Kudos to you for reading this .. oh my God.. I was 16 in 1970 and found this book somehow in no internet era in the North East of England. Certainly from working class folk. After reading it I thought I was doomed!! In my recollection of this now .. very depressing to a young/coming out girl. Thankfully I have had a super life and a 31 year loving relationship until my American partner/soulmate died. Still have a good life. Thank you for your reviews, English humor and subtle thinking.
I really feel you are being too harsh on this book. Of course it took a rich woman to write one of the first lesbian novels, in the same way that the rich and slave-owning Plato had the privilege to write about philosophy. Or the relatively well-off Oscar Wilde could write The Picture of Dorian Gray. We can't read novels by working-class lesbians back in the day because those lesbians didn't write novels. I get the feeling you are seeing the book only as a sociological artifact rather than a work of fiction. As a work of fiction, I found it really impressive when it came to the drama of whether Stephen's father was (or was not) going to tell her anything when she asked 'is there is anything wrong with me?' And there are lots of similar dramas. If you ONLY want to read stuff by working-class authors, you are going to be reading very, very little historical fiction.
I think it’s important to keep in mind the time period of the book’s publishing. Hardly many working class people could (and I’d argue even now can) complete a novel, and that lack of representation is a failure of the capitalist system, not one author - the voices we are able to hear are much more determined by financial freedoms than by anything else. Also, we did get the Jamie and Barbara storyline, as tragic as it was. On that note, it was one of the first books condoning the way society treats queer people, when for the longest time it was the other way around. I do think that the tragedy was intentional, trying to call in the humanity in the reader, and as mentioned several times in the novel itself the ‘work is your weapon’, and Radclyffe was using hers as such. The book could do without the sprinkling of racism, and could withstand editing, but it’s unfair and plan boring to chuck it out on the ground of not being ‘woke’ enough. In case you are interesting in the book, buy reading it seems daunting I couldn’t recommend listening to the audiobook enough.
Omg everyone hates it and I get why but I actually....really enjoyed it? I love Stephen and while she definitely deserved better, I think Hall did a great job of what she was trying to portray. It's brutal but realistic, and imo not gratuitously sad. Tragic but not overdone for the subject matter. I have a LOT of thoughts but...I actually really liked it.
It is a very important book, and the dated language used, is important, also. If you’re disappointed that the language is not Surfer Dude language, then you missed the point. There are parts of the book that are lovely, and read like poetry. It’s not a “horrible” book, it is a typical book of 1928. Also, the issues that makes it important is that the book is about class. The fact that Hall had money is simply the reality. Also, “financial privilege” was not something folks in ((1928)) even knew about. You can’t judge a person, or book by today’s standards, and no, it is NOT terrible. Man, you totally missed the point. To say you “hate” the book is quite troubling. LOL…
I read this when I was 16! Was startled to hear that it caused so much controversy, it seems so tame today haha. I particularly loved Mary's character, she was so sweet.
Hey, I didn't know your channel, this is the first video I watch, and I really like your humorous take on "The Well" (as well as your "Desert Hearts" poster, but that's something else). I am more into (old) French lesbian literature because French is my mother tongue, so it's really interesting to see how both literary traditions (French vs. English) differ from one another regarding that subject. Being a lesbian in France (at least in Paris) around 1920 was much less of a big deal than in the UK or the US, so we can safely assume that French lesbians who read the book at that time were just like "meh" (and I really, really think Radclyffe Hall *could* have made the book a lot more explicit if she had published it in France). There are many reasons why I personally don't enjoy the book either, I just read it for Valérie Seymour's character, who is basically Natalie Clifford Barney with another name. That woman is just totally hovering in another dimension, inwardly facepalming at everything Stephen says, it's wonderful to see. Keep up the good work!
I loved this book. Read it within a week and was really moved by it. Some parts could've been tighter and other parts fleshed out, but then there were moments I felt the writing was fervent and heartbreaking. I wondered though: is it really a lesbian book? It seemed far more a trans story, in my opinion.
you can interpret it however you wish but yeah the novel was a lesbian book, Radclyffe hall was a lesbian and the whole message of the book was a plea for the societal tolerance for homosexuality, female homosexuality specifically
i think being trans and being a masculine presenting lesbian has a lot of similarities when it comes to experience so you can read it any way you want.
