D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Hi Grace, good to see you here again! We missed you. I think if you check over the posts and read the important ones quickly you still can catch up to the ending; you have time until we close this story, to go onto the next story. You could perhaps give your overall impression or thoughts on the story or feel free to comment on the parts I am about to post.

Hi everyone! I just found a great site online - actually I had it in my 'favorites' for awhile now, but just discovered that in addition you can take a virtual tour of Lawrence country, etc. You just need to download a free Flash Player to view the tours. The site is fun to explore with pictures and information. Here is the address link:

http://www.dh-lawrence.org.uk/

I hope that works - it is through the University of Nottingham, which Lawrence attended.

I will post the next part of the story, which should be the last part, actually. Here goes:

"Arthur!" she said.

The keeper pretended not to hear. Syson, watching keenly, began to smile.

The woman drew herself up.
"Arthur!" she said again, with a curious upward inflection, which warned the two men that her soul was trembling on a dangerous crisis.

The keeper slowly put down his tool and came to her.
"Yes," he said.

"I wanted to introduce you," she said, trembling.

"I've met him a'ready," said the keeper.

"Have you? It is Addy, Mr Syson, whom you know about.--This is Arthur, Mr

Pilbeam," she added, turning to Syson.

The latter held out his hand to the keeper, and they shook hands in silence.

"I'm glad to have met you," said Syson. "We drop our correspondence, Hilda?"

"Why need we?" she asked.

The two men stood at a loss.

"Is there no need?" said Syson.

Still she was silent.

"It is as you will," she said.

They went all three together down the gloomy path.

"'Qu'il etait bleu, le ciel, et grand l'espoir,'" quoted Syson, not knowing what to say.

"What do you mean?" she said. "Besides, we can't walk in our wild oats--we never sowed any."

Syson looked at her. He was startled to see his young love, his nun, his Botticelli angel, so revealed. It was he who had been the fool. He and she were more separate than any two strangers could be. She only wanted to keep up a correspondence with him--and he, of course, wanted it kept up, so that he could write to her, like Dante to some Beatrice who had never existed save in the man's own brain.

Up until this paragraph the three characters are together. Now Hilda leaves the two men together, and shortly after Syson is entirely left alone to observe the couple, in finality, in the last scene.

At the bottom of the path she left him. He went along with the keeper, towards the open, towards the gate that closed on the wood. The two men walked almost like friends. They did not broach the subject of their thoughts.
Instead of going straight to the high-road gate, Syson went along the wood's edge, where the brook spread out in a little bog, and under the alder trees, among the reeds, great yellow stools and bosses of marigolds shone. Threads of brown water trickled by, touched with gold from the flowers. Suddenly there was a blue flash in the air, as a kingfisher passed.

Syson was extraordinarily moved. He climbed the bank to the gorse bushes, whose sparks of blossom had not yet gathered into a flame. Lying on the dry brown turf, he discovered sprigs of tiny purple milkwort and pink spots of lousewort. What a wonderful world it was--marvellous, for ever new. He felt as if it were underground, like the fields of monotone hell, notwithstanding. Inside his breast was a pain like a wound. He remembered the poem of William Morris, where in the Chapel of Lyonesse a knight lay wounded, with the truncheon of a spear deep in his breast, lying always as dead, yet did not die, while day after day the coloured sunlight dipped from the painted window across the chancel, and passed away. He knew now it never had been true, that which was between him and her, not for a moment.
The truth had stood apart all the time.

Syson turned over. The air was full of the sound of larks, as if the sunshine above were condensing and falling in a shower. Amid this bright sound, voices sounded small and distinct.

"But if he's married, an' quite willing to drop it off, what has ter against it?" said the man's voice.

"I don't want to talk about it now. I want to be alone."

Syson looked through the bushes. Hilda was standing in the wood, near the gate. The man was in the field, loitering by the hedge, and playing with the bees as they settled on the white bramble flowers.

