Balancing the Stars

           Though I risk triggering a "what is irony" debate, I think there is irony between the intentions of the characters and what actually happens to them.

            Gerald and Gudrun are concerned primarily with appearance and control, a game that seems to me to be distinctly part of the world and natural to it. They are focused on mastering the world and each other.  Gerald's unyielding determination to subjugate his horse (Pg111 of the Penguin edition) as well as his quite overt attempts at dominance in the closing chapters of the book establishes him as a character of the world. Gudruns equally noticeable concern with status and latter her dream-like schemes for Gerald as a politician displays a similar nature. However, as long as they play the game they cannot be independent form the other because their signal of success lies in the domination of the other. In the end Gerald appears to be losing and he attempts to kill Gudrun in an effort to complete the ultimate proof of dominance. In attempting to be masters of the world they, Gerald in particular, become subservient to the game.

            Nearly a mirror to Gerald and Gudrun, Ursula and Birkin's attempt to escape "the game," to transcend the commonly understood rules of consumption and dominance (which are part of the natural order, I think) leads them into a relationship of "stars balancing stars." Each maintains their identity distinct from the other but each pulls on the other forming an equilibrium. At the very end, they still differ in thought and focus but neither has consumed the other. The irony is that in their efforts to escape the world, they found a way to be that let them live in the world and together without being subjected to the games of dominance and control.