Lawrence's hankering after social-cultural-ethical stability is imminently understandable. It's the hankering after self-affirmation. We each believe, to varying degrees, ourselves to be the repository of truth and purpose and propriety. Upper-upper class or lower-lower class, all believe their standards are THE standards. But variance in the social codes seems to inflame the Upper far more that the Lower classes. Why? Well, bbecause the Upper have far more to lose than the lower by social change. I don't know, but I suspect that the lower classes feel little threatened by social change -- if indeed they're ever even aware of it going on. The threats they face daily are economic survival, not philosophical. But to the Upper, witnessing the flaunting of social customs and mores is an assault upon the premises they have built their lives upon. Lawrence keeps harking back to "tradition" as if it were something sacred. I've always taken tradition to mean repeated behaviors. Every family has it's traditions -- how holidays, how Christmas and birthdays and anniversaries and etc. are observed -- and marriage usually results in a melding of traditions -- i.e. comprises -- i.e. changes the traditions of each. Lawrence doesn't spell out what "tradition" means to him. I wish he would. I assume he means behaviors. Mardi Gras is a tradition, the Bull Run in Paloma is a tradition, the whole Catholic Church calender of rituals is tradition, Wild drunken wedding receptions could be a tradition. Hiring a prostitute on Tuesdays could be a tradition. Whatever behaviors are repeated -- especially rotely -- that's tradition to me. It all ends in ashes. Don't work yourself up over it, is my advise. Mike Geary Memphis