This book was a huge struggle to get through. I wish I had seen this review before reading it, at least I would have been more prepared. I couldn't agree more with every point you made.
I haven't read this book. But I know it deals with lesbianism. Someone tell me this thing, it's important: Are homosexuality and lesbianism different in any manner? If so, then how?
At this time in Britain, homosexuality was a criminal offense. Lesbianism wasn't punishable by law, as it was sort of believed to not be a real thing, even though it undoubtedly was. The criminal system did not recognise it, which says a lot about the roles of women in society and the ways in which their sexual autonomy was restricted
I love this book. I find that there is so my depth to the way Hall chooses to portray each of Stephens experiences - the descriptiveness, scenery, symbolism, little trains of thought - this is what makes the plot move slowly. The plot is not engaging. The interest for me lies in the precision and feeling with which Hall characterises Stephen and her life experience, which made me feel seen in a way that no other lesbian novel has. If you're used to exiting books that just happen to have sapphic characters, I can understand why this would be disappointing. But this is a different kind of book. I think it needs to be read with a lot of respect and empathy. I agree that the class aspect is important. I don't think that the fact that it portrays privilege should be a criticism of the book. Stephens privilege makes her unlikable, but an imperfect protagonist does not make a bad book. Stephens privilege plays a role in her suffering. Most importantly, Stephen has the privilege of isolation and self reflection. Because her wealth protects her from some of the barriers faced by working class lesbians, a lot of her oppression is subtle or internalised. From a 21st century perspective, this is increasingly relevant, as laws in many places protect against discrimination and violence, but there is a social and emotional backlash which impacts mental health. The book is not at all ignorant of class - it very eloquently describes the way Stephens class sets her apart from other characters and how she feels about her privilege. From start, we can see that Stephen has compassion for working class people. She feels that she deserves pain, and would trade her emotional pain for the tangible pain of the working class. The self-deprecation is partially a result of her class, and is not hyperbolic, although it is somewhat narcissistic. Stephen's self-centredness is lonely, and much of her loneliness is self-inflicted. I think she is a fascinating character.
I didn't think the book was that bad. Maybe at the time I was desperate for anything lesbian. Maybe I should try it again and see how I feel about it. Love the hair by the way.
“Then Stephen must tell her the cruel truth, she must say: ‘I am one of those whom God marked on the forehead. Like Cain, I am marked and blemished. If you come to me, Mary, the world will abhor you, will persecute you, will call you unclean. Our love may be faithful even unto death and beyond - yet the world will call it unclean. We may harm no living creature by our love; we may grow more perfect in understanding and in charity because of our loving; but all this will not save you from the scourge of a world that will turn away its eyes from your noblest actions, finding only corruption and vileness in you. You will see men and women defiling each other, laying the burden of their sins upon their children. 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”.” ― Radclyffe Hall, The Well of Loneliness
@The Knight I'm terribly sorry to disagree. I know it's Very bad form to tell a woman you don't care for her new hair style (×10 for Tess!) however I💝'd her long hair😍 Mine is very long, and I go crazy😳 if my GF sensuously touches and plays with my hair, I melt, it's definitely my Kryptonite!
I liked the book precisely because it is a 20th century classic, and because it is not a modern wokey drivel about class and privelege. God, it would be really dull if it was about a working class girl, and grim to read too! Stephen is a noble character and has a lot of courage, and I am glad she is wealthy because in future she'll inherit her child home and is likely to have a good life, made much easier by money. No thank you, I don't want any Ken Loach grim social deprivation theme. My favourite character was Valery Seymour. I read the novel when I was 20, and listened to it recently as an audiobook being nearly 47. I am not a lesbian. Yes, I agree, it dragged on at the end, in the after-war period. But I think it takes a sensitive reader, trained to read classics, to appreciate it. It's a fiction, not a political pamphlet and the author has done a lot for the movement by asserting, from that early on, on the right to exist. It has defiance as well as defeat.
oh, I'm glad you made this review, I was this close to buying it. have you got any historical lesbian books recommendations? it would really help thank you!
