PDA

View Full Version : D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Virgil
02-26-2007, 11:24 PM
I know D.H. lawrence is known for his novels and poetry and travel writing. But he was also one of the finest English short story writers ever. The very best of his stories rank with the very best ever. I am starting this thread to discuss his stories. His stories are usually more accessible than his novels and more concentrated. One can really enjoy his writing and complete it in an hour or so.

There is an online essay of someone who falls in love with lawrence's short stories. Alexandra Leggat writes in "My love affair with DH Lawrence":


Throughout my life I have sought solace in books and on many levels the great authors have never let me down. Once home I headed straight to our trusty book collection, all spines faced out but it was D.H. Lawrence’s, England, My England that leapt out at me. I bought this collection of Lawrence’s short stories about ten years ago from a small book store in Falkirk, Scotland, on one of many pilgrimages to my homeland in search of restitution. I’d always loved Lawrence and read the book on the train from Glasgow to Norwich. I was young, had other things on my mind, unlike the continual lingering effects of Son’s and Lovers and Women in Love, it didn’t leave a huge impression at that time. Read me now it begged from the shelf, read me now and I’ll rejuvenate your weary soul. So I grabbed it and retreated to my bed to begin my convalescence.


He was working from the small common, beyond the small brook that ran in the dip at the bottom of the garden, carrying the garden path in continuation from the plank bridge on to the common. He had cut the rough turf and bracken, leaving the grey, dryish soil bare. But he was worried because he could not get the path straight, there was a pleat between his brows. He had set up his sticks, and taken the sights between the big pine trees, but for some reason everything seemed wrong.
For the first time in seven days everything seemed right, that strength and perfection in Lawrence’s prose, the precision. I read on, the pages swelling like a river with that voice. The tale comes to life and brings with it the English country side, the struggle of a family man facing his last days of peace before war and I’m lost in the depth of the countryman’s struggle, of the country’s struggle, of a human’s continuous struggle. I’m transported from my sick bed along side Egbert on the edge of the common, hypnotized by the title story England, My England and for the next twelve hours we did not leave each other’s side D.H. Lawrence and me.

My husband comes into the bedroom to check on me and I confess that I’m falling in love with D.H. Lawrence, his stories, his voice, the detail, the imagery. "You have to read this, honey," I say. He looks at me funny, checks my pulse, my temperature and leaves. Perhaps it was my raw state of mind, my hungry psyche that latched onto to and fell in love with the truth in Lawrence’s work, the sensory perception, the authority of the characters or the complete paradox of what one might expect from the man that wrote the controversial Lady Chatterley’s Lover, had most of his work banned and art work confiscated. I knew he was honest but I didn’t realize how uncanny he was in pointing out the foibles and wickedness of human nature. Which he observes with the precision of a raptor scoping from the treetops. This is where his brilliance lies.

http://www.danforthreview.com/features/essays/dhlawrence.htm

If anyone would like to enjoy Lawrence's brilliant English prose, exceptional story telling ability, and profound insight into humanity, join us here as you see fit. I recommend you get The Collected Short Stories of D.H. Lawrence, usually sold in three volumes.

Every couple of months, a leisurely pace so we can still participate in the book forum and Shakespeare discussion group, I would like to read a Lawrence short story and discuss it here. Janine, another admirer of Lawrence's writing, has picked a story titled, "Things," as a starting story. It is relatively simple and no more than ten pages.

Janine
02-27-2007, 04:45 PM
Virgil,
This is excellent! Thank you for taking so much time to start this off; it is so well done and thorough. This should spark some interest in L, or at least I hope for it. I love the writing you quoted and feel exactly like this person re-reading Lawrence stories, which I read (most of) a long time ago. I never seem to tire of L, and I, too, fall in love with Lawrence over and over again through his writing. The short stories are true gems.

I have read "Things" several times now - in the past and now again - just once - but plan on another reading while we discuss it on this thread.

"Things" is filled with irony, don't you think? Strange I should be drawn to this story in particular, since I am a great collector of things, and I often feel rather guilty about that fact. At the same time I am divided inside myself, knowing how little importance should be placed on physical things, yet liking them and cherishing them. I can relate to the woman character with her cherished exotic drapperies.
I think the idea of "freedom" is an interesting one here, as well and needs discussion. In this the story addresses one of the "struggles" of human beings, as was indicated in your quotation.

"England, My England" is a wonderful story and encompasses some elements from L's adolescents. Perhaps consider it for the next one to discuss after "Things".
So let us begin the discussion....

Virgil
03-03-2007, 11:31 PM
Let me first summarize the story. It tells about a New England couple who go Europe to live free, and over a decade or so (twelve years exactly) collect things, beautiful things, art, furniture. At that point they find Europe unsatisfying, so there return to America. After unable to settle in various places in America, finding it disappointing and incapable of living without working any longer, they drop off their child with a grandparent and return to Europe. But Europe now completely "irritated" and the couple returns to the US where instead of living freely now Erasmus must teach in Cleveland.

Yes, Janine, the story centers on the irony that as the couple start out for freedom and beauty, must settle for grimey Cleveland with a working class job. The movement of the story goes from idealism to disappointment to dissatisfaction to acceptance. Although the Melvilles reject materialism, the beautiful things, the beautiful life, is another form of materialism.

Here's a question, is Lawrence saying that all life, American, European, cannot be satisfying in the idealistic sense?

Janine
03-05-2007, 12:52 AM
Ok, I just read your post, but now I am too tired out tonight to answer that question sufficiently. I will try to write some feeble thoughts now but I may be off the track some.

This story has always sort of stumped me, and yet I like it emensely. Your synopsis is good and pretty much accurate. Thanks for taking the time to write all that down.
I wonder now, after reading about Lawrence's life, and his own habits of moving about continually, never feeling satisfied as to where he lived, and also his adversion to keeping or owning things, is well reflected in this story. He was a very restless person himself and on the move often looking for the ideal place to settle, but he really never found it. He was so opposed to owning anything himself, his ranch in Texas was put under Frieda's name. He refused to be on the deed. She owned anything they had, for that matter. As you know L was idealistic in his thinking, but not always realistic.


Here's a question, is Lawrence saying that all life, American, European, cannot be satisfying in the idealistic sense?

I don't know if he is saying that about all life and idealism. I don't even think he has ever come to any kind of conclusion on the matter within himself. I think he recognises the struggle to live a life of freedom and grace, as opposed to settling into the mainstream of life and being possessed by society, and in a sense being trapped by convention.
One part of the story that I always question is - how are people to be free if no one works? The ideal seems to be not to have to have to work or hold a job, or so it is with this couple. In Lawrence's own life he worked vigorously on his profession -writing, thus earning his way in life. He was always writing and publishing or trying to be published, so he was no slacker. In some ways I thought the story reflected his own struggles against society, but it may be he is forming the story from a real example of a couple he knew who actually thought like this and collected things that ended up in storage - thus the irony of the story. As you know, also from reading about L, he grasped every real opportunity of his observations to write down and shape a story - of course, to shape it into his own ideals or theories. I think the story shows the non-importance of the objects the people have collected over time. The mere fact that they ended up costing them money to store was poignant to me. How true this seems in today's society. Many people pay huge amounts of money to keep storage units, and for what? To cling to the tangables was part of the irony. Also, they thought or pictured themselves one way, but actually they may have been inclined to be the opposite - what do you think on that idea?

Virgil
03-05-2007, 09:09 AM
I wonder now, after reading about Lawrence's life, and his own habits of moving about continually, never feeling satisfied as to where he lived, and also his adversion to keeping or owning things, is well reflected in this story. He was a very restless person himself and on the move often looking for the ideal place to settle, but he really never found it. He was so opposed to owning anything himself, his ranch in Texas was put under Frieda's name. He refused to be on the deed. She owned anything they had, for that matter. As you know L was idealistic in his thinking, but not always realistic.

Yes, the same thought struck me too, how the story reflects Lawrence's own restlessness and traveling. This story was written in 1927, which was the culmination of about a decade (from the World War) of attempts to settle in various places of the world. Actually he had found satisfaction in his New Mexico ranch (you say Texas, but I thought it was Taos, New Mexico) but that is a stark contrast to either the European and American worlds he portrays in the story. Actually his return to Europe in 1927 was a sort of retreat, like the Melvilles' retreat to America in the story. Only for Lawrence it was not for financial reasons like the Melvilles but for health reasons. His tuberculosis broke out in Mexico while writing The Plumed Serpent and it nealy killed him. It would ultimately kill him less than three years later.


I don't know if he is saying that about all life and idealism. I don't even think he has ever come to any kind of conclusion on the matter within himself. I think he recognises the struggle to live a life of freedom and grace, as opposed to settling into the mainstream of life and being possessed by society, and in a sense being trapped by convention.
We could make too much from just a ten page story. Idealism however is a theme in the story. I don't have the book in front of me, but there is even that section where the Melvilles are infatuated with Buddaism, ironically because it is not materialistic. Another theme is the materialism of the modern world, American and European, and how the Melvilles are "nailed" to their things. "Nailed" is the word Lawrence uses, and it caught my eye. Wonderful word, perfect word, suggesting bondage to it and recalling the crucifiction. The story is too short to see if the loss of idealism is comprehensive, but if you contrast this story with some of his American Indian stories of Mexico and New Mexico, I think his idealism in the primitive world still holds.


One part of the story that I always question is - how are people to be free if no one works? The ideal seems to be not to have to have to work or hold a job, or so it is with this couple. In Lawrence's own life he worked vigorously on his profession -writing, thus earning his way in life. He was always writing and publishing or trying to be published, so he was no slacker.
The Melvilles seemed like a typical couple from a Henry James story, that have means to live independently of work, at least at the beginning before their money ran out. No Lawrece was no slacker, hardly. But the writing life does offer a sense of freedom where one doesn't have to be tied to a particular job. Perhaps Lawrence felt he was "nailed" to his writing.


In some ways I thought the story reflected his own struggles against society, but it may be he is forming the story from a real example of a couple he knew who actually thought like this and collected things that ended up in storage - thus the irony of the story. As you know, also from reading about L, he grasped every real opportunity of his observations to write down and shape a story - of course, to shape it into his own ideals or theories. I think the story shows the non-importance of the objects the people have collected over time.
There are parallels with his life, as in all his work. But there are differences too, as you pointed out. Lawrence was not into material things.


Also, they thought or pictured themselves one way, but actually they may have been inclined to be the opposite - what do you think on that idea?
Yes, that is the story's irony.

Janine
03-05-2007, 05:53 PM
Virgil, Oh good I was not too far off the mark last night. I was tired and a little strapped for time, knowing it was late, but I did want to respond. Thanks for addressing each portion of what I had written.

I am glad I know the year this story was written. I would like to have a time-table so see when each thing Lawrence wrote took place in his life. That does help one's understanding greatly. I still think I read somewhere this story was shaped after some friends of his. I will try to locate it in one of my recent biographies. I don't mark pages and I should. I was trying to locate two occurances in White Peacock and it took me forever. I need to note these things when I am reading but am lazy and don't usually. You are correct - as I said I was tired last night, had temporary brain shutdown - he lived in Taos, NM. I knew that well, don't know why I said Texas. Even while in Europe he dreamed of going back there to the ranch. But even though he was somewhat settled and happy there, I don't think he ever was satisfied being settled down. He always had the uncontrolable urge to move on and try someplace new. I personally think much of it came from his disease - even though diagnosed in Mexico, he long was suspected of having TB, and no doubt he did. He complained about the tightness in his chest and he felt like he has to get out of where he was to find better air and not to suffocate. His TB made him restless so that part of it was actually physically oriented, I believe. In Europe, even though finding a sort of haven in Italy, he was not satisfied there either. I just finished reading "Sea and Sardinia" and you could feel this to be true.

Unfortunately one big chunk of my reading that is lacking is his writings when in Mexico. I need to read those books eventually and fill in the blanks.

True we could make too much of a 10 page short story, but it seems to me whatever Lawrence wrote was quite complex. When the Melvilles are infatuated with Buddaism, I felt it was one more thing they were grasping at or trying to call their form of freedom. Perhaps everything but the "things" they collected reflected this ideal of freedom in their minds. Then when they acquired the "things" and became attached to them it was the beginning of being "nailed" to society and it's conventions. I too, noticed that the word "nailed" took a prominent part in the story and held much symbolism. One of his old friends in England -Hopkins - referred to his life choice with Frieda as a certain kindo of sure "crucifixion". He said freedom of the spirit was a crucifixion. I do not know the exact quote, but will review it, and post when I do. L was asking advice about eloping with Freida from Hopkins and his wife - they told him they could lend him support, but they could not make the choice for him; had he ask his demons what to do. Interesting to note that Hopkins told him he preached freedom of the spirit, but that it was not the easy road take by far - no one was there to tell you what to do, no church, government, etc. Ultimately, L answered "Crucifixion". The theme recurs throughout his writing, which you are well aware of. Most definitely L was crucified by his public at times and mostly, and unfortunately in his lifetime. I don't know if L felt "nailed to his work", but as a young school teacher he once said "I love teaching, I just hate schools." He probably loved writing but hated the business part of it which proved to be necessary.
He actually made quite a bit of money in his life - contrary to what most people think. He was able to travel and pay his way without problems. He was frugel but he did like to be on the go and spend some money for niceties in life occasionally. That became evident to me in reading "Sea and Sardinia". In one place they had to stay in a dump and he was really in poor humor and later they found a spacious clean place and he very much liked it and enjoyed it while they were there. He did not seem that sparing in paying for nice accomodations but he did poke a bit of fun at Frieda wanting some things tourists would be drawn to. Some things he also admired for their artist merit. Often L contradicts himself in certain ways. Perhaps there are some condradictions, as well, in this one 10 page short story.

I always think of how L's writing did free him in the sense of convention. Of course when it came to publishing his work he had to be conventional. If one does not have a particular talent or ability how can one be free of conventional life or work? Same would apply to if one does not have an income independent of working. These would be my questions in regard to his idealistic ideas. It has always seemed an irony to me in L's life, since he did work hard and he did struggle to have his work published. He even kept house himself and was quite industrious. It seems almost to me that the Melvilles were slackers or lazed about soaking up culture, or trying to. I don't think that was the Lawrence way of living. On the ranch he even cut down trees and did much physical labor....even baked bread and was always scrubbing a floor. He was quite an interesting man and husband.

I agree that the couple in the book are reminiscent of a Henry James couple. I have only read some of the short stories of James and seen several film adaptations such as "The Golden Bowl" and "Wings of the Dove". I love the plots of James and the characters. I had not thought of the similarity of the two authors, but there are some.

Well, this is all I can write for now. Hope it gives you some ideas to expound on.

Janine

Virgil
03-05-2007, 08:28 PM
That was a magnificent post, Janine. :thumbs_up I agree with everything you said. Crucifixion is a recurrent theme for two reasons I think: one is the obvious religious motif, and lawrence is quite a religious writer (just not conventionally religious) and two because he felt persecuted throughout his life. He was somewhat persecuted for being a conscientious objector during the war (today one is persecuted for supporting a war :lol: :p ) and had a right to feel some persecution, especially for the banning of several of his works. But I always felt he had some sort of persecution complex. Would you agree with that or is it just my impression?

As to the New Mexico works, Mornings In Mexico is the comparable equivilant to Sea and Sardinia, so you might want to read that. Here: http://www.amazon.com/Mornings-Mexico-D-H-Lawrence/dp/087905123X. The novels of that period are St. Mawr, which is a short novel and mostly set in England with the movement to the Southwest, and The Plumed Serpent, which is a dark novel that I'm mixed about. Of course he's got some fine short stories, and we could do one next if you feel we're done with "Things."

Janine
03-05-2007, 11:53 PM
That was a magnificent post, Janine. :thumbs_up I agree with everything you said. Crucifixion is a recurrent theme for two reasons I think: one is the obvious religious motif, and lawrence is quite a religious writer (just not conventionally religious) and two because he felt persecuted throughout his life. He was somewhat persecuted for being a conscientious objector during the war (today one is persecuted for supporting a war :lol: :p ) and had a right to feel some persecution, especially for the banning of several of his works. But I always felt he had some sort of persecution complex. Would you agree with that or is it just my impression?

Virgil,
Gee, do you really mean that - "magnificent post"? I feel truly flattered. Maybe I should seek a Masters in Lawrence:lol:
Yes, true all that you said about him feeling percecuted. He felt it from the moment he married Freida, I think. He was shunned because she was German and they were at one pivatal moment suspected of being spies. Her cousin was the well known and heroic German boomer pilot, The Red Baron", so you can imagine why the English got that idea in their heads. Remember the war was soon to begin when he meet Freida and at one point he and Freida were even interegated in their home; shortly after that incident L decided to leave England altogether. The deep rejection he felt was the percecution and bitterness he reflected on and wrote about. He felt persecuted when his publishers rejected him or critised him. Same with critics. The man felt persecuted by everyone! There is probably a 100 reasons he would feel this way. He built up such anger internally. They claim he would at times take it out on Freida. With anger and resentment like that it had to surface eventually; it did domestically and in his novels. I do somewhat agree with you to some degree in the thought that he probably had some sort of persecution complex. He may have magnified the rejection he was getting and therefore played up the persecution. I suppose we are not in the same shoes and really cannot know what the man suffered. Remember that he suffered his entire life with bad health as well, so I tend to be more sympathetic towards him as a human being.

I don't always think Lawrence was clear on what he wanted to say. I think this was another part of the struggle within himself. I think often Lawrence contradicted himself. What thought do you have on this?
Also, I do not think he ever clearly resolved his own religious questions. He was grasping at the thought of eternity in his last days. I think some of his late poems reflect this. He wanted badly to not give up and die even to his last breath, and thought he could, he had beat death so many times before. I always felt throughout his works there was a feeling of struggle and confusion underlying all, and issues that really were not quite resolved. I think this confusion could have developed in the beginning with family circumstances and his mother and her overbearing ways. Also from L being oversensitive in his natural makeup. He definitely was a genius and with that comes a price. Perhaps feeling this keen sensitivity and trying to live within the norm could create a sort of lifelong "complex", definitely a comflict. They said that after his first serious illness when he was quite young, his sensitivity to life seemed greatly enhanced. He saw colors that the normal person could not perceive. I think this keen sensitivity is evident in all of his novels and stories and is what attracts me to his writing. I also feel the pain too. The pain, of course, always progresses in his writings to a transformation. Now we are getting into the the territory of your thesis on Tranfiguration.


As to the New Mexico works, Mornings In Mexico is the comparable equivilant to Sea and Sardinia, so you might want to read that. Here: http://www.amazon.com/Mornings-Mexico-D-H-Lawrence/dp/087905123X. The novels of that period are St. Mawr, which is a short novel and mostly set in England with the movement to the Southwest, and The Plumed Serpent, which is a dark novel that I'm mixed about. Of course he's got some fine short stories, and we could do one next if you feel we're done with "Things."

I did read "The Plumed Serpent", or at least I believe I did. I recall reading "St. Mawr" but a re-reading is definitely on my list to be realised soon, since I read something interesting about it in one of the biographies. This knowledge will definitely throw new light on the story. I don't think, when I did read it a number of years back, I fully understood it, but now I would see it in a much different light. That possibly applies to all the books I have read of L's, except "Sons and Lovers" since I read that a year ago. I believe I have a book with both the New Mexico stories. As you said they are not too long, so I might pick one up tonight. Thanks for the link to "Mornings in Mexico". I have read excerpts and think it is a fine work, so I must send for that book. I still have one more book of the three Italy books to complete - "Etruscan Places". I have only read the first few pages so far, but it is interesting.

Virgil,
Sure, we can go onto another story if you feel we have exhausted this one. Glad you liked the story. Since I picked this one, you pick the next. Let me know and then give me a few days to read it. I have to catch up in the poetry thread, as well.

Janine

Virgil
03-06-2007, 12:18 PM
Virgil,
Gee, do you really mean that - "magnificent post"? I feel truly flattered. Maybe I should seek a Masters in Lawrence:lol:

Of course I mean it, and you know more than enough to do a Masters for sure.


Yes, true all that you said about him feeling percecuted. He felt it from the moment he married Freida, I think. He was shunned because she was German and they were at one pivatal moment suspected of being spies. ... I suppose we are not in the same shoes and really cannot know what the man suffered. Remember that he suffered his entire life with bad health as well, so I tend to be more sympathetic towards him as a human being.
You know, I think I remember reading somewhere that his illness causes one to feel that way. I don't know how credible that is. Also his illness supposedly causes impotence, and all the psychobabble critics ;) had a field day with that. I think I remember coming across an article on the relationship of Lawrence's health to his writing. Undoubtedly such essays devolve into psychobabble.


I don't always think Lawrence was clear on what he wanted to say. I think this was another part of the struggle within himself. I think often Lawrence contradicted himself. What thought do you have on this?
One way to divide types of writers is those that are classicist in their impulses and those that are Romanticist in their impulses. Classicist writers are clear in their themes, say like James Joyce. Their difficulty is in not understanding the allusions or context, but once you get that, they are clear in thier communication. Romanticists strive to capture something that many times is unexpressible; they are reaching for the soul rather than the body. Lawrence is a Romanticist. That doesn't mean his thoughts don't hold together. I find that L is pretty much philosophically consistent. But he builds on his philosophy, so that he is not repeating himself. Perhaps you're expecting him to say the same thing. Plus, L loved Walt Whitman (his poetic patriarch), and Whitman says: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Lawrence would suscribe to that.


Also, I do not think he ever clearly resolved his own religious questions. He was grasping at the thought of eternity in his last days. I think some of his late poems reflect this.
Does anyone completely resolve their religious questions? Seems natural.


Sure, we can go onto another story if you feel we have exhausted this one. Glad you liked the story. Since I picked this one, you pick the next. Let me know and then give me a few days to read it. I have to catch up in the poetry thread, as well.

OK, let me think about it and pick one this time.

Janine
03-06-2007, 03:39 PM
Of course I mean it, and you know more than enough to do a Masters for sure.

Probably could, but don't have the energy to write all those papers and take tests. Besides most of my thoughts are rattling around in my head and jumbled by now - 3 biographers definitely contradict each other. I would rather study independently, then form my own ideas of L. It is just a love of learning, and understanding L better.



You know, I think I remember reading somewhere that his illness causes one to feel that way. I don't know how credible that is. Also his illness supposedly causes impotence, and all the psychobabble critics ;) had a field day with that. I think I remember coming across an article on the relationship of Lawrence's health to his writing. Undoubtedly such essays devolve into psychobabble.

This is most definitely true. What you wrote here is really good. The physical condition had to have intense affects on his mood and his mind and impact his whole existence. People were not told these things; science was not so advanced back then. It is true that TB finally causes impotence. In the last biography it said just what you said and that the public had a field day with that knowlege. The public pretty much blew everything up to a greater proportion about L, anything they could make sorid or negative...sold more papers, I suppose. He was a celebrity of his time and so he was put through the ringer with publicity. The critics made something out of any little incident. That is partly what makes research difficult now - what to believe and what not to believe. I genuinely feel badly for the man having to go through all that psychobabble. Who would not lose it and feel crazy at times? The mere fact that he produced so much work and of great quality stuns me and makes me respect him even more, especially his "against all odds" story, with the disease he was carrying around in his weakened body all those years.


One way to divide types of writers is those that are classicist in their impulses and those that are Romanticist in their impulses. Classicist writers are clear in their themes, say like James Joyce. Their difficulty is in not understanding the allusions or context, but once you get that, they are clear in thier communication. Romanticists strive to capture something that many times is unexpressible; they are reaching for the soul rather than the body. Lawrence is a Romanticist. That doesn't mean his thoughts don't hold together. I find that L is pretty much philosophically consistent. But he builds on his philosophy, so that he is not repeating himself. Perhaps you're expecting him to say the same thing. Plus, L loved Walt Whitman (his poetic patriarch), and Whitman says: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Lawrence would suscribe to that.

This is so helpful and you explained it so well to me. Thanks. No wonder I like L more than J. I am very much into the "Romanticists" way of writing. This, no doubt, is what draws me to Lawrence's work, also his life story. There is a romance to that, too. I adore that quote by Whitman - I know it well. It fits L completely. I had not thought in terms of L for that quote. L has so many layers in his work and is full of "multitudes"...wonderful word!


Does anyone completely resolve their religious questions? Seems natural.

All too true. Absoulutely natural. Wasn't L trying always to achieve the natural way of things? I like the way he describes death in "Etruscan Places" - a natural passing over into death...I will look for the exact passage...very beautifully written and I think the closest he came to a definitive idea of death and the continuence of life.


OK, let me think about it and pick one this time.

Take your time. Will be interested to see what you pick out. There are so many good ones and some I have not read yet, no doubt. I am always fascinated with his stories.

Virgil
03-07-2007, 08:08 AM
Hi Janine. After thinking about it and flipping through L's Collected stories, I've decided on "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." Ever read it? It's one of my favorites and truely a fine short story.

Virgil
03-07-2007, 09:10 AM
Hey, the text of "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" is here on lit net. Anyone wishing to participate and not having the text available can read it here: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/england-my-england/9/

It's a great little read.

Janine
03-07-2007, 04:29 PM
Hi Virgil, Good choice. Yes, I have read it years ago, and infact, I was hoping you would pick this particular story. I have been wanting to read it again. I have a new perspective on the story after reading the biogrpahies. I know who he fashioned the story after, but we will talk about that after we read the text. It is not too many pages long, so I will read it tonight - comes at a good time. I am only reading "Etruscan Places" and you can read that randomly.
When I went to my library yesterday I picked up one of the biographies I had read and found a small part on L's friends, the Brewsters; I believe (if I recall this correctly) that I read specifically that these were the friends he fashioned the story "Things" after.

I was thinking it was the Brewsters, but I will research further to see if I can find that exact passage. So far I have only found this passage in "The Phoenix and the Flame: D.H.Lawrence" (biography), begining paragraph of chapter 10 titled:

"The World is Round":

"Why Ceylon? There too Lawrence had American friends offering him hospitality. Mr. and Mrs. Earl Brewster were a well-to-do couple, interested in painting and Buddhism. Lawrence had no sympathy with the "inaction and meditation" involved in that religion, but in his disgust with western civilization he declared that Buddhistic peace was "the point to start from, not our strident fretting and squabbling."

Can't wait to start "The Horse Dealer's Daughter". Glad the full text is on this site, then hopefully some others will see it and enter into the discussion.

Oh... I like that new picture in your signature. Is the Phoenix and the flame? Where did you find it? Very fitting it is!

Virgil
03-07-2007, 04:52 PM
"Why Ceylon? There too Lawrence had American friends offering him hospitality. Mr. and Mrs. Earl Brewster were a well-to-do couple, interested in painting and Buddhism. Lawrence had no sympathy with the "inaction and meditation" involved in that religion, but in his disgust with western civilization he declared that Buddhistic peace was "the point to start from, not our strident fretting and squabbling."
Sounds like the Melvilles from "Things." ;)


Can't wait to start "The Horse Dealer's Daughter". Glad the full text is on this site, then hopefully some others will see it and enter into the discussion.
Me too. I'll probably read it over the weekend. I'm glad you're familiar with it.


Oh... I like that new picture in your signature. Is the Phoenix and the flame? Where did you find it? Very fitting it is!
Yes inspired from this D.H. Lawrence conversation. ;) Found it by googling "DH Lawrence phoenix." I don't know if he painted it or not, but it was associated with him. I still kept the "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know." :D :D

Janine
03-07-2007, 06:42 PM
Sounds like the Melvilles from "Things." ;)

Yes, exactly. Also they traveled around a lot. They had a good amount of money and could do so. They were American and of course the Budda thing. They fit the profile. I have been looking through the two recent biographies and it is driving me nuts not finding the statement. Why don't I mark these things when I find them originally in the book in light pencil? Would save a lot of trouble later on. I remember reacting with a "ah, that is where he got the idea"; for my own satisfaction I want to find the exact passage.



Me too. I'll probably read it over the weekend. I'm glad you're familiar with it.

Great!


Yes inspired from this D.H. Lawrence conversation. ;) Found it by googling "DH Lawrence phoenix." I don't know if he painted it or not, but it was associated with him. I still kept the "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know." :D :D

Wow, I am going to look it up - see if I can find out if he painted it. Doubtful though, but would be interesting if he did.
Yes, I noticed - well, "Mad, bad, and dangerous" fits Lawrence too, at least in some of his bad humor episodes.

Janine
03-08-2007, 04:15 PM
Virgil,
Here's a little more evidence about the Brewsters being the couple in "Things". Seems it was about 1921 or so when he first meet the couple. One of my biographies, by Brenda Maddox, states:
"On the way to join Frieda in Baden-Baden, he stopped in Capri, where Compton Mackenzie introduced him to some very un-Jewish American expatriates about his own age, Earl Brewster and Achshah Brewster. Earl, born in Ohio, and Ashsah, born in Conneticut, looked like New England Puritans --neat, austere, quiet-- but were painters, who used there modest private incomes to live abroad with their small daughter, pursuing their passions, painting and Buddhism. Tenants of the Fontana Vecchia a decade earlier, they were instantly drawn to Lawrence, as he was to them, even though they personified the earnest seriousness he mocked in Americans."

I think that last statement is particularly interesting and appropriate to the short story. Also, the part where they went abroad to pursue their ---passions, painting and Buddhism. They had private income to be able to do so.

I know that it was Earl Brewter that accompanied Lawrence on his trip to the Etruscan tombs. This was later in life. Do you know the date "Things" was written? I don't know how to research the exact date.

I found this part a few pages later in my book:

"A month in bed hardly stemmed a flow of work that would have put a healthy writer to shame. By early December he was sending off to his New York and London agents a load of finished manuscripts, including six unpublished short stories, among them 'The Captain's Doll', 'The Ladybird', and the 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter', as well as a new version of 'The Fox', to which he had 'put a long tail.' He did not know if he would ever finish Mr. Noon.

So he was quite ill in bed when he wrote "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" ---amazing! All three of the stories are his well known ones. I wonder if the six manuscripts included "Things", as well. Interesting to note the last statement about Mr. Noon. I don't think he did finish that before he died, do you know? Seems illness actually enhanced his creativity...strange. He must have been grasping desperately at life during these dire periods of illness.

Hope all this interests you, Virgil, this is the second post I wrote so hope you found the preceeding one, too. I value you opinion.

Looks like Ethan Frome will be the book of month. As it was I found a copy of each in my bookcase, so I am set. Janine

Virgil
03-08-2007, 05:07 PM
Virgil,
Here's a little more evidence about the Brewsters being the couple in "Things". ...They had private income to be able to do so.

Thanks. That settles it. The Melvilles were definitely modeled on the Brewsters.


I know that it was Earl Brewter that accompanied Lawrence on his trip to the Etruscan tombs. This was later in life. Do you know the date "Things" was written? I don't know how to research the exact date.
I have the rough date at home. I'm at work right now, but I'll look it up.


I found this part a few pages later in my book:

"A month in bed hardly stemmed a flow of work that would have put a healthy writer to shame. By early December he was sending off to his New York and London agents a load of finished manuscripts, including six unpublished short stories, among them 'The Captain's Doll', 'The Ladybird', and the 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter', as well as a new version of 'The Fox', to which he had 'put a long tail.' He did not know if he would ever finish Mr. Noon.

So he was quite ill in bed when he wrote "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" ---amazing! All three of the stories are his well known ones. I wonder if the six manuscripts included "Things", as well. Interesting to note the last statement about Mr. Noon. I don't think he did finish that before he died, do you know? Seems illness actually enhanced his creativity...strange. He must have been grasping desperately at life during these dire periods of illness.
I thought "Things" was much later. I'll look up the dates on all of them.


Hope all this interests you, Virgil, this is the second post I wrote so hope you found the preceeding one, too. I value you opinion.
Oh yes. I didn't think there was anything to respond to on the previous post. Of course i find this interesting.


Looks like Ethan Frome will be the book of month. As it was I found a copy of each in my bookcase, so I am set. Janine
I take it you found the thread. I've been busy today. :)

Virgil
03-08-2007, 09:16 PM
This is from D. H. Lawrence: A Calendar of His Works by Keith Sagar, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1979. What Sagar has done is tabulate day by day what Lawrence did based on letters and records. I believe it's out of print, but perhaps a library might have it.

Lawrence wrote "Things" in May 1927, published in October 1928.
Wrote "The Capain's Doll" Sept-Nov 1921, sent proofs in for publishing in Feb 1923.
Wrote "The Ladybird" in Dec 1921, also sent proofs in Feb 1923.
Wrote "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" (originally titled, "The Miracle") in Jan 1916, actually fnished it in Jan 1917, re-wrote it again in Oct 1921, and sent proofs in Nov 1921.

Hope that helps.

Janine
03-08-2007, 10:01 PM
Virgil, Yes - this is very helpful. I would like to pick up that book sometime. I will see if Amazon has it. Forget my library. I once requested the book of paintings and drawings and I never heard a word more about it. L's stuff is apparently too rare now and I suppose I am lucky the library has anything at all on him. From this book information, apparently then, when he was ill in bed he re-wrote "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter". I read in one of the books that he re-wrote many a book and story, sometimes up to 3 times. He would actually begin the whole story from scratch, but it must have been engraved in his memory. Another fact that convinces me of his genius. Thanks for looking those dates up and typing them.
Janine

Virgil
03-24-2007, 11:54 PM
OK I'm going to start the discussion on "The Horse Dealer's Daughter."

Let me just summarize the story for this post. The story roughly divides into three parts. The siblings (three brothers and sister) who own the ranch are forced to sell the ranch and go their separate ways. Mabel the sister is forced to go live with another sister, with the presumption that she will now be an old maid. A friend of the family is a Doctor Ferguson who visits them on one of their last days at the ranch. That is the first part of the story. The second part we find Dr. Ferguson worn out with his job, but suddenly glimpses Mabel who is walking toward a near by pond. Mabel has decided that life isn't worth living and will drown herself. She walks into the pond and keeps walking until she has submerged herself under. Ferguson who has been following rushes in after her and after a bit is able to pull her unnconscious body out. He retores her breathing, and while still unconscious brings her into the house. That is the second part. Finally in the house after removing her wet clothes she regains consciousness and in a moment of reawakening falls in love with Ferguson. After realizing what has been missing from his life, he too falls in love with her. Their lives transformed now will marry.

That is the bare bones story line. But what Lawrence does with it is incredible. The symbolism of the horse as bound to social custom at the expense of passionate life permeates the story. Look at this passage:

The great draught-horses swung past. They were tied head to tail, four of them, and they heaved along to where a lane branched off from the highroad, planting their great hoofs floutingly in the fine black mud, swinging their great rounded haunches sumptuously, and trotting a few sudden steps as they were led into the lane, round the corner. Every movement showed a massive, slumbrous strength, and a stupidity which held them in subjection. The groom at the head looked back, jerking the leading rope. And the calvalcade moved out of sight up the lane, the tail of the last horse, bobbed up tight and stiff, held out taut from the swinging great haunches as they rocked behind the hedges in a motionlike sleep.

Four horses echoes four siblings.

Janine
03-25-2007, 06:48 PM
Good start Virgil, I like your pointing out the symbolism of the horses. I had not really thought of that - the four representing the four siblings. Interesting. The only part I might question is your take on the ending.
Finally in the house after removing her wet clothes she regains consciousness and in a moment of reawakening falls in love with Ferguson. After realizing what has been missing from his life, he too falls in love with her. Their lives transformed now will marry.
This seems too simply put to me. I feel a lot more is going on there than mere love. Of course you did state that this synopsis is the barebones rendition of the story. I have only re-read part of the story last night, I was too tired and could not keep awake, but I had a different idea of the ending the first time I read it. It sounds a little too set or absolute. I am not sure one could say they fell instantly in love. I think there was a lot more to that ending which I am sure we will discuss. Some plays into Lawrence's own personality and his notions/views on men and woman, and his keen observances of the human physcology. I will read the rest of the story tonight.

Virgil
03-25-2007, 06:53 PM
This seems too simply put to me. I feel a lot more is going on there than mere love. Of course you did state that this synopsis is the barebones rendition of the story. I have only re-read part of the story last night, I was too tired and could not keep awake, but I had a different idea of the ending the first time I read it. It sounds a little too set or absolute. I am not sure one could say they fell instantly in love. I think there was a lot more to that ending which I am sure we will discuss. Some plays into Lawrence's own personality and his notions/views on men and woman, and his keen observances of the human physcology. I will read the rest of the story tonight.

I agree Janine, it is too simple. I had a hard time coming up with a summary for that last section. Perhaps you can do it.

Schokokeks
03-25-2007, 08:07 PM
Off topic, sorry for that -
I just stumbled over this:


you know more than enough to do a Masters for sure
Oh yes, Janine, please do !
You're a great contribution to this place and I like your style of writing very much, very refreshing :nod:.


Probably could, but don't have the energy to write all those papers and take tests. Besides most of my thoughts are rattling around in my head and jumbled by now - 3 biographers definitely contradict each other. I would rather study independently, then form my own ideas of L. It is just a love of learning, and understanding L better.
All right then, do a PhD ;).
But stay with us :nod:.

Janine
03-25-2007, 08:35 PM
Off topic, sorry for that -
I just stumbled over this:


Oh yes, Janine, please do !
You're a great contribution to this place and I like your style of writing very much, very refreshing :nod:.


All right then, do a PhD ;).
But stay with us :nod:.

Schokokeks, I hope you are going to join our Lawrence thread. That would be so great. The stories are short and interesting - lots to discuss there. Schokokeks, you and Virgil flatter me way too much. At 57 yrs of age I don't think I have the energy to get a masters in literature, let alone a PHD. I graduated from art college in 1972 with a BFA in Illustration - one degree is enough for me. I would have to have a whole new college degree in literature. No, then it would not be fun for me. This is why I like it all so much. No pressure and I can think of it as enjoyment - not work. I am staying put here. I love it here - thanks so much, S, for your vote of confidence and liking my writing attempts. Mostly I just write random Haiku but I do find it fun. I do like writing about movies or books I have read as well. I hope all the time I am contributing something to the site.

S, I just stumbled on this in your profile - favorite book - A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving I have this book and want to read it. I got it free at my library. I saw the film it was based on "Simon Birch" and I loved it. Did you see it by any chance?

Manny, it is ok what you wrote, just simplified. It is hard to describe the end. All of L's endings are probably like that - hard to put into words. I will have to finish up the story tonight and I will try to come up with a few lines about the ending. In a way I hate giving the ending away, since someone might come into the thread who has not yet read the story.

Virgil
03-26-2007, 07:57 AM
Well, lets start with the beginning then. I've already mentioned the symbolism of the horses, but what exactly do they symbolize? And what is the significance of Joe, the eldest brother, being associated most with the horses?

Joe watched with glazed hopeless eyes. The horses were almost like his own body to him. He felt he was done for now. Luckily he was engaged to a woman as old as himself, and therefore her father, who was steward of a neighbouring estate, would provide him with a job. He would marry and go into harness. His life was over, he would be a subject animal now.

Janine
03-26-2007, 03:51 PM
Well, lets start with the beginning then. I've already mentioned the symbolism of the horses, but what exactly do they symbolize? And what is the significance of Joe, the eldest brother, being associated most with the horses?
Quote:
"Joe watched with glazed hopeless eyes. The horses were almost like his own body to him. He felt he was done for now. Luckily he was engaged to a woman as old as himself, and therefore her father, who was steward of a neighbouring estate, would provide him with a job. He would marry and go into harness. His life was over, he would be a subject animal now."

This whole paragraph is curious to me and almost feels contradictory at times. First line says "Joe watched with hopeless eyes". Then later it says "Luckily he was engaged"... Ending line says "His life was over, he would be a subject animal". My question is about the word "luckily". Is Lawrence using this ironically of cynically? Using the work "luckily" to emphasis the exact opposite for the fate of Joe, for surely the whole paragraph adds up to one conclusion. Joe was to become as a "subject animal" and his life (free will) would be over -"he was done for now." Why did L use the words "for now?" Also, he would "marry and go into harness" is not literal, but rather symbolic, and ties in with the horse comparison to his life of being harnessed to the middle class (servitude; L would see it this way) system strictly making a living. The woman's father would get him a job, so he really had no freedom of choice now in the matter of his existence or vocation. Also, the paragraph indicates Joe has no other choice apparently, but to marry the "woman as old as himself", with the father who will provide his keep. In doing so he will be under her service, as well as the fathers. He would be beholding to both.

Question - was it a disgrace to marry a woman as old as the man in L's time? I found this statement curious. Why does L seem to emphasis that fact?

I think the entire paragraph indicates a bondage for Joe as a final solution, and maybe only alternative, to his survival. So he was once the master of his life and of the horses, but now he will become like them - "a subject animal" in all respects of life.

Knowing the rest of the story, this first paragraph sets the tone effectively for the theme of the story to come, which is really quite brilliant on L's part.


And what is the significance of Joe, the eldest brother, being associated most with the horses?
Not sure really - maybe just that the oldest man then would be responsible for the other siblings, following the death of the father. Usually the ultimate responsibiliy would fall on the oldest and L mentioned that there were debts to be paid left on the estate they are leaving behind.

Virgil
03-26-2007, 04:05 PM
This whole paragraph is curious to me and almost feels contradictory at times.
You're right. There are several discordant notes here.


