What do you think?
Rate this book
The Well of Loneliness
Stephen is an ideal child of aristocratic parents—a fencer, a horse rider and a keen scholar. Stephen grows to be a war hero, a bestselling writer and a loyal, protective lover. But Stephen is a woman, and her lovers are women. As her ambitions drive her, and society confines her, Stephen is forced into desperate actions.
The Well of Loneliness was banned for obscenity when published in 1928. It became an international bestseller, and for decades was the single most famous lesbian novel. It has influenced how love between women is understood, for the twentieth century and beyond.
The Well of Loneliness was banned for obscenity when published in 1928. It became an international bestseller, and for decades was the single most famous lesbian novel. It has influenced how love between women is understood, for the twentieth century and beyond.
448 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1928
About the author
Radclyffe Hall
63 books262 followersPeople in Great Britain and the United States originally banned
The Well of Loneliness
(1928), obscene novel of British writer Marguerite Radclyffe Hall.
Mother on the south coast of England perhaps battered Radclyffe Hall, whose father, a playboy, known as 'Rat', meanwhile ignored her. In the drawing rooms of Edwardian society, Marguerite made a small name as a poet and librettist. In 1907, she met a middle-aged fashionable singer, Mrs. Mabel Batten, known as 'Ladye", who introduced her to influential people. Batten and Radclyffe Hall entered into a long-term relationship. But before Batten died in 1916, Radclyffe-Hall, known in private as 'John', had taken up with the second love of her life, Una, Lady Troubridge, who gave up her own creative aspirations (she was the first English translator of the French novelist Colette) to manage the household which she shared with 'John' for 28 years. With Batten, Radclyffe-Hall converted to Catholicism; in the company of Una, she pursued an interst in animals and spiritualism. In later life, Radclyffe-Hall chased after a younger woman named Evguenia Souline, a White Russian refugee. She died from cancer of the colon in October 1943.
As Radclyffe Hall (no hyphen; prefixed neither by 'John' nor 'Marguerite'), she published a volume of stories, Miss Ogilvy Finds Herself (1934), which describes how British society utilised 'masculine' women during the First World War and then dropped them afterwards, and a total of seven novels. However, the novel on which Radclyffe Hall's reputation rests primarily is The Well of Loneliness (1928).
The novel was successfully prosecuted for obscenity when if first came out, and remained banned in Britain until 1948. Vilified as 'the bible of lesbianism' by fire-and-brimstone reactionaries. In the seventies, the halcyon days of radical feminism, it was hailed as the first portrayal of a 'butch' woman.
Mother on the south coast of England perhaps battered Radclyffe Hall, whose father, a playboy, known as 'Rat', meanwhile ignored her. In the drawing rooms of Edwardian society, Marguerite made a small name as a poet and librettist. In 1907, she met a middle-aged fashionable singer, Mrs. Mabel Batten, known as 'Ladye", who introduced her to influential people. Batten and Radclyffe Hall entered into a long-term relationship. But before Batten died in 1916, Radclyffe-Hall, known in private as 'John', had taken up with the second love of her life, Una, Lady Troubridge, who gave up her own creative aspirations (she was the first English translator of the French novelist Colette) to manage the household which she shared with 'John' for 28 years. With Batten, Radclyffe-Hall converted to Catholicism; in the company of Una, she pursued an interst in animals and spiritualism. In later life, Radclyffe-Hall chased after a younger woman named Evguenia Souline, a White Russian refugee. She died from cancer of the colon in October 1943.
As Radclyffe Hall (no hyphen; prefixed neither by 'John' nor 'Marguerite'), she published a volume of stories, Miss Ogilvy Finds Herself (1934), which describes how British society utilised 'masculine' women during the First World War and then dropped them afterwards, and a total of seven novels. However, the novel on which Radclyffe Hall's reputation rests primarily is The Well of Loneliness (1928).
The novel was successfully prosecuted for obscenity when if first came out, and remained banned in Britain until 1948. Vilified as 'the bible of lesbianism' by fire-and-brimstone reactionaries. In the seventies, the halcyon days of radical feminism, it was hailed as the first portrayal of a 'butch' woman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,510 reviews
November 10, 2009
it should be MANDATORY that everyone reads this book. everyone. there isn't anything too astounding about her writing style, and nothing too "deep" about it either. anyone could pick up this book and see clearly everything she's very clearly alluding to, so there isn't much mystery, but instead, a whole lot of straightforward honesty about an aspect of the world most overlook without even realizing.
what broke back mountain failed miserably in doing, ratcliffe did with ease. this isn't some kinky, soft core porn, fantasy, lesbian sex thriller. it isn't a sob story about rights denied gays either.
it's just the tragic story of someone who is. but her state of being, by no fault or choice of her own, disallows her from the honor given to even the most degenerate people of society.
it's just her story-- without bias, without the evil conspiracy of the "homosexual agenda", without hope of guilting the readers into self loathing, or repentance of unfair treatment to diverse populations-- it just is.
i wish my mom could/would read this book. not that she is like the extreme mother in this book- just because it would be a way for her to see aspects of my heart that she would never be able to imagine a way to understand otherwise.
what broke back mountain failed miserably in doing, ratcliffe did with ease. this isn't some kinky, soft core porn, fantasy, lesbian sex thriller. it isn't a sob story about rights denied gays either.
it's just the tragic story of someone who is. but her state of being, by no fault or choice of her own, disallows her from the honor given to even the most degenerate people of society.
it's just her story-- without bias, without the evil conspiracy of the "homosexual agenda", without hope of guilting the readers into self loathing, or repentance of unfair treatment to diverse populations-- it just is.
i wish my mom could/would read this book. not that she is like the extreme mother in this book- just because it would be a way for her to see aspects of my heart that she would never be able to imagine a way to understand otherwise.
July 26, 2020
If you are looking for cheerful and uplifting, don’t start here: the title gives it away. The main protagonist is Stephen Gordon, named Stephen because her father wanted a boy and stuck with the chosen name when a girl arrived. This is a very English novel:
“Not very far from Upton-on-Severn–between it, in fact, and the Malvern Hills–stands the country seat of the Gordons of Bramberly; well-timbered, well-cottaged, well-fenced and well-watered, having, in this latter respect, a stream that forks in exactly the right position to feed two large lakes in the grounds.”
Stephen is upper class and whatever else she suffers in the novel, she is never poor.
It’s impossible to avoid mentioning the trial for obscenity in 1928. The impetus came from the tabloid press and the obscenity?
"she kissed her full on the lips, as a lover" and "and that night, they were not divided"
It was really about the depiction of a lifestyle, especially the sections set in Paris after the First World War. However battle lines were drawn and writers like Shaw, Eliot, the Woolfs, Forster, Smyth, Jameson and Wells amongst others. Although only a limited number (such as Woolf and Forster were prepared to testify). The outcome was a foregone conclusion and the novel was not published in the UK until 1949, after Hall’s death.
Inevitably there has been a great deal of debate about this book over the years with views and opinions changing and ebbing to and fro. One ongoing discussion is whether Stephen as she is described was transgender. As she says to her mother: "All my life I’ve never felt like a woman, and you know it."
There is a particular use of language as well. The use of the term invert stems from the work of Havelock Ellis. It is not, thankfully, a term that has survived.
Hall covers a good deal of ground in the 450 pages and the depiction of the bars and sub-culture of Paris in the 1920s are well drawn. France did not have the laws against homosexuality that some other countries had.
One particular aside, some of the minor characters are very strong. Puddle, one of Stephen’s later governesses, who is clearly lesbian is well portrayed. The animals in particular play an important role and are well written.
Reactions to this novel have been strong in both directions, for many it was the only lesbian novel they had heard of. Mary Renault, who read it in 1938 recalls it as being earnest and humourless. However one Holocaust survivor noted: "Remembering that book, I wanted to live long enough to kiss another woman."
The ebb and flow go on. Hannah Roche has recently reassessed The Well:
“Was Hall cleverly turning to a Victorian mode in order to critique the politics of modernism, challenging the value of aesthetic experiment and obscurity? I argue not only that The Well was stylistically as impressive as the most celebrated of ‘difficult’ 1920s novels, but also that, by boldly appropriating an accepted (and heteronormative) genre, Hall makes a statement about the rightful position of lesbian writing that dares to strike its readers in ways more direct and profound than the audaciously avant-garde.”
For me, I understand its importance and I wasn’t expecting a happy ending (I wasn’t disappointed in that). Puddle’s advice to Stephen is powerful:
“You’re neither unnatural, nor abominable, nor mad; you’re as much a part of what people call nature as anyone else; only you’re unexplained as yet–you’ve not got your niche in creation. But some day that will come, and meanwhile don’t shrink from yourself, but face yourself calmly and bravely. Have courage; do the best you can with your burden. But above all be honourable. Cling to your honour for the sake of those others who share the same burden. For their sakes show the world that people like you and they can be quite as selfless and fine as the rest of mankind. Let your life go to prove this–it would be a really great life-work, Stephen.”
There’s still an element of apologizing for who you are and carrying a burden, but then even today the struggle continues.
Many problems in the novel arise from a lack of communication, but nothing has changed there! You can see the ending coming from a long way off, although the means is not obvious until late in the book. It’s not that well written and doesn’t stand up well to Orlando, which was published in the same year. Another point is that pity is not the best way of trying to get people on your side.
The interesting contrast between Stephen and Valerie Seymour is also illustrative. Seymour hosts a salon and is a pagan, no religion and has no problems with ethical dilemmas as a result of her lesbianism. Stephen holds onto the structures of Catholicism (on and off) and can’t manage to square her sexuality with her faith. Stephen’s relationship with her mother (who rejects her) also runs through the novel.
I can understand the importance of this novel at the time, but that time has gone and it feels more like a historical document, but I am glad I read it. The story is unbearably sad, but you can’t always have happy ever after.
“Not very far from Upton-on-Severn–between it, in fact, and the Malvern Hills–stands the country seat of the Gordons of Bramberly; well-timbered, well-cottaged, well-fenced and well-watered, having, in this latter respect, a stream that forks in exactly the right position to feed two large lakes in the grounds.”
Stephen is upper class and whatever else she suffers in the novel, she is never poor.
It’s impossible to avoid mentioning the trial for obscenity in 1928. The impetus came from the tabloid press and the obscenity?
"she kissed her full on the lips, as a lover" and "and that night, they were not divided"
It was really about the depiction of a lifestyle, especially the sections set in Paris after the First World War. However battle lines were drawn and writers like Shaw, Eliot, the Woolfs, Forster, Smyth, Jameson and Wells amongst others. Although only a limited number (such as Woolf and Forster were prepared to testify). The outcome was a foregone conclusion and the novel was not published in the UK until 1949, after Hall’s death.
Inevitably there has been a great deal of debate about this book over the years with views and opinions changing and ebbing to and fro. One ongoing discussion is whether Stephen as she is described was transgender. As she says to her mother: "All my life I’ve never felt like a woman, and you know it."
There is a particular use of language as well. The use of the term invert stems from the work of Havelock Ellis. It is not, thankfully, a term that has survived.