There's quite a few but you might want to look into them to see if you like the sound of them: - Portrait of a Marriage by. V. Sackville West - Orlando by V. Woolf - Anne Lister's Diaries by A. Lister - The Illusionist by F. Mallet-Joris - The Price of Salt - P. Highsmith - Olivia - D. Strachey
@@SapphicUnderground thank you so much! I've read the price of salt, (it's probably one of my favourites,) and I have Orlando in my bookshelf. I'll try that one! I really appreciate the help!
I thought it was the most depressing book I had ever read - still do actually. And where you say self deprecating - which for me has a comedic connotation - I would say self-hating. I was very angry with Radclyff Hall at the end of it all and with the Lesbian literary canon for keeping the book on it - still am. Love your review, and the first sentence was indeed enough, which is when I hit the like button. Still your further analysis was also very insightful, especially the relationship of independent wealth and the possibility of being an "openly gay person" in that era still not being enough for her to be in the slightest way sympathetic to anything her main character ("she herself") was feeling and going through. I even interpreted the end as her not respecting her love interest... Unfortunately though I read it a long long time ago it was impactful through my immense dislike of it that even though I do not remember any details I still remember viscerally the nausea and discomfort I felt for quite some time after reading the book. Unfortunately I could go on and on discussing its importance or not as a reflexion of its time and many other issues which then again could raise the question if its place in the canon is merited after all (still would debate against it) but that is better done in another format... I see someone recommended Virginia Woolf's Orlando, which I can also highly recommend (loved it) and then I would follow that with Jeanette Winterson's The Passion which is still one of my favorite books. (I read The Passion first myself which is how I got to be interested in Orlando). I would prefer to reread those two and discuss them.... And of course (seeing the poster in the background) I can also highly recommend Desert of the Hearts by Jane Rule
Kudos to you for reading this .. oh my God.. I was 16 in 1970 and found this book somehow in no internet era in the North East of England. Certainly from working class folk. After reading it I thought I was doomed!! In my recollection of this now .. very depressing to a young/coming out girl. Thankfully I have had a super life and a 31 year loving relationship until my American partner/soulmate died. Still have a good life. Thank you for your reviews, English humor and subtle thinking.
I really feel you are being too harsh on this book. Of course it took a rich woman to write one of the first lesbian novels, in the same way that the rich and slave-owning Plato had the privilege to write about philosophy. Or the relatively well-off Oscar Wilde could write The Picture of Dorian Gray. We can't read novels by working-class lesbians back in the day because those lesbians didn't write novels. I get the feeling you are seeing the book only as a sociological artifact rather than a work of fiction. As a work of fiction, I found it really impressive when it came to the drama of whether Stephen's father was (or was not) going to tell her anything when she asked 'is there is anything wrong with me?' And there are lots of similar dramas. If you ONLY want to read stuff by working-class authors, you are going to be reading very, very little historical fiction.
I think it’s important to keep in mind the time period of the book’s publishing. Hardly many working class people could (and I’d argue even now can) complete a novel, and that lack of representation is a failure of the capitalist system, not one author - the voices we are able to hear are much more determined by financial freedoms than by anything else. Also, we did get the Jamie and Barbara storyline, as tragic as it was.
On that note, it was one of the first books condoning the way society treats queer people, when for the longest time it was the other way around. I do think that the tragedy was intentional, trying to call in the humanity in the reader, and as mentioned several times in the novel itself the ‘work is your weapon’, and Radclyffe was using hers as such. The book could do without the sprinkling of racism, and could withstand editing, but it’s unfair and plan boring to chuck it out on the ground of not being ‘woke’ enough.
In case you are interesting in the book, buy reading it seems daunting I couldn’t recommend listening to the audiobook enough.
Omg everyone hates it and I get why but I actually....really enjoyed it? I love Stephen and while she definitely deserved better, I think Hall did a great job of what she was trying to portray. It's brutal but realistic, and imo not gratuitously sad. Tragic but not overdone for the subject matter. I have a LOT of thoughts but...I actually really liked it.