First line says "Joe watched with hopeless eyes". Then later it says Luckily he was engaged... Ending line says "His life was over, he would be a subject animal". My question is about the word "luckily". Is Lawrence using this ironically?
I guess he is. I read it as only to do with Joe having a fall back now that the ranch is to be sold.


Using the work "luckily" to emphasis the exact opposite for the fate of Joe, for surely the whole paragraph adds up to one conclusion. Joe was to become as a "subject animal" and his life (free will) would be over -"he was done for now." Why did L use the words "for now?"
Very good, but one note of caution. Was Joe really free while on the ranch? Are these free will comments Lawrence's points of view or just Joe's? The horses are not all that free on the ranch either, and they are animals.


Also, he would "marry and go into harness" is not literal, but rather symbolic, and ties in with the horse comparison to his life of being harnessed
Nice metaphor, isn't it?


Question - was it a disgrace to marry a woman as old as the man in L's time? I found this statement curious. Why does L seem to emphasis that fact?
Not sure, but it does tie in with Mabel and her life being over. Nice pick up Janine.


I think the entire paragraph indicates a bondage for Joe as a final solution, maybe only alternative, to his survival. So he was the master of his life and the horses but now he will become like them - "a subject animal" in all respects of life.
Yes, but there is the complexity that Joe wasn't necessarily free on the ranch either. I think we should contrast his character with his brother Fred Henry.


Knowing the rest of the story - this first paragraph sets the tone effectively for the theme of the story to come, which is really quite brilliant on L's part.
That's why I picked it. But let's contrast the brothers and i think we will understand the framework of the story.

Janine
03-26-2007, 04:25 PM
Hmm, I had not thought of contrasting the brothers. Yes, let's do that. You no doubt have picked up on somethings I have missed.


Yes, but there is the complexity that Joe wasn't necessarily free on the ranch either.

I will be curious as to what makes you think he was not free on the ranch or at least his own person and happy. Perhaps he was under the rule of his father when he was alive. What statements would lead you to draw this conclusion?

Funny I read the word "Luckily" as you did originally, and then I thought more on it. L really takes individual words to a new level. I started thinking of L's own sarcastic way and his cynicism about being harnessed to a middle class way of life - yes, nice metaphor, indeed. I know L felt harnessed in his life as a school master, so he would relate in that way to this story. He also knew one of the brothers at the Haggs farm who got involved with horse dealing after he married the daughter of a dealer. I will try to look that up in my books tonight. This, no doubt, is where he originally got the idea for the story, which is interesting since he wrote it years later, correct? Wasn't he in Italy when he wrote this story? The young man from his youth ended up married and quite "harnessed" to a life obviously all wrong for him; he gave way to a life he did not truly welcome in having to leave his beloved family farm; Haggs farm was sold because of financial difficulties. This beginning mimics the whole time L witnessed this kind of thing really happening to his close friend and the family. I see Joe as the same character as in "The White Peacock"; he was fashioned after one of Jesse's brothers, I think George. I will look up his name tonight, since I may be mixing some fact with fiction. Remember L always did write from his own life or friend's life experiences and his observations. I am glad you did pick this particular story because it ties in with L's early life and his first novel "The White Peacock", which is very interesting to me.

Virgil
03-26-2007, 09:51 PM
OK, let's compare the two brothers. In addition to the paragraph I quoted above, this other one also characterizes Joe:

Yet they were three fine, well-set fellows enough. Joe, the eldest, was a man of thirty-three, broad and handsome in a hot, flushed way. His face was red, he twisted his black moustache over a thick finger, his eyes were shallow and restless. He had a sensual way of uncovering his teeth when he laughed, and his bearing was stupid. Now he watched the horses with a glazed look of helplessness in his eyes, a certain stupor of downfall.

Now let's look at Fred Henry:

There was another helpless silence at the table. Joe sprawled uneasily in his seat, not willing to go till the family conclave was dissolved. Fred Henry, the second brother, was erect, clean-limbed, alert. He had watched the passing of the horses with more sang-froid. If he was an animal, like Joe, he was an animal which controls, not one which is controlled. He was master of any horse, and he carried himself with a well-tempered air of mastery. But he was not master of the situations of life. He pushed his coarse brown moustache upwards, off his lip, and glanced irritably at his sister, who sat impassive and inscrutable.
And then he tries to push Mabel to a decision:

'You'll go and stop with Lucy for a bit, shan't you?' he asked. The girl did not answer.

'I don't see what else you can do,' persisted Fred Henry.

'Go as a skivvy,' Joe interpolated laconically.

The girl did not move a muscle.
and later:

'Have you had a letter from Lucy?' Fred Henry asked of his sister.

'Last week,' came the neutral reply.

'And what does she say?'

There was no answer.

'Does she ask you to go and stop there?' persisted Fred Henry.

'She says I can if I like.'

'Well, then, you'd better. Tell her you'll come on Monday.'

This was received in silence.

'That's what you'll do then, is it?' said Fred Henry, in some exasperation.

So Joe is the "harnessed" one, while Fred Henry is the controling one, the one who directs the horses. Both are within the context of society, society being made up of both halves of this coin. True, Joe is "flushed" while Fred is "sang-froid" (cold blooded). And certainly this carries weight in Lawrence's conception of humanity, ("If he was an animal, like Joe, he was an animal which controls, not one which is controlled.") but they are both different than Mabel and what she will experience.

Mabel next, after your thoughts on this.

Janine
03-26-2007, 10:11 PM
OK, let's compare the two brothers. In addition to the paragraph I quoted above, this other one also characterizes Joe:


Now let's look at Fred Henry:

And then he tries to push Mabel to a decision:

and later:


So Joe is the "harnessed" one, while Fred Henry is the controling one, the one who directs the horses. Both are within the context of society, society being made up of both halves of this coin. True, Joe is "flushed" while Fred is "sang-froid" (cold blooded). And certainly this carries weight in Lawrence's conception of humanity, ("If he was an animal, like Joe, he was an animal which controls, not one which is controlled.") but they are both different than Mabel and what she will experience.

Mabel next, after your thoughts on this.

Virgil, were there two brothers or three? I thought there were 4 siblings. Isn't the other mentioned? I forget now. Well, ok Joe is more contolled then and Fred Henry is a controlling type. Now as to regarding life prior to this crisis of selling their home and the horses, etc. do you think this indicated that the older brother, Joe, was controlled by the younger brother, Fred Henry. Coming from a family of 3 siblings myself I know all too well how different personalities are. Still I am not sure how significant this is to the story. I did not see as much meaning in it as you do. Perhaps it indicates that Fred tried to dominate Mabel. What do you think? Also, the boys may gang up on her and make both dominate her or bully her. The way they spoke to her was not exactly sensitive or kind. Isn't it setting it up that Mabel does not have much choice in her life to come? She is being put out by her brothers - neither of them seem to want her with them, which would make her loneliness even more pronounced.
What does he mean when he says:
'Go as a skivvy,' Joe interpolated laconically.
What is a skivvy?

Virgil
03-26-2007, 10:46 PM
Virgil, were there two brothers or three? I thought there were 4 siblings. Isn't the other mentioned? I forget now.
Yes, there is also Malcolm, but he's not developed very much. Only reason I can guess for Lawrence to add him is to have a ganging up of three boys to one girl. Lawrence usually works in duelistic polarities. I would have expected two brothers but here he adds a third with minimal characterization.


Well, ok Joe is more contolled then and Fred Henry is a controlling type. Now as to regarding life prior to this crisis of selling their home and the horses, etc. do you think this indicated that the older brother, Joe, was controlled by the younger brother, Fred Henry. Coming from a family of 3 siblings myself I know all too well how different personalities are. Still I am not sure how significant this is to the story. I did not see as much meaning in it as you do.
What I wanted to say was that Lawrence has created another polarity, the consciousness of society (the brothers, with their diversity) and the negation of it by Mabel and the transfiguration into her new consciousness after the drowning experience.


Perhaps it indicates that Fred tried to dominate Mabel. What do you think? Also, the boys may gang up on her and make both dominate her or bully her. The way they spoke to her was not exactly sensitive or kind. Isn't it setting it up that Mabel does not have much choice in her life to come? She is being put out by her brothers - neither of them seem to want her with them, which would make her loneliness even more pronounced.
They definietely do. Funny all I could think as I read that was how Lawrence intentionally or not drove the feminists crazy. ;) He builds this social prison for Mabel, and one would expect that she would break free, and she does, but to another man. :p


What does he mean when he says:
'Go as a skivvy,' Joe interpolated laconically.
What is a skivvy?
I thought it meant slave in British slang, but this is what i found from a slang dictionary:

A dictionary of slang - "S" - Slang and colloquialisms of the UK.
...skivvies Noun. Underwear, particularly with reference to pants. [Orig. US] skivvy Noun. A servant for menial tasks. Derog. {Informal} skoosh * Noun. 1. A squirt of cream from an aerosol. 2. Something very easy. E.g."That...http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=skivvy&sp-a=00021000-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=any&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-x=body&sp-c=10&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Don't know how that fits.

Then there is this:

skive Noun. An evasion of one's tasks, a period of shirking.
Verb. To evade doing one's work or duties, to truant. E.g."Every Friday afternoon you can guarantee he'll be skiving and getting drunk down the pub."
skive off Verb. Meaning the same as 'skive' (verb).
skiver Noun. A shirker, one who evades doing their work or duties.
http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm

Doesn't fit either.

Janine
03-26-2007, 11:16 PM
Yes, there is also Malcolm, but he's not developed very much. Only reason I can guess for Lawrence to add him is to have a ganging up of three boys to one girl. Lawrence usually works in duelistic polarities. I would have expected two brothers but here he adds a third with minimal characterization.

Ok that makes sense. But I thought there was a third brother. He does not play into the equation of ganging up on Mabel or putting pressure on her.


What I wanted to say was that Lawrence has created another polarity, the consciousness of society (the brothers, with their diversity) and the negation of it by Mabel and the transfiguration into her new consciousness after the drowning experience.

That sound good and true.


They definietely do. Funny all I could think as I read that was how Lawrence intentionally or not drove the feminists crazy. ;) He builds this social prison for Mabel, and one would expect that she would break free, and she does, but to another man. :p

Yes, how true is that - he sets her up in a social prison to end the story with her trapped with a man, because realistically who knows how that will turn out after the end of the story. She could end up more miserable. It does not seem as though the two of them know each other very well to commit to marriage. I think back to that time and how few choices women had - they did get the rough end of things. For the feminists to read it today they would crucify L for his ideas. Good observation.


I thought it meant slave in British slang, but this is what i found from a slang dictionary:
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=skivvy&sp-a=00021000-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=any&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-x=body&sp-c=10&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Don't know how that fits.

Then there is this:

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm

Doesn't fit either.

No, it does make perfect sense. I was thinking he was referring to a maid - so the second definition as noun would work "A servant for menial tasks."

Earlier I went to the Lawrence area of this site and I was researching the short stories and links to commentary. Mostly it sends you to enotes which you have to pay for the entire article but I did pick up some stuff there and pasted it in a file. Here is the link to one article about L's short stories in general.
http://www.enotes.com/short-story-criticism/lawrence-d-h

It is pretty interesting - breaks them up into groups which I like.

Here is part of an enotes article also; it might give you some ideas although it cuts off due to the excerpt being free - you pay for the site unfortunately.


Jeffrey Meyers (essay date summer 1989)
SOURCE: Meyers, Jeffrey. “D. H. Lawrence and Tradition: ‘The Horse Dealer's Daughter’.” Studies in Short Fiction 26, no. 3 (summer 1989): 346-51.
[In the following essay, Meyers finds allusions to mythology, literature, and Lawrence's earlier work in “The Horse Dealer's Daughter.”]
“The Horse Dealer's Daughter” (1922) has often been read as a story of resurrection,1 though this does not fully account for its extraordinary mystery and power. Previous critics have not noticed that in this tale Lawrence combines both classical and Christian resurrection myths, draws on literary allusions and transforms analogues in nineteenth-century fiction to express his characteristic themes: revelation of truth through nakedness and touch, release of primitive emotions through ritual and ceremony, self-discovery and return to life through regenerative love. These techniques and themes...

Virgil
03-27-2007, 01:19 PM
Janine could you post a link to the Jeffrey Meyers site. Actually I remember that book from when I was working on my thesis. But strange first sentence:

“The Horse Dealer's Daughter” (1922) has often been read as a story of resurrection,1 though this does not fully account for its extraordinary mystery and power.
You mean that resurrection is rather ordinary and does not have mystery and power? :confused: ;)

Janine
03-27-2007, 02:19 PM
Virgil, it is on this site, Lit Net, in the Lawrence section. I had to probe around to find it; not sure I can find it again. It is off to the right, but not on every page and I lost it once and then found it again - there are links to other sites - mostly enotes sites. This writing is only a small exerpt from the article - to see the whole article on the enotes site you have to join it for about $18.00 a month - forget it. That is interesting that you had the same book by that author for your thesis. I am not familiar with him. Maybe I can find the book on Amazon. I will try to probe back and get the link to that page. I just came on here.

Last night I watched Ken Russell's film version of "Women in Love", stars Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, Glenda Jackson, Jennie Linden. It is strange seeing it again after all my recent readings, but it was extremely helpful. It helped me get into the right frame of mind ( the L frame of mind perhaps). This film really epitomizes Lawrence and his beliefs and ideas, and his question on life and how we should live it. I appreciated the film more than ever. Did you ever see it? It is excellent. I first saw it in Philadelphia years ago at TLM which was on South Street and ran artsy films. I loved it right away. I had just read "Women in Love".

The person I was thinking of was Alan Chambers - he was Jesse's brother and Lawrence was inspired by him to develop the character of George in "The White Peacock". I sure wish you had read that book, since it would give you more early insight into L's early thinking and the foundations of his ideas and thoughts about life and living. George was a farmer and loved it and then forced off the farm by the fact it would be sold. This greatly impacted L, who went there frequently, as it became a second home to him. He even wrote later that the happinest times of his life were spent at Haggs farm with the Chamber's family. Now oddly enough in White Peacock, George settles and marries a woman who runs a pub and he is trapped like so many of L's characters, especially the way he seemed to see men...trapped by woman's "love". Anyway, George later goes into a horse-dealing business, I think with his father-in-law or it might have been her brother...not sure of the exacts. I just thought the parrellels interesting, aren't they? Lawrence revered, almost religiously, the beauty of George (Alan Chambers) and his love of farming. Later when George marries L, as observer in the book, is quite against his having 'given in' to that mere survival and way of life. Just telling you this to show you how he would have felt about the union of the two at the end of the "Horse-Dealer's Daughter". Would that union ultimately be a happy one? Personally I do doubt it, but of course we are not yet to that part of the story to discuss the outcome. Sorry if I jumped ahead.


I just went looking on the site for the link, but cannot find it today. They seem to change those little ads all the time. I see where they have in the main Lawrence subforums the complete book of "England, My England" which comprises 10 of the short stories. I have that book here, too. These stories of course are in the Complete Short Story set. It might be good to pick from this list next time, so if anyone wants to join in they will have access to the texts; of course doubtful - but hey, isn't anyone interested in our genius Lawrence???

I realised I did not answer you question about the two statements in the quote. I am not sure, after reading the entire quote, that he is contradicting himself entirely. It is a litte confusing but I think he means the story is more mysterious and powerful than to simply boil it down to say it is a story of resurrection or transformation/transfiguration. He thinks Lawrence has done more than that apparently. I do too. Now when he sites the ideas of Christianity does he mean a parrellel in the dunking under the water of say, baptism? or cleansing? This is just one aspect of the idea of ritual, but that thought came to me when I read it.

Virgil
03-27-2007, 09:13 PM
Virgil, it is on this site, Lit Net, in the Lawrence section. I had to probe around to find it; not sure I can find it again. It is off to the right, but not on every page and I lost it once and then found it again - there are links to other sites - mostly enotes sites. This writing is only a small exerpt from the article - to see the whole article on the enotes site you have to join it for about $18.00 a month - forget it. That is interesting that you had the same book by that author for your thesis. I am not familiar with him. Maybe I can find the book on Amazon. I will try to probe back and get the link to that page. I just came on here.

Jeffrey Meyers is probably the leading Lawrentian scholar today.


Last night I watched Ken Russell's film version of "Women in Love", stars Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, Glenda Jackson, Jennie Linden. It is strange seeing it again after all my recent readings, but it was extremely helpful. It helped me get into the right frame of mind ( the L frame of mind perhaps). This film really epitomizes Lawrence and his beliefs and ideas, and his question on life and how we should live it. I appreciated the film more than ever. Did you ever see it? It is excellent. I first saw it in Philadelphia years ago at TLM which was on South Street and ran artsy films. I loved it right away. I had just read "Women in Love".
No I never have. Was it good as a movie besides it being based on a Lawrence novel?


The person I was thinking of was Alan Chambers - he was Jesse's brother and Lawrence was inspired by him to develop the character of George in "The White Peacock". I sure wish you had read that book, since it would give you more early insight into L's early thinking and the foundations of his ideas and thoughts about life and living. George was a farmer and loved it and then forced off the farm by the fact it would be sold. This greatly impacted L, who went there frequently, as it became a second home to him. He even wrote later that the happinest times of his life were spent at Haggs farm with the Chamber's family. Now oddly enough in White Peacock, George settles and marries a woman who runs a pub and he is trapped like so many of L's characters, especially the way he seemed to see men...trapped by woman's "love". Anyway, George later goes into a horse-dealing business, I think with his father-in-law or it might have been her brother...not sure of the exacts. I just thought the parrellels interesting, aren't they? Lawrence revered, almost religiously, the beauty of George (Alan Chambers) and his love of farming. Later when George marries L, as observer in the book, is quite against his having 'given in' to that mere survival and way of life. Just telling you this to show you how he would have felt about the union of the two at the end of the "Horse-Dealer's Daughter". Would that union ultimately be a happy one? Personally I do doubt it, but of course we are not yet to that part of the story to discuss the outcome. Sorry if I jumped ahead.
Oh I wish I had. Sounds more like a Hardy story than a Lawrentian.


but hey, isn't anyone interested in our genius Lawrence???
They don't know what they're missing. ;)


I realised I did not answer you question about the two statements in the quote. I am not sure, after reading the entire quote, that he is contradicting himself entirely. It is a litte confusing but I think he means the story is more mysterious and powerful than to simply boil it down to say it is a story of resurrection or transformation/transfiguration. He thinks Lawrence has done more than that apparently. I do too.
I guess i got it too, but he could have said it better.


Now when he sites the ideas of Christianity does he mean a parrellel in the dunking under the water of say, baptism? or cleansing? This is just one aspect of the idea of ritual, but that thought came to me when I read it
Perhaps, or just Christ resurrected. But babtism fits in nicely.

Janine
03-27-2007, 10:09 PM
Jeffrey Meyers is probably the leading Lawrentian scholar today.

Oh, good to know. Then surely I can find a book of his on Amazon on Lawrence criticism. What do you think?


No I never have. Was it good as a movie besides it being based on a Lawrence novel?

I think it was an excellent movie. Go to Amazon and see what people wrote. There is about 6 good reviews there. Don't take my word alone for it. The Amazon reviewers can say it better than me. I checked out Amazon after watching it last night. I remember seeing the film for the first time on South Street in Philadelphia at the little art theater, the TLA, years ago. It blew me away. I think I had just read "Women in Love". The film has a lot of impact and gives you much to think about. Some of the scenes stay with you forever, like the drowned young couple in the pond, after the water is drained. You have read the book, right? I think this film really epitomises L's ideas. Some people on Amazon said that Ken Russell also did "The Rainbow" but it is not half as good as this film. Alan Bates is amazing in this film. He and Oliver Reed really wrestle (vigorously) nude in the lamplight - quite a scene. Artistically I think it is really beautiful. I don't know if you wife would like the film though; has she ever read L? The mainstream public would probably not like it, they would probably think it weird, but if you like L you will because your understanding is much broader. I have the film if you would like to borrow it. I could mail it to you and then you could mail back...no problem.


Oh I wish I had. Sounds more like a Hardy story than a Lawrentian.
Well, the White Peacock is something more like Hardy, very pastoral, and yet the Lawrence stuff starts to come out. Probably he fashioned it after being influenced by Hardy's work - actually I read that to be true in the forward of the book. It is not an immature book and yet it is not fully developed, either. Some passages are stunningly beautiful in their prose - they are poetic. The book goes off track a lot and is massively wordy at times, but there is an early charm there I can't describe to you. It might just be that I am interested in L's early years and what shaped him. The book, after being published, actually was a success. It is just that the more developed and better known books he later produced outshine it completely. I just like going back to the core of things and seeing for myself.



They don't know what they're missing. ;)

They sure don't. Why doesn't the youth read any L?


I guess i got it too, but he could have said it better.

It was a little confusing, plus we don't have the entire article and text to go by. That is a big drawback. But it did get me thinking anyway - you know in that direction.


Perhaps, or just Christ resurrected. But babtism fits in nicely.
I don't know - I do not see that analogy. Can you explain. Maybe I missed words that indicated that thinking or connection.

Virgil
03-27-2007, 10:31 PM
Oh, good to know. Then surely I can find a book of his on Amazon on Lawrence criticism. What do you think?

Oh yes, he's there.


I don't know if you wife would like it though - has she ever read L?
I don't know if she has. I doubt it.


The mainstream public would probably not like it, they would probably think it weird, but if you like L you will because your understanding is much broader. I have the film if you would like to borrow it. I could mail it to you and then you could mail back...no problem.
I'll take you up on that. Yes I wouldn't mind borrowing it. Is it a DVD? My Tape player is broken and I don't intned to get another.

Oh, I meant to ask you. We are considering joining Netflicks. Are you a member? Is it worth it?


They sure don't. Why doesn't the youth read any L?
You know Lawrence will be one of the monthly book reads sometime this year. Don't know which book will get selected. I would like to read Women In Love, but I think that its too hard for many of the members who have not been exposed to Lawrence.


I don't know - I do not see that analogy. Can you explain. Maybe I missed words that indicated that thinking or connection
Explain how it relates to Christ? Only superficially in that she rises from the dead.

Janine
03-27-2007, 11:00 PM
Oh yes, he's there.

I don't know if she has. I doubt it.

Oh good. I am going to look to buy one of his books, if it is not too expensive. I hope he has one on the short stories on Amazon.


I'll take you up on that. Yes I wouldn't mind borrowing it. Is it a DVD? My Tape player is broken and I don't intned to get another.

Oh, sorry about your tape player. Now I can't live without a tape player, too. I still like my tapes and sometimes, unfortunately, I can't get a rare British film unless it is on a tape. I bought one really cheap. They are cheap now. Yes, actually "Women in Love" is a DVD and it is Region 1 - it is hard to find this film on Region 1 - our region. It is a British film. It is ashame I had two of them - long story - and I gave one to a friend two years ago and I don't think she watched it yet. Her father was a huge Lawrence fan and read everything concerned with his work and left tons of handwritten notes. He left it all to her along with a huge book collection. She has read some L, but not as much as I have. I keep asking her if she watched the film and she did not. I would rather have given it to you...oh well. I can easily mail you mine. I have tons of padded mailing envelopes. I will PM you about it.


Oh, I meant to ask you. We are considering joining Netflicks. Are you a member? Is it worth it?

My son belonged to Netflicks and loved it. They mail it right to your door and you can get as many as you can watch in a month, well one at a time that is. They are suppose to have a big selection. He let me see a couple of his rented films and I mailed them off. It was quite easy. I think it is a good deal.



You know Lawrence will be one of the monthly book reads sometime this year. Don't know which book will get selected. I would like to read Women In Love, but I think that its too hard for many of the members who have not been exposed to Lawrence.

Great! All day today I was just thinking how I would love to read "Women in Love" again. Actually that has always been my favorite book of L's. I only read it once, years ago. I think the common language ('heart language', as Lawrence called it, ex:father's type speech) in "Sons and Lovers" would be very hard to read for those who don't speak English, as their native tongue. I think "The Rainbow" would be too long and drawn out for them. I was even confused reading "The Rainbow" at times. If I vote it will be for "Women in Love". They are not ready for "Lady Chatterly's Lover" either. It won't be easy - I don't think youth have enough experience in life to appreciate Lawrence yet.


Explain how it relates to Christ? Only superficially in that she rises from the dead.

Oh - ok, I understand.

Do you want to discuss any more about the brothers? What significance do you think they play in the story? Shall we soon go onto Mabel herself?

Quark
03-28-2007, 12:42 AM
Is Women in Love more like Sons and Lovers or more like The Rainbow? I saw Women in Love in a used bookstore and weighed my appreciation for Sons and Lovers against my dislike for The Rainbow. Sons and Lovers was a great read filled with feeling and complexity, but The Rainbow exhausted me with its deep introspection into the psychologies of characters who I didn't care about. I couldn't decide whether to buy it or not, because I wasn't sure which D.H. Lawrence I would get: the L who is a master of subtle characterization or the overly abstract L. Which can I expect?

Janine
03-28-2007, 01:41 AM
Is Women in Love more like Sons and Lovers or more like The Rainbow? I saw Women in Love in a used bookstore and weighed my appreciation for Sons and Lovers against my dislike for The Rainbow. Sons and Lovers was a great read filled with feeling and complexity, but The Rainbow exhausted me with its deep introspection into the psychologies of characters who I didn't care about. I couldn't decide whether to buy it or not, because I wasn't sure which D.H. Lawrence I would get: the L who is a master of subtle characterization or the overly abstract L. Which can I expect?

Hi Quark,
Personally, I preferred "Women in Love" and I feel it closer to "Sons and Lovers" in writing style. It is the story of 4 people and their relationships, which of course are complex. Also, the four main characters all have much different views on what a relationship should be or should not be, which is a key part of the book. I read both books you mentioned, but I got quite lost in "The Rainbow". It gets wordy at times, which is a fault of Lawrence's, so some critics say. I found the book long and hard to tackle. "Women in Love" kept my attention when I read it. It had a definite plot and yet it explored Lawrence's ideas and theories on love and life and sensuality. It went one step further in contrasting the classes; there is a distinct division between the working class and the coal miners, and the upper classes who own the coal minds and run them, in this book. This element is a key factor in the book, as well. But the big emphasis is on the characters and the relationships in this novel. I think it is a fine novel with a good amount of plot and interesting characters. I like the film adaptation very much so, as you may have read in my previous post.
You must understand that "Sons and Lovers" is an early book of L's and more pastoral. Also it is autobiographical and encompasses his youth. Later work became more developed and so did his books with his unique ideas in them. If you object to his ideas you may not like his novels past "Sons and Lovers". I would try reading "Women in Love", since you found it at a used bookstore and probably won't have to pay highly for it. It really has always been my favorite Lawrence novel, but it is not mainstream writing. Lawrence had a keen sense of the physcology of human beings and his writing is something quite unusual and unique.
I hope that Virgil can add to this in some way. Hope what I said helped you decide.

Schokokeks
03-28-2007, 07:10 AM
Schokokeks, I hope you are going to join our Lawrence thread. That would be so great. The stories are short and interesting - lots to discuss there.
Sadly, I don't know half as much about DH Lawrence as you and Virgil (in fact, the only thing I know is that he lived at the beginning of the 20th century, was British and wrote a novel called Sons and Lovers. That's about it :D. I'd love to join, especially being offered such excellent company as you and Virgil, but I don't think I could find the time. But I'm looking forward to reading Ethan Frome with the Book Club :nod:.


Schokokeks, you and Virgil flatter me way too much.
Nay, we don't flatter you nor do I mean to. It's holding up a mirror for you to see yourself ;) I find you are a very eloquent and knowledgeable lady :nod:.


S, I just stumbled on this in your profile - favorite book - A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving I have this book and want to read it. I got it free at my library. I saw the film it was based on "Simon Birch" and I loved it. Did you see it by any chance?
No, I haven't seen it yet (I'm quite illiterate concerning movies :D).
Oh, do read the book, it is so wonderful :nod:. One could attack its subject-matter for being, even within the realm of fiction, too far-fetched, but I found both the style and the story fantastically heart-warming, and the characters stay with you long after you've finished the book.
In general, I'm a huge fan of Irving's older novels, but Owen Meany is quite his peak :).

Oh, I read somewhere you've been ill and hope you are feeling better by now, Janine.

Virgil
03-28-2007, 07:48 AM
Sadly, I don't know half as much about DH Lawrence as you and Virgil (in fact, the only thing I know is that he lived at the beginning of the 20th century, was British and wrote a novel called Sons and Lovers. That's about it :D. I'd love to join, especially being offered such excellent company as you and Virgil, but I don't think I could find the time. But I'm looking forward to reading Ethan Frome with the Book Club :nod:.


You don't have to join, the conversation, Schoky. If you want to get a feel for Lawrence's writing, check out the short story we are currently discussing, "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." It's only about 15 pages long and it's here on lit net under Lawrence's England, My England stories. And then you can read back this thread to see what we say about it. The story is no more than an hour read.

Also Lawrence was selected as one of the monthly book forum writers to read. I don't know which month he's up, but we will get to read him then. Perhaps you can join that one. Lawrence has been ranked up with Joyce as the great writers in English of the 20th century. Sadly he has fallen out of favor with today's critics mostly because he was anti-feminist and pretty much feminists rule the lit departments these days. But his writing is superb; I can't think of a more gifted prose writer. And his poetry is not bad either.

Virgil
03-28-2007, 07:55 AM
Is Women in Love more like Sons and Lovers or more like The Rainbow? I saw Women in Love in a used bookstore and weighed my appreciation for Sons and Lovers against my dislike for The Rainbow. Sons and Lovers was a great read filled with feeling and complexity, but The Rainbow exhausted me with its deep introspection into the psychologies of characters who I didn't care about. I couldn't decide whether to buy it or not, because I wasn't sure which D.H. Lawrence I would get: the L who is a master of subtle characterization or the overly abstract L. Which can I expect?

I don't know if Women In Love is like either. It seems to have it's own personality. Unlike you and Janine, I prefer The Rainbow. To me that is one of the truely great novels of english literature. I found Women In Love a little tedious and long. I had to read it for an english lit class and I'm not a fast reader. But it is a good novel. Actually we had to read The rainbow and Women In Love back to back. They are both about 500 page novels and I must have gotten exhausted by the middle of Women In Love. I think most people do prefer Women In Love. I should re-read it.

Actually all four of Lawrence's major novels: Sons And Lovers, The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly's lover are different and have their own personality. And don't forget his short stories. They are among the best.

Schokokeks
03-28-2007, 07:58 AM
You don't have to join, the conversation, Schoky. If you want to get a feel for Lawrence's writing, check out the short story we are currently discussing, "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." It's only about 15 pages long and it's here on lit net under Lawrence's England, My England stories. And then you can read back this thread to see what we say about it. The story is no more than an hour read.
Thanks for the suggestion, I shall look into it once I find a quiet hour.
I'm looking forward to discussing a longer Lawrence read with the Book Club :nod:. Two of his works, Sons and Lovers and Women in Love, feature in my department's reading list.


Sadly he has fallen out of favor with today's critics mostly because he was anti-feminist and pretty much feminists rule the lit departments these days.
:lol: It's the same here at my university, but I've experienced that they do include writers who didn't express themselves in favour of women in order to demolish and denounce them, much to the amusement of the students :D.

Virgil
03-28-2007, 12:31 PM
:lol: It's the same here at my university, but I've experienced that they do include writers who didn't express themselves in favour of women in order to demolish and denounce them, much to the amusement of the students :D.

I had a teacher in grad class on modern english novel who had to reluctantly teach a Lawrence novel (you can't not include him, he's that important) but she made it clear that she did not like him. Plus I did my term paper on Lawrence's The Rainbow and I think I wound up with a lower grade than I should have. Now she was a radical for sure.

I did my master's thesis on Lawrence and my thesis advisor also a woman and while I did know her outlook per say she must have been sympathetic to feminism at the least (hey, I'm sympathetic to feminism when it's not radical) but she understood Lawrence and accepted his writing for who he was. She thought my thesis was very good.

Now there you have two teaching approaches. Lawrence is a great writer, whether you agree with him or not. I don't agree with him on many things, probably more disagree than agree. He's got some kooky notions. So do lots of other writers. Yeats has some kooky notions. Unless they are advocating killing people you judge their art, not their thoughts. Do we judge Shakespeare because he may believe in divine right of kings? That today would be a kooky idea.

Janine
03-28-2007, 02:58 PM
First off - wow - this is a lot to absorb and write back to, but I desire to answer what has been said.
First - I don't know, in trying to recommend something to Quark, I picked "Women in Love" because he already expressed his dislike of "The Rainbow" and I was just reading online that "Women in Love" is actually considered Lawrence's greatest novel. I think it is, too.
First off I read the novels backwards originally, I suppose. I read "Women in Love" first and fell in love with Lawrence, then I tried S&L's and I could not get into it at all. The language tripped me up and I could not stand the constant bickering between the parents - too much like my own real disfunctional family, at the time. That was back in the 70's, I think. Ok recently I did read S&L's and I adored it, mainly because now I understood Lawrence's own personal story better, so to me that book is the 'beginning' and encompasses L's youth, he said so himself. Somewhere in-between the years I read "The Rainbow" - not aware at first it was the perceeding novel to "Women in Love". I felt like I was bored with it and lost patience with it's length. I probably need now to go back and re-read it from my new perspective.

When I read "Women in Love" I felt it was a very complete story...plot, characters, etc; it all added up to a coherent and complete novel to me. At that time I did not even know "The Rainbow" existed.

Ok, Virgil, I think that when you were forced to read both novels, back to back, you were overwhelmed with them and got bored by the time the second one came around. It is a shame professors do that to kids. Unlike me you did not really enjoy the second. I read it quite independently and recall enjoying every line. I do think you should go back and read it again. This time with new perspectives on L, you will enjoy the book emensely; I truly believe that.

Schokokeks, it was so great to see you in this thread. Like Virgil says if you just get a chance to read a short story here and there and observe it might be a good learning experience for you. It is funny, I consider myself a pretty liberated lady and I never really take offense at some of Lawrence's remarks, basically I probably just shrug them off and think they are something any man might say in his lifetime. I don't see where he is so antifeminist. In fact Lawrence had many feminist women friends...close ones...when he was young. I feel he looks at women and men equally and tries to figure them out phycologically or at least he has a keen sensitivity to the inner workings of the mind and presents people quite realistically - which always one cannot explain in any kind of final or set way. Many, or most of his characters leave one with question marks and I think this truly makes him a great writer. I, too, think Lawrence's philosophies are strange in some ways, but I don't think I could say I disagree mostly with Lawrence. I think I read it more from the standpoint of brilliant and amazing, and then his particular views I feel are his own and he is entitled to them. I try mostly to understand him. Yes, at times he comes off as being cynical or critical or "kooky" , as Virgil tags him - what author hasn't(?), and as Virgil pointed out so articulately in his paragraph:


Now there you have two teaching approaches. Lawrence is a great writer, whether you agree with him or not. I don't agree with him on many things, probably more disagree than agree. He's got some kooky notions. So do lots of other writers. Yeats has some kooky notions. Unless they are advocating killing people you judge their art, not their thoughts. Do we judge Shakespeare because he may believe in divine right of kings? That today would be a kooky idea.

Exactly - we sometimes have to take the author and put him back in the context of the day. When Lawrence wrote is books, novels, poetry, etc. he was paving new ground. He had to fight against all kinds of conventions and out there in his world was virtually a boiling pot of all kinds of new ideas from Freud to Neictzhe (sorry, can't spell that) and war was pending, and L was English, and married a German woman, not only that she was married when he meet her. He was crucified for that! Now, how many authors ran off and eloped with married women? So why did they make such a fuss over L?

Anyway, Schokokeks, if you are the remotest bit interested in reading and learning more about Lawrence I would suggest reading about his life (brief biography) on this site or Wikipedia first off. That small bit will help you understand what he wrote about and what issues he explored continually in his novels, etc. Many people think Lawrence is all about sex and sexual freedom, but the man was actually very against free love and for monogomy. In some ways he came off a bit puritanical. People get wrong impressions sometimes. Also, he was a lot more than just this notorious novel "Lady Chatterly's Lover", which everyone automatically associates L, those who do not know anything else about him. He was firstly, against industrialisation encrouching on the countryside he loved. He often contrasted the downright poor, the working classes and the upper classes. He was an idealist. He was grasping all his life for a better way, but I doubt he found it really. He was a beautiful, but restless soul, and definetly talented beyond belief. He wrote a ton of material for his short 44 yr life span. If he lived today and saw global warming, our poluted earth and over population, etc...not to mention the war on terrorism, Lawrence would freak out and probably go mad. He would definitely say he could see it all coming. He was prophetic above all.

Back to the short stories, S, - really they are not hard to read, so if you find the time read up on here and we would be glad to hear what you think of his writing. I love the first story - "Things". We recently discussed that one.

Quark
03-28-2007, 09:48 PM
Thanks for the response. I think I will read Women in Love after I finish Absalom Absalom.

I hope your still discussing "The Horse Dealers Daughter" because I wanted to try to post something on topic rather than just using your forum to get reading suggestions. Particularly, I wanted to hear what everyone thought about the cold and clayey water in the pond that remains with the characters after the near drowning. D.H. Lawrence employs symbols frequently in his novels--perhaps even more in his short fiction--and I was wondering whether there was any reason to believe that L is trying to use the pond and it's water to signify something.

Virgil
03-28-2007, 10:24 PM
Thanks for the response. I think I will read Women in Love after I finish Absalom Absalom.

I hope your still discussing "The Horse Dealers Daughter" because I wanted to try to post something on topic rather than just using your forum to get reading suggestions. Particularly, I wanted to hear what everyone thought about the cold and clayey water in the pond that remains with the characters after the near drowning. D.H. Lawrence employs symbols frequently in his novels--perhaps even more in his short fiction--and I was wondering whether there was any reason to believe that L is trying to use the pond and it's water to signify something.

Great you may be joining us. Oh yes, I was going to mention the clay-y water when we got to it. Unfortunately I feel brain dead this evening, so I won't be posting much.

Absolom, Absolom great novel! My two favorite novelists are Lawrence and Faulkner.

Virgil
03-28-2007, 10:43 PM
First off I read the novels backwards originally, I suppose. I read "Women in Love" first and fell in love with Lawrence, then I tried S&L's and I could not get into it at all. The language tripped me up and I could not stand the constant bickering between the parents - too much like my own real disfunctional family, at the time. That was back in the 70's, I think. Ok recently I did read S&L's and I adored it, mainly because now I understood Lawrence's own personal story better, so to me that book is the 'beginning' and encompasses L's youth, he said so himself. Somewhere in-between the years I read "The Rainbow" - not aware at first it was the perceeding novel to "Women in Love". I felt like I was bored with it and lost patience with it's length. I probably need now to go back and re-read it from my new perspective.

When I read "Women in Love" I felt it was a very complete story...plot, characters, etc; it all added up to a coherent and complete novel to me. At that time I did not even know "The Rainbow" existed.

I don't think it matters much which one reads first. They are only sequals in the sense that Ursula is carried over as a character.


Ok, Virgil, I think that when you were forced to read both novels, back to back, you were overwhelmed with them and got bored by the time the second one came around. It is a shame professors do that to kids. Unlike me you did not really enjoy the second. I read it quite independently and recall enjoying every line. I do think you should go back and read it again. This time with new perspectives on L, you will enjoy the book emensely; I truly believe that.
You are right. I was overwhelmed. I do need to re-read WinL.



Schokokeks, it was so great to see you in this thread. Like Virgil says if you just get a chance to read a short story here and there and observe it might be a good learning experience for you. It is funny, I consider myself a pretty liberated lady and I never really take offense at some of Lawrence's remarks, basically I probably just shrug them off and think they are something any man might say in his lifetime. I don't see where he is so antifeminist. In fact Lawrence had many feminist women friends...close ones...when he was young.
Perhaps there is a difference between the young Lawrence and the older. The younger could be percieved as being sympathetic to women's issues, although when one looks carefully I sometimes have my doubts. But the more mature L could not in any way been seen as sympathetic. His philosophy matured to include "phallic consciousness," a philosophy that believes women's wills should be subjected to their husbands. He even at one point blames feminists for WWI. Kind of bizarre, but let's just say it evolved out of naturalism where he believed that this was the natural condition and that the modern world has distorted this male/female relationship. Like I said, I'm not a believer in his ideas but I love his writing.


I feel he looks at women and men equally and tries to figure them out phycologically or at least he has a keen sensitivity to the inner workings of the mind and presents people quite realistically - which always one cannot explain in any kind of final or set way.
This is true. He captures women extremely well. Perhaps better than men, which is usual.

Janine
03-28-2007, 11:18 PM
Great you may be joining us. Oh yes, I was going to mention the clay-y water when we got to it. Unfortunately I feel brain dead this evening, so I won't be posting much.

Absolom, Absolom great novel! My two favorite novelists are Lawrence and Faulkner.