There was silence for a while, in which Syson imagined her will among the brightness of the larks. Suddenly the keeper exclaimed "Ah!" and swore. He was gripping at the sleeve of his coat, near the shoulder. Then he pulled off his jacket, threw it on the ground, and absorbedly rolled up his shirt sleeve right to the shoulder.

"Ah!" he said vindictively, as he picked out the bee and flung it away. He twisted his fine, bright arm, peering awkwardly over his shoulder.

"What is it?" asked Hilda.

"A bee--crawled up my sleeve," he answered.

"Come here to me," she said.

The keeper went to her, like a sulky boy. She took his arm in her hands.

"Here it is--and the sting left in-poor bee!"

She picked out the sting, put her mouth to his arm, and sucked away the drop of poison. As she looked at the red mark her mouth had made, and at his arm, she said, laughing:

"That is the reddest kiss you will ever have."

When Syson next looked up, at the sound of voices, he saw in the shadow the keeper with his mouth on the throat of his beloved, whose head was thrown back, and whose hair had fallen, so that one rough rope of dark brown hair hung across his bare arm.

I am sure you will have fun commenting on these passages. Interesting ending, in my opinion, with the bee stinging the keeper and the tender/sensual scene that follows, as Syson looks on with various emotions stirring within him.

[downing]

Qu'il etait bleu, le ciel, et grand l'espoir,'" quoted Syson, not knowing what to say.

The verse quoted by Syson is Paul Verlaine's, in his poem ''Colloque sentimental'' which I could awkwardly translate as ''Sentimental discussion''.
And the translation of the verse would be: ''How blue the sky was and big the hope!''. I am not very advanced in translating so please excuse me for not making professional translations .

Syson looked at her. He was startled to see his young love, his nun, his Botticelli angel, so revealed. It was he who had been the fool. He and she were more separate than any two strangers could be. She only wanted to keep up a correspondence with him--and he, of course, wanted it kept up, so that he could write to her, like Dante to some Beatrice who had never existed save in the man's own brain.

I love this passage and I think it explains very well what Syson was feeling; I especially like the reference to Dante and Beatrice-very romantic.I think it explains perfectly, yet poignantly, the difference between appearance(Syson thought that he and Hilda could have had the same ''way'') and essence(the fact that they were very different-see the underlined sentence-and could not have had the same ''way'').

The truth had stood apart all the time.

The following part of their dialogue shows us that Hilda is the one who'd like to continue the relationship:

"I'm glad to have met you," said Syson. "We drop our correspondence, Hilda?"

"Why need we?" she asked.

The two men stood at a loss.

"Is there no need?" said Syson.

Still she was silent.

"It is as you will," she said.

I understand that Syson will further decide whether to drop the correspondence or maintain it. I am curious of what he will do. What do you believe? I guess it would be wiser to drop it, because it brings only pain to Syson.

"'Qu'il etait bleu, le ciel, et grand l'espoir,'" quoted Syson, not knowing what to say.

"What do you mean?" she said. "Besides, we can't walk in our wild oats--we never sowed any."

It is clear that, by quoting this, Syson recalls the past. What I do not understand is Hilda's reply. Certainly, ''the oats'' are used figurately, but what do they represent?

In the end, I feel sorry for Syson because he assists at such a ''sensual scene'' as Janine said. I can imagine what he was feeling like. Poor Syson.

[grace86]

I thought it was interesting how Syson went to go and see his "first love" or whatever she was, when he wasn't sure how she would receive him.

He takes a leap of faith I think in going to see her only to find her different than he had left her. But in the end here, it is Syson who makes the move to sever their ties by saying that they would end their correspondence with each other. It is Hilda who asks him why they would do a thing like that. She didn't want to stop correspondence with Syson.

I am kind of curious why she would keep the line open. Although she has changed I think she still might want some sort of link to Syson or maybe she was never fully over him. I've always heard that you will always love your first love.

Then at the end she is very tender with her fiancee/husband. I think she might have grown up and found a second love or what have you, but I don't think she forgot Syson, nor was she willing to.

[Janine]

Very good insightful posts by both Grace and Downing, I will answer Grace's first.