It is a very important book, and the dated language used, is important, also. If you’re disappointed that the language is not Surfer Dude language, then you missed the point. There are parts of the book that are lovely, and read like poetry. It’s not a “horrible” book, it is a typical book of 1928. Also, the issues that makes it important is that the book is about class. The fact that Hall had money is simply the reality. Also, “financial privilege” was not something folks in ((1928)) even knew about. You can’t judge a person, or book by today’s standards, and no, it is NOT terrible. Man, you totally missed the point. To say you “hate” the book is quite troubling. LOL…
Now I urgently need a review of Island of Mercy..
That audiobook with Katie McGrath voice is pure gold
I read this when I was 16! Was startled to hear that it caused so much controversy, it seems so tame today haha. I particularly loved Mary's character, she was so sweet.
Hey, I didn't know your channel, this is the first video I watch, and I really like your humorous take on "The Well" (as well as your "Desert Hearts" poster, but that's something else). I am more into (old) French lesbian literature because French is my mother tongue, so it's really interesting to see how both literary traditions (French vs. English) differ from one another regarding that subject. Being a lesbian in France (at least in Paris) around 1920 was much less of a big deal than in the UK or the US, so we can safely assume that French lesbians who read the book at that time were just like "meh" (and I really, really think Radclyffe Hall *could* have made the book a lot more explicit if she had published it in France). There are many reasons why I personally don't enjoy the book either, I just read it for Valérie Seymour's character, who is basically Natalie Clifford Barney with another name. That woman is just totally hovering in another dimension, inwardly facepalming at everything Stephen says, it's wonderful to see. Keep up the good work!
I loved this book. Read it within a week and was really moved by it. Some parts could've been tighter and other parts fleshed out, but then there were moments I felt the writing was fervent and heartbreaking. I wondered though: is it really a lesbian book? It seemed far more a trans story, in my opinion.
you can interpret it however you wish but yeah the novel was a lesbian book, Radclyffe hall was a lesbian and the whole message of the book was a plea for the societal tolerance for homosexuality, female homosexuality specifically
i think being trans and being a masculine presenting lesbian has a lot of similarities when it comes to experience so you can read it any way you want.
This book was a huge struggle to get through. I wish I had seen this review before reading it, at least I would have been more prepared. I couldn't agree more with every point you made.
Love the Kate Bush poster in the background!!
I thought it was wonderful. I read it in two days.
Your haircut is really nice! Better than the book you are talking about to be honest!
Do you think our awareness of privilege has advanced over the last century?
Would you read Orlando by Virginia Wolf?
Yes! Although it's not an easy read. I'll review it eventually :P
Well, it's next on my list, I'll let you know how it goes (or not, we'll see)
Put Tess Kennedy hair blonde
I haven't read this book. But I know it deals with lesbianism. Someone tell me this thing, it's important:
Are homosexuality and lesbianism different in any manner? If so, then how?
At this time in Britain, homosexuality was a criminal offense. Lesbianism wasn't punishable by law, as it was sort of believed to not be a real thing, even though it undoubtedly was. The criminal system did not recognise it, which says a lot about the roles of women in society and the ways in which their sexual autonomy was restricted
I love this book. I find that there is so my depth to the way Hall chooses to portray each of Stephens experiences - the descriptiveness, scenery, symbolism, little trains of thought - this is what makes the plot move slowly. The plot is not engaging. The interest for me lies in the precision and feeling with which Hall characterises Stephen and her life experience, which made me feel seen in a way that no other lesbian novel has. If you're used to exiting books that just happen to have sapphic characters, I can understand why this would be disappointing. But this is a different kind of book. I think it needs to be read with a lot of respect and empathy. I agree that the class aspect is important. I don't think that the fact that it portrays privilege should be a criticism of the book. Stephens privilege makes her unlikable, but an imperfect protagonist does not make a bad book. Stephens privilege plays a role in her suffering. Most importantly, Stephen has the privilege of isolation and self reflection. Because her wealth protects her from some of the barriers faced by working class lesbians, a lot of her oppression is subtle or internalised. From a 21st century perspective, this is increasingly relevant, as laws in many places protect against discrimination and violence, but there is a social and emotional backlash which impacts mental health. The book is not at all ignorant of class - it very eloquently describes the way Stephens class sets her apart from other characters and how she feels about her privilege. From start, we can see that Stephen has compassion for working class people. She feels that she deserves pain, and would trade her emotional pain for the tangible pain of the working class. The self-deprecation is partially a result of her class, and is not hyperbolic, although it is somewhat narcissistic. Stephen's self-centredness is lonely, and much of her loneliness is self-inflicted. I think she is a fascinating character.