Quark, So glad you are joining us for the "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" discussion. It is an interesting story isn't it? I noticed, too, how often he mentioned the clay-y water as though it posed an enormous threat to him. I thought at the time that threat was personal, since Lawrence himself had TB and bad lungs and somewhere the doctor does say he is afraid for his own health. In fact I think he repeats that a couple of times. He uses repetition often I noticed in this story. He did so with the clay-y water. If you notice it is mentioned that the doctor is suffering from a cold, so it could be a real threat. I don't know what the significance of the fact that the water was clay-y would be. I thought it just sounded more threatening and horrible. Maybe clay could be like a weighing down of death...or death getting a hold of one and pulling one down. In Hamlet, I believe, that is the way Ophelia dies; her clothes saturate and she goes down into the thick sediments at the bottom of the lake or stream. I was thinking of Ophelia when I read the pond scene.
I am glad you are going to read "Women in Love". I should re-read it so we can discuss it. I remember the plot and characters quite well. I have just viewed the movie adaptation and know it is very true to the novel. I do have a desire to re-read the book. I think it definitely stands alone, not just as a sequel to "The Rainbow". The two novels are quite different. All of Lawrences main novels are different from each other. I think that Virgil already pointed this out. I think you will like the book if you give it a try.
Is Absolom, Absolom by Faulkner? I have not read much Faulkner, but apparently Virgil has.

Janine
03-28-2007, 11:44 PM
I don't think it matters much which one reads first. They are only sequals in the sense that Ursula is carried over as a character.


You are right. I was overwhelmed. I do need to re-read WinL.

I agree about the sequence. I don't know why teachers do that. It seems they kill our love of reading. In high school I know they did a lot of damage to me and my desire to read. It took years to overcome that. Now I find reading for pleasure I get way more out of the book.


Perhaps there is a difference between the young Lawrence and the older. The younger could be percieved as being sympathetic to women's issues, although when one looks carefully I sometimes have my doubts. But the more mature L could not in any way been seen as sympathetic. His philosophy matured to include "phallic consciousness," a philosophy that believes women's wills should be subjected to their husbands. He even at one point blames feminists for WWI. Kind of bizarre, but let's just say it evolved out of naturalism where he believed that this was the natural condition and that the modern world has distorted this male/female relationship. Like I said, I'm not a believer in his ideas but I love his writing.

Actually after I wrote that I knew I was wrong, but I did not know how to express what I was thinking. You have read more of the later fiction and I have not. There is a definite distinction between the young Lawrence and the older one. Yes, that whole "phallic consciousness" was of that time, don't you think? Now attitudes have changed somewhat. It was the day of Freud and the ID and everything was related to the male phallas, those were my college days...it was the time of free love and reading Herman Hesse, and "The Book of the ID". All seems like a million years ago. I still like Herman Hesse, don't get me wrong, but certain books and theologies were so hot back then. People were breaking through the so called "norm". Times have changed and woman have gotten their rights, the vote, etc. Kinsey happened and lots more that make a world of difference. This new information now sheds a great light or maybe it is a shadow on Lawrence's distorted views on some of these subjects. The century was young and they thought they all had the answers; not so. Things have evolved and they keep evolving.


This is true. He captures women extremely well. Perhaps better than men, which is usual.

This is the irony of Lawrence. I believe he knew woman, even better than he knew man. His books seem to concentrate on the women like in "The Lost Girl" or "The Rainbow" or "Lady Chatterly's Lover"....all seem to put emphasis on the female. He seemed to be able to crawl into a woman's head and extract quite a bit of what is going on in there. He seems to do that instinctively. He had tons of woman friends; if you read the biographies women were naturally drawn to L. His sensibility to women seemed much keener to me than to men, although there were a few exceptions to this, such as Alan Chambers, who was a huge part of his youth and great influence in his work. He was Jesse's brother. They say, he realised in Alan and their relationship, a closeness he could not develop with Jesse. Jesse restained herself from L and was more puritanical. Alan was more free spirited and natural, and he admired that in him. Alan would correspond to the oldest brother in this story since I recall he was the model for the horse-dealer in "The White Peacock". Therefore I feel here L is also using him as the older brother image or at least particially.

I am kind of brain dead myself tonight. I have been extremely tired out today from this cold. Hope I wrote something here that makes sense.

Maybe next we should discuss Mabel. We went off on tangents and never got back to her. The story seems to revolve around her and her apathy and loneliness and the suicide attempt, don't you think?

Virgil
03-29-2007, 08:16 AM
IMaybe next we should discuss Mabel. We went off on tangents and never got back to her. The story seems to revolve around her and her apathy and loneliness and the suicide attempt, don't you think?
Yes let's get to Mabel. Here are the story's first reference to her:

The girl was alone, a rather short, sullen-looking young woman of twenty-seven. She did not share the same life as her brothers. She would have been good-looking, save for the impassive fixity of her face, 'bull-dog', as her brothers called it.
Two things strike me from this.

This is the first of two references to calling her a "dog." Fred Henry says later she is the "sulkiest b**** that ever trod." Now one could say so what, but there is another b**** in the story, the dog.

He [Joe] watched the dog swallow them, and waited till
the creature looked into his eyes. Then a faint grin came on his face, and in
a high, foolish voice he said:

'You won't get much more bacon, shall you, you little b---- ?'

The dog faintly and dismally wagged its tail, then lowered its haunches,
circled round, and lay down again.
I don't want to get too wrapped into symbolism, but bacon can be seen as phallic (there's a trend for this symbol in several works, not just Lawrence). We can discuss how this fits in to the theme.

But the second thing I wanted to point out from that initial quote is how Mabel is characterized as "impassive", "fixed". This is in complete contrast to what happens at the end of the story. It is a technique and language that lawrence uses many times. A hard, inpenetrable character, is transformed and "melts." The word "melt" is used further on, but however in reference to Ferguson. But the same experience is happening to him too: a hard old life is transfigured (melts) into a new life.

Janine
03-29-2007, 02:29 PM
Yes let's get to Mabel.

Yes, glad we are moving onto her. One question first to you Virgil - are you satisfied with the menfolk in the story and their significance. You never really answered me entirely as to what you thought the significance of 3 brothers in relation to the one woman was.

Here are the story's first reference to her:

Two things strike me from this.

This is the first of two references to calling her a "dog." Fred Henry says later she is the "sulkiest b**** that ever trod." Now one could say so what, but there is another b**** in the story, the dog.
Ok, one thing I think about Lawrence is that when he writes a short story he does not waste any ink or paper on anything that is not significant to the story. So, the fact he refers her as the "bulldog" is very significant; I think the futher reference would be to the family dog and it's attitude of being ruled by the brother, making the dog sulky and resigned to it's lowly position, just as Mabel herself has become, under the watchful eye of the brother/brother's.

I don't want to get too wrapped into symbolism, but bacon can be seen as phallic (there's a trend for this symbol in several works, not just Lawrence). We can discuss how this fits in to the theme.
I don't know about this at all. I think it might be pushing the symbolism a bit. At the point when he wrote this short story was he that far into symbolism with the phallic, as with the bacon thing? What year was this story written? I would have to put it into context. I don't see L's attitudes as always a fixed thing. He did waver and transform as time went on. I never heard of the bacon reference before. Bacon was a common food for the people in that area. I think in "Sons and Lovers" bacon is mentioned often. It just seems like bacon would be a lovely offering for the dog. In the travel books there is a scene where the man is doling out some bacon to a poor skinny sickly pouch. This reminded me of it. The scene was a bit repulsive, so maybe this is just a repulsive type action on Joe's part, and symbolises the low way he treats Mabel, as a b****.

But the second thing I wanted to point out from that initial quote is how Mabel is characterized as "impassive", "fixed". This is in complete contrast to what happens at the end of the story. It is a technique and language that lawrence uses many times. A hard, inpenetrable character, is transformed and "melts." The word "melt" is used further on, but however in reference to Ferguson. But the same experience is happening to him too: a hard old life is transfigured (melts) into a new life.

True, she is very "impassive" and "fixed"....all here actions seem mechanical. Even her trip to the gravestone is very mechanical. Her advance into the water - the same - almost like a sleepwalker. Yet all her actions are set (in her mind and will) prior to taking place, don't you think? They are premeditated - there are things in the text that indicate her intended (set) course in the next few days, or hours.
But I am not sure how transformed she is at the end of the story; when we get that far, we will debate it. I don't think we are in agreement totally about the transformation and it's consequences at the end of this tale.

Virgil
03-29-2007, 03:11 PM
One question first to you Virgil - are you satisfied with the menfolk in the story and their significance. You never really answered me entirely as to what you thought the significance of 3 brothers in relation to the one woman was.

Yes, I'm satisfied. I'm not 100% sure what to make of it, but clearly Lawrence intentionally made it lopsided. He didn't need to add that third brother at all. All I can see it as a very masculine world.


I don't know about this at all. I think it might be pushing the symbolism a bit. At the point when he wrote this short story was he that far into symbolism with the phallic, as with the bacon thing? What year was this story written?
I wrote the date in one of the first posts on the story. I forget, early 1920's. The very same symbol is in Hemingway's short story, "Soldier's home."


In the travel books there is a scene where the man is doling out some bacon to a poor skinny sickly pouch. This reminded me of it. The scene was a bit repulsive, so maybe this is just a repulsive type action on Joe's part, and symbolises the low way he treats Mabel, as a b****.
The idea of the scene must have been on L's mind and could have used it more than once. I didn't think along line that the bacon for Mabel was from the brothers but as a foreshadowing of falling for Ferguson later. Notice too how the "haunches" of the animals is referred to several times. Haunches, the hindquarters, and the lower parts of anatomy are referred to in the latter part of the story when she has been revived. So these are the associations I'm making: dog/bacon/Mabel/phallus/new life/the world of society versues the world of the natural.


True, she is very "impassive" and "fixed"....all here actions seem mechanical. Even her trip to the gravestone is very mechanical. Her advance into the water - the same - almost like a sleepwalker. Yet all her actions are set (in her mind and will) prior to taking place, don't you think? They are premeditated - there are things in the text that indicate her intended (set) course in the next few days, or hours.
Yes, we should look more carefully at the graveyard scene. I don't have the time right now.


But I am not sure how transformed she is at the end of the story; when we get that far, we will debate it. I don't think we are in agreement totally about the transformation and it's consequences at the end of this tale.
OK, we'll discuss when we get to it. :)

Janine
03-29-2007, 03:59 PM
Yes, I'm satisfied. I'm not 100% sure what to make of it, but clearly Lawrence intentionally made it lopsided. He didn't need to add that third brother at all. All I can see it as a very masculine world.

Virgil, Yes, I agree, I think he was just setting up the "masculine world" that Mabel was forced to live in. In essense she took over as the suragate mother in the story, taking care of the men keeping house, etc. with little thanks.....sort of like mother's do - a thankless job! I know I am a mother. Now if you are a sister, you would definitely feel put upon and feel an deep unfairness and resentment in that situtation. Apparently she was just expected to do it. I think that is why Joe made the remark "Go and be a skivy" . In a sense that is what she has been to the brothers, taking what bacon they would dole out to her for her to own meager survival....bare essentials of life, not love or closeness...just whatever is substantial. So therefore, it is not hard to see why she retreated into a shell.


I wrote the date in one of the first posts on the story. I forget, early 1920's. The very same symbol is in Hemingway's short story, "Soldier's home."

Oh, good I will check up on that. I don't know much about Hemmingway. I have never really explored his work much. I would not know about the bacon. Interesting though.


The idea of the scene must have been on L's mind and could have used it more than once. I didn't think along line that the bacon for Mabel was from the brothers but as a foreshadowing of falling for Ferguson later. Notice too how the "haunches" of the animals is referred to several times. Haunches, the hindquarters, and the lower parts of anatomy are referred to in the latter part of the story when she has been revived. So these are the associations I'm making: dog/bacon/Mabel/phallus/new life/the world of society versues the world of the natural.


Good thinking. I notice his repetition often in this story in particular. He seems to emphasis certain words, so I am sure they have deeper meaning. Interesting observations on your part. You see a lot in this story. Good to read between the lines, too....so many subtlities.


Yes, we should look more carefully at the graveyard scene. I don't have the time right now.

I don't have time now either. Going to the library in couple of minutes. I will check it out tonight - reread that part more closely with some added things in mind such as what we have discussed so far. We are doing a good disection of this story. I like what we have said so far - brings to the surface more to think about.


OK, we'll discuss when we get to it. :) Yes, good idea.

Janine
03-29-2007, 08:33 PM
Virgil, Let's discuss this paragraph next. It is right before she goes to the gravesite of her mother and it speaks eons about Mabel and her hopeless state of mind and her intentions.


She had suffered badly during the period of poverty. Nothing, however, could shake the curious sullen, animal pride that dominated each member of the family. Now, for Mabel, the end had come. Still she would not cast about her. She would follow her own way just the same. She would always hold the keys of her own situation. Mindless and persistent, she endured from day to day. Why should she think? Why should she answer anybody? It was enough that this was the end, and there was no way out. She need not pass any more darkly along the main street of the small town, avoiding every eye. She need not demean herself any more, going into the shops and buying the cheapest food. This was at an end. She thought of nobody, not even of herself. Mindless and persistent, she seemed in a sort of ecstasy to be coming nearer to her fulfilment, her own glorification, approaching her dead mother, who was glorified.

Virgil
03-29-2007, 09:21 PM
Virgil, Let's discuss this paragraph next. It is right before she goes to the gravesite of her mother and it speaks eons about Mabel and her hopeless state of mind and her intentions.


She had suffered badly during the period of poverty. Nothing, however, could shake the curious sullen, animal pride that dominated each member of the family. Now, for Mabel, the end had come. Still she would not cast about her. She would follow her own way just the same. She would always hold the keys of her own situation. Mindless and persistent, she endured from day to day. Why should she think? Why should she answer anybody? It was enough that this was the end, and there was no way out. She need not pass any more darkly along the main street of the small town, avoiding every eye. She need not demean herself any more, going into the shops and buying the cheapest food. This was at an end. She thought of nobody, not even of herself. Mindless and persistent, she seemed in a sort of ecstasy to be coming nearer to her fulfilment, her own glorification, approaching her dead mother, who was glorified.

You hit on a paragraph that has many of lawrence's key motifs, but I'm not sure I can answer it perfectly. Let me take it sentence by sentence.


She had suffered badly during the period of poverty. This is exposition, which has brought the situation to where it is. It suggests the world of society.


Nothing, however, could shake the curious sullen, animal pride that dominated each member of the family. Now this is a loaded sentence. It captures several of Lawrence's recurring motifs: "sullen," "animal," "pride." Sullen and pride in that one has hardened into a barrier from spiritual life, but animal is strange. Why? I'm not sure. But interestingly the whole family has fallen in this state. What we see later is that only she pushes to something else.


Now, for Mabel, the end had come. Still she would not cast about her. She would follow her own way just the same. She would always hold the keys of her own situation. These setences push the narrative forward through the working logic in her mind.


Mindless and persistent, she endured from day to day. Why should she think? Now thinking is another L motif. But I'm not sure what it means here. Ironically she is actually thinking here.


Why should she answer anybody? It was enough that this was the end, and there was no way out. She need not pass any more darkly along the main street of the small town, avoiding every eye. She need not demean herself any more, going into the shops and buying the cheapest food. Here L is again emphasizing the social pressures that have shaped Mabel.


This was at an end. She thought of nobody, not even of herself. Mindless and persistent, she seemed in a sort of ecstasy to be coming nearer to her fulfilment, her own glorification, approaching her dead mother, who was glorified. Here we get the desire that is deep in Mabel, the glorification to something. But she can only see death as in her possiblity of options.

So what we have in the paragraph is the social construct that has shaped Mabel, the hardened outlook of her character as a result of the social pressures, and the desire to push toward some new life, even though she can only see death as that new life. She desires to escape the world of society to a glorified new existence.

Does that make sense?

Janine
03-29-2007, 10:13 PM
You hit on a paragraph that has many of lawrence's key motifs, but I'm not sure I can answer it perfectly. Let me take it sentence by sentence.
Yes, I thought so, too. It is a hard paragraph to totally understand.

This is exposition, which has brought the situation to where it is. It suggests the world of society.
You mean in the fact that she is shut out of society and is in a state of poverty now?

Now this is a loaded sentence. It captures several of Lawrence's recurring motifs: "sullen," "animal," "pride." Sullen and pride in that one has hardened into a barrier from spiritual life, but animal is strange. Why? I'm not sure. But interestingly the whole family has fallen in this state. What we see later is that only she pushes to something else.
True about the key words of recurring motifs, but do you want to say "barrier from spiritual life". I think it more a physical life. She is alienated from others and there is no flesh contact in her life. I am not sure Lawrence refers to that as spirtual but this is where I always get confused about Lawrence. Is he saying the physical is the spiritual, as he believes in it? He would have thought of the animal instincts in a person more than the intellect, yet here he is, seemingly, using the animal references as negatives. Help me with this if you can. I am not sure I understand fully. Seems our Lawrence contradicts himself.

These setences push the narrative forward through the working logic in her mind.
Is she being logical? I thought more mechanical, but perhaps still that is logical in her own mind.

Now thinking is another L motif. But I'm not sure what it means here. Ironically she is actually thinking here.
Seems right.

Here L is again emphasizing the social pressures that have shaped Mabel.
OK, agreed.

Here we get the desire that is deep in Mabel, the glorification to something. But she can only see death as in her possiblity of options.
If she is mindless of herself or cares not about herself, why then is she seeking glorification? ....like the text says her mother has achieved glorification? I can see finding a way out through death, but the glorification seems strange to me; what makes her think this way?

So what we have in the paragraph is the social construct that has shaped Mabel, the hardened outlook of her character as a result of the social pressures, and the desire to push toward some new life, even though she can only see death as that new life. She desires to escape the world of society to a glorified new existence.
Does that make sense?

Good way to sum up the paragraph. However, I am still confused about the glorification idea. Wouldn't that raise her above everyone else in the story?

Virgil
03-29-2007, 10:44 PM
You mean in the fact that she is shut out of society and is in a state of poverty now?

Yes, but poverty or not I think it would have been the same. Selling horses and keeping a ranch is a social activity. The fact that it is in financial crises I think just sets up the story.


True about the key words of recurring motifs, but do you want to say "barrier from spiritual life". I think it more a physical life. She is alienated from others and there is no flesh contact in her life. I am not sure Lawrence refers to that as spirtual but this is where I always get confused about Lawrence. Is he saying the physical is the spiritual, as he believes in it?
Without having to do a lot of re-reading and some reseach, I believe Lawrence thinks that the physical is a means to the spiritual.


He would have thought of the animal instincts in a person more than the intellect, yet here he is, seemingly, using the animal references as negatives. Help me with this if you can. I am not sure I understand fully. Seems our Lawrence contradicts himself.
Yes, I know. The way I always untangle what seems inconsistencies is to see what dualities Lawrence sets up. Here I see that animals and humans are on the opposite side of the spiritual, even death, divide. While at times he sets up an animal versues human divide, I do not think that is L's comprehensive world view. In this case, humans and animas are linked together in opposition to the spiritual.


If she is mindless of herself or cares not about herself, why then is she seeking glorification? ....like the text says her mother has achieved glorification? I can see finding a way out through death, but the glorification seems strange to me; what makes her think this way?
That glorifcation is a mindless experience to Lawrence. The fact that she is thinking I see now is an ironic stance by L to show that she is not in that condition.


Good way to sum up the paragraph. However, I am still confused about the glorification idea. Wouldn't that raise her above everyone else in the story?
That glorification state is described by L somewhere else (I'm not sure where, but I have it in my thesis) as a flower blossoming, completely mindless but spiritually fulfilled.

Janine
03-29-2007, 11:13 PM
Yes, but poverty or not I think it would have been the same. Selling horses and keeping a ranch is a social activity. The fact that it is in financial crises I think just sets up the story.

Ok, good that makes sense - so the keeping of the ranch and horses is a social activity and this will be the end of that way of life they have all known.

Without having to do a lot of re-reading and some reseach, I believe Lawrence thinks that the physical is a means to the spiritual.
Yes, this is true. It is just that death seems to be spiritual here also and it gets confusing. Is spiritual after death or the consumation of the body with another human? It feels to me like two kinds of spiritual.


Yes, I know. The way I always untangle what seems inconsistencies is to see what dualities Lawrence sets up. Here I see that animals and humans are on the opposite side of the spiritual, even death, divide. While at times he sets up an animal versues human divide, I do not think that is L's comprehensive world view. In this case, humans and animas are linked together in opposition to the spiritual.
So you do see my point - about contradictions, or seeming condraditions. You think L did that on purpose to set up dualities - humm, interesting. He does it often I have noticed. Yes, he likes to compare animals to humans. I can think of lots of examples. Interesting that you see it as the animals and humans being pitted against the death and spiritual. I always thought Lawrence felt the animal in a person - the pure physicality, without having to rely on thought - was the truly spiritual core of the person. It all gets a bit confusing sometimes.


That glorifcation is a mindless experience to Lawrence. The fact that she is thinking I see now is an ironic stance by L to show that she is not in that condition.

Another interesting thought - that it's an ironic stance by L. I had not really thought that much about that before you pointed it out.

That glorification state is described by L somewhere else (I'm not sure where, but I have it in my thesis) as a flower blossoming, completely mindless but spiritually fulfilled.

Oh, good maybe you can find the text sometime and point that out specifically to me. I would be greatly interested.

Virgil, I probably will make this my last post tonight. I am really tired and I'm watching a miniseries the library ordered for me from another library - "Longitude". It is interesting, fairly long, so I still have a ways to go till the end, and it is due back Sat. morning, but I will take it back tomorrow. I like things about history and inventions, so it interests me.
Thanks for all your great comments. They are really helping me understand the story better. Janine

Virgil
03-29-2007, 11:29 PM
Yes, this is true. It is just that death seems to be spiritual here also and it gets confusing. Is spiritual after death or the consumation of the body with another human? It feels to me like two kinds of spiritual.

You know, I don't think I have ever put together L's ideas on death. I'm sure he has them, he has thoughts on everything. ;)


So you do see my point - about contradictions, or seeming condraditions.
Yes. But if you play with the ideas (like I do with dualities) I think you can figure out what he's after. Remember, he's a fiction writer, not a philosopher.


Oh, good maybe you can find the text sometime and point that out specifically to me. I would be greatly interested.
I was hoping you would read it. :) I'll look for it tomorrow.


Virgil, I probably will make this my last post tonight.
Have fun. It's getting late for me too.

Janine
03-30-2007, 02:26 PM
You know, I don't think I have ever put together L's ideas on death. I'm sure he has them, he has thoughts on everything. ;)

My thoughts on that are that his ideas on death changed quite a bit by the end of his life. I suppose you could say they evolved. After reading the travel books and especially "Etruscan Places" I got better insight into how L was then thinking about death or contemplating it, and what exactly death was or meant to him. At this juncture in his life, I think he knew his own death was near and eminent. I think it was only a few years later that he did die. Up until his dying breathe, I think he grasped to life and did not give in easily to death. His final words indicate that. I do not feel he was totally settled on the issue of death and the hereafter, to be honest with you, perhaps it is just the way I see it or sense it from my reading. He had theories, but maybe that is all any of us can have in the final analysis.


Yes. But if you play with the ideas (like I do with dualities) I think you can figure out what he's after. Remember, he's a fiction writer, not a philosopher.

Well, playing with the dualities is a good method. I think I have done so myself selfconsciously. I also play with the parrellels and the connections to what I know. Yes, true that he was a fiction writer but so much of his work was based on life and what he observed. I do feel this story is almost a fable. I have been thinking on this last night. Although presented realistically thinks happen and change in the course of what (?), 10 pages...not much time to change the whole way one sees things. So that is why I question the transfiguration at the end. It does not seem too realistic to me but, I know, we won't jump that far ahead yet. It seems more representative of L's views on spirituality of the flesh if we look favorably on the end. I know that the story "Rocking Horse Winner" is said to be a story of fable. He was in that stage toward the end of the short story period, I believe. I did not originally think this story a fable, but I guess it is one possibility.

I was hoping you would read it. :) I'll look for it tomorrow.
Great I would like to re-read that part. I have your thesis here but not sure which part that is. I can skim the thesis and see if I can find the reference.


Have fun. It's getting late for me too.
Oh, thanks. I enjoyed the film very much. It was long, though. I like stories about tall ships, navigation, adventure and clocks and devices used on ships, so the story fascinated me. I also like true stories, two being interwined in this miniseries. It was directed by Sturridge who did "Brideshead Revisited". I admire him and his work. "Shackelton" is my favorite adventure miniseries. I own it. It is such an unbelievable true story. I have tons of books, etc. on the real man and the survival story. I read Shakleton's own accounts - one book is "South ~ "The Endurance Expedition"....it is an amazing story told in his own words. Have you seen "Longitude" or "Shackleton"?

Virgil
03-30-2007, 02:58 PM
My thoughts on that are that his ideas on death changed quite a bit by the end of his life. I suppose you could say they evolved. After reading the travel books and especially "Etruscan Places" I got better insight into how L was then thinking about death or contemplating it, and what exactly death was or meant to him. At this juncture in his life, I think he knew his own death was near and eminent. I think it was only a few years later that he did die. Up until his dying breathe, I think he grasped to life and did not give in easily to death. His final words indicate that. I do not feel he was totally settled on the issue of death and the hereafter, to be honest with you, perhaps it is just the way I see it or sense it from my reading. He had theories, but maybe that is all any of us can have in the final analysis.

Yes, I agree.



I know that the story "Rocking Horse Winner" is said to be a story of fable. He was in that stage toward the end of the short story period, I believe. I did not originally think this story a fable, but I guess it is one possibility. Many of L's works have a mythic/fable feel.


Great I would like to re-read that part. I have your thesis here but not sure which part that is. I can skim the thesis and see if I can find the reference.I didn't get the chance yet. I came across my thesis theother day. It's in my study.


Oh, thanks. I enjoyed the film very much. It was long, though. I like stories about tall ships, navigation, adventure and clocks and devices used on ships, so the story fascinated me. I also like true stories, two being interwined in this miniseries. It was directed by Sturridge who did "Brideshead Revisited". I admire him and his work. "Shackelton" is my favorite adventure miniseries. I own it. It is such an unbelievable true story. I have tons of books, etc. on the real man and the survival story. I read Shakleton's own accounts - one book is "South ~ "The Endurance Expedition"....it is an amazing story told in his own words. Have you seen "Longitude" or "Shackleton"?
No I haven't. I'm not as well versed in film as you.

Perhaps Janine you can start something on that graveyard scene. That is our next logical discussion. I'm going to be tied up the rest of the afternoon and into this evening.

Janine
03-30-2007, 03:46 PM
Yes, I agree.
Glad you agree about the death issue.


Many of L's works have a mythic/fable feel.
True, so true.


I didn't get the chance yet. I came across my thesis theother day. It's in my study.
Take your time.

No I haven't. I'm not as well versed in film as you.
Oh, a shame - the miniseries are usually really good. I recall wanting to watch "Shackleton" when it was on TV, but my mother dominated the downstairs TV, and she would not watch it; I did not have a TV upstairs at the time. I was so happy to see it finally and I liked it so much I bought the miniseries, since I got obsessed with the story. The extra disks are great too - one a documentary with real films and photos - how they survived is a true miracle.

Perhaps Janine you can start something on that graveyard scene. That is our next logical discussion. I'm going to be tied up the rest of the afternoon and into this evening.

This thread can sit awhile, you know. We can take a pause. I am busy tonight, too. I will review you thesis later tonight if I am not too tired and then I will start the graveyard today or tomorrow.

Virgil
03-31-2007, 08:39 PM
That glorification state is described by L somewhere else (I'm not sure where, but I have it in my thesis) as a flower blossoming, completely mindless but spiritually fulfilled.


Oh, good maybe you can find the text sometime and point that out specifically to me. I would be greatly interested.

I found it; it was in my thesis. Here's what I quoted in the thesis from Lawrence's essay on Thomas Hardy, "Study of Thomas Hardy:"


The final aim of every living thing, creature, or being is the full achievement of itself. This acomplished, it will produce what it will produce, it will bear the fruit of its nature. Not the fruit, however, but the flower is the culmination and climax, the degree to be striven for. (Phoenix p.403)

This essay is collected in Phoenix, a mostly non-fiction collection of Lawrence's writings.

Here are the paragraphs of Mabel at her mother's grave. For ease of discussion, I'll refer to them as paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4.

In the afternoon she took a little bag, with shears and sponge and a small scrubbing brush, and went out. It was a grey, wintry day, with saddened, dark-green fields and an atmosphere blackened by the smoke of foundries not far off. She went quickly, darkly along the causeway, heeding nobody, through the town to the churchyard.

There she always felt secure, as if no one could see her, although as a matter of fact she was exposed to the stare of everyone who passed along under the churchyard wall. Nevertheless, once under the shadow of the great looming church, among the graves, she felt immune from the world, reserved within the thick churchyard wall as in another country.

Carefully she clipped the grass from the grave, and arranged the pinky-white, small chrysanthemums in the tin cross. When this was done, she took an empty jar from a neighbouring grave, brought water, and carefully, most scrupulously sponged the marble headstone and the coping-stone.

It gave her sincere satisfaction to do this. She felt in immediate contact with the world of her mother. She took minute pains, went through the park in a state bordering on pure happiness, as if in performing this task she came into a subtle, intimate connexion with her mother. For the life she followed here in the world was far less real than the world of death she inherited from her mother.

Paragraph 1:
Narrative movement of her going to the grave, but with the emphasis of shunning society, "heeding nobody, through the town to the churchyard."

Paragraph 2:
Point of view enters her mind to get at her feeling of security and creates a partition with the world of society with that churchwall. The "looming" church image and with a shadow is powerful here and I think suggests the spiritual dimension that she desires.

Paragraph 3:
Her actions here begin to suggest a perversity. Clipping the grass is one thing, but I have never heard of anyone washing a tombstone. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but at a minimum it shows her consciousness is focused on outside the social world.

Paragraph 4:
The climax of this little scene. Key words, "satisfaction,"immediate contact," "world of her mother,"pure happiness,"intimate connection." And then, "For the life she followed here in the world was far less real than the world of death she inherited from her mother." The world of the dead is far more real than the world of living society. She has just about reached death by now, just her body is still alive, not her spirit.

Janine
03-31-2007, 09:29 PM
Virgil,
good observations and I like the way you numbered the paragraphs. That makes it easier to refer to them.
Your thesis quote is interesting, also. I have read that whole essay on Thomas Hardy that L wrote. I have the book in my library; I shall take it out again and read the essay.
I don't have very much to say tonight. I am utterly tired out from this virus. I went out for a short time and now I am worn out totally.
One thing for now - I have heard of scrubbing a gravestone. In fact I just saw that same thing in a film, but I can't for the life of me place where I saw it. I am sure it will come to me. I know prior to that I have read or seen similar scenes before...maybe in a Thomas Hardy book. I may be thinking of in "The Mayor of Casterbridge" film adaptation - the daughter visits the mother's grave and I think she scrubs the stone, but I am not certain.

It would be better for me to take a break tonight and then address more of your entry tomorrow and in better detail. I have to go veg out now in front of the TV and rest.

Virgil
03-31-2007, 09:43 PM
It would be better for me to take a break tonight and then address more of your entry tomorrow and in better detail. I have to go veg out now in front of the TV and rest.

Oh that's ok. Feel better and get rest. Tomorrow is another day.

Janine
04-01-2007, 03:35 PM
I found it; it was in my thesis. Here's what I quoted in the thesis from Lawrence's essay on Thomas Hardy, "Study of Thomas Hardy:"

This essay is collected in Phoenix, a mostly non-fiction collection of Lawrence's writings.

Virgil, I thought I would comment further

Interesting - I read a book called "The Phoenix and The Flame: D.H.Lawrence" - was in my local library. I just took it out again since there are things I wish to review or make reference to. The other book of commentary from my library was just called "Studies in 19th Century Literature", I believe. I saw it online available and may buy a copy. I was browsing through the freeby shelf on my way out of the library and came across an old book - "Phoenix Feathers A Collection of Mythical Monsters." I thought this way I could read the section on the Phoenix and learn more, besides the whole book looks pretty interesting. Funny, pre-Lawrence days and awareness, I had always been interesting in the Phoenix. I had one painted on my bedroom wall since I stenciled a border of American Indian designs, isn't that strange?
The quote from the book about Hardy is interesting in that it seems to involve one person, not two necessary to consumate a life and bring it to it's fullness. I thought that L required the union of the two halves, man and woman, (even man and man) to acheive fullness of life, spirtuality, etc.



Paragraph 1:
Narrative movement of her going to the grave, but with the emphasis of shunning society, "heeding nobody, through the town to the churchyard."
Ok, in this part of the paragraph notice the word emphasis "....a grey, wintry day, with saddened, dark-green fields and an atmosphere blackened by the smoke of foundries not far off. She went quickly, darkly along..." Wow is that a dark passage or what? 7 dark greyish dismal sad, dreary words...gray, black, dark, smoke, etc. Great use of words to convey the atmosphere and minic the inner workings of this poor hopeless girl's mind. Also, note the emphasis - recurring theme of L's on "the blackened smoke the foundries not far off"...those foundries impending the serenity of the landscape, were always looming up in L's mind and threatening life. He uses them here almost as a metaphor to the threatening of death for the girl. Death occurs under the earth with the mines, and so it is with the girl. Perhaps I have found the answer to the "murky muddy water" question. L thought often of the killing grime beneath the earth in the coal pits. Perhaps the murky muddly water of the lake is also representative of a killing grime...death. Stangely enough in "Women in Love" one of the pinacle scenes is of a young newly wed couple lying entwined dead in the mud of the drained lake. I never thought of this relationship before to the mines and the grime, but now I can see it has a absolute correlation. So it would be coal, dirt, grime, dark, mud, death in L's mind.

Paragraph 2:
Point of view enters her mind to get at her feeling of security and creates a partition with the world of society with that churchwall. The "looming" church image and with a shadow is powerful here and I think suggests the spiritual dimension that she desires.

Curious that she thinks no one is viewing her and she is totally secluded here in the churchyard. Churchyard is almost from Thomas Hardy. He uses church images often in his writing. I think he could have been an influence in this scene. I also think now that Sue Brideshead in Jude washed the stones of her dead children. She too went through emotional death. I think that is basically what this whole scene represents - Mabels emotional death and alienation from society and life itself. The church may also suggest the spiritual dimension but not really in a positive way as it was also with Sue Brideshead who retreated from life at that point, but felt she was justified morally to do so.

Paragraph 3:
Her actions here begin to suggest a perversity. Clipping the grass is one thing, but I have never heard of anyone washing a tombstone. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but at a minimum it shows her consciousness is focused on outside the social world.
I don't know if it is a perversity as much as what I have already said - a deliberate retreating from the norm and life. It represents the retreat into a death state. The churchyard wall seems significant as the fake facade or barrier in which she feel secure and hidden from the world, when in reality she is not. Also I wonder if L is not showing us that Mabel's view of herself is quite distorted, and different than those of the world viewing her.

Paragraph 4:
The climax of this little scene. Key words, "satisfaction,"immediate contact," "world of her mother,"pure happiness,"intimate connection." And then, "For the life she followed here in the world was far less real than the world of death she inherited from her mother." The world of the dead is far more real than the world of living society. She has just about reached death by now, just her body is still alive, not her spirit.

So she sees herself as inheriting this desire for death from her mother? She wishes to pass through this dismal world into another world that is her only hope. Do you think this shows she does believe in an afterlife? such as heaven as a better alternative to her dark dismal existence? I wonder if we know how her mother died - we don't, right? If in childbirth, it certainly would make sense the girl does not feel that she should have the right to life. Did it say how the father died? I don't think it did, but we have to imagine both. I get the impression the mother had been dead a long time and the father died recently. How about you?
"She took minute pains, went through the park in a state bordering on pure happiness, as if in performing this task she came into a subtle, intimate connexion with her mother." Earlier did it not say she was in a state of ecstasy - isn't that used in Hamlet to describe maddness or mental deviation? Interesting that it says she was "bordering on pure happiness". This passage is apparently how she sees herself at that instant in time.

Virgil
04-01-2007, 08:18 PM
Interesting - I read a book called "The Phoenix and The Flame: D.H.Lawrence" - was in my local library. I just took it out again since there are things I wish to review or make reference to.

OK. The book rings a bell. I'm pretty sure I looked through it for my research. Who's the author?


The other book of commentary from my library was just called "Studies in 19th Century Literature", I believe. I saw it online available and may buy a copy.
Why buy that one? L is 20th century.


I was browsing through the freeby shelf on my way out of the library and came across an old book - "Phoenix Feathers A Collection of Mythical Monsters." I thought this way I could read the section on the Phoenix and learn more, besides the whole book looks pretty interesting. Funny, pre-Lawrence days and awareness, I had always been interesting in the Phoenix. I had one painted on my bedroom wall since I stenciled a border of American Indian designs, isn't that strange?
I really like the conept of the Phoenix myself.


The quote from the book about Hardy is interesting in that it seems to involve one person, not two necessary to consumate a life and bring it to it's fullness. I thought that L required the union of the two halves, man and woman, (even man and man) to acheive fullness of life, spirtuality, etc.
Very good observation. I didn't think of that. So I wonder how L puts that together?

Virgil
04-01-2007, 08:37 PM
Ok, in this part of the paragraph notice the word emphasis "....a grey, wintry day, with saddened, dark-green fields and an atmosphere blackened by the smoke of foundries not far off. She went quickly, darkly along..." Wow is that a dark passage or what? 7 dark greyish dismal sad, dreary words...gray, black, dark, smoke, etc. Great use of words to convey the atmosphere and minic the inner workings of this poor hopeless girl's mind. Also, note the emphasis - recurring theme of L's on "the blackened smoke the foundries not far off"...those foundries impending the serenity of the landscape, were always looming up in L's mind and threatening life. He uses them here almost as a metaphor to the threatening of death for the girl. Death occurs under the earth with the mines, and so it is with the girl.
Hey, those are good thoughts.


Perhaps I have found the answer to the "murky muddy water" question. L thought often of the killing grime beneath the earth in the coal pits. Perhaps the murky muddly water of the lake is also representative of a killing grime...death. Stangely enough in "Women in Love" one of the pinacle scenes is of a young newly wed couple lying entwined dead in the mud of the drained lake. I never thought of this relationship before to the mines and the grime, but now I can see it has a absolute correlation. So it would be coal, dirt, grime, dark, mud, death in L's mind.
Could be, but I feel slightly differently. There is a similar scene in The Rainbow. We can discuss this later.


Curious that she thinks no one is viewing her and she is totally secluded here in the churchyard. Churchyard is almost from Thomas Hardy. He uses church images often in his writing. I think he could have been an influence in this scene. I also think now that Sue Brideshead in Jude washed the stones of her dead children. She too went through emotional death. I think that is basically what this whole scene represents - Mabels emotional death and alienation from society and life itself. The church may also suggest the spiritual dimension but not really in a positive way as it was also with Sue Brideshead who retreated from life at that point, but felt she was justified morally to do so.
Great pick up!! I think you are absolutely right. This echoes of Hardy's Jude The Obscure.


I don't know if it is a perversity as much as what I have already said - a deliberate retreating from the norm and life. It represents the retreat into a death state. The churchyard wall seems significant as the fake facade or barrier in which she feel secure and hidden from the world, when in reality she is not. Also I wonder if L is not showing us that Mabel's view of herself is quite distorted, and different than those of the world viewing her.
I see the wall as a symbol that divides the different worlds. The world of the spirit from the world of society; the world of life from the world of death.


So she sees herself as inheriting this desire for death from her mother?
Why do you say inherit? I took it as joining her mother.


She wishes to pass through this dismal world into another world that is her only hope. Do you think this shows she does believe in an afterlife? such as heaven as a better alternative to her dark dismal existence?
Yes, whatever that heaven may be.


I wonder if we know how her mother died - we don't, right? If in childbirth, it certainly would make sense the girl does not feel that she should have the right to life. Did it say how the father died? I don't think it did, but we have to imagine both. I get the impression the mother had been dead a long time and the father died recently. How about you?
It doesn't say much on the mother. Father appears to have died in the recent past. Does say the father was a man of "no education" and married a second time.

Shall we look at Ferguson now, unless you want to continue this graveyard scene? Or do you think Ferguson is rather straight forward?

Janine
04-01-2007, 09:46 PM
Hey, those are good thoughts.

Thanks! Well, so often L uses words like this to impart the atmosphere of the scene or the mood of the characters. He is a lot like Hardy in this way and probably first learned it from reading Hardy novels. It also sets up an impending danger of the suicide shortly to take place or be attempted.

Could be, but I feel slightly differently. There is a similar scene in The Rainbow. We can discuss this later.
Not sure what you mean here - seems he could have used the idea in both novels. I still relate the murky water to a threat of being suffocated. Lawrence also felt the mines were suffocating to the air and not only the workers but the whole beloved countryside. I wonder sometimes if this suffocation idea does not spring out of or at least become intensified by Lawrence's own illness and the fear of not being able to breathe, therefore related to his own death. He often relates the mines to death. The way he later describes Fergusen's fear of being emersed makes me feel this way also - as thought to go beneath the dark water would plunge him into death's realm.



Great pick up!! I think you are absolutely right. This echoes of Hardy's Jude The Obscure.

Thanks again! Yes, I got thinking about Sue coming to the cemetary and then seeing Jude there and breaking free. Not to say that L would copy this exactly, but surely he was influenced, even subconsiously.

I see the wall as a symbol that divides the different worlds. The world of the spirit from the world of society; the world of life from the world of death.
Yes, I agree with that. Interesting imagery - being in the churchyard - in the shadow of steeple and religion and the spiritual.


Why do you say inherit? I took it as joining her mother.

This is funny. I could have swore I read that word in the text, but I just went over what you had quoted and I don't see it. I have no idea why I used it - subconsious I suppose. I will go over my own book. I really thought I read it that way or read the word somewhere in the story.