I thought it was interesting how Syson went to go and see his "first love" or whatever she was, when he wasn't sure how she would receive him.

Yes, Hilda is definitely Syson's first love, and she represents his character of Miriam (Sons and Lovers), and Lawrence's real life first love, Jessie. I have found commentary to support this totally. Directly after answering your two posts I am going to scan this part of the commentary book (so I don't have to type it) and post it. You will see how several of his short stories are based on Lawrence's own early emotional experiences, and his attempt to work out his own personal feelings for his first love and 'love/relationships' in general.

He takes a leap of faith I think in going to see her only to find her different than he had left her. But in the end here, it is Syson who makes the move to sever their ties by saying that they would end their correspondence with each other. It is Hilda who asks him why they would do a thing like that. She didn't want to stop correspondence with Syson.

Yes, he does take a leap of faith going back. I think I could imagine doing this, but I think it would be very very difficult, to encounter your old love in this way, especially meeting first her new love; at this point he very well could have turned away and forgotten the whole trip. Good point - Syson does make the move to cut the ties and truly say goodbye, which actually did happen in Lawrence's real life, I believe; or it might have been that he (Lawrence) continued to write Jessie and she stopped the correspondense. I should look that up, since I forget the details. I don't think Jessie ever married so that in a way she did keep hanging onto 'the dream', but Lawrence did move on with his life and it took other directions, in his travels and marriage.

I am kind of curious why she would keep the line open. Although she has changed I think she still might want some sort of link to Syson or maybe she was never fully over him. I've always heard that you will always love your first love.

I think that most likely Jessie(Hilda) wanted a link left to Lawrence(Syson) - one of a 'dream-state', not reality. This is the impression, I always get of the real woman, Jessie. She was greatly hurt by L. However, she wrote her own novel/memoires about his life later and had it published. If you really want to know what is in the mind of a woman, such as Hilda, you have to read Jessie's 'Lawrence Biography', I suppose. I have never read it, feeling it would most likely be somewhat distorted to please her image of him, when he was young; yet she knew him so well, I feel it also would be somewhat revealing, of the man as a youth.

Then at the end she is very tender with her fiancee/husband. I think she might have grown up and found a second love or what have you, but I don't think she forgot Syson, nor was she willing to.

Yes, as you say, she is very tender with her fiancee, also 'physical' obviously, and she has grown past the early first love stage, going forward to another mature practical love/relationship. However, that last line is almost indicative of a 'wish furfillment' on Lawrence's part, that his first love keeps 'holding on' even in the mental or emotional realm of being. Also, I think that by refusing to set a date of marriage with the keeper Hilda is still holding back and holding onto her past; therefore the ending leaves a question which is very typical of Lawrence and all his novels and stories. He wants us to wonder at the end and what will follow; as Virgil has recently pointed out in WIL thread, 'whither' is a big Lawrence word. He does not use it directly here, but he says in a sense 'what next' or 'whither we go from here?' I feel it is a much more interesting way to end the story and one feels almost the need to re-read the story to try and figure it all out. I think this is L's intention entirely. He wants us to make up our own minds about what will happen next. He is often ambivalent like this with his endings.

One last thought - remember, this story is Lawrence's vision and his thoughts being played out about his own feelings. Perhaps he also wanted to hold onto the vision of Jessie by writing this or actually worked out letting go by writing it. We shall probably never know what conclusion he came up with in his personal feeling towards his first love.

Onto Downing's post!

[Pensive]

I thought it was interesting how Syson went to go and see his "first love" or whatever she was, when he wasn't sure how she would receive him.

He takes a leap of faith I think in going to see her only to find her different than he had left her. But in the end here, it is Syson who makes the move to sever their ties by saying that they would end their correspondence with each other. It is Hilda who asks him why they would do a thing like that. She didn't want to stop correspondence with Syson.

I am kind of curious why she would keep the line open. Although she has changed I think she still might want some sort of link to Syson or maybe she was never fully over him. I've always heard that you will always love your first love.

