Book Review - The Well of Loneliness

I got to read Radclyffe Hall's The Well of Loneliness for my college class last week. I thought the book was ahead of its time in that it was written in 1926 (I believe) and was openly sympathetic to lesbians. During that time, lesbianism was very taboo and women who did it were considered mentally disturbed. Hall's characters are actually decent people though the heroine does have some quirks. The heroine Stephen Gordon (her father Sir Philip decided he liked the name Stephen so much that he gave her name irregardless of the fact that Stephen was a female) thinks she's a man in a woman's body and actually dresses like a man. This would hardly cause a stir now a days but back in the 1920's it was shocking stuff. Hall also shows lesbianism in a very sympathetic light and actually argues for their plight. Hall argues that since lesbians were made the way they are, that it is unfair to persecute them. She also argues that they should have the right to find happiness in a lesbian relationship.

Based on what I've read, I believe it's been proven that women choose to be lesbians vice being born lesbians. This blows Hall's appeal to God right out of the water. One thing that surprised me was that Hall repeatedly appeals to God concerning the unjust way lesbians are treated. I couldn't help but wonder who taught her her theology or did she just ignore what the bible says about lesbianism.

Concerning lesbians having the right to find happiness in a relationship, I personally agree there. If they can find happiness in a relationship, they should be allowed to do so. I have a different opinion when it comes to lesbian marriage. I just don't see the point in two women or two men marrying. Marriage is intended to provide an acceptable union in which to have children. Since lesbians or gays can't have children (unless they adopt or use artificial insemination in the case of the lesbians), what is the point.

I also disagree with Hall over what she calls persecution. At no point does anyone attack or imprison the heroine. Our heroine instead suffers what I would call social ostracism. Society simply refuses to have anything to do with her. To me, there is a big difference between the two. I don't see lesbians being persecuted in the story. Should society ostracize lesbians or homosexuals? I would say no. I also don't believe society should persecute them. Should society accept lesbians and homosexuals? I would say they should be tolerant of them i.e. they have no business telling them how supposedly awful they are when society ignores so many of its own faults. Doesn't Jesus say we shouldn't be concerned about the splinter in our brother's eye when we have a log in our own?

Back to the novel, overall I can't say I liked the novel. I don't feel the heroine was some tragic figure. I think if she was happy with her lady love Mary, she should've stayed with her instead of sacrificing their relationship so in theory Mary would be happy with the man that also loves her. I suspect if Hall had written the novel in present times, she would've. I think the novel becomes sappy at times when whining and crying about the lot of lesbians. Ok, life sucks, deal with it. Life isn't a bowl of cherries for heterosexual people either. The novel does tell an interesting story but it isn't one that I'm really interested in. If you like a story about a lesbian finding herself and her attempts to find a meaningful relationship with another woman, this novel may be for you. For me, I'll pass on it.