Hall covers a good deal of ground in the 450 pages and the depiction of the bars and sub-culture of Paris in the 1920s are well drawn. France did not have the laws against homosexuality that some other countries had.
One particular aside, some of the minor characters are very strong. Puddle, one of Stephen’s later governesses, who is clearly lesbian is well portrayed. The animals in particular play an important role and are well written.
Reactions to this novel have been strong in both directions, for many it was the only lesbian novel they had heard of. Mary Renault, who read it in 1938 recalls it as being earnest and humourless. However one Holocaust survivor noted: "Remembering that book, I wanted to live long enough to kiss another woman."
The ebb and flow go on. Hannah Roche has recently reassessed The Well:
“Was Hall cleverly turning to a Victorian mode in order to critique the politics of modernism, challenging the value of aesthetic experiment and obscurity? I argue not only that The Well was stylistically as impressive as the most celebrated of ‘difficult’ 1920s novels, but also that, by boldly appropriating an accepted (and heteronormative) genre, Hall makes a statement about the rightful position of lesbian writing that dares to strike its readers in ways more direct and profound than the audaciously avant-garde.”
For me, I understand its importance and I wasn’t expecting a happy ending (I wasn’t disappointed in that). Puddle’s advice to Stephen is powerful:
“You’re neither unnatural, nor abominable, nor mad; you’re as much a part of what people call nature as anyone else; only you’re unexplained as yet–you’ve not got your niche in creation. But some day that will come, and meanwhile don’t shrink from yourself, but face yourself calmly and bravely. Have courage; do the best you can with your burden. But above all be honourable. Cling to your honour for the sake of those others who share the same burden. For their sakes show the world that people like you and they can be quite as selfless and fine as the rest of mankind. Let your life go to prove this–it would be a really great life-work, Stephen.”
There’s still an element of apologizing for who you are and carrying a burden, but then even today the struggle continues.
Many problems in the novel arise from a lack of communication, but nothing has changed there! You can see the ending coming from a long way off, although the means is not obvious until late in the book. It’s not that well written and doesn’t stand up well to Orlando, which was published in the same year. Another point is that pity is not the best way of trying to get people on your side.
The interesting contrast between Stephen and Valerie Seymour is also illustrative. Seymour hosts a salon and is a pagan, no religion and has no problems with ethical dilemmas as a result of her lesbianism. Stephen holds onto the structures of Catholicism (on and off) and can’t manage to square her sexuality with her faith. Stephen’s relationship with her mother (who rejects her) also runs through the novel.
I can understand the importance of this novel at the time, but that time has gone and it feels more like a historical document, but I am glad I read it. The story is unbearably sad, but you can’t always have happy ever after.
September 20, 2011
what could have been a fascinating chronicle of a tough butch interloper challenging mainstream society becomes the drippy tale of a woman who just wants to be loved, and the cruel little bitch who leads her on. oh what a deep well! the writing's pretty swell though, that can't be denied. tres elegante. i was reminded of e.m. forster's equally drippy, equally beautiful (but rather more enjoyable) Maurice. plus i actually preferred the wish fulfillment of Maurice, sad to say. guess i'm not such a hardcore queer polemicist after all.
here's an update: got into a great argument over this book. Well of Loneliness' passionate defender insisted that the character of the so-called cruel little bitch needs to be understood in the context of the time period. the CLB had few options others than being, well, a CLB. apparently she was not the villain after all; she was a victim of fate and circumstance, just making do with the options she was given. a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do to make the rent. ain't nuthin' goin' on but the rent.
okay well i suppose that's a pretty good point. but is it enough to posthumously award an extra star to the novel, to even revivify it in my memory? i think not; the Well of Loneliness and its eye-rolling histrionics still feel dead to me.
here's an update: got into a great argument over this book. Well of Loneliness' passionate defender insisted that the character of the so-called cruel little bitch needs to be understood in the context of the time period. the CLB had few options others than being, well, a CLB. apparently she was not the villain after all; she was a victim of fate and circumstance, just making do with the options she was given. a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do to make the rent. ain't nuthin' goin' on but the rent.
okay well i suppose that's a pretty good point. but is it enough to posthumously award an extra star to the novel, to even revivify it in my memory? i think not; the Well of Loneliness and its eye-rolling histrionics still feel dead to me.
November 14, 2014
‘God,’ she gasped, we believe; we have told You we believe . . . We have not denied You, then rise up and defend us. Acknowledge us, oh God, before the whole world. Give us also the right to our existence!’
First things first, the cover on this edition is absurdly unrepresentative of the book.
Second, I liked the book. I would even recommend the book - it's just that it should come with a few notes:
1. It is endlessly long. And detailed. For no purpose. Whatsoever. If the length of the book was sustained by beautifully formed expressions it might not feel so long but....
2. I should not have read this so soon after reading the works of some master wordsmiths. Halls famous work is not as clunky as and slightly less preachy than The Unlit Lamp but it just isn't one of the books that would have been remembered for its evocative or imaginative writing.
3. The book was written with a purpose - a plea, if you like, that is expressed very openly in the closing chapters. As an example of cultural history or changes in society and attitudes, it is a fantastic read because it contains a lot of information about (and more detailed description of) British upper-middle class society of the early 20th century. So, if you read the book with a purpose of finding out more about these attitudes, this is a great read.
4. The character of Stephen seems to be based - at least to some extent - on Radclyffe Hall herself. As a result, the perspective taken by the main character and the book as a whole is limited to the experience of only one individual - which I guess is the point, but it doesn't make for a complex reading experience. In short, there does not seem to be an attempt to investigate other points of view, or experiment with angles of perception, or layers. There are other characters but few of them are given a real voice.
5. I could not help but smirk at the hint of hypocrisy in the books attempt to strive for acceptance of a minority when at the same time there is underlying attitude of snobbishness and chauvinism towards other minorities.
And yet, for all I criticise, there is an also an honesty to the story and Radclyffe Hall's forthright writing style that impresses me and this is worth the hard work of reading it:
The Well of Loneliness was published at the same time as Woolf's Orlando - touching on similar themes of identity - but where Orlando shrouded the issue in mysticism, Radclyffe Hall dared to write openly about sexual identity.
The book was banned under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857. The ban was not lifted until 1959 when the Act was amended. Originally, the test for obscenity was "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall". In 1959 the Act was amended to differentiate controversial works of art and literature with social merit.
The Well of Loneliness was not only book with a lesbian theme to be published in Britain in 1928, but it was the only one banned - because of its forthrightness and its explicitness - though hardly what would pass as such in today's terms.
Arguably, it is the book's fate, the notoriety it gained by being banned, that helped The Well of Loneliness to remain in print today.
"You will see unfaithfulness, lies and deceit among those whom the world views with approbation. You will find that many have grown hard of heart, have grown greedy, selfish, cruel and lustful; and then you will turn to me and will say: “You and I are more worthy of respect than these people. Why does the world persecute us, Stephen?” And I shall answer: “Because in this world there is only toleration for the so-called normal.” And when you come to me for protection, I shall say: “I cannot protect you, Mary, the world has deprived me of my right to protect; I am utterly helpless, I can only love you”.’
This review was first posted on BookLikes: http://brokentune.booklikes.com/post/...
First things first, the cover on this edition is absurdly unrepresentative of the book.
Second, I liked the book. I would even recommend the book - it's just that it should come with a few notes:
1. It is endlessly long. And detailed. For no purpose. Whatsoever. If the length of the book was sustained by beautifully formed expressions it might not feel so long but....
2. I should not have read this so soon after reading the works of some master wordsmiths. Halls famous work is not as clunky as and slightly less preachy than The Unlit Lamp but it just isn't one of the books that would have been remembered for its evocative or imaginative writing.
3. The book was written with a purpose - a plea, if you like, that is expressed very openly in the closing chapters. As an example of cultural history or changes in society and attitudes, it is a fantastic read because it contains a lot of information about (and more detailed description of) British upper-middle class society of the early 20th century. So, if you read the book with a purpose of finding out more about these attitudes, this is a great read.
4. The character of Stephen seems to be based - at least to some extent - on Radclyffe Hall herself. As a result, the perspective taken by the main character and the book as a whole is limited to the experience of only one individual - which I guess is the point, but it doesn't make for a complex reading experience. In short, there does not seem to be an attempt to investigate other points of view, or experiment with angles of perception, or layers. There are other characters but few of them are given a real voice.
5. I could not help but smirk at the hint of hypocrisy in the books attempt to strive for acceptance of a minority when at the same time there is underlying attitude of snobbishness and chauvinism towards other minorities.
And yet, for all I criticise, there is an also an honesty to the story and Radclyffe Hall's forthright writing style that impresses me and this is worth the hard work of reading it:
The Well of Loneliness was published at the same time as Woolf's Orlando - touching on similar themes of identity - but where Orlando shrouded the issue in mysticism, Radclyffe Hall dared to write openly about sexual identity.
The book was banned under the Obscene Publications Act of 1857. The ban was not lifted until 1959 when the Act was amended. Originally, the test for obscenity was "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall". In 1959 the Act was amended to differentiate controversial works of art and literature with social merit.
The Well of Loneliness was not only book with a lesbian theme to be published in Britain in 1928, but it was the only one banned - because of its forthrightness and its explicitness - though hardly what would pass as such in today's terms.
Arguably, it is the book's fate, the notoriety it gained by being banned, that helped The Well of Loneliness to remain in print today.
"You will see unfaithfulness, lies and deceit among those whom the world views with approbation. You will find that many have grown hard of heart, have grown greedy, selfish, cruel and lustful; and then you will turn to me and will say: “You and I are more worthy of respect than these people. Why does the world persecute us, Stephen?” And I shall answer: “Because in this world there is only toleration for the so-called normal.” And when you come to me for protection, I shall say: “I cannot protect you, Mary, the world has deprived me of my right to protect; I am utterly helpless, I can only love you”.’
This review was first posted on BookLikes: http://brokentune.booklikes.com/post/...
January 20, 2024
I desperately need E.M. Forster to rewrite the ending of this book. I simply will not accept this ending.
This book is incredibly beautiful and I already can’t wait to reread it. Stunning prose and so so many incredible quotes.
The last sentence of the book left me starring into my wall for 10 minutes; 'God,' she gasped, 'we believe; we have told You we believe... We have not denied You; then rise up and defend us. Acknowledge us, O God, before the whole world. Give us also the right to our existence! "
“I can’t mourn her without bringing shame on her name - I can’t go back home now and mourn her. (…) I want them to know how much I loved her. Oh God, oh God! I can’t even mourn her…”
This book is incredibly beautiful and I already can’t wait to reread it. Stunning prose and so so many incredible quotes.
