D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread [Archive] - Page 12

Janine

04-24-2009, 11:35 PM

Please excuse me if I seem a little out of tune with you since I have never seriously participated in literature discussions. You don't seem one bit out of tune to me, jingjang. I am impressed so far with your and Bien's thinking on this one paragraph. I like how you work on various images and then relate them to later events.

I agree with Janine how beautiful the initial scene descriptions are. It was illustrative and vivid as if I am seeing everything portrayed there. I so miss snow as it reminds me of my home country as Joey does Maggie her home.

I miss snow, too; and we live where it normally snows. We did have two or three little snowstorms this year. One was gorgeous and came at night. I ventured out in the yard, to take some night photos, since I knew that most likely it would be gone next day. Sure enough by noon, it has nearly all melted. I love Lawrence's poetic prose descriptions; as Bien pointed out he causes one to experience it with all our senses and he is so painterly; many do not know that Lawrence loved to paint, as he did write. It certainly shows in all of this writings.

Peacocks’ trouble seems to give us the preview of Alfred and Maggie’s skirmish. The gust of wind could be the fight between the couple. The narrator was “curious” to the peacocks as to the Goytes.
That is a good connection. The struggling peacocks do seem to indicate a sort of survival and the struggle that exists between the husband and wife. The wind could maybe indicate the presense of the letter, which comes between them at this particular time. I also wondered about that word "curious" and now I think I also see that the fact our narrator's curiousity even lead him to speak to the woman in the first place.

“They hopped and skipped with discomfort” parallels with Maggie “brooded,” cried as insinuated with her red nose; “Alfred had a devil-may-care bearing;” Maggie and Alfred had been in “heavy weather” for the last two days. Also, parallels with the author himself at this time in his life. But, definitely mimicking the struggle/strife between the two, Alfred and Maggie. "heavy weather" is very significant and the weather conditions do mirror this state effectively.

He saves Joey as he saves the couple’s marriage and restores their life back to normalcy, the normalcy I personally would not wish for because I'd rather know the whole truth. Maggie showed some signs of awareness to the possibility that the narrator might have told her a lie. She may have simply decided to bear with the obscure doubt to live in peace. The cloud may never completely clear as she lives with suspicion.

I have to agree with Dark Muse on this one about saving the couple; that would be assuming too much, going too far; I don't think the couple can be saved but no doubt they will exist as they always have for the reasons you point out. You did qualifly your statement by adding "the normalcy I personally would not wish for because I'd rather know the whole truth." So in this sense they couple are in the state of normalcy that they existed in before but they are far from normal or happy in this state; so I understand what you are indicationg. I think Maggie does know the truth but shoves it asside in order to go on as before and endure living with her husband in ignorance and as you say "peace". Right - "The cloud may never completely clear: - good way of putting that and typical of Lawrence's short stories; usually leaving the reader with a question rather than a solution.

The narrator “ceased to exist” for Maggie may pair with the birds’ indifference. “And then, in the lee of the walls, they resumed their arch, wintry motion, light and unballasted now their tails were gone, indifferent. They were indifferent to my presence."

Yes, and the word "indifferent" is prominent here. I think at the end of the story the couple also are 'indifferent' to each other, don't you? Their icy attitudes echo those of the frozen world around them. The couple are also 'indifferent' to the narrator, as you pointed out. His presence in the end has hardly make any difference in their lives.

My favorite quote is “Her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.” I should learn those eyes to get what I want.:)

I loved that quote, too. I would like to learn that as well.;)

I wonder if Alfred was jealous of Joey because he sought his wife's affection despite his infidelity or because the bird symbolizes her nostalgia for her "affectionate" home. What is with those "strapping and virile" men who can't be faithful to their wives? Does a war excuse those behaviors?

Maybe a little of each? I think the husband wanted to be lord over his wife and he knew she preferred the affections of the bird; therefore he was determined to kill it. He took his anger out on poor Joey.

My favorite character was the father-in-law. Here is my contradiction:I feel the same way with Alfred toward the bird who was interfering innocently.

Hhaha...I don't think I have a favorite character or hate any of them really. I think they had issues; but I don't normally hate any characters, because I think that Lawrence makes us see the 'lowest of the low' still as humans with faults; insecurities, deceptions, etc. I liked Joey; probably because he reminded me of a pet goose I once had, that lived on the lake behind my house, who liked to follow me around as I gardened. The father-in-law seemed like an ok man to me, decent.

jinjang

04-24-2009, 11:52 PM

I like the fact that you, Dark Muse, disagree with me because my harsh side will say exactly the same. She said both the in-laws were so good to her and she had close ties with the father-in-law, which I conclude from "She could never cross with him." I dislike Joey because I prefer people to animals but I wouldn't like him to be killed unless people are starving. I do not think the husband will have always his way. There was love between them before the war and I am hoping for it to be mended if possible. Alfred said, "Back your life it's a plant." Wouldn't it indicate he meant to stay foot with Maggie and his parents?

The terrible war divides a lot of couples and creates a lot of unfortunate people like Belgian girl and her baby. Would you suggest he goes back to Belgian girl and take care of her and her baby? I am debating within me whether the war is a good enough excuse for infidelity. After all, a lot of Korean and American soldiers went Vietnam and left behind so many of Elise and her baby. It is unfortunate, terribly unfortunate!

Dark Muse

04-24-2009, 11:57 PM

Janine

04-25-2009, 12:08 AM

Maggie would be better off if he went back to his whore

I prefer animals over people any day and Joey was the only worthy character in the story, though I did like Maggie

Both the men are not worth a lick (and no I am not just a rampid man hater, Janine and Virgil can tell you there have been times I was just as brutal one women chararacters when I felt they were in the wrong)

I am just completely unfrogiving when it comes to infeditility, I do not care what the so-called excuse was. If you are so sympathic on the subject I feel sorry for anyone who would be in a relationship with you. Sense you think anything is justifiable and the woman ought to just tolerate it.

Dark Muse, Don't you think that your last statement is a bit combative personally, especially if directed at a newcomer to this discussion group? I am not sure why you are bothering to discuss this story, when you hate it so; you stated that yourself and how strongly negative your feelings are about the characters. If I felt as you did about this story, I would certainly not waste my time any further. And yes, I know all too well how you can hate the female characters as well. You better stick with Joey.

I don't think Lawrence is condoning the action of these characters or the idea of infidelity here, to begin with. I am not sure why you are so set in thinking in that direction. I think this story demonstrates what jinjang has pointed out in his last statement - that a young woman was left behind to care for an innocent child; this being a by-product often of war and prominent in war-time; no matter what era.

Dark Muse

04-25-2009, 12:13 AM

Oh I am just having fun.

Ok a note to Everyone:

Don't take the things I say to heart.

I just find it throughly amusing to be disagreeable. I cannot resist an argument.

jinjang

04-25-2009, 12:16 AM

:lol:
I picked on the wrong character!
:lol:

I am not sure what I would do if that happens to me. I would be Hillary Clinton sticking to her husband. It is totally political: there is no better friend to me and father to my children. Besides, he is like a good pet well-trained. (He is not reading this one.)

Janine, thank you for phrase by phrase comments and it was very informative about the author. I did not know he was a painter as well. It was enlightening.

Let me gather myself a little bit so that I can toss back my points stronger, not that I have any hope of convincing you, Dark Muse.

Thank you for your concern, Janine, but I am not easily offended. Dark Muse and I are just having fun!

Dark Muse

04-25-2009, 12:20 AM

:D

Indeed there is just as much a chance of you convincing me as there is of me convincing you.

I think we will both stand firm upon our ground on this issue.

Janine

04-25-2009, 12:27 AM

Oh I am just having fun.

Ok a note to Everyone:

Don't take the things I say to heart.

I just find it throughly amusing to be disagreeable. I cannot resist an argument.

Well, I don't think 'being disagreeable' is the goal of this discussion, nor does this thread any good. We are suppose to be discussing this story and enjoying ourselves in the process. I don't think we come here to argue, so to say you "can't resist an argument" is not considerate or to the best interest of this discussion group, in my own opinion. Your last statement about infidelity sounded like a direct attack on jinjang's judgement; therefore, I did not take kindly to it or think it curtious to someone who is new to this thread and forum.

Janine

04-25-2009, 12:39 AM

Let me gather myself a little bit so that I can toss back my points stronger, not that I have any hope of convincing you, Dark Muse.

Thank you for your concern, Janine, but I am not easily offended. Dark Muse and I are just having fun!

Ok, good, if you are not offended then we should just drop this and get on with the story. Would you be ready for the next part yet, jinjang? I will post it tonight if you would like to work on it. It may be night there or morning when it is day here. Let me know. I will be up for a little while longer.

And Dark Muse, can we try to have fun here, and get along as we have occasionally in the past; even if Joey is the only redeeming character to this story. I will be anxious to hear Virgil's take on this story. Get reading it, Virgil! For that matter where is Quark? I miss them both!

Dark Muse

04-25-2009, 12:57 AM

I equally do not see the point in having a discussion if one is only alloud to say agreable things. What is the bother if I just have to nod my head to everything everyone else says. That does not acomplish very much.

jinjang

04-25-2009, 01:01 AM

...probably because he reminded me of a pet goose I once had, that lived on the lake behind my house, who liked to follow me around as I gardened.

I am sorry for the loss of your goose. I do love animals, but given a choice I would choose people over animals. I can not have any pet because they kept dying on me and their deaths made me feel that I was not a caring person.

I think at the end of the story the couple also are 'indifferent' to each other, don't you? Their icy attitudes echo those of the frozen world around them. The couple are also 'indifferent' to the narrator, as you pointed out. His presence in the end has hardly make any difference in their lives.

I guess you are right: they may become indifferent to each other, which is worse than a divorce. In my opinion, indifference is worse than hate.

In any marriage, an initial love eventually dies out and grows to be a different kind of love - mutual trust, reliability financially or dutifully, knowing each other thoroughly good and bad, being comfortable with each other - if they have enough common grounds to stay on. I grant that infidelity would break the mutual trust. When a person decides whether to stay with the marriage or break off from it after a partner's unfaithfulness, it would depend on how much they endured difficulties together along the way. In such cases, the person would usually choose not to commit adultery.

We definitely have to weigh the circumstances before predestining our opinions.

Janine

04-25-2009, 01:22 AM

I am sorry for the lose of your goose. I do love animals, but given a choice I would choose people over animals. I can not have any pet because they kept dying on me and their deaths made me feel that I was not a caring person.

How did you know he died? He was attacked actually, by some dogs one morning; but prior to this, he got a bad eye infection and damage, which required surgery; now, picture this big white goose in my neighbor's arms in the front seat peering at the stick shift as I was piloting the vehicle; also, picture the look of wonder on the faces of the folks in the waiting room, and I answering them (holding my goose wrapped in a blanket, mind you) - "Yes, it is a goose!" He was a riot and a great pal and he is a very fond memory now. I know that feeling now of loss and after many a pet, we're not opting to have anymore.

I guess you are right: they may become indifferent to each other, which is worse than a divorce. In my opinion, indifference is worse than hate.

My opinion, too. I totally agree. Indifference is lack of any emotion; love and hate are both strong emotions.

In any marriage, an initial love eventually dies out and grows to be a different kind of love - mutual trust, reliability financially or dutifully, knowing each other thoroughly good and bad, being comfortable with each other - if they have enough common grounds to stay on. I grant that infidelity would break the mutual trust. When a person decides whether to stay with the marriage or break off from it after a partner's unfaithfulness, it would depend on how much they endured difficulties together along the way. In such cases, the person would usually choose not to commit adultery.

That is true and also, that some marriages have survived infidelity. Just look at Hillary and Bill; haha...just kidding...better not consider them. I still agree basically, with what you wrote above; infidelity would and does break trust. I don't take it lightly myself at all, but some rare individuals can forgive, I imagine. I probably would not be one of them, but I give them credit, since all people are not infalible and it would be a personal choice.

We definitely have to weigh the circumstances before predestining our opinions.

Very true. I will post the next part of the story, jinjang, so we can move on.

Janine

04-25-2009, 01:34 AM

Ok, onto the next section of text:

As I passed the end of the upper house, I saw a young woman just coming out of the back door. I had spoken to her in the summer. She recognized me at once, and waved to me. She was carrying a pail, wearing a white apron that was longer than her preposterously short skirt, and she had on the cotton bonnet. I took off my hat to her and was going on. But she put down her pail and darted with a swift, furtive movement after me.

'Do you mind waiting a minute?' she said. 'I'll be out in a minute.'

She gave me a slight, odd smile, and ran back. Her face was long and sallow and her nose rather red. But her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.

I stood in the road, looking at the fluffy, dark-red young cattle that mooed and seemed to bark at me. They seemed happy, frisky cattle, a little impudent, and either determined to go back into the warm shed, or determined not to go back, I could not decide which.

Presently the woman came forward again, her head rather ducked. But she looked up at me and smiled, with that odd, immediate intimacy, something witch-like and impossible.

'Sorry to keep you waiting,' she said. 'Shall we stand in this cart-shed--it will be more out of the wind.'

So we stood among the shafts of the open cart-shed that faced the road. Then she looked down at the ground, a little sideways, and I noticed a small black frown on her brows. She seemed to brood for a moment. Then she looked straight into my eyes, so that I blinked and wanted to turn my face aside. She was searching me for something and her look was too near. The frown was still on her keen, sallow brow.

'Can you speak French?' she asked me abruptly. 'More or less,' I replied. 'I was supposed to learn it at school,' she said. 'But I don't know a word.' She ducked her head and laughed, with a slightly ugly grimace and a rolling of her black eyes.

'No good keeping your mind full of scraps,' I answered.

But she had turned aside her sallow, long face, and did not hear what I said. Suddenly again she looked at me. She was searching. And at the same time she smiled at me, and her eyes looked softly, darkly, with infinite trustful humility into mine. I was being cajoled.

'Would you mind reading a letter for me, in French,' she said, her face immediately black and bitter-looking. She glanced at me, frowning.

'Not at all,' I said. 'It's a letter to my husband,' she said, still scrutinizing.

I looked at her, and didn't quite realize. She looked too far into me, my wits were gone. She glanced round. Then she looked at me shrewdly. She drew a letter from her pocket, and handed it to me. It was addressed from France to Lance-Corporal Goyte, at Tible. I took out the letter and began to read it, as mere words. 'Mon cher Alfred'--it might have been a bit of a torn newspaper. So I followed the script: the trite phrases of a letter from a French-speaking girl to an English soldier. 'I think of you always, always. Do you think sometimes of me?' And then I vaguely realized that I was reading a man's private correspondence. And yet, how could one consider these trivial, facile French phrases private! Nothing more trite and vulgar in the world, than such a love-letter--no newspaper more obvious.

BienvenuJDC

04-25-2009, 01:44 AM

BienvenuJDC

04-25-2009, 01:51 AM

We definitely have to weigh the circumstances before predestining our opinions.

I agree, and I think that the discussion jumped way too far ahead before considering and discussing much of the underlying circumstances. Assumptions can defeat our judgments.

Dark Muse

04-25-2009, 01:55 AM

That is all that I am going to write tonight...
I would like to implore that we try to refrain from making conclusions too far ahead. If you want to draw a conclusion, please have a well supported reason for it. And don't be too quick to make up your mind about things...otherwise, the discussion with a group becomes totally unproductive.

I am intitiled to my opinions and have every right to express them.

Jinjang and I were just entertaining ourselves with a bit of a debate and everyone wants to jump on my case.

Janine

04-25-2009, 02:28 AM

Let us slow down a bit...
I think that we ought to do a character study. Let us break down each character and ask some questions. We all have made some assumptions that will twist the story in some very different directions. I also want to point out that I agree with Janine concerning an argumentative discussion. I despise it when someone tries to push my buttons just to wind me up. I also do not find an overbearing negativity very enlightening. I like to read and discuss things in order to learn about life, perspective, and reality.

Good idea to look at our impressions of the characters. I was going to suggest this with the text I just posted; but you beat me to it, Bien. Let's focus and keep on track.

What do we know about the narrator?
How old is he? Is he himself married? What is his perspective of the girl, Mrs Goyte?

His Age
My impression of the narrator is that he is an older man, but not necessarily and OLD man. His first impression of the girl that day was that he thought her skirt was a preposterously short skirt. I concluded from this that he either has a strong set of morals for a young man, or he is past his 40s and experience has focused his eye. As the girl approached he was looking at the cattle and not at the girl's form.

My impression is that the narrator is Lawrence, the author (himself), since he lived in this area during this time and Lawrence always wrote in a personal way and about what he knew of. It's possible this incident may have actually happened or a couple like this lived near by; I can read his diary excepts or letters to see what they reveal. At this time, I believe Lawrence would have been in his late 20's, early 30's. I have read a lot of biographies on the author, so let me look that up to make sure. I don't get a sense of how old the girl would be exactly, except I think young, maybe early 20's. Lawrence was actually a bit of a prude at times; but he believed in fidelity and did have a strong sense of morals in a marriage; so, I think, by pointing out the woman's skirt was short, he is in fact, 'disapproving' of it; same time suggesting she is somewhat flirtious, as you suggested. Right, he was looking at the cattle and did not have that 'male wandering eye'.;):lol:

His Status
It is not revealed as to his status, being married or not. We do know that he does not live alone. When he had rescued Joey, he refers to WE as taking care of Joey. He doesn't give any evidence that he has any interest in the girl, other than a neighborly acquaintance. It is my perspective that he has a certain level of compassion mixed with some wisdom. An individual who was completely indifferent, would have read the letter outright without any consideration to the consequential ramifications. A younger unmarried man probably would not have thought this through, but a man who had a committed relationship understands the ramifications of such matter that was found in the letter. (I'm not defending his choice, but merely pointing out the different perspective between young and older/experienced.)

No, but I think if the narrator is Lawrence, he was married to Frieda at this time; I had also picked up on the 'we' and just thought of the married couple, since they occuppied a residence in this remote part of England for a short period of this time while this story was being written. He definitely has compassion mixed with some wisdom and that fits the profile of Lawrence right there. Wise, he certainly was. Exactly, he was not indifferent, and he would have cared about hurting the young woman's feelings, wounding her. He knew how deeply the true facts would wound her and her marriage.

"a man who had a committed relationship understands the ramifications of such matter that was found in the letter."

I agree with this. He would have a finer sensitivity to the situation.

Her Character
The matter of her skirt referenced in my discussion of His Age also should be considered concerning her character. We will ask the question, is she overly flirtatious? We might consider this question in order to see what kind of relationship there is between Alfred and Mrs. Goyte. (Not to excuse anyone of anything, but to reveal that we all need to take ownership of our faults.)

Yes, the time period has to be considered. I think you have something here. She may not be so innocent herself.

"we all need to take ownership of our faults" good line; I agree with that notion. You are doing a good job thinking this out and reading between the lines as well; subtext is important.

Mrs Goyt also is very quick to assume her husband's infidelity. This very well could be based on his past behavior, but it also could be based on her own past behavior. I have learned that what we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves. We have no indication that Mrs Goyte has been unfaithful, or even if she is flirtatious (only that it is the narrator's perspective that her skirt was too short that day...shorter than her apron).

"we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves" - that is very true! I don't think Mrs. Goyte is any angel herself. If you notice Lawrence continually uses the word witch in some form or the other to describe her. We will get into that on closer observation later on. Lawrence often uses repetition to drive home an important fact or idea. I think this is highly symbolic in this story.

That is all that I am going to write tonight...
I would like to implore that we try to refrain from making conclusions too far ahead. If you want to draw a conclusion, please have a well supported reason for it. And don't be too quick to make up your mind about things...otherwise, the discussion with a group becomes totally unproductive.

Yes, good point; and often when we get into the meat of these discussions people even end up taking a different stance by the end; they start to see things they had not originally seen or imagined. Taking it slowly is so advantageous to learning just what point the author is trying to get across. It often takes on new perspectives, as we explore the story. That is the whole point of a discussion. We are here to learn something new, both about the story and the author. Hope all this makes sense; it is super late now and I am very tired out. Whew what a whirlwind, but it has been very stimulating. Good discussion so far! I am pleased.

Dark Muse

04-25-2009, 02:48 AM

Mrs Goyt also is very quick to assume her husband's infidelity. This very well could be based on his past behavior, but it also could be based on her own past behavior. I have learned that what we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves. We have no indication that Mrs Goyte has been unfaithful, or even if she is flirtatious (only that it is the narrator's perspective that her skirt was too short that day...shorter than her apron).

Are you not yourself making an assumption about Maggie? There is really nothing in the story to suggest that she has been unfaithful to Alfred. Particularly considering that all the opinions we have of her are seen through the eyes of the narrator and with the fact that we know he lied about what was in the letter that does suggest he may be unreliable as a narrator for he has shown his ability within the story to misconstrue facts. He may have had his reasons for doing so, but if he would misinform Maggie about the contents of the letter, he might also misinform the reader about his observations regarding Maggie.

A lot of the imagery he uses to describe is also a bit subjective so it is open to his own interpretation of her. He says that she is witch-like and gives him an odd smile, but what does that mean really? That is simply how he sees it.

As far as her jumping to conclusions about the letter, I do not think she is completely unreasonable in the presumption even with him changing the facts. Who wouldn't think it odd that an unknown woman would write a letter to one's husband and seemingly know them so well.

"It's a love-letter, I know that," she said. "There's too many 'Alfreds'
in it."

She then says to him when she wants him to read the letter to her:

"He's been behind my back long enough.
If he never did no worse things behind my back than I do behind his, he
wouldn't have cause to grumble. You read me what it says."

This suggests that he does have a history of having acted against her in the past and she has reason to have been suspicious enough to take the letter and have it read to her.

BienvenuJDC

04-25-2009, 10:07 PM

Are you not yourself making an assumption about Maggie?

True...I guess that we will have to make some assumptions, but it depends how far we have to jump to get to our assumptions. Also, we need to be consistent with our assumptions.

Janine

04-25-2009, 11:24 PM

True...I guess that we will have to make some assumptions, but it depends how far we have to jump to get to our assumptions. Also, we need to be consistent with our assumptions.

Bien, now I see your hidden message in that post from last night 'SHiFT' - stretching it a bit since there is no actual i.

I think when there is a first person narrator in any story we are seeing the story from his perspective; that is only natural. We have the option of either believing him or not. That just goes with the territory of any first person narration.

A lot of the imagery he uses to describe is also a bit subjective so it is open to his own interpretation of her. He says that she is witch-like and gives him an odd smile, but what does that mean really? That is simply how he sees it.

Whenever there is subtle imagery, there is interpretation; often this is personal. That is why all stories are not the same to all people. That is why we all see something different in it. It is true, he said she looked 'witch-like'; but the mere fact, that Lawrence has repeated that phrase several times, throughout the story, makes it significant to the interpretion of the story (repetition in Lawrence work is characteristic; we should know that by now). This is a short story, so he would not just throw in insignificant phrases or observations, such as the length of the woman's shirt. There had to be a good reason to add that in; Lawrence did countless revisions and if that meant nothing to the meaning of the story, he would have extraced it. In 'Witch a la Mode' it was much the same idea of a 'witch'. I am not sure Lawrence is viewing 'witch-like' in an altogether negative way. He didn't do so, in his other story either. There was special signifance to the comparison and the term. The 'odd smile' could mean any of many things. Maybe, we will find out more as we go along.

As far as her jumping to conclusions about the letter, I do not think she is completely unreasonable in the presumption even with him changing the facts. Who wouldn't think it odd that an unknown woman would write a letter to one's husband and seemingly know them so well.

Well, I think she knows the score. She doesn't seem dumb, nor naive.

jinjang

04-26-2009, 12:37 AM

I am now “unballasted” safely out of the self-created “gust of wind.” I will try to follow everyone’s pace. I tend to muddle things up by doing things quickly and this will teach me thoroughness I lack.

BienvenuJDC, all your questions are great and I will make closer observations.

I would choose your first conclusion: “he has a strong set of morals for a young man.”

The word “preposterously” indicates that he is prudent and that he did not approve of the short skirt, as Janine said, and he felt discomfort at Maggie’s smile which may be as innocent as an attempt to smooth the awkwardness of her situation that brought her to ask a mere acquaintance to read a private letter for her.

She must have been struggling over the letter. Her “grimace, saturnine, black and bitter-looking” may prove she was agonized over it for last two or three days.

“She was searching me for something and her look was too near.” If a person is judicious with high moral, would he not interpret Maggie’s too near searching look flirtatious? She may be wondering how the narrator would take the whole situation and whether she is doing the right thing.

Does old age bring wisdom? I have some hope, then.

The narrator may be astute and observant , though, young. My visceral feeling, though, is that he does not bear any animus toward Maggie or Alfred.

What does this quote mean?
"Nothing more trite and vulgar in the world, than such a love letter - no newspaper more obvious." We may be in agony and in love, but, exposed as that in a letter to a stranger, the pain becomes comedy and dross to others.
Does my interpretation right to you?

Janine

04-26-2009, 01:03 AM

Good post, jinjang; I love your first witty reference
"I am now “unballasted” safely out of the self-created “gust of wind.” ....good one. Actually, we haven't any set pace, jinjang; we make it up as we go along. I agree with all the observations you layed out in your post. I get the same impressions and your last line with the quote was appropriate in my own oppinion. Yes, I think your interpretation is much the same as mine when I reached the ending of the story.

I am rather tired tonight and it's quite hot here (was 90F today! Wowy!). I will be going to bed soon. I want to look at a movie on a portable DVD player, I bought not long ago, cozy in the bedroom. See you all tomorrow; have fun if you keep discussing this part of the story. I will catch up and soon will post more text to discuss; probably tomorrow.

BienvenuJDC

04-26-2009, 01:43 AM

S
her preposterously short skirt (already mentioned in previous post)
a slight, odd smile
her gloomy black eyes softened caressively(what is this look conveying)
happy, frisky cattle, a little impudent(I can see cattle being happy, and maybe frisky, but impudent {meaning – lacking modesty})? I think that DHL is really implying this description to be for something/someone else)
with that odd, immediate intimacy, something witch-like and impossible.(like Janine said, witch-like is a repetitive description, the narrator said that he spoke to her last summer...not a common typical friend, but she looks at him with immediate intimacy? I think that she is a bit forward. There are several items that indicate to me a flirtatious attitude.)
a small black frown on her brows
She glanced at me, frowning.
H
She ducked her head and laughed...with a slightly ugly grimace and a rolling of her black eyes. (she has some sort of attitude that the narrator is indicating)
did not hear what I said. (I think that she is focused on her predetermined conclusion)
she said, her face immediately black and bitter-looking
i
F
which makes a man lord of the earth
either determined to go back into the warm shed, or determined not to go back, I could not decide which
T
I didn't find any for taste
S
I didn't find any for smell

It is late...here a breakdown to consider for discussion...which I will do tomorrow...

Emmy Castrol

04-26-2009, 06:41 AM

Hey all, I'm back from Tasmania now where I had my own DH Lawrence experience. I read the Wintry Peacock once before I left and just reread it again then. I'm sorry to have missed out on the discussion so far and have just finished getting up to date on the thread.

I have to say that there isn't a single DH Lawrence short story I dislike, although, like Dark Muse, I don't find any of the characters particularly likeable. I agree with Janine that the narrator sounds like it was based on Lawrence himself (trying to soften up a love letter sounds just like the irritating thing Paul in 'Sons and Lovers' would do!).

I was a bit uncertain about the opening paragraph and what kind of symbolism the peacocks suggested. I like what Janine said about how at the end, Maggie and Alfred were as indifferent to the narrator as the peacocks in the beginning. That makes sense to me. I have to admit that I am a bit prejudiced against peacocks (I have a fear of birds).

What I do like about DH Lawrence and his short stories is how he gets into the conflict of a situation almost immediately, true to short story form. The conflict here, as everyone is aware, is that the narrator has been confronted with the request to read a personal letter. The conflict arises because the person making the request, Maggie, has come across a personal letter to her husband, from a french speaking girl whom not only did her husband have an affair with but - from the letter - also a child with. The narrator is very quickly thrown into conflict and this is what interested me about the story.

I sympathised very quickly with Maggie, although something stopped me from finding her likeable. Did anyone else feel this? I first felt this sympathy with Lawrence's words 'preposterously short skirt'. I did not feel as if the short skirt suggested any flirtation, more like it was inappropriate and awkward, as if Maggie was not capable of doing anything right. My sympathy was furthered with 'she ducked her head and laughed, with a slightly ugly grimace and rolling of her black eyes'. I felt that Maggie's character is making sure to laugh at herself before he can. DH Lawrence is setting the sympathy of the narrator for Maggie. His decision to soften the love letter is out of pity for Maggie (I disliked this about the narrator's character and yet, because of his indifference, I could also understand why he would do it).

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

BienvenuJDC

04-26-2009, 07:53 AM

Hey all, I'm back from Tasmania now where I had my own DH Lawrence experience.

Welcome back!

(trying to soften up a love letter sounds just like the irritating thing Paul in 'Sons and Lovers' would do!).

I still can't see why the narrator's choice to 'soften' the letter should be so irritating. I guess I don't see the benefit in people knowing everything. Journalist these days have this catch phrase that people have the 'right to know'. I ask, 'Do they?' There are many things that people DO need to know, but sometimes 'ignorance is bliss'. I was going to hold back to comment on this to later in the short story, but since it has come up by several others, I ask myself what positive outcome can there be by Maggie knowing of Alfred's unfaithfulness. I believe that she would have the right to divorce him (no doubt there, even in the strictest of religious interpretation), but considering the times and current economic situation of Europe is it prudent for Maggie to leave. No indication is given that she has the option to live in her parents care. A young girl would have many undesirable challenges on her own in the circumstances of this society. Finally, to live with the Goytes as the wife/daughter-in-law knowing that she is in an unfaithful marriage will not improve the relationship and living conditions.
Just my thoughts...Alfred's still a quite undesirable jerk, but I'll save that for later (I don't want you to think that I sympathize with him, nor do I think that the narrator sympathizes with him...I don't even think his parents sympathize with him.)

What I do like about DH Lawrence and his short stories is how he gets into the conflict of a situation almost immediately, true to short story form.

No doubt...the narrator is thrust into this conflict. He makes a quick choice to handle it...in hind sight, Did he do the best thing? I don't know!

I did not feel as if the short skirt suggested any flirtation, more like it was inappropriate and awkward, as if Maggie was not capable of doing anything right.

I can be very agreeable to this observation.

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

These are some excellent points. It is hard to get a good take on Maggie's attractiveness because the narrator doesn't show interest in her based on his 'prudeness' (made-up word)...but it gives no indication whether she would have been appealing...or UNappealing. I've personally known of women choosing an undesirable man as a mate, thinking that there is no possible way that 'HE would cheat on ME.' The concept of marrying 'beneath' oneself to ensure faithfulness (these are the words of one who has done this whom I know). The concept is a flawed concept, it does not work in most cases. But I'd have to agree with your observations...and they are observations that I had not considered before.

But that is all I can give for now...I'm off here until later!!

Virgil

04-26-2009, 08:41 AM

Ok, I read the story last night, I can now participate. :banana: Though I don't quite understand the ending. I will have to re-read that. But I can jump in. Wow, lots of new participants. Nice to have you all join us. I was off most of the day yesterday, so let me catch up with all the gossipy new posts on lit net :D and then go back and read everyone's thoughts to date. ;)

Virgil

04-26-2009, 09:56 AM

wow, you guys got far, so let me just restrain my comments to that opening section.

There was thin, crisp snow on the ground, the sky was blue, the wind very
cold, the air clear. Farmers were just turning out the cows for an hour
or so in the midday, and the smell of cow-sheds was unendurable as I
entered Tible. I noticed the ash-twigs up in the sky were pale and
luminous, passing into the blue. And then I saw the peacocks. There they
were in the road before me, three of them, and tailless, brown, speckled
birds, with dark-blue necks and ragged crests. They stepped archly over
the filigree snow, and their bodies moved with slow motion, like small,
light, flat-bottomed boats. I admired them, they were curious. Then a
gust of wind caught them, heeled them over as if they were three frail
boats opening their feathers like ragged sails. They hopped and skipped
with discomfort, to get out of the draught of the wind. And then, in the
lee of the walls, they resumed their arch, wintry motion, light and
unballasted now their tails were gone, indifferent. They were indifferent
to my presence. I might have touched them. They turned off to the shelter
of an open shed.

I thought of your first impressions while reading this; note how beautifully poetic, painterly, and rhythmic Lawrence's prose is and how he sets the scene for the story, introducing the wintery peacocks, and comparing them to the color of the sky in winter (blue)....

Absolutely. I have said Lawrence is one of the finest prose writers in English in the 20th century and this is exquisite.

One thing not pointed out (or perhaps I missed it) is that the story is in first person. Lawrence does not write that many stories in first person, so let's keep that in mind.

Let us read with our five senses:

slow motion, like small, light, flat-bottomed boats (author describes the smooth motions)
They hopped and skipped with discomfort, to get out of the draught of the wind...(further note concerning the struggle that the peacocks were enduring, I believe is symbolic of the struggle for the recovery that Europe is beginning as the war is coming to a close and people are returning to their normal lives).

Hear it
a gust of wind (listen to the sound of the wind)

Feel it
the wind very cold, the air clear
for an hour or so in the midday (why for such a short time…cold?)

Taste it
The author gives no explicit reference to taste description

I like how you broke that down Bien. Two things stick out: (1) the harsh cold winter. Is England normally that cold with so much snow? That seems like an anomaly for English weather. Second, the peacocks are not your typical English bird. I think that's pointed out somewhere. So we are in a sort of dislocation to some degree, weird weather and non natural birds.

Please excuse me if I seem a little out of tune with you since I have never seriously participated in literature discussions.

welcome Jin. There's not much to this. I think you've got the hang of it. :)

Peacocks’ trouble seems to give us the preview of Alfred and Maggie’s skirmish. The gust of wind could be the fight between the couple. The narrator was “curious” to the peacocks as to the Goytes.
Peacocks are definitely symblic for something here. I think you're right they suggest something about the marriage, but perhaps more as well.

My favorite quote is “Her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.” I should learn those eyes to get what I want.:)
Man being "lord of the earth" is a very important idea to Lawrence, and we already see the male/female relationship that Lawrence has in many of his works. How this "lord of the earth" concept applies to the Alfred/Maggie relationship is perhaps the key to the story.

I wonder if Alfred was jealous of Joey because he sought his wife's affection despite his infidelity or because the bird symbolizes her nostalgia for her "affectionate" home. What is with those "strapping and virile" men who can't be faithful to their wives? Does a war excuse those behaviors?
I think you hit on a key driver in the story, the war. Everything that happens, the injury to Alfred, his absence, the adultery, the relationship between Maggie and her peacocks are all as a result of the war.

I also believe the peacocks are personally symbolic to Lawrence himself since the winter he wrote this story he had just recovered from a severe bout with pneumonia, which he nearly died of; therefore, I am sure he would feel a great affinity to Joey and even to the other peacocks stuggling along in the snow and against the wind. If you go back and read my introduction and the notes you will see that Lawrence was forced to survive the winter with his wife in this remote part of England; the going back then had to be rough for him, considering his bad health. He longed at this point, to leave England and live in a warmer, sunnier, drier climate. I am not sure if you are aware, that Lawrence suffered all his life with bad lungs and died at the early age of 42 of TB. While he and his wife were living in Cornwall, he was forced also to go before the military medical board for several very humiliating physicals, to see if he was fit to serve. Then when finally driven out of Cornwall, because Lawrence and his German born wife were suspected of spying, he harbored much recentment, to say the least. Of course, the spy accusations were false. His poor health kept him from ever being drafted; but his humiliation and bitterness stayed with him till the end of his days. He wrote about these experiences in his next full length “Kangaroo”, after leaving England and residing for a time in Australia. So although the war in only briefly mentioned in this story I am sure you are right pointing out the subtext and the suggestion of the unrest in Europe at this time; that would have been very much on the author’s mind personally.

Janine, you are always fabulous with connecting Lawrence's work with his biography.

I have to quite disagree with you on most accounts here. I think that Joey is not in the way but rather that Joey is Maggie's only true and real companion, she needs the love of Joey becasue she has such a lout of a no-good husband. Without Joey, what joy at all could she find in her life?