Yes, whatever that heaven may be.
I thought so, too.



It doesn't say much on the mother. Father appears to have died in the recent past. Does say the father was a man of "no education" and married a second time.
Interesting, he having remarried - then maybe that is a sort of clue or suggestion that she died in childbirth. But which child was the youngest - was it Mabel? Does it say at all? Death in childbirth was such a common occurance back then, that is why I thought of it.


Shall we look at Ferguson now, unless you want to continue this graveyard scene? Or do you think Ferguson is rather straight forward?
Sure we can do that. No, I don't think he is straight forward - are any of L's characters? No he needs some looking at closely. I have some ideas on him.

Once again here is your quote from the book on Hardy:

The final aim of every living thing, creature, or being is the full achievement of itself. This acomplished, it will produce what it will produce, it will bear the fruit of its nature. Not the fruit, however, but the flower is the culmination and climax, the degree to be striven for. (Phoenix p.403)
Question: is this L's philosophy or is it Hardy's. If L, why does he say "not the fruit, however, but the flower is the culmination and climax...." Is it that this is the time most significant and the moment of consumation? the flowering?


Oops I just found your other post right before the one I answered. I will answer that one after you comment on this one, otherwise it will all get too confusing I think. One thing - I had the title wrong - sorry - it is "Studies in Classic American Literature (Twentieth Century Classics) (Paperback)". I had it in my wish list on Amazon. I forgot the title, duh...

Virgil
04-01-2007, 10:07 PM
Interesting, he having remarried - then maybe that is a sort of clue or suggestion that she died in childbirth. But which child was the youngest - was it Mabel? Does it say at all? Death in childbirth was such a common occurance back then, that is why I thought of it.
To me if it doesn't say, it doesn't say.


Sure we can do that. No, I don't think he is straight forward - are any of L's characters? No he needs some looking at closely. I have some ideas on him.
OK.



Once again here is your quote from the book on Hardy:

Question: is this L's philosophy or is it Hardy's. If L, why does he say "not the fruit, however, but the flower is the culmination and climax...." Is it that this is the time most significant and the moment of consumation? the flowering?
Well, I certainly don't remember. If I quoted it to explain L, then it has to be L's idea. If I get the chance, I'll check the book; I have Phoenix.


Oops I just found your other post right before the one I answered. I will answer that one after you comment on this one, otherwise it will all get too confusing I think. One thing - I had the title wrong - sorry - it is "Studies in Classic American Literature (Twentieth Century Classics) (Paperback)". I had it in my wish list on Amazon. I forgot the title, duh...
Oh, "Studies in Classic American Literature" is another Lawrence non-fiction book. He analyzes American writers of the 19th century. He's wrong about a lot in there, but it shows Lawrence's thoughts on literature. It shows his love of Whitman and Mellvile. Very much worth having. I don't think have that one. But I remember reading it.

Janine
04-01-2007, 10:46 PM
To me if it doesn't say, it doesn't say.
Ok, sorry, I must have gone off the deep end on that one. Just thinking that way I guess. Really unimportant. She may have lost her when she was quite young though. She is isolated also as the only woman of the house.

Yes, let's go on with the man of the story.

"The Phoenix and the Flame" book from library is a biography by Geoffrey Trease. It filled in where some others left off. Not that great a biography but some added facts were there.


Well, I certainly don't remember. If I quoted it to explain L, then it has to be L's idea. If I get the chance, I'll check the book; I have Phoenix.

It is just that part of it sounds like Hardy and part sounds like Lawrence. I will wait till you check your book closer.

Oh, "Studies in Classic American Literature" is another Lawrence non-fiction book. He analyzes American writers of the 19th century. He's wrong about a lot in there, but it shows Lawrence's thoughts on literature. It shows his love of Whitman and Mellvile. Very much worth having. I don't think have that one. But I remember reading it.
Yes, I know how slanted it is; my library has it and I had it out several times now, mostly to read the Hardy essay. I would like to own the book, although I know most of L's opinions in it are way off target. Well, that was L.

Virgil
04-02-2007, 01:45 PM
"The Phoenix and the Flame" book from library is a biography by Geoffrey Trease. It filled in where some others left off. Not that great a biography but some added facts were there.


Oh, I don't recognize the author. I doubt then I looked at that book.

I don't have time yet to get to Ferguson. Perhaps this evening.

Janine
04-02-2007, 02:16 PM
Oh, I don't recognize the author. I doubt then I looked at that book.

I don't have time yet to get to Ferguson. Perhaps this evening.

You probably thought you knew the book since I mentioned it to you awhile ago. It was ok, but my other biographies were much more extensive.
No problem about Ferguson. I have to write an email to a friend in Japan, long overdue. I figure presently you are trying to read "Titus A" (I see the discussion has started up), also "Ehtan Frome"; I am half way through that book. I am also reading an essay by Huxley "Brave New World Revisited". I will emerse myself slowly in the book discussion. Like I said before, pauses in this thread are fine. Since it seems to be just the two of us (well, so far) we both know how busy we are and can be patient and wait for replies. No pressure here really.;) So start F whenever convenient for you.

Two things from your earlier post to comment on briefly:


:I really like the conept of the Phoenix myself.
I read some of the chapter last night in that library book on the Phoenix. It is so interesting. The myth began apparently in Egypt. I will try to type up the first few pages to quote to you, you will find it curious. I think the rest of my free book will prove interesting as well - chapters are: The Griffin, The Kraken, The Dragon, The Basilisk, The Roc, and The Unicorn. These all interest me. The Phoenix is the last one listed and says in the opening line. "Finally we come to the stangest and most wonderful of all mythical creatures--the phoenix".


Quote:
The quote from the book about Hardy is interesting in that it seems to involve one person, not two necessary to consumate a life and bring it to it's fullness. I thought that L required the union of the two halves, man and woman, (even man and man) to acheive fullness of life, spirtuality, etc.

Very good observation. I didn't think of that. So I wonder how L puts that together?
Yes, this is curious to me, also. L is somethings difficult to figure out. That has been the trouble with reading all the biographies by different people. Just when I feel I have him figured out, I seem to hit a :brickwall

Janine
04-05-2007, 04:10 PM
Before we go onto Fergusson I wanted to post these two paragraphs which I think reveal so much about Mabel and her state:


For months, Mabel had been servantless in the big house, keeping the home together in penury for her ineffectual brothers. She had kept house for ten years. But previously, it was with unstinted means. Then, however brutal and coarse everything was, the sense of money had kept her proud, confident. The men might be foul-mouthed, the women in the kitchen might have bad reputations, her brothers might have illegitimate children. But so long as there was money, the girl felt herself established, and brutally proud, reserved.
No company came to the house, save dealers and coarse men. Mabel had no associates of her own sex, after her sister went away. But she did not mind. She went regularly to church, she attended to her father. And she lived in the memory of her mother, who had died when she was fourteen, and whom she had loved. She had loved her father, too, in a different way, depending upon him, and feeling secure in him, until at the age of fifty-four he married again. And then she had set hard against him. Now he had died and left them all hopelessly in debt.

Note: the death of Mabel's mother is mentioned in the second paragraph. she was fourteen at the time - a hard age for a girl to lose her mother...adolescence. Also, it states quite clearly that she loved her mother, but although she loved her father in a different way - more one of 'security'. Strange because usually woman will tend to be closer to their fathers at that age and rebelling against their mothers. But this family is comprised of mostly "coarse" type men and apparently Mabel had finer sensitivity - therefore retreating to a kind of emotional shell to protect her delicate feelings.

Now onto Fergusson ---
I think this is our first introduction to the character of Fergusson, the doctor.
'Here's Jack Fergusson!' exclaimed Malcolm, who was looking aimlessly out of the window.
'Where?' exclaimed Joe, loudly.
'Just gone past.'
'Coming in?'
Malcolm craned his neck to see the gate.
'Yes,' he said.
There was a silence. Mabel sat on like one condemned, at the head of the table. Then a whistle was heard from the kitchen. The dog got up and barked sharply. Joe opened the door and shouted:
'Come on.'
After a moment a young man entered. He was muffled up in overcoat and a purple woollen scarf, and his tweed cap, which he did not remove, was pulled down on his head. He was of medium height, his face was rather long and pale, his eyes looked tired.
'Hello, Jack! Well, Jack!' exclaimed Malcolm and Joe. Fred Henry merely said, 'Jack.'
'What's doing?' asked the newcomer, evidently addressing Fred Henry.
'Same. We've got to be out by Wednesday.--Got a cold?'
'I have--got it bad, too.'
'Why don't you stop in?'
'Me stop in? When I can't stand on my legs, perhaps I shall have a chance.' The young man spoke huskily. He had a slight Scotch accent.
'It's a knock-out, isn't it,' said Joe, boisterously, 'if a doctor goes round croaking with a cold. Looks bad for the patients, doesn't it?'
The young doctor looked at him slowly.
'Anything the matter with you, then?' he asked sarcastically.
'Not as I know of. Damn your eyes, I hope not. Why?'
'I thought you were very concerned about the patients, wondered if you might be one yourself.'
'Damn it, no, I've never been patient to no flaming doctor, and hope I never shall be,' returned Joe.
At this point Mabel rose from the table, and they all seemed to become aware of her existence. She began putting the dishes together. The young doctor looked at her, but did not address her. He had not greeted her. She went out of the room with the tray, her face impassive and unchanged.
'When are you off then, all of you?' asked the doctor.
'I'm catching the eleven-forty,' replied Malcolm. 'Are you goin' down wi' th' trap, Joe?'
'Yes, I've told you I'm going down wi' th' trap, haven't I?'
'We'd better be getting her in then.--So long, Jack, if I don't see you before I go,' said Malcolm, shaking hands.
He went out, followed by Joe, who seemed to have his tail between his legs.
'Well, this is the devil's own,' exclaimed the doctor, when he was left alone with Fred Henry. 'Going before Wednesday, are you?'
'That's the orders,' replied the other.
'Where, to Northampton?'
'That's it.'
'The devil!' exclaimed Fergusson, with quiet chagrin.
And there was silence between the two.
'All settled up, are you?' asked Fergusson.
'About.'
There was another pause.
'Well, I shall miss yer, Freddy, boy,' said the young doctor.
'And I shall miss thee, Jack,' returned the other.
'Miss you like hell,' mused the doctor.
Fred Henry turned aside. There was nothing to say. Mabel came in again, to finish clearing the table.
'What are you going to do, then, Miss Pervin?' asked Fergusson. 'Going to your sister's, are you?'
Mabel looked at him with her steady, dangerous eyes, that always made him uncomfortable, unsettling his superficial ease.
'No,' she said.
'Well, what in the name of fortune are you going to do? Say what you mean to do,' cried Fred Henry, with futile intensity.
But she only averted her head, and continued her work. She folded the white table-cloth, and put on the chenille cloth.
'The sulkiest ***** that ever trod!' muttered her brother.
But she finished her task with perfectly impassive face, the young doctor watching her interestedly all the while. Then she went out.
Fred Henry stared after her, clenching his lips, his blue eyes fixing in sharp antagonism, as he made a grimace of sour exasperation.
'You could bray her into bits, and that's all you'd get out of her,' he said, in a small, narrowed tone.
The doctor smiled faintly.
'What's she going to do, then?' he asked.
'Strike me if I know!' returned the other.
There was a pause. Then the doctor stirred.
'I'll be seeing you tonight, shall I?' he said to his friend.
'Ay--where's it to be? Are we going over to Jessdale?'
'I don't know. I've got such a cold on me. I'll come round to the Moon and Stars, anyway.'
'Let Lizzie and May miss their night for once, eh?'
'That's it--if I feel as I do now.'
'All's one--'
The two young men went through the passage and down to the back door together. The house was large, but it was servantless now, and desolate. At the back was a small bricked house-yard, and beyond that a big square, gravelled fine and red, and having stables on two sides. Sloping, dank, winter-dark fields stretched away on the open sides.

Then
after the graveyard scene with Mabel, we see him again:

The doctor's house was just by the church. Fergusson, being a mere hired assistant, was slave to the countryside. As he hurried now to attend to the outpatients in the surgery, glancing across the graveyard with his quick eye, he saw the girl at her task at the grave. She seemed so intent and remote, it was like looking into another world. Some mystical element was touched in him. He slowed down as he walked, watching her as if spell-bound.
She lifted her eyes, feeling him looking. Their eyes met. And each looked again at once, each feeling, in some way, found out by the other. He lifted his cap and passed on down the road. There remained distinct in his consciousness, like a vision, the memory of her face, lifted from the tombstone in the churchyard, and looking at him with slow, large, portentous eyes. It was portentous, her face. It seemed to mesmerize him. There was a heavy power in her eyes which laid hold of his whole being, as if he had drunk some powerful drug. He had been feeling weak and done before. Now the life came back into him, he felt delivered from his own fretted, daily self.
He finished his duties at the surgery as quickly as might be, hastily filling up the bottles of the waiting people with cheap drugs. Then, in perpetual haste, he set off again to visit several cases in another part of his round, before teatime. At all times he preferred to walk, if he could, but particularly when he was not well. He fancied the motion restored him.

Virgil
04-05-2007, 10:47 PM
Oh great Janine, you've pushed this further.

As to Ferguson, I'm not all that sure I can make that much of his character. Let me list some of the facts: he's a doctor, he's ill (a cold, I'm sure you know what that's like :p ), he stands with the brothers in a group which certainly associates him with the masculine world, and he's frustrated and tired of his work. So what can we derive from these facts? He's part of the social, masculine world; in fact as doctor, he's an institution of the social world. But certainly he desires more. And that puts him in sympathy with Mabel. We might speculate that his soul might be as similar to Mabel's soul. I don't know what to make of the fact that he's got a cold, other than what one of the brothers points out, that it is ironic that a doctor is sick. Oh another fact is that he's Scottish, and Lawrence has a tendency to have his male heros be from the north. Lawrence was from northern (actually midland, but north of engalnd's center of gravity, London) England. And the other point I can make is that it feels that Ferguson is a stand in for Lawrence himself. I think.

Janine
04-05-2007, 11:07 PM
Oh great Janine, you've pushed this further.

As to Ferguson, I'm not all that sure I can make that much of his character. Let me list some of the facts: he's a doctor, he's ill (a cold, I'm sure you know what that's like :p ), he stands with the brothers in a group which certainly associates him with the masculine world, and he's frustrated and tired of his work. So what can we derive from these facts? He's part of the social, masculine world; in fact as doctor, he's an institution of the social world. But certainly he desires more. And that puts him in sympathy with Mabel. We might speculate that his soul might be as similar to Mabel's soul. I don't know what to make of the fact that he's got a cold, other than what one of the brothers points out, that it is ironic that a doctor is sick. Oh another fact is that he's Scottish, and Lawrence has a tendency to have his male heros be from the north. Lawrence was from northern (actually midland, but north of engalnd's center of gravity, London) England. And the other point I can make is that it feels that Ferguson is a stand in for Lawrence himself. I think.

Oh, V, glad you saw my post and answered some of it. It is good what you have written and summarized. Just take the beginning part first, if you like. I should have posted them separately; it may be overwhelming.
It is funny but we are both thinking the same way here...that Fergusson "is a stand in for Lawrence himself". I was going to suggest it since I see definite parallels to L and his past experiences. First off I told you before, that he saw this same thing happen to Jesse's family. Jesse was a woman, who also was surrounded by men (her brothers), except in her case her mother was still alive. And also the family finally had to vacate their premises and leave their beloved farm and lands, which Lawrence loved and it broke L's heart. Lawrence often had a cold and somewhere in the text he mentioned Fergusson desiring to walk when he did not feel well, since he thought it theraputic. This is absolutely true of Lawrence himself. He walked all the time and he was ill in the lungs most of the time. The landscape in this particular story is very reminiscent of the places where L grew up. It is interesting, as Lawrence got closer to his death he seemed to go back to these places of his childhood or early manhood, at least in his mind. He sort of revisited them and in this story I feel he is doing so, also the theme of the horse-dealer. This goes back to L's early days. Interesting to know that L's area is more north and he makes his heros from the north. I wondered why he made Fergusson Scottish, now I sort of see why.
Again this part:

he stands with the brothers in a group which certainly associates him with the masculine world, and he's frustrated and tired of his work. So what can we derive from these facts? He's part of the social, masculine world; in fact as doctor, he's an institution of the social world.
This is good and yes he did align himself, when in the house, with the sons as men would be apt to do. But he is all the time observing Mabel in a subtle, unassuming sort of way. Yes, I think he does desire more, and but what at this point? Does he even know himself? I don't think he is aware of it yet. It will take the transfiguration for him to get through to his own thoughts.

Virgil
04-05-2007, 11:19 PM
It will take the transfiguration for him to get through to his own thoughts.

Do you think Ferguson also undergoes a transfiguration? I guess we'll get to that later. Perhaps we should next look over the pond scene and that clay we talked about.

Janine
04-06-2007, 12:16 AM
Do you think Ferguson also undergoes a transfiguration? I guess we'll get to that later. Perhaps we should next look over the pond scene and that clay we talked about.

Well, Virgil, you have surfaced again from Titus. I have been checking in to read that thread but things seemed to have slowed up some. Thanks for checking back and writing some more comments here.

Well, I am not sure if Fergusson does undergo a transfiguration. I am still not 100% clear on the meaning of the word as Lawrence intends it. F seems to hear himself talking in the last scenes and before that he seemed unaware of his inner thoughts concerning Mabel. If he has not experienced a transfiguration perhaps he is desiring one. Yes, we could go to the clay significance in pond scene soon, but first I would still like to look at that last paragraph I posted - the one about Fergusson living next to the church and about his feelings concerning his profession, life, etc. I think that paragraph reveals some important things about him, or at least suggests them.

Virgil
04-06-2007, 05:51 PM
Well, I am not sure if Fergusson does undergo a transfiguration. I am still not 100% clear on the meaning of the word as Lawrence intends it.
Well, who knows exactly how Lawrence intends it, but here's the first several paragrapghs of my thesis where I define it:


"Life is a traveling to the edge of knowledge," D. H. Lawrence states in his essay "The Crown," "then a leap taken" (Phoenix II, 374). So many of Lawrence's narrative structures, within his stories, novellas, and novels, are based on this principle that it may be construed as one of Lawrence's aesthetic hallmarks. He continues: "It is a leap taken into the beyond, as a lark leaps into the sky, a fragment of earth which travels to be fused out, sublimated, in the shining of the heavens." Here, then, is the leap's significance, a transformation of matter to spirit and the spirit's ultimate coalescence with cosmic vitality. Lawrence's theosophy is pantheistic; the knowledge is mystical; the transformation, "the leap taken," a transfiguration.

If so much of Lawrence's opus is concerned with this leap, with this transfiguration, then it certainly is worthy of study. What is a transfiguration? It is not an epiphany--an epiphany being a momentary burst of enlightenment or awareness. Transfiguration goes beyond. Certainly it has religious connotation. "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light" (Math., xvii, 1-2). The transfigurative experience crosses into many religions, especially of western culture: Moses returning from the Mt. Sinai with his face shining (Exodus, xxxiv, 34), St. Francis receiving the stigmata, and the pagan metamorphoses of Persephone, Dionysos, Adonis, and Osirsus. Lawrence certainly had these in mind when he employs the term. After two years of marriage, Tom and Lydia Bragwen of The Rainbow pass through such a transformation:

They had passed into the doorway into the further space, where movement was so big, that it contained bonds and constraints and labours, and still was complete liberty...At last they had thrown open the doors...whilst the light flooded out from behind on to each of their faces, it was the transfiguration, the glorification, the admission (95-6).The transfiguration, in general, then, is a spiritual conversion so overwhelming that it has caused a transformation--the physical transformation being emblematic--within the consciousness of the transfigured.
From my master's thesis, "Toward the Transfiguration: An Examination of the Use of the Transfigurative Experience in D. H. Lawrence’s Late Fiction."

I think this can serve as a jumping off point for the next part of our discussion.

Janine
04-07-2007, 12:48 AM
Virgil, I have to read this and then read it again. I am a bit tired now - you know brain dead, temporarily, after going out tonight shopping. I will contemplate it tomorrow or sometime on the weekend. I still find the terms a little confusing in relation to Fergussen. I have to let it sink in and think about it more. I did read it several times when I read your thesis.

Janine
04-10-2007, 10:10 PM
Virgil, I understand "transfiguration" in the passage to describe Tom and Lydia Bragwen of "The Rainbow", but when it come to Fergussen, I can't see it yet. Tom and Lydia take time for that to happen, maybe even years to come to that point, but Fergussen is new to the touch or the contact with Mabel. Also, he repeatedly says he did not mean to love her. This seems to indicate doubt on his part in the fullfillment of love or physical love and furfillment and consumation. In this way wouldn't "transfiguration" be a possibility, but not yet realized in this story? The exact meaning of "transfiguration" still is not totally clear to me. Maybe you can point out something specific to me to make me see the transfiguration on both their parts.

Asa Adams
04-12-2007, 12:34 AM
What Are we reading next? I think I might join after you finish this discussion!

Janine
04-12-2007, 01:30 AM
What Are we reading next? I think I might join after you finish this discussion!

Asa, Well, we have not really decided yet. We have been doing that when we finish up a story. This one is in a bit of lull right now. Virgil is preoccupied with "Titus" and "Frome". I am in "Frome" discussion but I skipped "Titus".

Anyway, Asa, great! I am so glad you might join in. We don't really have a time we will start; we started this thread loosely and figured we would just play it by ear, no pressure that way. Have you a suggestion for the next story? I picked the first one and V picked the second one, but you could pick the third. We could stick to the 10 or so available on Lit Net, or others, if we all have the complete set of the short stories. Virgil and I both do. The stories available on here are under "England, My England".

We have to progress and finish up this story soon. Hope you do join in on the next. Let me know if you want to pick the story. You seem very knowlegable about Lawrence's works.

Virgil
04-12-2007, 07:15 AM
The exact meaning of "transfiguration" still is not totally clear to me. Maybe you can point out something specific to me to make me see the transfiguration on both their parts.

Janine, the best way to describe transifguration is to give an example from a movie I'm sure you've seen. In "The Ten Commandments" Moses (Charlton Heston) goes up to the mountain and talks to God. When he comes down from the mountain, his hair is grizzled and changed. His whole persona has changed. That experience has altered his being. That's a transfiguration.

If you understand that, then go back and read those paragraphs from my paper. Now Lawrence is dealing with realistic fiction usually, so the transfiguration is not a physical one, since that doesn't happen every day. Lawrence has the character undergo a psychological change as overwhelming as Moses's physical/spiritual transformation. In the end, it's all basically spiritual for Lawrence.

Did i make myself clear now?

Janine
04-12-2007, 01:06 PM
Yes, that is very good, Virgil. I think I do understand it to that point. I do get the concept and how L looked on it. I just am not sure I see a total transfiguration in the instance of Fergusson and this story. I better read the ending again. It has been awhile now and my mind is muddled about it.

Last night I was reading some of the Lawrence letters and it threw some more light on L's thinking - now I am just on the early ones when he was a youth (The Formative Years section) but the beginnings of his philosophy are rooted there. One letter particularly stood out. He did a bit of preaching in it and then would surface saying something had interrupted his dream and the preaching. I am so enthused now and want to soak up all of the letters he wrote.

Note Asa's post and my post back to him; maybe we could pick the next short story ahead, so that he can start reading it.

I can't write anymore now - going somewhere today - apointment.

Virgil
04-12-2007, 01:14 PM
Yes, that is very good, Virgil. I think I do understand it to that point. I do get the concept and how L looked on it. I just am not sure I see a total transfiguration in the instance of Fergusson and this story. I better read the ending again. It has been awhile now and my mind is muddled about it.

Good. And I'll have to re-read that ending too. I haven't made up my mind about Ferguson either. In fact until our discussion here recently it never occured to me.


Last night I was reading some of the Lawrence letters and it threw some more light on L's thinking - now I am just on the early ones when he was a youth (The Formative Years section) but the beginnings of his philosophy are rooted there. One letter particularly stood out. He did a bit of preaching in it and then would surface saying something had interrupted his dream and the preaching. I am so enthused now and want to soak up all of the letters he wrote.
I have his collected letters and one or two volumes of his complete letters. Which letter are you referring to? I can look it up and read it if I have it. Just give me the date of the letter and to whom written.

Janine
04-12-2007, 09:34 PM
Virgil, I am so tired out tonight. I am going to sit and watch a movie. I answered the post by Scher in the Frome discussion, but did not get to yours, which really proceeded it. That was complicated and I could not think of what else to write about the truth or validity of the narrator. I have to think about all that when I am more wide-awake, ok.

You wrote:
"Good. And I'll have to re-read that ending too. I haven't made up my mind about Ferguson either. In fact until our discussion here recently it never occured to me."

I did that today at the doctors, but now I can't think of what to write. Give me till tomorrow...again when I feel more alert.

The letter I spoke of in my post is to: Blanche Jennings, 25 June 1908
(note: I have not finished reading this letter yet - it is quite long)

I also read a long letter of interest to: Reverend Robert Reid 3 December 1907

These are early letters as you can see. He was quite young....23, 24.

Asa Adams
04-13-2007, 12:36 AM
Janine, I love D.H.L, Though I only did study him loosely through My University career. I am focusing on this thread so that I may learn something new and interesting. Bio-"Student for life" :lol:

You can pick Any L story for me, Guys. Im along for this glorious eye opening ride, :lol:

Janine
04-13-2007, 01:21 AM
Janine, I love D.H.L, Though I only did study him loosely through My University career. I am focusing on this thread so that I may learn something new and interesting. Bio-"Student for life" :lol:

You can pick Any L story for me, Guys. Im along for this glorious eye opening ride, :lol:

Ok good, Asa, I will pick next. Virgil emailed me today about picking the next story when we finish this one. We should wrap "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" up real soon. We are starting to beat it to death, I think; but we're getting to the end, which is the most important part and brings up some good points and questions. There are always good questions concerning L's stories....some without solid or final answers. I think that is what I like about his writing most...makes it more intriguing. I have loved and been interested in D.H.L since I read "Women in Love" about 30 yrs ago....giving away my seasoned age:lol:. It spurred me onto reading many, many other works by L, but not till recently did I again tackle "Sons and Lovers" and thought it was wonderful, especially since my new knowledge told me how autobiographical it is.
This independent study of Lawrence has been a lifetime passion for me. I go back to his work periodically, but recently these have been my most concentrated efforts, reading 3 full biographies and planning a new one soon, "The Early Years" - Cambridge Addition. I am highly interested in L's early life and his formative years. Also, I am finding the letters so revealing and wonderfully personal. I recently bought a book of the selected ones, also Cambridge. I found the travel books on Italy likewise revealing of the man and his personality/ideas. You really get a keen sense from those letter and they are so personal you feel you come to know Lawrence, almost intimately like a friend.
Asa, When you said Bio-Student - you mean biography? I am too, if that is what you mean. I love to delve into the aspects of these authors and see just what motivated their literature. I am glad you are learning something on this thread - it makes it even more worthwhile knowing others have been reading it. I think the fact that Virgil and I debate a lot and don't always agree also suggests many interesting and good points. I am sure you will come up with good ideas and questions too, as we all read the same story.
Glad you studied him in your University days....I am sure things will surface from that time and your past studies.

I will look through my books and see which story I think would be of interest for the next discussion. Do you have a set of the "Complete Short Stories"? I have three volumes - had to purchase two of them online recently. If not I can choose one that is on this site under "England, My England". Let me know before I choose.

Asa Adams
04-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Hey, Janine!

I am a self professed biography student, yes. But I meant also, my own biography. "Student for life" :lol: . But I like the way you put it. To delve into them, and see what motivated them to write such great words.

Unfortunately I have not come across any collection of his that I really liked, publishing house that is, not stories :lol: So it would wonderful if we could choose something from England, my England, for convienence sake. Though, I could check out the Library down the road. Though, chances are slim, ;)
Thanks again, Janine.

Janine
04-13-2007, 06:01 PM
Hey, Janine!

I am a self professed biography student, yes. But I meant also, my own biography. "Student for life" :lol: . But I like the way you put it. To delve into them, and see what motivated them to write such great words.

Unfortunately I have not come across any collection of his that I really liked, publishing house that is, not stories :lol: So it would wonderful if we could choose something from England, my England, for convienence sake. Though, I could check out the Library down the road. Though, chances are slim, ;)
Thanks again, Janine.

Asa, never change! I hope I am the same -"Student for life". It is a good goal. I certainly maintain and nurture the enthusiasm for learning. Most people I know probably think me sort of a freak, but I keep soaking up biographies and novels, whenever I can and I love of course, talking endlessly about them with others. Well, that is the best part.;)

Thanks, I just believe one can not separate the author from his life and personal history, especially in Lawrence's case, there are so many interesting parallels, don't you think?

I had to buy two used paperbacks recently off Amazon. These were two volumes I was missing to complete my short stories of L. Prior to this I realised I only had one of the three books. There are three separate volumes of them, and then the volume "England, My England", which I just happen to have from years back; being only paperbacks they are easy to cart around with me.

But I did think of picking from the 10 available on here until we run out of those. Perhaps if I mention it to one of the moderators, they could list some more of the stories from the 3 book set, as well. "England, My England" repeats some of the ones available in the set, but it's a nice collection all the same.

Perhaps I will pick the first and title story "England, My England". I have read it but would like to re-read it; it would make for interesting conversation. Let me decide for sure this weekend.

Virgil
04-13-2007, 07:00 PM
Well let's finish this one before we start another. Here's the passage where Ferguson goes into the pond and pulls Mabel out:


He slowly ventured into the pond. The bottom was deep, soft clay, he sank in, and the water clasped dead cold round his legs. As he stirred he could smell the cold, rotten clay that fouled up into the water. It was objectionable in his lungs. Still, repelled and yet not heeding, he moved deeper into the pond. The cold water rose over his thighs, over his loins, upon his abdomen. The lower part of his body was all sunk in the hideous cold element. And the bottom was so deeply soft and uncertain, he was afraid of pitching with his mouth underneath. He could not swim, and was afraid.

He crouched a little, spreading his hands under the water and moving them round, trying to feel for her. The dead cold pond swayed upon his chest. He moved again, a little deeper, and again, with his hands underneath, he felt all around under the water. And he touched her clothing. But it evaded his fingers. He made a desperate effort to grasp it.

And so doing he lost his balance and went under, horribly, suffocating in the foul earthy water, struggling madly for a few moments. At last, after what seemed an eternity, he got his footing, rose again into the air and looked around. He gasped, and knew he was in the world. Then he looked at the water. She had risen near him. He grasped her clothing, and drawing her nearer, turned to take his way to land again.

He went very slowly, carefully, absorbed in the slow progress. He rose higher, climbing out of the pond. The water was now only about his legs; he was thankful, full of relief to be out of the clutches of the pond. He lifted her and staggered on to the bank, out of the horror of wet, grey clay.

So now perhaps we should talk this clay water. It starts the passage and it ends this passage. Here's what I think it alludes to:

4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis, chpt 2)
and

17 ¶ And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth;
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. (Genesis chpt 7)

The clay alludes to the rudimentary substance of flesh and life in general. Mabel and Ferguson have mixed themselves into primordial soup. When they step out of the pond, they are the new man and woman. Ferguson gasps and struggles to breath and then even breathes life back into Mabel.

Janine
04-13-2007, 08:42 PM
Virgil, interesting correlations. I think you are going pretty far in this with the bible and Genesis. I don't personally see that deeply into the pool/pond significance unless to say a rebirth - but Genesis is actually a first birth of all things on the earth and the earth. It might be better to cite verses from the bible concerning baptism and being reborn.

But why the mud? To me the mud symbolises the melting down of earth and water into one element that would lead to death, then to be reborn again. Perhaps the earth elements with the water elements are like the phoenix being burned or reduced by the flames to be reborn. Also, the mortal fear it would pose to Fergusson with his vulnerable lungs - apparently a stand-in for Lawrence and his bad lungs - would be a real believable fear. Fergusson has a bad cold, mentioned several times in the story, so being dunked beneath this smelly dark dank water was an absolute life threatening experience for him. Also, he mentions that he can not swim, so it is a double fear with drowning. It is strange, Mabel has no fear because she is resigned to die, yet Fergusson seems to hold all the fear for her and himself. They are quite different in their approach to and feelings about the the water. Why do you suppose this pond was mucky and muddy and smelled badly? Could this indicate polution form mines? Or the dark unknown world of death? One can not see beneath the water. Fergusson hunts around with his hands desperately to try and get a grip on Mabel.

I still maintain the idea that in "Women in Love" Lawrence uses similar muddy water as a symbol of a bridge between life and death, or the passageway to death. The water also is muddy and murky and dark, and so Gerald cannot reach his sister and her husband trying to save them. It is like "looking through a glass darkly". He nearly drowns himself trying to bring them out of the dark water and save them. Also, later in the book Gerald goes to Gudrun in that same night all muddied and he makes love to her coldly and unconsciously out of pure need. She remarks that he is muddy and he causes her face to be smeared with mud, so he muddies her, as well. All these incidents of mud seem significant to me.


Prior to these passages I find some that are interesting but when we get nearer the end I will bring them up - they concern Fergusson and his profession and how he felt about it and his life ministering to the country folk.

Virgil
04-14-2007, 12:05 AM
Virgil, interesting correlations. I think you are going pretty far in this with the bible and Genesis. I don't personally see that deeply into the pool/pond significance unless to say a rebirth - but Genesis is actually a first birth of all things on the earth and the earth. It might be better to cite verses from the bible concerning baptism and being reborn.

But why the mud? To me the mud symbolises the melting down of earth and water into one element that would lead to death, then to be reborn again. Perhaps the earth elements with the water elements are like the phoenix being burned or reduced by the flames to be reborn.

Well, I don't disagree with that. But isn't clay what man is made of? Biblically I mean. I tried to find it in Genesis but I couldn't find the actual word, "clay." Whether it's Genesis or not, it certainly is Biblical. And yes, the pond is a baptisim.

Janine
04-14-2007, 03:36 PM
Well, I don't disagree with that. But isn't clay what man is made of? Biblically I mean. I tried to find it in Genesis but I couldn't find the actual word, "clay." Whether it's Genesis or not, it certainly is Biblical. And yes, the pond is a baptisim.

Well, he is made of clay if he is a sculpture! :lol: Think you might be taking the bible verse (whatever it is) a little too literal. It means God formed man like a sculpter would have, from clay - at least I believe the statement to be something like that. It is an analogy or what is the literature device term (?) -you know better than I. No, man is made of flesh and blood, literally - not clay. There are parts in the Bible about man being fashioned as clay is in the hands of the creator. It is only a comparison I think.

Also, wondered why you did not address the other parts of my post like the muddy, murky water and what I said in relation to L's novel "WIL" and the scenes I pointed out . Also, the idea of the water and earth combining, and the thought of it being the darkness they must enter to come out in the light and be reborn.

Virgil
04-14-2007, 03:40 PM
Well, he is made of clay if he is a sculpture! :lol: .
:lol: :lol: Very funny!!


Think you might be taking the bible verse (whatever it is) a little too literal. It means God formed man like a sculpter would have, from clay - at least I believe the statement to be something like that. It is an analogy or what is the literature device term (?) -you know better than I. No, man is made of flesh and blood, literally - not clay. There are parts in the Bible about man being fashioned as clay is in the hands of the creator. It is only a comparison I think.

Also, wondered why you did not address the other parts of my post like the muddy, murky water and what I said in relation to L's novel "WIL" and the scenes I pointed out . Also, the idea of the water and earth combining, and the thought of it being the darkness they must enter to come out in the light and be reborn

OK, but Genesis is probably L's most alluded to biblical section and he is constant talking about the new Adam. OK, whatever. Got to go right now, though. No time to write more.:(

Janine
04-15-2007, 04:30 PM
:lol: :lol: Very funny!!

Haha - right? well my mother told me there is some passage that says God took the dust of the earth and made man. I put her on the assignment to look it up. I must remind her later. She will find it and any reference to mud and man's creation.

[QUOTE]OK, but Genesis is probably L's most alluded to biblical section and he is constant talking about the new Adam. OK, whatever. Got to go right now, though. No time to write more.:(

I did not know that. It is interesting to me. In which books does he allude mostly to Genesis? The later writings? What does he mean by the new Adam? I would like to hear more about these ideas.

Virgil
04-15-2007, 10:20 PM
[QUOTE=Virgil;360671]:lol: :lol: Very funny!!

Haha - right? well my mother told me there is some passage that says God took the dust of the earth and made man. I put her on the assignment to look it up. I must remind her later. She will find it and any reference to mud and man's creation.



I did not know that. It is interesting to me. In which books does he allude mostly to Genesis? The later writings? What does he mean by the new Adam? I would like to hear more about these ideas.

The Rainbow is almost a rewriting of Genesis. Perhaps that's an overstatement, but it's not far off. The symbol "rainbow" is right out of Genesis.


8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 and I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
(Genesis 9)

"bow" is rainbow. Some day we should read The Rainbow together. It's my favorite of the L novels.

"New Adam" is a term L uses a number of times. I have to go and look it up. I'm sorry. I think he has a short story called that.

Glad you put you're mom to work. Maybe you can get her to join lit net and have her start posting. ;)

Janine
04-16-2007, 03:22 PM
[QUOTE=Janine;361232]

The Rainbow is almost a rewriting of Genesis. Perhaps that's an overstatement, but it's not far off. The symbol "rainbow" is right out of Genesis.


(Genesis 9)

"bow" is rainbow. Some day we should read The Rainbow together. It's my favorite of the L novels.

"New Adam" is a term L uses a number of times. I have to go and look it up. I'm sorry. I think he has a short story called that.

Glad you put you're mom to work. Maybe you can get her to join lit net and have her start posting. ;)

Virgil, that is interesting. I think Lawrence had a lot of bible references in all his works. I don't know if the Rainbow is a re-writing of Genesis. Interesting idea though. It has been ages since I read "The Rainbow". Now I thought it too long a book, I seemed to struggle through it; maybe I was too young to read it. I preferred "Women in Love". That has always been my favorite of the novels. Yes, I figured bow is rainbow. I am pretty smart, you know ;)

Put mom on Lit Net? - I don't think so! :lol: She is computer inept and there is no computer downstairs. If she did get more adept at the computer she would love it and get addicted like me. But she does not have one, nor does she want one.

Virgil
04-16-2007, 07:08 PM
Put mom on Lit Net? - I don't think so! :lol: She is computer inept and there is no computer downstairs. If she did get more adept at the computer she would love it and get addicted like me. But she does not have one, nor does she want one.
Your mom sounds wonderful. Well, if she can't join us in person, then in spirit. ;)

Let's get to mabel's transfiguration. Here's the passage:


For some moments she sat and gazed at him awfully, her lips parted.

'Do you love me then?' she asked.

He only stood and stared at her, fascinated. His soul seemed to melt.

She shuffled forward on her knees, and put her arms round him, round his legs, as he stood there, pressing her breasts against his knees and thighs, clutching him with strange, convulsive certainty, pressing his thighs against her, drawing him to her face, her throat, as she looked up at him with flaring, humble eyes, of transfiguration, triumphant in first possession.

'You love me,' she murmured, in strange transport, yearning and triumphant and confident. 'You love me. I know you love me, I know.'

And she was passionately kissing his knees, through the wet clothing, passionately and indiscriminately kissing his knees, his legs, as if unaware of every thing.
I love that passage. And we see that the experience has altered her permanently. Could one imagine Mabel doing that before the drowning? The drowning has taken her to death and back and her conscousness has been altered.

Janine
04-16-2007, 09:05 PM
Your mom sounds wonderful. Well, if she can't join us in person, then in spirit. ;)

Let's get to mabel's transfiguration. Here's the passage:


I love that passage. And we see that the experience has altered her permanently. Could one imagine Mabel doing that before the drowning? The drowning has taken her to death and back and her conscousness has been altered.

Yeah, mom's pretty cool; you would like her. She always get along well with young men. She was flattered you wished her a happy birthday. She is a bit of a bible buff, so that is why I put her on assignment. She can be here in spirit then;)

Yes, let us proceed....ah Mabel....now I can envision her 'transfiguration' or at least that L intended it that way. One thing that definitely bothers me about this story and I might as well get it out there now, is that in many ways I see these two people as lonely hearts, desperate for human contact/love. Personally I usually don't view that as an ideal receipe for a good relationship or a lasting one. They both seem so needy or at least Mabel is. The dunking in the lake and attempted suicide does seem to awaken here to life again. I can therefore see her rebirth as L would have intended it to be. The whole incident shocks her into being less inert -a word we have used often in the Frome discussion. Ah, 'inert' is a good word for aspects in this book as well. Even Fergussen is in a state of 'inertia', being resigned to his professional life. There is no great passion or excitement in either of their lives. Hopefully this transfiguration will work out for them, but I feel they have a long way to go to break through their own 'old' selves to achieve it. When we get to the end of the story, I think you will see the tone again changes and doubt sets in - making us wonder if this is a happy or potentially happy ending. Personally I do not think it is.
In the paragraphs you have quoted, I think Mabel acts very unlike herself in this shock or transfiguration. For a woman so seemingly shy and resigned, I have trouble buying this scene. This might just be personal, but it seems too sudden to be so aggressive in her actions - what do you think? Also, she knew that Fergussen was a doctor and so to save her life had to remove her clothes. Yet she acts totally shocked at the gesture or action. I don't understand fully why she thinks this gives her the right now to literally come onto him in this fashion. She seems very clingy to me, and very needy. Also she puzzles me in her persistence in asking him or employing him to love her or say he loves her.