Then at the end she is very tender with her fiancee/husband. I think she might have grown up and found a second love or what have you, but I don't think she forgot Syson, nor was she willing to.

Yes, it seems to me we would never be able to form a definite opinion about it. Whether Syson was in the heart of Hilda and she wanted him to return back any longer or had she closed that chapter? In this story, it appears Lawrence gives off too 'little' facts and the reader has to deal a lot with guess work...

[Janine]

See previous post of Downing for quotes:

The verse quoted by Syson is Paul Verlaine's, in his poem ''Colloque sentimental'' which I could awkwardly translate as ''Sentimental discussion''.
And the translation of the verse would be: ''How blue the sky was and big the hope!''. I am not very advanced in translating so please excuse me for not making professional translations .

Downing, this is great work! We needed an interpreter; in fact, I have been wondering what that passage means. Often Lawrence inserts French/German/Italian passages in his stories and novels. Now I will know who to come to, to find out what he is saying. You are now our official interpreter.

I love this passage and I think it explains very well what Syson was feeling; I especially like the reference to Dante and Beatrice-very romantic.I think it explains perfectly, yet poignantly, the difference between appearance(Syson thought that he and Hilda could have had the same ''way'') and essence(the fact that they were very different-see the underlined sentence-and could not have had the same ''way'').

I love that passage, too. I felt it also explained much about what the feelings between them. The Dante/Beatrice reference is romantic and also 'idyllic', for this is how Syson and Hilda are perceiving the relationship they once had. Yes, Syson's way would definitely not be Hilda's way.

The following part of their dialogue shows us that Hilda is the one who'd like to continue the relationship:

Yes, true and I think that in Grace's post and my reponse I have answered this part by siting the connection between the real people the story is based upon - Lawrence and Jessie, his first love. But in this vision of the past it seems that Lawrence sees the woman as the one holding onto the past and not letting him be free of it. I wonder if pychologically Lawrence wants to be free but cannot in his mind. As Grace said 'they always say one never forgets ones first love'. This is so true, a first love has a special quality to it; this can never be duplicated in successive loves

I understand that Syson will further decide whether to drop the correspondence or maintain it. I am curious of what he will do. What do you believe? I guess it would be wiser to drop it, because it brings only pain to Syson.

It would be wiser, but do we always do the wise thing when it comes to emotions and love? I think each of us have to make up the ending of the story, since the end implies - 'what next?' I expounded on this in my post answering Grace's comments. 'Whither' is a big Lawrence word, so Virgil, has stated; therefore I think this is the idea L is leaving us with.

It is clear that, by quoting this, Syson recalls the past. What I do not understand is Hilda's reply. Certainly, ''the oats'' are used figurately, but what do they represent?

When a man, or woman, for that matter, is said to have sowed his/her wild oats, it implies that he/she has gone out and had sexual conquests. In this case Hilda is saying she and Syson never had any true sexual contact and therefore had no history of ' having sewed wild oats'. This also relates to Jessie and Miriam in "Sons and Lovers" since Lawrence desired sexual relations with Jessie and she refused him/or never truly gave herself up to him entirely. Similiar in the book, but I don't want to say too much about that to spoil the book "Sons and Lovers" for you.

In the end, I feel sorry for Syson because he assists at such a ''sensual scene'' as Janine said. I can imagine what he was feeling like. Poor Syson.

Yes, I thought so too, first walking down the road with the new lover - that was a strange image in itself I felt. In a way he was facing his own feelings doing so, don't you think? Like when one looks danger straight in the face. I don't know, but do you think Hilda knew at the end, that he was there observing the couple and their passionate kiss? I am not sure now; I should go back and re-read the last few paragraphs.

Now, I will scan those pages of commentary; I will have to get back to you later. It is later than I thought here; I have to cook dinner tonight. If we have thunderstorms tonight (predicted), I will post it tomorrow and then post the next story title, as well.

[Janine]

Yes, it seems to me we would never be able to form a definite opinion about it. Whether Syson was in the heart of Hilda and she wanted him to return back any longer or had she closed that chapter? In this story, it appears Lawrence gives off too 'little' facts and the reader has to deal a lot with guess work...