That is somethig we will definitely have to discuss when we get to that section of the story. What exactly is Maggie's relationship with Joey? There is probably good evidence for both positions, which may be what Lawrence intended. I see your point and actually agree with it mostly.

In my world, there is no forgiveness when your husband has a bastard child with some french floozy. And I suppose you also would think it is preferctly justifiable for the husband to murder Joey? And that if he follows through with that plan his wife ought to just plaicidy forgive him for that?
This struck me too. I was somewhat shocked at how Maggie didn't explode over his infidelity. She does feel hurt, but more understanding than I would expect. My wife would have kicked me right out of the house. :lol: I do think her reaction to the events are important to understanding the story. So I think DM's point here is important.

I agree that there might have been some attraction between the narrator and Maggie, and personally I kind of wanted Maggie to hook up with the narrator to get back at her husband.
While perhaps so, I don't think this figures into the story. Unless someone thinks otherwise. We'll have to look for any suggestions on this.

Dark Muse

04-26-2009, 12:08 PM

I sympathised very quickly with Maggie, although something stopped me from finding her likeable. Did anyone else feel this? I first felt this sympathy with Lawrence's words 'preposterously short skirt'. I did not feel as if the short skirt suggested any flirtation, more like it was inappropriate and awkward, as if Maggie was not capable of doing anything right. My sympathy was furthered with 'she ducked her head and laughed, with a slightly ugly grimace and rolling of her black eyes'. I felt that Maggie's character is making sure to laugh at herself before he can. DH Lawrence is setting the sympathy of the narrator for Maggie. His decision to soften the love letter is out of pity for Maggie (I disliked this about the narrator's character and yet, because of his indifference, I could also understand why he would do it).

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

I have to say I rather liked Maggie, I was just hoping she would be stronger willed against her husband. I was really hoping she would really let him have it when he came home.

Perhaps Maggie is not completely innocent in all ways, but than such is irrelevant since the story does not offer any direct evidence against her, and the story rather is about the crime of the husband to the wife, which he had an accomplice to allow him to get away with it.

I still can't see why the narrator's choice to 'soften' the letter should be so irritating. I guess I don't see the benefit in people knowing everything. Journalist these days have this catch phrase that people have the 'right to know'. I ask, 'Do they?' There are many things that people DO need to know, but sometimes 'ignorance is bliss'. I was going to hold back to comment on this to later in the short story, but since it has come up by several others, I ask myself what positive outcome can there be by Maggie knowing of Alfred's unfaithfulness. I believe that she would have the right to divorce him (no doubt there, even in the strictest of religious interpretation), but considering the times and current economic situation of Europe is it prudent for Maggie to leave. No indication is given that she has the option to live in her parents care. A young girl would have many undesirable challenges on her own in the circumstances of this society. Finally, to live with the Goytes as the wife/daughter-in-law knowing that she is in an unfaithful marriage will not improve the relationship and living conditions.

The reason I find his softening the letter disagreeable is because he outright lied to Maggie in order to protect the husband, and thus justify the husband's actions. I felt it was just one guy looking out for the back of another guy at the expense of the victim.

And it was deplorable the way they were laughing at her behind her back in the end, and like patting each other on the back over how clever they were to put one over the woman.

If he did not want to reveal to her what was in the letter for whatever "Nobel" or ennoble reasons he may have felt or had, than he should have been man enough to out and out refuse to read the letter to her. But instead he directly lied to her, and in doing so covered up for what the husband had done. That is unforgivable. If he did not feel it was any of business than he should have stayed completely out of it.

Maggie should not have been liked to directly regardless if you think she had to right to know her husband was a womanizing scum back or not.

Janine

04-26-2009, 04:18 PM

Wow, there is so many posts from last night and if I may I would like to comment on some, if not all of them.

I will tackle's Emmy's most excellent post first. Welcome back, Emmy, and glad you had a safe trip; also glad you were able to run through reading of the story twice. That is always a good idea. If I might break in and say something first to Virgil; (love your dancing banana!) I have read this story about 4 times now and in some ways the ending miffs me a little, too. However, I thought by discussing it here, we could eventually work through the story and come up with a satisfying thought on that ending; why Lawrence wrote it that way. It think this is why I keep reading the story and wondering about various things, not just the ending. Here is my response to Emmy's post:

Hey all, I'm back from Tasmania now where I had my own DH Lawrence experience. I read the Wintry Peacock once before I left and just reread it again then. I'm sorry to have missed out on the discussion so far and have just finished getting up to date on the thread.

I read your first line, Emmy, and I wondered if you had meet our Lawrence in Tasmania in memory or in ghost-form. He did write two stories and lived briefly in Australia. I am sure his spirit still haunts the place. You didn't miss that much so far. I have only posted the text up to the very beginning of the the conversation between the wife and the narrator of the story; I haven't even posted the part where he begins reading the letter. Some have jumped ahead and are talking about the ending, but in reality we are still discussing the beginning.

I have to say that there isn't a single DH Lawrence short story I dislike, although, like Dark Muse, I don't find any of the characters particularly likeable. I agree with Janine that the narrator sounds like it was based on Lawrence himself (trying to soften up a love letter sounds just like the irritating thing Paul in 'Sons and Lovers' would do!).

Same with me; I like all the stories but some do make me ponder more and some I am not sure I fully understand their intention. Just today I read another one which I found to be amusing. Others may not think so. Again a struggle ensues between husband and wife (a frequent subject for Lawrence, since he came from this sort of environment as a child, with two waring parents). If you go a few pages back you will see the actual introduction and therefore further realise that the narrator must be Lawrence himself. One can easliy pick him out of his books and stories, even if he does not assume the role of the narrator: Syson in "The White Peacock", Paul in "Sons and Lovers"; Birkin in "Women in Love."

I don't agree with the word 'irritating', because I don't see Paul as simply irritating, even though at times he may be. I see Paul, on the whole, as a very confused youth/man, as was Lawrence in that stage of his life.

I was a bit uncertain about the opening paragraph and what kind of symbolism the peacocks suggested. I like what Janine said about how at the end, Maggie and Alfred were as indifferent to the narrator as the peacocks in the beginning. That makes sense to me. I have to admit that I am a bit prejudiced against peacocks (I have a fear of birds).

I knew someone who had that same fear of birds. I was trying to recall who, then now it came to me. She could not even look at a ceramic bird and not quake. Does that fear have a name? Hope you did not see the Hitchcock film "The Birds". You would be freaking out.

Glad you can see the correlation between the birds 'indifference' and the couples 'indifference' later in the story. I feel that the narrator also is quite 'indifferent' at the end; but we should discuss that when we get to that part. Let's not rush too far ahead.

What I do like about DH Lawrence and his short stories is how he gets into the conflict of a situation almost immediately, true to short story form. The conflict here, as everyone is aware, is that the narrator has been confronted with the request to read a personal letter. The conflict arises because the person making the request, Maggie, has come across a personal letter to her husband, from a french speaking girl whom not only did her husband have an affair with but - from the letter - also a child with. The narrator is very quickly thrown into conflict and this is what interested me about the story.

This interests me also. I actually was thrown into a situation a few months back in which I was compelled to read a letter, which was not directed at me (long story, but it was valid to do so at the time). I sort of feel I know what it is like to read a letter with information, that one does not really wish to know of, but is confronted with. At first, the narrator found himself in a situtation perhaps not really wanting to read it, when he discovered it was a man's personal property and private. If you read this paragraph again, you will see what I mean. I will bold up the important lines or words.

I looked at her, and didn't quite realize. She looked too far into me, my wits were gone. She glanced round. Then she looked at me shrewdly. She drew a letter from her pocket, and handed it to me. It was addressed from France to Lance-Corporal Goyte, at Tible. I took out the letter and began to read it, as mere words. 'Mon cher Alfred'--it might have been a bit of a torn newspaper. So I followed the script: the trite phrases of a letter from a French-speaking girl to an English soldier. 'I think of you always, always. Do you think sometimes of me?' And then I vaguely realized that I was reading a man's private correspondence. And yet, how could one consider these trivial, facile French phrases private! Nothing more trite and vulgar in the world, than such a love-letter--no newspaper more obvious.

One sees that Lawrence is drawn into this slowly and then realises what he is reading; firstly, he feels it is "as trite as a newspaper"...I take it that means 'scandal' I can see how the narrator, when he begins to read it, becomes emersed and can't seem to turn back or back out; he told her he would read it; now what? He has walked smack dab into a 'private' situtation and so he does what comes to his mind first; he reads the letter misconstuing the actual facts. He could have been a bad translator, for all Maggie knew. I don't think he read the letter the way he did intentionally to hurt anymore or protect anyone. He did to it to divert Maggie from knowing the bitter truth; he did it to protect the husband's privacy. Afterall, the letter was addressed to the husband and not his wife. The narrator of the story was simply thrust into the middle of a husband'/wife struggle and confrontation.

I sympathised very quickly with Maggie, although something stopped me from finding her likeable. Did anyone else feel this? I first felt this sympathy with Lawrence's words 'preposterously short skirt'. I did not feel as if the short skirt suggested any flirtation, more like it was inappropriate and awkward, as if Maggie was not capable of doing anything right. My sympathy was furthered with 'she ducked her head and laughed, with a slightly ugly grimace and rolling of her black eyes'. I felt that Maggie's character is making sure to laugh at herself before he can. DH Lawrence is setting the sympathy of the narrator for Maggie. His decision to soften the love letter is out of pity for Maggie (I disliked this about the narrator's character and yet, because of his indifference, I could also understand why he would do it). I don't feel I sympathised with anyone character in this story. I felt it was just a slice-of-life tale; some that could happen to any one of us in our walk of life and that Lawrence is merely recording it and giving the reader the option of interpreting it in his own way. I didn't have strong feeling for Maggie but perhaps when the husband arrives back home, then I do feel for her and know she is trapped in a bad situation. Later Virgil points out that back then she might have left but hardly would that be an advisable option. Women back then who left were penniless and usually ended up being protitudes in London. "The narrator is very quickly thrown into conflict" - very much so; how true. That is what I like about the story as well. The narrator is not just a narrator but a character now in the story because he has been thrown into the situtation quite by accident.

It is a good point, that Maggie does seem to laugh at herself or at the situtation before the narrator has the chance to. That just seems to be her personality. 'preposterously short skirt' - I think that could either way, the way you suggested it as ridiculous and the way Bien suggested as flirtious. I will have to ponder that word 'preposterously' for awhile.

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

I bolded up the points you made and they are good ones to consider. I agree that Maggie sees the bird as a sort of child she can control. She can't control the husband. Also, the bird came with her from her childhood home; therefore, it would be linked to her own childhood days. Yes, Maggie is 'witch-like', not that pleasant in body language or looks. Many of the gestures that the narrator points out' are not attractive gestures or alluring; she may think they are' but actually they are rather odd and sly and not truly attractive. Only one mentioned, I think, is the one where she caused him to feel he was 'Lord of the earth'. I am not sure why she can't achieve that with her own husband. Maybe we should wait till we reach that part, and then look at the text more closely. Now I have confused even myself; but basically, I did not think that Maggie came across as attractive.

Janine

04-26-2009, 04:45 PM

Welcome back!

I still can't see why the narrator's choice to 'soften' the letter should be so irritating. I guess I don't see the benefit in people knowing everything. Journalist these days have this catch phrase that people have the 'right to know'. I ask, 'Do they?' There are many things that people DO need to know, but sometimes 'ignorance is bliss'. I was going to hold back to comment on this to later in the short story, but since it has come up by several others, I ask myself what positive outcome can there be by Maggie knowing of Alfred's unfaithfulness. I believe that she would have the right to divorce him (no doubt there, even in the strictest of religious interpretation), but considering the times and current economic situation of Europe is it prudent for Maggie to leave. No indication is given that she has the option to live in her parents care. A young girl would have many undesirable challenges on her own in the circumstances of this society. Finally, to live with the Goytes as the wife/daughter-in-law knowing that she is in an unfaithful marriage will not improve the relationship and living conditions.
Just my thoughts...Alfred's still a quite undesirable jerk, but I'll save that for later (I don't want you to think that I sympathize with him, nor do I think that the narrator sympathizes with him...I don't even think his parents sympathize with him.)

Bien, I agree with you on the softening of the letter interpretation; also, what benefit would it have done Maggie in this time period (early 1900's), when she would only feel more trapped by her circumstances? I don't think women, like Maggie, had very many options, if any, to leave their husband and strike out on their own. Not in those days; what would she live on?

"No indication is given that she has the option to live in her parents care."

Right, nothing is stated about her past, except that the peacock came from the farm she was raised on; we don't know if her parents are dead or alive. For that matter what does the narrator know of Maggie or her past - nothing to speak of. She is quite a stranger to the man.

No doubt...the narrator is thrust into this conflict. He makes a quick choice to handle it...in hind sight, Did he do the best thing? I don't know! I totally agree with this and stated it in my post above to Emmy. I think 'hind sight is wiser than fore sight,' as they say.

I can be very agreeable to this observation. I still not sure which way to go on the length of the skirt but if I think like Lawrence he no doubt was pointing it out to be indecent. He was indeed a bit of a prude at times.

These are some excellent points. It is hard to get a good take on Maggie's attractiveness because the narrator doesn't show interest in her based on his 'prudeness' (made-up word)...but it gives no indication whether she would have been appealing...or UNappealing. I've personally known of women choosing an undesirable man as a mate, thinking that there is no possible way that 'HE would cheat on ME.' The concept of marrying 'beneath' oneself to ensure faithfulness (these are the words of one who has done this whom I know). The concept is a flawed concept, it does not work in most cases. But I'd have to agree with your observations...and they are observations that I had not considered before.

Bien, I think the word is 'prudish' - not sure I spelled that right though. I am an awful speller. Good points you bring out in this paragraph. Maybe Alfred married an unattractive woman for just that reason, feeling she would be a sure bet and she would stay put at home. He seems to want to be incharge, now that he has returned home. He is brutish to me and insolent and very unappealing. He must have show a quite different side to the Belgium girl. I am sure he was quite charming to her but he is churlish to his wife; he very much takes her staying with him for granted. He might feel some threatened if the letter were actually revealed to his wife; but now he is cocky knowing it has not been; not explicitly. To me the ending, which I hate to jump ahead on is not a case of the narrator laughing with the husband, nor siding with him; it is more a case of running from the scene and laughing at the whole affair and both the man and woman as being somewhat ridiculous. That is how I interpretted it on my first reading. I could well imagine the narrator going back home and relating the story to his own wife and the two getting a good laugh at it. I think when he laughs when the husband laughs it's simply a brief reaction. I don't think even then he is laughing with the husband; he is laughing at him.

But that is all I can give for now...I'm off here until later!! Soon, I will be off here, too; it is 90F here today (85 upstairs inside) with only one window I can open, no AC installed yet; I am ready to keel over.:sick: I may have to shut down the computer, since it is causing more heat in the upstairs (attic) rooms. I had better plan on coming back later, to check on things.

BienvenuJDC

04-26-2009, 04:47 PM

This struck me too. I was somewhat shocked at how Maggie didn't explode over his infidelity. She does feel hurt, but more understanding than I would expect. My wife would have kicked me right out of the house. :lol: I do think her reaction to the events are important to understanding the story.

But that is the very point, Maggie is not in the position to kick anyone out. She has nothing. She would have to leave and be on her own. That's why I don't think that the narrator is protecting Alfred, but if anyone, Maggie. Maggie will have to carry one in this marriage, or be on the streets by herself. I don't know how Maggie knowing the truth will help anyone.

Virgil

04-26-2009, 05:05 PM

Janine

04-26-2009, 05:07 PM

But that is the very point, Maggie is not in the position to kick anyone out. She has nothing. She would have to leave and be on her own. That's why I don't think that the narrator is protecting Alfred, but if anyone, Maggie. Maggie will have to carry one in this marriage, or be on the streets by herself. I don't know how Maggie knowing the truth will help anyone.

I agree; and this is typical Lawrence to some extend; he is showing us a bad situation in which a woman is trapped in her economic circumstances and I believe his empathy is for the woman here, not for the man. Let's face it, the man is a cheat and a jerk; this point I agree, with Dark Muse. But, Maggie does not have the option to 'just take off' and 'go on her own'; infeasible that she would run away with the narrator; he is really not interested. I think when she is sitting downtrodden in the kitchen later on, she is showing us how sad and impossible her situtation is; my memory of that scene is a bit foggy, so will be better when we come to that actual part of the text. I don't see any evidence that the narrator is siding with the husband; I just don't read it that way. He is pointing out, as he did in other stories, that the woman is trapped by economical reasons. In "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" much was the same - a young woman with no real options for her future, unless she were to become married. I've read other stories where the same theme is explored or presented; so to me it is not that unusual.

Should I post more of the text tomorrow; the actual reading of the letter?

BienvenuJDC

04-26-2009, 05:08 PM

Well, that is true Bien, but she doesn't really get emotional over it. At least blow a fuse while he's not in the room.

Not that is seen in public...or at least in the presence of Alfred, his parents, and/or the narrator...maybe she's too private concerning her deep down emotions. She might have been crying her eyes out the rest of the time. Even the "strongest" of people are extremely emotional when no one is around...

Janine

04-26-2009, 05:43 PM

Not that is seen in public...or at least in the presence of Alfred, his parents, and/or the narrator...maybe she's too private concerning her deep down emotions. She might have been crying her eyes out the rest of the time. Even the "strongest" of people are extremely emotional when no one is around...

Good point! We can hardly see 'all' in a short story' that spans a short amount of time in these characters' lives. Our impressions are limited.

One more quite profile response and I had better get off this hot computer; this hot discussion thread, too;). I am delerious with this JN heat and humidity.

Edit at 10:52 - will post next section of the text tomorrow. Too hot for me here and I need to shut computer down for the night. Hope tomorrow is cooler than this. Too early to be this hot in April.

jinjang

04-27-2009, 12:40 AM

Even the "strongest" of people are extremely emotional when no one is around...

You mean calm person in public can be extremely agitated? I can easily believe that.

As an owl, I just got here. How can any one on Sunday be awake or think clearly before noon, I wonder.

My impression is that the narrator is Lawrence, the author (himself), since he lived in this area during this time and Lawrence always wrote in a personal way and about what he knew of. It's possible this incident may have actually happened or a couple like this lived near by

Janine, you definitely know great deal about the author. It is highly likely that the narrator is married because of the paragraph: “In the night, however, we heard him thumping about.”

male wandering eye

he is past his 40s and experience has focused his eye. As the girl approached he was looking at the cattle and not at the girl's form.

I always let my French husband look at any pretty girl. Preoccupied men at any age do not seem to have the "male wondering eye." In France, flirtation is a complement to women and even an etiquette. Experience would not have to avert eyes. I know it is totally unrelated to the story set in England soon after South African War (1899-1902).

He doesn't give any evidence that he has any interest in the girl.

Are you sure? How about this line: "I thought of ... the black witch-like little Mrs. Goyte. And the snow seemed to lay me bare to influences I wanted to escape."

I have learned that what we often hate the most about others is the very thing that we are guilty of ourselves.
I have to disagree because I feel compassionate to those who are shy or eccentric as I am a bit of that. This cyber world may portray me differently.

Jinjang and I were just entertaining ourselves with a bit of a debate and everyone wants to jump on my case.
How true! Do you have different personae in reality and in cyber world? You do not have to answer this.

I will catch up with the others soon...

Dark Muse

04-27-2009, 12:44 AM

Haha I am pretty much just as frank, opinionated and argumentative in person

jinjang

04-27-2009, 01:31 AM

As far as her jumping to conclusions about the letter, I do not think she is completely unreasonable in the presumption even with him changing the facts. Who wouldn't think it odd that an unknown woman would write a letter to one's husband and seemingly know them so well.
I agree since any one can sense it clearly with a lot of Alfred's from Elise in the letter.

Whenever there is subtle imagery, there is interpretation; often this is personal. That is why all stories are not the same to all people. That is why we all see something different in it.

I have a feeling we will all walk away with different, even opposite, conclusions in the end. That seems to me the most attractive part of this discussion.

It is true, he said she looked 'witch-like'; but the mere fact, that Lawrence has repeated that phrase several times, throughout the story.
Maybe Lawrence could not figure out women, being curious and bewitched. Hence, he left us the reader to our own interpretations.

happy, frisky cattle, a little impudent(I can see cattle being happy, and maybe frisky, but impudent {meaning – lacking modesty})? I think that DHL is really implying this description to be for something/someone else)

I was wondering, too, whether he thought Maggie’s abrupt call impudent.

However, I don't think that Maggie's character was questionable regarding her faithfulness to Alfred. If she is dislikeable, it is not due to any unfaithfulness, I think it is because she is awkward and unattractive and cannot 'keep a man', even a bad egg like Alfred. This may sound harsh but I have always liked Lawrence for his self honesty. Another thing against her is that the french floozy was able to bear Alfred a child where the closest thing resembling a child for Maggie's character is Joey. That is what Joey felt like to me - in place of a child for Maggie.

Your posting was so refreshing like a cool breeze in a hot summer night. I agree with all of your points except the quote above. The war separated Maggie and Alfred. Do you not think that Maggie would have been able to keep her man as “witch-like” as her and, more so when she can make the narrator (likely astute author himself) impossible to figure her out? She sought of Alfred affection more than Joey’s as she could forget Joey as easily as she did the narrator. “Then, she forgot the bird in the cart-shed and turned to business again.”

Janine

04-27-2009, 03:39 PM

All the posts were very good, I read all the new ones; good job commenting on all jinjang. I think I agree with everything so no need to add to this. We have gone into a lot of details and we are only into the story a short bit. I have to go to an important oppointment tonight so I will will be out awhile. I hope by the time I get back things have cooled off here. I think cooler weather is in the forcast.

I will now post the next part of the story so feel free to dive into it and discuss it among yourselves. I will read all the posts when I get back later tonight.

The Next Section of Text:

Therefore I read with a callous heart the effusions of the Belgian damsel. But then I gathered my attention. For the letter went on, 'Notre cher petit bébé--our dear little baby was born a week ago. Almost I died, knowing you were far away, and perhaps forgetting the fruit of our perfect love. But the child comforted me. He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father. I pray to the Mother of Jesus to send me the dear father of my child, that I may see him with my child in his arms, and that we may be united in holy family love. Ah, my Alfred, can I tell you how I miss you, how I weep for you. My thoughts are with you always, I think of nothing but you, I live for nothing but you and our dear baby. If you do not come back to me soon, I shall die, and our child will die. But no, you cannot come back to me. But I can come to you, come to England with our child. If you do not wish to present me to your good mother and father, you can meet me in some town, some city, for I shall be so frightened to be alone in England with my child, and no one to take care of us. Yet I must come to you, I must bring my child, my little Alfred to his father, the big, beautiful Alfred that I love so much. Oh, write and tell me where I shall come. I have some money, I am not a penniless creature. I have money for myself and my dear baby--'

I read to the end. It was signed: 'Your very happy and still more unhappy Élise.' I suppose I must have been smiling.
'I can see it makes you laugh,' said Mrs. Goyte, sardonically. I looked up at her.

'It's a love-letter, I know that,' she said. 'There's too many "Alfreds" in it.'

'One too many,' I said.

'Oh, yes--And what does she say--Eliza? We know her name's Eliza, that's another thing.' She grimaced a little, looking up at me with a mocking laugh.

'Where did you get this letter?' I said.

'Postman gave it me last week.'

'And is your husband at home?'

'I expect him home tonight. He's been wounded, you know, and we've been applying for him home. He was home about six weeks ago--he's been in Scotland since then. Oh, he was wounded in the leg. Yes, he's all right, a great strapping fellow. But he's lame, he limps a bit. He expects he'll get his discharge--but I don't think he will. We married? We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war. Oh, he thought he'd like the life. He'd been through the South African War. No, he was sick of it, fed up. I'm living with his father and mother--I've no home of my own now. My people had a big farm--over a thousand acres--in Oxfordshire. Not like here--no. Oh, they're very good to me, his father and mother. Oh, yes, they couldn't be better. They think more of me than of their own daughters. But it's not like being in a place of your own, is it? You can't really do as you like. No, there's only me and his father and mother at home. Before the war? Oh, he was anything. He's had a good education--but he liked the farming better. Then he was a chauffeur. That's how he knew French. He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time--'

At this point the peacocks came round the corner on a puff of wind.

'Hello, Joey!' she called, and one of the birds came forward, on delicate legs. Its grey speckled back was very elegant, it rolled its full, dark-blue neck as it moved to her. She crouched down. 'Joey, dear,' she said, in an odd, saturnine caressive voice, 'you're bound to find me, aren't you?' She put her face forward, and the bird rolled his neck, almost touching her face with his beak, as if kissing her.

'He loves you,' I said. She twisted her face up at me with a laugh.

'Yes,' she said, 'he loves me, Joey does,'--then, to the bird--'and I love Joey, don't I. I do love Joey.' And she smoothed his feathers for a moment. Then she rose, saying: 'He's an affectionate bird.' I smiled at the roll of her 'bir-rrd'. 'Oh, yes, he is,' she protested. 'He came with me from my home seven years ago. Those others are his descendants--but they're not like Joey--are they, dee-urr?' Her voice rose at the end with a witch-like cry.

Then he reads her the letter outloud in his own 'altered' words:

Then she forgot the birds in the cart-shed and turned to business again.

'Won't you read that letter?' she said. 'Read it, so that I know what it says.'

'It's rather behind his back,' I said.

'Oh, never mind him,' she cried. 'He's been behind my back long enough--all these four years. If he never did no worse things behind my back than I do behind his, he wouldn't have cause to grumble. You read me what it says.'

Now I felt a distinct reluctance to do as she bid, and yet I began--'My dear Alfred.' 'I guessed that much,' she said. 'Eliza's dear Alfred.' She laughed. 'How do you say it in French? Eliza?'

I told her, and she repeated the name with great contempt--Élise.

'Go on,' she said. 'You're not reading.'

So I began--'I have been thinking of you sometimes--have you been thinking of me?'-- 'Of several others as well, beside her, I'll wager,' said Mrs. Goyte.

'Probably not,' said I, and continued. 'A dear little baby was born here a week ago. Ah, can I tell you my feelings when I take my darling little brother into my arms--'

'I'll bet it's his,' cried Mrs. Goyte. 'No,' I said. 'It's her mother's.' 'Don't you believe it,' she cried. 'It's a blind. You mark, it's her own right enough--and his.'

'No,' I said, 'it's her mother's.'

'He has sweet smiling eyes, but not like your beautiful English eyes--'

She suddenly struck her hand on her skirt with a wild motion, and bent down, doubled with laughter. Then she rose and covered her face with her hand.

'I'm forced to laugh at the beautiful English eyes,' she said.

'Aren't his eyes beautiful?' I asked.

'Oh, yes--very! Go on!--Joey, dear, dee-urr, Joey!'--this to the peacock.

--'Er--We miss you very much. We all miss you. We wish you were here to see the darling baby. Ah, Alfred, how happy we were when you stayed with us. We all loved you so much. My mother will call the baby Alfred so that we shall never forget you--'

'Of course it's his right enough,' cried Mrs. Goyte.

'No,' I said. 'It's the mother's.' Er--'My mother is very well. My father came home yesterday--on leave. He is delighted with his son, my little brother, and wishes to have him named after you, because you were so good to us all in that terrible time, which I shall never forget. I must weep now when I think of it. Well, you are far away in England, and perhaps I shall never see you again. How did you find your dear mother and father? I am so happy that your wound is better, and that you can nearly walk--'

'How did he find his dear wife!' cried Mrs. Goyte. 'He never told her he had one. Think of taking the poor girl in like that!'

'We are so pleased when you write to us. Yet now you are in England you will forget the family you served so well--' 'A bit too well--eh, Joey!' cried the wife. 'If it had not been for you we should not be alive now, to grieve and to rejoice in this life, that is so hard for us. But we have recovered some of our losses, and no longer feel the burden of poverty. The little Alfred is a great comfort to me. I hold him to my breast and think of the big, good Alfred, and I weep to think that those times of suffering were perhaps the times of a great happiness that is gone for ever.'

'Oh, but isn't it a shame, to take a poor girl in like that!' cried Mrs. Goyte. 'Never to let on that he was married, and raise her hopes--I call it beastly, I do.'

'You don't know,' I said. 'You know how anxious women are to fall in love, wife or no wife. How could he help it, if she was determined to fall in love with him?'

'He could have helped it if he'd wanted.'

'Well,' I said, 'we aren't all heroes.'

'Oh, but that's different! The big, good Alfred!--did ever you hear such tommy-rot in your life! Go on--what does she say at the end?'

'Er--We shall be pleased to hear of your life in England. We all send many kind regards to your good parents. I wish you all happiness for your future days. Your very affectionate and ever-grateful Élise.'

There was silence for a moment, during which Mrs. Goyte remained with her head dropped, sinister and abstracted. Suddenly she lifted her face, and her eyes flashed.

'Oh, but I call it beastly, I call it mean, to take a girl in like that.'

'Nay,' I said. 'Probably he hasn't taken her in at all. Do you think those French girls are such poor innocent things? I guess she's a great deal more downy than he.'

'Oh, he's one of the biggest fools that ever walked,' she cried.

'There you are!' said I.

'But it's his child right enough,' she said.

'I don't think so,' said I. 'I'm sure of it.'

'Oh, well,' I said, 'if you prefer to think that way.'

'What other reason has she for writing like that--' I went out into the road and looked at the cattle. 'Who is this driving the cows?' I said. She too came out. 'It's the boy from the next farm,' she said.

'Oh, well,' said I, 'those Belgian girls! You never know where their letters will end. And, after all, it's his affair--you needn't bother.'

'Oh--!' she cried, with rough scorn--'it's not me that bothers. But it's the nasty meanness of it--me writing him such loving letters'--she put her hand before her face and laughed malevolently--'and sending him parcels all the time. You bet he fed that gurrl on my parcels--I know he did. It's just like him. I'll bet they laughed together over my letters. I bet anything they did--'

'Nay,' said I. 'He'd burn your letters for fear they'd give him away.'

There was a black look on her yellow face. Suddenly a voice was heard calling. She poked her head out of the shed, and answered coolly:

'All right!' Then turning to me: 'That's his mother looking after me.' She laughed into my face, witch-like, and we turned down the road.

Much of this part, we may have already discussed; but you might find some additional details or references to pick up on and discuss in particular, within these two sections. When I get back home I will try to post more text, if you all think we are ready to move on.

This part strikes me:

'How did he find his dear wife!' cried Mrs. Goyte. 'He never told her he had one. Think of taking the poor girl in like that!' It seems Mrs. Goyte is actually feeling empathy for the poor girl left behind with the child, not knowing what she got into to begin with with a married wife back home. She apparently believes the girl never knew of her existence. If this is true than I think by pointing this part out, Lawrence is giving us an example of many cases during the war when this sort of thing did occur and how it was quite a travesty, this biproduct of war. Within this one young woman character is embodied the decent of thousand, most likely. This very thing is what 'Madame Butterfly' was based on, so the story is quite universal.

Dark Muse

04-27-2009, 03:46 PM

It seems Mrs. Goyte is actually feeling empathy for the poor girl left behind with the child, not knowing what she got into to begin with with a married wife back home. She apparently believes the girl never knew of her existence. If this is true than I think by pointing this part out, Lawrence is giving us an example of many cases during the war when this sort of thing did occur and how it was quite a travesty, this biproduct of war. Within this one young woman character is embodied the decent of thousand, most likely. This very thing is what 'Madame Butterfly' was based on, so the story is quite universal.

I think her emapthy for the other woman is also further statement upon the character of Alfred. The fact that she feels sorry for the woman seems to suggest that Maggies knows the kind of man Alfred is, and suggests this is not his first offence. When she first speaks of her marraige to him with the narrator she calls herself a fool. It seems she has a good deal of reason to suspect Alfred and that he might perhaps have something of a history as a womanizer.

Janine

04-27-2009, 04:09 PM

I think her emapthy for the other woman is also further statement upon the character of Alfred. The fact that she feels sorry for the woman seems to suggest that Maggies knows the kind of man Alfred is, and suggests this is not his first offence. When she first speaks of her marraige to him with the narrator she calls herself a fool. It seems she has a good deal of reason to suspect Alfred and that he might perhaps have something of a history as a womanizer.

Don't faint now :lol:; I would agree with that. See, we usually do agree on some point eventually.

BienvenuJDC

04-27-2009, 05:00 PM

You mean calm person in public can be extremely agitated? I can easily believe that.

No...I mean those who seem to be emotionally unmoved...maybe to say 'emotionless'. This is very much different than calm, even though they both might appear the same at times.

I see a trend that we keep jumping ahead. There is much in this story that is NOT about how nasty Alfred is. I don't like men like Alfred...very unpolished, maybe a self-centered brat...if that is fair to say. Would you judge someone based solely on the perception of two women who have been...or think that they have been scorned? I have always been one to quickly judge people...only to find out that I judged them based on the exception...not the rule.
It is most likely the case that Alfred is exactly how I described him above, but let us try to forget those things that we have already read in the end...(for the narrator at this point is not aware of those things)...and see the situation at this point in the story. This is not about judging Alfred, but about examining the literary work.

Dark Muse

04-27-2009, 06:14 PM

Would you judge someone based solely on the perception of two women who have been...or think that they have been scorned? I have always been one to quickly judge people...only to find out that I judged them based on the exception...not the rule.

For me it is not judghing Alfred based on the opinion of two women, but unless one claims the letter is a lie there is no denying the fact that he was unfaituful, and that in itself is enough for me. I do not need to know more than that to know what I think of him. I do not care if outside of that incident he is the most generous man in the world.

Plus he said he wanted to kill Joey which for me the only thing worse than being unfaithful is killing an animal in cold blood.

This is not about judging Alfred, but about examining the literary work.

Yes, I agree, I just wanted to respond to what you said and I am not the sort to keep my opinions to myself.

One of the things I had found interesting during this whole porcess of reading the letter to her, is the distraction of both of them. Though she had asked him to read the letter to him, it seems she already more or less knows what it is. For she does not beleive his version of the letter as he reads it but already has decided the truth of the matter beforhand, as she keeps interupting him with her commentary.

As well it is when he starts to read the letter that Joey comes up, and so she seems to be only half paying attention to him with her focus having shifting upon the bird as he reads. As if the letter is really of no importance at all.

And then there was that seemingly rather odd moment when he suddenly asked about the cows. It struck me as a bit currious when I read it as it seemed a bit out of place and without reason. But just popped out of nowhere.

'What other reason has she for writing like that--' I went out into the road and looked at the cattle. 'Who is this driving the cows?' I said. She too came out. 'It's the boy from the next farm,' she said.

In the middle of thier conversation he asks about cows, and than the go right back to discussing the letter again.

I also found the slight inconsistency to be currious. She says that she was married to Alfred for six years

We married? We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war.

But than letter she said that Joey came down from her home with her seven years ago.

He came with me from my home seven years ago.

So there is a year in which she had not been staying at her home, but it is not very likely back than that she was living with Alfred for a year before they married.

Virgil

04-27-2009, 08:10 PM

You will have to pardon me for the next couple of days. I have to go on a business trip and won't be on. I won't be on too much this evening either. I have to prepare. I'll catch up, I swear. Looks like a good discussion. :)

Janine

04-27-2009, 10:07 PM

jinjang

04-28-2009, 12:01 AM

Perhaps he is easily distracted; many people are like that in real life

I am one of those easily distracted. I just finished writing a proposal for my work and got here. While I enjoy reading very much all your postings, my arms are up in the air at this point... I have never - never once in my life - dissected a story this much. That is why I am in math - one answer to a problem! I will keep reading all your opinions, though, enjoying it from a safe distance as before. You now have a good listener (reader).

Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."

I realize that many Lawrence stories have sex all over hidden, including this one. Men know what they want while women themselves do not exactly know what they want. Maggie, in reality and in all truth, wants Alfred, but clings to Joey as if the bird can satisfy her need of affection. It is pathetic!

Excuse me here and I mean no offense to anyone. I will read on quietly from now on.

