D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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