Pensy, good to see you here again! Yes, even though there is some guess work at the end of the story, I think we are given much information, but not enough to definitively solve the ending of the story; but that is ok. Nowdays many films end the same way and one feels this is more interesting and 'thought-provoking', don't you believe? I think that you, having read "Sons and Lovers" can most likely see the parallels and gather more information from the knowledge of the novel of the 'mulitlayered' and 'complex' relationship that Lawrence/Paul and Jessie/Miriam had had; this being expounded on in the novel. I had been hoping you would post, since the whole time I was thinking of you, having recently read S&L's.

[Pensive]

Pensy, good to see you here again! Yes, even though there is some guess work at the end of the story, I think we are given much information, but not enough to definitively solve the ending of the story; but that is ok. Nowdays many films end the same way and one feels this is more interesting and 'thought-provoking', don't you believe?

It depends on the story, I think this is really gripping but it can get annoying as well - making you want to know what author wanted/meant and then this thought you can't exactly figure that out.

I think that you, having read "Sons and Lovers" can most likely see the parallels and gather more information from the knowledge of the novel of the 'mulitlayered' and 'complex' relationship that Lawrence/Paul and Jessie/Miriam had had; this being expounded on in the novel. I had been hoping you would post, since the whole time I was thinking of you, having recently read S&L's.

I have noticed some similarities of this story with Lawrence's book Sons and Lovers.

Here they are. I hope I haven't repeated all the things that have been discussed before.

1. The surroundings - very much similar
2. The blame game - again very similar

Hilda complaining to Syson about 'not giving her space of her own' reminds me of something Paul said in the end of Sons and Lovers:

"You love me so much, you want to put me in your picket. And I should die there smoothered."

This is what was Hilda's complaint to Syson.

And Syson in return was telling her how he did 'what she wanted him to do'. And Miriam in the end also complained to Paul that she even gave herself away to him for him, and did what he had wanted her to do.

3. Miriam kept her conversation on with Paul even when he was with Clara, of course as a just friend, and so did Syson and Hilda by letters.

----

This is all I can think of right now about the similarities.

[Janine]

Pensive, this is good; thank you for outlining that so well. I thought you would notice all the similarities and you noticed the key ones in my opinion. The commentary I will post is not very long, but may clear up some points concerning the similarites between this story, "Sons and Lovers", L's first novel, "The White Peacock", and some other short stories, which we will probably be discussing in the future. All share one thing in common - similiar surroundings. Remember you noticed right away or was it Grace, Willey-Water? It seems that and the farm ties all the stories together since they were all based on truth or had a shred of truth in them, concerning Lawrence's early days.

I have to go do errands; when I come back it is first on my list to post again with the commentary and then to progress, if it is ok with everyone (?), to the next story.

And Pensive, some people do hate these kinds of endings. It is all personal taste and some feel it particularly drives them crazy since there is no real closure to the story. I understand how you feel and it most certainly can be annoying to end a story in this way.

[Janine]

Back with the commentary I scanned. It is by Michael Black D.H.Lawrence The Early Fiction. Here goes:

5 Short Stories I

The chronological relationship between Lawrence's stories and the other early writings is complicated. One quickly finds that each work can be given at least three dates. The date of publication is not in itself significant, since some stories were collected late or even posthumously, and others were published in two forms - an early periodical publication followed by collection in a volume in revised form. At the beginning of the time-scheme is another date: that of the personal experience which Lawrence embodies, transmuted, in the fiction. Between experience and publication there are the stages of first writing and subsequent, often radical, redrafting. These three or four significant dates are interwoven with the dates of other stories and the novels being written at the same period.

The White Peacock was rewritten more than once between 1906 and 1909, and published in 1911. The first version of The Trespasser was written in 1910; in the same year the first version of Sons and Lovers was started, the final version being published in 1913. Between 1907 and 1914, when the volume of collected short stories The Prussian Officer was published, Lawrence wrote, published in magazines, and later rewrote the stories in that volume and others which were collected later or published after his death. I deal with those which seem to me most important in four chapters, one placed before Sons and Lovers and three after. The arrangement is partly thematic, partly chronological.