BienvenuJDC

04-28-2009, 12:32 AM

That is why I am in math - one answer to a problem!

With a degree in accounting, working as an estimator, also in purchasing and Quality Control as a Project Coordinator...I deal with math all day. I don't mean to be disagreeable but the APPLICATION of math...there are far too many answers to one problem...and often...too often...far too many questions from each answer...:D

Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:

Excuse me here and I mean no offense to anyone. I will read on quietly from now on.

Please...I've enjoyed your comments, and you've brought out many good points. Besides, since Virgil is going to be gone, this thread is going to start to die off a little. I'm also going to have to fall back a little myself, so please comment freely.

Janine

04-28-2009, 12:51 AM

I am one of those easily distracted. I just finished writing a proposal for my work and got here. While I enjoy reading very much all your postings, my arms are up in the air at this point... I have never - never once in my life - dissected a story this much. That is why I am in math - one answer to a problem! I will keep reading all your opinions, though, enjoying it from a safe distance as before. You now have a good listener (reader).

jinjang, get those arms back on the keyboard and stop getting overwhelmed; I agree with Bienvenu, we need you here and so far you have written some very fine posts with much insight. We can slow up a bit, if you wish; but ofcourse, if we do that we will be here forever dissecting. I think it might be time soon to move on from the section. We more or less dissected this last section in the posts prior to my posting it. Still take more time to read what everyone wrote and comment if need be.

I am an artist, not a literature major. In fact, this is my 'second life', I believe. I didn't have the time to explore literature in depth, when I was younger, so now I have taken up the pursuit. Math is cool, too. In fact, I dealt heavily with math (trig and geometry) in one job I had for several years as a structural steel detailer - don't ask; one of the many things I tried in my lifetime. I tended to branch out in many directions.

Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."

As Bien said :lol::lol::lol::lol:.....good one!:thumbs_up

I realize that many Lawrence stories have sex all over hidden, including this one. Men know what they want while women themselves do not exactly know what they want. Maggie, in reality and in all truth, wants Alfred, but clings to Joey as if the bird can satisfy her need of affection. It is pathetic!

True and sometimes not so hidden.:lol: I like your take on Maggie and the bird, and I would have to agree.

Excuse me here and I mean no offense to anyone. I will read on quietly from now on.

Please do post when you feel inclined to. I very much enjoyed your posts and your take on the story and you are very witty and fun to read as well. I love that last story and I love your new avy; is that the 'night owl'?

Dark Muse

04-28-2009, 01:12 AM

One of the things which interested me about this story is the title. Titles often play a key and important role in stories, and there most be a specific reason why this one is called Wintry Peacock. It seems here the peacock is made to play a more significant role than just the friendly companion of Maggie but rather there is some deeper statement in the presence of the bird to carry throughout the story and the characters.

I knew the peacock played an important role in many different cultures and so I started some research on symbolism behind the bird. Some of the things I found I think are interesting and while I am not sure what their exact meaning is, I can see who they might perhaps play into this story.

In Christianity the Peacock came to be seen as a symbol of vanity and it was said that even the beautiful peacock thinks his own feet as ugly. This was meant to be a lesson to humans that they should remember their own imperfections and faults.

In Japan the peacock was believed to have the power to devour poisonous serpents and so it came to represent the transformation of evil into good.

In some cultures it is seen as a symbol of immortality.

And best for last, most ironically, and which I find most difficult to see as a coincidence.

The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.

Emmy Castrol

04-28-2009, 01:34 AM

I thought I submitted a post but when next I look, it had disappeared and was nowhere to be found. Oh well, I guess these things happen when you haven't been on the forum for too long.

Perhaps he is easily distracted; many people are like that in real life; or maybe this indicates the narrator is bored or more interested in the cows than Maggie; so maybe that is why, or to indicate he feels close to his natural surroundings; connected and very aware of what goes on around him. Lawrence must have had a purpose to interject those lines. I will go back to look at those exact part of the text more carefully.

I am one of these people too. Often in a conversation I will say something or point out something completely irrelevant from the conversation at hand. I think the reason I do this is out of awkwardness. Plus I am a fidgety person with and find it difficult to concentrate too long on one thing.

I can understand why Maggie's character would try to distract herself with the peacock. If I were her, I'd be doing it to deaden the emotional impact of the situation I find myself in. I wouldn't want to cry or show more vulnerability, especially to an acquaintance, at what I discover in the contents of a personal love letter from someone else to my husband and patting and cooing at the peacock would sort of remove me from the scene a little.

I don't like how the narrator decides to soften the letter, not because I am adamant that the truth should be stated at all times but because I feel as if there was no reason for him to do so. I feel that Maggie's character came to him for confirmation of her husband's deceit and betrayal. She already suspects his character and is intuitively certain but she cannot justify the inclination to leave him if that suspicion is not substantiated. So the narrator does her a great injustice by lying to her. Worse, he believes it is to save her feelings but she already suspects, even already knows the content of the letter, so his action is useless and does not contribute at all to the situation. He is doing something for the sake of his idea of what is honourable and noble, stemmed from a feeling of pity for the woman, but devoid of a righteous compassion for Maggie's character. He is softening the letter because he is misplacing Maggie with the idea of her. She is only a general case to him, not a real person. The general case is the the woman would be distressed to discover such a deceitful truth, the real person is a woman who is all too knowledgeable about the actual character of her husband. Again, I am amazed at Lawrence's skill in showing this displacement very well.

And best for last, most ironically, and which I find most difficult to see as a coincidence.

The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.

That's very useful Dark Muse. Don't you just love it when understanding clicks in your head because that's what just happened to me when I read that.

Wasn't Lawrence's first novel called something peacock as well? Perhaps fidelity has been a theme which has always interested him.

BienvenuJDC

04-28-2009, 01:44 AM

I don't like how the narrator decides to soften the letter, not because I am adamant that the truth should be stated at all times but because I feel as if there was no reason for him to do so.

You might be right. I think that if it were me as the narrator, I'd have to say that I could not get involved in such personal matters. I might later privately talk to Alfred about doing what's right, but on the other hand...to meddle in other's affairs (no pun intended) will often come back to burn you.

BTDT (Been there, done that!)

...and remember, from a man's perspective...women don't always want the truth, but what they want is their desired truth...ever hear the question, "Does this make me look fat?" There's not an answer than a man can give that won't get him into trouble... Or..."Do you think that she is pretty?":goof: ..uh...hmm...oo...uh..:eek2:Umm...no...noooo..not. .uh..!:confused:....uhgg....:brickwall

Janine

04-28-2009, 01:55 AM

That's very useful Dark Muse. Don't you just love it when understanding clicks in your head because that's what just happened to me when I read that.

Wasn't Lawrence's first novel called something peacock as well? Perhaps fidelity has been a theme which has always interested him.

Emmy, good to see you back. I will answer your posts tomorrow. It's so late here; hot, as well.

His first novel indeed, was entitled "The White Peacock" and I have read it; yes, fidelity was a very important thing to Lawrence; the irony is that Lawrence ran off with another man's wife. Of course, the woman, Frieda Weekley, was not happily married for many years; but when she finally left her husband and eloped with Lawrence to marry him, once the divorce was final, the sad thing is she was forced to leave her children behind in England; since her husband brought all matter of custody cases against her, barring her from seeing them; she did manage to see them, but her time with them was limited, until they got older. However, once Lawrence, who never was married before, did marry, he expected fidelity; whether he got it or not is a long complicated story and highly debated. Let's just say he believed in it ardently and this runs through all his novels.

In "The White Peacock" I think the peacock is tied in with fidelity. I am not completely sure but that may be something I should investigate further. I liked the book very much, although it has some flaws; the writing is simply beautiful and fresh for a young new author. The woodland and field scenes are magnificent.

Emmy Castrol

04-28-2009, 01:57 AM

Janine

04-28-2009, 02:00 AM

haha...Bien, your post was a riot.....and...'we' were all posting same time. I am going to bed now....night all!

Emmy Castrol

04-28-2009, 02:11 AM

In "The White Peacock" I think the peacock is tied in with fidelity. I am not completely sure but that may be something I should investigate further. I liked the book very much, although it has some flaws; the writing is simply beautiful and fresh for a young new author. The woodland and field scenes are magnificent.

I've been having trouble finding 'The White Peacock' in stores; the general level of Australian bookstores is quite poor and they seem to have endless copies of Lady Chattterley's Lover and Sons and Lovers.

Thanks so much, Janine, for welcoming me to this thread. I am having an absolutely wonderful time and I'm grateful for the internet and its advancements in uniting me with the handful of DH Lawrence lovers who happen to be on the other side of the world. The times before the DH Lawrence short stories thread were very lonely for me indeed.

BienvenuJDC

04-28-2009, 02:15 AM

Can anybody else hear Garrison Keillor's voice when reading DHL?

Dark Muse

04-28-2009, 02:55 AM

I agree. I agree, too, that she seems to know the outcome and portent of the letter already. I wonder if her main objective is actually to draw the narrator into her and her husband's scandal. I am not sure for what reasons she is doing that. Perhaps, she is being flirtious with the narrator all along. Has anyone thought of this - why she would share a personal deception like this one with a virtual stranger.

Yes I had considered that possibility. I had in fact expected that they were going to actually hook up at some point, particularly after he had brought Joey back home after having saved him. There did seem to me to be some underlined attraction between the two of them. Or rather it seemed that she was trying to appeal to him, but he was just oblivious or ignoring it.

I'm living with his father and mother--I've no home of my own now. My people had a big farm--over a thousand acres--in Oxfordshire. Not like here--no. Oh, they're very good to me, his father and mother. Oh, yes, they couldn't be better. They think more of me than of their own daughters. But it's not like being in a place of your own, is it? You can't really do as you like

I found this part to be a bit curious as well. For one thing there seems to be something ambiguous about her past. For as she speaks of her parents farm, it seems as if her family had been well off but it seems to be something that is no more. For she says she no longer has a home to go back to, and she speaks of the farm as past tense saying "had." Does this indicate that something happened to the family farm? Or did she have a falling out with her family?

Than when she speaks of living with her in-laws, while it seems she is treated well there, and she seems to like them she also laments the restrictions of not having a place of her own.

Is she resentful of Alfred that they still live with their parents? As when she talks of him, it does not seem he has any real definite goals. He was a farmer, a chauffeur, than he ran off to the war.

Or does she want complete independence? Yet when she had the evidence that she could perhaps use to set herself free from Alfred in the end she destroys it. Perhaps after six years she has lost hope and resigned herself to her fate.

Janine

04-28-2009, 03:12 PM

...and remember, from a man's perspective...women don't always want the truth,
but what they want is their desired truth...ever hear the question, "Does this
make me look fat?" There's not an answer than a man can give that won't get him
into trouble... Or..."Do you think that she is pretty?"

Garrison Keillor's....

Bien, this is getting a bit scary...you're starting to sound just like my ex-boyfriend...he was a Keillor fan; but then...maybe a lot of men are...he also would say the statement you said above....

:lol: But, that is probably typically male in observation concerning the compliment bind....But then again...maybe, there is only one answer like in math!? Women know the universal answer to those questions. ;)

I never thought of Keillor anything like Lawrence - now that is interesting. I actually, never read a Keillor book, so I can't judge that one.

Emmy, I am glad you are so happy here in the thread discussion; already you have contributed a good deal. It's great to see newcomers this month. I am glad I noticed that you liked Lawrence and invited you. I try to recruit people who mention having read his work(s). I figure they might also enjoy the short stories and learn more about him. Lawrence has been the focus of my personal study for the past 4 or 5 yrs; before, that it was some bit of study on Thomas Hardy; but Hardy did have a heavy influence on Lawrence's work (at least in the beginning) so it's good I studied one right after the other. I had read Lawrence years back, but never fully delved into his works, as I have in the past few years on here. By the time I read all of the major works and some minor, I was curious to read his first novels "The White Peacock"; and recently I read "The Trespasser". I just noticed TWP on Amazon not long ago. I keep it in my wishlist, even though I own a paperback copy I will look it up and see if I can find one for you from a decent seller. It would have to be used I think sinced it out of print now. Have you purchased from Amazon before? I will go and find the link if I am able. Actually, a friend of mine found Lawrence's Australia novel, "Kangaroo", in California at a used bookstore. I like the book and own the movie adapatation with Colin Friel playing Lawrence and Judy Davis playing his wife Frieda. The names in the novel are changed, but one can easily spot the married couple. The characters are Richard and Harriet. I had to settle for a VHS tape but I enjoy that production very much.

I will post this and then answer Dark Muse's following post. Just afraid I could lose this one.

Yes I had considered that possibility. I had in fact expected that they were going to actually hook up at some point, particularly after he had brought Joey back home after having saved him. There did seem to me to be some underlined attraction between the two of them. Or rather it seemed that she was trying to appeal to him, but he was just oblivious or ignoring it.

Dark Muse,The more I think about it now, I think that was the case. He also, mentioned that he had meet her before:

As I passed the end of the upper house, I saw a young woman just coming out of the back door. I had spoken to her in the summer. She recognized me at once, and waved to me.

In some ways, saving her peacock, considering how close she is to the bird, would indicate he understood that 'animal' connection and that he empathised with Maggie; establishing a sort of connection between the narrator and Maggie. I don't see this connection as a sexual tension exactly, but more like a man becoming accutely aware of the sensitivites to a woman and her earthiness. In caring for the bird, he taps into his own 'nurturing' side and in this way, he's own sensitivity makes a connection to the woman loving her pet peacock. I think you hit on something vital before, when you said that Maggie didn't have any children and yet here, she knows of this letter, in which her husband has supposidly fathered a child, in another country, by a younger woman. Both those factors, have to make a woman feel even more threatened and more vulnerable; even more unsure of herself and her place in life. I think in someways, they did indeed have some type of underlying attraction between them; I am not saying it was sexual or romantic, in anyway or could progress to that; while reading I never really thought that could happen at the end, unlike your own predictions. I think the narrator did indeed note the female elements or an earthy nature in Maggie, that could be dangerous for him. He mentions being affected by her, starting with this line, which I know we previously did point out and discuss:

her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.

Another would be:

she looked up at me and smiled, with that odd, immediate intimacy, something witch-like and impossible...

It's like she is a witch or unworldly creature of the earth, casting a sort of spell over him. He is wary all along. I think this is why he so often mentions her as 'witch-like'. I think the narrator (Lawrence) fears her in someway. He fears her female dominance. This notion runs through many of Lawrence's stories. He did have an extreme fear of female dominance, which stemmed from his own mother's overbearing way with his father. In this case, there is again Lawernce's 'duality' being revealed. He wants to empathise with the woman and yet something inside him fears her. This may be why he doesn't reveal the whole truth when he is reading the letter. He remarked, just prior to reading it, that:

So we stood among the shafts of the open cart-shed that faced the road. Then she looked down at the ground, a little sideways, and I noticed a small black frown on her brows. She seemed to brood for a moment. Then she looked straight into my eyes, so that I blinked and wanted to turn my face aside. She was searching me for something and her look was too near. The frown was still on her keen, sallow brow.

Then a short bit later he said:

I looked at her, and didn't quite realize. She looked too far into me, my wits were gone.

So to me by now, her female, earthy witch-like spell has worked and egged him on to read the letter to her; she has successfully conjoled him. By this last line, he felt quite powerless to refuse her. He has gone too far in his mind, to turn back; his judgement was impaired, to some degree, by all the soft witchy conniving and the rolling and sulky dark eyes. He seemed quite taken with her eyes and the witch quality, this seemed to keep him curious; like when one looks at something quite frightening or horrid and still can't take one's eyes from the subject.

I found this part to be a bit curious as well. For one thing there seems to be something ambiguous about her past. For as she speaks of her parents farm, it seems as if her family had been well off but it seems to be something that is no more. For she says she no longer has a home to go back to, and she speaks of the farm as past tense saying "had." Does this indicate that something happened to the family farm? Or did she have a falling out with her family?

Yes indeed, there does seem to be something curious and ambiguous about her past. But, did she mean the farm was better or worse, smaller or larger? If her former home was better, then why did she marry into a poorer state? This might bring up the question, was she tricked into this life she now leads. Was her husband Alfred charming back then; turned cruel to her now; or if the truth were known in their private lives, did she try to dominate him and this is why he sought comfort elsewhere? We really do not know of their intimate relationship. We know of one prominent statement, that the narrator makes

"with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth."

To me, this suggests that Maggie is capable of that connection and yet, is she so with her own husband? This scenerio between the married couple, might be much like Lawrence's own parents' situation, in which L's mother, Lydia, thought herself 'above' her husband, Arthur, in social statis and ran him down continually, in front of the children. It's just a thought and another connection. Afterall, one does write about what one knows of most prominently in one's life.

Than when she speaks of living with her in-laws, while it seems she is treated well there, and she seems to like them she also laments the restrictions of not having a place of her own.

I noticed this, too; but "not having a place of her own" throws me off. Does she indicate a place for both she and her husband, but used the her own simply as a figure of speech? Maybe, Maggie does resent the fact they are stuck there, without a farm or a place of their own. Perhaps, Alfred is lazy and unmotivated and has no desire to part with living with his parents. In that case, I could feel even more sorry for Maggie, stuck in this situation; although, it might be worse to live alone with Alfred.

Is she resentful of Alfred that they still live with their parents? As when she talks of him, it does not seem he has any real definite goals. He was a farmer, a chauffeur, than he ran off to the war.

I am seeing this point more clearly and I am basically agreeing it is a good possibility. I think Maggie has a lot of resentment to her husband and her lot in life. Yes, I also noticed he had had a variety of jobs and seemed to be without any true goals or direction in life. He is very 'unsettled' and yet Maggie is opposite it seems; she is 'rooted' to the earth. Connections are made to the cows, the farm, the peacock: all representing the earth and 'animalistic' natural factors, which often become prominent in Lawrence's work.

Or does she want complete independence? Yet when she had the evidence that she could perhaps use to set herself free from Alfred in the end she destroys it. Perhaps after six years she has lost hope and resigned herself to her fate.

I am not sure that letter would be enough evidence to base a divorce on. For one, the man could deny having sex with the Belgium girl and say her whole story was a fabrication. Or the paternity, back then, could never be proven. It could have been an number of soldiers who fathered the child. I don't see where Maggie had any 'out' that was actually realistic. She might leave Alfred and the farm and his kind parents and then end up returning more downtrodden, than before. She may only have her bit of female pride, her peacock friend, Joey, and indeed be resigned to her lot in life.

jinjang

04-30-2009, 06:46 PM

I noticed the discussion is not moving on and inevitably I am breaking my words.

The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.

That is an excellent point, Dark Muse. Now let us add the adjective “wintry” to peacock.
The Marriam-Webster Online gave me the second meaning of the adjective:
2 a: weathered by or as if by winter : aged, hoary b: cheerless, chilling
Oxford American Dictionary gave me the meaning: chilly, lacking warmth or vivacity
Two-volume short Oxford Dictionary: Devoid of fervor or affection; dismal, dreary, cheerless.

I skipped the first meaning, thinking Lawrence did not possibly mean the first meaning “of relating to winter.” Did someone mention peacocks are not English birds; hence, it is out of place? The cheerless out-of-placed bird interposes the reconciliation between Maggie and Alfred. While in the war, he got weak and now he wants to get back to Maggie. I consider the war, his age, his good looks, and his libido. Alfred may have been between 18 and 22 years old when he joined the war. Maggie determined to drag drearily on the issue of infidelity.

This moment in their lives described in the story is short fleeting, compared to the whole life. Let them listen to the father-in-law who speaks wisdom. It is too bad we do not get to hear the mother-in-law, except the short description of her expressions. I feel deep empathy toward Elise who is left alone to raise the child without a father.

There did seem to me to be some underlined attraction between the two of them. Or rather it seemed that she was trying to appeal to him, but he was just oblivious or ignoring it.
That is a little far-fetched, do you not think so? She may have been seeking sympathy without intending to attract him.

I wonder if her main objective is actually to draw the narrator into her and her husband's scandal. I am not sure for what reasons she is doing that. Perhaps, she is being flirtious with the narrator all along. Has anyone thought of this - why she would share a personal deception like this one with a virtual stranger.
I see the power of persuasion here. But, I definitely agree with Janine on this point below:

I felt it was just a slice-of-life tale; some that could happen to any one of us in our walk of life and that Lawrence is merely recording it and giving the reader the option of interpreting it in his own way… The narrator is not just a narrator but a character now in the story because he has been thrown into the situtation quite by accident.
I think their distraction or rather his distraction is likely his ponderous and hesitant moment before deciding to translate the letter in consideration of easing her troubles.

When are we moving on to the next part?

Dark Muse

04-30-2009, 07:11 PM

I I consider the war, his age, his good looks, and his libido. Alfred may have been between 18 and 22 years old when he joined the war. Maggie determined to drag drearily on the issue of infidelity.

You make infidelity sound like having a bad hair day.

Like she should just be, oh well since there was a way, of course it is perfectly excusable and acceptable that my husband knocked some other check up, and how awful am I to be concerned about this issue.

You seem to think that somehow Alfred is the victim here. And Maggie is just a horrible person because she happens to be found of her pet peacock, as you earlier tried to blame the failure of their marriage on the bird, and suggested it was pathetic that she felt affection for her pet.

I cannot move myself to feel sorry for Elisa even if she did not know that Alfred was married. Pehrpas she is not at fault if she was igonrant but I still cannot really syampathize with her.

Besides there is the possiblity that Alfred was correct about her just being a total fluzzy, though I would not consider him reliable and take what he says at face vaule, but it is always possible she really was just a loose woman who would sleep with anyone.

jinjang

04-30-2009, 07:15 PM

Please interpret "wintry" peacock for me. I would like to be persuaded.

Dark Muse

04-30-2009, 07:21 PM

I am not quite sure what you need to be persuaded of.

Are you suggusting the point of this story is that having a pet peacock is justification for your husband to be unfaithful to you? And that the real problem in a marraige is pets and not infeidelity, because Alfred would be faithful if only Maggie was not found of her peacock?

jinjang

04-30-2009, 07:44 PM

You mentioned somewhere the title tells a lot about the story.
What does the "wintry" peacock signify to the main theme of the story in your opinion?

Let me give you one of my favorite quotes:
"When you are young in the flesh, morning revealed to you that your most ardent happiness was deception and illusion. You will have to grow very old in order to learn that, by way of compensation, your bitterest suffering was also deception and illusion."

In some sense and in a grand scheme of things, the incident could be viewed as a very "bad hair day."

What is so wrong about reconciliation?

Dark Muse

04-30-2009, 07:52 PM

I am not willing to be so glib about infideility, nor blame it on birds.

jinjang

04-30-2009, 08:18 PM

I apologize if I sounded insincere about infidelity.

What I am trying to say is that the wintry peacock may symbolize Maggie's dreary obsession of her husband's infidelity. She is locked up in her emotion of being betrayed by her husband, disregarding her own contradictory desire to make a peace with Alfred and with her situation. I always focus more on the first persons and their inner struggles, not the exterior influences - her husband’s infidelity being one of the exterior influences and her whole situation of no-alternative way out being another. Alfred is not important but Maggie’s peace is, when I think of Maggie as the first person.

I would like to put Alfred as the first person sometimes, but this point we will disagree for sure.

Dark Muse

04-30-2009, 08:27 PM

But ultimately Maggie new the peacock before she ever met Alfred, the bird was a part of her life before he ever entered into the picture. And I do not know the exact quote, but it makes a reference in the story to the peacock being something of her own home, which for some reason or other she seems unable to go back to.

For me to Maggie the bird is more of a symbol of nostalgia. Something from her past she can hold on, and as she laments not having a place of her own, and she is living with Alfred's parents, Joey is something that Maggie can have that is her own. Joey is a source of comfort to her because she is neglected by her husband.

Without Joey, Maggie would have a truly dismal life, she would have no one to turn to. Though her in laws are nice to her, they are not her true parents, they still primarily "belong" to Alfred, or are a more a part of Alfred than she is.

But Joey is the only thing which is wholly her own. It is her connection to this lost past of hers, this home that does not truly exist for her anymore. Which she is denied both in her past as well as in her present, without much hope of her obtaining it in the future.

For some unknown reason she was severed from her family home, and now that she got married, she was still unable to establish a new home for herself. Both because of Alfred's seeming lack of ambition in acquiring his own place, and because of his lack of any really interest and affection for his wife.

Virgil

04-30-2009, 08:49 PM

I'm back and trying to catch up. I'm sure you've zoomed ahead of this, but let me throw my thoughts. You guys can move on and not respond if you don't wish.

I agree; and this is typical Lawrence to some extend; he is showing us a bad situation in which a woman is trapped in her economic circumstances and I believe his empathy is for the woman here, not for the man. Let's face it, the man is a cheat and a jerk; this point I agree, with Dark Muse. But, Maggie does not have the option to 'just take off' and 'go on her own'; infeasible that she would run away with the narrator; he is really not interested. I think when she is sitting downtrodden in the kitchen later on, she is showing us how sad and impossible her situtation is; my memory of that scene is a bit foggy, so will be better when we come to that actual part of the text. I don't see any evidence that the narrator is siding with the husband; I just don't read it that way. He is pointing out, as he did in other stories, that the woman is trapped by economical reasons. In "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" much was the same - a young woman with no real options for her future, unless she were to become married. I've read other stories where the same theme is explored or presented; so to me it is not that unusual.

I'm not sure I agree that Lawrence's empathy is with the woman in this story. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not. Yes she's definitely trapped, but you know that doesn't excuse her lack of rage on this situation. I do think that is significant.

Not that is seen in public...or at least in the presence of Alfred, his parents, and/or the narrator...maybe she's too private concerning her deep down emotions. She might have been crying her eyes out the rest of the time. Even the "strongest" of people are extremely emotional when no one is around...
That's speculation though. We can only really go by what's presented.

Janine, you definitely know great deal about the author. It is highly likely that the narrator is married because of the paragraph: “In the night, however, we heard him thumping about.”

Janine and I are sort of ameteur Lawrence experts. :D

I always let my French husband look at any pretty girl. Preoccupied men at any age do not seem to have the "male wondering eye." In France, flirtation is a complement to women and even an etiquette.
:lol: Oh every woman should have that attitude. God bless you. Can you please speak to my wife? :D Oh and I do like to flirt. ;)

Experience would not have to avert eyes. I know it is totally unrelated to the story set in England soon after South African War (1899-1902).
Are you saying this story is set after the South African War? I thought it was World War I.

Haha I am pretty much just as frank, opinionated and argumentative in person
I completely believe that. ;)

Dark Muse

04-30-2009, 08:56 PM

I'm not sure I agree that Lawrence's empathy is with the woman in this story. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not. Yes she's definitely trapped, but you know that doesn't excuse her lack of rage on this situation. I do think that is significant.

The more I consider Maggie's attitude and the langauge she usues, the way she responds, the more I am convinved that her lack or rage comes from the fact that she is not in the least bit surprsied.

While I had wanted her to hit him over the head the a frying pan, or have a revenge fling with the narrator, the reason I think she does exhibit a lack of rage is becaue she exepcts nothing more or less from Alfred.

There are many suggestions that this is his first offence, and it does seem to allude to the fact that even prior to this incident he was not a husband to be desired.

Not to mention how long they have been married now, and her prospects being fairly hopeless. She probably knows getting angery will do no good because she already knows that Alfred is a good for nothing shmuck but she was fooled by him and is now stuck with him.

Virgil

04-30-2009, 09:30 PM

One of the things I had found interesting during this whole porcess of reading the letter to her, is the distraction of both of them. Though she had asked him to read the letter to him, it seems she already more or less knows what it is. For she does not beleive his version of the letter as he reads it but already has decided the truth of the matter beforhand, as she keeps interupting him with her commentary.

As well it is when he starts to read the letter that Joey comes up, and so she seems to be only half paying attention to him with her focus having shifting upon the bird as he reads. As if the letter is really of no importance at all.

And then there was that seemingly rather odd moment when he suddenly asked about the cows. It struck me as a bit currious when I read it as it seemed a bit out of place and without reason. But just popped out of nowhere.

In the middle of thier conversation he asks about cows, and than the go right back to discussing the letter again.

I also found the slight inconsistency to be currious. She says that she was married to Alfred for six years

But than letter she said that Joey came down from her home with her seven years ago.

So there is a year in which she had not been staying at her home, but it is not very likely back than that she was living with Alfred for a year before they married.
Excellent observations Dark Muse. Those distractions caught my eye too. I do think they are significant, first because the peacock becomes the central symbol of the story and second because the cows are a stark contrast to the peacock.

I am one of those easily distracted. I just finished writing a proposal for my work and got here. While I enjoy reading very much all your postings, my arms are up in the air at this point... I have never - never once in my life - dissected a story this much. That is why I am in math - one answer to a problem! I will keep reading all your opinions, though, enjoying it from a safe distance as before. You now have a good listener (reader).

We do dissect the Lawrence stories down to the bone. We really get into the heart of them. I hope you wil like that and I hope you will participate. :)

Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That is a great one Jin!!

I realize that many Lawrence stories have sex all over hidden, including this one. Men know what they want while women themselves do not exactly know what they want. Maggie, in reality and in all truth, wants Alfred, but clings to Joey as if the bird can satisfy her need of affection. It is pathetic!
Oh, there are plenty of Lawrence women who know what they want in other stories. ;)

One of the things which interested me about this story is the title. Titles often play a key and important role in stories, and there most be a specific reason why this one is called Wintry Peacock. It seems here the peacock is made to play a more significant role than just the friendly companion of Maggie but rather there is some deeper statement in the presence of the bird to carry throughout the story and the characters.

I knew the peacock played an important role in many different cultures and so I started some research on symbolism behind the bird. Some of the things I found I think are interesting and while I am not sure what their exact meaning is, I can see who they might perhaps play into this story.

In Christianity the Peacock came to be seen as a symbol of vanity and it was said that even the beautiful peacock thinks his own feet as ugly. This was meant to be a lesson to humans that they should remember their own imperfections and faults.

In Japan the peacock was believed to have the power to devour poisonous serpents and so it came to represent the transformation of evil into good.

In some cultures it is seen as a symbol of immortality.

And best for last, most ironically, and which I find most difficult to see as a coincidence.

The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.
Dark Muse, those are interesting symbols but you should by now since you've been participating in many of our Lawrence discussion know what Lawrence means to suggest by the peacock. First of all it's a bird and second it's a bird with proud flaming colors and third there is the syllable "c*ck" in its name. :blush: I think you know what I'm saying now. ;)

I am one of these people too. Often in a conversation I will say something or point out something completely irrelevant from the conversation at hand. I think the reason I do this is out of awkwardness. Plus I am a fidgety person with and find it difficult to concentrate too long on one thing.
The distractions serve a writing role as well as thematic. To just read the letter would be relatively boring. A good writer would naturally break that up into segments and have a little drama going on in parallel. But I do think there is a thematic element to the distraction. I mentioned above how the peacock suggests a male element, and that I'm confident in. What I'm less confident is in what the cows represent. I think they represent the female element, but it's not really developed. Notice also it's a boy that is controlling the cows.

I can understand why Maggie's character would try to distract herself with the peacock. If I were her, I'd be doing it to deaden the emotional impact of the situation I find myself in. I wouldn't want to cry or show more vulnerability, especially to an acquaintance, at what I discover in the contents of a personal love letter from someone else to my husband and patting and cooing at the peacock would sort of remove me from the scene a little.
And I think it shows us something about the situation here. Maggie has more emotion for the peacock than her husband. Do we ever see her give such affection to her husband?

I don't like how the narrator decides to soften the letter, not because I am adamant that the truth should be stated at all times but because I feel as if there was no reason for him to do so.
That is something I can't figure out yet either. The best I can come up with is that he does not want to fully encounter the emotional situation of him directly telling her the real circumstances. The other possibility is that he does not want to violate a male bond with her husband. None the less the translation event highlights a lack of communication going on through out the story. The lack of communication between Maggie and Alfred is stark; the dishonest communication between the narrator and Maggie is certainly there; the only honest communication occurs between Maggie and the peacock and perhaps Eliza and Alfred, though it's only Eliza.

I feel that Maggie's character came to him for confirmation of her husband's deceit and betrayal. She already suspects his character and is intuitively certain but she cannot justify the inclination to leave him if that suspicion is not substantiated. So the narrator does her a great injustice by lying to her. Worse, he believes it is to save her feelings but she already suspects, even already knows the content of the letter, so his action is useless and does not contribute at all to the situation. He is doing something for the sake of his idea of what is honourable and noble, stemmed from a feeling of pity for the woman, but devoid of a righteous compassion for Maggie's character. He is softening the letter because he is misplacing Maggie with the idea of her. She is only a general case to him, not a real person. The general case is the the woman would be distressed to discover such a deceitful truth, the real person is a woman who is all too knowledgeable about the actual character of her husband. Again, I am amazed at Lawrence's skill in showing this displacement very well.
No I tend to disagree. I think he's doing it in male solidarity with Alfred. And I do think the dishonest communication is very central to the story's theme.

I've been having trouble finding 'The White Peacock' in stores; the general level of Australian bookstores is quite poor and they seem to have endless copies of Lady Chattterley's Lover and Sons and Lovers.

Thanks so much, Janine, for welcoming me to this thread. I am having an absolutely wonderful time and I'm grateful for the internet and its advancements in uniting me with the handful of DH Lawrence lovers who happen to be on the other side of the world. The times before the DH Lawrence short stories thread were very lonely for me indeed.
well, that's great Emmy. I'm not sure if i've welcomed you. Welcome to lit net and to the Lawrence club here. :)

I think you [Dark Muse] hit on something vital before, when you said that Maggie didn't have any children and yet here, she knows of this letter, in which her husband has supposidly fathered a child, in another country, by a younger woman. Both those factors, have to make a woman feel even more threatened and more vulnerable; even more unsure of herself and her place in life.
No question, the contrast between Eliza having a baby and Maggie being childless is very significant. There is so much in this story that one can consider a wasteland: the winter setting, the barren woman, the lack of love, the lack of communication, animals that are unnatural to the environment (peacocks in England?), lies and infidelity, the lack of honest emotional response.

It's like she is a witch or unworldly creature of the earth, casting a sort of spell over him. He is wary all along. I think this is why he so often mentions her as 'witch-like'. I think the narrator (Lawrence) fears her in someway. He fears her female dominance.
Not sure about fear, though that's possible, but certainly resents it, certainly disdains it.

This notion runs through many of Lawrence's stories. He did have an extreme fear of female dominance, which stemmed from his own mother's overbearing way with his father. In this case, there is again Lawernce's 'duality' being revealed. He wants to empathise with the woman and yet something inside him fears her. This may be why he doesn't reveal the whole truth when he is reading the letter. He remarked, just prior to reading it, that:
I don't agree with that last sentence, but I do think Lawrence in general did fear female dominance.

So to me by now, her female, earthy witch-like spell has worked and egged him on to read the letter to her; she has successfully conjoled him. By this last line, he felt quite powerless to refuse her. He has gone too far in his mind, to turn back; his judgement was impaired, to some degree, by all the soft witchy conniving and the rolling and sulky dark eyes. He seemed quite taken with her eyes and the witch quality, this seemed to keep him curious; like when one looks at something quite frightening or horrid and still can't take one's eyes from the subject.
Perhaps that's why he tells her as much as he does, but i still think he's trying to not violate another man's privacy.

Yes indeed, there does seem to be something curious and ambiguous about her past. But, did she mean the farm was better or worse, smaller or larger? If her former home was better, then why did she marry into a poorer state? This might bring up the question, was she tricked into this life she now leads. Was her husband Alfred charming back then; turned cruel to her now; or if the truth were known in their private lives, did she try to dominate him and this is why he sought comfort elsewhere? We really do not know of their intimate relationship. We know of one prominent statement, that the narrator makes

"with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth."
Lord of the earth is a proud peacock. ;)

I noticed this, too; but "not having a place of her own" throws me off. Does she indicate a place for both she and her husband, but used the her own simply as a figure of speech? Maybe, Maggie does resent the fact they are stuck there, without a farm or a place of their own. Perhaps, Alfred is lazy and unmotivated and has no desire to part with living with his parents. In that case, I could feel even more sorry for Maggie, stuck in this situation; although, it might be worse to live alone with Alfred.
More wasteland.