The last sentence of the book left me starring into my wall for 10 minutes; 'God,' she gasped, 'we believe; we have told You we believe... We have not denied You; then rise up and defend us. Acknowledge us, O God, before the whole world. Give us also the right to our existence! "
“I can’t mourn her without bringing shame on her name - I can’t go back home now and mourn her. (…) I want them to know how much I loved her. Oh God, oh God! I can’t even mourn her…”
June 29, 2021
It's incredible to discover that less than a hundred years ago in 1928 James Douglas, the editor of the Sunday Express, wrote an article calling for a ban of “The Well of Loneliness” stating: “In order to prevent the contamination and corruption of English fiction it is the duty of the critic to make it impossible for any other novelist to repeat this outrage.” His campaign successfully led to the book being formally banned in Britain because of its representation of homosexuality as being a natural facet of identity and it wasn't made legally available again in this country until 1949.
This is the first time I've read this classic novel. I can only imagine what it would have meant to a gay person early in the 20th century to read it and discover a kinship of feeling – not just for the book's portrayal of female protagonist Stephen Gordon's emotional and sexual closeness to people of the same gender or Stephen's desire to dress in more masculine clothes – but the overwhelming sense it gives of being made to feel different and wrong for your very existence. The first section of the book describes Stephen's coming of age and feeling continuously frustrated “for she did not know the meaning of herself.” Nor does she have language available to describe her difference. Those that seem to understand her queerness (even her own father) refuse to name it so for many years her estrangement and isolation is felt all the more intensely.
Of course, to me and any sensitive or queer person who read it at the time of publication, it's perfectly obvious what Stephen is. Her early passionate crush on a beautiful maid and misguided affair with a married American woman are so touchingly portrayed because they are expressions of longing which can never be fulfilled in a satisfying way – not just because Stephen's feelings can't be equally reciprocated but because there's a fundamental miscommunication of desire. What's wonderful is that over the course of the novel Stephen discovers the words with which to describe herself and this leads to her liberation.
Read my full review of The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall on LonesomeReader
This is the first time I've read this classic novel. I can only imagine what it would have meant to a gay person early in the 20th century to read it and discover a kinship of feeling – not just for the book's portrayal of female protagonist Stephen Gordon's emotional and sexual closeness to people of the same gender or Stephen's desire to dress in more masculine clothes – but the overwhelming sense it gives of being made to feel different and wrong for your very existence. The first section of the book describes Stephen's coming of age and feeling continuously frustrated “for she did not know the meaning of herself.” Nor does she have language available to describe her difference. Those that seem to understand her queerness (even her own father) refuse to name it so for many years her estrangement and isolation is felt all the more intensely.
Of course, to me and any sensitive or queer person who read it at the time of publication, it's perfectly obvious what Stephen is. Her early passionate crush on a beautiful maid and misguided affair with a married American woman are so touchingly portrayed because they are expressions of longing which can never be fulfilled in a satisfying way – not just because Stephen's feelings can't be equally reciprocated but because there's a fundamental miscommunication of desire. What's wonderful is that over the course of the novel Stephen discovers the words with which to describe herself and this leads to her liberation.
Read my full review of The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall on LonesomeReader
December 16, 2010
Recently in these parts I declared that this novel was so dull that today it is essentially unreadable, and that its lasting importance has everything to do with history and not a thing to do with art. And I still generally stand behind these sentiments.
BUT.
I read it. And I kind of enjoyed it, at least in parts. I had based the above judgements on reading the first 60 pages or so (in retrospect the weakest section of the entire novel) and upon my decision to incorporate it in a paper on the queer writing of Djuna Barnes and Charles Henri Ford, I felt it was my duty to give it a fair assessment. As expected, it was about twice as long as necessary, and there are whole chapters that serve no purpose than to reinforce the inherent moral virtue of the main character Stephen Gordon, a British writer with an aristocratic background clearly modeled on Hall's own life. Hall's prose has its own unique sense of lyricism, but it's about as delicate as a bulldozer, which also accurately describes Hall's approach to the self-proclaimed purpose of the novel: to justify the existence of "the congenital invert." This means that we get a number of polemical proclamations that are as jarring narratively as they often are in regards to content: "with the terrible bonds of her true nature, she could bind Mary fast, and the pain would be sweetness, so that the girl would cry out for that sweetness, hugging her chains always closer to her. The world would condemn but they would rejoice; glorious outcasts, unashamed, triumphant!”
Oy.
As usual, Virginia Woolf gives a crystalline, beautifully backhanded summation that expresses the situation better than I possibly could: "the dullness of the book is such that any indecency may lurk there—one simply can't keep one's eyes on the page."
And yet, and yet… I can't help but find some merit in it as well, and even feel something for it almost bordering on affection. This novel has undoubtedly meant a good deal to countless gay people since its first publication in 1928 (that quickly turned into a notorious, frenzied censorship trial a la Oscar Wilde), and there are moments, quite a few moments even, that are genuinely moving in their characterizations of the plight non-heterosexuals experience within a often hostile society, and the internal turmoil this inevitably creates. And if it's not exactly art, there is something to be said in Hall's defense that she made the conscious decision to boldly render, if sometimes inelegantly, "the love that dare not speak its name" in no uncertain terms. And while I might (vastly) prefer the labyrinthine, high modernist obfuscations of Barnes, Ford, Stein and other contemporaneous queer writers, with The Well of Loneliness Hall established a place amongst this illustrious group that is in its own way unique, and ultimately well deserved.
BUT.
I read it. And I kind of enjoyed it, at least in parts. I had based the above judgements on reading the first 60 pages or so (in retrospect the weakest section of the entire novel) and upon my decision to incorporate it in a paper on the queer writing of Djuna Barnes and Charles Henri Ford, I felt it was my duty to give it a fair assessment. As expected, it was about twice as long as necessary, and there are whole chapters that serve no purpose than to reinforce the inherent moral virtue of the main character Stephen Gordon, a British writer with an aristocratic background clearly modeled on Hall's own life. Hall's prose has its own unique sense of lyricism, but it's about as delicate as a bulldozer, which also accurately describes Hall's approach to the self-proclaimed purpose of the novel: to justify the existence of "the congenital invert." This means that we get a number of polemical proclamations that are as jarring narratively as they often are in regards to content: "with the terrible bonds of her true nature, she could bind Mary fast, and the pain would be sweetness, so that the girl would cry out for that sweetness, hugging her chains always closer to her. The world would condemn but they would rejoice; glorious outcasts, unashamed, triumphant!”
Oy.
As usual, Virginia Woolf gives a crystalline, beautifully backhanded summation that expresses the situation better than I possibly could: "the dullness of the book is such that any indecency may lurk there—one simply can't keep one's eyes on the page."
And yet, and yet… I can't help but find some merit in it as well, and even feel something for it almost bordering on affection. This novel has undoubtedly meant a good deal to countless gay people since its first publication in 1928 (that quickly turned into a notorious, frenzied censorship trial a la Oscar Wilde), and there are moments, quite a few moments even, that are genuinely moving in their characterizations of the plight non-heterosexuals experience within a often hostile society, and the internal turmoil this inevitably creates. And if it's not exactly art, there is something to be said in Hall's defense that she made the conscious decision to boldly render, if sometimes inelegantly, "the love that dare not speak its name" in no uncertain terms. And while I might (vastly) prefer the labyrinthine, high modernist obfuscations of Barnes, Ford, Stein and other contemporaneous queer writers, with The Well of Loneliness Hall established a place amongst this illustrious group that is in its own way unique, and ultimately well deserved.
September 3, 2013
If one thinks of "The Well of Loneliness" as having been written by a homophobic, sexist straight man then it begins to make sense. The central character (and stand-in for author Radclyffe Hall) is not a self-loathing lesbian at all, he's a transgendered man, and he's not exactly gay-friendly. The identification of Jonathan Brockett as gay by describing his hands as being “as white and soft as a woman’s,” for example, emphasizes Stephen’s conflicted feelings about his own sexuality and the feminine sex, as well as his blossoming sense of gender dysphoria, as he feels “a queer little sense of outrage.” If one regards Stephen as a woman it seems completely illogical for Stephen's hands are not, after all “white and soft.” Rather, Stephen is full of the sense of smug entitlement that goes along with being an upper class gentleman, and so while this "Well" is certainly fascinating as historical trans-fiction, the reader is likely to find himself/herself in the end feeling as though he/she has spent way too much time with an insufferable prick, and wondering why.
September 2, 2014
this book was banned in England on publication in 1928, which of course made it a huge bestseller. and as it was published in France and the USA, it was easy to obtain copies.
and, of course, it is so tame by today's standards. the most explicit line in the book is "she kissed her full on the lips, like a lover". but the powers that be in England judged anything even hinting at lesbianism to be immoral.
in any event, it is a very fine novel, on it's own merits, and I really enjoyed it. the author uses the word queer extremely often, every few pages it seems, but not in the context of referring to the lesbians in the book, so I was wondering if that led to the word's current usage of referring to gays and lesbians?
throughout the book, the author is obviously trying to get across the point that lesbians should be treated the same as anybody else, which of course they should be. but the main character, Stephen (who is a female, despite the name) is portrayed as being very lonely and unhappy for most of the book, and the ending kind of makes you wonder whether the author thinks it's better not to be a lesbian.
anyway, it's an excellent book, which was republished by Virago in 1982 and has been reprinted almost every year since, so it is obviously finding new readers even now.
highly recommended!
and, of course, it is so tame by today's standards. the most explicit line in the book is "she kissed her full on the lips, like a lover". but the powers that be in England judged anything even hinting at lesbianism to be immoral.
in any event, it is a very fine novel, on it's own merits, and I really enjoyed it. the author uses the word queer extremely often, every few pages it seems, but not in the context of referring to the lesbians in the book, so I was wondering if that led to the word's current usage of referring to gays and lesbians?
throughout the book, the author is obviously trying to get across the point that lesbians should be treated the same as anybody else, which of course they should be. but the main character, Stephen (who is a female, despite the name) is portrayed as being very lonely and unhappy for most of the book, and the ending kind of makes you wonder whether the author thinks it's better not to be a lesbian.
anyway, it's an excellent book, which was republished by Virago in 1982 and has been reprinted almost every year since, so it is obviously finding new readers even now.
highly recommended!
April 19, 2008
I read The Well of Loneliness because of was very interested in reading novels on homosexuality. I needed something to relate to. The book centers around a girl whose father desperately wanted a boy and so named her Stephen. Throughout her childhood Stephen is shown as a girl unlike others. The way she carries herself, the way she acts and the fantasies she has about seeing herself as "Nelson", stress the fact Stephen sexuality is in question. As she grow, Stephen begins to find love in women and eventually settles down with one in particular. Until the dreadful ending.
I found the book up until the end to be very interesting and pleasant. However, throughout the novel one could not help feeling a sense of self-hatred in Stephen, as well as some other characters. Most of the time they would not even give themselves a name, could not see themselves as whole and thought mostly that outward achievements such as great writing that would make them famous, would make up for the fact that they were homosexuals.
This book to me seems like a cautionary tale to gay women in society. The morals that Ms.Radclyffe presents is that heterosexual couples are more acceptable and comfortable then a homosexual couple and that a heterosexual relationship is one that can truly provide the safety and dignity in this world. It's a shame Radclyffe wrote such beliefs.