The first story he ever wrote, 'A Prelude', like 'A Modern Lover, and 'The Shades of Spring’, has obvious affinities with The White Peacock and Sons and Lovers. They are all set at the Haggs Farm and use the Chambers family as characters, or touch on Lawrence's relationship with Jessie. Two later stories, 'Love Among the Haystakes’ and ‘Second Best’, offer a different standpoint or a more mature insight. ‘The Witch a la Mode' is set in the Croydon of Lawrence's teaching days, and has a character obviously based on Helen Corke. 'Daughters of the Vicar' and 'Odour of Chrysanthemums' form a natural pair, not only because they deal with the mining community in or near Eastwood.

The four stories dealt with in later chapters come from a new world. 'The Prussian Officer' and 'The Thorn in the Flesh' are set in Germany, and draw on the military life which Frieda Lawrence's' parents knew, and which Lawrence glimpsed in Metz, Trier, and near Munich in 1913. 'The White Stocking' (among the first stories Lawrence ever started, but radically rewritten later) in one sense belongs to the Nottingham period, but now looked back on with affection from a distance. 'New Eve and Old Adam' is decisively from a new phase, because it is about being married to someone like Frieda, and because Lawrence is therefore embarked on his main life's work.

In The White Peacock the Haggs is used as setting for a plot which places the interest not on the Lawrence-figure but on George Saxton. In Sons and Lovers the centre of interest becomes the Lawrence-figure Paul Morel, and the important person at the Haggs becomes Miriam Leivers, the daughter. Three other early stories are also set at the Haggs: 'Love Among the Haystacks', drafted in 1910 or 1911, perhaps, but so revised in 1913 that it strikes us as a mature piece; 'A Modern Lover', written in 1909-10; and 'The Shades of Spring', drafted in 1911.

The interest of ' A Modern Lover' and 'The Shades of Spring' is that they show Lawrence circling round his own experience, which baffled him. He searches for ways out of his own emotional block by imagining an alter ego, a Lawrence-figure, returning from working in London to Eastwood, older, more mature, and meeting again an older Jessie Chambers. In 'A Modern Lover' he is at last able to make a frank sexual approach to her. In 'The Shades of Spring' he imagines renewing the acquaintance as an older married man, but imagines also that she has replaced him with a lover, a gamekeeper. In both stories the attempt at a new approach fails -- as if Lawrence in honesty could not imagine a way forward, and reverts into bafflement. But in both cases he has also imagined a second alter ego in the same story, a more successful if limited lover. In 'A Modern Lover' it is Tom Vickers, an electrical engineer at the mine; in 'The Shades of Spring' it is Arthur' Pilbeam, the gamekeeper. These two men have succeeded with the Jessie-figure, who seems willing to settle for them as second best, as the character Frances settles for another Tom in the story called 'Second Best'. The Lawrence-figure who is imagined returning home in these is more mature as well as older than Cyril Beardsall in The White Peacock. He has ceased to be the unfocused 'I' who tells that yet cannot present himself from outside. He now becomes a 'he', though he remains the principal centre of consciousness. He worked in the metropolitan south, where Cyril also went; while he was there some maturing process has taken place which makes him to come back to square accounts. The maturing is not only a process of meeting other people, especially women, becoming involved with them; it is also a matter of recognising a special fate or vocation.

Tomorrow I will make some comments on this commentary, but for the most part I think you can get the general idea of how the stories inter-relate and how they reflect Lawrence's own experiences and his desire to work out his thoughts/conflicts in his stories.

Jessie was Lawrence's first girlfriend
Frieda was Lawrence's wife
Cyril is L's alterego or counterpart in The White Peacock, his first novel.
We discussed 'The Prussian Officer'
Haggs farm was in Sons and Lovers, etc and represented Jessie's family's farm.