That is an excellent point, Dark Muse. Now let us add the adjective “wintry” to peacock.
The Marriam-Webster Online gave me the second meaning of the adjective:
2 a: weathered by or as if by winter : aged, hoary b: cheerless, chilling
Oxford American Dictionary gave me the meaning: chilly, lacking warmth or vivacity
Two-volume short Oxford Dictionary: Devoid of fervor or affection; dismal, dreary, cheerless.

I skipped the first meaning, thinking Lawrence did not possibly mean the first meaning “of relating to winter.” Did someone mention peacocks are not English birds; hence, it is out of place? The cheerless out-of-placed bird interposes the reconciliation between Maggie and Alfred. While in the war, he got weak and now he wants to get back to Maggie. I consider the war, his age, his good looks, and his libido. Alfred may have been between 18 and 22 years old when he joined the war. Maggie determined to drag drearily on the issue of infidelity.

Very good observation in there Jin. I think it fits with what I've been saying about a wasteland and unnatural situation.

I think you guys passed up discussing the central part of the quoted passage. Here:

'And is your husband at home?'

'I expect him home tonight. He's been wounded, you know, and we've been applying for him home. He was home about six weeks ago--he's been in Scotland since then. Oh, he was wounded in the leg. Yes, he's all right, a great strapping fellow. But he's lame, he limps a bit. He expects he'll get his discharge--but I don't think he will. We married? We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war. Oh, he thought he'd like the life. He'd been through the South African War. No, he was sick of it, fed up. I'm living with his father and mother--I've no home of my own now. My people had a big farm--over a thousand acres--in Oxfordshire. Not like here--no. Oh, they're very good to me, his father and mother. Oh, yes, they couldn't be better. They think more of me than of their own daughters. But it's not like being in a place of your own, is it? You can't really do as you like. No, there's only me and his father and mother at home. Before the war? Oh, he was anything. He's had a good education--but he liked the farming better. Then he was a chauffeur. That's how he knew French. He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time--'

At this point the peacocks came round the corner on a puff of wind.

'Hello, Joey!' she called, and one of the birds came forward, on delicate legs. Its grey speckled back was very elegant, it rolled its full, dark-blue neck as it moved to her. She crouched down. 'Joey, dear,' she said, in an odd, saturnine caressive voice, 'you're bound to find me, aren't you?' She put her face forward, and the bird rolled his neck, almost touching her face with his beak, as if kissing her.

'He loves you,' I said. She twisted her face up at me with a laugh.

'Yes,' she said, 'he loves me, Joey does,'--then, to the bird--'and I love Joey, don't I. I do love Joey.' And she smoothed his feathers for a moment. Then she rose, saying: 'He's an affectionate bird.' I smiled at the roll of her 'bir-rrd'. 'Oh, yes, he is,' she protested. 'He came with me from my home seven years ago. Those others are his descendants--but they're not like Joey--are they, dee-urr?' Her voice rose at the end with a witch-like cry.
There's a lot there to highlight. First, Alfred is wounded in the leg and now limps. It was quite common in post WWI literature to have the soldier return with a wounded leg, suggesting the emasculation from the war experience. TS Eliot's The Wasteland and Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises are examples. It suggests a lack of virileness. This is a story about the ramifications of the war. Alfred has been gone to be a soldier from the first day of their marriage, he has been wounded, while away to the war he's fathered a child, and now has run off from that responsibility. The woman has lost her farm and land and is now dependant on her husband's family. The only emotional connection is the unnatural love between Maggie and Joey. Notice too the bird has "delicate legs," connecting him to Alfred in a strange way. The bird is a sublimated object for the love Maggie should have for her husband. The war has caused a very unnatural situation, unnatural lives.

I think I'm caught up now. :)

Dark Muse

04-30-2009, 10:31 PM

No I tend to disagree. I think he's doing it in male solidarity with Alfred. And I do think the dishonest communication is very central to the story's theme.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Finally, that is what I have been saying from the beigning. That he does it, just to look out for Alfred's back as some sort of inherent male bondagae thing. Afterall Lawerence is all about the "brotherhood" between men and the imporatance of male relationships with each other.

Janine

04-30-2009, 11:41 PM

I think you guys passed up discussing the central part of the quoted passage. Here:

There's a lot there to highlight. First, Alfred is wounded in the leg and now limps. It was quite common in post WWI literature to have the soldier return with a wounded leg, suggesting the emasculation from the war experience. TS Eliot's The Wasteland and Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises are examples. It suggests a lack of virileness. This is a story about the ramifications of the war. Alfred has been gone to be a soldier from the first day of their marriage, he has been wounded, while away to the war he's fathered a child, and now has run off from that responsibility. The woman has lost her farm and land and is now dependant on her husband's family. The only emotional connection is the unnatural love between Maggie and Joey. Notice too the bird has "delicate legs," connecting him to Alfred in a strange way. The bird is a sublimated object for the love Maggie should have for her husband. The war has caused a very unnatural situation, unnatural lives.

Wow, good to see you back, Virgil and everyone else....I thought everybody 'flew the coop'.....wait, was that a pun; do peacocks have coops?:confused:
Anyway, it was getting mightly lonely in here. I have been reading all the lastest posts.

I have decided next time I pick a short story, to make sure there are no peacocks in the story, especially 'wintry' ones and maybe no letters; that would be a good policy. And Virgil, about peacocks not being in England, are you sure of that? Lawrence's first novel was entitled "The White Peacock". I think they reside in England; why wouldn't they? They are not tropical birds!

Here is something I dug up just now on the web, you will like this,Virgil...

The word peacock actually derives from Old English péa “peacock”, and the –**** (or –hen) was added during the Middle English period in order to distinguish between males and females, as mentioned above. The Old English form comes from Latin pavo “peacock”. The peacock was a native of India, but it was domesticated and then taken to the West by traders. The Romans probably took it to Britain, where their name for the bird was adopted and changed by the Anglo-Saxons. The Latin word is thought to come from Greek taos “peacock”.

I knew they must be proud 'Italian' peacocks!:lol:

Well, I don't know where to begin. Maybe, I should let all you duke it out as to which character gets the most sympathy. At this point, jinjang, I am the one throwing my hands up in the air. I am not sure if I should add anything to all of these posts or just wait to post the next part of the text, which I worked on last night, highlighting the phrases and words that I think are significant and would be good to talk about.

Virgil, I did post that part of the text many pages back; but maybe, we did skip over it some. I agree with all you pointed out above about the text. I especially agree with this part and that last statement specifically;

The only emotional connection is the unnatural love between Maggie and Joey. Notice too the bird has "delicate legs," connecting him to Alfred in a strange way. The bird is a sublimated object for the love Maggie should have for her husband. The war has caused a very unnatural situation, unnatural lives.

These war/wasteland references and ideas are excellent and they go along with the text which comes next. Soon we will come to that part in the text, which I think is simply stunning and so reminiscent of the cold wasteland of the war, even though it is in reality England and the snowy area near the spot that the narrator finds Joey stranded. In some sense he brings him home, risking his own strength and possibilty of hurting is own leg, much like a soldier would rescue a fellow soldier in the war. I can't wait to post this section of text. I think it comes next. The more I read it the more the references to war stood out to me.

No question, the contrast between Eliza having a baby and Maggie being childless is very significant. There is so much in this story that one can consider a wasteland: the winter setting, the barren woman, the lack of love, the lack of communication, animals that are unnatural to the environment (peacocks in England?), lies and infidelity, the lack of honest emotional response.

I agree with this, also; you further expanded on my idea of the barren woman, Mrs Goytes in contrast to the fertile woman, Elise. There is much in this story that suggests war and a wasteland which is the result. The war is mimicked in the anger between husband and wife, in their powerplay, in the covert actions, sneaking behind each other such as the letter; suggestive of spying. The result of the war and of this angry marry is a 'wasteland' indeed.

I don't agree with that last sentence, but I do think Lawrence in general did fear female dominance.

Ok, I will buy that for now, but still not sure about it not relating to some feelings of 'duality' in Lawrence himself. Maybe, I was going too far; but he did have a fear or female dominance. Also, as far as the letter is concerned, I think he was protecting the rights of the husband to his privacy. I think the narrator came off as a decent individual and not intentionally siding with anyone. He simply, being male, did see this as an invasion of a man's privacy and his rights, no matter how vile he may have been. I see the narrator as more neutral in all of this. He is wedged between this warring couple. Think of him as the neutral country in the situation of two warring nations. He's not there to add to stir things up. Had he read the exact words he may even have subjected himself to the wrath of Maggie, who knows. Maybe, he was just plain chicken. Also, may men will 'avoid', rather than face something unpleasant, if they have the oportunity to. Tell me you have not done so yourself, Virgil,in certain situations.

Yes, thanks jinjang for those great definitions of 'wintry'....it's an interesting word.

Lord of the earth is a proud peacock:D. :lol:
You should know!

If I do not have anything more to add to all of your posts, do you think I could post it now, Virgil, or tomorrow?

Virgil

05-01-2009, 12:36 AM

How about we give the others a chance to comment on what I wrote this evening? And if no one comments by tomorrow night,, then post it.

jinjang

05-01-2009, 01:19 PM

Virgil

05-01-2009, 01:22 PM

Just a quick observation and will get to it more later.

Maggie said, "He'd been through the South African War" which happened between 1899-1902 while the WWI was between 1914 and 1918.
I got the impression that Alfred was a young man around mid 20's and late 20.
If the story happened during the WWI, that would make him close to 40 or older because Alfred went through South African War.

Of course, you all know more than I do and please correct me if I am wrong.

That's correct Jin. It also says I think that Allfred has been away for six years. So the time line just doesn't add up. The only thing I can think of is that there was some fighting in South Africa as part of WWI, and that's what Lawrence was referring to. Thanks.

Janine

05-01-2009, 02:14 PM

How about we give the others a chance to comment on what I wrote this evening? And if no one comments by tomorrow night,, then post it.

Ok, let me know because I have been working on the next part offline. It begins with the "When I awoke...."

Virgil, I didn't want my offline work to be invane; since it took me sometime to do (formating the bold type). I pretty much commented on your posts, but I can go back over them; see if I missed anything vital or want to further comment on. By now, we should be moving on a bit in the story, but I will wait. It may take till doomsday to complete discussing this story....but really, I'm in no rush.

I am just wondering what has become of our other two discussions in the threads for: The Awakening, that seems to have drifted out to sea; Richard II ; are we on Act V yet; eek...maybe I am the one that is lost? I was hoping we could finish those eventually.

Sapphire

05-01-2009, 05:34 PM

jinjang

05-01-2009, 05:40 PM

For me to Maggie the bird is more of a symbol of nostalgia. Something from her past she can hold on, and as she laments not having a place of her own, and she is living with Alfred's parents, Joey is something that Maggie can have that is her own. Joey is a source of comfort to her because she is neglected by her husband.
This is what I said in my first posting: “I wonder if Alfred was jealous of Joey because he sought his wife's affection despite his infidelity or because the bird symbolizes her nostalgia for her "affectionate" home.” We may have been agreeing, all along, on the fact that Joey is a reminder of her home.

Is Joey the bird the title “Wintry Peacok” or is it something broader in the theme of the story?

The more I consider Maggie's attitude and the langauge she usues, the way she responds, the more I am convinved that her lack or rage comes from the fact that she is not in the least bit surprsied.
There were definitely agitations in her private circles. It comes later in the story, I think. Why don’t we wait on this one before deciding that she has lack of rage?

Virgil, I appreciate all your thoughtful remarks, considering everyone's opinions. You are confuzzling-discombobulating-me, though. Let me try to follow your threads.

The peacock means the male element and the cow may mean the female counterpart. I think this is as far-fetched as the claim that Maggie was trying to attract the narrator. The Wintry Peacock may mean the lame cold irresponsible Alfred. The cow implicates the impudent indecisive Maggie or the whole female pack.

I am not yet sure what you are implying the wintry peacock means. Are you saying there was no sex between them hence the barren woman? No wonder then why Alfred felt like getting rid of the bird! Men seem to show aggression when they do not have sex for a long time, which is their vital weakness. Men tend to make too much of or to be easily controlled by their physical needs.

No question, the contrast between Eliza having a baby and Maggie being childless is very significant. There is so much in this story that one can consider a wasteland: the winter setting, the barren woman, the lack of love, the lack of communication, animals that are unnatural to the environment (peacocks in England?), lies and infidelity, the lack of honest emotional response.

I followed you correctly then with the quote above.

I missed this line from the text: “He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time” He was not in the war when he met Elise?!?

Janine and Virgil, you both mentioned that "Lawrence in general did fear female dominance," which implies Dark Muse was right on the assumption that the narrator was in taciturn pact with Alfred.

That's correct Jin. It also says I think that Allfred has been away for six years. So the time line just doesn't add up. The only thing I can think of is that there was some fighting in South Africa as part of WWI, and that's what Lawrence was referring to. Thanks.

Why would he use the capital letters in "the South African War?"

Virgil

05-01-2009, 06:30 PM

Just wow! :eek2: You all do not do half a job when you analyse a story, do you! Respect...

I just ran into this thread. Or well, Virgil pointed it out to me (thanks :D). I think I will spend the night reading :p I do not know that much about D.H.Lawrence, only read 3 of his books... The first one I even thought to be written by T.E. Lawrence :brickwall. The only reason why I started it, so I guess it was a good thing I messed those two names up for otherwise I might never have started on him.

Do I understand it right that there is a new story to begin on shortly?

Sapphire, three novels is quite a lot. Were you able to go back four or five pages from here to the beginning of this story? That's where the link to the online story is. Glad to have you with us. :) Don't worry about not knowing Lawrence. We'll fill in the details and just enjoy the story as we dissect it. ;)

Janine

05-01-2009, 06:37 PM

Just wow! :eek2: You all do not do half a job when you analyse a story, do you! Respect...

Hi Saphire, and welcome to the discussion group. Yes, we do really get into the 'nitty gritty' of the story. These are fascinating stories. As we look at the text closer, we usually see so many more things, which one missed on first readings. Lawrence was very complex and very symbolic in his writings; so we take chunks of text and discuss them as we go along.

Do I understand it right that there is a new story to begin on shortly? [/color]

Oh heavens - NO, not yet! We won't be starting a new story for sometime. I will just be posting the next part of this one soon; probably tonight. I have it ready to go with some commentary and hope all will comment on this beautifully and brilliantly written passage of the valley in the snow. I hope you can catch up. We had a flood of posts and already have filled a number of pages; which is unusal and amazing this month; but feel free to read the story and pick up the discussion at the point we are presently.

I just ran into this thread. Or well, Virgil pointed it out to me (thanks :D). I think I will spend the night reading :p I do not know that much about D.H.Lawrence, only read 3 of his books... The first one I even thought to be written by T.E. Lawrence :brickwall. The only reason why I started it, so I guess it was a good thing I messed those two names up for otherwise I might never have started on him.

Great, Virgil and I like to recruit new people. This month we have a 3 of more newbies which is wonderful. So welcome, Saphire! What a funny story - you thinking it was T.E.; although I think others have mixed the two Lawrence's up, as well. Curious - which of L's three books have you read? With the complexity of Lawrence's work factored it in, 3 books is a lot.

Virgil

05-01-2009, 06:46 PM

Is Joey the bird the title “Wintry Peacok” or is it something broader in the theme of the story?

I think it does refer to Joey, though as we come to a full understanding of the story it may become apparent that there is also a broader meaning.

Virgil, I appreciate all your thoughtful remarks, considering everyone's opinions. You are confuzzling-discombobulating-me, though. Let me try to follow your threads.
:lol: Yeah I tried to pack a lot in there in a effort to catch up. I understand. I may have been confusing.

The peacock means the male element and the cow may mean the female counterpart. I think this is as far-fetched as the claim that Maggie was trying to attract the narrator. The Wintry Peacock may mean the lame cold irresponsible Alfred. The cow implicates the impudent indecisive Maggie or the whole female pack.
What I'm trying to say is that the peacock is sybolic for the state of manhood in the story. The cow symbolism I admit is a little bit of a stretch. But Lawrence loves to set up contrasts and dualities. So that's why my thoughts went toward the cow as symbolic. Perhaps lawrence was thinking it and never found the narrative need to expand on it and make it significant.

I am not yet sure what you are implying the wintry peacock means. Are you saying there was no sex between them hence the barren woman? No wonder then why Alfred felt like getting rid of the bird! Men seem to show aggression when they do not have sex for a long time, which is their vital weakness. Men tend to make too much of or to be easily controlled by their physical needs.
I'm saying that the central theme of the story is that the war has reduced the state of relations between the sexes to a vacuous state: Women that are barren and men that are effete. Just keep this in mind as we red further.

I missed this line from the text: “He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time” He was not in the war when he met Elise?!?
I don't recall that line either. I will have to go back.

Janine and Virgil, you both mentioned that "Lawrence in general did fear female dominance," which implies Dark Muse was right on the assumption that the narrator was in taciturn pact with Alfred.
I won't say he feared women, though psychologically that may be going on. He did not think women should be in controlling situation. He was very anti-feminist.

Why would he use the capital letters in "the South African War?"
Yeah, I don't know. It dooesn't make sense. Lawrence was not exactly up on his history and hated current events. Maybe it's just a mistake.

Janine

05-01-2009, 06:51 PM

This is what I said in my first posting: “I wonder if Alfred was jealous of Joey because he sought his wife's affection despite his infidelity or because the bird symbolizes her nostalgia for her "affectionate" home.” We may have been agreeing, all along, on the fact that Joey is a reminder of her home.

I agree with most of that too, even though you seem to be directing that to Dark Muse. Forgive me for breaking in.

Is Joey the bird the title “Wintry Peacock” or is it something broader in the theme of the story?

That's a very good question. I don't yet know the answer, do you?

There were definitely agitations in her private circles. It comes later in the story, I think. Why don’t we wait on this one before deciding that she has lack of rage?

I agree, good idea. I could see rage within her; wait until we get to that part.

Virgil, I appreciate all your thoughtful remarks, considering everyone's opinions. You are confuzzling-discombobulating-me, though. Let me try to follow your threads.

He tends to do that to people! :lol:

I love those words you used, jinjang! ;):thumbs_up

The peacock means the male element and the cow may mean the female counterpart. I think this is as far-fetched as the claim that Maggie was trying to attract the narrator. The Wintry Peacock may mean the lame cold irresponsible Alfred. The cow implicates the impudent indecisive Maggie or the whole female pack.

Virgil tends to do this, too...think of the words in 'sexual' context. He gets a little overly excited.....sorry V, just joking with you! :lol: Our Virgil is something, isn't he? He is sort of the Dr. Ruth of the Lawrence thread...our medical advisor. I also, thought it was stretching it a bit, but who really knows how L thought?

I am not yet sure what you are implying the wintry peacock means. Are you saying there was no sex between them hence the barren woman? No wonder then why Alfred felt like getting rid of the bird! Men seem to show aggression when they do not have sex for a long time, which is their vital weakness. Men tend to make too much of or to be easily controlled by their physical needs.

That last statement is sooo true!

I followed you correctly then with the quote above.

I missed this line from the text: “He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time” He was not in the war when he met Elise?!?

Another good question...hummm....was he?

Janine and Virgil, you both mentioned that "Lawrence in general did fear female dominance," which implies Dark Muse was right on the assumption that the narrator was in taciturn pact with Alfred.

Yes, we did; I don't think he had no male feelings towards Alfred in this story; as they say "boys will be boys".

Why would he use the capital letters in "the South African War?"
I have no idea myself about this part. Maybe Virgil knows.

I will post more of the text after dinner...seems like we are ready for more now.....

Janine

05-01-2009, 08:28 PM

Here is the next section of text to be discussed:

When I awoke, the morning after this episode, I found the house darkened with deep, soft snow, which had blown against the large west windows, covering them with a screen. I went outside, and saw the valley all white and ghastly below me, the trees beneath black and thin looking like wire, the rock-faces dark between the glistening shroud, and the sky above sombre, heavy, yellowish-dark, much too heavy for this world below of hollow bluey whiteness figured with black. I felt I was in a valley of the dead.

Same passage, with my added highlighting and comments below:

When I awoke, the morning after this episode, I found the house darkened with deep, soft snow, which had blown against the large west windows, covering them with a screen. I went outside, and saw the valley all white and ghastly below me, the trees beneath black and thin looking like wire, the rock-faces dark between the glistening shroud, and the sky above sombre, heavy, yellowish-dark, much too heavy for this world below of hollow bluey whiteness figured with black. I felt I was in a valley of the dead.

Are these war references or what? This passage even reminds me of the trenches, such a well known symbol of WWI. This is surely a ‘wasteland’ , as Virgil pointed out. It’s a cold valley of death. The narrator (Lawence) is seeing this as a ghastly landscape and frightening image, not one of awesome winter beauty, with deep snow and peace. He is noticing instead “the trees beneath black and thin looking like wire.” This line struck me particularly and I thought immediately of barbed wire. Brilliant writing and symbolism in this section of descriptive prose; poetically beautiful and evoking a feeling of death and ghostly whiteness and cold all at the same time. The “rock-faces dark” and “sky above somber, heavy, yellowish-dark” could represent death masks themselves, fallen soldiers scattered on a battlefield, and the putrid air (sky) that lingers above a field of death. Note the stark and specific words he uses such as “shroud” and the “valley of the dead”. Also, I am sure that Lawrence’s recent close encounter with death, himself, has influenced his thinking and he is very much seeing this scene in the light of something much worse - death of the battlefield, the wasteland of war and death.

Same paragraph continued…

And I sensed I was a prisoner, for the snow was everywhere deep, and drifted in places.

Note how the narrator goes on to say "I sensed I was a prisoner," in that statement last statement. Wow, that is amazing writing; so meaningful. The timing is perfect for such a statement.

Same paragraph continued….

So all the morning I remained indoors, looking up the drive at the shrubs so heavily plumed with snow, at the gateposts raised high with a foot or more of extra whiteness. Or I looked down into the white-and-black valley that was utterly motionless and beyond life, a hollow sarcophagus. Nothing stirred the whole day--no plume fell off the shrubs, the valley was as abstracted as a grove of death. I looked over at the tiny, half-buried farms away on the bare uplands beyond the valley hollow, and I thought of Tible in the snow, of the black witch-like little Mrs. Goyte. And the snow seemed to lay me bare to influences I wanted to escape.

Same passage, with my added highlighting and comments below:

So all the morning I remained indoors, looking up the drive at the shrubs so [b]heavily plumed with snow, at the gateposts raised high with a foot or more of extra whiteness. Or I looked down into the white-and-black valley that was utterly motionless and beyond life, a hollow sarcophagus. Nothing stirred the whole day--no plume fell off the shrubs, the valley was as abstracted as a grove of death. I looked over at the tiny, half-buried farms away on the bare uplands beyond the valley hollow, and I thought of Tible in the snow, of the black witch-like little Mrs. Goyte. And [b]the snow seemed to lay me bare to influences I wanted to escape.

And this death/war description continues. I wonder what significance there is to the line “heavily plumed with snow”. It reminds me of a plumed military helmet and also a bird, or the plumes on the peacock’s tail, when he fans it, in his showy manner, to attract a female; although in winter the males lose much of that plumage; which could also be significant in terms of lost masculinity, virility…see how nice I stated that Virgil…
Remember how the wind threw the peacocks off balance..this too could indicate the loss of their control and masculinity, because their tail is diminished...see again how gentily I stated that but I am sure you get my meaning, V. *wink*

The contrast of “white-and-black” in the valley is specifically stated here; interesting. This line especially got to me: “utterly motionless and beyond life, a hollow sarcophagus.” Additionally, this line is pretty incredible: “abstracted as a grove of death”. Even the farms are referred to has "half-buried."

Then the narrator thinks of Tible and the “black witch-like little Mrs. Goyte"….he directly links her witch-like aspect to death, which is rather strange; yet that makes sense somehow. I found the last line beautifully stated. Hadn’t the peacock also escaped from the pursuit of Alfred?

Dark Muse

05-01-2009, 08:36 PM

Virgil

05-01-2009, 09:43 PM

Virgil tends to do this, too...think of the words in 'sexual' context. He gets a little overly excited.....sorry V, just joking with you! :lol: Our Virgil is something, isn't he? He is sort of the Dr. Ruth of the Lawrence thread...our medical advisor. I also, thought it was stretching it a bit, but who really knows how L thought?

:lol::lol: Just tell me that when we get to the bird almost dying in the snow that it doesn't remind one of a limp phallus. Tell me that Lawrence is not making a point about the state of manhood in post WWI society. ;) Sorry if I got "overly excited." :D

Janine

05-01-2009, 10:42 PM

:lol::lol: Just tell me that when we get to the bird almost dying in the snow that it doesn't remind one of a limp phallus. Tell me that Lawrence is not making a point about the state of manhood in post WWI society. ;) Sorry if I got "overly excited." :D

:lol: You are too much!!! Now what are the new people suppose to think? Shameful :blush: Virgil! :lol:

Now that we had our laugh, did you happen to notice, I posted the next part of the text and commented on it? I actually, have my own thoughts about limb Joey, when we get to that part, which goes along with my comments on the 'valley of death' scene. Hope you can directly comment on that part 3 posts back, Virgil.

Virgil

05-02-2009, 12:11 AM

Are these war references or what? This passage even reminds me of the trenches, such a well known symbol of WWI. This is surely a ‘wasteland’ , as Virgil pointed out. It’s a cold valley of death. The narrator (Lawence) is seeing this as a ghastly landscape and frightening image, not one of awesome winter beauty, with deep snow and peace. He is noticing instead “the trees beneath black and thin looking like wire.” This line struck me particularly and I thought immediately of barbed wire. Brilliant writing and symbolism in this section of descriptive prose; poetically beautiful and evoking a feeling of death and ghostly whiteness and cold all at the same time. The “rock-faces dark” and “sky above somber, heavy, yellowish-dark” could represent death masks themselves, fallen soldiers scattered on a battlefield, and the putrid air (sky) that lingers above a field of death. Note the stark and specific words he uses such as “shroud” and the “valley of the dead”. Also, I am sure that Lawrence’s recent close encounter with death, himself, has influenced his thinking and he is very much seeing this scene in the light of something much worse - death of the battlefield, the wasteland of war and death.

You know I thought it was a stretch at first (valley for trenches is a stretch but everything else fits) but you've convinced me Janine. Lawrence is bringing the war to the English countryside.

Note how the narrator goes on to say "I sensed I was a prisoner," in that statement last statement. Wow, that is amazing writing; so meaningful. The timing is perfect for such a statement.
Yes, I do think you're right.

And this death/war description continues. I wonder what significance there is to the line “heavily plumed with snow”. It reminds me of a plumed military helmet and also a bird, or the plumes on the peacock’s tail, when he fans it, in his showy manner, to attract a female; although in winter the males lose much of that plumage; which could also be significant in terms of lost masculinity, virility…see how nice I stated that Virgil…
Remember how the wind threw the peacocks off balance..this too could indicate the loss of their control and masculinity, because their tail is diminished...see again how gentily I stated that but I am sure you get my meaning, V. *wink*
I do think the peacock's loss of plumage is significant. Yes you make good points here.

The contrast of “white-and-black” in the valley is specifically stated here; interesting. This line especially got to me: “utterly motionless and beyond life, a hollow sarcophagus.” Additionally, this line is pretty incredible: “abstracted as a grove of death”. Even the farms are referred to has "half-buried."
Yes, it all fits.

Then the narrator thinks of Tible and the “black witch-like little Mrs. Goyte"….he directly links her witch-like aspect to death, which is rather strange; yet that makes sense somehow. I found the last line beautifully stated. Hadn’t the peacock also escaped from the pursuit of Alfred?
Not strange to me. You all think that lawrence is sympathetic to Maggie, but I don't. Lawrence blames women for the war, or at least for the state of affairs at home during and after the war. Men went off and died in the war but women stayed homed and had incredible power, power they never had before, and they used that power to reshape society. Lawrence didn't like that and thought women were to blame for the shape of modern life. I know it's hard to believe, but that's Lawrence's mindset.

What I also found interesting about the snow storm is its depth. I have never heard of England experiencing that kind of snow storm, either in literature or in the news. England for the most part has a very moderate climate for a norhtern Eurpean nation. Does anyone know how likely this kind of snow storm is in England? My thought was that it was very unnatural.

jinjang

05-03-2009, 03:29 PM

And this death/war description continues. I wonder what significance there is to the line “heavily plumed with snow”. It reminds me of a plumed military helmet and also a bird, or the plumes on the peacock’s tail, when he fans it, in his showy manner, to attract a female; although in winter the males lose much of that plumage; which could also be significant in terms of lost masculinity, virility…Remember how the wind threw the peacocks off balance..this too could indicate the loss of their control and masculinity, because their tail is diminished...
This part made me smile…

I agree with Janine about the negative war-influenced feelings the narrator is having that morning. He may be feeling he got caught in a skirmish between a couple. Did the author participate in the war – was he a soldier? If the snow was giving him the gloom, what does the sentence below imply?

“And the snow seemed to lay me bare to influences I wanted to escape.”

What kind of influence he is trying to guard against? I originally thought that he was fighting the attraction he had toward her. This ambiguity appears to me that the author is intentionally leading us to several directions. I could interpret the whole paragraph this way: Seeing Maggie’s unhappiness, he meant to alleviate her gloom by hiding the truth as we sometimes do in reality. Now this heavy snow with its negative influence is forcing him to think against the female group. Far-fetched?

Not strange to me. You all think that lawrence is sympathetic to Maggie, but I don't. Lawrence blames women for the war, or at least for the state of affairs at home during and after the war. Men went off and died in the war but women stayed homed and had incredible power, power they never had before, and they used that power to reshape society. Lawrence didn't like that and thought women were to blame for the shape of modern life. I know it's hard to believe, but that's Lawrence's mindset.

Given Maggie’s request of reading the letter was sudden, his original intention could have been benevolent but his final feeling may have turned to sympathize with Alfred. Or he had the contradictory feelings all along as I have been having.

What I also found interesting about the snow storm is its depth. I have never heard of England experiencing that kind of snow storm, either in literature or in the news. England for the most part has a very moderate climate for a norhtern Eurpean nation. Does anyone know how likely this kind of snow storm is in England? My thought was that it was very unnatural.

It is definitely unnatural. They just had a snowstorm in February this year and the news said it hadn’t happened in two decades. The unnatural snowstorm may mean the whole situation with Maggie and Alfred is unnatural due to the war. The narrator may have felt maladroit to interfere between a couple and it has been nagging on him.

But I disagree with you where you seem to think that somehow Maggie's feelings for Joey are a justification for Alfred and that Joey is the problem in their marriage and responsible for Alfred being unfaithful and that Maggie is to blame by turning her affections to Joey.

This response is only to Dark Muse. For others, please ignore this part if it makes you uneasy. I would not like to appear dismissive to Dark Muse. I would like to respect everyone’s opinions.

I think you are twisting my opinions here: I do not think I said Joey was their marriage problem and I do not blame Joey for Alfred’s infidelity. I may have said she clings to Joey as if the bird can solve her real problem. Apparently Joey does not solve her needs of affection. Otherwise Maggie would be content with Joey’s love. Maggie’s cooing with Joey annoys Alfred and it may have been Maggie’s intention to annoy him, which is pathetic. Maggie forgets Joey as easily as she does the narrator.

I also disagreed with you on an eye-for-an eye response, but I did not argue with you on that point.

Let us refrain from our “combative” discussions for others and let us agree to disagree on some parts.

Janine

05-04-2009, 12:10 AM

You know I thought it was a stretch at first (valley for trenches is a stretch but everything else fits) but you've convinced me Janine. Lawrence is bringing the war to the English countryside.
Really, that surprises me; I thought you would see it right away, Virgil. I especially was struck by the dark rocks protruding out of the white; also the mention of wire in the context of the bare trees or winter in the snow. I also thought of "Women in Love" and the ending. Everything pointed to death and if not a universal wasteland then a personal reflection of how Lawrence was viewing it all at that time. This was the period in which he and Frieda were driven out of Cornwall because the English police thought they were involved in spying for the German side; of course it was preposterous, but Lawrence had to go against the board of examiners and he was mortified at this being literally 'layed bare' and humiliated, before the medical board for the draft; of course we all know he was exempt due to his bad lungs to report to military duty; it still must have been fresh in his mind when he wrote this story. Now I am wonder what jinjang quoted in his post about being layed bare to influences I wanted to escape. That could also be applied to some degree, to the ordeal Lawrence had personally had to endure; which he later wrote about in "Kangaroo", his next novel.

I requote:

And the snow seemed to lay me bare to influences I wanted to escape.

Snow and frozen land always represented to Lawrence the negation of life and of death - think back to our discussion on 'The Man Who Loved Islands'. Also, the final scenes in WIL. Think how Lawrence gravitated towards the south and the sun and it's life giving forces - think of our discussion on 'Sun'.

Yes, I do think you're right.
If you read it over a few times you will see it clearly. I didn't see the full correlation on first reading either. I just thought the scene beautifully written and really incredibly graphic with the contrast of white and black.

I do think the peacock's loss of plumage is significant. Yes you make good points here. Yes, in winter and in a wasteland he is diminished, as he would be in wartime. Man is diminished now by war, to Lawrence's way of thinking. Doesn't Alfred come home with a wound, a limp. Now his wife will further diminish his manhood no doubt with her witch-like manor and resentments towards him. Perhaps in this way you are right, now the narrator sees Alfred in the flesh and he being man can relate to his maleness and his his wounded manhood. I think during this story the narrator feels something for each of the characters - the female first but he is wary and then the male because of the male bondage element. I think both are temporary and as I said before this story is a sort of incident or slice of life even. Not doubt soon after this he and his wife leave England and never see Maggie and Alfred again. Even though the narrator (Lawrence) didn't go to the war front; he felt this deep hatred and humiliation in front of the authorities and the war medical board; which is carried over in the pathos and death qualities, when viewing this valley scene shrouded in deep snow. Indeed to L, it is the 'valley of death.'

Yes, it all fits. It does and perhaps more will be revealed further along to relate to this part and these deeper meanings. Wow, Lawrence is amazing, isn't he?

Not strange to me. You all think that lawrence is sympathetic to Maggie, but I don't. Lawrence blames women for the war, or at least for the state of affairs at home during and after the war. Men went off and died in the war but women stayed homed and had incredible power, power they never had before, and they used that power to reshape society. Lawrence didn't like that and thought women were to blame for the shape of modern life. I know it's hard to believe, but that's Lawrence's mindset.

No, you have me wrong. I don't think he is totally sympathetic to anyone really, not for any duration of time. I think he is temporarily sympathetic to each at different junctures in the story. I think basically, the narrator remains neutral at the end. I don't believe Lawrence blames women for the war. Where are you getting that from, Virgil? If you look at WIL and realise that's also a war novel, war themes throughout and in the background (subtext), tell me how women in general are responsible for the war? Boy, I am confused on this one. In England, women stayed home and helped the war effort. Did you ever hear of the Land Girls program? They didn't have it so easy. The worked the farms, while the men were off in the war. I sort of take offense to the idea that the woman started the war. I think your information on all this is a bit off. I don't agree; women were not responsible at this time for modern life. I don't believe Lawrence believed that. I read too many biographies of the author to flatly dispute that. Women were just coming into their own. If you watch old WWI and WWII films on Britian; the woman served their country at home very admirably, just as they did in America, and they cared for their homes and their children.

What I also found interesting about the snow storm is its depth. I have never heard of England experiencing that kind of snow storm, either in literature or in the news. England for the most part has a very moderate climate for a norhtern Eurpean nation. Does anyone know how likely this kind of snow storm is in England? My thought was that it was very unnatural.

Yes, and that would be interesting to research. I think you may have hit on something there or maybe while Lawrence and Frieda occuppied a homestead in that part of England it was a particularly harsh storm or winter. But maybe the unnatural aspect lent itself to this story perfectly. Of course, it does.

This part made me smile…

I agree with Janine about the negative war-influenced feelings the narrator is having that morning. He may be feeling he got caught in a skirmish between a couple. Did the author participate in the war – was he a soldier? If the snow was giving him the gloom, what does the sentence below imply?