'You love me,' she murmured, in strange transport, yearning and triumphant and confident. 'You love me. I know you love me, I know.'

When I first read this story I felt the woman intimidated, scared F to some degree, or amazed him. As with other Lawrence stories, there is a theme of the woman being dominate towards the man (not always a good thing or outcome). This dominance was not an ideal to L. It seems in these passages in the house Mabel has the upper hand and is coercing F to love her or say he does. I feel F is almost under her spell and afraid to answer or act any other way that would oppose M's actions of sudden passion. If he does oppose her, he risks her trying again to end her life, and now he feels a responsibility towards keeping her alive. Doesn't he sacrifice something of himself in this process of being protective towards Mabel?

Virgil
04-16-2007, 10:45 PM
There's a lot to respond to here Janine. No time this evening. I'll have to do it tomorrow.

Janine
04-16-2007, 11:42 PM
There's a lot to respond to here Janine. No time this evening. I'll have to do it tomorrow.

Yes, I know - take your time.:)

Virgil
04-17-2007, 07:37 AM
Yes, let us proceed....ah Mabel....now I can envision her 'transfiguration' or at least that L intended it that way. One thing that definitely bothers me about this story and I might as well get it out there now, is that in many ways I see these two people as lonely hearts, desperate for human contact/love.
I agree. They are in need of something. A new life.


Personally I usually don't view that as an ideal receipe for a good relationship or a lasting one. They both seem so needy or at least Mabel is. The dunking in the lake and attempted suicide does seem to awaken here to life again.
Well, I don't see it to "life again," but to a new life. The distinction is important.


I can therefore see her rebirth as L would have intended it to be. The whole incident shocks her into being less inert -a word we have used often in the Frome discussion. Ah, 'inert' is a good word for aspects in this book as well. Even Fergussen is in a state of 'inertia', being resigned to his professional life.
I'll have to think about "intertia." Their old life does have a mechanical aspect to it, at least Ferguson. Mabel's is more dead than mechanical. Inert implies that they can't get themselves to do something. Mabel does do something.


There is no great passion or excitement in either of their lives. Hopefully this transfiguration will work out for them, but I feel they have a long way to go to break through their own 'old' selves to achieve it. When we get to the end of the story, I think you will see the tone again changes and doubt sets in - making us wonder if this is a happy or potentially happy ending. Personally I do not think it is.
I think you're thinking in purely realistic terms. This I think is a difference between Hardy and Lawrence. When L uses the word transfiguration (and he specifically used it here in this story), he is saying the character went through a religious experience. This would not be your typical realistic experience. It is not an epiphany. The character is transformed into a new person. You (I'm going to assume) and I (although once perhaps I did come close) have never had such an experience. It is a monumental religious conversion. The Apostles meet Jesus and give up their lives and follow him; Moses sees the Lord God and gives up his life to return to Egypt and lead the Israelites. These are transfigurations. For L, sexual experience (and i don't mean raw, cheap sex, but a loving kind) is a religious matter. That is why he loves Genesis; sex is such an undercurrent and linked to the devine. Mabel will never be the same.


In the paragraphs you have quoted, I think Mabel acts very unlike herself in this shock or transfiguration. For a woman so seemingly shy and resigned, I have trouble buying this scene.
That is quite right. It does come sudden. She is new, another.


This might just be personal, but it seems too sudden to be so aggressive in her actions - what do you think?
I think Lawrence wanted you to see that exactly. She has gone through a "supernatural" experience. She has gone down to death and has risen.


Also, she knew that Fergussen was a doctor and so to save her life had to remove her clothes. Yet she acts totally shocked at the gesture or action. I don't understand fully why she thinks this gives her the right now to literally come onto him in this fashion. She seems very clingy to me, and very needy. Also she puzzles me in her persistence in asking him or employing him to love her or say he loves her.
Her intuition, perhaps. Her new found enlightenment. She turns out to be correct.

'
You love me,' she murmured, in strange transport, yearning and triumphant and confident. 'You love me. I know you love me, I know.'
How does she know? They have both gone down and touched death together and come up. They have touched whatever religion stems from - life, nakedness, death - and so they have to be in love. For Mabel it is a logical conclusion. I think you're lookning at this from a rational mentality, and this for L is definitely not a rational enterprise.



When I first read this story I felt the woman intimidated, scared F to some degree, or amazed him. As with other Lawrence stories, there is a theme of the woman being dominate towards the man (not always a good thing or outcome). This dominance was not an ideal to L. It seems in these passages in the house Mabel has the upper hand and is coercing F to love her or say he does. I feel F is almost under her spell and afraid to answer or act any other way that would oppose M's actions of sudden passion. If he does oppose her, he risks her trying again to end her life, and now he feels a responsibility towards keeping her alive. Doesn't he sacrifice something of himself in this process of being protective towards Mabel?
Ferguson is probably the last part of this story's discussion. There's probably a lot to respond to above, so let's hold this off for a little, and i'll come back to this.

Janine
04-17-2007, 03:23 PM
Virgil, Ok, what you have said and pointed out to me is good. I totally get your drift and will comment on all of this soon. I have some other matters to attend to and will come back to this by evening. You have make many things much clearer to me. Great!

Asa Adams
04-17-2007, 10:53 PM
Janine and Virgil! I was able to pick up the volume 1 at my Library. So I am able to stick around if you by chance choose a story from the first volume of shorts or from England, my..... Thanks!

Janine
04-17-2007, 11:58 PM
Janine and Virgil! I was able to pick up the volume 1 at my Library. So I am able to stick around if you by chance choose a story from the first volume of shorts or from England, my..... Thanks!

Oh good Asa, I have volume 1 in front of me. I just glanced through it and most stories I have not read. One of those might be good. I would like to read something new. Vol.1 was one of the used books I recently ordered online.
How long can you keep this book out of your library? We have not finished up the current story, but we are getting close. We can push to wrap it up soon -this week hopefully. Requires just the ending now.
Have you been reading along? Discussions have been interesting, I think, so far.
I am to pick next story, so let me go over the list in Vol.1, and get back to you (hopefully tomorrow) so you can start reading it and getting your thoughts together. I will inform Virgil by email since I said it would be one on the list online; but that was subject to change. Can always do those later, now that you got Vol 1. Glad you will join the discussion - 3 should prove to be even more interesting.

Asa Adams
04-18-2007, 12:18 AM
Janine, Excellent. I have the volume for 3 weeks, but at the rate of the tiny library, I have dibs on it for as long as I wish, lol.
I have not been keeping up lately, exams and everything. I hope I can start from here and we can work out a great pace.

Get back to me on the next story, and I will start it right away.
Thanks, Janine
Asa

Virgil
04-18-2007, 07:37 AM
Feel free to pick the next story. I think we can wrap this current one in a day or so while we read the next story.

Janine
04-18-2007, 02:18 PM
Feel free to pick the next story. I think we can wrap this current one in a day or so while we read the next story.

:) Virgil, good, glad you had read that last post of mine and Asa's, too.
I looked over the book and read some of parts of the stories I did not know. Give me another evening to decide. I am not yet sure of which to choose, but soon; I want to pick a good one that will make for a interesting discussion.
Virgil, do you know, are the stories in chronological order as to how Lawrence wrote them? "HDD" is in Volume II, "Things" is in Volume III. I felt, in reading some of the parts of the stories (last night) in Volume I, there is a sort of progression. Volume I felt more like L's earlier work.

Asa, "president of the slow-readers club" - be patient and I will tell you soon the next story to start reading. I will read some of the stories quickly tonight or parts of them. See which to pick.
Gee, Asa, do you have an "in" at your library? :lol: They must like you, if you can keep L out so long. I find that I check one L book in and out of my library all the time - one of the biographies I need to refer back to. I don't see a big demand in my library for L's books so they never say a word to me about it. Sad to say he is not popular or even heard of in my hometown. They prefer Danielle Steel, ick!:( :lol:

Virgil
04-18-2007, 08:30 PM
I looked over the book and read some of parts of the stories I did not know. Give me another evening to decide. I am not yet sure of which to choose, but soon; I want to pick a good one that will make for a interesting discussion.
Virgil, do you know, are the stories in chronological order as to how Lawrence wrote them? "HDD" is in Volume II, "Things" is in Volume III. I felt, in reading some of the parts of the stories (last night) in Volume I, there is a sort of progression. Volume I felt more like L's earlier work.


They are in rough chronological order, not strict. Out of Volume I, "The Prussian Officer" is a really cool story. But your call, Asa.

Janine
04-18-2007, 10:19 PM
They are in rough chronological order, not strict. Out of Volume I, "The Prussian Officer" is a really cool story. But your call, Asa.

Virgil, I think Asa requested I pick the story, unless he emailed you otherwise. I, too, was thinking of "The Prussian Officer" - I may have read it before, but that is ok. Let's do that one then.

***"The Prussian Officer" will officially be the next short story read.***

Virgil, I am sorry, I still can't answer your long L post; I am too tired out tonight (went out and came back late) to answer posts and questions, even in "Frome". I have to delay until tomorrow. I will consider both first priorities, but for now I am going to vegatate and watch a movie. Sorry to keep you waiting on the ending of this story, but Asa can start reading now and I will after completing a short book, a non-Lawrence novella. I should finish up by the weekend and can start the new short story.

Asa Adams
04-18-2007, 11:54 PM
Great. Monday will be our discussion if everyone is finished by then. Thanks again Janine, and Virgil! Prussian Officer it is.

Janine
04-19-2007, 12:05 AM
Great. Monday will be our discussion if everyone is finished by then. Thanks again Janine, and Virgil! Prussian Officer it is.

Asa, you must have just written this. I checked a couple of minutes ago and I was last poster. Good, glad you are pleased. Seems we can get this current story finished up by Monday - that sounds reasonable to me. It is my turn to comment on Virgils ideas in his last long post; I was too tired to think that hard tonight and will do so tomorrow, then we can move on to the end.

I can't wait to read the next story. I read a bit of that one last night just to see what it was like and it sounded good. I know that is a well known or noteworthy one. I may have read it before but a second reading is always best anyway.

Janine
04-19-2007, 03:34 PM
Virgil, Ok, ready now to address this post of yours; sorry it took me so long.



I agree. They are in need of something. A new life.

Ok, we do agree on this one at least :lol:


Well, I don't see it to "life again," but to a new life. The distinction is important.

You are right - it is now a "new life" - not "life again" - that I did not state correctly. It is like the burning down of the Phoenix; the total death in the flames and then the "rebirth" or rather the "new birth".


I'll have to think about "intertia." Their old life does have a mechanical aspect to it, at least Ferguson. Mabel's is more dead than mechanical. Inert implies that they can't get themselves to do something. Mabel does do something.

I guess I had Frome on my brain when I said "inertia";) Yes, I do think their old lives quite mechanical, but you are right - they did function, but so did Ethan. I meant they were 'inert' in their set ways and lives and resigned to their duties in them. True that Mabel makes the first moves and does 'something', but only after the death experience and the "new birth".


I think you're thinking in purely realistic terms.
Yes, I guess I was. Good for you to point this out. I had not thought of it quite that way or the next lines you wrote:

This I think is a difference between Hardy and Lawrence. When L uses the word transfiguration (and he specifically used it here in this story), he is saying the character went through a religious experience. This would not be your typical realistic experience. It is not an epiphany. The character is transformed into a new person. You (I'm going to assume) and I (although once perhaps I did come close) have never had such an experience.
Actually I do think I had this experience once, way back when I was in my late 20's, but I could not even explain it to someone cleary today. I absolutely did feel transformed or transfigured, and it was not like an epiphany, it was more profound than that. Odd, because right after that I read "Women in Love". The experience altered my entire life and my thinking. I am glad you came close or had a similiar experience. I think that that one pinacle in my life also opened my eyes wide to L's work and I was able to understand what he was saying. This experience made me open to his words.

It is a monumental religious conversion. The Apostles meet Jesus and give up their lives and follow him; Moses sees the Lord God and gives up his life to return to Egypt and lead the Israelites. These are transfigurations. For L, sexual experience (and i don't mean raw, cheap sex, but a loving kind) is a religious matter. That is why he loves Genesis; sex is such an undercurrent and linked to the devine. Mabel will never be the same.

I know I was never the same after this experience. But I am not sure you could say it was a 'monumental religious conversion', as for myself. Maybe I was only close, too.:)


That is quite right. It does come sudden. She is new, another.
Good, we are agreed on this point.


I think Lawrence wanted you to see that exactly. She has gone through a "supernatural" experience. She has gone down to death and has risen.

I understand the concept completely. Now I see the supernatural/religious part of it. It all makes more sense to me now. Thanks for pointing all of this out. It finally sunk into my brain in verbal terms. I knew it all, but in deeper, more unwritten senses.

Her intuition, perhaps. Her new found enlightenment. She turns out to be correct.
Like woman's intuition, I suppose; this being enhanced by the "transfiguative" experience.


How does she know? They have both gone down and touched death together and come up. They have touched whatever religion stems from - life, nakedness, death - and so they have to be in love. For Mabel it is a logical conclusion. I think you're lookning at this from a rational mentality, and this for L is definitely not a rational enterprise.

I am looking rationally about it and mentally. That is right L went way beyond the mental and looked to the deeper aspects of man. He is definitely not a rationalist. Would you call him an idealist?
It is the Fergusson "transfiguration" I am in doubt of. I still am feeling this way especially at the very end of the book. I can't seem to help it. I can't get through my own rationality about it and look at it from my own realistic view. More on this later.



Ferguson is probably the last part of this story's discussion. There's probably a lot to respond to above, so let's hold this off for a little, and i'll come back to this.

Agreed - that part will come evenutally.

Virgil
04-19-2007, 10:11 PM
I understand the concept completely. Now I see the supernatural/religious part of it. It all makes more sense to me now. Thanks for pointing all of this out. It finally sunk into my brain in verbal terms. I knew it all, but in deeper, more unwritten senses.

Not that much to respond to. I think you can understand my thesis now.


I am looking rationally about it and mentally. That is right L went way beyond the mental and looked to the deeper aspects of man. He is definitely not a rationalist. Would you call him an idealist?
Definitely not a rationalist. Yes he is an idealist in the sense he's got a model in his mind on how the world and life works. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't buy into all of L's ideas. But he's definetly convinced. I think that's why many of his friends had problems with him. His ideas couldn't possibly meet reality.

Virgil
04-19-2007, 10:30 PM
It is the Fergusson "transfiguration" I am in doubt of. I still am feeling this way especially at the very end of the book. I can't seem to help it. I can't get through my own rationality about it and look at it from my own realistic view. More on this later.

Ok, let's get to it. Here's the critical moment:

'You love me?' she said, rather faltering.

'Yes.' The word cost him a painful effort. Not because it wasn't true. But because it was too newly true, the saying seemed to tear open again his newly-torn heart. And he hardly wanted it to be true, even now.

She lifted her face to him, and he bent forward and kissed her on the mouth, gently, with the one kiss that is an eternal pledge. And as he kissed her his heart strained again in his breast. He never intended to love her. But now it was over. He had crossed over the gulf to her, and all that he had left behind had shrivelled and become void.

"Crossing the gulf" is an elocution Lawrence has used in the past.

But even before this, Lawrence uses another phrase he circulates in other works:

With an inward groan he gave way, and let his heart yield towards her. A sudden gentle smile came on his face. And her eyes, which never left his face, slowly, slowly filled with tears. He watched the strange water rise in her eyes, like some slow fountain coming up. And his heart seemed to burn and melt away in his breast.
"Melt" is the word and it does signal a transfiguration in Lawrencian lingo. A charcter for L usually goes from hard to soft, from crystal to melt. That's the second time in the story that F's heart melts. The first is just after she sits up.

'Do you love me then?' she asked.

He only stood and stared at her, fascinated. His soul seemed to melt.
Melts twice in the story, his heart ripped, and crosses the gulf. While it is not as clearly put as Mabel, I think Ferguson does also undergo a transfiguration. But here's the clincher:

Her hands were drawing him, drawing him down to her. He was afraid, even a little horrified. For he had, really, no intention of loving her. Yet her hands were drawing him towards her. He put out his hand quickly to steady himself, and grasped her bare shoulder. A flame seemed to burn the hand that grasped her soft shoulder. He had no intention of loving her: his whole will was against his yielding. It was horrible. And yet wonderful was the touch of her shoulders, beautiful the shining of her face. Was she perhaps mad? He had a horror of yielding to her. Yet something in him ached also.
A flame too. All Lawrencian language.

Janine
04-19-2007, 10:36 PM
Not that much to respond to. I think you can understand my thesis now.
Yes, understand the thesis much better now and the ideas of L's you were concentrating on.


Definitely not a rationalist. Yes he is an idealist in the sense he's got a model in his mind on how the world and life works. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't buy into all of L's ideas. But he's definetly convinced. I think that's why many of his friends had problems with him. His ideas couldn't possibly meet reality.

I thought so, also - an idealist. Yes, many of his ideas couldn't possibly be realistic. I can see how he lost some of his friends along the way.

Do you think you could post the next paragraphs you would like to address? I think it actually (realistically) might take one or two more days to complete this story.

Asa agreed we should start the new story on Monday. We can all start reading it or read it on the weekend.

Janine
04-19-2007, 10:38 PM
Virgil, How funny, you were writing your post same time as I was - only 6 mins between. You beat me to the post. I will go back and read that one I missed.

Janine
04-19-2007, 10:49 PM
Ok, let's get to it. Here's the critical moment:


"Crossing the gulf" is an elocution Lawrence has used in the past.

I did not know about this word being an elocution of Lawrence's and used in his past works. Thanks for pointing that out.


But even before this, Lawrence uses another phrase he circulates in other works:


"Melt" is the word and it does signal a transfiguration in Lawrencian lingo. A charcter for L usually goes from hard to soft, from crystal to melt. That's the second time in the story that F's heart melts. The first is just after she sits up.
That is a good one and I can see he uses it several times so he is emphasising it obviously. I was unaware consciously of this Lawrencian lingo. Great - I am learning something.


Melts twice in the story, his heart ripped, and crosses the gulf. While it is not as clearly put as Mabel, I think Ferguson does also undergo a transfiguration. But here's the clincher:

A flame too. All Lawrencian language.

Did he actually use the word ripped or was that your word? I don't see it there? I might have missed it. Well, it is just that a 'transfiguration' with Fergusson seems less natural and more forced to me - ok, maybe because I see this scene more realistically. His 'transfiguration' does not seem so defined as Mabel's. She actually went unconscious and came back to a new born life. He was not unconscious and did not have to be rescued and new life breathed into him - remember on the shore he resusitated her? So there is the difference in my mind. He went under the water for such a short time, I don't see his full 'transfiguration', as I do hers.

Janine
04-20-2007, 04:04 PM
Virgil, what happened to this part of the story? Did it get skipped over?I don't think you quoted it before and I think there are some important things in it. Sorry if I am backtracking a little. Be sure and read my last post, also. Thanks, J

This scene is after they get back and he gives her a swig of whiskey to revive her and takes one himself.

The effect was instantaneous. She looked full into his face, as if she had been seeing him for some time, and yet had only just become conscious of him.
'Dr. Fergusson?' she said.
'What?' he answered.
He was divesting himself of his coat, intending to find some dry clothing upstairs. He could not bear the smell of the dead, clayey water, and he was mortally afraid for his own health.
'What did I do?' she asked.
'Walked into the pond,' he replied. He had begun to shudder like one sick, and could hardly attend to her. Her eyes remained full on him, he seemed to be going dark in his mind, looking back at her helplessly. The shuddering became quieter in him, his life came back in him, dark and unknowing, but strong again.
'Was I out of my mind?' she asked, while her eyes were fixed on him all the time.
'Maybe, for the moment,' he replied. He felt quiet, because his strength had come back. The strange fretful strain had left him.
'Am I out of my mind now?' she asked.
'Are you?' he reflected a moment. 'No,' he answered truthfully, 'I don't see that you are.' He turned his face aside. He was afraid now, because he felt dazed, and felt dimly that her power was stronger than his, in this issue. And she continued to look at him fixedly all the time. 'Can you tell me where I shall find some dry things to put on?' he asked.
'Did you dive into the pond for me?' she asked.
'No,' he answered. 'I walked in. But I went in overhead as well.'
There was silence for a moment. He hesitated. He very much wanted to go upstairs to get into dry clothing. But there was another desire in him. And she seemed to hold him. His will seemed to have gone to sleep, and left him, standing there slack before her. But he felt warm inside himself. He did not shudder at all, though his clothes were sodden on him.
'Why did you?' she asked.
'Because I didn't want you to do such a foolish thing,' he said.
'It wasn't foolish,' she said, still gazing at him as she lay on the floor, with a sofa cushion under her head. 'It was the right thing to do. I knew best, then.'
'I'll go and shift these wet things,' he said. But still he had not the power to move out of her presence, until she sent him. It was as if she had the life of his body in her hands, and he could not extricate himself. Or perhaps he did not want to.

Hope none of this repeats. I just wanted to discuss it before we go onto the last parts of the story.

Virgil
04-20-2007, 07:33 PM
Did he actually use the word ripped or was that your word? I don't see it there? I might have missed it.
It didn't quite refer to his heart but he does say ripped. Here:

After the kiss, her eyes again slowly filled with tears. She sat still, away from him, with her face drooped aside, and her hands folded in her lap. The tears fell very slowly. There was complete silence. He too sat there motionless and silent on the hearthrug. The strange pain of his heart that was broken seemed to consume him. That he should love her? That this was love! That he should be ripped open in this way!--Him, a doctor!--How they would all jeer if they knew!--It was agony to him to think they might know.


Well, it is just that a 'transfiguration' with Fergusson seems less natural and more forced to me - ok, maybe because I see this scene more realistically. His 'transfiguration' does not seem so defined as Mabel's. She actually went unconscious and came back to a new born life. He was not unconscious and did not have to be rescued and new life breathed into him - remember on the shore he resusitated her? So there is the difference in my mind. He went under the water for such a short time, I don't see his full 'transfiguration', as I do hers.
Yes, I agree, it's not clear as with Mabel. It's a question of judgement. I've gone back and forth myself, and I could be persuaded to either way.

Virgil
04-20-2007, 07:39 PM
Virgil, what happened to this part of the story? Did it get skipped over?I don't think you quoted it before and I think there are some important things in it. Sorry if I am backtracking a little. Be sure and read my last post, also. Thanks, J

This scene is after they get back and he gives her a swig of whiskey to revive her and takes one himself.


Hope none of this repeats. I just wanted to discuss it before we go onto the last parts of the story.

No not a repeat. What would you like to say about it? The part I see significance is this passage:

'Are you?' he reflected a moment. 'No,' he answered truthfully, 'I don't see that you are.' He turned his face aside. He was afraid now, because he felt dazed, and felt dimly that her power was stronger than his, in this issue. And she continued to look at him fixedly all the time. 'Can you tell me where I shall find some dry things to put on?' he asked.
The notion that he is in her power. She is the one charged with a special experience. I guess it's her power that causes his transfiguration, if he indeed has one.

Janine
04-20-2007, 11:11 PM
Virgil, I don't have time for this tonight. I will have to delay till tomorrow to comment on everything in last two posts.

Janine
04-21-2007, 10:08 PM
It didn't quite refer to his heart but he does say ripped.

Yes, I think it says ripped open....funny about the heart...L usually said it was not so much the heart he was concerned with but deeper/lower down. L sure is confusing sometimes. Wish he were here so we could ask him specifically just what he meant?


Yes, I agree, it's not clear as with Mabel. It's a question of judgement. I've gone back and forth myself, and I could be persuaded to either way.

Yes, same here if we could conjure up L from the "bring them back from the dead" thread and ask him directly we would know for sure. I don't think we can ever come to a solid conclusion.

Janine
04-21-2007, 10:19 PM
No not a repeat. What would you like to say about it? The part I see significance is this passage:

The notion that he is in her power. She is the one charged with a special experience. I guess it's her power that causes his transfiguration, if he indeed has one.

I see him very much under a spell and her power. Right about his tranfiguration - "if he indeed has one".... at all. Maybe L means him to have one eventually, but he does not really by the end of this short story. Maybe she does, but he does not yet. Could it be one-sided now or could his transfiguration come later after they have been married or they consumated their love physically? I had this thought - her's happened and his was a potentiality.
But when we go onto the next section I am still doubtful as to their happiness in the future. Let's proceed with what comes next in the text. Soon we will get to the part where he she goes upstairs to dress and to find him something dry to wear. I find this part interesting, but there may be some lines of significance right before that.

Virgil
04-22-2007, 03:05 PM
Well, let's discuss the ending Janine. Perhaps that's what's giving you this uneasy feeling over their future. Here's the first thing I want to point out:

She shrank, and dropped her head. The soft, penetrating grip of his hand on her arm distressed her. She looked up at him.

'I want to go,' she said. 'I want to go and get you some dry things.'

'Why?' he said. 'I'm all right.'

'But I want to go,' she said. 'And I want you to change your things.'

He released her arm, and she wrapped herself in the blanket, looking at him rather frightened. And still she did not rise.

This is similar to several Lawrence endings. L is adverse to the happy ever after ending. To close with a kiss, which is quite possible here, implies that time has ended. L could hold them in that perfect moment, but in real life that perfect moment ends and needs dictate that we move on to the next thing. The need here is to get Ferguson out of his wet clothes. So the perfect moment must break. This is just the opposite of John Keat's poem, "Ode To A Grecian Urn" where the lovers on the urn are frozen in time, forever in passion. Mabel and Ferguson are not images or sculptures or any other works of art (actually they are, but L is trying to reflect reality) but flesh and blood people with human needs and not severed from time. This I think is the note you hear. You may be hearing it as a discordant note suggesting trouble to come. To continue the music metaphor here, Lawrence does not like to end stories on a closed cadence, but I think it's called a false cadence in music or is it open cadence.

Now take a look further on:

It was six o'clock on the clock. His own watch had stopped. He ought to go back to the surgery. He waited, and still she did not come down. So he went to the foot of the stairs and called:

'I shall have to go.'

Almost immediately he heard her coming down. She had on her best dress of black voile, and her hair was tidy, but still damp. She looked at him--and in spite of herself, smiled.

'I don't like you in those clothes,' she said.

'Do I look a sight?' he answered.

They were shy of one another.

'I'll make you some tea,' she said.

'No, I must go.'

'Must you?' And she looked at him again with the wide, strained, doubtful eyes. And again, from the pain of his breast, he knew how he loved her. He went and bent to kiss her, gently, passionately, with his heart's painful kiss.

Here it gets even more complicated. The pull of society tugs on Ferguson. Remember we were discussing the wall between their internal selves and the requirements of society? Well it comes back. Earlier we were talking about individual selves versus society, but now it's their combined couple's world versus the outside social world. Again the perfect moment can't remain forever. Time and human needs (society is not always negative with L) must intrude. And they must move on. However, I think you're going too far by interpreting it as a troubled future. It is that the present can't remain ideal forever.

Janine
04-22-2007, 03:33 PM
Well, let's discuss the ending Janine. Perhaps that's what's giving you this uneasy feeling over their future. Here's the first thing I want to point out:


This is similar to several Lawrence endings. L is adverse to the happy ever after ending. To close with a kiss, which is quite possible here, implies that time has ended. L could hold them in that perfect moment, but in real life that perfect moment ends and needs dictate that we move on to the next thing. The need here is to get Ferguson out of his wet clothes. So the perfect moment must break. This is just the opposite of John Keat's poem, "Ode To A Grecian Urn" where the lovers on the urn are frozen in time, forever in passion. Mabel and Ferguson are not images or sculptures or any other works of art (actually they are, but L is trying to reflect reality) but flesh and blood people with human needs and not severed from time. This I think is the note you hear. You may be hearing it as a discordant note suggesting trouble to come. To continue the music metaphor here, Lawrence does not like to end stories on a closed cadence, but I think it's called a false cadence in music or is it open cadence.

Now take a look further on:


Here it gets even more complicated. The pull of society tugs on Ferguson. Remember we were discussing the wall between their internal selves and the requirements of society? Well it comes back. Earlier we were talking about individual selves versus society, but now it's their combined couple's world versus the outside social world. Again the perfect moment can't remain forever. Time and human needs (society is not always negative with L) must intrude. And they must move on. However, I think you're going too far by interpreting it as a troubled future. It is that the present can't remain ideal forever.

Oh, this is perfect, Virgil. Really I mean it. I know, all so well, that L never leaves a story with a "happily ever after" ending. Yet unlike Hardy he rarely goes for complete tragedy with his endings. This all makes perfect sense to me now. You will laugh at me but several times I have read this ending and I mistoke this line:

'I don't like you in those clothes,' she said.

as being said by Fergusson. I wonder why I did that (must need new eyes:eek2:been staring at this computer screen too long).
Now that would change
the whole context and feeling/mood and significance of that ending. Ok, now that I see this clearly and correctly, I understand. I thought he was criticising her for the clothes she had put on - "her best dress of black voile". By the way, odd that Lawrence picked a black dress after the whole death morning scene at the grave. Hard to conceive of a black dress being worn by such a transformed/radiant person. Do you see this having any significance? Perhaps just the fashion of the day but in other novels and stories L often points out colors of a woman's clothes such as bright yellow or white to indicate a lightness and gaiety or mood. Now at the end Mabel appears very proper with that black dress - it feels sort of forbodding or dismal to me, but maybe that too is signifying her return to reality.
The way that L seems to pull one back into reality and to the concrete is strange after seeing the whole set of events so symbolically, but as you pointed out, this is very effective in grounding us in the real world by the end of the story. Maybe one could say L is a combination of both "idealist" and "realist", but put into some type of balance with each other, or so it would be his personal goal at the least.
Everything you wrote here makes perfect sense - good job of thinking it out clearly.
I see you changed your avy? Now who is that? YOU? :D

Virgil
04-22-2007, 03:37 PM
I have no knowledge of women's clothing. ;) I don't have any thoughts on clothing significance. But isn't Mabel naked here, just with a blanket over her?

Signature picture is of the real Virgil. Not me. :lol: Am I that old? :p

Janine
04-22-2007, 03:46 PM
I have no knowledge of women's clothing. ;) I don't have any thoughts on clothing significance. But isn't Mabel naked here, just with a blanket over her?

Signature picture is of the real Virgil. Not me. :lol: Am I that old? :p

Well, I am just into the "symbolic" significance of color....being the artist I am, and recalling L's use of color in other books. He so often paints a very vivid colorful picture of all kinds of things...he is quite an artist that way to I thought the black might have a significance.

Answer to second (sign pic) question,

Yes, you're quite an ancient!:lol::D :lol:

PS: I liked the Phoenix better - more interesting and nice colors!

Virgil
04-22-2007, 08:18 PM
Well, I am just into the "symbolic" significance of color....being the artist I am, and recalling L's use of color in other books. He so often paints a very vivid colorful picture of all kinds of things...he is quite an artist that way to I thought the black might have a significance.

Oh what was the color, black? I didn't notice, to be honest.


Answer to second (sign pic) question,

Yes, you're quite an ancient!:lol::D :lol:

PS: I liked the Phoenix better - more interesting and nice colors!
:lol: Yes, I'm ancient, but I wouldn't talk if I were you. You're catching up to me. ;) Just thought it is was time for a change on the signature. I am completely and forever locked into the wolf for my avy, so I have to alter something else. I'll bring it back.

Unless you have more to discuss, I think we are finished with "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." As you can see by the length and breath of this dicussion that this is a very rich story. It really contains many of the Lawrencian themes (although not all) that runs through much of his work. That's why I selected it. Anyone that wants to understand other Lawrence works would be wise to go through this thread.

Now on to "The Prussian Officer."

Janine
04-22-2007, 08:54 PM
Oh what was the color, black? I didn't notice, to be honest.


:lol: Yes, I'm ancient, but I wouldn't talk if I were you. You're catching up to me. ;) Catching up to you? - what do you mean, you will be catching up to me. I am older than you!:bawling: But anyway, I meant you had an ancient soul - like an old soul....very wise.


Just thought it is was time for a change on the signature. I am completely and forever locked into the wolf for my avy, so I have to alter something else. I'll bring it back.

Yeah, I thought of changing my avatar, but then I would find it harder to find myself and wonder, too, if others would pass me by knowing my old avy and it is bright and easy to recognise. But the Virgil relief is a little flat and colorless, compared to the other one that looked so interesting.


Unless you have more to discuss, I think we are finished with "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." As you can see by the length and breath of this dicussion that this is a very rich story. It really contains many of the Lawrencian themes (although not all) that runs through much of his work. That's why I selected it. Anyone that wants to understand other Lawrence works would be wise to go through this thread.

Now on to "The Prussian Officer."

Virgil, Can we go to next story tomorrow? But can we address the last few paragraphs of the story? There were a few things in there I wanted to discuss before we wrap it up completely. It won't take long....promise.

"This is a very rich story" - yes, I was just thinking of this - you really picked a good story to study.

Janine
04-22-2007, 10:43 PM
Ok, Virgil, humor me...I am just posting these last closing lines before we wrap this story up.


'No, I must go.'

'Must you?' And she looked at him again with the wide, strained, doubtful eyes. And again, from the pain of his breast, he knew how he loved her. He went and bent to kiss her, gently, passionately, with his heart's painful kiss.

'And my hair smells so horrible,' she murmured in distraction. 'And I'm so awful, I'm so awful! Oh, no, I'm too awful.' And she broke into bitter, heart-broken sobbing. 'You can't want to love me, I'm horrible.'

'Don't be silly, don't be silly,' he said, trying to comfort her, kissing her, holding her in his arms. 'I want you, I want to marry you, we're going to be married, quickly, quickly--to-morrow if I can.'

But she only sobbed terribly, and cried:
'I feel awful. I feel awful. I feel I'm horrible to you.'

'No, I want you, I want you,' was all he answered, blindly, with that terrible intonation which frightened her almost more than her horror lest he should not want her.

What I would like to know is why she seems to need so much reassurance? She seems to be very insecure? She keeps pointing out that she is 'horrible' and how can he love her? What do you suppose is the purpose of this ending? I felt this part of the story rather unsettling and strange. I think this is actually the part that makes me question as to whether they will be happy in the future.

Virgil
04-23-2007, 07:01 AM
It is strange, and a little mysterious. What I think is that another form of reality is settling in. By such love, the two have coupled as one unit, and in some heavenly sphere I believe Lawrence thinks they will be one, two halves of the male/female dualism. But that is in a heavenly sphere and they are still on earth and in the context of individual flesh and blood. Her insecurity is something that comes out of internal self (her ego I think L would say), a wall between her and him. I'm a little less certain on this that the other stuff I've explained.

Janine
04-23-2007, 03:08 PM
It is strange, and a little mysterious. What I think is that another form of reality is settling in. By such love, the two have coupled as one unit, and in some heavenly sphere I believe Lawrence thinks they will be one, two halves of the male/female dualism. But that is in a heavenly sphere and they are still on earth and in the context of individual flesh and blood. Her insecurity is something that comes out of internal self (her ego I think L would say), a wall between her and him. I'm a little less certain on this that the other stuff I've explained.

Virgil, I buy all of this. I like your take on the dualism - two halves of the male/female. Yes, it fits well with L's ideas/ideals. He never really departs fully from reality, does he? Just when one things spiritually he yanks you back into the real world we all must live in. I think here he grounds the story in this final scene in reality with Mabel's insecurity. I had not thought of it before, but it is more evident to me now. It is a sort of device to pull one back to the actual physical world.

Virgil, Now I am satisfied with this story. I think we can now wrap this one up and go onto the next one, what do you think?

Happy to report that last night I read "The Prussian Officer".
Wow, I liked it very much! I thought I had read it before, but now I don't think it at all familiar; if I did, I had forgotten it. I may have another read-through of the story tonight, but basically I have a good memory of the plot at this time, still quite fresh in my mind.

I don't know how we will treat this story, since we don't have the text online to cut and paste, as we did with the others. We will have to type out passages, I suppose.
I will leave the start to you - you are so good at it. Can we begin at the opening scene when the soldiers are marching toward the mountains?

I have a question, also. Is this a "frame story"? Doesn't it start at one point and return to it at the end? Or since it is all being told by one person with no set introduction, would it be considered something else? It is told in three distinct parts. This is quite different in format and subject matter than "HDD" or other L short stories. It will definitely make for a lively and enthralling discussion.

Afternote:I was going to read only one part of the story last night, but I could not put it down. I had to find out what was going to happen. A very good read!

I wonder if Asa has read it yet.

Virgil
04-23-2007, 03:47 PM
Great that you liked The Horse Dealer's Daughter and that you are satisfied with our interpretations. I say "our" because so much one arrives through a give and take.

I haven't read The Prussian Officer in many years. I'll read it tonight. Glad you liked it.

Janine
04-23-2007, 04:26 PM
Great that you liked The Horse Dealer's Daughter and that you are satisfied with our interpretations. I say "our" because so much one arrives through a give and take.

I haven't read The Prussian Officer in many years. I'll read it tonight. Glad you liked it.

Virgil, Glad you saw this. Glad now to move on. I think we beat "HDD" to death don't you?....a l t h o u g h.....I probably could have said a few more things about it.....:lol:

.......happy to move on though....something new is definitely in order;)

Virgil, take your time reading; Asa may not have read it yet either. For once I am the first to read something - amazing:D

Yes, loved all the stories we did so far! And this one is great, too.

Asa Adams
04-23-2007, 10:55 PM
Havent read yet. Spending my free time pouring concrete footings for my blasted deck! A tree fell on it this weekend. :(

I will try my best to finish the story asap

Asa

Janine
04-23-2007, 11:39 PM
Asa, take your time. Virgil and I are in no hurry; when we started this thread we figured we would go out our own pace and in-between other things like 'book of the month', etc. I just happened to be between books last night and read it. It was good, but a little longer than the last one I believe; has three parts. I will probably read it again. We can start a few days from now, or when we all have read it. No problem.
Sorry about your deck. Trees can be hazzardous - at least it did not fall on you!;)

malwethien
04-25-2007, 04:41 AM
Hey guys...sorry for the intrusion...a "little birdie" told me to come and visit the thread...and well...here I am ;) I just read a short story by Lawrence... Rocking-Horse Winner. As I was reading it, I realized that I had read that story a long time ago....back in my freshman (high school) English class...

Anyway...don't let me interrupt the flow of your discussion...just wanted to stop by and share that :)

Virgil
04-25-2007, 06:41 AM
Well, that is a good story, Malwethien. Would you like to join our discussion? Perhaps we can pick Rocking Horse Winner as an up coming story for discussion. Anyway, feel free to join any time you wish. You are not interrupting.

Janine
04-25-2007, 03:12 PM
Hey guys...sorry for the intrusion...a "little birdie" told me to come and visit the thread...and well...here I am ;) I just read a short story by Lawrence... Rocking-Horse Winner. As I was reading it, I realized that I had read that story a long time ago....back in my freshman (high school) English class...

Anyway...don't let me interrupt the flow of your discussion...just wanted to stop by and share that :)

:wave: Hi malwethien, Could I have been that little birdie?;) I am trying to get word out about our great thread here and inspire some people to read some Lawrence.
Yes, "Rocking Horse Winner" is a very good story. I believe that at that point in his short story writing, L crosses over into a more surrealistic or magical world. My sister always loved that story. She still recalls it. Leaves an impression on one.
This story we are currently reading is different, but quite captivating. Given your keen sensitivity to people and characters, I think you would like it very much. Not a romance though;), but good interaction between characters.
Virgil has posted a link to the story online. I read it in one night, and intended to break it up for a 3 part reading, but then I read on - I wanted to see what was to happen at the outcome/end. It captivated me the way L wrote it.
Sure hope you come in and comment from time to time, or at least read the posts. I know you will enjoy them and learn something new here.

malwethien
04-25-2007, 10:16 PM
:wave: Hi malwethien, Could I have been that little birdie?;) I am trying to get word out about our great thread here and inspire some people to read some Lawrence.
This story we are currently reading is different, but quite captivating. Given your keen sensitivity to people and characters, I think you would like it very much. Not a romance though;), but good interaction between characters.
Virgil has posted a link to the story online. I read it in one night, and intended to break it up for a 3 part reading, but then I read on - I wanted to see what was to happen at the outcome/end. It captivated me the way L wrote it.
Sure hope you come in and comment from time to time, or at least read the posts. I know you will enjoy them and learn something new here.

Yes, of course, who else would it be? ;) You are reading The Prussian Officer? If that's the one then I have already found a copy online and I am planning on reading it ;)

Virgil
04-25-2007, 10:26 PM
Oh good, some one else joining!!

Janine
04-25-2007, 10:31 PM
Yes, of course, who else would it be? ;) You are reading The Prussian Officer? If that's the one then I have already found a copy online and I am planning on reading it ;)

:wave: Hi malwethien, just realised the link is in email, but it is probably the same site. I will send the link to you. Virgil sent it to me and to Asa.
Great - so glad you can join us! The story is an interesting one to disguss. Later you might want to read the two we just discussed and read the posts to learn more about the stories. Those were a little shorter than this one.

inspirangel
04-26-2007, 04:33 AM
hi you all !! so glad to see some enthusiasm for Lawrence here !! where do I sign ?? seriously, I would like to join your discussions? Thanks

"all his success was hers .........." (Sons and Lover)

Virgil
04-26-2007, 06:54 AM
hi you all !! so glad to see some enthusiasm for Lawrence here !! where do I sign ?? seriously, I would like to join your discussions? Thanks

"all his success was hers .........." (Sons and Lover)

Love your name Inspirangel. Welcome to lit net. You've already joined. Come along. We are in the middle of reading The Prussian Officer. No one has posted anything on it yet. If you go back in this thread, we've read two other stories, "Things," and "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." Feel free to comment on them, or you cqn start with "The Prussian Officer."