I found the book up until the end to be very interesting and pleasant. However, throughout the novel one could not help feeling a sense of self-hatred in Stephen, as well as some other characters. Most of the time they would not even give themselves a name, could not see themselves as whole and thought mostly that outward achievements such as great writing that would make them famous, would make up for the fact that they were homosexuals.
This book to me seems like a cautionary tale to gay women in society. The morals that Ms.Radclyffe presents is that heterosexual couples are more acceptable and comfortable then a homosexual couple and that a heterosexual relationship is one that can truly provide the safety and dignity in this world. It's a shame Radclyffe wrote such beliefs.
February 8, 2020
the well of loneliness redeeming points:
1. butch vulnerability and sensibility; she draws stephen as an incredibly compelling character, both powerful and sensitive, defiant and yearning for acceptance. i can appreciate what the novel’s trying to do, and how groundbreaking it was for its time; it’s essentially a plea for acceptance, and i think considering the way you can trace a lot of contemporary gay narratives back to it (“born this way”; “love is love”; etc) it was largely successful, in the long run.
2. very well-rounded characters, actually, no matter how unlikeable you find them. special mention to stephen’s family dynamics and all the paris gays: valérie seymour, power femme, and her circle of “outcasts”; jonathan brockett and all the party gays are incredible characters, despite hall’s painful moral superiority when describing them. (she describes their partying as “the Dance of Death”, lol.)
3. incredible attention to detail that makes the novel a lot more interesting as a historical artefact than as a literary work. the emphasis on clothing and appearance was especially delightful
reasons why the well of loneliness drove me hysterical:
1. appallingly racist
2. somehow manages to be unspeakably cheesy without a single hint of fun
3. every time she humanised an animal (she makes the domestic animals call their owners “gods”) i physically cringed
4. completely fixated on an upper-class entitlement and incomprehension that it has been taken away. has all the signs of hall’s later fascist sympathies, actually: the novel hinges on concepts of birthright, the nation-state, the social order as natural & divinely ordained. a reminder, i guess, of the dangers of privileging wealthy white historical gay figures & their writing, and that gay-tinted fascism has a much longer history than we’d like.
1. butch vulnerability and sensibility; she draws stephen as an incredibly compelling character, both powerful and sensitive, defiant and yearning for acceptance. i can appreciate what the novel’s trying to do, and how groundbreaking it was for its time; it’s essentially a plea for acceptance, and i think considering the way you can trace a lot of contemporary gay narratives back to it (“born this way”; “love is love”; etc) it was largely successful, in the long run.
2. very well-rounded characters, actually, no matter how unlikeable you find them. special mention to stephen’s family dynamics and all the paris gays: valérie seymour, power femme, and her circle of “outcasts”; jonathan brockett and all the party gays are incredible characters, despite hall’s painful moral superiority when describing them. (she describes their partying as “the Dance of Death”, lol.)
3. incredible attention to detail that makes the novel a lot more interesting as a historical artefact than as a literary work. the emphasis on clothing and appearance was especially delightful
reasons why the well of loneliness drove me hysterical:
1. appallingly racist
2. somehow manages to be unspeakably cheesy without a single hint of fun
3. every time she humanised an animal (she makes the domestic animals call their owners “gods”) i physically cringed
4. completely fixated on an upper-class entitlement and incomprehension that it has been taken away. has all the signs of hall’s later fascist sympathies, actually: the novel hinges on concepts of birthright, the nation-state, the social order as natural & divinely ordained. a reminder, i guess, of the dangers of privileging wealthy white historical gay figures & their writing, and that gay-tinted fascism has a much longer history than we’d like.
Read
May 4, 2022very relieved to have finished this now.
March 3, 2024
A landmark work this may be, literary fiction it certainly is not. I’m also doubtful about its being representative of the lesbian experience in general. This was an absolute grind to read. I would have quickly abandoned it had my reading buddy not urged me on. The novel has not aged well. The prose is generally poor. Religion is heavily present; angst and melodrama even more so. The central character is intolerably self-absorbed. I did not buy the protagonist’s late-Victorian landed-class parents’ naming her “Stephen” simply because they’d been so set on having a son. That no one would find this at all odd was even harder to credit. I agree with Jeanette Winterson on this one: it reads like a misery memoir. I got through it, but only just . . .
I am still recovering.
I am still recovering.
April 4, 2023
4.5 stars
The Well of Loneliness is a touching exploration of gender identity, sexuality, and family relations. I'm beyond impressed by Radclyffe Hall's writing prowess and shocked that this classic is not a part of more curriculums.
The Well of Loneliness is a touching exploration of gender identity, sexuality, and family relations. I'm beyond impressed by Radclyffe Hall's writing prowess and shocked that this classic is not a part of more curriculums.
February 10, 2023
This was the first openly lesbian novel to be ever published in the world (England 1928), and I was gonna give it 4 stars bcs it was a little bit slow, but MY GOD. WHAT AN ENDING!! (That’s a Maurice by E. M. Forster reference, someone pls get it). It wasn’t happy, I’m literally so mad rn, but it also has a little hope in it?? The whole book treated homosexuality like something normal (Like, of course it is, I am, but this is from the 1920s, yk) and it was SO BEAUTIFUL WRITTEN. This was too much of a masterpiece, tbh. I can’t gather my thoughts rn, but I’ll write a review soon.
For now, some songs I associate to this:
The Man - Taylor Swift
I Know Places - Taylor Swift
coney island - Taylor Swift
Outlaws - Green Day
Ordinary World - Green Day
Born To Die - Lana Del Rey
State of Grace - Taylor Swift
We could be the same - maNga
peace - Taylor Swift
exile - Taylor Swift
For now, some songs I associate to this:
The Man - Taylor Swift
I Know Places - Taylor Swift
coney island - Taylor Swift
Outlaws - Green Day
Ordinary World - Green Day
Born To Die - Lana Del Rey
State of Grace - Taylor Swift
We could be the same - maNga
peace - Taylor Swift
exile - Taylor Swift
May 6, 2024
Loneliness – loss – disappointment – shame – self-hatred – sadness – pain – despair – hopelessness …
It’s quite difficult for me to understand why the ultraconservatives and right-wing people were foaming at the mouth after this famous classic had come out in 1928. After all, the main character is at odds with her fate as an “invert” from the very start and suffers so much over the course of the story (and it’s a long story!) that I’m not able to see the undesirable influence on young people here, that is, the “tempting” queer representation in this book.
When I read this novel, which appears to be intensely personal and autobiographical, the protagonist’s suffering often became almost unbearable to me. It was just painful to witness her deeply distressing experiences as a social outcast and her desperate attempts to find love and lead a happy life.
From a present-day perspective, it’s not clear whether Stephen, the central character, is a lesbian or a trans man. It’s a bit strange to see that in this book, being a lesbian is lumped together with being transgender and with looking androgynous/masculine as a biological woman – and especially the author’s indications that Stephen’s characteristics might be (or are?) a consequence of the fact that her parents always wanted to have a son instead of a daughter. But then the story is almost a hundred years old, and therefore at least a bit outdated. Fortunately …
Anyway, this book is a bitter denunciation of intolerance and inhumanity in society at Radclyffe Hall’s time, although it expresses hope for a better future. That makes it an interesting contemporary document as well as a well written, albeit deeply disturbing novel.
It’s quite difficult for me to understand why the ultraconservatives and right-wing people were foaming at the mouth after this famous classic had come out in 1928. After all, the main character is at odds with her fate as an “invert” from the very start and suffers so much over the course of the story (and it’s a long story!) that I’m not able to see the undesirable influence on young people here, that is, the “tempting” queer representation in this book.
When I read this novel, which appears to be intensely personal and autobiographical, the protagonist’s suffering often became almost unbearable to me. It was just painful to witness her deeply distressing experiences as a social outcast and her desperate attempts to find love and lead a happy life.
From a present-day perspective, it’s not clear whether Stephen, the central character, is a lesbian or a trans man. It’s a bit strange to see that in this book, being a lesbian is lumped together with being transgender and with looking androgynous/masculine as a biological woman – and especially the author’s indications that Stephen’s characteristics might be (or are?) a consequence of the fact that her parents always wanted to have a son instead of a daughter. But then the story is almost a hundred years old, and therefore at least a bit outdated. Fortunately …
Anyway, this book is a bitter denunciation of intolerance and inhumanity in society at Radclyffe Hall’s time, although it expresses hope for a better future. That makes it an interesting contemporary document as well as a well written, albeit deeply disturbing novel.
January 4, 2019
James Douglas, editor of the Sunday Express, wrote, " Am well aware that sexual inversion and perversion are horrors which exist among us today. They flaunt themselves in public places … I would rather give a healthy boy or a healthy girl a phial of prussic acid than this novel."
‘’If our love is a sin then heaven must be full of such tender and selfless sinning as ours’’
‘’-Why does the world persecute us?
-Because in this world there is only toleration for the so-called normal.’’
This is a 3.8 for me. i mean it was kinda boring at the start and it could have been a bit shorter. Also I’m not really into romance. I’ve read like what? 3 books? Okay probably more. i don't fucking care. It has to be really good for me to get invested. Yes we are gonna pretend like the two books of Nicholas Sparks *almost typed Cage* were masterpieces (Lucky One, Last Song). For a weird reason i really like them…. Why am I talking about this? Classics are just a hit or miss with me… ugh that reminds me, I need to finish Anna Karenina. It’s too long.
Anyways, the reason I bought this is that I read it’s the lesbian bible, a must have and when it came out it got banned for obscenity so I was like ‘bitch yeesss’. If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t have picked it up. I’m glad I did.
They said merry Christmas many times. See i read a xmas book during the holidays. My holiday spirit is truly amazing. Btw I read it in four days. One of them was on December 26 and somehow ended up reading the Christmas part.
What the fuck is this review.
‘’If our love is a sin then heaven must be full of such tender and selfless sinning as ours’’
‘’-Why does the world persecute us?
-Because in this world there is only toleration for the so-called normal.’’
This is a 3.8 for me. i mean it was kinda boring at the start and it could have been a bit shorter. Also I’m not really into romance. I’ve read like what? 3 books? Okay probably more. i don't fucking care. It has to be really good for me to get invested. Yes we are gonna pretend like the two books of Nicholas Sparks *almost typed Cage* were masterpieces (Lucky One, Last Song). For a weird reason i really like them…. Why am I talking about this? Classics are just a hit or miss with me… ugh that reminds me, I need to finish Anna Karenina. It’s too long.
Anyways, the reason I bought this is that I read it’s the lesbian bible, a must have and when it came out it got banned for obscenity so I was like ‘bitch yeesss’. If it wasn’t for that I wouldn’t have picked it up. I’m glad I did.
They said merry Christmas many times. See i read a xmas book during the holidays. My holiday spirit is truly amazing. Btw I read it in four days. One of them was on December 26 and somehow ended up reading the Christmas part.
March 24, 2018
Alternative title- The deep, deep, pitiful well of loneliness.
I mean, I knew this would be sad, but I hoped it wouldn't be quite as despairing. I suppose the clue was in the name and the fact this is early 20th century lesbian fiction, which we all know didn't end well. After all, we can't be encouraging the ladies.