“And the snow seemed to lay me bare to influences I wanted to escape.”

jinjang, I basically addressed your question in Virgil's post, when I brought up the place the author had experienced in his life personally and what his thought process might be in relation to the war. I like this statement of yours, jinjang, "He may be feeling he got caught in a skirmish between a couple." I really believe that is the case. He got dragged into this whole affair with the neighboring couple.

No, Lawrence did not participate in the war, however he was humiliated before the medical board for his physical appearance, by now he was very thin and weakened; he had nearly died of a severe bout with pnemonia right before writing this story; he had had it before and more than a few near brushes with death. He had bad lungs all his life, which he referred to as his broncials. In reality, it was most likely a predisposition to full-fledged TB, which he was finally diagnosed with in Mexico several years later. Lawrence died in his early 40's. You can read a short biography on his life on this site.

What kind of influence he is trying to guard against? I originally thought that he was fighting the attraction he had toward her. This ambiguity appears to me that the author is intentionally leading us to several directions. I could interpret the whole paragraph this way: Seeing Maggie’s unhappiness, he meant to alleviate her gloom by hiding the truth as we sometimes do in reality. Now this heavy snow with its negative influence is forcing him to think against the female group. Far-fetched?

No, not far-fetched at all. I am wondering about this statement and coming up with a several different explanations or interpretations. I think I aired most of them in Virgil's post and in here in the beginning. I don't think it inaccurate to say that the narrator wavers throughout the story with sympathies for all the characters; perhaps the only one he stays consistent with is poor Joey, although he remarks at one point that he is somewhat afraid of him.

Given Maggie’s request of reading the letter was sudden, his original intention could have been benevolent but his final feeling may have turned to sympathize with Alfred. Or he had the contradictory feelings all along as I have been having.

Yes, I agree; I think his sympathising wavers; at the end I think he is neutral observer of what has transpired. He leaves the scene and what more can it all mean to him?

It is definitely unnatural. They just had a snowstorm in February this year and the news said it hadn’t happened in two decades. The unnatural snowstorm may mean the whole situation with Maggie and Alfred is unnatural due to the war. The narrator may have felt maladroit to interfere between a couple and it has been nagging on him.

Good point you are both making. The description is seemingly very unworldly and unnatural as well. It's not your typical cozy pretty snow scene, is it?

Left that last part for Dark Muse to answer.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 12:58 AM

I think you are twisting my opinions here: I do not think I said Joey was their marriage problem and I do not blame Joey for Alfred’s infidelity. I may have said she clings to Joey as if the bird can solve her real problem. Apparently Joey does not solve her needs of affection. Otherwise Maggie would be content with Joey’s love. Maggie’s cooing with Joey annoys Alfred and it may have been Maggie’s intention to annoy him, which is pathetic. Maggie forgets Joey as easily as she does the narrator.

I also disagreed with you on an eye-for-an eye response, but I did not argue with you on that point.

Let us refrain from our “combative” discussions for others and let us agree to disagree on some parts.

Some of the things you said in your earlier posts alluded to the fact that you seemed to view Joey as being an interfernce within thier marraige. You seemed to place more responsiblity on Maggie's affection for the bird over Alfred's actions.

I have nothing more to say upon the issue as we shall eternally disagree.

BienvenuJDC

05-04-2009, 01:09 AM

Some of the things you said in your earlier posts alluded to the fact that you seemed to view Joey as being an interfernce within thier marraige. You seemed to place more responsiblity on Maggie's affection for the bird over Alfred's actions.

I have nothing more to say upon the issue as we shall eternally disagree.

I'm not up on reading everyone's comments, but I would have to say that concerning problems in every relationship, there are two sides to every coin. And in the words of the immortal Forrest Gump, "That's all I gots to say 'bout that!"

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 01:23 AM

And I do not belive anything excuces infidelity.

Janine

05-04-2009, 02:07 AM

And I do not belive anything excuces infidelity.

As jingang said "I have nothing more to say upon the issue as we shall eternally disagree."...so why can't all of this cease? I don't think any one of us are here to pass moral judgement on anyone and as far as our own personal beliefs are concerned, that is up to the individual who is posting; his private affair. As the bible says "Let those without sin cast the first stone". I would rather refrain from casting any stones myself. I just want to proceed with actually discussing this story and the text.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 02:13 AM

Fictional characters are there to be judged

Janine

05-04-2009, 02:22 AM

Fictional characters are there to be judged

But, is that the main objective of discussing this story? It's odd because in "The Awakening" discussion, if I read you correctly, you were not opposed to Edna and her moral code, but here you are so against the characters. I am rather miffed myself at this point. We have been discussing some important characteristics of the story today and yesterday as well, but you haven't commented on one of those aspects, just the morality of Alfred. There are many immoral characters in literature. Look at Anna in Anna Karenina; look at many a husband in novels who strayed. I am not sure what point you are trying to make in continuing to disagree with others, who said they would rather refrain from further discussing it; and striking out at the moral fiber of any of the characters in this story just seems pointless to me and tiresome at this time. Also, I have been told by others, simply reading along with this thread that it's distracting to the main focus of discussing this story.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 02:38 AM

I am not one to keep my opinons restrained, after my initail purge toward the beginning I had let the issue drop, it is others who have continued to bring it up again and I have simply responded to thier own comments.

Not strange to me. You all think that lawrence is sympathetic to Maggie, but I don't. Lawrence blames women for the war, or at least for the state of affairs at home during and after the war. Men went off and died in the war but women stayed homed and had incredible power, power they never had before, and they used that power to reshape society. Lawrence didn't like that and thought women were to blame for the shape of modern life. I know it's hard to believe, but that's Lawrence's mindset.

While I naturally personally like Maggie I agree that for Lawrence she was likely not intended to be a sympathetic character. As well he rarely does portray his women in a very positive light within his stories, and much of the imagery surrounding Maggie in the descriptions of her can be seen as having a negative connotation to them.

More than once throughout the text she is referred to being "wtichy" or "witch-like"

There is also the fact that at the beginning when she first wishes to have the letter read to her, she does come off as being flirtatious in her efforts to try and cajole the narrator to read the letter to her. And her demeanor during the reading of the letter seems to be scornful and mocking.

She does not appear outwardly broken up about the news. Even though she strongly suspects Alfred, she takes it in a more callous way, laughing at points during the reading, which I imagine was in a bitter and malicious way.

jinjang

05-04-2009, 11:59 AM

Cheers to Dark Muse for her tenacious spirit!
Please Janine, you have been a great pilot of this discussion. I am sure you will land us safely to the runway. I would like to reach our destination even if it has been a little a bumpy ride.

I am still quite puzzled on the narrator's intention. When a man knows he is being cajoled, does he feel flattered or does he feel alert against the person cajoling him? The answer to this question may prove or disprove Virgil's claim below.

Not strange to me. You all think that lawrence is sympathetic to Maggie, but I don't. Lawrence blames women for the war, or at least for the state of affairs at home during and after the war. Men went off and died in the war but women stayed homed and had incredible power, power they never had before, and they used that power to reshape society. Lawrence didn't like that and thought women were to blame for the shape of modern life. I know it's hard to believe, but that's Lawrence's mindset.

Do men or the author really felt that the men have to get the control back as they want the remote control?

Maybe we should move on to the next part of the text... to learn more.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 01:04 PM

Janine

05-04-2009, 03:04 PM

In trying to discover the narrators intention I think that it is telling than when he finished reading the letter his first thought is to pass a judgement on Maggie rather than Alfred, he never expresses any thoughts of disapproval about Alfred but he interrogates Maggie on how she happened to come by the letter and scolds her for her going behind her husband's back, while seeming to be apathetic to Alfred's betrayal.

Dark Muse, I still think you are being very harsh on the narrator. He is defending something, a human privacy and basic right, that nowdays is actually a federal offense and punishable by law; referring to reading mail addressed to another person, be it her husband or anyone, for that matter. In the parts you quoted he asked who the letter was addressed to and I would do the same before consenting to reading any letter. Second, he says "it is rather behind his back". He used 'rather' and it shows he is ambivalent about proceeding to read this letter. He is a little wishy-washy here using that word, because at this point, he is not yet made up his mind to read the letter to Maggie. He could have kept what he read to himself, once he has read it silently. He also is not aware at that point that Maggie will tell him she knows the opposite and that the child is her husbands, nor does he know she will scoff at it or even laugh. The narrator in the beginning is quite in the dark. I think this is why Lawrence chose to present this story in 3rd person narration. We encounter the various impressions and feelings as he would, as he went along, in a sense 'playing it by ear', as the expression goes.

jinjang, I like this part of your statement, "a great pilot of this discussion. I am sure you will land us safely to the runway." I will do my best to get us safely to the runway....I somehow have managed it before. Thanks for the compliment.......hhaha...then I may be the hero, not Joey..haha...Are we having fun yet?

Yes, I wish to post more text to discuss; hopefully I can do that tonight. My home situation is problematic at this time, plus I have to go out to a meeting, be there at 6. I will be home after 10 EST. I stay up late so I will post more text then. I'd do it now but I don't have the time.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 03:38 PM

That parts I quoted happend after he read the letter and knew the contents. He readily read it without a thought and knew from her that it was too her husband.

This was before he read that letter:

"Would you mind reading a letter for me, in French?" she said, her face
immediately black and bitter-looking. She glanced at me, frowning.

"Not at all," I said.

"It's a letter to my husband," she said, still scrutinising.

He then reads the letter after she told hin that it was a letter to her husband.

And once he finnished already reading it, he than began to question her on it. He had no problem reading someones priavte words for himself, he only questioned it when she than wanted to know what it said.

When he first started reading the letter he said:

Therefore I read with a callous heart the effusions of the Belgian
damsel.

By saying he read it with a callous heart seems to suggest while reading it he was not mortally conflicted in the invasation of privacy.

jinjang

05-04-2009, 05:57 PM

In trying to discover the narrators intention I think that it is telling than when he finished reading the letter his first thought is to pass a judgement on Maggie rather than Alfred, he never expresses any thoughts of disapproval about Alfred but he interrogates Maggie on how she happened to come by the letter and scolds her for her going behind her husband's back, while seeming to be apathetic to Alfred's betrayal.

This proves how different our perceptions and interpretations are. The narrator later on interrogates Alfred just as much. I may be risking going ahead of the discussion. The exact same quotes you listed made me think that the narrator is hesitant and uncomfortable of intruding, even though he is being asked, in their privacy. Since the whole story is of 15 pages, I reread it. My impression on the good intention of the narrator has not changed.

A respectable author is a sagacious and indifferent observer of human lives. The narrator is in place of the author in this story, I believe, who happens to be entangled in the story involuntarily.

"Nothing more trite and vulgar in the world, than such a love letter - no newspaper more obvious.
Therefore, I read with a callous heart the effusions of the Belgian damsel. But then I gathered my attention."

I think his "callous" heart is toward to the letter and Elise, not to Maggie. But, he softens, as he "gathers his attention," to the letter writer since Elise is also an unhappy girl as he figures out in the letter.

The only difference I observed this time is that the narrator can understand Alfred quickly as of the same gender, while Maggie remains mysterious and impossible for him to comprehend.

BienvenuJDC

05-04-2009, 06:01 PM

Good thoughts jinjang...

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 06:05 PM

I do not see him as interrogating Alfred, but rather reassuring Alfred. He tells Alfred more or less that is "secert" is safe, that he did not reveal the truth to Maggie, but he does not in fact pass any judgement against Alfred, nor does he make any mention of Alfred going behind Maggie's back the way in which he suggests that Maggie went behind his.

jinjang

05-04-2009, 06:11 PM

Oh... I may have to be ahead a little bit.

"What about the other woman?" I asked.
"Who?"
"Elise."
"Oh" - he shifted uneasily - "she was all right-"
"You'll be getting back to her," I said...
He looked at me. Then he made a grimace with his mouth."

He asked series of questions...possibly more to Alfred than to Maggie.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 06:14 PM

jinjang

05-04-2009, 06:16 PM

Good thoughts jinjang...

Welcome back!

jinjang

05-04-2009, 06:19 PM

First of all though it was Alfred who first apporached and questioned him, and I do not see anything critial in anything the narrator says, rather it seems more just like a couple of guys chewing the fat as it were.

That is precisely why we should wait until we get to that part of the story so that I can read everyone's point of view and, then, I may sway to one or the other side.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 06:29 PM

That is precisely why we should wait until we get to that part of the story so that I can read everyone's point of view and, then, I may sway to one or the other side.

You are the one who first brought the ending up.

I just think that if the narrator was truly morally concerned with the issue of invading their privacy than when Maggie first handed him the letter and pretty much told him to read her a letter that was addressed to her husband, he would have questioned it before he even began to read.

But it was not until he became aware of the contents inside the letter that he than began to scrutinize Maggie about it, but he knew from the start that he was reading a letter that was not intended for her.

jinjang

05-04-2009, 07:29 PM

I differ on that with you because he consented to read the letter before he was aware of what he is reading. He thought he was helping Maggie with French.

If he flatly refused to read it, then there would have been no story for us to discuss or argue. :) His initial involuntary and hesitant involvement into the couple's life does not negate his good intention, though, with curiosity of an author.

You lack a sense of humor!

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 07:37 PM

Perhaps he prematurely says yes to her request, but she does tell him that the letter is for her husband before he acutally starts to read it.

"Would you mind reading a letter for me, in French?" she said, her face
immediately black and bitter-looking. She glanced at me, frowning.

"Not at all," I said.

"It's a letter to my husband," she said, still scrutinising.

BienvenuJDC

05-04-2009, 07:56 PM

I don't think that I will continue with this thread. There is way to much arguing and not enough discussing. We need to respect one another's comments.

Dark Muse

05-04-2009, 08:29 PM

Me and jinjang were just entertaining ourselves untill the next portion of the story is posted, and I do not think she feels I am being disrespectful simply becasue I disagree with what she says.

Virgil

05-04-2009, 10:06 PM

It is definitely unnatural. They just had a snowstorm in February this year and the news said it hadn’t happened in two decades. The unnatural snowstorm may mean the whole situation with Maggie and Alfred is unnatural due to the war. The narrator may have felt maladroit to interfere between a couple and it has been nagging on him.

I looked England's annual snowfall and while a snowstorm like this can happen, it is rare. Mostly England gets less then ten inches of total snaow for the year.

Really, that surprises me; I thought you would see it right away, Virgil. I especially was struck by the dark rocks protruding out of the white; also the mention of wire in the context of the bare trees or winter in the snow. I also thought of "Women in Love" and the ending. Everything pointed to death and if not a universal wasteland then a personal reflection of how Lawrence was viewing it all at that time.
Well, I'm human. :D I read the story rather quickly I admit. I have read it again since and probably need at least one more reading.

This was the period in which he and Frieda were driven out of Cornwall because the English police thought they were involved in spying for the German side...
Janine, can you look up when and where this story was written. You have that book.

Snow and frozen land always represented to Lawrence the negation of life and of death - think back to our discussion on 'The Man Who Loved Islands'. Also, the final scenes in WIL. Think how Lawrence gravitated towards the south and the sun and it's life giving forces - think of our discussion on 'Sun'.
Definitely.

No, you have me wrong. I don't think he is totally sympathetic to anyone really, not for any duration of time. I think he is temporarily sympathetic to each at different junctures in the story. I think basically, the narrator remains neutral at the end.
I don't know if the narrator remains neutral, but I agree he is not sympathetic toward anyone. He does take a character's point of view here and there, but I can't find anyone but the older folk sympathetic.

I don't believe Lawrence blames women for the war. Where are you getting that from, Virgil? If you look at WIL and realise that's also a war novel, war themes throughout and in the background (subtext), tell me how women in general are responsible for the war?
Janine I have to find the essays. He didn't blame them for starting the war, but for how life evolved afterward. These were non-fiction essays, so he is quite catagorical.

Yes, though I think I was a little harsh on Maggie. In my second reading I do think this is the type of woman that Lawrence blames. She seems to be a victum of the war circumstances.

[QUOTE]More than once throughout the text she is referred to being "wtichy" or "witch-like"
that is not necessarily a bad thing for Lawrence. Lawrence is quite pagan D-M. I think you would like some of his later stuff where he fully develops those ideas. This is not one of his later stories so it's not clear here how to take his witchy comments.

There is also the fact that at the beginning when she first wishes to have the letter read to her, she does come off as being flirtatious in her efforts to try and cajole the narrator to read the letter to her. And her demeanor during the reading of the letter seems to be scornful and mocking.

She does not appear outwardly broken up about the news. Even though she strongly suspects Alfred, she takes it in a more callous way, laughing at points during the reading, which I imagine was in a bitter and malicious way.
In my second reading I think she came across as holding back the anger. While it's a little strange, I don't think it's as unusuall as I first thought.

Janine

05-04-2009, 10:49 PM

First off, I have read all posts from tonight, think that was about 2 pages. I have to say I still agree with jinjang and with Bienvenu on some of the finer points about the letter. I don't wish to argue further on those points; it's rather meaningless, if we all have a different opinion anyway. I hope now we can move on with the story. I have been getting together the next part of the text, which is nearly ready to post. First though, I wish to answer your post, Virgil.

I looked England's annual snowfall and while a snowstorm like this can happen, it is rare. Mostly England gets less then ten inches of total snaow for the year.

Interesting, but was that before 'global warming'? :lol: I don't really want to go there, V.;) or we will have another contravesy... Ok, lets put it this way; was that the average snowfall in England in the year this story took place, say 1917?

Well, I'm human. :D I read the story rather quickly I admit. I have read it again since and probably need at least one more reading.

Get out, Virgil, are you really 'human'; I thought you a Roman god all this time. Ok then, you are forgiven and possibly by a third reading, you will change your mind a dozen times. I read this story so many times now, I am even a bit confused. It is short enough to read several times over.

Janine, can you look up when and where this story was written. You have that book.
Yes, I have that book; but it revealed very little about this story, nothing at all significant. I will look through it and some others I have; to see if I can dig anymore up. If you had read my introduction, my dear friend, it does give a bit of the background of where Lawrence and Frieda were living at the time. Here I am reposting that for your benefit:

Two entries from Wikipedia

In late 1917, after constant harassment by the military authorities, Lawrence was forced to leave Cornwall at three days' notice under the terms of the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA). This persecution was later described in an autobiographical chapter of his Australian novel Kangaroo, published in 1923. He spent some months in early 1918 in the small, rural village of Hermitage near Newbury, Berkshire. He then lived for just under a year (mid-1918 to early 1919) at Mountain Cottage, Middleton-by-Wirksworth, Derbyshire, where he wrote one of his most poetic short stories, The Wintry Peacock. Until 1919 he was compelled by poverty to shift from address to address and barely survived a severe attack of influenza.

One of D. H. Lawrence's houses (Mountain Cottage), in which he lived
with Frieda in 1918-19, stands below the B5023 road on the outskirts of
Middleton-by-Wirksworth, approximately 1.5 mile NW of Wirksworth. Lawrence also reputedly spent a lot of time at Woodland Cottage on the opposite side of New Road. While staying in Middleton in the bitter winter of 1918-19, Lawrence wrote the short story A Wintry Peacock (published 1921).

Note: he had nearly died of influenza that winter.

Definitely. Yes, I thought you would agree about that.

I don't know if the narrator remains neutral, but I agree he is not sympathetic toward anyone. He does take a character's point of view here and there, but I can't find anyone but the older folk sympathetic.

I agree with this. His veiw point also seems to sometimes fluctuate during the story; at least, to me. In some ways, we are living the experience sequencially, as the narrator is taking us through his own experience.

Janine I have to find the essays. He didn't blame them for starting the war, but for how life evolved afterward. These were non-fiction essays, so he is quite catagorical.

Right, I don't think you worded that last post of yours clearly concerning this matter; it will be more interesting to read the actual essays.

This is curious and may be significant. Today I looked on the back cover of my paperback of a small collection of L's short stories "England, My England", which happens to contain this story, "Wintry Peacock". On back cover:

The hero of England, My England stands for a whole social ethos, whose decline Lawrence pinpoints with bitter precision.

The other stories in this collection are concerned with outward alliances and inner compulsions. And in the dialogue of reason and the unconscious it is the dark forces whose call is the most insistent...

Note: the first reference is to the individual story 'England, My England' in the England, My England short story collection.

The second paragraph refers to the choice of these particular stories, of which 'Wintry Peacock' is included.

Yes, though I think I was a little harsh on Maggie. In my second reading I do think this is the type of woman that Lawrence blames. She seems to be a victum of the war circumstances.

Now which is it; you were too harsh or she is to be blamed? This statement of yours doesn't really seem to be consistent or am I missing something? In conclusion then, you do see Maggie as a war victim?

that is not necessarily a bad thing for Lawrence. Lawrence is quite pagan D-M. I think you would like some of his later stuff where he fully develops those ideas. This is not one of his later stories so it's not clear here how to take his witchy comments.

How true that is. He most certainly did like the 'witch' aspects of a woman physically speaking, the dark eyes are always so prominent, reminescent of Miriam's (Jesse Chamber's) eyes, I think. This is quite odd; I have been trying to read all the rest of the L stories I have not read, so today I was reading out of volume III and such a strange 'late' story, Virgil; have your ever read 'The Last Laugh'? I might urge you to read it, so you can explain it to me. This one was truly modern and rather otherworldly. It's definitely one I have to read a number of times, before I get any clearcut ideas on it. It's the most bizzare Lawrence I have read so far.

In my second reading I think she came across as holding back the anger. While it's a little strange, I don't think it's as unusuall as I first thought.

I felt that way and I have read the story about four times now. I felt she restrained herself, but the anger was right below the surface, with a lot of tension there, ready to errupt at any given time.

After you answer this one, I will post next part of the text.

Virgil

05-04-2009, 11:39 PM

Yes, though I think I was a little harsh on Maggie. In my second reading I do think this is the type of woman that Lawrence blames. She seems to be a victum of the war circumstances.

No, a terrible typo. I forgot the "not" in the second sentence. I meant to say, "In my second reading I do think this is not the type of woman that Lawrence blames."

How true that is. He most certainly did like the 'witch' aspects of a woman physically speaking, the dark eyes are always so prominent, reminescent of Miriam's (Jesse Chamber's) eyes, I think. This is quite odd; I have been trying to read all the rest of the L stories I have not read, so today I was reading out of volume III and such a strange 'late' story, Virgil; have your ever read 'The Last Laugh'?
I don't remember it. But laughing seems to be very important in this story. Maggie's laugh during the reading of the letter, and the narrator's laugh at the very end of the story.

jinjang

05-04-2009, 11:45 PM

Ambiguity is at the core of the story. Lawrence, may he rest in peace!

If he read this thread of our discussions, I am sure he would laugh out loud because his Rorschach inkblot test is successful with us.

Anybody can pick a quote in order to direct the argument in their advantage.

Janine

05-04-2009, 11:49 PM

Virgil, I am posting this part of the post but hope you note my previous post which answers/comments on yours.

NEXT PART OF THE TEXT:

In the faint glow of the half-clear light that came about four o'clock in the afternoon, I was roused to see a motion in the snow away below, near where the thorn trees stood very black and dwarfed, like a little savage group, in the dismal white. I watched closely. Yes, there was a flapping and a struggle--a big bird, it must be, labouring in the snow. I wondered. Our biggest birds, in the valley, were the large hawks that often hung flickering opposite my windows, level with me, but high above some prey on the steep valleyside. This was much too big for a hawk--too big for any known bird. I searched in my mind for the largest English wild birds, geese, buzzards.

Still it laboured and strove, then was still, a dark spot, then struggled again. I went out of the house and down the steep slope, at risk of breaking my leg between the rocks. I knew the ground so well--and yet I got well shaken before I drew near the thorn-trees.

Yes, it was a bird. It was Joey. It was the grey-brown peacock with a blue neck. He was snow-wet and spent. 'Joey--Joey, de-urr!' I said, staggering unevenly towards him. He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

'Joey dee-uur! Dee-urr!' I said caressingly to him. And at last he lay still, blinking, in the surged and furrowed snow, whilst I came near and touched him, stroked him, gathered him under my arm. He stretched his long, wetted neck away from me as I held him, none the less he was quiet in my arm, too tired, perhaps, to struggle. Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.

He was not so heavy as I expected, yet it was a struggle to get up to the house with him again. We set him down, not too near the fire, and gently wiped him with cloths. He submitted, only now and then stretched his soft neck away from us, avoiding us helplessly. Then we set warm food by him. I put it to his beak, tried to make him eat. But he ignored it. He seemed to be ignorant of what we were doing, recoiled inside himself inexplicably. So we put him in a basket with cloths, and left him crouching oblivious. His food we put near him. The blinds were drawn, the house was warm, it was night. Sometimes he stirred, but mostly he huddled still, leaning his queer crested head on one side. He touched no food, and took no heed of sounds or movements. We talked of brandy or stimulants. But I realized we had best leave him alone.

In the night, however, we heard him thumping about. I got up anxiously with a candle. He had eaten some food, and scattered more, making a mess. And he was perched on the back of a heavy arm-chair. So I concluded he was recovered, or recovering.

Now the text with my highlighting:

In the faint glow of the half-clear light that came about four o'clock in the afternoon, I was roused to see a motion in the snow away below, near where the thorn trees stood very black and dwarfed, like a little savage group, in the dismal white. I watched closely. Yes, there was a flapping and a struggle--a big bird, it must be, labouring in the snow. I wondered. Our biggest birds, in the valley, were the large hawks that often hung flickering opposite my windows, level with me, but high above some prey on the steep valleyside. This was much too big for a hawk--too big for any known bird. I searched in my mind for the largest English wild birds, geese, buzzards.

Still it laboured and strove, then was still, a dark spot, then struggled again. I went out of the house and down the steep slope, at risk of breaking my leg between the rocks. I knew the ground so well--and yet I got well shaken before I drew near the thorn-trees.

Yes, it was a bird. It was Joey. It was the grey-brown peacock with a blue neck. He was snow-wet and spent.

'Joey--Joey, de-urr!' I said, staggering unevenly towards him. He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

'Joey dee-uur! Dee-urr!' I said caressingly to him. And at last he lay still, blinking, in the surged and furrowed snow, whilst I came near and touched him, stroked him, gathered him under my arm. He stretched his long, wetted neck away from me as I held him, none the less he was quiet in my arm, too tired, perhaps, to struggle. Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.

He was not so heavy as I expected, yet it was a struggle[b] to get up to the house with him again. We set him down, not too near the fire, and gently wiped him with cloths. He submitted, only now and then stretched his soft neck away from us, [b]avoiding us helplessly. Then we set warm food by him. I put it to his beak, tried to make him eat. But he ignored it. He seemed to be ignorant of what we were doing, recoiled inside himself inexplicably. So we put him in a basket with cloths, and left him crouching oblivious. His food we put near him. The blinds were drawn, the house was warm, it was night. Sometimes he stirred, but mostly he huddled still, leaning his queer crested head on one side. He touched no food, and took no heed of sounds or movements. We talked of brandy or stimulants. But I realized we had best leave him alone.

In the night, however, we heard him thumping about. I got up anxiously with a candle. He had eaten some food, and scattered more, making a mess. And he was perched on the back of a heavy arm-chair. So I concluded he was recovered, or recovering.

One thing, I noticed right away in this section is the repetition of the word 'struggle' or 'struggling' and other words similar in meaning, which are sprinkled throughout this bit of text emphasising the state the bird is going through in order to live. It perhaps also mimics the struggle of the husband and wife to preserve their fragile marriage. I think asside from this, it suggests on a larger scope, the struggle of war. As the narrator, recues this dark form, first unknown to him, in the snow, this scene might be reminescent of rescuing a fellow soldier on a battlefield. I noticed that the narrator puts himself into some serious peril to rescue the poor dying bird. I think, knowing also, how Lawrence, himself, had just narrowly escaped death and the eternal darkness is significant; this rescue of the bird is majorly symbolic in many ways. He longs to now rescue poor Joey; Joey takes on almost human characteristic of a dying or near dying man and I think this significance. The words I bolded up are only some of the words/phrases in this passage that suggest much more to me than just merely saving a peacock from his imminent death in the frozen snowfield.

jinjang

05-07-2009, 02:28 PM

I have piles of work to do, but let me postpone it a little while.

where the thorn trees stood very black and dwarfed, like a little savage group, in the dismal white.

What kind of tree is the thorn tree? Acacia on a rocky hill does not fit somehow so it must be a different kind of thorn tree. I liked the term savage applied to a thorn tree. I feel savage at the moment.

Still it laboured and strove, then was still, a dark spot, then struggled again. I went out of the house and down the steep slope, at risk of breaking my leg between the rocks. I knew the ground so well--and yet I got well shaken before I drew near the thorn-trees.

I just checked the landscape of Mountain Cottage, Middleton-by-Wirksworth, Derbyshire, where he wrote the story. I remember the big boulder where Elizabeth Bennett stood on, touring Derbyshire in a BBC adoption of Pride and Prejudice. It was a breathtaking place with grand sceneries.

'Joey--Joey, de-urr!'
The narrator called Joey in the same way as Maggie. He did sympathize with Maggie and felt sorry for her struggle to overcome her emotion. Wintry peacock is still a proud male ego? We should revisit the meaning of Wintry Peacock.

Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.

Maggie, though laughing, went through despair and immersed in her distress. Anybody’s emotional stress can magnify itself in the person and cannot be lightly treated. There were many signs of her face in the beginning of the story: grimace, brood, sallow, red nose, misfit-laughing, etc. I can imagine Maggie “droop, wilt as if she might suddenly die.” Who wouldn’t feel sympathy?

Janine chose the good phrases: “avoiding us helplessly, recoiled inside himself inexplicably, crouching oblivious.” I am not sure what it signifies. A suffering person seeks denial and solitude, sometimes, induced by his or her pride.

Do people likely seek solitude or human contacts in emotional termoil? I seek solitude.

Dark Muse

05-07-2009, 08:05 PM

What kind of tree is the thorn tree? Acacia on a rocky hill does not fit somehow so it must be a different kind of thorn tree. I liked the term savage applied to a thorn tree. I feel savage at the moment.

It could be a Hawthorn Tree

IThe narrator called Joey in the same way as Maggie. He did sympathize with Maggie and felt sorry for her struggle to overcome her emotion. Wintry peacock is still a proud male ego? We should revisit the meaning of Wintry Peacock.

I do not think his mimicking her speech is proof enough that he is being sympathetic to her. It could instead be done as a form of mockery. Or perhaps simply because seeing the bird made him think of the way she spoke, but it really does not suggest any particular emotion on his behalf toward Maggie and her situation.

He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

In view of looking at the story as having a connection to the war, and the hardships and struggles which war cased, this depiction of Joey fallen and pathetic in the snow with his batter crest, and his eyes starting to close could reflect the image of a wounded solider.

But the mention of the bright color of his blue next, and the battered crest (a symbol of the birds maleness, as well in addition to its colors the crest is also a device used to attract females) could suggest faltering state of the male ego, and going back to the discussing of Lawrence's stance on male vs female, and his view of the proper roles for men and women, and the dangers of female power, it could reflect the state of men when women have taken on a dominant role. While there is debate about what Maggie is really feeling in the revelation of Alfred's affair, and if she is properly anger, or does not display anger, or has repressed anger, she does not at any rate appear to be a weak woman, she does come off as rather forward and strong-willed.

jinjang

05-08-2009, 12:28 AM

But the mention of the bright color of his blue next, and the battered crest (a symbol of the birds maleness, as well in addition to its colors the crest is also a device used to attract females) could suggest faltering state of the male ego, and going back to the discussing of Lawrence's stance on male vs female, and his view of the proper roles for men and women, and the dangers of female power, it could reflect the state of men when women have taken on a dominant role. While there is debate about what Maggie is really feeling in the revelation of Alfred's affair, and if she is properly anger, or does not display anger, or has repressed anger, she does not at any rate appear to be a weak woman, she does come off as rather forward and strong-willed.

A very good point! But, you will not make me dislike the narrator. Alfred? I have to see how he looks in real. The narrator describes him as handsome, but he is a man. What does he know what attracts a woman? I know it is irrelevant to the story. If men are vain in women's look, why not we women?

It is late at night and I am quite spent this evening...I am going to bed...

BienvenuJDC

05-08-2009, 12:39 AM

A very good point! But, you will not make me dislike the narrator. Alfred? I have to see how he looks in real. The narrator describes him as handsome, but he is a man. What does he know what attracts a woman? I know it is irrelevant to the story. If men are vain in women's look, why not we women?

It is late at night and I am quite spent this evening...I am going to bed...

Alfred is slightly better looking than myself...but that really is not much of a compliment.

Dark Muse

05-08-2009, 01:46 AM

My point was not about Alfred's physical apperance, but just pointing out how the crest of the bird is mentioned in this story and how the crest directly indicates "maleness" and the "male pride" and this Joey in this scene reflects ideas of maleness somewhat relating to Virgil's ideas reguarding immpotence.

Janine

05-08-2009, 12:27 PM

Going out this afternoon and won't be back until after dinner, early evening; can't be helped. Glad to see everyone posting again. When I get back tonight, I will answer all the posts, if possible. I can't think now under pressure; must get ready to go out, besides I will be late if I do hang around here.

One think I will mention to Dark Muse, it that I pointed out in my prior post the idea of the bird relating to a fallen soldier, wounded. The rescue of possible peril to the wellbeing of the narrator also could be as one soldier risks his life to rescue another from a ominous battlefield.

Other than that, you all had me laughing trying to determine what Alfred looked like physically. I think Alfred might look like Virgil only instead of hugging his dog, substitude the dog for a peacock.:lol: (I hope he reads this...he will laugh).

See you all later!

BienvenuJDC

05-08-2009, 03:30 PM

Hmmm....I bet there are bigger themes to this short story that have nothing to do with with either the narrator, Maggie, or Alfred. I wonder what they are?

Janine

05-08-2009, 09:08 PM

Hmmm....I bet there are bigger themes to this short story that have nothing to do with with either the narrator, Maggie, or Alfred. I wonder what they are?

:lol:how bout sex and WAR especially!

Virgil

05-08-2009, 10:03 PM

Notice the description of the bird:

Yes, it was a bird. It was Joey. It was the grey-brown peacock with a blue neck. He was snow-wet and spent. 'Joey--Joey, de-urr!' I said, staggering unevenly towards him. He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

'Joey dee-uur! Dee-urr!' I said caressingly to him. And at last he lay still, blinking, in the surged and furrowed snow, whilst I came near and touched him, stroked him, gathered him under my arm. He stretched his long, wetted neck away from me as I held him, none the less he was quiet in my arm, too tired, perhaps, to struggle. Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.
"snow-wet," "spent," "too spent to rise," "his eye closing and opening," "crested head," "droop," "wilt," "as if he might suddenly die." :lol:

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

Janine

05-08-2009, 10:29 PM

Notice the description of the bird:

"snow-wet," "spent," "too spent to rise," "his eye closing and opening," "crested head," "droop," "wilt," "as if he might suddenly die." :lol:

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

hahaha.....as I said....sex and war! :D

Hey, everyone, afraid I can't comment tonight. I came home a little while ago and I am exhausted. I don't think I can think straight to make any sense tonight. Will have to wait till tomorrow. In the meantime enjoy reading Virgil' phallic ravings. :lol:

BienvenuJDC

05-08-2009, 11:06 PM

Janine

05-09-2009, 12:07 AM

I think that making this 'phallic' is going too far. I would compare this to the shape of the war torn Europe. Alfred without doubt would NOT be in this shape...otherwise, there would be no baby...no letter...no story. Impotence was NOT the issue with the childless marriage. Maybe you should look for something OTHER than sex. Sex is a minor undertone....I believe that the social, political, and economic impotence are the real undertones...caused by the WAR!