The next story we will be reading is:

The White Stocking

[Janine]

Basically, in the commentary above I wanted to point out the significance in the order that Lawrence wrote these stories. Mostly from 'Prussian Officer' till now, the stories are early ones for Lawrence and embody some of his own personal adolescent/young man feelings about love and relationships. If you notice several of the stories entail developments in his concepts of relationships, so that they tie in with these stories and the novels he wrote around this time. This connection can help us better understand how Lawrence was thinking, and how he was not always so sure of what the outcomes should be. Obviously, in 'Shades of Spring' Lawrence was reliving a part of his life, and imagining what it would be like to revisit his first love and the place he spent much of his youth and formative years, in an around Jessie's family's farm and the woodlands.

The interest of ' A Modern Lover' and 'The Shades of Spring' is that they show Lawrence circling round his own experience, which baffled him. He searches for ways out of his own emotional block by imagining an alter ego, a Lawrence-figure, returning from working in London to Eastwood, older, more mature, and meeting again an older Jessie Chambers. In 'A Modern Lover' he is at last able to make a frank sexual approach to her. In 'The Shades of Spring' he imagines renewing the acquaintance as an older married man, but imagines also that she has replaced him with a lover, a gamekeeper. In both stories the attempt at a new approach fails -- as if Lawrence in honesty could not imagine a way forward, and reverts into bafflement. But in both cases he has also imagined a second alter ego in the same story, a more successful if limited lover.

It is interesting that this critic talks about Lawrence 'reverting into a bafflement'. Obviously, this does come through in the last couple statements of 'Shades of Spring' and might even baffle us, as some have pointed out already. Eventually we will read 'The Modern Lover' and some of the other short stories mentioned in the article. This way, we can better see the way in which Lawrence developed his love/relationship/marriage ideas. 'Shades of Spring' is actually one of the earliest of the short stories written, so the later ones will reveal new possibilites in Lawrence's thinking.


So now onto the next story! I will post soon.

[grace86]

Just posting to let you all know I am reading White Stocking.

I am liking this story more than Shades of Spring. For some reason I am able to visualize the characters better. Don't know why, but with Lawrence's description of Mrs. Whiston, I kind of visualize her as looking like Naomi Watts as she looked in the movie The Painted Veil (Somerset Maugham's book).

Anybody have any clue as to why she sings so much? Janine you mentioned that she seemed flighty, I think you might be right.

Not too far into the story at all, just giving you my first impression.

Will read on this weekend.

[downing]

Just posting to let you all know I am reading White Stocking.

I am liking this story more than Shades of Spring. For some reason I am able to visualize the characters better. Don't know why, but with Lawrence's description of Mrs. Whiston, I kind of visualize her as looking like Naomi Watts as she looked in the movie The Painted Veil (Somerset Maugham's book).

Anybody have any clue as to why she sings so much? Janine you mentioned that she seemed flighty, I think you might be right.

Not too far into the story at all, just giving you my first impression.

Will read on this weekend.

Excellent,Grace!
I also thought of the similarity between Kitty from Maugham's book and Mrs. Whiston; I haven't read the book, but just like you, I saw the film with Naomi Watts! What a good film, isn't it? If you're attentive while reading DHL's story, you could find some similarities between the characters from The Painted Veil and L's short story...in both books there are: a woman who ''is cheating her husband''( I used ,,'' because Mrs. Whiston doesn't really cheat him, as Kitty from The Painted Veil does), a lover and a cheated husband.
I also found some similarities between Scareltt O'Hara and Mrs. Whiston, especially in her way of posing in front of the mirror and daggling her earrings. Both of them were frivolous, but I like Scarlett more, because she was more intelligent than Mrs. Whiston.
As for me, I finished ''The White Stocking''. It was interesting, but I liked ''Shades of Spring'' more. Grace, have fun reading!

[Janine]

Glad you are all enjoying the story.
Can I post the first section of the story soon?
For one thing, I read it awhile back, and it will refresh my own memory.

Let me know and I will post it tonight. J

[downing]

Yes, Janine, I think you could post the first part of the story