Aside from the sexuality, this reminds me why the 1920s are my favourite period in literature. There's something so evocative about the time and although the writing style, of course, differs between authors, they all have a certain quality to their work that mesmerises me.
This was a fascinating story, dealing with the life of Stephen from when she's a young girl, through to her teenage years when she makes fateful friendships and love affairs. Onto her adult life where she lives on her own terms. It captures the period of English country houses, Lords that go shooting and Ladies that lunch. We also have a great big generous slice of Parisian culture and the trauma of WW1. There's so much packed in, yet it's a slow sensual read. Not in a sexy or explicit style, but in the mood of the time and the tone of how the story unfolds. It's about the joy and pain of being 'other', at a time when this was not allowed. It's wonderful and heartbreaking all at once.
It really is a must read.
I mean, I knew this would be sad, but I hoped it wouldn't be quite as despairing. I suppose the clue was in the name and the fact this is early 20th century lesbian fiction, which we all know didn't end well. After all, we can't be encouraging the ladies.
Aside from the sexuality, this reminds me why the 1920s are my favourite period in literature. There's something so evocative about the time and although the writing style, of course, differs between authors, they all have a certain quality to their work that mesmerises me.
This was a fascinating story, dealing with the life of Stephen from when she's a young girl, through to her teenage years when she makes fateful friendships and love affairs. Onto her adult life where she lives on her own terms. It captures the period of English country houses, Lords that go shooting and Ladies that lunch. We also have a great big generous slice of Parisian culture and the trauma of WW1. There's so much packed in, yet it's a slow sensual read. Not in a sexy or explicit style, but in the mood of the time and the tone of how the story unfolds. It's about the joy and pain of being 'other', at a time when this was not allowed. It's wonderful and heartbreaking all at once.
It really is a must read.
September 9, 2020
I read this book as a teenager and was so riveted by the story I still have my copy, yellowed pages and all.
Reading ‘The Well of Loneliness’ gave me an insight into something that people, in those days (1950’s) spoke of only in horrified whispers. It spoke of people who were misunderstood and denigrated because of how they felt, which seemed wrong to me even at an early age.
I re-read it a couple years ago and got the very same feeling as I did the very first time. I would never call this book depressing, but I would call it sad. To me, it is a sad love story.
I believe it is as topical today as it was when it was written. It is a poignant beautifully written story of Stephen Gordon’s struggle for a self image that was honest and true.
I absolutely LOVE this book!
Reading ‘The Well of Loneliness’ gave me an insight into something that people, in those days (1950’s) spoke of only in horrified whispers. It spoke of people who were misunderstood and denigrated because of how they felt, which seemed wrong to me even at an early age.
I re-read it a couple years ago and got the very same feeling as I did the very first time. I would never call this book depressing, but I would call it sad. To me, it is a sad love story.
I believe it is as topical today as it was when it was written. It is a poignant beautifully written story of Stephen Gordon’s struggle for a self image that was honest and true.
I absolutely LOVE this book!
March 5, 2021
Hours later I wondered if some of my review was too abstract, and so I try again :)
========
4.5 stars, 5 stars for well over half the novel, and 4 for the rest. This review is for the unabridged audiobook https://play.google.com/store/audiobo...
Stephen Gordon is born in a body that restricts her to the person she yearns to be and the life she wants to live. The novel refers to Stephen as an invert, a term I had to google, as my best guess would have been transgender, which is a fairly recent concept and not around when this novel was published in 1928.
From the start, there is a sense of tragedy, maybe I got this more from the audiobook’s narrator, Laura Kirman, than the text itself. Listening to it, from the go I had the sense that something awful was about to happen to eventually realise this is the tone for the entire book. So, for over half of it, I was completely caught up in the suspense, first I was wondering how would Stephen work out why she felt so different. Her father, Sir Phillip had guessed, and so had her second home tutor, Puddle, whilst young Stephen continues and yet aware there’s something different about her in how the town responds to her and treats her.
Throughout, the tragic is counterbalanced with how beautifully and well observed this tale is told, it’s a vast narrative that also touches on the themes of hope and belief; wanting to be accepted by society and god; motherhood and the bond she feels with her child; loyalty and friendship; the awfulness of World War I; and the right to love, protect what you love and be loved.
This was published in the same year as Orlando in 1928, but it would face censorship and not be reinstated for another two decades, if I was to guess I think it’s because Stephen Gordon so blatantly rejects the sexual identity she is born with. A quick Google search tells me this novel has not been censored since, this is a good thing because through Stephen Gordon, Radclyffe Hall broadly shows how prejudice is created between the complex dynamics of identity, language and the status quo. In how this story unfolds I too could see the plight that was set before Stephen Gordon, ahead of her lay a long and difficult road in wanting to be true to herself. This is tough as others are trying to whittle her down to conform to their ways but not seeing the courage it takes to resist. So, to the end I was hooked wondering if Stephen Gordon would be requested the one small thing she asks for, to simply be accepted as she is.
========
4.5 stars, 5 stars for well over half the novel, and 4 for the rest. This review is for the unabridged audiobook https://play.google.com/store/audiobo...
Stephen Gordon is born in a body that restricts her to the person she yearns to be and the life she wants to live. The novel refers to Stephen as an invert, a term I had to google, as my best guess would have been transgender, which is a fairly recent concept and not around when this novel was published in 1928.
From the start, there is a sense of tragedy, maybe I got this more from the audiobook’s narrator, Laura Kirman, than the text itself. Listening to it, from the go I had the sense that something awful was about to happen to eventually realise this is the tone for the entire book. So, for over half of it, I was completely caught up in the suspense, first I was wondering how would Stephen work out why she felt so different. Her father, Sir Phillip had guessed, and so had her second home tutor, Puddle, whilst young Stephen continues and yet aware there’s something different about her in how the town responds to her and treats her.
Throughout, the tragic is counterbalanced with how beautifully and well observed this tale is told, it’s a vast narrative that also touches on the themes of hope and belief; wanting to be accepted by society and god; motherhood and the bond she feels with her child; loyalty and friendship; the awfulness of World War I; and the right to love, protect what you love and be loved.
This was published in the same year as Orlando in 1928, but it would face censorship and not be reinstated for another two decades, if I was to guess I think it’s because Stephen Gordon so blatantly rejects the sexual identity she is born with. A quick Google search tells me this novel has not been censored since, this is a good thing because through Stephen Gordon, Radclyffe Hall broadly shows how prejudice is created between the complex dynamics of identity, language and the status quo. In how this story unfolds I too could see the plight that was set before Stephen Gordon, ahead of her lay a long and difficult road in wanting to be true to herself. This is tough as others are trying to whittle her down to conform to their ways but not seeing the courage it takes to resist. So, to the end I was hooked wondering if Stephen Gordon would be requested the one small thing she asks for, to simply be accepted as she is.
July 7, 2016
This book moves slowly and thoughtfully through many shades of tragedy. There's a sort of integrity to it. Not all readers will appreciate the Christian symbolism and theology but I did- the constant please for meaning and acceptance by a sort of outcast. A few times I sort of experienced Stephen as unrelatable because of how ridiculously wealthy she was, but then there were people like Jamie and Barbara to add counterpoint to it, there was just enough shown of the servants to undo the idea that Stephen's class were the important people.
The tragedy was many layered in that Stephen's ill-fated attempts to find a place and meaning in the world crossed over with many other dissatisfied grey figures such as Puddle. Love in the book is rich and not always sexual, but sexuality is important both for identity and as an experience of love and being.
As a 2016 lesbian I find the concept of "inversion" inadequate to understand who/what we are, but I can see that in terms of society's negative and silencing attitudes to the sexually different, this was a way of trying to make sense of it. What is portrayed well in the novel is the way personal worthiness or unworthiness is not the point, it is society that excludes people from full participation. The book is quite judgemental on decadent lifestyles, but shows them as a product, not a cause of the casting out of lgbt folk. There are also the contradictions that are present in most types of prejudice (for example someone can be valued in war-time and then resume their lower status after the war).
I actually wanted to yell at Anna. I was so angry with her and her stupidity. In the time of the book, I suppose her attitude made more sense but she caused pain to herself as well as others. Ditto some other characters. I didn;t always like the way the gender binary was portrayed in the book (especially "women" as weak and helpless) but I could enjoy the small gaps in the text where it verged on questioning or undermining its own authority in these things.
I am nowhere near as strong-minded and courageous let alone as fit and physically strong as Stephen but I related to her and her emotional pain and needs as I relate to few literary characters. For a book so slow-paced and relatively long it held me in its thrall uncommonly well and charmed both joy and tears from me (especially ultimately tears). It seemed a true account of the humanity of lgbt people and a more deep and complex illustration of the idea that "love is love".
The tragedy was many layered in that Stephen's ill-fated attempts to find a place and meaning in the world crossed over with many other dissatisfied grey figures such as Puddle. Love in the book is rich and not always sexual, but sexuality is important both for identity and as an experience of love and being.
As a 2016 lesbian I find the concept of "inversion" inadequate to understand who/what we are, but I can see that in terms of society's negative and silencing attitudes to the sexually different, this was a way of trying to make sense of it. What is portrayed well in the novel is the way personal worthiness or unworthiness is not the point, it is society that excludes people from full participation. The book is quite judgemental on decadent lifestyles, but shows them as a product, not a cause of the casting out of lgbt folk. There are also the contradictions that are present in most types of prejudice (for example someone can be valued in war-time and then resume their lower status after the war).
I actually wanted to yell at Anna. I was so angry with her and her stupidity. In the time of the book, I suppose her attitude made more sense but she caused pain to herself as well as others. Ditto some other characters. I didn;t always like the way the gender binary was portrayed in the book (especially "women" as weak and helpless) but I could enjoy the small gaps in the text where it verged on questioning or undermining its own authority in these things.
I am nowhere near as strong-minded and courageous let alone as fit and physically strong as Stephen but I related to her and her emotional pain and needs as I relate to few literary characters. For a book so slow-paced and relatively long it held me in its thrall uncommonly well and charmed both joy and tears from me (especially ultimately tears). It seemed a true account of the humanity of lgbt people and a more deep and complex illustration of the idea that "love is love".
September 8, 2009
This is possibly the most beautiful book I have ever read. The prose is simply exquisite. Hall proves that imagery does not have to be tedious and overwraught. I felt a hundred times while reading this novel that I had never heard such a sentiment expressed so perfectly. In fact, sometimes the prose was so beautiful that the context almost faded away entirely, and I was simply left with a breath-taking sentence, paragraph or more...
Sadly, this book is still relevant 90 years after it was penned. I thought I would burst when Stephen rehearsed the speech she planned to give Mary about what would happen if they became lovers. So little has changed since then.
Though I was warned that the ending was disastrous, I have to disagree entirely. The book is a tragedy, but not one that is contrived or forced. There is no oracle, no announcement that our lovers are star-crossed, just a very sad reality of the time and an inevitable conlcusion. I think that Stephen's sacrifice is greater than any most of us selfish mortals could make. She felt she must save Mary, that her salvation would come too late to preserve her, and so she did the only thing she felt she could... she let Mary go.