I have to agree with you. I guess we got carried away kidding around; Virgil tends to like that to use the 'p' word a lot when it comes to discussing Lawrence. If you read my former posts, I thought that whole winter scene very reminescent of the war and even the landscape of the war, such as the trenches and the barbed wire, etc; also the fallen soldier which I felt was the image of the bird struggling in the snow; it's also a analogy of survival of the fittest. The black and white references are significant in that they show the contrast between survival and death. I think if we were to say that Alfred is impotent, it's merely his leg that is lame. That does not prevent a man from fathering a child. I actually know of a case where a young man was layed up with a broken leg, full cast and it did not stop him! Hard to keep a good man down. Hope you all took that the right way. I did mean it literally.

Virgil

05-09-2009, 12:27 AM

As you wish. You are all entitled to your oopinion and reading. I leave you with this:

English novelist, story writer, critic, poet and painter, one of the greatest figures in 20th-century English literature. Lawrence saw sex and intuition as ways to undistorted perception of reality and means to respond to the inhumanity of the industrial culture. From Lawrence's doctrines of sexual freedom arose obscenity trials, which had a deep effect on the relationship between literature and society. In 1912 he wrote: "What the blood feels, and believes, and says, is always true." Lawrence's life after World War I was marked with continuous and restless wandering.
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm
I've add the bold for emphasis. I do not think there is much in Lawrence's works that does not refer to sex in some way.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 01:13 AM

Dark Muse

05-09-2009, 01:15 AM

While one cannot really make a case for Alfred being impotent since there is evidence to prove otherwise I do agree with Virgil that the peacock is a strong symbol for the male.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.

Sometimes he stirred, but mostly he huddled still, leaning his queer crested head on one side.

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

Virgil

05-09-2009, 01:24 AM

Even though this may be true of Lawrence, it just doesn't fit in this story. To try to apply it forces it and makes it unrealistic. I won't say that you're wrong. I can see the symbolism in the wording, but it does not fit with the story overall. What men are mentioned in the story: the narrator, Alfred, and Alfred's father. Help me to see it by answering these questions:

How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to the narrator?
How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to Alfred?
How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to Alfred's father?
What other men might I have missed that this could apply to?

On the other hand, we could very well apply this to OTHER aspects of Alfred's manhood. I don't see Alfred as being one to be able to manage the family farm. Not only is he lame, but he doesn't show the attributes of responsibility. But if we are talking about Alfred's deficiency in these areas, then it would not really be accurate describing this as a phallic symbol...(or anti-phallic as it may be).
I'm not sure I ever said anything about impotence. Did I? It's not so much that any male is impotent, it's that society has lost potency.

While one cannot really make a case for Alfred being impotent since there is evidence to prove otherwise I do agree with Virgil that the peacock is a strong symbol for the male.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

I would agree with just about everything you say here. I do think that the war is very prominant in this story. While there is no war going on, its impact is felt in every event: the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 01:26 AM

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 01:29 AM

Notice the description of the bird:

"snow-wet," "spent," "too spent to rise," "his eye closing and opening," "crested head," "droop," "wilt," "as if he might suddenly die." :lol:

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

I may have misunderstood these points mentioned to be phallus symbols of impotence.

Virgil

05-09-2009, 01:33 AM

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

Bien I agree with you that Freud is a crock. However, while Lawrence wasn't necessarily a Freudian he does essentially buy into the subconscious-dominates-a-person stuff. It was the ideas of his times.

Dark Muse

05-09-2009, 03:21 AM

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

While I am no fan of Frued, D.H. Lawrence can be seen as being somewhat preverse himself at times. Many of his stories do very strongly deal with sex and sexulaity and so it is valid to consider the question of sex. A lot of his prose does often tend to have very strong errotic connotations.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 08:53 AM

While I am no fan of Freud, D.H. Lawrence can be seen as being somewhat perverse himself at times. Many of his stories do very strongly deal with sex and sexuality and so it is valid to consider the question of sex. A lot of his prose does often tend to have very strong erotic connotations.

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

But from my perspective, it doesn't seem to fit, and it seems very unnaturally forced. It doesn't add anything conducive for me to interpret the work.

If you can understand this example: I can get to New Jersey by way of New York from Pennsylvania, but it is unnecessary.

Janine

05-09-2009, 02:54 PM

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

But from my perspective, it doesn't seem to fit, and it seems very unnaturally forced. It doesn't add anything conducive for me to interpret the work.

If you can understand this example: I can get to New Jersey by way of New York from Pennsylvania, but it is unnecessary.

I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual; I feel in this story, the sexual aspects truly are not the main focus. I still hold true that the war and the fall of man/society is prominent here. I think that, Lawrence sees the corrupt aspect of one society occupying the land of another society, thus the aspect of the child being born out of wedlock, the father abandoning that child, the wife at home being hurt (wounded) by this fact....all these aspects of the story do come about by sexual indecrecion, but the bigger picture is the war, which has brought about this situation. It becomes very clear to me in that first paragraph, describing the snowstorm, that this is the theme that Lawrence is conveying. Also, as Virgil points out, there are basic aspects throughout this story that are prominent and common in wartime - "the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg". Since this story is included in a collection, compiled by Lawrence himself, "England My England", in which every story in this collection does have a war theme within the subtext, I think that says something about the basic theme put forth by this story. I probably am the one who mentioned 'impotence', but I do feel this story says something about that on a grander scale than just sexual; it was Virgil's pointing out the specific words about the struggling peacock, that lead to to make the statement; but that same description could be that of a wounded soldier; maybe even Alfred himself - who knows what wounds he sustained on his leg, how long he went through recovery, how bad off he might have been? It could also be that in loosing a limb or wounding a leg, a man would then feel an inflated masculinity and no longer feel a man/male. I wasn't necessarily pointing to he male equipment. If you think about it, Alfred was wounded; I had the impression he was nursed back to health by this foreign woman, but I could be wrong about that fact. Perhaps since we see his wife as critical of him and suspicious, we can imagine, he sought solace elsewhere with a woman who did not see his wounds as inflating his masculinity. In this respect the war having caused his wound may have then made him more vulnerable, and open to the affair he had in Belgium. It is, as Virgil, pointed out "that society has lost potency." Yes, and one might add 'decency' and 'morality' to that, in the case of Alfred getting the young woman pregnant; and even if she pursued him, the irresponsibility of this action during this unnatural time of war would be themetic. As jinjang pointed out earlier, this is common to many countries and is still going on today, which is quite sad. This is, therefore, a universal theme/story, which is now timeless. I don't think Lawrence is blaming anyone here, but rather looking beyond that to the horrible aspect of war - quite unnatural - which spawns incidents such as this; causing further corrosion to society and it's moral fiber.

Dark Muse, I don't think this is a negation.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

I see, in this time period and way of thinking, that the male/man is the one to go off to war; therefore, the peacock would naturally represent the male in all his glory; perhaps even reminescent of men bedecked with glorious uniforms going off to war. But I think the bird respresents more than a sexual/phallic image. I do see that Maggie is very much rooted to the earth and the beings on earth - birds, cows, the farm in general; in this way, the peacock does represent Lawrence's idea of 'blood consciousness', as Virgil pointed out earlier. Now in reverse, Alfred has been free to leave the farm and do as he pleases in wartime. I think this 'marital separation' is one aspect of the war causing demise to society and the strength of families and marriages.

And Bien, I totally understand you and agree on many points. Some of us do have prior knowledge into certain aspects of Lawrence's thinking and writing and the background influences as well. However, fresh perspectives are a great advantage as well. Therefore, I don't see this as a draw-back on your part. I like to hear you take on the story from that new perspective. Same would apply to jinjang who is new or any other new posters in this thread. I agree with you, that they sexual elements might be there but I believe they are secondary to the main theme as I expressed above.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 03:13 PM

Great points!
Expounding on the idea of blame. There has been much discussion about blame, but I think that we dwell too much on blame. My wife and I have struggled with this (in little things). It doesn't matter WHOSE fault it is, but WHAT is the best course of action for us all in order to make the best of our lives.

You also bring up a good point about the Belgium girl nursing Alfred back to health. Alfred may not be as NO GOOD as he seems. Maybe he got caught up in am emotional affair, receiving affections and attention that he'd not received before. This by NO MEANS is excuse for what he did, that was WRONG. But what would others have done in his situation. He is now without the complete use of one leg. One question that I have: Can Alfred make something GOOD of himself if given the chance? Yes, he can. Just as well as anyone else. Jean Valjean made mistakes...and Jean Valjean changed. Why? Because of a man that the people labeled as Bienvenu.

Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

Virgil

05-09-2009, 09:02 PM

I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual; I feel in this story, the sexual aspects truly are not the main focus. I still hold true that the war and the fall of man/society is prominent here. I think that, Lawrence sees the corrupt aspect of one society occupying the land of another society, thus the aspect of the child being born out of wedlock, the father abandoning that child, the wife at home being hurt (wounded) by this fact....all these aspects of the story do come about by sexual indecrecion, but the bigger picture is the war, which has brought about this situation. It becomes very clear to me in that first paragraph, describing the snowstorm, that this is the theme that Lawrence is conveying. Also, as Virgil points out, there are basic aspects throughout this story that are prominent and common in wartime - "the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg". Since this story is included in a collection, compiled by Lawrence himself, "England My England", in which every story in this collection does have a war theme within the subtext, I think that says something about the basic theme put forth by this story. I probably am the one who mentioned 'impotence', but I do feel this story says something about that on a grander scale than just sexual; it was Virgil's pointing out the specific words about the struggling peacock, that lead to to make the statement; but that same description could be that of a wounded soldier; maybe even Alfred himself - who knows what wounds he sustained on his leg, how long he went through recovery, how bad off he might have been? It could also be that in loosing a limb or wounding a leg, a man would then feel an inflated masculinity and no longer feel a man/male. I wasn't necessarily pointing to he male equipment. If you think about it, Alfred was wounded; I had the impression he was nursed back to health by this foreign woman, but I could be wrong about that fact. Perhaps since we see his wife as critical of him and suspicious, we can imagine, he sought solace elsewhere with a woman who did not see his wounds as inflating his masculinity. In this respect the war having caused his wound may have then made him more vulnerable, and open to the affair he had in Belgium. It is, as Virgil, pointed out "that society has lost potency." Yes, and one might add 'decency' and 'morality' to that, in the case of Alfred getting the young woman pregnant; and even if she pursued him, the irresponsibility of this action during this unnatural time of war would be themetic. As jinjang pointed out earlier, this is common to many countries and is still going on today, which is quite sad. This is, therefore, a universal theme/story, which is now timeless. I don't think Lawrence is blaming anyone here, but rather looking beyond that to the horrible aspect of war - quite unnatural - which spawns incidents such as this; causing further corrosion to society and it's moral fiber.

That is extremely well said Janine. :thumbs_up Perhaps I need to clarify the sexual connotations in the story. I don't mean to say that the characters are not capable of having or performing sex. I mean that the war has perverted the gender roles of the characters and that to Lawrence leads to a perversion of the normative structure of society. For Lawrence, Alfred is not acting as a proper male (and possibly even the narrator, though that may be less clear) and Maggie is not acting as the proper female.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 09:05 PM

That is extremely well said Janine. :thumbs_up Perhaps I need to clarify the sexual connotations in the story. I don't mean to say that the characters are not capable of having or performing sex. I mean that the war has perverted the gender roles of the characters and that to Lawrence leads to a perversion of the normative structure of society. For Lawrence, Alfred is not acting as a proper male (and possibly even the narrator, though that may be less clear) and Maggie is not acting as the proper female.

GREAT!
Didn't WWII also change the gender roles in America?

Virgil

05-09-2009, 09:08 PM

GREAT!
Didn't WWII also change the gender roles in America?

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 09:31 PM

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

okay...............
...But didn't WWII change gender roles? Rosie? Women in the work force? Would you admit that men going off to war often put women into the roles that the men had to leave behind? Therefore...wouldn't DHL have been justified in his thoughts about disrupted gender roles due to war?

Janine

05-09-2009, 09:33 PM

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

Gee wiz, Virgil, coming down a little hard on poor Bienvenu aren't you? (maybe you should keep you signature Byron quote:lol:). I didn't see where he was confusing real life with this story. I think he was just making a random statement that WWII, also caused further gender role changes. When Lawrence wrote 'Wintry Peacock' this earlier time-span, it was a time that was very significant for woman's rights - woman getting the vote, woman pushing ahead for equal right in many aspects of employment, woman authors voicing their opinions, etc. By WWII, women had the vote and they even took part in the war effort directly.

Virgil, thanks for your compliments on my post. That really meant a lot to me. Somedays, for some odd reason one can think more clearly than other days - must be from playing Shared and 3 person Haiku;)...sharpens the brain. Today I felt I had clearer insight into the whole issue you broached. Your and Bien's former posts lead to mine; they both made me think this out, looking at the bigger picture of the story.

Virgil

05-09-2009, 10:23 PM

Gee wiz, Virgil, coming down a little hard on poor Bienvenu aren't you? (maybe you should keep you signature Byron quote:lol:). I didn't see where he was confusing real life with this story. I think he was just making a random statement that WWII, also caused further gender role changes. When Lawrence wrote 'Wintry Peacock' this earlier time-span, it was a time that was very significant for woman's rights - woman getting the vote, woman pushing ahead for equal right in many aspects of employment, woman authors voicing their opinions, etc. By WWII, women had the vote and they even took part in the war effort directly.

Was I? I didn't mean to be.

Virgil, thanks for your compliments on my post. That really meant a lot to me. Somedays, for some odd reason one can think more clearly than other days - must be from playing Shared and 3 person Haiku;)...sharpens the brain. Today I felt I had clearer insight into the whole issue you broached. Your and Bien's former posts lead to mine; they both made me think this out, looking at the bigger picture of the story.
This is a fine story Janine, with incredible subtlety.

okay...............
...But didn't WWII change gender roles? Rosie? Women in the work force? Would you admit that men going off to war often put women into the roles that the men had to leave behind? Therefore...wouldn't DHL have been justified in his thoughts about disrupted gender roles due to war?

Yes, absolutely. I think the gender roles in England may have been drastically changed in WWI, and in the US in WWII. And yes lawrence blamed the war for a lot of society's problems. Actually it was reciprical. He saw the modern industrial world as leading to the war (that's not in this story) and then the war having a terrible effect on society as well.

I apologize Bien if I came across as harsh. I didn't mean to be harsh. I thought your last few posts were straying from the story. But as I look back it was more my impression than so.

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 10:32 PM

That's alright...I often see things from a very wide perspective...I see things from the space shuttle and people may not see where I'm getting things. It's funny that DHL never addressed the space program here. You'd think that he would have mentioned something that huge...

Janine

05-09-2009, 10:36 PM

Was I? I didn't mean to be.

:lol: yes, you can be a real meanie sometimes, but we'll forgive you.

This is a fine story Janine, with incredible subtlety.

I thought so the first time I read it; but, actually on repeat readings, I find it much deeper than I first thought. I thought it would be a good easy one to discuss - well how wrong I was on that prediction. It is turning out to be a very fascinating story, with much deeper/darker connotations, and I like that.

Yes, absolutely. I think the gender roles in England may have been drastically changed in WWI, and in the US in WWII. And yes lawrence blamed the war for a lot of society's problems. Actually it was reciprical. He saw the modern industrial world as leading to the war (that's not in this story) and then the war having a terrible effect on society as well.

I apologize Bien if I came across as harsh. I didn't mean to be harsh. I thought your last few posts were straying from the story. But as I look back it was more my impression than so.

These last two are to Bien, I know; but Virgil, my good friend, I am very proud of you at this moment for appologising to Bien for misinterpreting his post. That is very fair.

Now you can remove the B,M,D from your signature! :lol:

Janine

05-09-2009, 10:39 PM

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 10:46 PM

Bien, in 1919? Was there even a space program at the time? :alien:

Well...not that the governmental officials let on...but the documents in Roswell were doctored to read the 1950s...the first space program was lead by Captain Verne according to his memoirs in 1865. But it was kept a secret until the 1950s, when there was a governmental cover-up in Roswell. Few people actually know this because officials spread misinformation by feeding rednecks with false reports.

Janine

05-09-2009, 10:54 PM

Well...not that the governmental officials let on...but the documents in Roswell were doctored to read the 1950s...the first space program was lead by Captain Verne according to his memoirs in 1865. But it was kept a secret until the 1950s, when there was a governmental cover-up in Roswell. Few people actually know this because officials spread misinformation by feeding rednecks with false reports.

:rolleyes:...did you read this in a Michael Crichton novel - maybe Airspace? Isn't Roswell where they claim they found cattle slaughter by aliens? Of course, this is all bordering on the political, so we better not further explore this in this thread, or they will be giving us a warning. I think Lawrence would have this knowledge in 1919, although he liked stargazing emensely and mentions the heavens and stars often in his work; they are very significant to his philosophy, so maybe he knew something we didn't know...:alien:

BienvenuJDC

05-09-2009, 11:00 PM

:rolleyes:...did you read this in a Michael Crichton novel - maybe Airspace? Isn't Roswell where they claim they found cattle slaughter by aliens? Of course, this is all bordering on the political, so we better not further explore this in this thread, or they will be giving us a warning. I think Lawrence would have this knowledge in 1919, although he liked stargazing emensely and mentions the heavens and stars often in his work; they are very significant to his philosophy, so maybe he knew something we didn't know...:alien:

No...this just came off the top of my head. Captain Verne...Jules Verne From the earth to the Moon written in 1865. And the politics in this context would not be current politics as is mention in the rules...:)...and the reports in Roswell...as I said... was a cover-up. So..IF...DHL did read the works of Jules Verne, then that was his own loss...;)

Janine

05-09-2009, 11:06 PM

No...this just came off the top of my head. Captain Verne...Jules Verne From the earth to the Moon written in 1865. And the politics in this context would not be current politics as is mention in the rules...:)...and the reports in Roswell...as I said... was a cover-up. So..IF...DHL did read the works of Jules Verne, then that was his own loss...;)

Ok, got your drift now. I can't imagine, that Lawrence would read Jules Verne, but one never knows.

Sapphire

05-11-2009, 05:08 AM

Janine

05-11-2009, 03:51 PM

Hi all :D

I am reading this discussion with great interest. I hope you guys do not mind that I keep silent most of the time - I just had a hard time getting my mind around it all and have an actual opinion on this story (I still do not really see the point of the story). Your talking definitely helps me - I would have never, ever thought all this behind it :eek2:

Saphire, I am happy to hear this; this makes the discussion more worthwhile. I am glad some things are being pointed out here that you would not have thought of. Lawrence was a fine short story writer and his work does make great use of repetition and of percieve it. After reading so many of Lawrence's stories and books, I can pretty much spot it; although some of the parts in this story I did not see right off, but only after several readings and closer consideration of the actual text. My research into where Lawrence and his wife Frieda were living at this time, greatly aided in this "war" theme intrepretation; also the time period and state of politics in England. Also, knowing this plays behind the scenes of the novel "Women in Love", made me realise this desolute winter scene was much more than an interesting landscape.

I do have one question about the part that is being discussed now:
Why on earth is the narrator suddenly talking about "WE" when he talks about rescuing the bird?

"Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?"

Definitely, I believe you answered your own question here. Indeed, at the time Lawrence and his wife Frieda occuppied a small cottage in this remote area of England. They only were here a short time, and then traveled on to other countries and notably Australia; then later they were quite nomadic in their frequent changes of residence and locations, of which Lawrence wrote stories and books reflecting surroundings. I happen to have bought a book not long ago called "The Minoan Distance", which explores Lawrence's travels and their influences on his work.

Who is the "we"? Is it his sister? His wife? His mother? Who is he living with in that house? And how long has he lived there? If he lives in the English country side, and is so familiar with the ground that he can find his way over rocks in heavy snow - why does he not know his neighbours? He only mentions talking to her once ("in summer"), not even indicating that he knows her name. Do people not talk in that part of the country? Is rumour not part of country life? Maybe it is because she lives not really next to him? But definitely on walking distance...

The "we" is definitely Lawrence and his wife, Frieda. As far as the Lawrence's being in contact with others in the area at this time, I can tell you they would have kept very much to themselves and also deliberately kept a low profile, while still residing in England. Lawrence, in this period of his life, was constantly being hounded by authorities; his work had caused quite a stir, even as it does in this thread;):lol: today. Also, he was scrutinized by the fact, that his wife was of pure German decent, and not only that, but had a famous brother know to many in WWI as the Red Baron. Add to that the fact that Frieda was aristocratic by birth and you have a tricky situation to find yourself in in conservative England during the war. Therefore, having any relative on the opposing side of the war, would have made anyone instantly suspicious to the authorities. Lawrence and Frieda were residing, prior to this area, in Cornwall in a small cottage by the sea; it was there they were visited suddenly at night and harrassed by police and accused of spying for the German side; they were suspected of sending out signals at night to the boats off the coast. Of course, this was totally false and completely ludicrious; however, as the saying goes 'one can't fight city hall', or the government. At that time, their harsh treatment (they were flatly told to leave the house and never return) had quite made Lawrence determined to flea from England and never return to his native country again. He planned on going to America, but postponed that trip, to first go to Australia. So, my point here is, the Lawrence's would not have mingled, nor gossiped, with the neighboring farm occupants; I am sure they would be afraid to. It is quite feasible that this woman, was someone the narrator (Lawrence) had met only once. They were not in this area very long. Their residence was a temporary one. If you know the history behind the author, it is not hard to imagine some of the things he is saying or implying here.

I realize I am asking questions that can only be answered by imagination :brickwall, not by reading the story more carefully. I guess I should stick with
Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?
Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?

I answered that above. Definitely, this does connect him more closely to the story of a husband and wife in turmoil. Within Lawrence's own marriage, there was often much turmoil, as well. If anything, this might be one of their more peaceful times, while living in this secluded part of the country.

Another thing which is nagging me since I read this story but does not really relate to it is this:

I am sure I read that line before, or something in that sense. I am not sure it was one of Mr. Lawrence books I read it in though... Actually, I think it was a Thomas Hardy book... I tried to find it again but I did not succeed.
Not important, but it is nagging me. Like a song you have in your head but do not know the title or singer to.

Saphire, did you read Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers"? I think this line or a similar one may have been in this novel; if so, it would have concerned Miriam; who was fashioned after Lawrence's childhood woman friend and eventual lover, Jesse Chambers. This line reminds me of her eyes, because he spoke of her eyes as large brown brooding eyes, often downcast; in this case, he is saying "gloomy black eyes". He may have referred to Miriam's eyes in this way. He also referred to another character in his short story "Witch Ala Mode" similarly, based on his woman friend, Helen. I believe and their he sights the eyes as 'witchy' or 'witch-like'. This 'gloomy' or 'brooding' eye phrase is very common throughout may of Lawrence's stories. It could also, be found within a Hardy novel, since Lawrence was influenced by Hardy's work. I have read most of Hardy and most of Lawrence; therefore, I think it's an 'either-or' possibilty, but mostly I thought of his descriptions of Miriam right off when encountering that phrase and statement.

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.

Could be and that might relate to the narrator's (be it Lawrence) own father, who was 'salt of the earth'. He would have spoken in the 'heart' speech, as Lawrence referred to it. If you read Lawrence's poem, "Violets", the local venacular is very hard to decern and understand, but several readings will reveal the meaning of the poem - think "the smell of flowers and the smell of death". This he would have referred to as heart language; whereas, his mother's speech would have been more proper (high)English, which he would have referred to as 'head' speech.

Interesting thought that the woman/wife - Maggie - would be the only one sympathetic to the other woman. I can see where that would be how Lawrence would present it and I think you might be correct. The women have a common bond and so do the men. This story is very much about the battle of the sexes I believe. Although, we never see the wife of the narrator, I would surmise, knowning something of his real wife that she also would sympathise with the women on this matter. Lawrence's wife was pretty independent, modern and fiesty.

He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married...

Do you think the woman will really come to England? This is something I greatly doubt. How in the world would she ever locate Alfred? Of course, she has his address; but still, it's a long shot she would make it to England with a child to seek him out. I think the narrator would be smart enough to realise this would end with that letter being destroyed. Even if the narrator had not read the letter, most likely the wife (Maggie) would not have delivered it to her husband. Even if he had know of the possibilty, I doubt he would have done anything different. He'd have his mother, father, and his wife to contend with.

jinjang

05-11-2009, 04:22 PM

While I could not stay here long over the weekend, you all moved ahead a great deal. Let me slowly catch up.

(S)he does not at any rate appear to be a weak woman, she does come off as rather forward and strong-willed.

Emmy Castrol mentioned how she was reluctant to think Maggie as a charming person. Strong-willed women are not charming, some men say. No matter how we women view her, we could consider the possibility that Maggie is unattractive to men, to the narrator and even to her husband. If she has some qualities that dispel men, your point on the two men’s silent plotting against Maggie or women in general comes off strongly.

My point was…how the crest directly indicates "maleness" and the "male pride" and this Joey in this scene reflects ideas of maleness

I concurred that "Wintry Peacock" is still then manhood with its proud ego.

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

Since male ego seems tied strongly to the functioning phallus, as Virgil said, it could mean Maggie upends Alfred in their fight as long as she has a solid proof to blame him with and as long as Alfred does not know she does not have the solid proof any more. Maggie did not tell Alfred what the narrator read in the letter. I am considering she was clever and manipulative in her silence over the letter.

If you read my former posts, I thought that whole winter scene very reminescent of the war and even the landscape of the war, such as the trenches and the barbed wire, etc; also the fallen soldier which I felt was the image of the bird struggling in the snow; it's also a analogy of survival of the fittest. The black and white references are significant in that they show the contrast between survival and death.

I think Virgil and Janine are saying the same thing in very different approaches. The war is between men and women and, at the moment, the men is defeated without weapons to fight back.

Thank you, Virgil, for the reference to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm.

I don't see Alfred as being one to be able to manage the family farm. Not only is he lame, but he doesn't show the attributes of responsibility. But if we are talking about Alfred's deficiency in these areas, then it would not really be accurate describing this as a phallic symbol...(or anti-phallic as it may be).

I agree with you on “Alfred’s deficiency.” If a man or woman can not settle on one thing and keeps moving from one to another, it is a sure sign of a loser in his or her life.

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

Along with the war on the background, your point certainly seems applicable to this story.

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

Yes… we all in this discussion may disagree without being wrong. I think Lawrence mapped the story with ambiguity rooted in. I think Janine agrees with me with her statement: “I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual.”

Virgil

05-11-2009, 08:07 PM

Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?

That is strange. I take it the narrator doesn't live alone and he is referring to whomever lives with him. I had not really noticed that. Thanks Saphire. I don't know if it has any significance but it certainly is odd.

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.
He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married... [/color]
Completely agree. The only person who has Lawrence's sympathy is the father, the person from the previous generation. Lawrence always loves those old world types. Notice the father speaks with that thick peasant accent. Lawrence is definitely anti-modern.

I concurred that "Wintry Peacock" is still then manhood with its proud ego.

Lawrence loves that theme. Let me also say that Janine just gets a kick out of me bringing up phalluses. It's not like I got penises on my mind. :lol: It can't be helped in a Lawrence work. The penis for Lawrence is the source of religious contact with the divine. Hope that doesn't shock people, but that's Lawrence. If you get a chance, read Lady Chatterly's Lover and see the significance of penises. ;)

Since male ego seems tied strongly to the functioning phallus, as Virgil said, it could mean Maggie upends Alfred in their fight as long as she has a solid proof to blame him with and as long as Alfred does not know she does not have the solid proof any more. Maggie did not tell Alfred what the narrator read in the letter. I am considering she was clever and manipulative in her silence over the letter.
Everyone is manipulative in this story. Actually the way I would phrase it is that everyone participates in some form of dishonest communication in the story, everyone, that is, but the father.

I think Virgil and Janine are saying the same thing in very different approaches. The war is between men and women and, at the moment, the men is defeated without weapons to fight back.
;) Yes.

Thank you, Virgil, for the reference to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm.
You're welcome.

Dark Muse

05-11-2009, 08:19 PM

[color="blue"]He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)!

Toward the end the Narrator does ask Alfred if he has any intent to see the girl again and his response was

"Not me," he said. "Back your life it's a plant."

So Alfred clearly did make up his own mind about his thoughts on seeing the other girl and he even expressed doubts as to whather or not he truly was the father of the baby.

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her comming, not becuase he was out to manipulate thier lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrintation and it is easier for him to aviod the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

[None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married... [/color

It seems that for Alfred she was just some fling of his, and well the narrator does not have any particular reason to care for her since he has nothing to do with it.

Virgil

05-11-2009, 08:24 PM

Toward the end the Narrator does ask Alfred if he has any intent to see the girl again and his response was

So Alfred clearly did make up his own mind about his thoughts on seeing the other girl and he even expressed doubts as to whather or not he truly was the father of the baby.

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her comming, not becuase he was out to manipulate thier lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrintation and it is easier for him to aviod the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

It seems that for Alfred she was just some fling of his, and well the narrator does not have any particular reason to care for her since he has nothing to do with it.

Completely agree with your readings here Dark Muse. Alfred is not someone I respect in the least.

BienvenuJDC

05-11-2009, 08:58 PM

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her coming, not because he was out to manipulate their lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrontation and it is easier for him to avoid the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

This seems very possible, Muse...not only possible, but plausible.

One other idea that occurred to me was that the narrator didn't take Eliza seriously. Therefore, he may thought it best just not to mention it.

Janine

05-11-2009, 09:59 PM

You are all a riot. I went away for a half a day and come back to all these posts; one in particular which caught my eye in which my name was included with a specific part of the male anatomy - gee, thanks, Virgil. It's a wonder that your post was not censored, since the four letter word meaning a male chicken is always censored; also, the word, which we tend to use in a crude manner, which is actually the technical name of a female dog. This censor program is very odd to me sometimes.:lol:

First off, V, I said basically, the same thing you are now saying that Dark Muse is now saying from the beginning of this discussion thread or so I thought I did. I just got the impression the narrator got dragged into this husband-wife conflict and he did not wish to be confrontational himself or truly involved. I definitely think he was avoiding direct confrontation or anything unpleasant to himself. I don't think he was conviving with anyone and like you said at the end, Alfred makes the statement, indicating he doesn't even believe the child to be his. It very well could have been a "plant". I think that is what the narrator is laughing at, as he runs down the hill towards home. To him, at this point, in his experience with the two people, the story has a twist of irony in this statement by Alfred.

Virgil, if you read my prior post and comments to Saphire's questions, I did stated my own thinking and reasons, that I thought the "we" was used in the part after the narrator found the bird and brought him back to be nursed. While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife. Read back to post #2904, to see my full take on this subject.

That is strange. I take it the narrator doesn't live alone and he is referring to whomever lives with him. I had not really noticed that. Thanks Saphire. I don't know if it has any significance but it certainly is odd.

My former post gives a better explanation.

Completely agree. The only person who has Lawrence's sympathy is the father, the person from the previous generation. Lawrence always loves those old world types. Notice the father speaks with that thick peasant accent. Lawrence is definitely anti-modern.

haha...I wrote about this in my post, also. Virgil, *grrr* do you ever read my posts?

Everyone is manipulative in this story. Actually the way I would phrase it is that everyone participates in some form of dishonest communication in the story, everyone, that is, but the father.

I don't really totally agree with this part. I think it's more like Dark Muse stated in her last post. I was wondering if we could get on with the text. Everyone is jumping way ahead to the very ending and I still have text to post. I can post the next section tomorrow; I am a bit tired out now. I think we learned a lot from the previous section of text I posted, and I think that we all got a chance to address that particular part of the story and the elements of that section. I don't mean to disregard what you said jingjang when you made this statement "you all moved ahead a great deal"...we haven't moved ahead in the actual text at all and there are many things I think you will all notice when you take a closer look at it.

What do you think, Virgil, shall I go ahead and post the next part of the story?

Virgil

05-11-2009, 10:16 PM

You are all a riot. I went away for a half a day and come back to all these post; one in which my name was included with the particular mention of part of the male anatomy - gee, thanks, Virgil! It's a wonder that was not censored since the four letter word meaning a male bird is always censored; also the word which we use as a swear which is actually the technical name of a female dog. This censor program is very odd to me sometimes.:lol:

Any time dear. :D Actually this isn't the first story I've mentioned that word in respect to a Lawrence story. ;)

First off, I said basically the same thing you are now saying, Dark Muse, from the beginning. I just got the impression the narrator got dragged into this husband and wife argument and he did not wish to be confrontational himself or involved. I definitely think he was avoiding direct confrontation or anything unpleasant to himself. I don't think he was conviving with anyone and like you said at the end, Alfred makes the statement indicating he doesn't even believe the child to be his. It very well could have been a "plant". I think that is what the narrator is laughing at as he goes home - to him, at this point in his experience with the two people, the story has a twist of irony in this statement by Alfred.
We will need to talk about that ending laugh. Why would the narrator laugh at the possibility of it being "a plant?" I guess we'll save this for the end.

Virgil, if you read my prior post and comments to Saphire's questions I did say the reason I thought the "we" was used in after the narrator found the bird and brought him back to be nursed. While in his own home he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and believe it to mean his mate, his wife. Read back to post #2904, to see my full take on this subject.
Yes I saw you wrote something about the we being Lawrence and Frieda and the Red Baron. :lol: They aren't in the story.

My post gives a take on this idea and why.
I don't see exactly what you said on "we." You went into his biography. I don't see what that had to do with the "we" in the story. Are you saying Lawrence slipped in his writing and let out some biographical bit that refers to his personal situation? It doesn't strike me that way. That seems like a conscious elocution and I just don't exactly know what to make with it.

haha...I wrote about this in my post, also. Virgil, *grrr* do you ever read my posts?
Well, once you wrote about the red baron and one can't fight city hall, you lost me and my attention. You know I have ADD. :D

I don't really totally agree with this part. I think it's more like Dark Muse stated in her last post.
You think the father is manipulative too? I'll have to go check. I don't quite remember that part well.

I was wondering if we could get on with the text. Everyone is jumping way ahead to the very ending and I still have text to post. I can post the next section tomorrow; I am a bit tired out now. I think we learned a lot from the previous section of text I posted, and I think that we all got a chance to address that particular part of the story and the elements of that section. I don't mean to disregard what you said jingjang when you made this statement "you all moved ahead a great deal"...we haven't moved ahead in the actual text at all and there are many things I think you will all notice when you take a closer look at it.

What do you think, Virgil, shall I go ahead and post the next part of the story?
Whenever you're ready.

Janine

05-12-2009, 12:00 AM

Any time dear. :D Actually this isn't the first story I've mentioned that word in respect to a Lawrence story. ;) Are you trying to drag me under, get me into trouble, my dear friend, Virgil? I know you mentioned the word before; but WOW, the repetition in that paragraph was stark and then my name appeared in it, too; even more shocking! I still can't believe you get away with writing that word in a post. Not sure you would get away with the corresponding female part.

We will need to talk about that ending laugh. Why would the narrator laugh at the possibility of it being "a plant?" I guess we'll save this for the end. Good idea to wait.:idea: I think, personally, the laugh was a spontaneous one, and can't truly be explained logically, but we can discuss that when we get to it.

Yes I saw you wrote something about the we being Lawrence and Frieda and the Red Baron. :lol: They aren't in the story. NO, that is not what I was getting at. It was the whole idea of the war and how this story came about. You asked me to look up the background in that book and then you make me a laughing stock. I did my homework, did you do yours smarty pants? *grrrr*...I like that *smarty pants*, I think I will use that often in conjunction with your name.:lol:

I don't see exactly what you said on "we." You went into his biography. I don't see what that had to do with the "we" in the story. Are you saying Lawrence slipped in his writing and let out some biographical bit that refers to his personal situation? It doesn't strike me that way. That seems like a conscious elocution and I just don't exactly know what to make with it. No, I didn't say he 'slipped'; Lawrence doesn't just 'slip'; with all his revisioning, Lawrence means what he puts down in his short stories. He is pretty precise and says so in letters concerning them, etc. However, he did rely on his own experience and I think the "We" was used mostly in the home and this would be a good way to indicate that he was married as well. That's the impression I got.

Well, once you wrote about the red baron and one can't fight city hall, you lost me and my attention. You know I have ADD. :D

You think the father is manipulative too? I'll have to go check. I don't quite remember that part well.

Whenever you're ready.