I see you're a big Lawrence fan. Join the club!!

inspirangel
04-26-2007, 07:20 AM
Thanks for the encouragement - will head for the City Library on Saturday in meantime would appreciate your critique of my helium article on "The Piano" - DH of course !!

Virgil
04-26-2007, 08:44 AM
Thanks for the encouragement - will head for the City Library on Saturday in meantime would appreciate your critique of my helium article on "The Piano" - DH of course !!

Sure, where is that? Could you provide a link? I did my master's thesis on Lawrence, by the way. If you're interested I could emal that to you some day.

inspirangel
04-26-2007, 09:28 AM
Hi again - yes sure, for link - quickest way is to see it on MySpace www.myspace.com/inspirangels and then click on helium button - if this is ok to post link on here (dont want to break any forum rules!!) or I could message back with url when i have looked up - ALSO I just posted recommendation for this On -literature forum on my blog (so you can see I am impressed!)

Janine
04-26-2007, 03:06 PM
Hi again - yes sure, for link - quickest way is to see it on MySpace www.myspace.com/inspirangels and then click on helium button - if this is ok to post link on here (dont want to break any forum rules!!) or I could message back with url when i have looked up - ALSO I just posted recommendation for this On -literature forum on my blog (so you can see I am impressed!)

Hi inspirangel, So glad to have you aboard! I like your name also. I too am a huge Lawrence fan. I am about to start my 4th biography - just my own independent life-time study/pursuit; also reading "Collected Letters" and some other related books. I am so happy to find another Lawrence enthusiast. You will love these discussions. So far they have been going very well. Two new people are joining in this month and now you, as well...great! It is good to see people finally surfacing who appreciate the great writer's works.

Also, welcome to Lit Net - you will love it. I am totally addicted, by now. You probably will be, too, in no time.
Virgil has the link to this story available on a site online. This way we can copy and paste to discuss certain paragraphs and lines. I or he can send it to you in email; we were not sure about posting the link in here. Let us know.

I too will check out your review on the link you provided. Always great to read more about Lawrence.

PS:I just edited this to add something - I did not find the article you mentioned in your blog, but instead I did find the Wren's Nest. I must write you back and post another entry that is in L's very first novel "The White Peacock", which is a hard book to find; he began writing it when he was only 21, I believe. It referrs to something similiar about a nest in the field, and is wonderful. Maybe you could add it to your blog. Let me look it up and type it out to post later or send to you directly. You will love it. It is very heartfelt.

inspirangel
04-26-2007, 03:19 PM
OK - Thanks for the welcome !! Let me know and I wil surely look up - I am pleased to have found this site - I deliberately have not read all of Lawrences work (like Jane Austen I am rationing them out over a lifetime so I can savour reading new ones for the first time), hoever I can read S and L and The R over and over !!

inspirangel
04-26-2007, 03:22 PM
Yes - sorry I was not clear enough - recommendation to Online lit is on blog - press helium button on my profile for Article on "The Piano" - do you agree with my interpretation ?? (You can be honest ..............)

Virgil
04-26-2007, 03:23 PM
OK - Thanks for the welcome !! Let me know and I wil surely look up - I am pleased to have found this site - I deliberately have not read all of Lawrences work (like Jane Austen I am rationing them out over a lifetime so I can savour reading new ones for the first time), hoever I can read S and L and The R over and over !!

Ah, another lover of The Rainbow. My favorite Lawrence work.

Janine
04-26-2007, 03:25 PM
OK - Thanks for the welcome !! Let me know and I wil surely look up - I am pleased to have found this site - I deliberately have not read all of Lawrences work (like Jane Austen I am rationing them out over a lifetime so I can savour reading new ones for the first time), hoever I can read S and L and The R over and over !!

inspirangel,
Next try "Women in Love" - it follows "The Rainbow", but very much stands appart from it. I loved that book, probably my favorite. Virgil's favorite was the R. I only recently read "Sons and Lovers" - loved it since now I appreciate how autobiographical it is. I too, have read L's works over much time - my whole lifetime so far. It is a fine pursuit indeed and great goal.

Hope you caught my added PS: on my last email. I was probably editing it when you were emailing me back. Sorry about that.

Janine
04-26-2007, 03:27 PM
Yes - sorry I was not clear enough - recommendation to Online lit is on blog - press helium button on my profile for Article on "The Piano" - do you agree with my interpretation ?? (You can be honest ..............)

Sorry I did not read "The Piano" article yet, but I will later on. Virgil just came on to say what I had said - his favorite book is "The Rainbow". We all seem to be posting at once...how funny:lol:

Nossa
04-26-2007, 04:01 PM
How come I didn't see this thread before? lol
I love D.H. Lawrence and I always thought he only wrote novels, stuff like Sons and Lovers...till I came across a book called D.H Lawrence: Selected Tales..I was like what that....? so he DID write short stories. I haven't started in reading any of them...but I'm sure I'll enjoy them!

Janine
04-26-2007, 04:28 PM
Nossa, welcome - yes, do join in our group discussions, too. Lawrence's novels overshadowed recognition of his great, and I mean great, short stories. Now more than ever he is noted for them. We have studied 2 so far on this thread and now we are doing "The Prussian Officer'. We are all in the process now of reading the story, but soon posts will start up discussing it from the beginning. I hope you can join in.
Let me know in PM mail if you want me to send you the link to the story. It is on a site online. Virgil found it. For you information, Lawrence wrote much and was a very prolific author. I have read 3 biographies on the man and Virgil did his thesis on him.
Sorry you had not seen this thread earlier, but so glad you have found it finally. Glad, too, that you appreciate Lawrence. Hope to hear from you soon. You will enjoy the stories emensely. Janine

Nossa
04-26-2007, 04:51 PM
^^ Thank you SO much...I do appreciate D.H. Lawrence. Actually, my professor was the first one to recommend reading Lawrence's works for me, and I became hooked right away.
I don't think that I have this story, so I'd be thankful if you send me the link :D

Janine
04-26-2007, 05:15 PM
^^ Thank you SO much...I do appreciate D.H. Lawrence. Actually, my professor was the first one to recommend reading Lawrence's works for me, and I became hooked right away.
I don't think that I have this story, so I'd be thankful if you send me the link :D

Nossa, I became "hooked right away" on Lawrence, too. His writing style has a way of doing that - it really grabs one and you can't let go. Hope you enjoy the story. I sent you the link in PM and some information about others stories online/on Lit Net.
Have fun reading and discovering another aspect of L.

malwethien
04-26-2007, 09:30 PM
Hi all....looks like a party in here ;) Well I read The Prussian Officer until part II...It is very interesting...but I don't want to say anything yet until everyone is finished... ;)

Janine
04-26-2007, 09:47 PM
Hi all....looks like a party in here ;) Well I read The Prussian Officer until part II...It is very interesting...but I don't want to say anything yet until everyone is finished... ;)

Good work, malwethien! I know, don't start yet; I am sure everyone is still reading. Yes, it is a party in here - lots of enthusiastic Lawrence fans! It is wonderful; all this sudden enthusiasm. As in Field of Dreams - "If you build it they will come". The players have finally arrived! I read the short story about a week ago. I will have to reread it - I intended to. Part III is really interesting. I will be anxious to hear your comments. Probably we will take it a section at a time like we did the other stories, especially the last. That worked out well. See you soon ~ J

Virgil
04-26-2007, 09:59 PM
Hi again - yes sure, for link - quickest way is to see it on MySpace www.myspace.com/inspirangels and then click on helium button - if this is ok to post link on here (dont want to break any forum rules!!) or I could message back with url when i have looked up - ALSO I just posted recommendation for this On -literature forum on my blog (so you can see I am impressed!)

Inspirangel, I can't find the helium baloon. By the way, to know a little about me, you can read my profile and my introduction here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14853, which I think was ages ago.

Janine
04-26-2007, 10:45 PM
Inspirangel, I can't find the helium baloon. By the way, to know a little about me, you can read my profile and my introduction here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14853, which I think was ages ago.

Virgil, I found the Helium link right above the video screen to the left, in the blog site. It looks like an ad.

Inspirangel, I know that poem very well and love it. Actually it is one of my favorites of L's. I liked very much your comments on the poem and will definitely read that entry again in more detail. It is very illuminating with good observations and things you have pointed out. Yes, L knew how to evoke the right kind of emotion. This poem is about his own childhood and his mother who played piano often, I believe. As everyone knows he had an unually close relationship to his mother. I feel this poem is almost a tribute to her and his memories of his home life, although depicted harshly in "Sons and Lovers" with the parents always at war, I have read in the biographies that the situation was not as bad as depicted, and his father not as quite as cruel and crude. It is true that the parents were very opposite, but L's home life had it's happy times, as well, and many fond memories especially those spend at the Hagg's farm. Later in life, L actually regretted his harsh depiction of his his father in "S&L's". Latest biographies have revealed this fact.

"The piano" poem is wonderful, is it not? Shows us, once again, the brilliance of L's perceptive mind.

malwethien
04-27-2007, 04:18 AM
Ok...I'm done reading The Prussian Officer... :confused:

inspirangel
04-27-2007, 07:41 AM
What ??? Oh no ....... I only just joined yesterday and havent even started it yet !! AND ive got to read Othello !! AND 2 Seamus Heaney books !! Your location sounds a bit similar to mine !! I love your quote and reference to Robert Graves !! Glad to have found this site, now wheres that link to the Prussian Officer .....................

Virgil
04-27-2007, 07:46 AM
What ??? Oh no ....... I only just joined yesterday and havent even started it yet !! AND ive got to read Othello !! AND 2 Seamus Heaney books !! Your location sounds a bit similar to mine !! I love your quote and reference to Robert Graves !! Glad to have found this site, now wheres that link to the Prussian Officer .....................

Inspirangel, I just sent you a Private Message with the ink.

inspirangel
04-27-2007, 07:46 AM
Thank you and Janine very much for discussing my article - I am interested to hear that L later regretted his harsh depiction - it is a thing all artists/writers have to be wary of - the written word can be cast in stone and is difficult to retract - I am always fascinated by the bravery/foolhardiness of writers publishing semi autobiographical first works - like the great one about the Brontes trying to keep their location a secret !! I am nervous of reading any bios about Lawrence, I like to rey and discern him from his writing alone.

Janine
04-27-2007, 03:01 PM
Thank you and Janine very much for discussing my article - I am interested to hear that L later regretted his harsh depiction - it is a thing all artists/writers have to be wary of - the written word can be cast in stone and is difficult to retract - I am always fascinated by the bravery/foolhardiness of writers publishing semi autobiographical first works - like the great one about the Brontes trying to keep their location a secret !! I am nervous of reading any bios about Lawrence, I like to rey and discern him from his writing alone.

inspirangel, You are very welcome. I really enjoyed reading what I had time for yesterday, especially the exerpt from S & L and the bird's nest and I adore the piano poem - I have for a long time now. I will explore your blog when I do have more time, sorry time was so limited yesterday. It seems to be very good and well constructed. You have done a fine job on it.

Well, I have a different view on biographies; also the letters (by Lawrence, himself) reveal much about him biographically and about his work. I have said it before and no doubt will say it many times again - "you cannot separate the author from his history and his life, thus his biography". True that many people are writing biographies about the same man and some part of that is their own view - that is why I try to soak up as much as I can, but then sift through the information from each biographer and determine what has validity and what is probably false or exaggerated. That is why I read 3 full biographies so far. I knew these to be highly rated and also current, and this too is why I am planning another biography from Cambridge or perhaps several more. You see, with me it is a sort of passionate 'quest' of learning more about the author I love and admire so much. Also, as I said, his letters reveal much. I just read the 3 travel books in "D.H.Lawrence and Italy";this reveals much insight into Lawrence and the way his mind worked. It is very personal and one begins to feel the true essence of the man himself. This greatly interests me because now I begin to understand his works so much better and on a deeper level. But especially with Lawrence his work is so closely tied into his past and the many people he meet along the way and had interaction with. To view the works alone, without the benefit of knowing Lawrence himself, to some extend is limited and not with fullest scope. Suit yourself, but to read a good biography of Lawrence is very benefical to a better knowledge of his development and writing styles, his theology and ideas and belief systems.

Janine
04-27-2007, 03:10 PM
Inspirangel, I just sent you a Private Message with the ink.

Hi Virgil, I just sent you a PM with a request to send the link to Nossa, also. She could not access the link I send - email will explain better. Thanks ~ J

inspirangel
04-27-2007, 03:36 PM
Yes Janine, I agree with all that you say - I am tempted to read everything going !! It is my own defects that stop me - not Lawrences or the biographers' - maybe I am stuck in a time-warp where I only like his earlier stuff !! Not very realistic I know, but I will spread the rest of his works out over a lifetime !! - I am also a great devotee of memoirs and letters !! Reading The Prussian Officer tomorrow and Othello tonight !

Janine
04-27-2007, 05:22 PM
Yes Janine, I agree with all that you say - I am tempted to read everything going !! It is my own defects that stop me - not Lawrences or the biographers' - maybe I am stuck in a time-warp where I only like his earlier stuff !! Not very realistic I know, but I will spread the rest of his works out over a lifetime !! - I am also a great devotee of memoirs and letters !! Reading The Prussian Officer tomorrow and Othello tonight !

inspirangel, I am glad you get my point about biographies. Yes, it takes quite a bit of time to do. I am about to embark on reading "D.H.Lawrence ~The Early Years ~Cambridge Edition". You know I too am quite interested in his early years and his early fiction. I recently read his first published novel just for that reason "The White Peacock". It is hard to get this book but luckily I found one reasonable on Amazon and was glad I read it. Although not totally polished, it showed L's great potential as a story teller and much more and also it has some lovely passages such as the one I earier mentioned to you about the bird nest. I promise when I am not too busy to type that out and send it to you in a PM. You will love it. I was impressed that such a young man could write a book with that much insight and substance. If you can, try and read his letters. I am trying to read a few at a time. Lawrence was a prolific letter writer and his letters are as lovely as his prose. I recently read one that actually gave me goose-bumps. I felt like I knew the young man from that one letter; it was an early one. He is very revealing in his letters of just who he is. I love them. I have not gotten very far, but figure to read a few a night or even a week.

Othello - now you are talking! Another one of my obsessions - Shakespeare! I absolutely love the play and I love the film by Parker. I have watched it countless times. I am mesmerized by Iago - so much the conniving and consumate villian. It is a great play - one of Shakespeare's best!

Did you know we have a Shakespeare discussion group currently going. The moderators set up the sequence so for this one it is Titus A. I refrained from that play but will pick up again on the next - one of the histories. The plays are alternated between histories, traqedies, comedies. See thread for more details.

inspirangel
04-27-2007, 05:59 PM
Dont tempt me with the Shakespeare discussion as well ! Im already distracted but it is great to find a good site with knowledgeable enthusiastic people - I am closely looking at the theme of revenge, rather than race, to begin with.

Janine
04-27-2007, 08:06 PM
Dont tempt me with the Shakespeare discussion as well ! Im already distracted but it is great to find a good site with knowledgeable enthusiastic people - I am closely looking at the theme of revenge, rather than race, to begin with.

Therein the story lies. Enjoy your reading.

inspirangel
04-28-2007, 03:59 PM
OK Everbody I'm ready !! I have been and got "The Prussian Officer" - dazzling stuff, and quite heartening too, for the aspiring writer - I tried to read it from an editor's point of view for a change to see if I would have sent it back for any revisions - and was surprised at my own notes !! Shocked to discover that I was glad he had done the terrible deed !! (for those who havent yet got to that part!!)

Janine
04-28-2007, 04:41 PM
OK Everbody I'm ready !! I have been and got "The Prussian Officer" - dazzling stuff, and quite heartening too, for the aspiring writer - I tried to read it from an editor's point of view for a change to see if I would have sent it back for any revisions - and was surprised at my own notes !! Shocked to discover that I was glad he had done the terrible deed !! (for those who havent yet got to that part!!)

inspirangel, Glad you finished the story and obviously liked it. I like your enthusiasm. Yes, Lawrence really delivers. But shhhhhh...don't give the story away. I know some people are still reading it. Probably the discussion will start on Monday, so hang in there.

Janine
04-29-2007, 01:23 AM
Hello to all the new comers! We look forward to the 'up and coming' discussion of "The Prussian Officer".
In case you have not read the first page and post of this Lawrence short story thread, written eloquently by Virgil, I am including the link to this page below. If that does not work please just check out the first post of this thread, same thing. Virgil did a fine job presenting a brief, but concise introduction to the short stories of D.H.Lawrence. Many do not know just how fine a short story writer Lawrence was, probably this being due to the fact that he was so well know for his novels and his poetry. Therefore, his short stories many times have been passed over (being over-shadowed by his longer works), and in actuality they are simply some of the most insightful and beautiful writings of any short story author. I hope everyone will invest a few minutes to read this introductory post. you will not be sorry. Virgil quotes someone's view of rediscovering L after many years; he read this on the internet and shares these thoughts here; they are very sincere and heartfelt; I think most of us can relate to just how this person felt.
I know you will all enjoy the discussion on "The Prussian Officer". It also would greatly benefit everyone to read the prior posts and comments on the other two short stories we discussed, perhaps after first reading those stories.
I am looking forward to all the new participants and their fine comments and interaction, For sometime, I have wondered where all the Lawrence enthusiasts were, and now I am thrilled to find several new people interested and enthusiastic about discussing this unique and profound author.
Welcome all!

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?

Thanks so much for reading this post. Janine

inspirangel
04-29-2007, 02:01 AM
Hi, just thought you might need to know that the thread you gave for Virgil didnt work ? From where I am anyway - pity cos I wanted to read what he had to say - will go back to the Short Story Thread and see if can find it there ?
PS Is it appropriate to advertise this Literature Forum on other sites ? I am happy to advertise our upcoming discussion on my MySpace (some Nature/Lawrence enthusiasts on thee !)

Janine
04-29-2007, 02:51 AM
Hi, just thought you might need to know that the thread you gave for Virgil didnt work ? From where I am anyway - pity cos I wanted to read what he had to say - will go back to the Short Story Thread and see if can find it there ?
PS Is it appropriate to advertise this Literature Forum on other sites ? I am happy to advertise our upcoming discussion on my MySpace (some Nature/Lawrence enthusiasts on thee !)

inspirangel, sorry the link did not work. It is found on page one of this thread, so you can easily go there to view what Virgil originally wrote when we started this thread.
To your PS: I am not even sure if it is totally permissable to post outside links on this site. Rules on here are pretty strict. If you need to ask a question like this about posting on My Space you should email one of the moderators directly, either Logos or Administator. Logos posts the rules from time to time. If you find her somewhere in the forum now, you might see a link to the rule page right above her signature. You should be careful, since breaking the rules can bring about reprimands and/or infractions. Better to ask them directly and be safe. Hope this helps.
Janine

Virgil
04-29-2007, 08:47 AM
Hi, just thought you might need to know that the thread you gave for Virgil didnt work ? From where I am anyway - pity cos I wanted to read what he had to say - will go back to the Short Story Thread and see if can find it there ?
PS Is it appropriate to advertise this Literature Forum on other sites ? I am happy to advertise our upcoming discussion on my MySpace (some Nature/Lawrence enthusiasts on thee !)

Oh I bet the mods and Admin (the owner) woud love free advertisement. ;) I would think that is encouraged but perhaps you might want to PM one of the mods (Logos, for instance) with the question. I'm not sure they read every post.

Nossa
04-29-2007, 03:25 PM
Okay..I just started reading the story today, and so far so good...I don't know if I'm gonna be able to finish it soon though, cuz I have exams coming up...but I'll try to read as much as I can, and participate in the discussion:D

Virgil
04-29-2007, 03:27 PM
Ok, Nossa, we'll start with the discussion tomorrow. Your exams are more important, so study for them.

Nossa
04-29-2007, 03:35 PM
I'll manage...lol
I mean I can't study 24/7...I normaly read when I'm tired with studying, so hopefully I'll be able to keep up:D
I just wish they were teaching us something by D.H. Lawrence or something, instead of Robinson Crusoe..lol

inspirangel
04-29-2007, 03:58 PM
OK - thats fine - I DID wonder !!! Don't want to break any rules ! Havent had time to read the other stories as have also been busy trying to get through Othello - do we need to read these in order to compare ?

Janine
04-29-2007, 04:21 PM
I'll manage...lol
I mean I can't study 24/7...I normaly read when I'm tired with studying, so hopefully I'll be able to keep up:D
I just wish they were teaching us something by D.H. Lawrence or something, instead of Robinson Crusoe..lol

Nossa, you make me laugh :lol: Yes, I do agree Lawrence is far more interesting than "Robinson Crusoe".
You can pop in when you have the time - no pressure here - we usually go at a slow pace, since we also are involved in 'book of the month' and 'Shakespeare play of the month' discussions simulataniously. We can only read and do so much, I agree. I am a slow reader, so I can't overwhelm myself either, which I often do.

Janine
04-29-2007, 04:25 PM
OK - thats fine - I DID wonder !!! Don't want to break any rules ! Havent had time to read the other stories as have also been busy trying to get through Othello - do we need to read these in order to compare ?

Hi inspirangel,
Yes, always best to check with the mods...safer that way. You only need to read one story at a time. We all do it that way. We don't know which one is going to be discussed next, anyway. Better to wait. Concentrate for now on "The Prussian Officer". Plenty there to discuss. Monday should kick off the discussion. I am looking forward to it. I always learn so much during these sessions. See you then.:)

PS: were you able to view page one and Virgil's short story intro?

malwethien
04-29-2007, 09:50 PM
Your location sounds a bit similar to mine !! I love your quote and reference to Robert Graves !! Glad to have found this site, now wheres that link to the Prussian Officer .....................

Thanks Inspirinangel ;) I would give anything to be on top of the moors...sounds very "wuthering heights" :D

I like Robert Graves, especially that poem of his...

She tells her love while half asleep,
In the dark hours,
With half-words whispered low:
As Earth stirs in her winter sleep
And puts out grass and flowers
Despite the snow,
Despite the falling snow.

ANYWAY......on with the Lawrence / Prussian Officer discussion ;)

Janine
04-29-2007, 10:17 PM
Thanks Inspirinangel ;) I would give anything to be on top of the moors...sounds very "wuthering heights" :D

I like Robert Graves, especially that poem of his...

She tells her love while half asleep,
In the dark hours,
With half-words whispered low:
As Earth stirs in her winter sleep
And puts out grass and flowers
Despite the snow,
Despite the falling snow.

ANYWAY......on with the Lawrence / Prussian Officer discussion ;)

Hi :wave: malwethien, that Graves poem is lovely. I like him, also. I second that about the moors. My someday dream is to go to England.:)

inspirangel
04-30-2007, 11:37 AM
Yes, I was able to, thank-you !!

Janine
04-30-2007, 05:19 PM
Yes, I was able to, thank-you !!

Oh good, inspirangel!
Virgil said he would post something tonight. He will write a brief summary, minus ending. Then hopefully he will post some passages to get started.

Virgil
04-30-2007, 10:47 PM
OK, lets start the discussion of "The Prussian Officer." Let me start with a summary like I have with the other stories. I WON'T GIVE THE ENDING AWAY. ;)

The story is divided into four parts by Lawrence. It is the story of an officer and his orderly and the antagonism between them that develops. For whatever unexplained reason the two grow to hate each other. Or is that true; is it unexplained? Perhaps that needs a discussion. The story starts with the Officer leading his men on practice maneuvers, but in Part I the story shifts into an expository mode where the relationship between the officer and the orderly are delineated. We learn their backgound and natures and the evolution of their relationship. The bulk of the story in in Part I. Part II resumes the the narrative by going back to the manuevers and when the Officer contiues his abuse of the orderly, the orderly snaps and kills the Officer. In Part III we have the orderly escaping and running into the woods and trying to survive. I won't give away the climax, but Part IV ends the escape.

Really the action is rather simple. The interest of the story is the psychological drama between the officer and the orderly, the tension between the two, and the ultimate climax.

One way to look at the two is to delineate the differences. Let me start by listing words assciated with each.

Captain:
Horseback, tall, grey, reddish-brown, aristocratic, haughty, never married, impersonal, devil when roused, temper, abhors contact, blue eyes, rigid.

Orderly:
Youth, life through senses, sureness, of the moment, medium height, dark, physical contact, dark eyes, submissive.

Janine
05-01-2007, 01:39 AM
I like the points that you Virgil has outlined in his summary and especially the breakdown of key words in each character and his characterization.

Below, I listed the opening paragraphs, introducing us, basically, to the the setting/tone of the story and the orderly, himself. The story starts, actually at a point, that is later in time, and resumed towards the end of part II, picking up from where it leaves off. In other words, this story is not told in a realistic time sequence. I find this 'device' interesting and it is much like the current trend in films; to tell the story out of sequence, and then have it all come together at the end. I don't know if this is considered, in any way, a 'frame-story' or similar to one. Perhaps others may have a notion/answer on this idea.

So here are the first 3 paragraphs:


They had marched more than thirty kilometres since dawn, along the white, hot road where occasional thickets of trees threw a moment of shade, then out into the glare again. On either hand, the valley, wide and shallow, glittered with heat; dark green patches of rye, pale young corn, fallow and meadow and black pine woods spread in a dull, hot diagram under a glistening sky. But right in front the mountains ranged across, pale blue and very still, snow gleaming gently out of the deep atmosphere. And towards the mountains, on and on, the regiment marched between the rye fields and the meadows, between the scraggy fruit trees set regularly on either side the high road. The burnished, dark green rye threw off a suffocating heat, the mountains drew gradually nearer and more distinct. While the feet of the soldiers grew hotter, sweat ran through their hair under their helmets, and their knapsacks could burn no more in contact with their shoulders, but seemed instead to give off a cold, prickly sensation.

In first part of this paragraph there is a liberal use of words/phrases referring to heat...white, hot, glare, glittered with heat, scaggly, burnished, dull, hot diagram, etc. Midway through this paragraph the vision changes suddenly to encompass or view ahead and higher up "mountains ranged across, pale blue" and "still, snow gleaming"....all words that evoke coolness, water. Then the paragraph (next statement) returns us again to words of heat...hotter, sweat, burn. The last line is of particular interest to me, seeming to encompass the two contrasting modes of temperature - "While the feet of the soldiers grew hotter, sweat ran through their hair under their helmets, and their knapsacks could burn no more in contact with their shoulders, but seemed instead to give off a cold, prickly sensation." So here we have the words hotter, sweat, burn and yet the sweat has created a cooling sensation in the final 3 words. The contrast is complete and brilliantly devised to set our stage to present the basic theme of the story - a story of stark contrasts.


He walked on and on in silence, staring at the mountains ahead, that rose sheer out of the land, and stood fold behind fold, half earth, half heaven, the heaven, the barrier with slits of soft snow, in the pale, bluish peaks.

I particularly like the references here to the land, the half earth the half heaven and the heaven. To me this indicates a definite progression upward and fortells something profound and heavenly to come later in the story. Again the "snow" and "bluish peaks" evoke a heavenly realm to be longed for and a goal to march towards.


He could now walk almost without pain. At the start, he had determined not to limp. It had made him sick to take the first steps, and during the first mile or so, he had compressed his breath, and the cold drops of sweat had stood on his forehead. But he had walked it off. What were they after all but bruises! He had looked at them, as he was getting up: deep bruises on the backs of his thighs. And since he had made his first step in the morning, he had been conscious of them, till now he had a tight, hot place in his chest, with suppressing the pain, and holding himself in. There seemed no air when he breathed. But he walked almost lightly.

This third paragraph introduces us to the orderly in a strange way, not at his best, but rather a man dealing with a great amount of pain and struggle. Also, we learn early on that he is a man of forbearance and is determined to ignore the pain and not let it stop him from his march. In some ways it shows a stoic bravery and a stubborn quality. It also shows that he 'holds things in' and keeps things private and to himself. This one short paragraph tells much cleverly about the orderly. Again the word "hot' is mentioned as "a place in his chest". I believe this was lawrence's way to emphasis the heat and associate it with the pain he is feeling. It is now evident that the heat represents pain and the cold some kind of relief/hope of escape from pain. I think, as the story progresses, this will take on much deeper significance and become more evident and prominent in the theme and role of the contrasts.

I hope this gives people some ideas and they will add to my remarks with their own ideas on the text.

inspirangel
05-01-2007, 03:50 AM
In some ways, this is a difficult story to comment upon in a chronological way, as interestingly outlined by Virgil and Janine, some of the action is out of sequence. However, without yet referring to the physical state the orderly finds himself in, I wonder whether the psychological drama is the only issue, or rather, whether it can be isolated from mans instinct for self-preservation. Here we see a man, normally stoic and uncomplaining in character, who is unwell and in pain both physically and mentally, although Lawrence does not yet give us any inkling of his mental state - other than to suggest that he is exercising enormous self-control in order to deal with some physical trauma, the cause as yet unexplained. Added to that is the heat, so vividly portrayed by the words white and hot in the same sentence and by the passage outlined by Janine. The story starts out with an atmosphere of despair, and we get the feeling that ,indeed, there will be no let-up!! From a womans point of view, feelings of deep concern are evoked and empathy with the character is established from the first lines. But then , Lawrence was ever able to commune at a deep level, with women ! :bawling:

Virgil
05-01-2007, 07:19 AM
It is interesting that in a story that is a psycho-drama of two characters that Lawrence starts the story from neither character's point of view or internal stream of consciousness. Aesthetically it ties together with the perspective at the conclusion of the story, giving the story a sort of circular form. It starts and then ends from a sort of common perspective of the all the soldiers. But what really catches my eye about that first paragraph is the dichotomy of imagery: light and shade, sky and mountain, dark patches versues white snow, hot and cold. Actually that cold seems rather forced, "While the feet of the soldiers grew hotter, sweat ran through their hair under their helmets, and their knapsacks could burn no more in contact with their shoulders, but seemed instead to give off a cold, prickly sensation." I'm not sure how hot knapsacks give off a cold sensation, except perhaps from cooling sweat underneath. But this dichotomy of imagery and sensation does set the story up for the dichotomy between the characters, and which I think fits into what I'll later argue as the overall theme of the story.


However, without yet referring to the physical state the orderly finds himself in, I wonder whether the psychological drama is the only issue, or rather, whether it can be isolated from mans instinct for self-preservation.
That is a very interesting thought inspir, something I had not considered. Self-preservation may be a theme I had never considered here. It makes sense given that Part III is almost all about self-preservation, and really the elaborateness of Part III after the initial climax (killing the Officer) was a little puzzling to me. Perhaps we can talk first about that when we get to Part III. Perhaps we should talk about the realtionship between the two main characters, as brought out in Part I.

inspirangel
05-01-2007, 09:47 AM
No ! Anyone who has ever lugged a weighty knapsack, rucksack, camping bag or similar on a hot day will be familiar with this one!! There is a point when skin/blisters etc get SO painful they almost feel cold instead of hot (Im guessing some folks have had it easy in their childhoods compared to others :lol: ) - also, think of sunburn - ouch::blush:

About the self-preservation - it struck me afterwards that maybe I subconciously seek to let lawrence off lightly here, in an effort to excuse the happenings !! and because I am more interested in that relationship - between writer and reader - than I am between the 2 protagonists !!! It seems to me that the hero is in a similar situation to a woman or a dependent child because he has no power and that self-defence is no offence in desperate circumstances !! Or is that a woman thing (can I even hint that these days!)- I will be interested to know what others think here?

Virgil
05-01-2007, 10:03 AM
No ! Anyone who has ever lugged a weighty knapsack, rucksack, camping bag or similar on a hot day will be familiar with this one!! There is a point when skin/blisters etc get SO painful they almost feel cold instead of hot (Im guessing some folks have had it easy in their childhoods compared to others :lol: ) - also, think of sunburn - ouch::blush:

:lol: :lol: Ok, I'll take your word for it. The sensation is real. Then we can agree that Lawrence is after this duelistic dichotomy?


About the self-preservation...It seems to me that the hero is in a similar situation to a woman or a dependent child because he has no power and that self-defence is no offence in desperate circumstances !! Or is that a woman thing (can I even hint that these days!)- I will be interested to know what others think here?
The orderly (the hero) is referred to as submissive at one point. Yes, there is that quality, but what does Lawrence mean by it? There is a question of power in this story, and it does seem to be linked to your notion of self-preservsation.

Janine
05-01-2007, 03:48 PM
Presently I don't have the time to address all ideas here, but I did read everything so far, and found everyone's posts interesting. I want to think about it and post later tonight.

For now I am reposting this because I am not sure it was noticed. In this part of my last post, directly after Virgil's introduction, I stated:


The last line is of particular interest to me, seeming to encompass the two contrasting modes of temperature - "While the feet of the soldiers grew hotter, sweat ran through their hair under their helmets, and their knapsacks could burn no more in contact with their shoulders, but seemed instead to give off a cold, prickly sensation."

So here we have the words hotter, sweat, burn and yet the sweat has created a cooling sensation in the final 3 words. The contrast is complete and brilliantly devised to set our stage to present the basic theme of the story - a story of stark contrasts.

inspirangel, Yes, I agree with you that pain can feel like cold. If everyone notices L uses 'sensation' as the word to describe the 'cooling'. I think Virgil has pointed out well that this sets up duality. I felt the same when I said stark contrasts. I like the way you went a bit further than my posted ideas on the contrasts. When I first read the passage I had noticed this "dichotomy of imagery: light and shade, sky and mountain, dark patches versues white snow, hot and cold," which you so aptly pointed out. There is a lot in that first paragraph alone. It is a great opener to the story, setting up a tone of duality and contrast.

Earlier, I asked if this would be considered a "frame story" or if anyone would know what form this type story would be termed in which the story begins near the ending and then tells the beginning in the middle, therefore being told out of context. I ask this again? Does anyone know?

Personally I think it would be benificial to stick to each section. I know that in discussing the book of the month recently, "Ethan Frome", the talks kept lacking in direction and in focus, and even just commenced when no one knew what to discuss. It seemed the ending took over which I think was a bit unfortunate. We do have a few weeks or a whole month to discuss this short story. I tend to jump ahead myself, also; but could we work from the beginning and develop things such as character analysis, etc and how the story commenced to this point of the painful march?

I personally thought Lawrence's introduction to the orderly quite brilliant. I agree with inpirangel that one gets a sense of the 'feminine' in the idea of being in a submissive role. I think the young man is very handsome/young/virile to the officer - but we will see that when we come to those passages further along in the text; then we can discuss that in more depth. I think the story has a lot of themes and elements, self preservation being just one. There is definitely a clash of personalities and 'jealously' certainly is another element that plays into this complex pychological situation between the officer and the orderly. Lawrence was into the pychology of man and especially would be interested in the pychology of violence/domination in this relationship between the two men. It is true that Lawrence spoke so well and so deeply to women, but he likewise felt an affinity with men, and in his later work I think this is more deeply explored. If you read his later novels this comes out more and more. I don't know when this story was written, but I would imagine it to be written later in L's career and life. Virgil, do you know when it was written by L?

I think perhaps the female/male or feminine/masculine idea contrasting the two characters would fit to some degree with L's ideas of duality referring specifically to this story and situation.

L had had bad experiences, himself being called up for military duty and ultimately rejected on medical reasons. However he viewed the military quite brutal and obtrusive in his life at that time, even perhaps exaggerating the insensitive treatment he recieved at the recruiting office and his own physical exam. I wondered if this story came about due to his hatred of that type of authority and bullying.

Virgil
05-01-2007, 09:28 PM
So here we have the words hotter, sweat, burn and yet the sweat has created a cooling sensation in the final 3 words. The contrast is complete and brilliantly devised to set our stage to present the basic theme of the story - a story of stark contrasts.
Janine, you are absolutely right. I kind of glossed over that line you wrote.



Earlier, I asked if this would be considered a "frame story" or if anyone would know what form this type story would be termed in which the story begins near the ending and then tells the beginning in the middle, therefore being told out of context. I ask this again? Does anyone know?

No this is not a frame story. A frame story is something like Ethan Frome where a narrator opens the story, and then it enters the real story. This is just a digression. It starts with the main line of the narrative and it digresses to fill in the background. I said above that Part I is exposition.


Personally I think it would be benificial to stick to each section. I know that in discussing the book of the month recently, "Ethan Frome", the talks kept lacking in direction and in focus, and even just commenced when no one knew what to discuss.
Yes, I agree. Let's look at Part I first. I started with the charcter's characteristics. Now let's look at their relationship. Why do the Captain and his orederly hate each other? Can we pin that down?


Virgil, do you know when it was written by L?
Yes, I did look it up and I forgot to put it in the inital summary. He wrote this story in 1913 and published in 1914. This puts it around just after Sons and Lovers.


I think perhaps the female/male or feminine/masculine idea contrasting the two characters would fit to some degree with L's ideas of duality referring specifically to this story and situation.
Before we get to the psycho drama, shouldn't we try to pin down why they have this attitude toward each other? Or is it so vague that we have assume it's all psychological?


L had had bad experiences, himself being called up for military duty and ultimately rejected on medical reasons. However he viewed the military quite brutal and obtrusive in his life at that time, even perhaps exaggerating the insensitive treatment he recieved at the recruiting office and his own physical exam. I wondered if this story came about due to his hatred of that type of authority and bullying.
I would have to look that up, but I think he wrote this story before they tried to get him in the military. Why is it a "Prussian" officer and not an English officer? Why are the characters Prussian?

Janine
05-01-2007, 10:12 PM
Janine, you are absolutely right. I kind of glossed over that line you wrote.

Virgil, Thanks, I did feel a little dejected. I stayed up late to write it, so I hope you did read it by now.


No this is not a frame story. A frame story is something like Ethan Frome where a narrator opens the story, and then it enters the real story. This is just a digression. It starts with the main line of the narrative and it digresses to fill in the background. I said above that Part I is exposition.

So it is called a digression. Is that a literary term? Is an exposition part of a digression? I am not familiar with either terms in literature....probably dumby me.:(


Yes, I agree. Let's look at Part I first. I started with the charcter's characteristics. Now let's look at their relationship. Why do the Captain and his orederly hate each other? Can we pin that down?

I would like to post the next paragraphs, but I don't want to be the only one to comment on them. Shall I post them tonight? The next paragraph refers to the officer (I stopped just short of this knowing the shift was to the other character). We get some description of the his behavoir and manor the day of the marching, if I recall correctly, from the next few paragraphs. It introduces us to him for the first time. Therefore, I think our first impression is important, since L obviously wrote in this sequence, wanting this to be our first glimpse of the Captain.


Yes, I did look it up and I forgot to put it in the inital summary. He wrote this story in 1913 and published in 1914. This puts it around just after Sons and Lovers.

Oh, that is pretty early. I thought this story would have probably been a later one. Glad you looked it up. Thanks. I like to put them into context with what was going on in L's life - since his views kept evolving.

Before we get to the psycho drama, shouldn't we try to pin down why they have this attitude toward each other? Or is it so vague that we have assume it's all psychological?
Yes, exactly - we have to work up to that part - that all comes out later. I don't think the reason is that vague; we just have to seek a little for it. It is there in the words - key words. But I do think it is very psychological, at least on the part of the officer.
Virgil, you know when I first read this paragraph of yours I though you wrote 'psychobable' and not 'psycho drama':lol:


I would have to look that up, but I think he wrote this story before they tried to get him in the military. Why is it a "Prussian" officer and not an English officer? Why are the characters Prussian?

Yes, I did wonder about it being a Prussian officer. I think I might understand why. It had a lot to do with his fascination with aristocracy. But even this should be touched on later, don't you think?

malwethien
05-01-2007, 11:07 PM
Hey everyone..very interesting discussion so far (I have to read it all again later...). I'd just like to give my 2 cents on the relationship between the 2 characters (as of this time I am unable to post direct quotes from the story) I could be just imagining it too...jealousy seems to be major 'emotion.' Is the Prussian Officer jealous of his orderly because his orderly has more "freedom" than him...or maybe the Prussian Officer remembers how his life was before he became an officer...? Where exactly is a "Prussian" officer from? Is it modern day Austria? Sorry...later I will post some passages from the story to back up my ideas.....

Janine
05-01-2007, 11:33 PM
Hey everyone..very interesting discussion so far (I have to read it all again later...). I'd just like to give my 2 cents on the relationship between the 2 characters (as of this time I am unable to post direct quotes from the story) I could be just imagining it too...jealousy seems to be major 'emotion.' Is the Prussian Officer jealous of his orderly because his orderly has more "freedom" than him...or maybe the Prussian Officer remembers how his life was before he became an officer...? Where exactly is a "Prussian" officer from? Is it modern day Austria? Sorry...later I will post some passages from the story to back up my ideas.....

:) Hi malwethien, glad you popped in with a few comments and ideas. Yes, so far this discussion has gotten off to a fine start; quite interesting.