This book is both exquisitely written and extremely relevant. It should be required reading in high schools and colleges. Everyone should experience the life and writings of Hall.
Sadly, this book is still relevant 90 years after it was penned. I thought I would burst when Stephen rehearsed the speech she planned to give Mary about what would happen if they became lovers. So little has changed since then.
Though I was warned that the ending was disastrous, I have to disagree entirely. The book is a tragedy, but not one that is contrived or forced. There is no oracle, no announcement that our lovers are star-crossed, just a very sad reality of the time and an inevitable conlcusion. I think that Stephen's sacrifice is greater than any most of us selfish mortals could make. She felt she must save Mary, that her salvation would come too late to preserve her, and so she did the only thing she felt she could... she let Mary go.
This book is both exquisitely written and extremely relevant. It should be required reading in high schools and colleges. Everyone should experience the life and writings of Hall.
June 17, 2022
This novel is not without its faults - it is too long, over-written and heavy-handed in places. That said, it is an incredible depiction of what life can be like for those who follow their instincts and are told they sin (thanks Pet Shop Boys). And it was obviously immensely more difficult to do that a hundred years ago. The book really does have some truly tender and heartbreaking moments throughout.
It is interesting that Whitehall was outraged by the book’s publication in 1928 calling it a “perverted” novel. Others, including Rudyard Kipling, considered it little more than pornography and supported its ban which lasted until 1968. Perhaps the book’s controversial history adds to its appeal today rather than solely the quality of the writing and the story itself. I still feel that it has some poignant comments to make about difference and acceptance today.
I enjoyed reading this dense, weighty novel, however Hall’s earlier work, The Unlit Lamp, captivated me more.
It is interesting that Whitehall was outraged by the book’s publication in 1928 calling it a “perverted” novel. Others, including Rudyard Kipling, considered it little more than pornography and supported its ban which lasted until 1968. Perhaps the book’s controversial history adds to its appeal today rather than solely the quality of the writing and the story itself. I still feel that it has some poignant comments to make about difference and acceptance today.
I enjoyed reading this dense, weighty novel, however Hall’s earlier work, The Unlit Lamp, captivated me more.
February 1, 2024
Ninety-six years since this book was first published and banned in 1928. It was re-published in Paris and Italy, but banned from the UK until 1949. I read this with my Goodreads friend, Canadian Reader and I think without her commitment and probably I can say the same for her - we would both have let the book drop. However, I do think The Well, is an important historical document. It defines accurately the types of thinking, attitudes, prejudices, ignorance, internal-repression that was prevalent in the early twentieth century - and reading this book allows us to see the huge advances that have been made, particularly in the areas of psychology, psychotherapy and more widely in our more tolerant and accepting societies.
image:
The photo is Radclyffe Hall and her partner Lady Una Troubridge
For myself the main point of interest is the uncovering of Stephen's identity; but also something I found quite perplexing; for a novel famous for being about lesbians - neither of the main characters are in fact lesbian. In today's terms yes, probably both Stephen Gordon and Mary Llewellyn would identify as lesbian, but through a process of logical deduction as I read from beginning to end, I concluded that Stephen always identifies as male/masculine. She has what we might consider - again in today's terms body dysphoria - which means that despite having female genitalia she sees herself as male. Her predominant physical and mental characteristics as she grows up are seen by herself as male, and her family and outsiders confirm this - recognising mostly male characteristics in what they know is a girl.
All of Stephen's qualities in the first part of the book, however are cultural and social evaluations of what it means to be either male or female. For example Stephen likes fencing and prefers to sit astride her horse. She's also good at maths and languages. But, she suffers for having these "male" qualities. Only in her late teens, however, when a friendship with Martin Hallam goes wrong does Stephen understands that she has a sexual 'aberration' also. She is not attracted to men. But what I discovered, and what I think is the crux of the whole novel, is that Stephen, sees her sexual orientation, as a confirmation of her MALE identity. She is attracted to women, therefore, she must in fact be male.
It took me awhile to actualise that this is Stephen's deduction - it is not made explicit in the text.
Stephen forms a relationship with the awful Angela Crawford and is badly abused by her, and then later a more mature relationship with Mary Llewellyn. Gradually, and only as the story unfolds do we begin to understand that Stephen explains her sexual orientation to herself - as someone who is male, but unfortunately trapped in a female body. She always refers to herself as an "invert", that is 'abnormal' - and in Victorian/Edwardian terms - 'an abomination in the sight of God'. We understand and quite rightly too, that this is a terrible affliction, something that Stephan can neither live with or accept. The novel is about this struggle to not be seen as outside of God's creation.
From my perspective, however, it is not until her relationship with Mary that I started to put the clues together. Stephen sees Mary as purely feminine; delicate, small, childlike, needing to be protected. At the beginning she doesn't want to draw Mary into a relationship that will force Mary to be un-natural, but in the idyllic setting of Orotava, Tenerife, passions bud and eventually come to their natural conclusion: Stephen and Mary 'become as one.'
On their return to Paris, they both have to deal with the intrusions of the real world. Stephen writes and publishes books, whereas Mary has little to protect her from the attacks and ostracism of society. The 'normal' people realise she is part of an 'un-natural' alliance with Stephen.
The next clue that alerted me to the fact that Stephen has a rigidly internalised split into what is male and what is female, is when she encounters Jonathan Brockett, a well known writer, but also someone who identifies as homosexual. Stephen and Brockett gradually form a friendship, but Stephen can never get past her dislike of Brocketts' 'soft, white hands'. Stephen in fact despises anything feminine in what she perceives to be a masculine body.
Mary suffers more and more and Stephen strives to protect her. They gradually accept the society of the 'outcasts' and other 'misfits' when they understand they will not be accepted by 'normal' society. The next clue arrives in the form of Valerie Seymour, who is based on a real person Natalie Brenner. Stephen is reluctant to form a friendship with this woman who has openly declared her sexual orientation for other women. Valerie is female; dresses and expresses herself always in feminine terms, but her sexual attraction is to other women. But because Stephen has this rigid concept of what is male, what is female - he cannot accept Valerie - if she looks female she should be attracted to men - is Stephen's rationale.
At this point in my discussion with Canadian Reader I pointed out the value of our late 20th century education. In biology classes today we are taught that the XX chromosome signifies a female gender; in short if you have female genitals, vulva, labia, vagina and ovaries. The ovaries might be inside and hidden but they produce the oestrogen that make all the normal female traits. I suspect Radclyffe Hall was missing some basic information. Stephen develops breast and she menstruates - as is hinted in the teenage chapters, but in spite of this Stephen manages to ignore/reject all this evidence of her female gender. She still chooses to identify as MALE.
In her relationship with Mary, we gradually come to realise that Stephen doesn't see Mary as lesbian but as a natural female. This perspective of Stephen's make sense when we review her great fight to not allow Mary to become involved with her sexually. Stephen doesn't want to corrupt Mary because she believes Mary to be a normal female and not an invert. This is also very strange because Mary responds fully and willingly to Stephen's FEMALE body. We understand perhaps that Mary's attraction is to Stephen's strength and as we gradually learn her power to protect and provide.
I won't go into the ending, it might spoil the story for some readers, needless to say, all the evidence in the story points to how gender stereotyping distorts and corrupts a natural sexual orientation. In Stephen's world, if you look like a man, and you choose to dress and behave like a man, then naturally you should be attracted to women. At no point does Stephen use "Lesbian" as a way to identify herself. By paying close attention to the text, and with using other resources I came to the conclusion that Stephen views all homo-erotic behaviour as abnormal and does not want to be identified in any way as homosexual despite the fact that she is in fact a female attracted to other females. Stephen identifies as male and therefore her attraction to females is normal.
This behaviour might seem extreme and extremely odd given the facts - but homosexual behaviour was deeply ostracised in early 20th century UK. It was a criminal offence between males, and although lesbian behaviour was not illegal or viewed as a criminal activity, it nevertheless was viewed as aberrant behaviour. Stephen has internalised her dislike of homo-sexual behaviour and I mean not just male-male attraction but female-female attraction. And this is evident in her profound belief and declaration that she is MALE - she has managed to obliterate the essential gender defying organs of her body - although no doubt she used them in her sexual relations with Mary.
So this book is in fact a study of internal-dysphoria. It's not easy to see and understand. Canadian reader pointed me to case-studies and indeed a law-case. In 2021 Keira Bell brought a lawsuit against the Tavistock private clinic in London. She is a young female who thought that changing her body into male would sort out all of her personal, family and social problems. She was encouraged to take puberty blockers as a way to give her time to choose her 'real' gender. Both Canadian and I firmly believe sexual orientation surgery is not the way to deal with the social and personal stereotyping that affects sexual orientation in a negative way. Canadian Reader provided articles demonstrating that psychologists today prefer counselling with 'Body Positive Affirmation.' For example if a person is a biological female - they are will be influenced by a range of culturally acquired male and female qualities. We see gender today as being on a scale. Women can have big muscles and outstanding intellects and still be female - what we refer to now-a-days as gender typical or a-typical etc.
I should explain the connection between gender stereotyping and what can produce confusion in young people who may struggle to identify their sexual orientation:
If our young girl has a gender a-typical body as is the case with Keira Bell, and she is not taught to understand that a range of body shapes, sizes and behaviour is normal within each gender i.e. women do indeed have broad shoulders and can make excellent shot putters and still be female. If instead a young women is given the message that her female body is not typical for her gender she can start to have thoughts - perhaps I'm not actually female, perhaps I am more male. With the onset of puberty and the beginning of sexual identity and orientation, a young woman feeling that she has more masculine than feminine qualities can also receive the message that perhaps her sexual orientation OUGHT to be towards other women; or she might present her concerns negatively as I shouldn't be attracted to males. The morass of what or what isn't concluded is definitely revealed in Keira Bell's case. The main point, however, is that young people need guidance about sexual orientation. Homosexual and heterosexual attraction needs to be presented as normal and not determined by biological gender or learnt gender behaviours.
So, to sum up, today, in the 21st century most adults understand that it is societal conditioning that can cause confusion in in a person's understanding of their sexual orientation.
It seems complex and complicated, but it isn't. It is societies' taboos, and close-minded, prejudiced attitudes which predetermine what society considers NORMAL. Unfortunately homo-sexual attraction is still often perceived as wrong/aberrant. In my research, whilst reading Hall's novel, I found a Guardian article from April 2015 - about 10% of the population are queer/gay/lesbian - or identify as other than the heterosexual 'norm'.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...
Final comments on Hall's novel - it was worth reading, but I didn't like the emotional arm-twisting. I appreciate and respect the novel's polemic and I understand it fully; and I am now much better informed as to how the definition of queer, gay, lesbian are labels that have gone through a process of development. These terms we use now had to be established and worked out against the norms of very rigid gender stereotyping of the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. In Hall's time, appropriating male attire, behaviour and attitudes was the most provocative way for a female to stand out as different, and to register that difference as being a sexual difference. In Stephen's case and also probably with Hall there is an added dimension of her rejection of her female gender - what we recognise today by the term 'gender dysphoria'.