Those last three I can't answer - give me strength! Since, I don't get much of anything out of those, AND I do agree, you MUST have ADD, Virgil, :lol: I will definitely post the next part of the text; so we can proceed onward and hopefully upward. I will do so tomorrow, since it's nearing midnight and I am really tired.:yawnb:

Sapphire

05-12-2009, 04:26 AM

First of - thank you all for responding to my question regarding the "we"-part.

Janine, I had totally forgotten D.H. Lawrence had any relation to the Red Baron! :brickwall I really "like" the Red Baron as a historic figure, being quite interested in the development of plains and flying during WWI. And of course because of Snoopy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxzg_iM-T4E) :D. I do not think Frieda is really his sister though - all the accords I find (I have to say though, it's wiki and other internet pages I do not know the original sources of the information) only mention them as "distant relatives".
Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story. I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible. It might be a real-life story, but I do not find the town Tible on google maps, and I do not think it snowed very hard in the winter of 1918/1919. At least, not when I check it against the information of a weather station in Ferryhill, Durham (http://www.napier.eclipse.co.uk/weather/bonacina.html) - but that is over 250 miles from where Lawrence stayed that winter. And after all, the heavy snow could be added to make the story more "unnatural".
If it is a story that really happened to Lawrence or someone he knew, it would make sense that he fictionalized it though. I guess unless the writer himself ever told about this story really being true, we will never know.
I disagree when you say "They were not in this area very long". Or at least, I put questionmarks to it. If they were not there very long, how could the narrator have had time to know "the ground so well" as is written in the last part of the text you quoted?! Could he have learned that ground so well over the course of one Summer/Autumn/Winter. Maybe...

As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.

As for Eliza not coming to England - it never crossed my mind that she might not! I often take people on their word without thinking about it, and the fact that she wrote in her letter about having the money to be able to come made it even more plausible. I never thought twice about it - just took the letter for action and actually imagined the story to have her in it in the end, standing in the doorstep or such. I guess your argumentation about it being not a very sensible step for the girl to take is a good one, and especially the fact that she wrote that letter in French - if she does not know English it would be quite crazy to go to the UK without any idea whether Alfred would be there to take care of her (she asks him to come towards her, though she knows where he lives as she wrote that letter to an address). And in reading it again, I see she wrote "write and tell me" and that is a thing which will never happen - I did not register that part in my brain.
And it did not help that I totally did not understand what Alfred meant when he said "Back your life it's a plant." If we get there, I would like a little course in English to understand what he tries to say there for though I know the words I do not get the way they're put in the sentence :blush:

I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium :lol: I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me :p.
On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium :confused:

Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind :). Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.

Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...

As the new text isn't posted yet, I take this opportunity to ask about two (edit: 3) things I do not find an answer to in the previous posts:
1
I do not see any of you going into the part where the narrator talks about the eyes of the baby.
'He has sweet smiling eyes, but not like your beautiful English eyes--'
She suddenly struck her hand on her skirt with a wild motion, and bent down, doubled with laughter. Then she rose and covered her face with her hand.
'I'm forced to laugh at the beautiful English eyes,' she said.
'Aren't his eyes beautiful?' I asked.
'Oh, yes--very! Go on!--Joey, dear, dee-urr, Joey!'--this to the peacock. This part struck me, for several reasons:
- Talking about the eyes again. We have heard about Maggie's, now the eyes of Alfred are mentioned. Why is this important? (Maybe it is not?)
- The narrator is just guessing. Mind you, the letter says 'He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father' - so why on earth does he add 'but not like your beautiful English eyes'. If he tries not to give away Alfred as a father he is really doing a lousy job with that line. A woman calls her darling little brother's eyes not as beautiful as the eyes of a dear friend of the family?! If I was a suspicious wife that would be a dead ringer to me! And apart from that, the narrator does not know whether Alfred's eyes are beautiful or not. Quite a leap...
- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so? And is Joey just a distraction to her or is it relevant that she says her husband's eyes are very beautiful and then calls for her peacock?

2
I was struck by the same inconsistency as Dark Muse (post # 2793) - if Joey came with Maggie from her home 7 years ago, then why is she only married for 6 years? And why did she marry Alfred, he seems to be from a less wealthy family than her - was it because they fell head over heels?
I really wonder where Tible might be, as it is mentioned that her parents have a farm in Oxfordshire. If this is far away from Tible, it might be that Maggie came to the region of Tible 7 years ago and only then came to know Alfred - instead of moving there because of him. The question stays why she moved out 7 years ago though, as her parents do not strike as poor people who would lend their daughter out as a servant or such... It all stays a mystery, but why did Lawrence create this extra year?! Just to bother us with it? :p

3
Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online (http://www.browfarm.co.uk/hens_ducks_peafowl/peafowl_info.htm) that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage ;)
My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).
I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?

Sorry for the long post :blush:

* I see we can not write peacock without the pea... :crash:

Janine

05-12-2009, 03:50 PM

First of - thank you all for responding to my question regarding the "we"-part.

Wow, Saphire, you wrote up a storm; you are getting like me!;) This will be a challenge to answer but I will try my best.

Janine, I had totally forgotten D.H. Lawrence had any relation to the Red Baron! :brickwall I really "like" the Red Baron as a historic figure, being quite interested in the development of plains and flying during WWI. And of course because of Snoopy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxzg_iM-T4E) :D.

I like the image, too, I will check out the Youtube link later on; thanks; I love Youtube! The connection caused Lawrence a lot of grief.

I do not think Frieda is really his sister though - all the accords I find (I have to say though, it's wiki and other internet pages I do not know the original sources of the information) only mention them as "distant relatives". I think you are correct on that. I don't know why I said that. I just looked it up and it was a distant cousin of hers - Manfred von Richthofen. An excellent book I read by Harry T. Moore "The Intelligent Heart" states him as such. The fact remains that his war heroism did play heavily in the Lawrence's life and the fact that Frieda von Richthofen came from aristocracy. Her father also had played a prominent role in past military excursions. His image is reflected in the short story 'The Prussian Officer', which we discussed a few years back in this thread.

Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story. I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible. It might be a real-life story, but I do not find the town Tible on google maps, and I do not think it snowed very hard in the winter of 1918/1919. At least, not when I check it against the information of a weather station in Ferryhill, Durham (http://www.napier.eclipse.co.uk/weather/bonacina.html) - but that is over 250 miles from where Lawrence stayed that winter. And after all, the heavy snow could be added to make the story more "unnatural".

Well, many of Lawrence stories are based on some incident or some character he may have met or known. Usually, one can research that fact, and find out who the models for his characters were; this story, I could not really come up with anything solid to that idea, so I am merely surmising or thinking outloud. Good authors sift through and embellish, I am not sure if the snowstorm was exaggerated or truly they had this type storm back then; the idea is enough for me, as to it being 'unnatural' ;since that would fit the story and theme well. I would say have to say, that personally, the facts are irrelevant. I did read online and quoted that peacocks were from one origin - think it was India and they were introduced into other regions in the world. Most likely they were brought back during some of the travels or pursuits of the English in foreign lands. We have wild peacocks here in the US, I believe. I don't see why everyone thinks it so strange that there are peacocks in England at this time. Lawrence's first book was entitled "The White Peacock" as you know. Now I can't imagine a white peacock in England but then again, perhaps it was brought there and multiplied, being original to foreign lands. In TWP the bird is more symbolic than anything and sort of otherworldy, so who knows? 'Tible' could be fictional; or it could have been real, maps and town names change everyday in the entire world. I think it most likely it was fictional. This is an early story, and in TWP 'Nethermere' is a totally fictional place that Lawrence's imagination dreamed up. Only Lawrence can answer all these questions; we will have to summons his spirit.

If it is a story that really happened to Lawrence or someone he knew, it would make sense that he fictionalized it though. I guess unless the writer himself ever told about this story really being true, we will never know.
I disagree when you say "They were not in this area very long". Or at least, I put questionmarks to it. If they were not there very long, how could the narrator have had time to know "the ground so well" as is written in the last part of the text you quoted?! Could he have learned that ground so well over the course of one Summer/Autumn/Winter. Maybe...

It was in the biography about this area where the Lawrence's occuppied a cottage for a short time, before leaving England altogether. I surmised it from that. It would not be unusual at all that Lawrence or the narrator would know the ground or terrain well, in only a short space of time. Lawrence was an avid hiker/walker; his curiosity lead him to all kinds of places and amazingly enough, he walked great distances, even having such a serious medical condition. At this juncture of his life he was still fairly young and in better shape than he would be later on with his bad lungs. I can well picture him quiely exploring the area on foot.

As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.

Right, I noticed the "we" was pretty much, when he was at home nursing the bird. The mention of two nursing it and nurturing it back to health seemed to me more intimate and more loving. I got the impression the other half of the "we" was a woman, since woman are usually good at nuturing and nursing sick animals back to health. At one point later on, Lawrence, even admits he is a little afraid of Joey.

As for Eliza not coming to England - it never crossed my mind that she might not! I often take people on their word without thinking about it, and the fact that she wrote in her letter about having the money to be able to come made it even more plausible. I never thought twice about it - just took the letter for action and actually imagined the story to have her in it in the end, standing in the doorstep or such. I guess your argumentation about it being not a very sensible step for the girl to take is a good one, and especially the fact that she wrote that letter in French - if she does not know English it would be quite crazy to go to the UK without any idea whether Alfred would be there to take care of her (she asks him to come towards her, though she knows where he lives as she wrote that letter to an address). And in reading it again, I see she wrote "write and tell me" and that is a thing which will never happen - I did not register that part in my brain.

Exactly, glad you can now view it that way. I think in this time period it is very unlikely she will venture to come to England with a small child. Also, so true, Alfred is not intending to write her obviously; the letter is gone now, right? He would not even have an address to write to and even if he did, I doubt he would bother. We can discuss that in more detail when we get to that part.

And it did not help that I totally did not understand what Alfred meant when he said "Back your life it's a plant." If we get there, I would like a little course in English to understand what he tries to say there for though I know the words I do not get the way they're put in the sentence :blush:

He meant that it was 'a set up.' In other words, that the woman is claiming the child is his biologically, and really it probably is not; she may even not know who the child belongs to paternally. She may just be seeking an English husband, trapping a man into marriage. Don't be embarrassed that you did not understand. I did not get it at first either and then I realised what it meant.

I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium :lol: I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me :p.
On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium :confused:

Maybe she was Belgium born and lived in France. I am not sure other than that idea. I will check the text again.

Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind :). Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.

Think I would agree on that, too.

Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...

Here is where I do not agree with Virgil at all. One can't just spout out that he was anti-modern. Come on, Virgil. Lawrence is a lot more complex than that. In some way Lawrence was very modern in his thinking; in other ways traditional. I really think this is something needs extensive study and one can't make a general statement like this. I think in many ways, Lawrence was ahead of his time in his way of thinking.

As the new text isn't posted yet, I take this opportunity to ask about two (edit: 3) things I do not find an answer to in the previous posts:
1

Ok, I will do my best but I am anxious to post more text.

I do not see any of you going into the part where the narrator talks about the eyes of the baby. This part struck me, for several reasons:
- Talking about the eyes again. We have heard about Maggie's, now the eyes of Alfred are mentioned. Why is this important? (Maybe it is not?)
- The narrator is just guessing. Mind you, the letter says 'He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father' - so why on earth does he add 'but not like your beautiful English eyes'. If he tries not to give away Alfred as a father he is really doing a lousy job with that line. A woman calls her darling little brother's eyes not as beautiful as the eyes of a dear friend of the family?! If I was a suspicious wife that would be a dead ringer to me! And apart from that, the narrator does not know whether Alfred's eyes are beautiful or not. Quite a leap...- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so? And is Joey just a distraction to her or is it relevant that she says her husband's eyes are very beautiful and then calls for her peacock?

Interesting. I did not pick this up. I will have to read that part again.

2
I was struck by the same inconsistency as Dark Muse (post # 2793) - if Joey came with Maggie from her home 7 years ago, then why is she only married for 6 years? And why did she marry Alfred, he seems to be from a less wealthy family than her - was it because they fell head over heels?
I really wonder where Tible might be, as it is mentioned that her parents have a farm in Oxfordshire. If this is far away from Tible, it might be that Maggie came to the region of Tible 7 years ago and only then came to know Alfred - instead of moving there because of him. The question stays why she moved out 7 years ago though, as her parents do not strike as poor people who would lend their daughter out as a servant or such... It all stays a mystery, but why did Lawrence create this extra year?! Just to bother us with it? :p

I don't think it unusual that she might have come to the area for some reason and then met Alfred or maybe she came to marry him but stayed with the family for a time to get better acquainted. In those days, cousins even married each other. I am not sure I know the true answer to this year discrepancy and not sure it's that vital to the meaning in the story. Where did you get the impression that her real family was more well off than Alfred's family is?

3
Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online (http://www.browfarm.co.uk/hens_ducks_peafowl/peafowl_info.htm) that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage ;)

I don't have any sound idea on this question. I am not sure it is that important to the story and most of what you say is conjecture or making up a subplot. These are interesting thoughts and theories but not sure at all how the mating thing works with peacocks. :lol: I like your last theory - that Joey had an unlucky marriage! Good one....

My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).

:lol: A little too wild! Now who is being imaginative? Saphire, you should be a author.

I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?

It is strange how one can't find a solid straight answer on the peacock quesiton in relation to England. I did find some research that I posted awhile back. I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.

Sorry for the long post :blush: No problem. I am a long poster, also.:D

* I see we can not write peacock without the pea... :crash:

I know, isn't that funny? If you name the female dog same thing happens. One is the usually the rooster and the other a harmless pup. Makes me laugh.:lol:

Virgil

05-12-2009, 10:47 PM

Are you trying to drag me under, get me into trouble, my dear friend, Virgil? I know you mentioned the word before; but WOW, the repetition in that paragraph was stark and then my name appeared in it, too; even more shocking! I still can't believe you get away with writing that word in a post. Not sure you would get away with the corresponding female part.

What did I say that was profane. I used words that are quite acceptable. At least I think so.

NO, that is not what I was getting at. It was the whole idea of the war and how this story came about. You asked me to look up the background in that book and then you make me a laughing stock. I did my homework, did you do yours smarty pants? *grrrr*...I like that *smarty pants*, I think I will use that often in conjunction with your name.:lol:
But you were discussing the use of "we" in the story.

Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story.
That he did.

I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible.
I'm not sure I think the narrator is really a stand in for Lawrence.

As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.
How old do people think the narrator is? It doesn't say anywhere, but for some reason I got the impression he was relatively young, younger than Alfred. But that's just an impression. I don't think it says anything in the story.

I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium :lol: I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me :p.
On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium :confused:
:lol: Yes, I kind of empathize with the girl too. She's not exactly innocent, but she's in a difficult situation and Alfred appears to have abandoned her.

Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind :). Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.
Lies run through all the communication in the story.

Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...
Hehe, Lawrence parodied the roaring twenties types in Women In Love. No, it's not suprising at all that Lawrence's ideas on marriage and relationships don't coincide with modern relationships. His views can be seen as in the Romantic tradition, where there is a spirituality in the natural and that social conventions (such as marriage) are the antogonism to that spirituality. If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.

- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so?
That is a great question and something that struck me too. I don't have an answer for it yet, but it certainly is extremely important to the story. Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.

3
Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online (http://www.browfarm.co.uk/hens_ducks_peafowl/peafowl_info.htm) that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage ;)
Fabulous find Sapphire!!! That is quite true. I had not thought of that. I did notice that Joey has decendents and that parallels the father who also has decendents, and so links the father and the peacock.

My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).
I think that kind of complexity is there in the story. Your mind is not going wild. This is a tremendously well crafted work.

I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?
I think we mentioned that they weren't natural.

Sorry for the long post :blush:

* I see we can not write peacock without the pea... :crash:
:lol: And Janine thinks I talk dirty. ;)

Janine

05-12-2009, 11:16 PM

What did I say that was profane. I used words that are quite acceptable. At least I think so. You know what I am referring to. I suppose you are going to say anatomical is just fine. You still crack me up!

But you were discussing the use of "we" in the story. What? This does not register. We did have a lengthy discussion about the "we".

That he did. He certainly did. Well, at least we agree on something here.

I'm not sure I think the narrator is really a stand in for Lawrence. He appeared to me in the form of a ghost last night and told me himself - believe it - whispered to me "I am the narrator!" :lol: You know me, I think all the first person narrations are Lawrence. But truly, the reason I think it, just because of what I read and posted on the background of the story. Shall I post that again for you, Mr. ADD?

How old do people think the narrator is? It doesn't say anywhere, but for some reason I got the impression he was relatively young, younger than Alfred. But that's just an impression. I don't think it says anything in the story.
Younger than you!:lol:

:lol: Yes, I kind of empathize with the girl too. She's not exactly innocent, but she's in a difficult situation and Alfred appears to have abandoned her. I do, but just maybe she is lying, too. It could be someone else's kid. Obviously, Alfred is going to abandon her for good; we wouldn't have a story without that factor. Maybe she send this letter out to several eligible males.

Lies run through all the communication in the story. Or lost in translation...just kidding...lies yes, whether blantant or little white lies....still deceit, cover-up.

Hehe, Lawrence parodied the roaring twenties types in Women In Love. No, it's not suprising at all that Lawrence's ideas on marriage and relationships don't coincide with modern relationships. His views can be seen as in the Romantic tradition, where there is a spirituality in the natural and that social conventions (such as marriage) are the antogonism to that spirituality. If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention. I still think that it's a philosphical and complicated thing to aspect of Lawrence to define absolutely. Some might say the idea of the 'primative instincts' is actually a progression in modern thinking, not a regression. That's a whole new debate. Lawrence was no way conventional in the usual sense of the word.

That is a great question and something that struck me too. I don't have an answer for it yet, but it certainly is extremely important to the story. Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.

You know what else echoes in the story? It came to me today. The fact, that Joey is aligned with Alfred, in that they both would have been rescued from death; then they would both have been nursed back to health by a human being who was compassionate.

Fabulous find Sapphire!!! That is quite true. I had not thought of that. I did notice that Joey has decendents and that parallels the father who also has decendents, and so links the father and the peacock.

Peacock's all have either accendents or decendents.

I think that kind of complexity is there in the story. Your mind is not going wild. This is a tremendously well crafted work.

Aha, you now admit this story is well crafted. I think it's very well thought out and very well written.

I think we mentioned that they weren't natural. Imported from India.

:lol: And Janine thinks I talk dirty. ;) Very much so, in the mind! But totally harmless, I believe. A wolf on the outside, a puppy inside.:lol:

Hey, Virgil, did you notice you caught blue type from Saphire? Hope that's not like swine flu!

I am determined to post the next part of the text now...next post......get ready, here is comes.....

Janine

05-12-2009, 11:27 PM

Next Section of the Text

The next day was clear, and the snow had frozen, so I decided to carry him back to Tible. He consented, after various flappings, to sit in a big fish-bag with his battered head peeping out with wild uneasiness. And so I set off with him, slithering down into the valley, making good progress down in the pale shadow beside the rushing waters, then climbing painfully up the arrested white valleyside, plumed with clusters of young pine trees, into the paler white radiance of the snowy, upper regions, where the wind cut fine. Joey seemed to watch all the time with wide anxious, unseeing eye, brilliant and inscrutable. As I drew near to Tible township he stirred violently in the bag, though I do not know if he had recognized the place. Then, as I came to the sheds, he looked sharply from side to side, and stretched his neck out long. I was a little afraid of him. He gave a loud, vehement yell, opening his sinister beak, and I stood still, looking at him as he struggled in the bag, shaken myself by his struggles, yet not thinking to release him. Mrs. Goyte came darting past the end of the house, her head sticking forward in sharp scrutiny. She saw me, and came forward. 'Have you got Joey?' she cried sharply, as if I were a thief. I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever. She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply. I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.

Sapphire

05-13-2009, 04:52 AM

Yes, a new part of the text :D But first some comments on the previous posts.

@Janine

Where did you get the impression that her real family was more well off than Alfred's family is?
From her saying "not like here" when she tells about her folks place (a big farm) in Oxfordshire. That gave me the impression that she lived less "big" now, while living with Alfred's parents. It is not clear whether that place is Alfred's or the parent's.
On the other hand, she does say Alfred had a good education. She herself had quite something too, having had French at school - I do not think that was taught on the usual English primary schools? I do think she had a secondary education of some sort, but I do not know the school system of that time at all so I am just guessing here.
And she says "that is how he knew French" from him being a chauffeur, not from him being at school. But maybe she means that is how he really learned French - I myself have had French for 4 years in high school and have the same problem as Maggie :brickwall.

and most of what you say is conjecture or making up a subplot
I know, my imagination can run wild sometimes (Ok... maybe not just sometimes) ;) And I often wonder why a writer does not elaborates on parts that are totally insignificant to most others who read a story/book :lol:

I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.
I asked around a bit and nobody really seems to know for certain, not even people that know about birds. I know peacocks are not native in the UK, but imported from India (probably by Royalty first). I guess that is enough in answer to the story, but I keep wondering whether peacocks can survive in the wild. Or do they always need some home to belong to, some human to give them extra nutrition? Some human to take care for them? Are they to be regarded as pets (instead of a wild animal)?

@Virgil

If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.
Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.

Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.
Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again :p). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...
I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing :) I wonder whether the father laughs....

:lol: And Janine thinks I talk dirty
Well, I never thought about it as a "wrong" word until I posted it and saw **** instead of the word itself - then it hit me :lol:

@the new text
Wow... where shall I start?! Every time I try to cut up the text I think "but this is also significant towards..." I guess I will just have to go for a long post again :p

The next day was clear, and the snow had frozen, so I decided to carry him back to Tible. He consented, after various flappings, to sit in a big fish-bag with his battered head peeping out with wild uneasiness.
Joey consented to be transported. That word struck me, especially as in my mind it was the narrator who had been "good" to the bird and just wanted to do what is for the best - and now the bird had to give his consent. He has quite some power over humans, don't he? Is this maybe where the "nature over nurture" part might come in? Nah, I probably read too much into it - Joey is battered and uneasy. Of course he won't just give into transportation, it is probably all very new to him.
Are peacocks easily scared? I know there are birds that can get a heart attack just because a human tries to catch them... But I guess Joey is used to humans around him.
And so I set off with him, slithering down into the valley, making good progress down in the pale shadow beside the rushing waters, then climbing painfully up the arrested white valleyside, plumed with clusters of young pine trees, into the paler white radiance of the snowy, upper regions, where the wind cut fine.
Leaving the "safe home" where an animal can be nursed back to live. This area is easy to leave (when the storm is over), it is however hard to get to the other home... Like nature does not want people to go there. And again, the wind is cutting...

Joey seemed to watch all the time with wide anxious, unseeing eye, brilliant and inscrutable.
There are the eyes again. At least, I take it "eye" here means "eyes" and the bird is not blinded on one?! Coming to think of it, in the description of Joey right before the rescue the narrator also talks about just "eye". With the baby, narrator himself or Maggie it is "eyes". A peacock with one eye. Not sure what to make of that, besides that it must be ironic when he has a tail full of eyes he can't use in the breeding season ...

As I drew near to Tible township he stirred violently in the bag, though I do not know if he had recognized the place. Then, as I came to the sheds, he looked sharply from side to side, and stretched his neck out long. I was a little afraid of him. He gave a loud, vehement yell, opening his sinister beak, and I stood still, looking at him as he struggled in the bag, shaken myself by his struggles, yet not thinking to release him.I do not blame the narrator to be a bit afraid of him. Peacocks are quite big birds, and birds are scary creatures (just imagine if they pick your eye out!). I do not really know why Joey struggles - does he want to get away again, away from Alfred. Or does he want to get out and back on his home ground as fast as possible, happy to be home again (calling for Maggie)? It can easily go both ways...
The "yet not thinking to release him" struck me: the obvious (/right) thing to do does not come to his mind. Maybe a little nag to what he did with the letter? :p The moment I think of that I think that is going too far, but hey - a girl can dream :)

Mrs. Goyte came darting past the end of the house, her head sticking forward in sharp scrutiny. She saw me, and came forward. 'Have you got Joey?' she cried sharply, as if I were a thief.She guessed that in answer to Joey's cry, I guess.

I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.
Not sure what to make of this. Obviously the bird dislikes the snow that caused him to almost die, well the snow and Alfred that is. But why is Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?
I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness?

She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply.
Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.
I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.

I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.
Again, he does not say "old"

That is all I get out of this part. :) I really wish we could see in the mind of Mr. Lawrence more directly ;)

jinjang

05-13-2009, 02:47 PM

Welcome to Sapphire!

I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.

The story itself says the peacocks are not native to England.

But, I also found this website:
http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/facts_about_indian_peacocks

The site says "Successful peacocks form a harem with up to five peahens."

I am ready to get to the part where the father-in-law shows up...

jinjang

05-13-2009, 02:48 PM

I kind of feel Janine confuses, a few times, my postings with Dark Muse's, which is understandable because of the length of this discussion thread.

Sapphire gave me an idea to use different color.:D

She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.

Notice the change in Maggie's look! She is no longer sallow. Ignorance is a bliss! Acceptance to the lesser evil is a bliss.

I saw a glimpse of the father-in-law, the happier and wiser man!

Janine

05-13-2009, 03:45 PM

Yes, a new part of the text :D But first some comments on the previous posts.

Yeah, I had to sneak that in or I would never get it posted and we will be here all summer, stuck on this one story. But hey, Saphire, I am more than happy that you are posting so much. Usually I am the longest poster here. I tend to be 'long-winded' I know, but I like to be thorough, too. At first you were just reading behind the scenes and I am delighted to see you taking such an active role now. I enjoy reading your posts.

From her saying "not like here" when she tells about her folks place (a big farm) in Oxfordshire. That gave me the impression that she lived less "big" now, while living with Alfred's parents. It is not clear whether that place is Alfred's or the parent's.
On the other hand, she does say Alfred had a good education. She herself had quite something too, having had French at school - I do not think that was taught on the usual English primary schools? I do think she had a secondary education of some sort, but I do not know the school system of that time at all so I am just guessing here.
And she says "that is how he knew French" from him being a chauffeur, not from him being at school. But maybe she means that is how he really learned French - I myself have had French for 4 years in high school and have the same problem as Maggie :brickwall.

I just read this part over and, yes, I too, get the impression her former home was larger and probably more prestigious; as you say, she had a education which would have allowed for French to be taught. It doesn't seem that Alfred's education was anything shabby though. She states that he liked farming better. We are only getting the information from Maggie here and she is acting like her background was more important that Alfred's; since no one is telling the complete truth in this story, who knows if that is true or if her family were even nice people to live with. Yet, she does claim Alfred's mother and father are good people and especially good to her. Also, did you notice this:

"We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war."

This makes me think that they were not married very long or maybe he joined even prior to their marriage, at the time that he went off to the war; maybe, they never spend that much time together during the war years. I can't recall now how long WWI lasted? I will have to look that up online. Also, she does say 'had' a farm - concerning her parents and her. Maybe she was an 'only child', and she lost both parents - who knows? Maybe this family took her in; then it resulted in the two marrying. In that case, it might not have been that she truly loved Alfred, but it was a sort of 'marriage of convenience' or rather her position would not give her much choice in the matter, she being all alone in the world now. Saphire, I had two years of French in HS and feel the same way :brickwall...haha....

I know, my imagination can run wild sometimes (Ok... maybe not just sometimes) ;) And I often wonder why a writer does not elaborates on parts that are totally insignificant to most others who read a story/book :lol:

Because it's only a short story. I think Lawrence does elaborate more in his novels, don't you? Hey, these stories do get people thinking and talking; that may just be Lawrence's intention. I think any good writer achieves that sort of thing and it's fine. One wants reader's imagination to be stimulated. That's the sign of a good author and a good story.

I asked around a bit and nobody really seems to know for certain, not even people that know about birds. I know peacocks are not native in the UK, but imported from India (probably by Royalty first). I guess that is enough in answer to the story, but I keep wondering whether peacocks can survive in the wild. Or do they always need some home to belong to, some human to give them extra nutrition? Some human to take care for them? Are they to be regarded as pets (instead of a wild animal)?

Maybe we should ask the peacock....;) just kidding of course....I think Royalty probably brought them to England. I am sure they were a total fascination at the time. I do think they could survive in the wild of England which is a moderate climate. Birds are very resilent and they adapt over time. I think any domestic animal can survive on it's own in the wild; we had domestic geese on our lake and they ate all kinds of natural things. Only occasional did neighbors buy grain feed for them and usually only if we had a severe winter.

@Virgil,Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.

That's great Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of my favorites! Definitely, Hardy was a huge influence, especially at this time for Lawrence. This is an early story, which appears in the first book of the 3 part set of short stories, so it's definitely early. I think both men mentioned here were quite inovative and ahead of their times - not one bit anti-modern.

Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again :p). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...

No, I don't think there is anything joyous about the story. I don't see the story as that type of tale; not many of Lawrence's are or maybe none really. It's more ironic in parts, but never joyous. Oh, I do think Maggie's laugh indeed bitter at times; also resentful, suspicious. The narrator's laugh came as a surprise at first to me but the more I read it the more I thought he laughed at the irony of the whole situation: a man saying it was all a set up; a wife loving a peacock more than of her husband; a husband jealous of a peacock - what is'nt there to laugh at? Maybe, he is scolfing more than truly laughing. I don't think he is laughing with them, I think he is laughing at them.

I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing :) I wonder whether the father laughs....

Yes, we should wait actually, until we get to that specific part of the text. You can see how much we get out of phrases and key words. There may be a clue there as to the laugh.

Well, I never thought about it as a "wrong" word until I posted it and saw **** instead of the word itself - then it hit me :lol:

Not you, but Virgil's repetition of anatomical parts. I had to laugh and joke with him about that. Shocked to see my name in the same paragraph. I have done that same think you did with the other word for a female dog and I really had to laugh. Also, the animal, basically a donkey. Don't try posting that word either.:crash:

I am going to put the new text part into a new post - next one; just afraid I might loose this one.

Welcome to Sapphire!

I second that! :thumbs_up But I can't read that green type at all, jinjang. Are you two trying to make me go blind? I can barely read the blue. I have bad eyes at my age!

The story itself says the peacocks are not native to England.
jinjang, can you post the exact quote in the text where it says that. I do believe you but wish to read that part.

But, I also found this website:
http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/facts_about_indian_peacocks I didn't check that out yet, but thanks for finding that. I will do so after posting this and the next part of Saphire's last post.

The site says "Successful peacocks form a harem with up to five peahens."Oh, I would imagine that to be so. Most animals in the wild do survive by banding together in groups. I know our domestic geese always traveled that way with one prominent goose as the leader of the group and he would oversee their care and well-being. Actually, that goose was the one I told you about who was killed. It was sad to see because the group did not do well after that and now I believe they have dwindled down and are non-existent.

I am ready to get to the part where the father-in-law shows up... That is the next part I have ready to post - it will be will very soon.

I kind of feel Janine confuses, a few times, my postings with Dark Muse's, which is understandable because of the length of this discussion thread.

Oh, jinjang, I am very sorry if I have ever done that. I did have this feeling that somehow I had not totally answered one or two of your posts a few pages back. It is true that with more posters here, we either do one of two things - skip over things or confuse things that people say. Once I recall that Dark Muse and Quark's posts got confused in a one of the former discussion. We all ended up laughing about it in the end. I am so sorry if it was frustrating for you. Next time please point that out to me at once or even post something in my profile page so I can catch up with your post(s).

Sapphire gave me an idea to use different color.eeeekkkk...like I said - please spar my eyeballs! :eek2:

Quote:

She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.

Notice the change in Maggie's look! She is no longer sallow. Ignorance is a bliss! Acceptance to the lesser evil is a bliss.

I saw a glimpse of the father-in-law, the happier and wiser man!

Yes, I agree - perhaps ignorance is bliss. Or at least, it seemed she accepted the fact, that her husband had cheated; then resigned herself to make the most of it. That's the impression I get. But that might be only a temporary state of mind she will exist in; perhaps it's a form of survival for her. I don't think the woman will ever live a happy existence, with a husband who oviously strays.

Yes, the father-in-law seems to be the wiser man or so the story puts forth he is. Apparently Maggie is close to the parents. In this way she has ties to the family unit and it would be hard to break those ties now; especially seeing she probably has not family of her own as she once did. If her parents are still alive perhaps they did not approve of Alfred and told her if she left she would not be allowed to return. That's another posibility.

@the new text
Wow... where shall I start?! Every time I try to cut up the text I think "but this is also significant towards..." I guess I will just have to go for a long post again :p

Saphire, No problem with long post; just don't lose them before you hit the 'Post Reply' button. Happened to me more than once.

Joey consented to be transported. That word struck me, especially as in my mind it was the narrator who had been "good" to the bird and just wanted to do what is for the best - and now the bird had to give his consent. He has quite some power over humans, don't he? Is this maybe where the "nature over nurture" part might come in? Nah, I probably read too much into it - Joey is battered and uneasy. Of course he won't just give into transportation, it is probably all very new to him.

You know this part didn't strike me as unusual at all. I told you all about my pet goose who got a sick eye and we had to take him to the vet. Now who think this big proud male goose, 'leader of the pack', would let us take him in the car; and yet he was quite resigned to go. I do think animals have a sixth sense that humans are kind and will help them when they are ill or in danger. I would could well imagine the opposite, too. He obviously, must know that Alfred is a constant thread to his life and he needs to flea from him. Now stuffing the bird into a bad and carting him across the frozen expanse would be a bit scary for the animal. I can see why he was wary and also remember, he doesn't know the narrator as well as he knows Maggie. He knows him only barely so his trust would be a bit shakey.

Are peacocks easily scared? I know there are birds that can get a heart attack just because a human tries to catch them... But I guess Joey is used to humans around him.

What bird is that? Maybe he has high cholestrol. I didn't know that was true. However, I am sure that Joey was fearful. I would think that peacocks, having been brought to England as a sort of fascination would be very used to humans and would hang about farms. After all farms have food that has fallen from wagons, etc and they can peek at the scraps. By now, I am sure humans pose no threat to them.

Leaving the "safe home" where an animal can be nursed back to live. This area is easy to leave (when the storm is over), it is however hard to get to the other home... Like nature does not want people to go there. And again, the wind is cutting...

Well, nature is hard and conditions here are shown to be 'unnatural' for this part of the country this time of year, with the snowstorm and all. I am sure the treak was not easy to the next farm. It might have been several miles and uphill over uneven land, maybe hilly, even rocky.

There are the eyes again. At least, I take it "eye" here means "eyes" and the bird is not blinded on one?! Coming to think of it, in the description of Joey right before the rescue the narrator also talks about just "eye". With the baby, narrator himself or Maggie it is "eyes". A peacock with one eye. Not sure what to make of that, besides that it must be ironic when he has a tail full of eyes he can't use in the breeding season ...

I think it's just a way of saying 'eyes' by referring to 'eye' as singular. I am not sure if that has special significance beyond the idea of the 'eye' being all seeing or insightful, like the inner eye and one of wisdom or knowledge. Could be that is why he is using 'eye' singularly; but I am not certain...just thinking outloud on my part.

I do not blame the narrator to be a bit afraid of him. Peacocks are quite big birds, and birds are scary creatures (just imagine if they pick your eye out!). I do not really know why Joey struggles - does he want to get away again, away from Alfred. Or does he want to get out and back on his home ground as fast as possible, happy to be home again (calling for Maggie)? It can easily go both ways...

Right, I agree... haha...I get your joke - pick your eye out!...:lol: No, this is not Hitchcock's "The Birds", Saphire. However, a lot of people do have a fear of bird beaks. I think peacocks are kind of scary...they are large and sort of long necked and they tend to show off those feathers and act a bit threatening at times. I have seen them in the zoo parading around like that and they are sort of awesome and a bit frightening.
To your last statement, it can easily go either way. He probably just wants to be home -birds are territorial, so he comes home to roost.

The "yet not thinking to release him" struck me: the obvious (/right) thing to do does not come to his mind. Maybe a little nag to what he did with the letter? :p The moment I think of that I think that is going too far, but hey - a girl can dream :) I think he was just dumbfounded and stunned at the time; forgetting to release him. Like you said he seemed kind of scary and threatening to the narrator. I think maybe comparing it to the letter is going a too little far, but who knows.