I think when we get further into the story and discussion we will see things that do indicate jealousy on the part of the Officer to the orderly. I think he is jealous due to several reasons. His character is a complicated one. I had not thought that the orderly, younger man had anymore freedom than the Officer; I think they both are in a sort of servitude being in the service, although the Officer is higher-up and can lord is authority over the youth, therefore he turns into a sort of bully. When we get to that part I will point it out about his first feelings towards the orderly. If I recall corectly, there was a time he admired him for his fine physic and other qualities or was it the other way around....not sure now.

I thought maybe it best to post some more paragraphs having to do with this first introductory part, then work up to all of the interaction between the two men in the Part 2 section.

I am going to go look up those next lines now and maybe I will post some after this post, but can't promise.
Right now I am watching another movie. I actually wanted to watch two tonight, but already it is late and I am a little tired. I stayed up waaaay too late last night:lol:

malwethien
05-02-2007, 12:07 AM
Yes I will also post some quotes later to back up my statement.... ;)

Janine
05-02-2007, 12:10 AM
The Captain’s hand had trembled at taking his coffee at dawn: his orderly saw it again. And he saw the fine figure of the Captain wheeling on horseback at the farm-house ahead, a handsome figure in pale blue uniform with facings of scarlet, and the metal gleaming on the black helmet and the sword-scabbard, and dark streaks of sweat coming on the silky bay horse. The orderly felt he was connected with that figure moving so suddenly on horseback: he followed it like a shadow, mute and inevitable and damned by it. And the officer was always aware of the tramp of the company behind, the march of his orderly among the men.

This paragraph seems to be taken from the orderly's point of view, up until the last sentence which turns the focus back to the officer. I find this statement very interesting "The orderly felt he was connected with that figure..." and then the last line, both connecting the two men in an invisible/secret way from the awareness of the rest of the company.


The Captain was a tall man of about forty, grey at the temples. He had a handsome, finely knit figure, and was one of the best horsemen in the West. His orderly, having to rub him down, admired the amazing riding-muscles of his loins.

Now this paragraph seems to pull us into the past; memory of the orderly rubbing him down and admiring his loin muscles. I am not sure if this whole paragraph is still from the point of view of the orderly, but it still seems to be.


For the rest, the orderly scarcely noticed the officer any more than he noticed himself. It was rarely he saw his master’s face: he did not look at it. The Captain had reddish-brown, stiff hair, that he wore short upon his skull. His moustache was also cut short and bristly over a full, brutal mouth. His face was rather rugged, the cheeks thin. Perhaps the man was the more handsome for the deep lines in his face, the irritable tension of his brow, which gave him the look of a man who fights with life. His fair eyebrows stood bushy over light blue eyes that were always flashing with cold fire.

This again seems to be an impartial and true description of the Captain (by the author) and gives a vivid idea of his face and contenence. There is contrast in his looks and the 'cold fire' of his blue eyes seems to further emphasis' the contrast of cold and hot.

He was a Prussian aristocrat, haughty and overbearing. But his mother had been a Polish Countess. Having made too many gambling debts when he was young, he had ruined his prospects in the Army, and remained an infantry captain. He had never married: his position did not allow of it, and no woman had ever moved him to it. His time he spent riding—occasionally he rode one of his own horses at the races—and at the officers’ club. Now and then he took himself a mistress. But after such an event, he returned to duty with his brow still more tense, his eyes still more hostile and irritable. With the men, however, he was merely impersonal, though a devil when roused; so that, on the whole, they feared him, but had no great aversion from him. They accepted him as the inevitable.

This statement seems to be from the POV of the author and the company - last couple statements. I think it says a great deal about the officer, revealing much about his character and temperment, etc.

Malwethien, you may be right about the orderly having more freedom, or it might just be that the two men actually both share the lack of any real freedom. Refer to the statement about the officer not having aspired to be what he could have been, by ruining his prospects in the army (gambling), thereby remaining an infantry catain only; also if you notice the officer seems to be hemmed in with his position and life, which never allowed for marriage. In a way the captain is living a life of servitude, as well as the orderly, but in a higher rank. They both are trapped. This last paragraph gives a kind of motive and reason for the captain's violent behavior. Perhaps frustrations on his part? He seems to carry a grudge and to have a bad opinion inwardly of himself.

Virgil
05-02-2007, 07:10 AM
I particularly like the references here to the land, the half earth the half heaven and the heaven. To me this indicates a definite progression upward and fortells something profound and heavenly to come later in the story. Again the "snow" and "bluish peaks" evoke a heavenly realm to be longed for and a goal to march towards.

I agree that this half land/half sky is significant, Janine. It's symbolic for the duelistic world view that L has. I had never thought about it as a goal, and the orderly is escaping towards it in Part III. So I think you have something there.


It is now evident that the heat represents pain and the cold some kind of relief/hope of escape from pain. I think, as the story progresses, this will take on much deeper significance and become more evident and prominent in the theme and role of the contrasts.
Good points. I just took them as opposite halves of a binary, but I think there is particular meaning to each half.

Virgil
05-02-2007, 08:03 AM
So it is called a digression. Is that a literary term? Is an exposition part of a digression? I am not familiar with either terms in literature....probably dumby me.:(

Here's a quick definition of exposition.

Exposition
In drama, the presentation of essential information regarding what has occurred prior to the beginning of the play. In the exposition to William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," two servants of the house of Capulet discuss the feud between their master and the house of Montague, thereby letting the audience know that such a feud exists and that it will play an important role in influencing the plot.
In the exposition to the film "Star Wars," Luke Skywalker sees a 3D holograph projection of the Princess Lea warning that she is a prisoner of Darth Vader and begging for help.
http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/resources/Literary.Terms.html#Exposition

Janine, I do think the fact that the Officer is an aristocrat is significant. It emphasizes, actually heightens, the power relationship between the two characters. It also, and I'm going beyond the story a little now, brings out some of the societal relationship ideas that L would bring out in his works after the world war, sometimes referred to as his leadership novels. Kangaroo is his best example. Actually I never quite understood his leadership ideas that well, but I gathered that L did not really believe in democracy and that it was natural to have a hiearchy of people. But there is an symbiotic relationship between the more common man and the aristocrat. I know our sympathies are roughly with the orderly in this story; however, I don't think L is saying everything to do with the orderly is good and everything with the Captain is bad. I look at this story (and if you think I'm wrong, please correct me) as the two characters being two sides of a coin. It takes both to form a complete unit. Sort of like Lawrence's ideas on male/female realtionship.

Virgil
05-02-2007, 08:06 AM
Hey everyone..very interesting discussion so far (I have to read it all again later...). I'd just like to give my 2 cents on the relationship between the 2 characters (as of this time I am unable to post direct quotes from the story) I could be just imagining it too...jealousy seems to be major 'emotion.' Is the Prussian Officer jealous of his orderly because his orderly has more "freedom" than him...or maybe the Prussian Officer remembers how his life was before he became an officer...? Where exactly is a "Prussian" officer from? Is it modern day Austria? Sorry...later I will post some passages from the story to back up my ideas.....

Here's a little on Prussia from Wikipedia:

Prussia (German: Preußen (help·info); Latin: Borussia, Prutenia; Latvian: Prūsija; Lithuanian: Prūsija; Polish: Prusy; Old Prussian: Prūsa) was, most recently, a historic state originating in Brandenburg, an area which for centuries had substantial influence on German and European history. The last capital of Prussia was Berlin.

The name Prussia derives from the Old Prussians, a Baltic people related to the Lithuanians and Latvians; "Old Prussia" was later conquered by the Teutonic Knights and then slowly Germanized. The union of the Margraviate of Brandenburg and the Duchy of Prussia in 1618 led to the proclamation of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701.

Prussia attained its greatest importance in the 18th and 19th centuries. During the 18th century, it became a great European power under the reign of Frederick II of Prussia (1740–86). During the 19th century, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck pursued a policy of uniting the German principalities into a "Lesser Germany" which would exclude the Austrian Empire.
You can find more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia.

It seems like it was mostly what is today northeast Germany and had a fine military tradition.

Janine
05-02-2007, 04:13 PM
Virgil, I just came online and right to this thread and read all your wrote. Thanks for the definition of exposition. I am not sure I fully understand the relationship to our particular story. It seems that in "Romeo and Juliet" the two discussing the the family feud are outsiders(servants) and not those directly involved in the feud. The Princess Lea example is a supernatural sort of visation such as Hamlet's father's ghost. I have to further read the link you provided to fully understand this concept. But thanks for looking it up.

It makes great sense to me that Prussian refers to early German and European history. As you probably know Lawrence was always very enamoured with German history and especially aristocracy - he married into it. In fact by this time - 1913, when he wrote PO he had already eloped with Frieda (1912). He became very close to her family, especially her mother. At this particular time he wrote Prussian Officer, I found an interesting reference to it in one of my biographies:


The atmostphere of Bavaria that spring elicited a short story about an army officer who beats his orderly. It was, Lawrence claimed with justice, the best he had ever done. Garnett must have agreed, for he later made it the title story in The Prussian Officer and Other Stories. What Prussian Officer?" fumed Lawrence when he saw the title Garnett had appended to the story and the book, discarding his own title, "Honour and Arms" in the process. But the answer seems obvious: Baron von Richthofen, whose experiences, relayed to Lawrence through Frieda and the baron's diaries, gave him searing details, such as "I whipped an artillery officer with my sabre." But the story's intimations of the latent homosexuality of military life came from Lawrence himself. To Garnett, Lawrence amplified his thoughts, saying that "cruelty is a form of perverted sex. I want to dogmatise. Priests in their celibacy....Inquisitions, soldiers herded together, men and women." D.H.Lawrence The Story of a Marriage, by Brenda Maddox, Copyright 1994

Baron von Richthofen, I believe was his father-in-law, Frieda's father, for those unaware of the connection. So when he wrote this story the time was very significant. Also, we know how much Lawrence drew on real people and experiences, even those he heard of through others. And we know how he could exaggerate or alter character to suit the story. He also lost many a friend, along the way in doing so, when they might recognise just who the characters were being portrayed. Whether he really fashioned the image of the officer after his father-in-law or altered that image, in irrelevant only in it did depict that military mindset that Lawrence must have keenly observed, even in the diaries. Lawrence was a great observer of life and so I think this passage more than true about the correlation between the Baron and the diary, especially. Can you imagine what Lawrence could do with a diary full of first hand information? His imagination must have gone wild! Also, I believe that Garnett (his publisher) changed other titles and Lawrence was not pleased one bit, in fact he spouted off about it much. Who would blame him?
Now it gets really interesting about the sexual elements in the story. I felt this element might be there all along and a glimpse of that in the second set of paragraphs I posted describing the officer.
I think that inpirangel has something about the female feeling one gets with the younger man. I think this would, in L's eyes, parallel a similar relationship of dominance with male/female, a sort of parellel, relating to sex. This is further supported by his own statement: "cruelty is a form of perverted sex. I want to dogmatise. Priests in their celibacy....Inquisitions, soldiers herded together, men and women," last words being "men and women".


I agree that this half land/half sky is significant, Janine. It's symbolic for the duelistic world view that L has. I had never thought about it as a goal, and the orderly is escaping towards it in Part III. So I think you have something there.

Yes, this passage is very significant I believe and also the part about half earth, half heaven, heaven....and a goal or something to be attained. The mountains and the whiteness and purity of the snow is a symbol for Lawrence. In "Women in Love" it plays a very prominent part. I don't want to tell you, since this will spoil the book for you. In my recent readings of the travel books there are many references to snow being something longed for, something close to heaven. I will look them up tonight and try to quote some passages later or tomorrow.

Asside, from all this, which gets into the book's depths, I wondered what you think of the first impressions of the officer, as I have layed it out in my other post #205, (with paragraphs and comments) when he is first presented to us....a very graphic portrait of the man, isn't it?

Virgil
05-02-2007, 08:37 PM
Virgil, I just came online and right to this thread and read all your wrote. Thanks for the definition of exposition. I am not sure I fully understand the relationship to our particular story. It seems that in "Romeo and Juliet" the two discussing the the family feud are outsiders(servants) and not those directly involved in the feud. The Princess Lea example is a supernatural sort of visation such as Hamlet's father's ghost. I have to further read the link you provided to fully understand this concept. But thanks for looking it up.

Just think of exposition as filling in the missing information. Lawrence does it here by a sort of digression, a going backwards in time. He stops the narrative flow by going back. It's not complicated. You're probably over thinking here.


It makes great sense to me that Prussian refers to early German and European history. As you probably know Lawrence was always very enamoured with German history and especially aristocracy - he married into it. In fact by this time - 1913, when he wrote PO he had already eloped with Frieda (1912). He became very close to her family, especially her mother. At this particular time he wrote Prussian Officer, I found an interesting reference to it in one of my biographies:

Baron von Richthofen, I believe was his father-in-law, Frieda's father, for those unaware of the connection. So when he wrote this story the time was very significant. Also, we know how much Lawrence drew on real people and experiences, even those he heard of through others. And we know how he could exaggerate or alter character to suit the story. He also lost many a friend, along the way in doing so, when they might recognise just who the characters were being portrayed. Whether he really fashioned the image of the officer after his father-in-law or altered that image, in irrelevant only in it did depict that military mindset that Lawrence must have keenly observed, even in the diaries. Lawrence was a great observer of life and so I think this passage more than true about the correlation between the Baron and the diary, especially. Can you imagine what Lawrence could do with a diary full of first hand information? His imagination must have gone wild! Also, I believe that Garnett (his publisher) changed other titles and Lawrence was not pleased one bit, in fact he spouted off about it much. Who would blame him?
Now it gets really interesting about the sexual elements in the story. I felt this element might be there all along and a glimpse of that in the second set of paragraphs I posted describing the officer.
That is great biographical background to the story Janine. Your knowledge of his life is invaluable. Thanks.


I think that inpirangel has something about the female feeling one gets with the younger man. I think this would, in L's eyes, parallel a similar relationship of dominance with male/female, a sort of parellel, relating to sex. This is further supported by his own statement: "cruelty is a form of perverted sex. I want to dogmatise. Priests in their celibacy....Inquisitions, soldiers herded together, men and women," last words being "men and women".
and

But the story's intimations of the latent homosexuality of military life came from Lawrence himself. To Garnett, Lawrence amplified his thoughts, saying that "cruelty is a form of perverted sex.
Ah, the sexual tension theme. I wanted to hold off a little on this. I wanted to see if anyone could pinpoint a tangible reason for the conflict between the two. Or is it just sexual? I'm going to re-read the story this weekend, looking specifically for the cause of their hatred. Can you skim over Part I again and try to find it too?


Yes, this passage is very significant I believe and also the part about half earth, half heaven, heaven....and a goal or something to be attained. The mountains and the whiteness and purity of the snow is a symbol for Lawrence. In "Women in Love" it plays a very prominent part. I don't want to tell you, since this will spoil the book for you. In my recent readings of the travel books there are many references to snow being something longed for, something close to heaven. I will look them up tonight and try to quote some passages later or tomorrow.
Yes, I saw the similarity with Women In Love, the Birken/Gerald relationship. Definitely L is using the same imagery, and there is certainly significance there. But the Birken/Gerald relationship is quite different than the Captain/Orderly.


Asside, from all this, which gets into the book's depths, I wondered what you think of the first impressions of the officer, as I have layed it out in my other post #205, (with paragraphs and comments) when he is first presented to us....a very graphic portrait of the man, isn't it?
Yes, I think we've said a lot already about the character's characteristics. Except for one detail there, and that is the horse. Horses repeatedly show up in L works, and just like Gerald is on horseback in WIL, the Captain is on horseback here.

Janine
05-02-2007, 09:25 PM
Just think of exposition as filling in the missing information. Lawrence does it here by a sort of digression, a going backwards in time. He stops the narrative flow by going back. It's not complicated. You're probably over thinking here.

Virgil, great - that is a good way of thinking of it. Thanks.


That is great biographical background to the story Janine. Your knowledge of his life is invaluable. Thanks.
Thanks, I really got lucky on this one. I was just leafing through my book, looking for the date that Frieda and Lawrence eloped/married. I wasn't even looking for anything about PO in the book, when his reference just caught my eye. I was so happy to come across it, because my thoughts were running in that direction. Here was some solid proof of what I had been thinking. So often I don't remember specific things like that, which I have read in these biographies. I have biography overload by now! I should have kept notes all along; I am not good at doing so, nor do I like to mark up my books. I think this passage throws much light on the story, especially the fact that the officer was an aristocrat, like his father-in-law.


and

Ah, the sexual tension theme. I wanted to hold off a little on this. I wanted to see if anyone could pinpoint a tangible reason for the conflict between the two. Or is it just sexual? I'm going to re-read the story this weekend, looking specifically for the cause of their hatred. Can you skim over Part I again and try to find it too?
Yes, we can hold off. I knew I was venturing a bit into the rest of the story but it was in the passage and I really wanted to quote it while I knew where it was in the book. I will try to read all of Part I again this weekend. Funny, I have been thinking how I should read the whole story again, since I only read it once. I may have read it years back, because I felt like the ending was familiar.


Yes, I saw the similarity with Women In Love, the Birken/Gerald relationship. Definitely L is using the same imagery, and there is certainly significance there. But the Birken/Gerald relationship is quite different than the Captain/Orderly.

I definitely had thought of the Birkin/Gerald relationship. Funny because in a way Birkin was the gentler and Gerald more aristocratic and brutal at times. Birkin could never have been a brutal person I don't think. The two relationships in WIL are so different, setting up another contrast.
Also, the snow element is big - you might recall that. I did not want to mention specifically, just what that was all about, since it entails final scenes in the book; it might be our monthly read (keeping my fingers crossed).


Yes, I think we've said a lot already about the character's characteristics. Except for one detail there, and that is the horse. Horses repeatedly show up in L works, and just like Gerald is on horseback in WIL, the Captain is on horseback here.

Yes, I think horses represent power to Lawrence, or maybe more the idea of man having more power over the horse - another form of control. A horse is both a gentle and very powerful animal - again a dicotomy - but for a man to control so powerful a creature, he must therefore be the more powerful of the two. In HDD wasn't that the case - the scene with the work horses so graphically discribed? Yet man controlled them?

You know Lawrence did actually ride when he was on his ranch in New Mexico. Perhaps it made him feel powerful and controlling. Lawrence was a controlling type man, it is well documented. It is said he was so with his wife, Frieda, or at least tried to be.

A horse is prominent in St. Mawr - is that correct? I think he wrote that when he lived there, not sure, would have to look it up. But anyway, interesting to note that the orderly rides the captain's horse away towards the end. Hope I am not giving anything away mentioning that, but all should have read the story by now anyway.

Yes, Gerald is a great example of the horse being controlled by the man. Gerald represented power, maybe a false power since he really was very fragile in reality. He rides and could tower over people when he was high on horseback. He is the epitomy of power controlling his horse. Do you recall the vicious asault on the train when he was on horseback? The horse was greatly abused and frightened nearly to death, and this gave him a thrill and an instant sadistic sense of power, plus Gudrun and Ursula witnessed the whole scene and he knew it. He was quite brutal, beating the poor animal to charge into the moving train.

Virgil
05-02-2007, 11:35 PM
Yes, I think horses represent power to Lawrence, or maybe more the idea of man having more power over the horse - another form of control. A horse is both a gentle and very powerful animal - again a dicotomy - but for a man to control so powerful a creature, he must therefore be the more powerful of the two. In HDD wasn't that the case - the scene with the work horses so graphically discribed? Yet man controlled them?

You know Lawrence did actually ride when he was on his ranch in New Mexico. Perhaps it made him feel powerful and controlling. Lawrence was a controlling type man, it is well documented. It is said he was so with his wife, Frieda, or at least tried to be.

A horse is prominent in St. Mawr - is that correct? I think he wrote that when he lived there, not sure, would have to look it up. But anyway, interesting to note that the orderly rides the captain's horse away towards the end. Hope I am not giving anything away mentioning that, but all should have read the story by now anyway.

Yes, Gerald is a great example of the horse being controlled by the man. Gerald represented power, maybe a false power since he really was very fragile in reality. He rides and could tower over people when he was high on horseback. He is the epitomy of power controlling his horse. Do you recall the vicious asault on the train when he was on horseback? The horse was greatly abused and frightened nearly to death, and this gave him a thrill and an instant sadistic sense of power, plus Gudrun and Ursula witnessed the whole scene and he knew it. He was quite brutal, beating the poor animal to charge into the moving train.

Yes, I had forgotten the horse in St Mawr. They are very important there. Like many good symbols, the hosrse I believe symbolizes multiple things. One thing is I think is civilization. It is through the domestication and control of the horse that civilization was built. At least i think that is one of the things in L's mind.

Janine
05-03-2007, 02:35 PM
Yes, I had forgotten the horse in St Mawr. They are very important there. Like many good symbols, the hosrse I believe symbolizes multiple things. One thing is I think is civilization. It is through the domestication and control of the horse that civilization was built. At least i think that is one of the things in L's mind.

Virgil, This is quite interesting. I did not know that horse had so many multiple symbols for Lawrence. "It is through the domestication and control of the horse that civilization was built." This statement especially interests me and I'd like to learn more about that and how it ties in with Lawrence's mind and ideas.

I was trying to find the snow reference or references in "D.H.Lawrence and Italy" - the 3 travel books. I know there was a steady climbing upward in one of the books in the mountains and a feeling of more freedom for Lawrence; the white purity of the snow seemed very symbolic to him. I recall reading it because, at the time, I thought of WIL and the dramatic snow scene. When I find it - more on this.

inspirangel
05-03-2007, 04:33 PM
Wheeeeeew !! You have moved forward so rapidly - there is a lot there to think about and I am far too tired to exercise my mind on it !! However, I will be reflecting all the while and post tomorrow !! I have missed some bits and suspect that my attachment to Ls earlier work will go against me ! (Although I have read wil and tr and poetry) Am I trying to enshrine him? I think so but not very helpful for an all-encompassing view of his work !! GREATLY interested to hear he may have written po just after Sons and Lovers AND to hear he had given it a different title - how DARE they ? I did wonder about that title though - seemed to jar somehow !! til tomorrow ......

Janine
05-03-2007, 05:48 PM
Wheeeeeew !! You have moved forward so rapidly - there is a lot there to think about and I am far too tired to exercise my mind on it !! However, I will be reflecting all the while and post tomorrow !! I have missed some bits and suspect that my attachment to Ls earlier work will go against me ! (Although I have read wil and tr and poetry) Am I trying to enshrine him? I think so but not very helpful for an all-encompassing view of his work !! GREATLY interested to hear he may have written po just after Sons and Lovers AND to hear he had given it a different title - how DARE they ? I did wonder about that title though - seemed to jar somehow !! til tomorrow ......

:) inspirangel, glad to see you again! I thought you ran off. Yes, it sure did take off and things are lively. But don't dispair at all. Virgil went on a short business trip, without his laptop, so now is a good time to jump in tomorrow. I was holding back some till he returned and now it's great you returned, too. Good timing. Take your time reading everything that has been posted for I am sure it will all be enlightening to you and we are all here to learn something new - right? You will catch up --- no hurry really! I need a break too; my poor brain has been taxed lately and it is aching:eek: I have to go out now so see you soon. Have a great evening! Janine

grace86
05-04-2007, 12:37 AM
I know who the Lawrence fans are!!!!! :D

Decided to check the thread out Janine. Think I might participate in a couple of weeks (final exams coming up).

Virg, I didn't know you were such an avid fan of Lawrence.

Janine
05-04-2007, 02:24 AM
Hi Grace, You really take a person's advice to heart! You came to check this out so fast. So glad you could stop by and glad too, that soon you hope to join in these discussions. We have been trying to choose stories available on this site or at least on the internet.
Virgil is away on a short business trip, so I can vouch for him - he loves Lawrence, and did his thesis on key aspects of his work. I also adore Lawrence and have for many years now. In the last two years I have been exploring his life by reading several biographies, which have been wonderfully enlightening. We both are of a similiar mindset, not alway agreeing with all of Lawrence's ideas or theories, he could be pretty eccentric and extreme at times, but we think he was an extraodinary writer, no doubt one of the best. He was very prolific, as well. Asside from all the novels, travel books, critical analyasis books, poetry, letters (he wrote thousands), etc. his short stories are numberous and are among the best in literature.
I wish you the greatest success in your exams. I know a lot of people on this site are going through that now and so many are super busy and probably stressed, in the bargain. When things quiet down and summer is finally here, you can come back and join in. You will enjoy it and learn much from this thread. I am learning myself from every post, which is so marvelous.
inspirangel recently joined in, as did Nossa and Malwethien; and Asa Adams was planning to post for this story, but he is probably busy, also with exams. So you see there are some Lawrence enthusiasts here. It is nice to see so many new faces on this thread lately.

inspirangel
05-06-2007, 03:04 PM
Tired as usual ! I really must learn not to log on so late in the day !! but a few points briefly

1. As you say, Lawrence may not have had experience of the military before he supposedly wrote this story

2 Some elements of it are genius - others child-like and still maturing (bluey, whitey - i would never let myself off so lightly in a story of mine!!)

3 the Freidas family thing - would he have known vicariously enough about her relatives lives by this time to write with such a knowledge of this life?

4 the shaking hand - reminiscent of lawrences father after drink in the morning?

5 The subjugation hatred from lawrence - learnt at his father fists ?

6 Description of soldier very similar to Pauls brother Arthur in S and L ? and to father

7 The rape of the orderly's privacy - the Officer could tell from the orderly's
body language that he did not consider himself to be beneath him and took against this suppressed insubordination - the orderly's divine right to guard his precious privacy was taken as rejection - this privacy was raped at the point where the Officer wrongly expects him to share his poetry/girlfriend confidences - this is violation of (one of ) the worst kinds and may have been suffered as a hate -engendering humiliation many times in Lawrences own childhood .............. (his father may have been jealous of Ls writing for his mother/girlfriend?)

I posit that the story was started early and added to later ???????????

that's all !! ........ for now ......... worn out today !!

Janine
05-06-2007, 04:47 PM
Tired as usual ! I really must learn not to log on so late in the day !! but a few points briefly
Hi inspirangel, good to see you are back and thinking. Yes, I also start in too late and get tired this time of day, but I will try my best to address each of your statements/questions/ideas.

1. As you say, Lawrence may not have had experience of the military before he supposedly wrote this story


2 Some elements of it are genius - others child-like and still maturing (bluey, whitey - i would never let myself off so lightly in a story of mine!!)
Believe it or now, Lawrence uses these combination words often and up until he died. I just read "Twilight in Italy", "Sea in Sardinia", and "Etruscan Places" and he used these words often and liberally. They are not "child-like" or a "still maturing" element of Lawrence's work. They are not a mistake - he very much meant just what he wrote and he took the liberty to devise these words in a poetic way. "Poetic license" is the usual term and he knew he could legally do this, even in his prose. Do you know how many words came about due to Shakespeare's writings? Thousands! It is not that uncommon for authors to make up words or combine them to suit the mood and their decriptions.


3 the Freidas family thing - would he have known vicariously enough about her relatives lives by this time to write with such a knowledge of this life?
Absolutely, he was quite involved with Frieda's family by the time he wrote PO. He adored Frieda's mother and I think he was close to the sister as well. It is well documented. It was not so much vicariously, as the daughter's information and the father's diary, which would be a first hand account. Lawrence picked up on all stories he heard and people he met; this is what so often got him into trouble with friends and aquaintances and usually they rejected him knowing they could see themselves portrayed in his novels, stories, etc. I think by now the father of Frieda was dead, but I will check my biographies to see if that is true. Either that or he was still in the service.

4 the shaking hand - reminiscent of lawrences father after drink in the morning?


5 The subjugation hatred from lawrence - learnt at his father fists ?
Ok, you are going by your impressions alone in "Sons and Lovers". Later Lawrence was known to have stated that he was too harsh in his portrayal of the father. His father was not nearly as bad as portrayed in S&L. Lawrence felt he had been unfair to his father in his early days. I don't think in "Sons and Lovers" it ever mentions his father using fists against the children or Lawrence. I don't think he beat up on the wife either - it was more of a bad temper and constant bickering and fighting between his mother and father. Physical abuse in Lawrence's real life story, no, I don't believe it existed in his childhood home. I will review my books on that but I don't recall reading that at all.

6 Description of soldier very similar to Pauls brother Arthur in S and L ? and to father
I don't have a clear recollection of Arthur, the brother, in S&L, (been awhile since I read the book), but I would say that Lawrence drew on any image he would have had of military life. He also had friends/aquaintances who went into the military and he observed the military everywhere - on the train to London, in the city, etc.

7 The rape of the orderly's privacy - the Officer could tell from the orderly's
body language that he did not consider himself to be beneath him and took against this suppressed insubordination - the orderly's divine right to guard his precious privacy was taken as rejection - this privacy was raped at the point where the Officer wrongly expects him to share his poetry/girlfriend confidences - this is violation of (one of ) the worst kinds and may have been suffered as a hate -engendering humiliation many times in Lawrences own childhood .............. (his father may have been jealous of Ls writing for his mother/girlfriend?)
I am pretty much lost here - is part of this a quote from the book or what you wrote yourself? Can you explain this a little clearer to me? Do you mean that Lawrence's father was jealous of his letters to his mother or girlfriend and that made him humiliate Lawrence? I think, if this is what you mean, that is really stretching it. No, I don't think his father would be jealous of letters or L's attention to others such as his mother or his girlfriend and her family, later his finance, Louie Burrows. The mother was the one who was critical of Lawrence's girlfriends and if anyone was jealous it was Lawrence's mother. His mother in reality was very overbearing and controlling. Neither parent was perfect and today one would just say L grew up in a 'disfunctional' family.

I do think in this story of the PO, the officer is jealous of the young man going out with his sweetheart. For one thing that left him alone and to fend for himself that day; he must have took it as a sort of rejection, don't you think? "The rape of the orderly's privacy" did this come from the story or did you write it and suggest it to be a sort of rape? I will check the next part of the story and try to find the section where the orderly takes the days off to see his sweetheart. Then I will get back to you further on this thought.


I posit that the story was started early and added to later ???????????

No, If you mean within many years expanse - no, I don't think it was added to. I don't think he did that with the short stories. Pretty much with this one he wrote it one year 1913 and it was published the next 1914, so there would have been no time to add to it and for what reason would he?
Lawrence was noted for rewriting whole novels and I mean rewrite, not revise. He seemed to remember what he had written and wrote them over again sometimes 3 whole times. I just read this not long ago and was amazed. He wrote several versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". Generally now the last version is widely read. I believe I read two of the versions, since I read one years back, that seemed to be different than the one I read about 2yrs ago.

inspirangel, hope all this helps throw light on the things you have pointed out and asked about. I hope too, it does not bruise your 'enshrined image' of Lawrence. I too, tend to 'enshrine' him, but now I see him more realistically, flaws and all, and still greatly admire the boy and the man.
I tend to love the earlier images of him the most, but in reading "Twilight in Italy" and "Sea and Sardinia" recently, I fell in love all over again with the older Lawrence.

inspirangel
05-06-2007, 05:37 PM
OK OK - you made me laugh - as this is not the first time I have been accused of "stretching it" with my over-active imagination !! I was not critisicing L, just thinking aloud !! (although bluey/whitey would never make it past an editor now - I still hold to that one!!) - no - no quotes from book, all my own doing Im afraid and I realise that you are something of an authority on his life story too so they were mostly questions. The marital "fights" overhead in Sons and Lovers are too realistic from my point of view to have been imagined so I still suspect some kind of aggresion - call it a gut-feeling that wont go away, not cold fact I admit freely - I somehow feel that I soak up these impressions from Lawrences writing- I really look forward to you checking back as I would like to know more - yes, you correctly judge that I am referring back continually to S and L and we are not here on this occasion to discuss that one !!
til tomorrow ........

Janine
05-06-2007, 08:00 PM
OK OK - you made me laugh - as this is not the first time I have been accused of "stretching it" with my over-active imagination !! I was not critisicing L, just thinking aloud !! (although bluey/whitey would never make it past an editor now - I still hold to that one!!) - no - no quotes from book, all my own doing Im afraid and I realise that you are something of an authority on his life story too so they were mostly questions. The marital "fights" overhead in Sons and Lovers are too realistic from my point of view to have been imagined so I still suspect some kind of aggresion - call it a gut-feeling that wont go away, not cold fact I admit freely - I somehow feel that I soak up these impressions from Lawrences writing- I really look forward to you checking back as I would like to know more - yes, you correctly judge that I am referring back continually to S and L and we are not here on this occasion to discuss that one !!
til tomorrow ........



Hi again, inspiragel, yes I know how overly imaginative people can be because I tend to one of them! I used to hold on tight to the early images of Lawrence; then a friend of mine suggested I read a biography (he read in college) which was suppose to be the best on record at the time. He said I would be shocked to find out things about Lawrence - for instance L could be very cynical and critical of others, even lashing out verbally, and he was even so with his wife, he lost many friends although he made friends easily and women especially were drawn to him. Now in several biographies it even says he hit Frieda - oh dear, I know this is really going to mar your imagine of our guy Lawrence, but really he and Frieda had a marriage that was far from "one made in heaven". Who knows which reports were actually true or exaggerated, but many of the friends swore it was true and who knows what goes on 'behind closed doors' in a marriage, anyway. They did get into some very strong fights and bickered often. This is well documented. Lawrence was not an easy man to live with. He was a very complex personality and he demanded much from others.

Referring back to PO: if anything Lawrence could be exploring the universal idea of dominance in the male and the male ego and the sadistic potential in all males or females to act in a violent manner, for that matter.

Lawrence was a great exaggerator in his books especially S&L and the father images. Did it ever state that the father beat either the wife or the children in S&L? I thought it was only mental abuse and verbal combat, that is if my memory serves me on this one. Like I said it has been a few years since I read the book. When he wrote S&L, remember at this time he very much idealised his mother, also her imagine in the book. In actual fact, she had a strong hold on young Lawrence's life. He was the youngest child and nearly died at birth - so to her, he was her baby. Might things have turned out differently if she had not died so young; perhaps so. He may or may not have married Frieda, because his mother's approval was paramount to him. Although he loved his mother intensely her opinion on his relationships had a profound affect on L and I believe all of L's works.


although bluey/whitey would never make it past an editor now - I still hold to that one!!

I am sorry, but I don't agree with this at all - I think you are wrong here. I have even read contemporary authors who used words like this - not necessarily proper English, this is true, but used for art's sake. Authors have that right and freedom. Take a look at e e cummings poetry. He did this sort of thing for years, and was aclaimed for his creativity. I think Joyce also make up his own sort of language. I happen to love the way Lawrence uses these wordsm because it does evoke a very 'creative' feeling by Lawrence and also of lyrical poetry. Good for him, I say, having the guts to write just what he wanted to say in Lawrence's natural sort of flow. He never stopped this flow of splendid words pouring forth, in doing so he described perfectly things like the look and feel of the mountains and the sky with words such as 'bluey-gray' or 'whitey haze'. I don't think his editors, nor the censors back then had any qualms with these innocent words at all - they accepted them as simply being 'Lawrencian language'. It was the more intimate references concerning the human body and sex they had their arguments with.

If you stick with us you will learn a great deal. We all do, all the time. Each story brings up new aspects of Lawrence which reveal more about this great genius of a man and his writing.

malwethien
05-07-2007, 03:27 AM
Hey everyone. I have been following the thread thus far and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little confused by the whole discussion..LOL...I have never read about D.H. Lawrence as a person / writer...so I'll believe whatever element you guys bring on in here regarding the tie-up between his real life experiences in relation to the story. To be honest, my first thoughts about the Prussian Officer was that he might be gay...and frustrated by or attracted to his orderly. Of course after reading it more, I realized that it was more than that...something deeper....but, just for the sake of discussion, I will throw the idea in here. Is it possible that the Prussian Officer was in love with his orderly and that the orderly knew about this? There have been discussions earlier about the sexual tension between the two, so I'm sure I was not the only one who felt it. So there it is...for everyone to criticize...or ponder....

Janine
05-07-2007, 03:35 PM
Hey everyone. I have been following the thread thus far and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little confused by the whole discussion..LOL...I have never read about D.H. Lawrence as a person / writer...so I'll believe whatever element you guys bring on in here regarding the tie-up between his real life experiences in relation to the story. To be honest, my first thoughts about the Prussian Officer was that he might be gay...and frustrated by or attracted to his orderly. Of course after reading it more, I realized that it was more than that...something deeper....but, just for the sake of discussion, I will throw the idea in here. Is it possible that the Prussian Officer was in love with his orderly and that the orderly knew about this? There have been discussions earlier about the sexual tension between the two, so I'm sure I was not the only one who felt it. So there it is...for everyone to criticize...or ponder....

Hi malwethien, I am so glad you have been reading along and condemplating everything. Your post was very well expressed. Probably all that read Lawrence would be liars if they did not admit he can be a bit confusing at times, not to mention downright enigmatic, so join the club. Your confussion is understandable, especially not having read Lawrence before. This is not an easy story to discuss or analysis - none of L's stories are - that is what makes them fascinating, I think. It is always mysterious as to just what L intended us to get from his stories or what he himself was thinking at the time he wrote them.
I think you bring up a very good point about the officer and whether he had some type or degree of homosexual feelings for the orderly. I got that impression in several of the passages, when there was interaction between them. I certainly think there is a counterpoint, such as feminine/masculine or dominent/submissive between them. Perhaps it is not a full-fledged homosexual thing, but often when men are thrown together without women they some tend to behave this way, such as in prison environments, armies, etc. Remember that the officer is very isolated - more so than the orderly, who can take off a few days to be with his sweethheart and enjoy being in a woman/man relationship. The officer has no such relief from tension - be it sexual or other.
I will try later on to post the next part of the story, probably about 8 more paragraphs to discuss. I am thinking that these will reveal more about all of this. I have not looked ahead too far, but I am hoping the text begins to indicate at least the hint of sexual tension/tension between the two men. I imagine it does set up the idea of jealously on the part of the officer. I think it is time to post those and go on with the story.
malwethien - glad you are reading along and ask any questions you want to - please feel free - discussing and asking questions is how we learn more and I know you have a keen curiosity about such things.

Janine
05-07-2007, 10:14 PM
Edited by poster - go to next posting. Thanks!

Janine
05-08-2007, 02:34 AM
I will make some comments on the posted paragraphs:


To his orderly he was at first cold and just and indifferent: he did not fuss over trifles. So that his servant knew practically nothing about him, except just what orders he would give, and how he wanted them obeyed. That was quite simple. Then the change gradually came.

Here is further description of the officer, as viewed once again by the orderly. This states that the orderly knew practically nothing about the officer....interesting. So the relationship between them is strickly one of servant and master. Last line indicates the change that gradually occurs between them.


The orderly was a youth of about twenty-two, of medium height, and well built. He had strong, heavy limbs, was swarthy, with a soft, black, young moustache. There was something altogether warm and young about him. He had firmly marked eyebrows over dark, expressionless eyes, that seemed never to have thought, only to have received life direct through his senses, and acted straight from instinct.

Again the point of view is from the story-teller and is shifted back to the physical appearance of the youth. It is obvious that he is strong and handsome and someone who would be envied by the officer, who is probably aging or knows he has limited years of youthfulness. Most important, is this last line which seems to indicate that the orderly is driven by instinct and his senses. This would relate to 'blood' philosophy and relationships that Lawrence talks about often in his writing, whereby the intellect gives over to the deeper senses of the blood and animal instinct. I am sure Virgil can further comment on this idea.


Gradually the officer had become aware of his servant’s young, vigorous, unconscious presence about him. He could not get away from the sense of the youth’s person, while he was in attendance. It was like a warm flame upon the older man’s tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed. There was something so free and self-contained about him, and something in the young fellow’s movement, that made the officer aware of him.

This passage eloquently describes how the officer perceives the youthfulness of the orderly and suggests he is taken by it and feels a "warm flame" within his own "tense, rigid body". It further describes his body as "unliving, fixed". In contrast the youth is full of life and vigor, and he envies this and the fact that the youth can be less controlled (by himself) than he is and more natural in his being.


And this irritated the Prussian. He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant. He might easily have changed his man, but he did not. He now very rarely looked direct at his orderly, but kept his face averted, as if to avoid seeing him. And yet as the young soldier moved unthinking about the apartment, the elder watched him, and would notice the movement of his strong young shoulders under the blue cloth, the bend of his neck. And it irritated him. To see the soldier’s young, brown, shapely peasant’s hand grasp the loaf or the wine-bottle sent a flash of hate or of anger through the elder man’s blood. It was not that the youth was clumsy: it was rather the blind, instinctive sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal that irritated the officer to such a degree.

Now we can really see what is irritating the officer. He is put out about the youth possessing what he no longer has and obviously longs for; he is fighting being "touched into life" by by this awareness and the affect the servant has on his being. Now Lawrence actually uses the term "animal" in the last statement. In this entire passage the officer observes the freedom and beauty of the youth and is drawn to him, but rejects this notion and it irritates him at the same time. In some sense he is trapped within himself and within his own 'reserve'. He cannot let himself go and feel anything animalistic or natural.


Once, when a bottle of wine had gone over, and the red gushed out on to the tablecloth, the officer had started up with an oath, and his eyes, bluey like fire, had held those of the confused youth for a moment. It was a shock for the young soldier. He felt something sink deeper, deeper into his soul, where nothing had ever gone before. It left him rather blank and wondering. Some of his natural completeness in himself was gone, a little uneasiness took its place. And from that time an undiscovered feeling had held between the two men.