Stephen appropriates all things male because that was the most direct way for her to acquire status, power, respectability and confirmation of her best qualities. She is attracted to innocent, young, feminine women - (Mary) because it allows Stephen confirmation of a positive sexual attraction. In Stephen's mind she is Male, Mary is Female - everything is normal. Stephen's complete denial and repression of her female gender was her way to deal with her internalized homophobia.
image:
The photo is Radclyffe Hall and her partner Lady Una Troubridge
For myself the main point of interest is the uncovering of Stephen's identity; but also something I found quite perplexing; for a novel famous for being about lesbians - neither of the main characters are in fact lesbian. In today's terms yes, probably both Stephen Gordon and Mary Llewellyn would identify as lesbian, but through a process of logical deduction as I read from beginning to end, I concluded that Stephen always identifies as male/masculine. She has what we might consider - again in today's terms body dysphoria - which means that despite having female genitalia she sees herself as male. Her predominant physical and mental characteristics as she grows up are seen by herself as male, and her family and outsiders confirm this - recognising mostly male characteristics in what they know is a girl.
All of Stephen's qualities in the first part of the book, however are cultural and social evaluations of what it means to be either male or female. For example Stephen likes fencing and prefers to sit astride her horse. She's also good at maths and languages. But, she suffers for having these "male" qualities. Only in her late teens, however, when a friendship with Martin Hallam goes wrong does Stephen understands that she has a sexual 'aberration' also. She is not attracted to men. But what I discovered, and what I think is the crux of the whole novel, is that Stephen, sees her sexual orientation, as a confirmation of her MALE identity. She is attracted to women, therefore, she must in fact be male.
It took me awhile to actualise that this is Stephen's deduction - it is not made explicit in the text.
Stephen forms a relationship with the awful Angela Crawford and is badly abused by her, and then later a more mature relationship with Mary Llewellyn. Gradually, and only as the story unfolds do we begin to understand that Stephen explains her sexual orientation to herself - as someone who is male, but unfortunately trapped in a female body. She always refers to herself as an "invert", that is 'abnormal' - and in Victorian/Edwardian terms - 'an abomination in the sight of God'. We understand and quite rightly too, that this is a terrible affliction, something that Stephan can neither live with or accept. The novel is about this struggle to not be seen as outside of God's creation.
From my perspective, however, it is not until her relationship with Mary that I started to put the clues together. Stephen sees Mary as purely feminine; delicate, small, childlike, needing to be protected. At the beginning she doesn't want to draw Mary into a relationship that will force Mary to be un-natural, but in the idyllic setting of Orotava, Tenerife, passions bud and eventually come to their natural conclusion: Stephen and Mary 'become as one.'
On their return to Paris, they both have to deal with the intrusions of the real world. Stephen writes and publishes books, whereas Mary has little to protect her from the attacks and ostracism of society. The 'normal' people realise she is part of an 'un-natural' alliance with Stephen.
The next clue that alerted me to the fact that Stephen has a rigidly internalised split into what is male and what is female, is when she encounters Jonathan Brockett, a well known writer, but also someone who identifies as homosexual. Stephen and Brockett gradually form a friendship, but Stephen can never get past her dislike of Brocketts' 'soft, white hands'. Stephen in fact despises anything feminine in what she perceives to be a masculine body.
Mary suffers more and more and Stephen strives to protect her. They gradually accept the society of the 'outcasts' and other 'misfits' when they understand they will not be accepted by 'normal' society. The next clue arrives in the form of Valerie Seymour, who is based on a real person Natalie Brenner. Stephen is reluctant to form a friendship with this woman who has openly declared her sexual orientation for other women. Valerie is female; dresses and expresses herself always in feminine terms, but her sexual attraction is to other women. But because Stephen has this rigid concept of what is male, what is female - he cannot accept Valerie - if she looks female she should be attracted to men - is Stephen's rationale.
At this point in my discussion with Canadian Reader I pointed out the value of our late 20th century education. In biology classes today we are taught that the XX chromosome signifies a female gender; in short if you have female genitals, vulva, labia, vagina and ovaries. The ovaries might be inside and hidden but they produce the oestrogen that make all the normal female traits. I suspect Radclyffe Hall was missing some basic information. Stephen develops breast and she menstruates - as is hinted in the teenage chapters, but in spite of this Stephen manages to ignore/reject all this evidence of her female gender. She still chooses to identify as MALE.
In her relationship with Mary, we gradually come to realise that Stephen doesn't see Mary as lesbian but as a natural female. This perspective of Stephen's make sense when we review her great fight to not allow Mary to become involved with her sexually. Stephen doesn't want to corrupt Mary because she believes Mary to be a normal female and not an invert. This is also very strange because Mary responds fully and willingly to Stephen's FEMALE body. We understand perhaps that Mary's attraction is to Stephen's strength and as we gradually learn her power to protect and provide.
I won't go into the ending, it might spoil the story for some readers, needless to say, all the evidence in the story points to how gender stereotyping distorts and corrupts a natural sexual orientation. In Stephen's world, if you look like a man, and you choose to dress and behave like a man, then naturally you should be attracted to women. At no point does Stephen use "Lesbian" as a way to identify herself. By paying close attention to the text, and with using other resources I came to the conclusion that Stephen views all homo-erotic behaviour as abnormal and does not want to be identified in any way as homosexual despite the fact that she is in fact a female attracted to other females. Stephen identifies as male and therefore her attraction to females is normal.
This behaviour might seem extreme and extremely odd given the facts - but homosexual behaviour was deeply ostracised in early 20th century UK. It was a criminal offence between males, and although lesbian behaviour was not illegal or viewed as a criminal activity, it nevertheless was viewed as aberrant behaviour. Stephen has internalised her dislike of homo-sexual behaviour and I mean not just male-male attraction but female-female attraction. And this is evident in her profound belief and declaration that she is MALE - she has managed to obliterate the essential gender defying organs of her body - although no doubt she used them in her sexual relations with Mary.
So this book is in fact a study of internal-dysphoria. It's not easy to see and understand. Canadian reader pointed me to case-studies and indeed a law-case. In 2021 Keira Bell brought a lawsuit against the Tavistock private clinic in London. She is a young female who thought that changing her body into male would sort out all of her personal, family and social problems. She was encouraged to take puberty blockers as a way to give her time to choose her 'real' gender. Both Canadian and I firmly believe sexual orientation surgery is not the way to deal with the social and personal stereotyping that affects sexual orientation in a negative way. Canadian Reader provided articles demonstrating that psychologists today prefer counselling with 'Body Positive Affirmation.' For example if a person is a biological female - they are will be influenced by a range of culturally acquired male and female qualities. We see gender today as being on a scale. Women can have big muscles and outstanding intellects and still be female - what we refer to now-a-days as gender typical or a-typical etc.
I should explain the connection between gender stereotyping and what can produce confusion in young people who may struggle to identify their sexual orientation:
If our young girl has a gender a-typical body as is the case with Keira Bell, and she is not taught to understand that a range of body shapes, sizes and behaviour is normal within each gender i.e. women do indeed have broad shoulders and can make excellent shot putters and still be female. If instead a young women is given the message that her female body is not typical for her gender she can start to have thoughts - perhaps I'm not actually female, perhaps I am more male. With the onset of puberty and the beginning of sexual identity and orientation, a young woman feeling that she has more masculine than feminine qualities can also receive the message that perhaps her sexual orientation OUGHT to be towards other women; or she might present her concerns negatively as I shouldn't be attracted to males. The morass of what or what isn't concluded is definitely revealed in Keira Bell's case. The main point, however, is that young people need guidance about sexual orientation. Homosexual and heterosexual attraction needs to be presented as normal and not determined by biological gender or learnt gender behaviours.
So, to sum up, today, in the 21st century most adults understand that it is societal conditioning that can cause confusion in in a person's understanding of their sexual orientation.
It seems complex and complicated, but it isn't. It is societies' taboos, and close-minded, prejudiced attitudes which predetermine what society considers NORMAL. Unfortunately homo-sexual attraction is still often perceived as wrong/aberrant. In my research, whilst reading Hall's novel, I found a Guardian article from April 2015 - about 10% of the population are queer/gay/lesbian - or identify as other than the heterosexual 'norm'.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2...
Final comments on Hall's novel - it was worth reading, but I didn't like the emotional arm-twisting. I appreciate and respect the novel's polemic and I understand it fully; and I am now much better informed as to how the definition of queer, gay, lesbian are labels that have gone through a process of development. These terms we use now had to be established and worked out against the norms of very rigid gender stereotyping of the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. In Hall's time, appropriating male attire, behaviour and attitudes was the most provocative way for a female to stand out as different, and to register that difference as being a sexual difference. In Stephen's case and also probably with Hall there is an added dimension of her rejection of her female gender - what we recognise today by the term 'gender dysphoria'.
Stephen appropriates all things male because that was the most direct way for her to acquire status, power, respectability and confirmation of her best qualities. She is attracted to innocent, young, feminine women - (Mary) because it allows Stephen confirmation of a positive sexual attraction. In Stephen's mind she is Male, Mary is Female - everything is normal. Stephen's complete denial and repression of her female gender was her way to deal with her internalized homophobia.
December 27, 2020
Epic story. This is up there with Jane Austen. I normally try to read quickly but this time I had to take it slow. I needed to feel every chapter, to feel every working part of this incredible story.
What impressed me most was that this was a breakthrough novel involving a lesbian relationship set in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s London and Paris. The story was wholesome: not just about how two people met. It was so much more. It began with Stephen’s (female) childhood and her self-discovery albeit a convoluted and fairly slow one at that. It grappled with some typical things you would expect in a situation like this. It dealt with gender roles and the advantage one has over the other. The longing for fairness and the realisation of the long, hard path ahead.
Stephen met a range of people from different walks of life. By interacting with them it showed the tightrope of social acceptance and perceptions. This added dimension. There was not just a singular type of gay, there was a whole cross section.
The style of writing was phe-nom-in-al. I particularly liked the inner turmoil and emotional consideration that is expressed. For example, the protagonist decided not to bring her girlfriend to visit her mother. Instead of having this conversation she imagines what it would have been like using a few imagined but likely quotes and that conveyed the explanation instead. I’ve never read this type of writing before (it’s probably out there but I wasn’t in Advanced English during school).
Strangely, I didn’t really like the main character. Usually this means the end of enjoyment for me but I just loved the layers upon layers that were revealed.
I loved the protagonist’s girlfriend most of all. She lived like a sunflower: she was only happy when she was with her love and completely down without her. I found her very endearing.
There were a few characters that were only brought in for a message (eg marriage inequality, decision-making in hospital emergencies etc) and it lacked sincerity however it was forgivable as they were fairly important.
I would recommend this to anyone who likes Jane Austen novels or excellent characterisation and unraveling storylines.
What impressed me most was that this was a breakthrough novel involving a lesbian relationship set in the late 1800’s, early 1900’s London and Paris. The story was wholesome: not just about how two people met. It was so much more. It began with Stephen’s (female) childhood and her self-discovery albeit a convoluted and fairly slow one at that. It grappled with some typical things you would expect in a situation like this. It dealt with gender roles and the advantage one has over the other. The longing for fairness and the realisation of the long, hard path ahead.