I didn't think the book was that bad. Maybe at the time I was desperate for anything lesbian. Maybe I should try it again and see how I feel about it.
Love the hair by the way.
“Then Stephen must tell her the cruel truth, she must say: ‘I am one of those whom God marked on the forehead. Like Cain, I am marked and blemished. If you come to me, Mary, the world will abhor you, will persecute you, will call you unclean. Our love may be faithful even unto death and beyond - yet the world will call it unclean. We may harm no living creature by our love; we may grow more perfect in understanding and in charity because of our loving; but all this will not save you from the scourge of a world that will turn away its eyes from your noblest actions, finding only corruption and vileness in you. You will see men and women defiling each other, laying the burden of their sins upon their children. 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”.”
― Radclyffe Hall, The Well of Loneliness
Congrats on your haircut!
@The Knight
I'm terribly sorry to disagree. I know it's Very bad form to tell a woman you don't care for her new hair style (×10 for Tess!) however I💝'd her long hair😍
Mine is very long, and I go crazy😳 if my GF sensuously touches and plays with my hair, I melt, it's definitely my Kryptonite!
Looking good Sapphic, love the hair! I found that book on my grandma's bookshelf lol. Didn't read it because it looked too depressing.
I liked the book precisely because it is a 20th century classic, and because it is not a modern wokey drivel about class and privelege. God, it would be really dull if it was about a working class girl, and grim to read too! Stephen is a noble character and has a lot of courage, and I am glad she is wealthy because in future she'll inherit her child home and is likely to have a good life, made much easier by money. No thank you, I don't want any Ken Loach grim social deprivation theme. My favourite character was Valery Seymour. I read the novel when I was 20, and listened to it recently as an audiobook being nearly 47. I am not a lesbian. Yes, I agree, it dragged on at the end, in the after-war period. But I think it takes a sensitive reader, trained to read classics, to appreciate it. It's a fiction, not a political pamphlet and the author has done a lot for the movement by asserting, from that early on, on the right to exist. It has defiance as well as defeat.
oh, I'm glad you made this review, I was this close to buying it. have you got any historical lesbian books recommendations? it would really help thank you!
There's quite a few but you might want to look into them to see if you like the sound of them:
- Portrait of a Marriage by. V. Sackville West
- Orlando by V. Woolf
- Anne Lister's Diaries by A. Lister
- The Illusionist by F. Mallet-Joris
- The Price of Salt - P. Highsmith
- Olivia - D. Strachey
@@SapphicUnderground thank you so much! I've read the price of salt, (it's probably one of my favourites,) and I have Orlando in my bookshelf. I'll try that one! I really appreciate the help!
I thought it was the most depressing book I had ever read - still do actually. And where you say self deprecating - which for me has a comedic connotation - I would say self-hating. I was very angry with Radclyff Hall at the end of it all and with the Lesbian literary canon for keeping the book on it - still am.
Love your review, and the first sentence was indeed enough, which is when I hit the like button. Still your further analysis was also very insightful, especially the relationship of independent wealth and the possibility of being an "openly gay person" in that era still not being enough for her to be in the slightest way sympathetic to anything her main character ("she herself") was feeling and going through. I even interpreted the end as her not respecting her love interest... Unfortunately though I read it a long long time ago it was impactful through my immense dislike of it that even though I do not remember any details I still remember viscerally the nausea and discomfort I felt for quite some time after reading the book.
Unfortunately I could go on and on discussing its importance or not as a reflexion of its time and many other issues which then again could raise the question if its place in the canon is merited after all (still would debate against it) but that is better done in another format...
I see someone recommended Virginia Woolf's Orlando, which I can also highly recommend (loved it) and then I would follow that with Jeanette Winterson's The Passion which is still one of my favorite books. (I read The Passion first myself which is how I got to be interested in Orlando). I would prefer to reread those two and discuss them.... And of course (seeing the poster in the background) I can also highly recommend Desert of the Hearts by Jane Rule