indication that she opts to bring about a resolution by divorcing him. Rather, she recalls the romantic encounter that precipitated his marriage proposal and concludes with a recollection of her affirmative response. Thus the narrative concludes with all of the tensions that have flooded the narrative remaining both present and powerful.
In considering both Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Joyce’s Ulysses, it is important to note that much of the opposition created between inner consciousness and rational, public, objective discourse surrounds the subject of human sexuality. With respect to the former text, Constance’s opposition to acceptable discourse is manifest in her desire to ensure that her adulterous sexual relationship with Michaelis is a reality that is not articulated aloud. It is also manifest in her ongoing acquisition of sexual knowledge/experience through her adulterous affair with Oliver insomuch as this progressively expansive epistemic stands in stark contrast to society’s will towards continually controlling and limiting sexual expression as well as general and specific understanding about it. This fact becomes plain upon considering Constance’s summation of her sexual relationship with Oliver involved him giving “her an exquisite pleasure and a sense of freedom and life” while also releasing “her warm, natural sexual flow” (265). Like Lawrence, Joyce makes sex a central theme in his work as Molly Bloom’s inner monologue reflects both a deviant mode of sexuality as well as an intricate understanding of intercourse that she would not be expected to have or express in public discourse. Both Lawrence and Joyce’s decision to make a character’s consciousness of human sexuality integral to textual development reflects a paradigm that gained great primacy during the Modernist era. Rooted in Freud’s suppositions regarding the edicts of civilization, this paradigm involves the recognition that social codes oftentimes precluded individuals from attaining information about sex or acting out the sexual desires that would lead to their personal fulfillment. In discussing this matter, Goodheart references The Good Soldier, another Modernist text in which similar issues are raised. Specifically, Goodheart cites central character John Dowell’s lack of information regarding sex and sexuality as evidence of the sexual repression that Freud deems an integral component of society. In discussing the matter, Goodheart notes that “The kind of ignorance (sexual ignorance) that Dowell laments is caused, Freud would say, by the excessive development of civilization, which represses both sexuality and the knowledge of it” (620). Unlike Dowell, however, the characters in both Lawrence and Joyce’s novels transcend the realm of society-induced sexual ignorance by actively pursuing sexual fulfillment in a manner that disregard’s civilization’s limiting, repressive edicts. This textual technique demonstrates both the tension between inner consciousness and public discourse as well as each novel’s conformance to that aspect of the Modernist tradition which involved recognizing and responding to the growing cultural primacy and signification of Freud’s summations regarding human sexuality. Bradbury and McFarlane drew attention to the growing significance of the psychoanalyst’s contributions to discourse about sexuality during the Modernist era upon noting that this period was marked by the world being “changed and re-interpreted by…Freud” (27). In the case of both Lawrence and Joyce, the inner consciousness of central characters reflects a recognition of a world reinterpreted through the recognition and acting upon sexual desires that exist outside the realm of acceptability devised by civilization. Each narrative thus effectively uses sexuality as a primary medium through which the opposition of inner consciousness and rational, public discourse regarding acceptable modes of intercourse becomes plain.
As made clear by an examination of Lawrence’s Constance Chatterley and Joyce’s Molly Bloom, each character’s thoughts reflect a tension between inner consciousness and rational, public, objective discourse. Yet while each figure’s ruminations conform to John Barth’s definition of Modernism, it is also important to note that the development of both texts indicates that the tension between the internal and external worlds is perpetual and unresolved. In the case of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Constance’s ongoing affair with Oliver Mellors entails ongoing tension between herself and society given their disparate class standings and her husband’s unwillingness to divorce her. As the story concludes, Clifford has not reversed his decision to deny Constance a divorce, rendering the opposition between her will towards sexual independence and the social order an unresolved reality. Episode 18 of Ulysses is replete with a similarly unresolved tension. In this case, Molly Bloom’s inner consciousness is rife with reflections on her adulterous affair and extramarital sexual desires despite the fact that the realm of rational, public discourse renders monogamous marriage the only appropriate and acceptable medium through which intercourse can transpire. As Bloom’s narrative concludes, the reader learns that she is still not fully satisfied with the romantic and sexual aspects of her marriage yet has decided to remain within it. There is no indication that her ruminations about and engagement in deviant sexual practices have come to an end. Thus it becomes plain that the tension between her inner thoughts/actions and socially acceptable modes of speaking and being is a perpetual, unresolved textual reality. Thus as both texts make clear, the Modernist literary text can accurately be defined as a realm marked by the perpetual, unresolved opposition between inner consciousness and rational, public, objective discourse.
Bradbury, Malcolm, and James McFarlane, eds. Modernism: A Guide to European Literature, 1890-1930. New York: Penguin, 1978. Print.
Goodheart, Eugene. “The Art of Ambivalence: “The Good Soldier” The Sewanee Review Vol. 106, No. 4 (Fall, 1998), pp. 619-629.
Hall, Gail. “Plots and Plans”: Molly Bloom’s Fiction.” The Massachusetts Review Vol. 31 No. 4 (Winter, 1990), pp. 582-598.
Journet, Debra. “Patrick White and D.H. Lawrence: Sexuality and the Wilderness in a “Fringe of Leaves” And “Lady Chatterley’s Lover.” South Central Review. Vol. 5, No. 2 (Summer 1988) pp. 62-71.
Joyce, James. Ulysses. Kindle file. Accessed 4 July 2015.
Kern, Stephen. The Modernist Novel: A Critical Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Lawrence, D.H. Lady Chatterley’s Lover. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.
O’Brien, Alyssa J. “The Molly Blooms of “Penelope”: Reading Joyce Archivally.” Journal of Modern Literature. Vol. 24, No. 1 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 7-24.
Schwarzmann, George M. “Marxism and Bolshevism in D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover.” South Atlantic Review 73.2 (2008): 81-95.