Stephen met a range of people from different walks of life. By interacting with them it showed the tightrope of social acceptance and perceptions. This added dimension. There was not just a singular type of gay, there was a whole cross section.
The style of writing was phe-nom-in-al. I particularly liked the inner turmoil and emotional consideration that is expressed. For example, the protagonist decided not to bring her girlfriend to visit her mother. Instead of having this conversation she imagines what it would have been like using a few imagined but likely quotes and that conveyed the explanation instead. I’ve never read this type of writing before (it’s probably out there but I wasn’t in Advanced English during school).
Strangely, I didn’t really like the main character. Usually this means the end of enjoyment for me but I just loved the layers upon layers that were revealed.
I loved the protagonist’s girlfriend most of all. She lived like a sunflower: she was only happy when she was with her love and completely down without her. I found her very endearing.
There were a few characters that were only brought in for a message (eg marriage inequality, decision-making in hospital emergencies etc) and it lacked sincerity however it was forgivable as they were fairly important.
I would recommend this to anyone who likes Jane Austen novels or excellent characterisation and unraveling storylines.
October 29, 2022
this book is honestly one of the best expressions of lesbianism and queer community and queer specific emotions I have ever witnessed. I think it goes kind of misunderstood by many, but I found it to be incredibly profound, deeply upsetting, unbearably so at times, but in some ways life affirming. for the most part a lot of the dynamics and emotions feel alarmingly modern and so connected to my personal experience as a somewhat gender non conforming lesbian. A lot of people insist on viewing Stephen and even radclyffe hall's gender and sexuality experience through a modern lens, insisting that she would have used specific modern labels, but the context of the book is very specific to labels that coexisted with early 20th century queer theories and psychologies. If the identities spoken of feel dated or inappropriate to you, then cope tbh, because the entire book is wrapped around Stephen's specific experience with these specific labels. I think also that a lot of people neglect the inherent complications with gender that come with lesbianism for many people. Existing outside of patriarchy in a world so centered around patriarchy calls for a unique experience to gender and expression that thousands of lesbians experience. I found this book to be so beautifully written; there were times in which I underlined almost everything on the page. It touches on so many important emotional experiences of growing up in general but especially while queer and the specific heart wrenching experience of needing your partner to be safe and happy in a society where they can't be if they're themselves, along with the desperation of continuing to find honor in a way of life which is looked down upon and assigned a dirty quality by your contemporaries. This book has managed to properly articulate a lot of things I could have never thought to put to words. It's deeply heartbreaking and so horribly relatable. I really found myself getting to know and sympathizing with most of the characters, who felt fleshed out and real despite the books decidedly classic literature-y , aristocratic stylings at times. The last two pages are the best finale to any book I have EVER read, and that's saying a lot. They are so deeply deeply upsetting and yet vivid and gorgeous. They make everything so abundantly clear and yet leave us with so many questions. The book certainly lives up to its name, and is full of desolation and despair. But it is too full of self advocacy, courage, unending love, community, and the human experience. It is legendary as a lesbian novel for very good reason, and I have never before felt so deeply affected by a work of fiction.
October 24, 2009
I love reading books that have at some point been a source of controversy, the books that have been banned and censored, questioned and attacked. The Well of Loneliness is one of those books, and by looking at the cover of the edition I read there's a clue right there as to the reasoning for the controversy: "A 1920s Classic of Lesbian Fiction".
Steven Gordon is a wealthy English woman who is clearly not like other women, even from a young age. Her father had hoped for a boy and pinned those hopes on her name, Steven, while her mother was horrified and disgusted by Steven's less-than-feminine behavior in her early years. It's a long story, starting with Steven's youngest days and her earliest infatuation with someone of the same gender, and follows her into her late adolescence as she discovers just what exactly does make her different from other women. It is this self-discovery and outward behavior to fulfill this epiphany that causes strife between her and her mother. Eventually she leaves home and has a series of affairs with other women, each relationship different, each relationship special to Steven in some way.
What makes this story important is not just because it's a positive portrayal of women in love with one another, but because of the time in which it was written. Published in 1928 it is one of the earliest books of lesbianism, preceding and paving the way for Virginia Woolf and others. This is not a cautionary tale - it is not a story meant to deter women from having relations with other women. Instead it embraces it as in it's an autobiographical story based on Hall's own experiences. She brought her experiences into a public light; despite it's publication falling at the end of the Jazz Age which is popularly considered to be a time of failing moral and social systems, to read about lesbians at the time was still shocking. Would Woolf have written Orlando had Hall not written The Well of Loneliness? It's hard to say, but it's almost guaranteed that Woolf would have had a harder time getting Orlando published if Hall hadn't paved the literary (and feminist) way.
Steven Gordon is a wealthy English woman who is clearly not like other women, even from a young age. Her father had hoped for a boy and pinned those hopes on her name, Steven, while her mother was horrified and disgusted by Steven's less-than-feminine behavior in her early years. It's a long story, starting with Steven's youngest days and her earliest infatuation with someone of the same gender, and follows her into her late adolescence as she discovers just what exactly does make her different from other women. It is this self-discovery and outward behavior to fulfill this epiphany that causes strife between her and her mother. Eventually she leaves home and has a series of affairs with other women, each relationship different, each relationship special to Steven in some way.
What makes this story important is not just because it's a positive portrayal of women in love with one another, but because of the time in which it was written. Published in 1928 it is one of the earliest books of lesbianism, preceding and paving the way for Virginia Woolf and others. This is not a cautionary tale - it is not a story meant to deter women from having relations with other women. Instead it embraces it as in it's an autobiographical story based on Hall's own experiences. She brought her experiences into a public light; despite it's publication falling at the end of the Jazz Age which is popularly considered to be a time of failing moral and social systems, to read about lesbians at the time was still shocking. Would Woolf have written Orlando had Hall not written The Well of Loneliness? It's hard to say, but it's almost guaranteed that Woolf would have had a harder time getting Orlando published if Hall hadn't paved the literary (and feminist) way.
July 28, 2017
Reading this book proved incredibly difficult. I was unsure how to rate it, but decided for 2 stars in the end: the story is a very good one, extremely interesting, but the writing is so dull you can't begin to understand if you haven't read it. I'm sorry to have to say this, but it's what I felt about this book.
I understand why it is such an important book in literary history, but I really, really disliked it.
First of all, I don't really know why this should be considered as a story of lesbian love, since it is quite clearly the story of a transgender person. Stephen Gordon is a woman who has always perceived herself as a man, and consequently dresses like a man and acts like a man. She consequently likes women, but that's just a consequence of her perceiving herself as a man. I wouldn't say she is lesbian, on the contrary she is quite simply a transgender man. That makes the story very interesting, since it's not often that we find stories about the lives of transgender people in the beginning of the 20th century. They must have had an extremely difficult life, and this book is a great document on this issue.
The writing, however... It is so incredibly boring and repetitive, the unfolding of the story is so slow, that I thought all the time that the novel might have easily been half the length or even shorter. The writing style is important in a novel, and also in a non-fiction book. So that's what made me dislike this book so much. I simply can't judge a book on just the storyline, it also has to be well-written. And this novel was a real pain to read.
I understand why it is such an important book in literary history, but I really, really disliked it.
First of all, I don't really know why this should be considered as a story of lesbian love, since it is quite clearly the story of a transgender person. Stephen Gordon is a woman who has always perceived herself as a man, and consequently dresses like a man and acts like a man. She consequently likes women, but that's just a consequence of her perceiving herself as a man. I wouldn't say she is lesbian, on the contrary she is quite simply a transgender man. That makes the story very interesting, since it's not often that we find stories about the lives of transgender people in the beginning of the 20th century. They must have had an extremely difficult life, and this book is a great document on this issue.
The writing, however... It is so incredibly boring and repetitive, the unfolding of the story is so slow, that I thought all the time that the novel might have easily been half the length or even shorter. The writing style is important in a novel, and also in a non-fiction book. So that's what made me dislike this book so much. I simply can't judge a book on just the storyline, it also has to be well-written. And this novel was a real pain to read.
July 24, 2011
I don't know what to think of The Well of Loneliness. I read it because it's a lesbian classic, and someone said that it was one of the first novels where horrible things don't have to happen to its lesbian protagonists. I can't actually imagine anything more agonising than what the protagonist, Stephen, does -- voluntarily giving up her lover to a male close friend to give her safety and security, acting as a martyr for her... And Barbara and Jamie: both of them die because of the life they lead, the way they have to live to be together. No, I can't say it's true that terrible things don't happen to the protagonists because of their sexualities.
On the other hand, their sexualities are presented as a part of them: not a choice, but something irrevocably stamped into them from birth. The last lines are a plea to God to allow 'inverts' their existence. So there is that hope in it.
It's sentimental, overwritten, melodramatic. It's stereotypical. But yet I'm glad I read it, and yes, it made me feel -- feel for the lives of those such as Radclyffe Hall and her characters, who couldn't imagine the kind of life I and others lead today. Yes, it's worth a read, and yes, I'm going to keep my copy.
On the other hand, their sexualities are presented as a part of them: not a choice, but something irrevocably stamped into them from birth. The last lines are a plea to God to allow 'inverts' their existence. So there is that hope in it.
It's sentimental, overwritten, melodramatic. It's stereotypical. But yet I'm glad I read it, and yes, it made me feel -- feel for the lives of those such as Radclyffe Hall and her characters, who couldn't imagine the kind of life I and others lead today. Yes, it's worth a read, and yes, I'm going to keep my copy.
April 10, 2014
I read this the first time around in 1988, during my first term at university, hiding it from my room mate, under the covers. I enjoyed it then as the third lesbian book I'd ever read (after Patience & Sarah and Annie on My Mind), but found it harsh.
Slogging through it a second time now, for the Lesbian Book Club book of the month, it felt interminable. No detail is left unmentioned. Oh wait ... "and that night they were not divided." Just the odd detail lacking. That one sentence caused the book to be judged "obscene" and banned.
I did enjoy the cry out to the future from 1928. The author knows that being gay is natural and that one day gay people will be equal:
"They must just bide their time--recognition was coming. But meanwhile they should all cultivate more pride"
There are pleas to God, too:
"If our love is a sin, then heaven must be full of such tender and selfless sinning as ours."
It tickled me that Angela Crossby's telephone number was 25.
Slogging through it a second time now, for the Lesbian Book Club book of the month, it felt interminable. No detail is left unmentioned. Oh wait ... "and that night they were not divided." Just the odd detail lacking. That one sentence caused the book to be judged "obscene" and banned.
I did enjoy the cry out to the future from 1928. The author knows that being gay is natural and that one day gay people will be equal:
"They must just bide their time--recognition was coming. But meanwhile they should all cultivate more pride"
There are pleas to God, too:
"If our love is a sin, then heaven must be full of such tender and selfless sinning as ours."
It tickled me that Angela Crossby's telephone number was 25.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,510 reviews