In this paragraph the incident of the wine being spilt and the reaction of the officer is profound enough to have an adverse affect on the relationship of the two men. Now the youth sees the "bluey like fire" in the officers eyes and has the first indication of unsettling feelings between the two men - he is confused by the older man's reaction. This moment is a sort of warning for what is to come in the future. From this point on the orderly is unnerved to a degree and loses some of his ease of manor that the officer was admiring/rejecting, at the same time. The last line leaves off with the feeling of a definite change between them, further emphasising the point.


Henceforward the orderly was afraid of really meeting his master. His subconsciousness remembered those steely blue eyes and the harsh brows, and did not intend to meet them again. So he always stared past his master, and avoided him. Also, in a little anxiety, he waited for the three months to have gone, when his time would be up. He began to feel a constraint in the Captain’s presence, and the soldier even more than the officer wanted to be left alone, in his neutrality as servant.


Now fear creeps in with the first statement, and in the second it states it is 'subconscious' fear. Now the orderly begins to avoid the officer. He starts to put himself into a vulnerable situation with his attitude or constraint in the officer's presense. Obviously the officer will now sense this change. I think this leaves the orderly open for abuse. The officer sees this vulnerable anxiety in the youth and later takes advantage of it.

malwethien
05-08-2007, 11:44 PM
Hi Janine...good analysis...I think the Prussian is quite jealous with the youth, energy, vigor and life of the young orderly...and it could it be that the Prussian is reminded of his own youth and vigor once...and maybe military life has beat it out of him....

Also, a new thought comes to mind...from reading those passages you highlighted...it seems to me that the Prussian is a kind of parasite...drawing energy and 'life' from the his orderly....that by having him around and being 'irritated' by him...he (the Prussian) in turn feels alive...and young? And parasites usually don't kill their hosts...they just kind of suck the life right out of them.... I don't know...it just occured to me while reading your post.....

Virgil
05-09-2007, 01:53 AM
Hey, I'm somewhat back. ;) Sorry.

I think Janine has already indicated the importance of this paragraph:

Gradually the officer had become aware of his servant's young, vigorous, unconscious presence about him. He could not get away from the sense of the youth's person, while he was in attendance. It was like a warm flame upon the older man's tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed. There was something so free and self-contained about him, and something in the young fellow's movement, that made the officer aware of him. And this irritated the Prussian. He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant. He might easily have changed his man, but he did not. He now very rarely looked direct at his orderly, but kept his face averted, as if to avoid seeing him. And yet as the young soldier moved unthinking about the apartment, the elder watched him, and would notice the movement of his strong young shoulders under the blue cloth, the bend of his neck. And it irritated him. To see the soldier's young, brown, shapely peasant's hand grasp the loaf or the wine-bottle sent a flash of hate or of anger through the elder man's blood. It was not that the youth was clumsy: it was rather the blind, instinctive sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal that irritated the officer to such a degree.

I think it bears closer scrutiny. This is the first place where we are shown a justification for the hostility between the two. So what caused it? Because the orderly is "free and self-contained?" Because of the way he moves? And because of the way his "young, brown, shapely peasant's hand grasp the loaf or the wine-bottle?" All trivial and I think we can now conclude what we have suspected, that the animosity comes from a subconscious source. Notice the diction: "unconscious presence" about the orderly while the orderly's movemements "made the officer aware of him." Awareness is consciousness and if you read that paragraph again you will see that something is irritating the Officer on a subconscious level and pushing its way to his consciousness. But i don't think we ever really know what that subconcious something is exactly, just that the youth's "sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal" that causes the irritation.

And later we get this paragraph:

But the influence of the young soldier's being had penetrated through the officer's stiffened discipline, and perturbed the man in him. He, however, was a gentleman, with long, fine hands and cultivated movements, and was not going to allow such a thing as the stirring of his innate self. He was a man of passionate temper, who had always kept himself suppressed. Occasionally there had been a duel, an outburst before the soldiers. He knew himself to be always on the point of breaking out. But he kept himself hard to the idea of the Service. Whereas the young soldier seemed to live out his warm, full nature, to give it off in his very movements, which had a certain zest, such as wild animals have in free movement. And this irritated the officer more and more.
So we see that the very differences of their natures compell them to repell: the "suppressed," "hard" " gentleman Officer contrasted against the "free," "warm," "wild" Orderly. Is it just that their psychic natures are incongruous, incompatible, and irritate each other? I think that is one component to this.

Janine
05-09-2007, 02:37 AM
Wow, two replies! I will answer both of your posts tomorrow. I like the ideas in both. I am too tired now, but be patient; I will think clearer tomorrow. J

Janine
05-09-2007, 03:31 PM
Hi Janine...good analysis...I think the Prussian is quite jealous with the youth, energy, vigor and life of the young orderly...and it could it be that the Prussian is reminded of his own youth and vigor once...and maybe military life has beat it out of him....

Also, a new thought comes to mind...from reading those passages you highlighted...it seems to me that the Prussian is a kind of parasite...drawing energy and 'life' from the his orderly....that by having him around and being 'irritated' by him...he (the Prussian) in turn feels alive...and young? And parasites usually don't kill their hosts...they just kind of suck the life right out of them.... I don't know...it just occured to me while reading your post.....

malwethien, I quite agree with the jealously element in the story. I think the officer is definitely feeling envy or jealousy for the qualities the youth possesses, that maybe at one time he did possess as you suggested. And if he never did perhaps he wanted to be as the orderly is and never was and this also could make him bitter and resentful. I think he especially envies the youth's freedom of movement or ease in bearing when he first observes him. The youth can let go and be himself when off on his own and the officer cannot. He is trapped inside his own regimented life and personality.
It is ironic but because of his behavior (officer's) he has now depleted that relaxed feeling about the orderly by putting him on-edge in his presense. In some ways he is parasitic in that he slowly (and as Virgil pointed out - much of this is pychological and subconsious) put the two men in an uncomfortable situation of dominent and passive roles and he is slowly dominating the orderly, in this way drawing out the youth's energy and vigor, he once admired or at least was drawn to subconsicously.
A had a difficult boss once who did this sort of thing and it was subtle about it. He would just walk into our room and the atmosphere would change drastically - freeze up and become difficult to function freely/creatively in as our daily workplace. In some ways I can relate to this type of subtle bullying. He too was deficient in emotional ways and resented everyone else. I think the officer is resentful of the youth and so he beats up on him both mentally and physically. Abusers are 'parasites', if you care to see them that way. You are right - they get their kicks lording power over another and they don't kill them quickly but slowly...killing their will and spirit first.

Janine
05-09-2007, 04:19 PM
Hey, I'm somewhat back. ;) Sorry.

I think Janine has already indicated the importance of this paragraph:


Gradually the officer had become aware of his servant's young, vigorous, unconscious presence about him. He could not get away from the sense of the youth's person, while he was in attendance. It was like a warm flame upon the older man's tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed. There was something so free and self-contained about him, and something in the young fellow's movement, that made the officer aware of him. And this irritated the Prussian. He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant. He might easily have changed his man, but he did not. He now very rarely looked direct at his orderly, but kept his face averted, as if to avoid seeing him. And yet as the young soldier moved unthinking about the apartment, the elder watched him, and would notice the movement of his strong young shoulders under the blue cloth, the bend of his neck. And it irritated him. To see the soldier's young, brown, shapely peasant's hand grasp the loaf or the wine-bottle sent a flash of hate or of anger through the elder man's blood. It was not that the youth was clumsy: it was rather the blind, instinctive sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal that irritated the officer to such a degree.

I think it bears closer scrutiny. This is the first place where we are shown a justification for the hostility between the two. So what caused it? Because the orderly is "free and self-contained?" Because of the way he moves? And because of the way his "young, brown, shapely peasant's hand grasp the loaf or the wine-bottle?" All trivial and I think we can now conclude what we have suspected, that the animosity comes from a subconscious source.

Virgil, I don't think those phrases are trivial at all. I think they are key phrases indicating just how much the officer inwardly (perhaps subconsciously) is attracted to or admires the orderly. I do think much of the feelings going on is subconscious on both parts but I think they can be analysised to some degree - all of course open to individual interpretation of what exactly is going on between the two men. The officer could be fighting a physical attraction with the youth or to the youth. This is even evident in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice were Antonio possesses a deep love for the youth, Bassanio and when Bassanio needs his help to woe Portia, Antonio does all in his power, even risking his own life, for Bassanio's success and happiness in love. Now some might interpret this love of Antonio's for the other Bassanio, as a homosexual love; others may say it is unconditional love for one man to another, more likely the second. As in Antonio's case Bassanio possessed the youth and vigor that Antonio no longer has. This is a major theme in the play. Now in this Lawrence story things could have been as with Antonio and Bassanio, but that the one man is commanding and controlling and not befriending the youth. What the officers motives are are not completely evident, but we know that his personality from the first is a demanding and controlling one, nothing like the kind Antonio. Lawrence choses the reverse - a story of conflict between the older/younger youth and then asks why does the story take this fatal direction?


Notice the diction: "unconscious presence" about the orderly while the orderly's movemements "made the officer aware of him." Awareness is consciousness and if you read that paragraph again you will see that something is irritating the Officer on a subconscious level and pushing its way to his consciousness. But i don't think we ever really know what that subconcious something is exactly, just that the youth's "sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal" that causes the irritation.

Yes, definitely L actually uses the word 'unconscious' to plant that idea in our minds. L was a great observer of this sort of thing between people - the subconsious and the pyschological, even in subtlities and in quiet nuanced expressions between them. In "Twilight in Italy" he is often sitting on the train, observing the other people and stating his own impressions and notions about their family structures and interaction with each other - all from his quiet observation point. Lawrence was extremely sensitive and intuitive in this way. He had this sense finely tuned. He could feel what they were feeling and sense, more than most people could, in just one glance. He was truly amazing as an observer.

Wouldn't this "sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal" of the youth play into L's 'blood' philosophy? You could probably better describe this idea to us. He described his father as being more of the "blood" in that his father in his youth was handsome and danced gracefully and did attract women with his sureness and ease of being...more animalistic. Whereas, L's own mother was more controlling and intellectual. He pitted these two opposities in the categories of the "blood" and the "intellect". I read it in several of my books, but now I don't know if I can locate the exact quotes.


And later we get this paragraph:


But the influence of the young soldier's being had penetrated through the officer's stiffened discipline, and perturbed the man in him. He, however, was a gentleman, with long, fine hands and cultivated movements, and was not going to allow such a thing as the stirring of his innate self. He was a man of passionate temper, who had always kept himself suppressed. Occasionally there had been a duel, an outburst before the soldiers. He knew himself to be always on the point of breaking out. But he kept himself hard to the idea of the Service. Whereas the young soldier seemed to live out his warm, full nature, to give it off in his very movements, which had a certain zest, such as wild animals have in free movement. And this irritated the officer more and more.

So we see that the very differences of their natures compell them to repell: the "suppressed," "hard" " gentleman Officer contrasted against the "free," "warm," "wild" Orderly. Is it just that their psychic natures are incongruous, incompatible, and irritate each other? I think that is one component to this.

Yes, definitely - a huge component of it. At least on the side of the officer. He cannot let his guard down for a minute or relax one bit. The only way he has ever done this is by violence with 'a dual' or by 'outburst before the soldiers'. He does not know how to let his guard down or relax in a normal way or a non-violent way. He cannot relate to a peaceful or kind way. Therefore "the influence of the young soldier's being had penetrated through the officer's stiffened discipline, and perturbed the man in him". Note the word "perturbed." So the officer has been emotionally affected by the youth but will not acknowledge that he has similiar feelings. Therefore he is repelled by his own feelings and nothing the youth did consciously; then he becomes brutal - the enemy is 'himself', not the youth. The enemy is his dealing with his own feeling in dealing with himself and not the feelings or attitude of the youth. The youth is not a real person to him, but a symbol of these feelings he will not give in to. It is like a man being frustrated at work and then coming home and taking it out on his wife, or the poor dog. So the frustration of the officer is more about his inability to accept his own deepest feelings. This sets up the following scenes of abuse. It is like he is beating away at his own feelings (which confuse and frustrate him), when he finally kicks the youth. You are right in that this is all subconsious. He does not realise what he does, consciously.

Virgil
05-10-2007, 12:30 AM
Wouldn't this "sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal" of the youth play into L's 'blood' philosophy?
I don't know if it fits exactly with Lawrence's blood consciousness philosophy, but there may be something to it. That letter was written a year or two later. Here, I'll repost Lawrence's famous letter where he explains it.

From 8 December 1915 letter to Bertrand Russell,
page 470 of The Letters of D.H. Lawrence: June 1913-October 1916.

I have been reading Frazer’s Golden Bough and Totemism and Exogamy. Now I am convinced of what I believed when I was about twenty—that there is another seat of consciousness than the brain and nerve system: there is a blood-consciousness which exists in us independently of the ordinary mental consciousness, which depends on the eye as its source or connector. There is the blood-consciousness, with the sexual connection, holding the same relation as the eye, in seeing, holds to the mental consciousness. One lives, knows, and has one’s being in the blood, without any reference to nerves and brain. This is one half of life, belonging to the darkness. And the tragedy of this our life, and of your life, is that the mental and nerve consciousness exerts a tyranny over the blood-consciousness, and that your will has gone completely over to the mental consciousness, and is engaged in the destruction of your blood-being or blood-consciousness, the final liberating of the one, which is only death in result. Plato was the same. Now it is necessary for us to realise that there is this other great half of our life active in the darkness, the blood-relationship: that when I see, there is a connection between my mental-consciousness and an outside body, forming a precept; but at the same time, there is a transmission through the darkness which is never absent from the light, into my blood-consciousness: but in seeing, the blood-percept is not strong. On the other hand, when I take a woman, then the blood-percept is supreme, my blood-knowing is overwhelming. There is a transmission, I don’t know of what, between her blood and mine, in the act of connection. So that afterwards, even if she goes away, the blood-consciousness persists between us, when the mental consciousness is suspended; and I am formed then by my blood-consciousness, not by my mind or nerves at all.
The orderly is certainly closer to living by blood-consciousness while the Officer is definitely associated with mental-consciousness.


Yes, definitely - a huge component of it. At least on the side of the officer. He cannot let his guard down for a minute or relax one bit. The only way he has ever done this is by violence with 'a dual' or by 'outburst before the soldiers'. He does not know how to let his guard down or relax in a normal way or a non-violent way. He cannot relate to a peaceful or kind way. Therefore "the influence of the young soldier's being had penetrated through the officer's stiffened discipline, and perturbed the man in him". Note the word "perturbed." So the officer has been emotionally affected by the youth but will not acknowledge that he has similiar feelings. Therefore he is repelled by his own feelings and nothing the youth did consciously; then he becomes brutal - the enemy is 'himself', not the youth. The enemy is his dealing with his own feeling in dealing with himself and not the feelings or attitude of the youth. The youth is not a real person to him, but a symbol of these feelings he will not give in to. It is like a man being frustrated at work and then coming home and taking it out on his wife, or the poor dog. So the frustration of the officer is more about his inability to accept his own deepest feelings. This sets up the following scenes of abuse. It is like he is beating away at his own feelings (which confuse and frustrate him), when he finally kicks the youth. You are right in that this is all subconsious. He does not realise what he does, consciously.
Very well said. I think that summarizes it perfectly.

Virgil
05-10-2007, 01:21 AM
Virgil, I don't think those phrases are trivial at all. I think they are key phrases indicating just how much the officer inwardly (perhaps subconsciously) is attracted to or admires the orderly. I do think much of the feelings going on is subconscious on both parts but I think they can be analysised to some degree - all of course open to individual interpretation of what exactly is going on between the two men. The officer could be fighting a physical attraction with the youth or to the youth.

OK, let's get to the sexual theme. Certainly when one thinks of subconscious one must consider sexual tension. [First let me say and I have said this in many places on the forum that I don't believe in any of this subconscious stuff in real life. It's a bunch of crap, but lawrence believes it and here we are discussing how he uses it. ] Here are three places in the story where sexuality is suggested. They are not the only places, but I think representative of how Lawrence does it as a writer.

First:

The Captain was a tall man of about forty, grey at the temples. He had a handsome, finely knit figure, and was one of the best horsemen in the West. His orderly, having to rub him down, admired the amazing riding-muscles of his loins.
Second:

Now and then he [the Officer] took himself a mistress. But after such an event, he returned to duty with his brow still more tense, his eyes still more hostile and irritable. With the men, however, he was merely impersonal, though a devil when roused; so that, on the whole, they feared him, but had no great aversion from him. They accepted him as the inevitable.
Third:

Gradually the officer had become aware of his servant's young, vigorous, unconscious presence about him. He could not get away from the sense of the youth's person, while he was in attendance. It was like a warm flame upon the older man's tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed. There was something so free and self-contained about him, and something in the young fellow's movement, that made the officer aware of him. And this irritated the Prussian. He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant. He might easily have changed his man, but he did not. He now very rarely looked direct at his orderly, but kept his face averted, as if to avoid seeing him. And yet as the young soldier moved unthinking about the apartment, the elder watched him, and would notice the movement of his strong young shoulders under the blue cloth, the bend of his neck. And it irritated him.
The first quote is the obvious, the listing of body parts, here the loins. Elsewhere he lists shoulders and hands and eyes and others. Notice however it is not an overt linking of body part to a sexual attraction. L does not say "he was attracted to his shoulders" or "he found his shoulders attractive." He allows the reader to think that the shoulders or whatever are working inside the character's subconscious mind.

The second quote, as I think Janine has already said, the sexual expression that the Officer experiences is linked to tension, frustration, irritation, and then associated with his "devil" roused anger. It's as if there is a sort of sexual perversion going on inside the Officer's mind that he is not aware of that gets expressed. I think psychologists call it sublimation.

The third quote has elements of the first two with the addition the sexual tension coming into the Officer's conscousness: "It was like a warm flame upon the older man's tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed." And further down: "He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant." Touching, warm flame, these are Lawrence's diction for sexual exhilaration. And again it leads to irritation and anger. Sex for the officer leads to violence and anger.

Now here's a question: Is the dynamic of what's going on subconsciously between the Officer and the Orderly actually sexual (and that would make it homosexual) or is Lawrence saying that what goes on is similar to sex and he is using it as a metaphor?

Janine
05-10-2007, 09:31 PM
I don't know if it fits exactly with Lawrence's blood consciousness philosophy, but there may be something to it. That letter was written a year or two later. Here, I'll repost Lawrence's famous letter where he explains it.

The orderly is certainly closer to living by blood-consciousness while the Officer is definitely associated with mental-consciousness.


Very well said. I think that summarizes it perfectly.

Hi, I am actually at home now but the computer is not really running right - it is a wonder I am on here now. It is still so slow and touchy. I read your posts early. This one is good. I recall reading this letter before about the blood-consciousness and so it was not unfamiliar to me. It is good that you posted it for others to read. Was this letter in your thesis? I must read your thesis again soon. Yes, I precisely thought that the orderly represented the blood-consciousness and the Officer the mental-consciousness - letting the mental get in the way of his true feelings or blood-consciousness, let me add this to what you said.

Janine
05-10-2007, 09:44 PM
OK, let's get to the sexual theme. Certainly when one thinks of subconscious one must consider sexual tension. [First let me say and I have said this in many places on the forum that I don't believe in any of this subconscious stuff in real life. It's a bunch of crap, but lawrence believes it and here we are discussing how he uses it. ] Here are three places in the story where sexuality is suggested. They are not the only places, but I think representative of how Lawrence does it as a writer.

First:

Second:

Third:

The first quote is the obvious, the listing of body parts, here the loins. Elsewhere he lists shoulders and hands and eyes and others. Notice however it is not an overt linking of body part to a sexual attraction. L does not say "he was attracted to his shoulders" or "he found his shoulders attractive." He allows the reader to think that the shoulders or whatever are working inside the character's subconscious mind.

The second quote, as I think Janine has already said, the sexual expression that the Officer experiences is linked to tension, frustration, irritation, and then associated with his "devil" roused anger. It's as if there is a sort of sexual perversion going on inside the Officer's mind that he is not aware of that gets expressed. I think psychologists call it sublimation.

The third quote has elements of the first two with the addition the sexual tension coming into the Officer's conscousness: "It was like a warm flame upon the older man's tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed." And further down: "He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant." Touching, warm flame, these are Lawrence's diction for sexual exhilaration. And again it leads to irritation and anger. Sex for the officer leads to violence and anger.

Now here's a question: Is the dynamic of what's going on subconsciously between the Officer and the Orderly actually sexual (and that would make it homosexual) or is Lawrence saying that what goes on is similar to sex and he is using it as a metaphor?

Manny, I forgot to thank you for your compliment "Very well said. I think that summarizes it perfectly." I worked hard to express that, so thanks.
Everything you wrote here is good. I like the way you have again picked out 'key words' that mean so much like 'touching', 'warm flame', etc. I did not relist the quotes so anyone reading this will have to refer back to your original post. Now it is my turn to say you expressed all of this very well.

To your last line and question I think many people probably have asked that question about many of Lawrence's writings - the homeosexual possibility or the mere metaphor? It has probably been debated over and over again without a definitive answer. I know it will always remain enigmatic to me. Some people feel that in various books, when Lawrence talked about a equal relationship with a man as well as a woman, he was referring to it in a sexual way, others will say it was most definitely non-sexual. If the man were alive today we might ask him, but for that we have to go to Asa's "Bring Them Back from the Dead" thread...:lol: I don't think we will ever know. Some biographers even cite examples of L having had homosexual encounters, of course they enjoy being scandalise for the time. It is something we will never actually know about Lawrence. His writings oft times do point in that direction.

Janine
05-11-2007, 08:12 PM
Hi all, I am back in the same boat with this 'touchy computer'. I might be on here and I might not be able to assess online stuff at all. I have to play it by ear.
So Virgil, if you want go onward with the story - maybe post the next paragraphs to discuss. I will definitely be on to answer on Monday - if not on this computer, but on the library's. For now they are closed the whole weekend:( So just post and continue without me. I will catch up, unless I can get back online tomorrow. For now maybe I will take a little computer break anyway. J

Carlitos
05-11-2007, 09:26 PM
Hello everybody, my name is Carlos and I started to learn about english literature, my language of origin is spanish and I am in a hurry trying to finish an essay about a Lawrence essay "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" if somebody can give a hand with some words about it I will be thankfull for the rest of my life.

Janine
05-11-2007, 10:21 PM
Hello everybody, my name is Carlos and I started to learn about english literature, my language of origin is spanish and I am in a hurry trying to finish an essay about a Lawrence essay "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" if somebody can give a hand with some words about it I will be thankfull for the rest of my life.

Hi Carlos, we discussed the "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" - last, before we started this story's discussion. We really went into depth studying it. If you go back to the beginning of that discussion - many posts back - I am sure there is enough there to give you great ideas on the story. We took it nearly paragraph by paragraph, and analysised it in much detail. The actual beginning is in post #25 which I believe it the second page of this thread. It goes on from there for a number of pages. Mainly Virgil and I discussing that story.

Virgil
05-11-2007, 11:15 PM
To your last line and question I think many people probably have asked that question about many of Lawrence's writings - the homeosexual possibility or the mere metaphor? It has probably been debated over and over again without a definitive answer. I know it will always remain enigmatic to me. Some people feel that in various books, when Lawrence talked about a equal relationship with a man as well as a woman, he was referring to it in a sexual way, others will say it was most definitely non-sexual.

Well, if you listen to some of these critics you would think that every writer is partly homosexual. :p

However, Lwarence does seem to bring men together in a bond with homosexual overtones in several works. I too don't know what exactly he is trying to say with it. I can say that it is not equal in any respect, and if one looks at this story it is characterized as perverse. In no work of L that I'm aware does homosexuality actually reach a fulfilling experience.

Virgil
05-11-2007, 11:25 PM
Another point I wish to make about Part I is the loss of control that has come about because of the psychic conflict, at least in the Officer.


In spite of himself, the Captain could not regain his neutrality of feeling towards his orderly. Nor could he leave the man alone. In spite of himself, he watched him, gave him sharp orders, tried to take up as much of his time as possible. Sometimes he flew into a rage with the young soldier, and bullied him. Then the orderly shut himself off, as it were out of earshot, and waited, with sullen, flushed face, for the end of the noise. The words never pierced to his intelligence, he made himself, protectively, impervious to the feelings of his master.

What we see is that the subconscious is dictating control over person, in opposition to what the consciousness wants.

Here again:

He [the Orderly] had a scar on his left thumb, a deep seam going across the knuckle. The officer had long suffered from it, and wanted to do something to it. Still it was there, ugly and brutal on the young, brown hand. At last the Captain's reserve gave way. One day, as the orderly was smoothing out the tablecloth, the officer pinned down his thumb with a pencil, asking:

"How did you come by that?"

The young man winced and drew back at attention.

"A wood axe, Herr Hauptmann," he answered.

The officer waited for further explanation. None came. The orderly went about his duties. The elder man was sullenly angry. His servant avoided him. And the next day he had to use all his will-power to avoid seeing the scarred thumb. He wanted to get hold of it and--a hot flame ran in his blood.
The Captain can't hold back from asking, and even the Orderly can't come out and give a straight answer. And we see here that the rage the Captain feels is starting to become violence. The subconscious desires are beginning to become expressed.

Janine
05-12-2007, 09:08 PM
Well, if you listen to some of these critics you would think that every writer is partly homosexual. :p

However, Lwarence does seem to bring men together in a bond with homosexual overtones in several works. I too don't know what exactly he is trying to say with it. I can say that it is not equal in any respect, and if one looks at this story it is characterized as perverse. In no work of L that I'm aware does homosexuality actually reach a fulfilling experience.

Virgil,
I know this is true of critics/biographers; they just love to cite examples of possible homeosexual contacts for Lawrence, like the one in Cornwall; I believe it Cornwall, somewhere in the far west of England. There was a young man he befriended on a neighboring farm whom he greatly admired physically. He is much like L's other characters in "White Peacock" and S&L, who were fashioned after the brother of Jessie. Because L admired the man's body he was automatically suspected as being a homosexual. No one knows for sure what he really did in his personal life, nor it it anyone's real business, as is the same with other writers.
But in L's work particularly the sense of homosexual elements often surface and behavior is definitely evident, although never full-blown. I could cite some passages from WIL, but don't want to ruin that book for you in the future. Just to say that Birkin and Gerald had a very close relationship and I think Birkin's attitudes reflex Lawrence's blood-consciousness, etc.
There are several stories where things turn perverse and are tied in with sexual tension. I am thinking of "St. Mawr", and some of the commentary I have read during my studies of L and of his biographies. It seems that in St. Mawr a woman rides off and is raped or something violent. I cannot recall the book since I read it ages ago; so if you know more or if I am thinking of the wrong story please let me know.
Your said "In no work of L that I'm aware does homosexuality actually reach a fulfilling experience". Exactly, interesting to note that, isn't it?

Janine
05-12-2007, 09:22 PM
Another point I wish to make about Part I is the loss of control that has come about because of the psychic conflict, at least in the Officer.

What we see is that the subconscious is dictating control over person, in opposition to what the consciousness wants.

The Captain can't hold back from asking, and even the Orderly can't come out and give a straight answer. And we see here that the rage the Captain feels is starting to become violence. The subconscious desires are beginning to become expressed.

Virgil, I agree with all three points you have brought out. Interesting how L writes that the officer pinned down his thumb with a pencil. Almost like the pencil were a sword. Definitely a weapon of restraint to the officer.

I will try to post more of the story tomorrow. J

Virgil
05-12-2007, 11:23 PM
Virgil, I agree with all three points you have brought out. Interesting how L writes that the officer pinned down his thumb with a pencil. Almost like the pencil were a sword. Definitely a weapon of restraint to the officer.


Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that, that the officer uses an instrument to control the orderly.

Virgil
05-12-2007, 11:26 PM
Virgil,
I know this is true of critics/biographers; they just love to cite examples of possible homeosexual contacts for Lawrence, like the one in Cornwall; I believe it Cornwall, somewhere in the far west of England. There was a young man he befriended on a neighboring farm whom he greatly admired physically. He is much like L's other characters in "White Peacock" and S&L, who were fashioned after the brother of Jessie. Because L admired the man's body he was automatically suspected as being a homosexual. No one knows for sure what he really did in his personal life, nor it it anyone's real business, as is the same with other writers.
But in L's work particularly the sense of homosexual elements often surface and behavior is definitely evident, although never full-blown. I could cite some passages from WIL, but don't want to ruin that book for you in the future. Just to say that Birkin and Gerald had a very close relationship and I think Birkin's attitudes reflex Lawrence's blood-consciousness, etc.
There are several stories where things turn perverse and are tied in with sexual tension. I am thinking of "St. Mawr", and some of the commentary I have read during my studies of L and of his biographies. It seems that in St. Mawr a woman rides off and is raped or something violent. I cannot recall the book since I read it ages ago; so if you know more or if I am thinking of the wrong story please let me know.
Your said "In no work of L that I'm aware does homosexuality actually reach a fulfilling experience". Exactly, interesting to note that, isn't it?

I don't remember any homosexual tension in St Mawr. The thing is that with all the letters and stories and poems that Lawrence wrote, you would think there would be a clear reference to homosexuality if he were. Certainly he tells everything of his personal life in his letters. He wouold not have kept it hush.

Janine
05-13-2007, 02:06 PM
Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that, that the officer uses an instrument to control the orderly.

Virgil, this sort of reminds me of Lawrence's experiences being a teacher. He rather railed against using a stick on the young men to keep them in order, but I believe he was forced to by his superiors, and gave into it. It seems these stick beatings were accepted practice in England at the time, so in a way he was forced to use brutality to some extend. Hard to think of L this way in his early days, but it was well documented and he even wrote a poem about the boys and keeping them disciplined, indicating this sort of thing. I will look it up.

In answer to your next post - I did not mean homosexual behavior in St. Mawr. No - that story would just indicate brutal sexual aggression and behavior. It had nothing to do with homosexual behavior.

Well, I will have to further investigate the letters and let you know what I think of any indiction of that type activity or inclination. In some of the books certain scenes indicate closeness with a males, even depicted nude in close proximity with another male. Therefore avid imaginations of biographers had a field day with these scenes. But true the letters would be the most revealing of all. I love reading the letters, but now with so many other distractions I have not read many so far. I will get back to it soon.

I was send a note about some books and stories being added to the L section, and you requested this. Thanks! My question would be - do you know if WIL is in that section. Seems some people on the voting thread are concerned they can't get the book. I wrote something in there today to one person - see my post if you can.

Virgil
05-13-2007, 06:22 PM
I was send a note about some books and stories being added to the L section, and you requested this. Thanks! My question would be - do you know if WIL is in that section. Seems some people on the voting thread are concerned they can't get the book. I wrote something in there today to one person - see my post if you can.

Yes: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/women_in_love/


By the way Janine, Happy Mothers Day. :)

Janine
05-13-2007, 06:42 PM
Thanks Virgil, someone remembered; just don't start calling me 'mom'. Still very thoughful of you. I laughed :lol: when I saw the pink pyschodelic type :lol: Actually my son and his wife will be over at 8. Too many people out today to go out to eat; actually they did that earlier with other inlaws - think the inlaws invited them.
Right after I wrote that I was in the book of month thread and saw that WIL was posted on this site; so I looked and sure enough, there it was. This is great, if it gets picked, so that we can easily quote parts of the text. If S&L is picked, that is on here, too. I found my thick compiled book of several of the novels of Lawrence - namely S&L, The Fox, Love Among the Haystacks, Arron's Rod, WIL. My one question would be about this WIL edition. This particular book of mine was printed in 1979 and I saw ones on Amazon - the Penquin Classics Cambridge Edition - that boast of having the entire text, including 2 previously elimated chapters. It is confusing to know if I have the full edition or would it be worth my while to buy this updated one? It also includes good annotations which would be beneficial for the discussion. What do you think?
I probably won't be posting anymore of this story tonight. I will do it tomorrow. Today I am off because it is Mother's Day - right - I just cooked all of us dinner....ha. A woman's work is never done! ;)

Janine
05-14-2007, 09:17 PM
Here, shall can go on with the following passages:


The officer waited for further explanation. None came. The orderly went about his duties. The elder man was sullenly angry. His servant avoided him. And the next day he had to use all his will-power to avoid seeing the scarred thumb. He wanted to get hold of it and—A hot flame ran in his blood.

He knew his servant would soon be free, and would be glad. As yet, the soldier had held himself off from the elder man. The Captain grew madly irritable. He could not rest when the soldier was away, and when he was present, he glared at him with tormented eyes. He hated those fine, black brows over the unmeaning, dark eyes, he was infuriated by the free movement of the handsome limbs, which no military discipline could make stiff. And he became harsh and cruelly bullying, using contempt and satire. The young soldier only grew more mute and expressionless.

“What cattle were you bred by, that you can’t keep straight eyes? Look me in the eyes when I speak to you.”

And the soldier turned his dark eyes to the other’s face, but there was no sight in them: he stared with the slightest possible cast, holding back his sight, perceiving the blue of his master’s eyes, but receiving no look from them. And the elder man went pale, and his reddish eyebrows twitched. He gave his order, barrenly.

Once he flung a heavy military glove into the young soldier’s face. Then he had the satisfaction of seeing the black eyes flare up into his own, like a blaze when straw is thrown on a fire. And he had laughed with a little tremor and a sneer.

But there were only two months more. The youth instinctively tried to keep himself intact: he tried to serve the officer as if the latter were an abstract authority and not a man. All his instinct was to avoid personal contact, even definite hate. But in spite of himself the hate grew, responsive to the officer’s passion. However, he put it in the background. When he had left the Army he could dare acknowledge it. By nature he was active, and had many friends. He thought what amazing good fellows they were. But, without knowing it, he was alone. Now this solitariness was intensified. It would carry him through his term. But the officer seemed to be going irritably insane, and the youth was deeply frightened.

These paragraphs clearly show the progression of the animosity that is daily growing even stronger in the officer towards the youth. After the pencil incident he is constantly harrassing the orderly or questioning him in aggressive and a mean/rough sort of way. In return this just makes the orderly even more stubbornly inward and secretive about his feelings. He is not responsive to the officer. I think the officer it more irritated, actually infuriated, because of this total lack of response in the youth. It is as though the officer almost wants the youth to rail up against him, or lash out or show any bit of anger, but he remains inwardly keeping this his confusion and anger to himself. He is biding his time until he is done with his duty in the service. The last paragraph and sentence finally reveals in words an indication of the state of the officer's mind and his desent into a kind of irritable insanity. Interesting to call it that. This statement seems to be taken from the viewpoint of the orderly.

It is interesting how one perceives who is thinking which lines at times or who's viewpoint is being stated. There is always this shift back and forth between the two characters. Then at other times it seems the perception is coming from a 3rd party or the narrator of the story. Interesting, also, that the last two short stories we read basically dealt with only two characters in depth. In the case or HDD - Mabel and Fergussen; in the first story - the married couple; in PO - the officer and the orderly.

Virgil
05-14-2007, 09:42 PM
I think the officer it more irritated, actually infuriated, because of this total lack of response in the youth. It is as though the officer almost wants the youth to rail up against him, or lash out or show any bit of anger, but he remains inwardly keeping this his confusion and anger to himself. He is biding his time until he is done with his duty in the service. The last paragraph and sentence finally reveals in words an indication of the state of the officer's mind and his desent into a kind of irritable insanity. Interesting to call it that. This statement seems to be taken from the viewpoint of the orderly.

Yes, the Officer is losing control more and more.


It is interesting how one perceives who is thinking which lines at times or who's viewpoint is being stated. There is always this shift back and forth between the two characters. Then at other times it seems the perception is coming from a 3rd party or the narrator of the story. Interesting, also, that the last two short stories we read basically dealt with only two characters in depth. In the case or HDD - Mabel and Fergussen; in the first story - the married couple; in PO - the officer and the orderly
Lawrence is great at that. I've never seen a writer who in the same paragraph can shift points of view like Lawrence. A writer is not supposed to do that. But Lawrence freely breaks those rules and it seems natural.

I've got one more point to make on part 1, but I'm rather tired tis evening. Tomorrow if that's ok with you, J.

Janine
05-14-2007, 11:53 PM
Yes, the Officer is losing control more and more..
Virgil, Definitely, a spiraling downward for the officer and his unstable state of mind.


Lawrence is great at that. I've never seen a writer who in the same paragraph can shift points of view like Lawrence. A writer is not supposed to do that. But Lawrence freely breaks those rules and it seems natural.

Yes, I have noticed this so many times, especially in this story. Lawrence broke a lot of literary rules, I believe. He got away with it all so graciously and easily, I think because his writing flows so naturally. It was a natural outpouring of his mind and soul, and 'blood'. I love that about L. He could care less about what an author was 'suppose to do'. He made up his own set of rules. One thing that makes his writing so distingishable and unique.


I've got one more point to make on part 1, but I'm rather tired tis evening. Tomorrow if that's ok with you, J.

Absolutely; wait til tomorrow or whenever. I am moving slowly along myself. Are you back from your trip yet? Take your time with further comments.

Virgil
05-17-2007, 10:43 PM
So now that we have seen the sexual undertones of the officer and orderly relationship, identified the unconscious frustrations and their slowly rising into conscious, sublimated acts, and now that we seen the officer's increasingly loss of control, we can discuss the central event of part 1, an event that really is the culmination of the relationship and the event from which the rest of the story hinges. I'm referring to the kicking scene.


"Why have you a piece of pencil in your ear?" he [the Office] asked.

The orderly took his hands full of dishes. His master was standing near the great green stove, a little smile on his face, his chin thrust forward. When the young soldier saw him his heart suddenly ran hot. He felt blind. Instead of answering, he turned dazedly to the door. As he was crouching to set down the dishes, he was pitched forward by a kick from behind. The pots went in a stream down the stairs, he clung to the pillar of the banisters. And as he was rising he was kicked heavily again, and again, so that he clung sickly to the post for some moments. His master had gone swiftly into the room and closed the door. The maid-servant downstairs looked up the staircase and made a mocking face at the crockery disaster.

The officer's heart was plunging. He poured himself a glass of wine, part of which he spilled on the floor, and gulped the remainder, leaning against the cool, green stove. He heard his man collecting the dishes from the stairs. Pale, as if intoxicated, he waited. The servant entered again. The Captain's heart gave a pang, as of pleasure, seeing the young fellow bewildered and uncertain on his feet, with pain.

"Schöner!" he said.

The soldier was a little slower in coming to attention.

"Yes, sir!"

The youth stood before him, with pathetic young moustache, and fine eyebrows very distinct on his forehead of dark marble.

"I asked you a question."

"Yes, sir."

The officer's tone bit like acid.

"Why had you a pencil in your ear?"

Again the servant's heart ran hot, and he could not breathe. With dark, strained eyes, he looked at the officer, as if fascinated. And he stood there sturdily planted, unconscious. The withering smile came into the Captain's eyes, and he lifted his foot.

"I--I forgot it--sir," panted the soldier, his dark eyes fixed on the other man's dancing blue ones.

"What was it doing there?"

He saw the young man's breast heaving as he made an effort for words.

"I had been writing."

"Writing what?"

Again the soldier looked up and down. The officer could hear him panting. The smile came into the blue eyes. The soldier worked his dry throat, but could not speak. Suddenly the smile lit like a flame on the officer's face, and a kick came heavily against the orderly's thigh. The youth moved a pace sideways. His face went dead, with two black, staring eyes.

In some respects, this is actually a rape scene. It's a sublimated rape. Especially these lines:

As he was crouching to set down the dishes, he was pitched forward by a kick from behind. The pots went in a stream down the stairs, he clung to the pillar of the banisters. And as he was rising he was kicked heavily again, and again, so that he clung sickly to the post for some moments.

The kicking is another subconscious frustration coming up to consciousness in an sublimated, uncontrollable act. The whole thing is sadistic. The officer gets a sick pleasure from it. Notice too the sexual allusions:

The officer, left alone, held himself rigid, to prevent himself from thinking. His instinct warned him that he must not think. Deep inside him was the intense gratification of his passion, still working powerfully. Then there was a counter-action, a horrible breaking down of something inside him, a whole agony of reaction. He stood there for an hour motionless, a chaos of sensations, but rigid with a will to keep blank his consciousness, to prevent his mind grasping. And he held himself so until the worst of the stress had passed, when he began to drink, drank himself to an intoxication, till he slept obliterated.

It breaks the orderly. He completely copitulates and in many respects acts like a rape victum:

The orderly had gone about in a stupor all the evening. He drank some beer because he was parched, but not much, the alcohol made his feeling come back, and he could not bear it. He was dulled, as if nine-tenths of the ordinary man in him were inert. He crawled about disfigured. Still, when he thought of the kicks, he went sick, and when he thought of the threat of more kicking, in the room afterwards, his heart went hot and faint, and he panted, remembering the one that had come. He had been forced to say, "For my girl." He was much too done even to want to cry. His mouth hung slightly open, like an idiot's. He felt vacant, and wasted. So, he wandered at his work, painfully, and very slowly and clumsily, fumbling blindly with the brushes, and finding it difficult, when he sat down, to summon the energy to move again. His limbs, his jaw, were slack and nerveless. But he was very tired. He got to bed at last, and slept inert, relaxed, in a sleep that was rather stupor than slumber, a dead night of stupefaction shot through with gleams of anguish.

And so this brings the story back to present time, the march and manuevers, completing the exposition.