She guessed that in answer to Joey's cry, I guess.

I imagine.

Not sure what to make of this. Obviously the bird dislikes the snow that caused him to almost die, well the snow and Alfred that is. But why is Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?

Perhaps. Not sure either. She does seem some changed the next day to the narrator.

I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness? To Lawrence usually witch-like is not a bad thing but a possitive and connected to the natural world - like the world of fairied and magic and more of the primitive idea of the pagan world. It could also indicate the 'mysterious'.

Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.

I got that impression as well. Virgil gets the opposite impression. I don't know how to definitely answer this question or this idea of the narrator's age.

I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.

Can't answer this yet. This involves the part of the text I did not post yet but will next. It will be easier to answer after I review that part with the dialogue/interchange between the characters.

Again, he does not say "old"

That is all I get out of this part. :) I really wish we could see in the mind of Mr. Lawrence more directly ;) [/color]

Janine

05-13-2009, 05:37 PM

Next Section of Text

'You've got'im back 'gain, ah see,' he said to his daughter-in-law. His wife explained how I had found Joey.

'Ah,' went on the grey man. 'It wor our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must'a flyed ower t'valley. Tha ma' thank thy stars as 'e wor fun, Maggie. 'E'd a bin froze.

They a bit nesh, you know,' he concluded to me.

'They are,' I answered. 'This isn't their country.'

'No, it isna,' replied Mr. Goyte. He spoke very slowly and deliberately, quietly, as if the soft pedal were always down in his voice. He looked at his daughter-in-law as she crouched, flushed and dark, before the peacock, which would lay its long blue neck for a moment along her lap. In spite of his grey moustache and thin grey hair, the elderly man had a face young and almost delicate, like a young man's. His blue eyes twinkled with some inscrutable source of pleasure, his skin was fine and tender, his nose delicately arched. His grey hair being slightly ruffled, he had a debonair look, as of a youth who is in love.

'We mun tell 'im it's come,' he said slowly, and turning he called: 'Alfred--Alfred! Wheer's ter gotten to?'

Then he turned again to the group.

'Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up wi' thee. Tha ma'es too much o' th'bod.'

A young man approached, wearing rough khaki and kneebreeches. He was Danish looking, broad at the loins.

'I's come back then,' said the father to the son; 'leastwise, he's bin browt back, flyed ower the Griff Low.'

The son looked at me. He had a devil-may-care bearing, his cap on one side, his hands stuck in the front pockets of his breeches. But he said nothing.

'Shall you come in a minute, Master,' said the elderly woman, to me.

'Ay, come in an' ha'e a cup o' tea or summat. You'll do wi' summat, carrin' that bod. Come on, Maggie wench, let's go in.'

So we went indoors, into the rather stuffy, overcrowded living-room, that was too cosy, and too warm. The son followed last, standing in the doorway. The father talked to me. Maggie put out the tea-cups. The mother went into the dairy again.

'Tha'lt rouse thysen up a bit again, now, Maggie,' the father-in-law said--and then to me: ''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam, an' the bod flyed awee. 'E come whoam a Wednesday night, Alfred did. But ay, you knowed, didna yer. Ay, 'e comed 'a Wednesday--an' I reckon there wor a bit of a to-do between 'em, worn't there, Maggie?'

He twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who was flushed, brilliant and handsome. 'Oh, be quiet, father. You're wound up, by the sound of you,' she said to him, as if crossly. But she could never be cross with him.

''Ers got 'er colour back this mornin',' continued the father-in-law slowly. 'It's bin heavy weather wi' 'er this last two days. Ay--'er's bin northeast sin 'er seed you a Wednesday.'

'Father, do stop talking. You'd wear the leg off an iron pot. I can't think where you've found your tongue, all of a sudden,' said Maggie, with caressive sharpness.

'Ah've found it wheer I lost it. Aren't goin' ter come in an' sit thee down, Alfred?'

But Alfred turned and disappeared.

''E's got th' monkey on 'is back ower this letter job,' said the father secretly to me. 'Mother, 'er knows nowt about it. Lot o' tom-foolery, isn't it?
Ay! What's good o' makkin' a peck o' trouble over what's far enough off, an' ned niver come no nigher. No--not a smite o' use. That's what I tell 'er. 'Er should ta'e no notice on't. Ty, what can y' expect.'

The mother came in again, and the talk became general. Maggie flashed her eyes at me from time to time, complacent and satisfied, moving among the men. I paid her little compliments, which she did not seem to hear. She attended to me with a kind of sinister, witch-like graciousness, her dark head ducked between her shoulders, at once humble and powerful. She was happy as a child attending to her father-in-law and to me. But there was something ominous between her eyebrows, as if a dark moth were settled there--and something ominous in her bent, hulking bearing.

She sat on a low stool by the fire, near her father-in-law. Her head was dropped, she seemed in a state of abstraction. From time to time she would suddenly recover, and look up at us, laughing and chatting. Then she would forget again. Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.

jinjang

05-13-2009, 09:04 PM

I hope I did not rush you to the part where the father-in-law shows up, missing important clues. His talks require deciphering. Poor non-native speakers like me can have the head spinning.

'You've got'im back 'gain, ah see,' he said to his daughter-in-law. His wife explained how I had found Joey.

'Ah,' went on the grey man. 'It wor our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must'a flyed ower t'valley. Tha ma' thank thy stars as 'e wor fun, Maggie. 'E'd a bin froze.

They a bit nesh, you know,' he concluded to me.

'They are,' I answered. 'This isn't their country.'

This is the part it tells the peacock is not local. Let me try to translate the father-in-law. Please correct me if I am wrong:

“You’ve got him back again, I see,” he said to his daughter-in-law.

“Ah,” went on the grey man. “It was our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must have flown over the valley. That makes me thank your star as he was fun, Maggie, he’d been frozen.”

“They are bit nervous, you know,” he concluded to me. (I guessed the word “nesh” to be nervous.)

“They are,” I answered. “This isn’t their country.”

'We mun tell 'im it's come,' he said slowly, and turning he called: 'Alfred--Alfred! Wheer's ter gotten to?'

Then he turned again to the group.

'Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up wi' thee. Tha ma'es too much o' th'bod.'

Let try this part, too.
"We must tell him it's come," he said slowly, and turning he called: "Alfred--Alfred! Where is he got to?"

"Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up with you. You make too much of the bird."

The father-in-law indicated Maggie making too much of Joey to cause irritation in Alfred toward the bird. Maggie was acting up more than she feels with Joey to annoy Alfred.

Janine

05-13-2009, 10:32 PM

I hope I did not rush you to the part where the father-in-law shows up, missing important clues. His talks require deciphering. Poor non-native speakers like me can have the head spinning.

Wow, I can imagine. You know when I first attempted "Sons and Lovers" I had the problem deciphering the father's speech. Since then, I can sort spot the words and comprehend at least, 85%. It is not easy, even if English is your native language.

This is the part it tells the peacock is not local. Let me try to translate the father-in-law. Please correct me if I am wrong:

“You’ve got him back again, I see,” he said to his daughter-in-law.

“Ah,” went on the grey man. “It was our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must have flown over the valley. That makes me thank your star as he was fun, Maggie, he’d been frozen.”

"he'd have been frozen", I think it says. You are certainly close enough.

“They are bit nervous, you know,” he concluded to me. (I guessed the word “nesh” to be nervous.)

That I am not sure about, but I don't know what else it could be.

“They are,” I answered. “This isn’t their country.” I had noticed that statement, but I took it at first, just to mean another part of England or separate countryside; but it may very well be, that he is talking about the peacocks native country of origin. I had not thought of that before, and considering we are talking about various countries in the story, during wartime, that would probably make sense.

Let try this part, too.
"We must tell him it's come," he said slowly, and turning he called: "Alfred--Alfred! Where is he got to?"

"Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up with you. You make too much of the bird."

The father-in-law indicated Maggie making too much of Joey to cause irritation in Alfred toward the bird. Maggie was acting up more than she feels with Joey to annoy Alfred.

That sounds about right. I found that hard to read, too. Thanks jingjang.

Virgil

05-14-2009, 08:25 AM

[color="blue"]@Virgil

Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.

Yes, very much like Rousseau and Hardy with the exception that Lawrence connects things to some religious/spiritual notion, while both of the other two are closer to atheism. Lwarence evolves to a pantheism, if not out right paganism.

Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again :p). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...
Oh I did not pick up on Alfred's laugh. I think one more reading on my part is in order to specifically look for the laughter throughout the story and to try to draw some significance from it.

I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing :) I wonder whether the father laughs....
Yes, let me look at the story again from this perspective.

Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?
I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness?
This is the point I wish to make on that passage. Let me repaste the pertinent section:

I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever. She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply. I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.
Notice Maggie becomes "flushed and handsome" and so on. Whenever Lawrence uses the term "flushed" there is a sexual connotation to it, and Ican't but help but bring the symbolism to it's logical conclusion. Joey represents the phallus and what Maggie needs is a phallus to bring her back to life, to brighten her eyes, enrich her hair, to make her flush with life. The war has caused the deprivation of manhood to the community and the women have degenerated and put into roles they shouldn't be in. This is not that much different than Lady Chatterly, but here Maggie has been forced to accept a bird as some sort of pseudo phallus, while Lady Chatterly abandons her limp husband for a real penis. :D

Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.
I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.
I don't know the narrator's age. I took him to be young. How old was Lawrence when he wrote this Janine?

I'll catch up with the rest later.

Sapphire

05-14-2009, 10:54 AM

@JinJang
Hi there to you too :) Thank you for the welcome.

Notice the change in Maggie's look! She is no longer sallow. Ignorance is a bliss! Acceptance to the lesser evil is a bliss.
Exactly what is Maggie ignorant about? Which lesser evil does she accept?

And for that part where the father is talking - it has me stumped too ;) I am not a native English speaker either, but considering the fact that I have trouble understanding some dialects in my own language I am not sure that would really help me :lol: Thanks for writing those parts out, it really makes it easier to grasp.

@Janine
Wow, a thorough response again! And yes, it does happen to me sometimes that my whole post is deleted because I hit the wrong button :crash: More than once to be honest ;)

This makes me think that they were not married very long or maybe he joined even prior to their marriage, at the time that he went off to the war; maybe, they never spend that much time together during the war years. I can't recall now how long WWI lasted?
WWI lasted from 1914 to (11 nov) 1918. Maggie mentions these four years in her reply to the narrator when he complains about going behind her husband's back "He's been behind my back long enough -all these four years.".
And no, I am not trying to make you blind ;) I just so like to type in blue :) If it is really annoying to you I can change it in this thread of course! Just tell me ;)

Or at least, it seemed she accepted the fact, that her husband had cheated; then resigned herself to make the most of it. That's the impression I get. But that might be only a temporary state of mind she will exist in; perhaps it's a form of survival for her. I don't think the woman will ever live a happy existence, with a husband who oviously strays.
Again, ignorance of what? Isn't this part just describing how happy Maggie is for Joey to be back? Where is the connection with her accepting a cheating husband :confused:

I think it's just a way of saying 'eyes' by referring to 'eye' as singular. I am not sure if that has special significance beyond the idea of the 'eye' being all seeing or insightful, like the inner eye and one of wisdom or knowledge. Could be that is why he is using 'eye' singularly; but I am not certain...just thinking outloud on my part.
I could go along with that :) Even if it is not the meant meaning, it is still a nice thought ;)

Right, I agree... haha...I get your joke - pick your eye out!... No, this is not Hitchcock's "The Birds", Saphire. I did not even make that connection - I guess I made a subconscious joke there :lol:

@Virgil

Joey represents the phallus and what Maggie needs is a phallus to bring her back to life, to brighten her eyes, enrich her hair, to make her flush with life.
The text says here ""he flopped out". I have a hard time ... ow wait, lets try to talk without any double meaning ... I have a difficult time (:p) to associate this with a phallus. Or at least with a strong, erect manly one ;) I think you are looking for something which is not really there. No doubt Maggie is "flushed" and one can/has to take this sexually, but no need to bring a phallus into this all.
It is a bit like the talk I had with a friend of mine a while ago. He objected to me (or actually girls in general) drinking beer from a bottle, telling me the bottle reminded him of a certain male part and that it was just not appropriate. When I kindly reminded him he (as a guy) was drinking from a bottle too he spread his beer all across the floor as he dropped the bottle. Such a shame... that is what can happen when you try to find a double (sexual) meaning behind everything :p Be warned!

No ideas on the new text yet - I'll be back ;) BTW, I bought "England, My England" and "the White Peacock" today :D Always fun to find second hand books - one of them had a card from 1961 in it and an old negative (country scene picture)! A message from the past... (

Janine

05-14-2009, 02:49 PM

I will get to my responses to everyone's posts as soon as I have the time, I might have to go out for awhile. But for now, I have just found this in the "Calender of His Works" a book on Lawrence at every stage of his writing - the 'where and what' he is doing at the time, well documented from letters, diary entries, etc - a very interesting source book.

JANUARY 1919

15 JAN. Lawrence send Pinker a story. It was most certainly '.Wintry Peacock'. There was deep snow in Middleton a this time. A letter of 9 Feb. to Katherine Mansfield echoes the opening paragraph of the story [Moore 578].

Virgil, In 1919, Lawrence would have been 34 yrs old. So actually, he is a bit older than the couple who are featured in this story or so I would surmise. I believe he did refer to Alfred as a young man.

I am going now to research that letter to Katherine Mansfield, in hopes of finding some facts out that will shed more light on this story. I have the Harry Moore book, so I will look in there, too.

At this same time, I know that Lawrence was attempting to write a history book -"European History for Schools", of which he was struggling and not enjoying the writing at all - I am paraphrasing an entry in this same source book. He says, if he could have a small income he would give up writing "for publication" altogether. Obviously, he is writing this book for pure income. I am sure the short story was more to his liking and for his pleasure, although he was seeking to have it published, as well.

Aha! There was a snowstorm with deep snow in England at the time Lawrence wrote this story - January 1919

I am reseaching it and found that apparently the area was populated by pheasants and other various birds, but doen't now mention peacocks. Peacock's do seem to be something Lawrence morphed the pheasants into peacocks; interesting. I wonder why. I will further research this and hope to find that exact letter to Katherine Mansfield. Apparently, from other sources, I find now that that winter (1919 in England in that region) was particularly snowy and brutal, especially to Lawrence, who hated winter. Add on the fact, that he had several severe bouts with flu and nearly died, and also a reference that he was not getting on so well with his wife, Frieda, and one can easily see the origin of this story. I will have more later with actual quotes. This is all very interesting to me.

A little time now and then I have to depart again - I did find the exact letter to Katherine Mansfield in my Collected Letters. It's quite interesting.

This is to Saphire, I can read the blue type but usually when I do to quote your passages they blue gets all mixed up with the quote/unquoted text. I have to manually remove it. It's very pretty but maybe if you would restain yourself to some parts it might be easier. It's up to you. I can continue to take out your formating when I quote you. Now the green type I cannot make out at all on my computer. It just blends into the tan background. Maybe a darker shade might work.

No ideas on the new text yet - I'll be back BTW, I bought "England, My England" and "the White Peacock" today Always fun to find second hand books - one of them had a card from 1961 in it and an old negative (country scene picture)! A message from the past... (

Saphire, that is great that you found "The White Peacock" second hand. Mine I bought off Amazon was second hand, too at pretty good price. I liked the book very much although there are some flaws in it as far as development of plot. It was, afterall, young Lawrence's first published work. I found some of the passages so incredibly beautiful though that it makes the book totally worthwhile. You will see distinct parallels to "Sons and Lovers" which followed this book by a two, I think. First came "The Trespasser", which I just read and enjoyed very much.

I also own "England, My England" - that is a nice little collection. I have had that book for ages - one of my first Lawrence books actually. The first story is incredible; and "Wintry Peacock" is in that book, as well.

jinjang

05-14-2009, 10:07 PM

Janine, thank you very much for your research result in #2927. I read the posting thoroughly.

Based on your research, we can now say the narrator was actually Lawrence himself. Could it mean then that we can say the narrator had a good intention towards both Maggie and Alfred and that he hid the real content of the letter in order to put them out of their misery?

Exactly what is Maggie ignorant about? Which lesser evil does she accept?
We are talking about the real content of the letter that the narrator decided to hide from Maggie. Before the letter was incorrectly read to Maggie, she had a strong suspicion of her husband's infidelity and the narrator observed Maggie had sallow and gloomy face with red nose.

She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.

Now Maggie accepted the fact that her suspicion may have been wrong with tint of doubt, she is less unhappy and looks "flushed and handsome."

The son looked at me. He had a devil-may-care bearing, his cap on one side, his hands stuck in the front pockets of his breeches. But he said nothing.

The trouble between Maggie and Alfred is still lingering on. Maggie did not reveal to Alfred what was read to her. Alfred knows he is guilty but does not know whether Maggie discovered the whole thing or not.

'Tha'lt rouse thysen up a bit again, now, Maggie,' the father-in-law said--and then to me: ''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam, an' the bod flyed awee. 'E come whoam a Wednesday night, Alfred did. But ay, you knowed, didna yer. Ay, 'e comed 'a Wednesday--an' I reckon there wor a bit of a to-do between 'em, worn't there, Maggie?'

I know I am the wrong person to translate the father-in-law, but there is always Janine to check my mistakes and so here is my try again:

"That will rouse yourself up a bit again, now, Maggie," the father-in-law said--and then to me: "She has not been very bright since Alfred came home and the bird flew away. He come home Wednesday -- and I reckon there was a bit of a to-do between them, wasn't there, Maggie?"

"A to-do between them" means Maggie and Alfred fought big or small not in front of the parents. English reserved manners may have prevented the couple from frighting in front of elders.

''Ers got 'er colour back this mornin',' continued the father-in-law slowly. 'It's bin heavy weather wi' 'er this last two days. Ay--'er's bin northeast sin 'er seed you a Wednesday.'

"She got her color back this morning," continued the father-in-law slowly. "It has been heavy weather with her this last two days. Ay-- she has been northeast since she's seen you on Wednesday."

Now this part indicated that the narrator's hiding the true content of the letter has done Maggie good. The narrator could clearly observe the good deed he think he did as long as it last in their fragile relationship.

But Alfred turned and disappeared.

''E's got th' monkey on 'is back ower this letter job,' said the father secretly to me. 'Mother, 'er knows nowt about it. Lot o' tom-foolery, isn't it?
Ay! What's good o' makkin' a peck o' trouble over what's far enough off, an' ned niver come no nigher. No--not a smite o' use. That's what I tell 'er. 'Er should ta'e no notice on't. Ty, what can y' expect.'

"He has got the monkey on his back over this letter job, " said the father secretly to me. "Mother, she knows nothing about it. Lot of tom-foolery, isn't it? Ay! What's good of making a peck of trouble over what is far enough off and need never come no near. No--not a smite of use. That is what I tell her. She should take no notice on it. Ty(?), what can you expect."

What does "he has got the monkey on his back over this letter job" mean? Father may have chided Alfred over his misbehavior but advised both to put aside the whole thing.

Janine

05-14-2009, 11:40 PM

Janine, thank you very much for your research result in #2927. I read the posting thoroughly.

Glad, that I could find something at long last. I found more, but it will take a bit of time to quote from the book directly; I am too tired out tonight. Typing from a paperback is not easy. The main things are the distinct mention of the harsh condition and deep snow, the pheasants that Lawrence observed on his hikes around the countryside and the fact, that he and his wife were not getting along very well; that is putting it mildly. He even says he can't take anymore of her 'bullying' and he hopes she just goes off to Germany to live and that be an end of it. In the meantime, his sister seemed to have arrived to nurse Lawrence back to health; I believe I read that his wife does take off for a holiday in Germany to visit her relatives at or near this time; but I can't swear to that. At anyrate, Lawrence seemed to be disgruntled at this time with the weather, his commerical writing, and his wife. It therefore, could have been his sister he referred to included in the "we". This all now leads me to wonder, if the narrator (if he be Lawrence) would be out of sorts with both the man and the woman in this story, probably more toward the woman. Apparently, he did happen to see a woman come out of her home and this inspired his story further, on the same day he saw the pheasants in the wild. I will have to read that part of the biography again and hopefully type it up for all to read and speculate upon. It's really interesting, at least to me.

Based on your research, we can now say the narrator was actually Lawrence himself. Could it mean then that we can say the narrator had a good intention towards both Maggie and Alfred and that he hid the real content of the letter in order to put them out of their misery?

This I don't know. I would think by his general attitude at this time he would not favor either, however he would very much have on his mind the strife and struggle between man and woman in a relationship of marriage. Like I said, he seems a bit disgruntled at this concerning married life.

We are talking about the real content of the letter that the narrator decided to hide from Maggie. Before the letter was incorrectly read to Maggie, she had a strong suspicion of her husband's infidelity and the narrator observed Maggie had sallow and gloomy face with red nose.

Now Maggie accepted the fact that her suspicion may have been wrong with tint of doubt, she is less unhappy and looks "flushed and handsome."

That's how I read it too; but obviously our sick-minded Virgil thinks otherwise. I guess he thinks that Alfred and Maggie had a roll in the hay the night before.:lol:...or wait a minute, I might be thinking of Lawrence's long short story "Love Among the Haystakes." By the way, it's a great story.:)

The trouble between Maggie and Alfred is still lingering on. Maggie did not reveal to Alfred what was read to her. Alfred knows he is guilty but does not know whether Maggie discovered the whole thing or not.

I know I am the wrong person to translate the father-in-law, but there is always Janine to check my mistakes and so here is my try again: You kidding, you did such a good job now that we are going to appoint you official Lawrence translator. I think all your wrote below is quite accurate - thanks so much. It does make it clearer. I don't know how you accomplish it with English not being your native language. Good for you! :thumbs_up

"That will rouse yourself up a bit again, now, Maggie," the father-in-law said--and then to me: "She has not been very bright since Alfred came home and the bird flew away. He come home Wednesday -- and I reckon there was a bit of a to-do between them, wasn't there, Maggie?"

"A to-do between them" means Maggie and Alfred fought big or small not in front of the parents. English reserved manners may have prevented the couple from frighting in front of elders.

"She got her color back this morning," continued the father-in-law slowly. "It has been heavy weather with her this last two days. Ay-- she has been northeast since she's seen you on Wednesday."

Yep, that is how I would interpret it, also.

Now this part indicated that the narrator's hiding the true content of the letter has done Maggie good. The narrator could clearly observe the good deed he think he did as long as it last in their fragile relationship.

Not sure what that I understand exactly what you mean here. Do you mean he might think his actions justified if the married couple remain together?

"He has got the monkey on his back over this letter job, " said the father secretly to me. "Mother, she knows nothing about it. Lot of tom-foolery, isn't it? Ay! What's good of making a peck of trouble over what is far enough off and need never come no near. No--not a smite of use. That is what I tell her. She should take no notice on it. Ty(?), what can you expect."

What does "he has got the monkey on his back over this letter job" mean? Father may have chided Alfred over his misbehavior but advised both to put aside the whole thing.

Humm, how can I explain that expression? It's like having this bad thing thrust on you and your can't get rid of it...or like having your 'neck in a noose', but that's explaining it with another expression. Monkey is like an emotional weight, I believe.

And Jinjang, thanks for refraining from using 'green' type.:)

Sapphire

05-15-2009, 05:38 AM

I'll leave the blue then :) Maybe it is easier for me to read because I have the forum background on "test" style - this light grey might be a better contrast to the blue than the yellowish from the standard style.

Janine, I totally side with JinJang: thank you so much for the research and sharing all that with us :) Really appreciated! Imagine that they really had a strong snowstorm in those days :D Like the weather wanted Lawrence to write that story :p.
And I get almost all my books second hand. I honestly enjoy it when I find a book I want to read for a nice price :lol: 3 Bucks for a D.H. Lawrence is a bargain in my eyes ;)

And JinJang, thank you again for translating :thumbs_up Really a good job.

"He has got the monkey on his back over this letter job, " said the father secretly to me. "Mother, she knows nothing about it. Lot of tom-foolery, isn't it? Ay! What's good of making a peck of trouble over what is far enough off and need never come no near. No--not a smite of use. That is what I tell her. She should take no notice on it. Ty(?), what can you expect."
I guess Ty is not "thank you" as I immediately thought, but just some sort of exclamation or way of addressing. I read the part about the monkey like Alfred is concerned about the letter, a bit paranoid maybe - it is on his mind and worries him. The line "mother, she knows nothing about it" is either that
1) the mother knows nothing about it
2) mother is just an exclamation again and "she" means Maggie
-a) Maggie knows nothing about how worried Alfred is
-b) Maggie knows nothing about the real story with Eliza. This would imply the Father does...
I think it is 2b, as the Father talks about it being far enough off (not sure myself how far away off a grandson is :brickwall). All this does imply that the Father knows quite well what is going on. Could he have read the letter? Or would Alfred have confined in him? The Father seems over all quite good informed, knowing why Joey got away and everything...

@the part about Maggie not being shallow anymore

We are talking about the real content of the letter that the narrator decided to hide from Maggie. Before the letter was incorrectly read to Maggie, she had a strong suspicion of her husband's infidelity and the narrator observed Maggie had sallow and gloomy face with red nose.
If you put it that way, with the previous description, I see how you got there. I really just read that part in the immediate context and thought the girl was happy as could be because Joey came back. After all, the sentence is right after she knows the bird is OK - before that the girl's looks are not described...
Maybe her look has several reasons (there is not always just one reason :) )
- She's so happy Joey is back. After all, Joey is just one letter away from Joy :p
- Ignorance IS bliss, though the second to last alinea in the last text (do you still follow? ;) ) indicates she has her reservations. Or maybe it is the feeling that she is on the "controlling side" of the relation now - she knows what is in the letter but her husband does not. She has something over him now, instead of him having something over her. She has the secret.
- Her husband is back and she had a good "night" ;) She's sexually active again. After all, 'Ers got 'er colour back this mornin'

I know I said I would go into the other part of the story myself, but I think most have already been said :). One thing did strike me though, which is not yet mentioned:
In spite of his grey moustache and thin grey hair, the elderly man had a face young and almost delicate, like a young man's. His blue eyes twinkled with some inscrutable source of pleasure, his skin was fine and tender, his nose delicately arched. His grey hair being slightly ruffled, he had a debonair look, as of a youth who is in love.
The Father is really affectionately portrayed. He seemed in love. Either with life itself, or with his woman, or ... ?

And then there is the last part

She sat on a low stool by the fire, near her father-in-law. Her head was dropped, she seemed in a state of abstraction. From time to time she would suddenly recover, and look up at us, laughing and chatting. Then she would forget again. Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.Real laughter, finally?! I personally do not think this really counts, it seems rather the laughter of a casual conversation - fun, but not that much from the heart. I wonder why Lawrence made Maggie "near in her forgetting"?! Why is Maggie so near when she seems to have forgotten (like the peacocks in the beginning) about the men she's with?

Janine

05-15-2009, 03:05 PM

Saphire, thanks from refraining from the blue type. It's not the reading that is so difficult on the tan but the quoting that gets all jumbled which takes me longer to reformat. That would explain why your page looks better if is on gray and not on tan, also. But it's the fact half the quotes turn out colored and half black that drives me crazy.

You wrote a lot and so did others. Today is a bad day for me. I am anticipating being super busy. I have to fly off to the bank in time and the PO and then to get wrappings for my grand-daughter's first birthday party which is tomorrow; tomorrow I won't be around at all. I have to do some laundry tonight and get to bed in good time. Virgil said he needed a little time off, too...a short break. Don't dispair I will be back on Sunday I hope; unless I am too worn out from the huge kid party! Hhaah...I think it will be great fun. Can't wait really.

Let me just say this, concerning the story background. I read up some more on this period in Lawrence's life in two books last night. Wow, he went through a lot of 'ups and downs', mostly 'downs', I must say. He was super depressed after nearly dying of the flu, that had invaded England and Europe at the time, which killed many people. He was lucky to have survived, but he had many after-effects emotionally, from the two bouts with this flu. They said that his apparent remarks about Frieda and he splitting up were born out of that depression. Not long after she did go off to Germany and he went in the spring to Italy to await her. He kept writing to others, that he was waiting patiently, for Mrs. Lawrence to return home to him. He was apparently still very much in love with her, although during his illness, he said she was a devil to him and he was tired of her nagging him and her bossy way. Then the biographer added that Lawrence was not so easy to deal with when he was ill either, so it went both ways. I imagine that to be totally true, from all I have read about the man, biographically. Lawrence, at this time, was fed-up with his publisher and England and anxious to flee to other countries, which he did, trying each one and settling nowhere for very long.

That's just a little tidbit more, to consider in the background of this story.

You are welcome, Saphire, and hope this little tidbit helps you and others even further to understand the author's views. I am always fascinated with Lawrence's interesting and curious life.

Wowy, yes $3 for a L book is amazing! I have found some books, other than Lawrence, that cheap and my friend just found one, a L book free for me at her local library....his travels through Italy.

Virgil

05-16-2009, 01:13 AM

You know what I am referring to. I suppose you are going to say anatomical is just fine. You still crack me up!

I'm afraid it's in the text Janine. It really can't be helped. Have you read Lady Chatterly and what he actually says in there?

He appeared to me in the form of a ghost last night and told me himself - believe it - whispered to me "I am the narrator!" :lol: You know me, I think all the first person narrations are Lawrence. But truly, the reason I think it, just because of what I read and posted on the background of the story. Shall I post that again for you, Mr. ADD?
No, but it's not in the text and it's an assumption that the narrator satnds for Lawrence. But ok, I'll accept it.

Younger than you!:lol:
Sticks and stones...;)

I do, but just maybe she is lying, too. It could be someone else's kid. Obviously, Alfred is going to abandon her for good; we wouldn't have a story without that factor. Maybe she send this letter out to several eligible males.
She could be. I guess we'll never know.

Or lost in translation...just kidding...lies yes, whether blantant or little white lies....still deceit, cover-up.
The whole story revolves around lies.

I still think that it's a philosphical and complicated thing to aspect of Lawrence to define absolutely. Some might say the idea of the 'primative instincts' is actually a progression in modern thinking, not a regression. That's a whole new debate. Lawrence was no way conventional in the usual sense of the word.
Yes, I understand what you mean. It's modern to be primitive. :D

You know what else echoes in the story? It came to me today. The fact, that Joey is aligned with Alfred, in that they both would have been rescued from death; then they would both have been nursed back to health by a human being who was compassionate.
That is a good point. And they are both loved by Maggie.

Aha, you now admit this story is well crafted. I think it's very well thought out and very well written.
:eek: I never said otherwise.

Janine

05-17-2009, 08:24 PM

I'm afraid it's in the text Janine. It really can't be helped. Have you read Lady Chatterly and what he actually says in there?
What? That word wasn't mentioned in my text. Hey, what version are you reading? Yes, I read LCL, twice to be precise and I own the film version. Hummm.....I should watch that again real soon....I like the scene - naked in the rain and the woods ....It's by Ken Russell, what more can I say?

No, but it's not in the text and it's an assumption that the narrator satnds for Lawrence. But ok, I'll accept it.

Ok, good...then we can agree...right? It feels very much like Lawrence to me.

Sticks and stones...;)

:lol:

She could be. I guess we'll never know. True; just another spin-off theory of mine really....a 'what if'.

The whole story revolves around lies. Perhaps, but I don't think that's the full focus or theme.

Yes, I understand what you mean. It's modern to be primitive. :D Oh, good, you see my point then.

That is a good point. And they are both loved by Maggie. Exactly! You took that one step further than me. I hadn't thought of that, quite in that way.

:eek: I never said otherwise.
That's true, sorry I said that; one for you! I think all of Lawrence's stories are very well crafted. I am trying now to reach my goal - to have read all of them. I finished one more last night - 'A Lovely Lady'. It would be a good candidate for another discussion, I think. It was interesting; although now that I think of it it involves another lie...so maybe not...we'll see.

Virgil

05-17-2009, 10:47 PM

Virgil

05-17-2009, 11:09 PM

I may be duplicating some of your comments on the latest bit of text but here are my thoughts.

First let me say, I have a tough time understanding the father's words. Lawrence writes in such an accent that it took me a while to get some of it, and I still may be wrong.

'Ah,' went on the grey man. 'It wor our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must'a flyed ower t'valley. Tha ma' thank thy stars as 'e wor fun, Maggie. 'E'd a bin froze.
Now the whole Alfred/Joey rivalry is interesting. I'm not sure we are given a rationale for it, but one can assume there is some sort of psychic drama being played. Some sort of unconscious hatred in Alfred that is being expressed. Otherwise why?

They a bit nesh, you know,' he concluded to me.
"Nesh?" What is that supposed to say? I can't understand it.

'No, it isna,' replied Mr. Goyte. He spoke very slowly and deliberately, quietly, as if the soft pedal were always down in his voice. He looked at his daughter-in-law as she crouched, flushed and dark, before the peacock, which would lay its long blue neck for a moment along her lap. In spite of his grey moustache and thin grey hair, the elderly man had a face young and almost delicate, like a young man's. His blue eyes twinkled with some inscrutable source of pleasure, his skin was fine and tender, his nose delicately arched. His grey hair being slightly ruffled, he had a debonair look, as of a youth who is in love.
That is a typical Lawrece hero who is comfortable with the world and sexuality. There are sexually loaded words throughout that passage: Maggie being "flushed and dark, before the peacock," and old man looking young and vital at the lady.

'We mun tell 'im it's come,' he said slowly, and turning he called: 'Alfred--Alfred! Wheer's ter gotten to?'

Then he turned again to the group.

'Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up wi' thee. Tha ma'es too much o' th'bod.'
Very strange passage. "We mun tell 'im it's come"? What's he referring to? What's come? And he tells Maggie she makes too much of the bird. There's a lot being suggested there.

A young man approached, wearing rough khaki and kneebreeches. He was Danish looking, broad at the loins.
Alfred's loins are constantly being highlighted. :D

The son looked at me. He had a devil-may-care bearing, his cap on one side, his hands stuck in the front pockets of his breeches. But he said nothing.
Lots of Lawrentian characters are "devil-may-care." And again, emphasis on his crotch.

'Tha'lt rouse thysen up a bit again, now, Maggie,' the father-in-law said--and then to me: ''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam, an' the bod flyed awee. 'E come whoam a Wednesday night, Alfred did. But ay, you knowed, didna yer. Ay, 'e comed 'a Wednesday--an' I reckon there wor a bit of a to-do between 'em, worn't there, Maggie?'

He twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who was flushed, brilliant and handsome. 'Oh, be quiet, father. You're wound up, by the sound of you,' she said to him, as if crossly. But she could never be cross with him.
"A bit of to-do," another reference to sex, and maggie is flushed again. That's at least three times already lawrence has used that word in referring to her.

''Ers got 'er colour back this mornin',' continued the father-in-law slowly. 'It's bin heavy weather wi' 'er this last two days. Ay--'er's bin northeast sin 'er seed you a Wednesday.'
Can someone translate that for me? I can't understand it.

''E's got th' monkey on 'is back ower this letter job,' said the father secretly to me. 'Mother, 'er knows nowt about it. Lot o' tom-foolery, isn't it?
Ay! What's good o' makkin' a peck o' trouble over what's far enough off, an' ned niver come no nigher. No--not a smite o' use. That's what I tell 'er. 'Er should ta'e no notice on't. Ty, what can y' expect.'
Whatever it is he's saying, it's supposed to show the old man's wisdom.

The mother came in again, and the talk became general. Maggie flashed her eyes at me from time to time, complacent and satisfied, moving among the men. I paid her little compliments, which she did not seem to hear. She attended to me with a kind of sinister, witch-like graciousness, her dark head ducked between her shoulders, at once humble and powerful. She was happy as a child attending to her father-in-law and to me. But there was something ominous between her eyebrows, as if a dark moth were settled there--and something ominous in her bent, hulking bearing.
Very interesting. I don't know what Lawrence is suggesting. Maggie has grown powerful here among the men

jinjang

05-17-2009, 11:31 PM

"He has got the monkey on his back over this letter job,” said the father secretly to me. "Mother, she knows nothing about it. Lot of tom-foolery, isn't it?

We could consider the possibility that the father fooled around just like his son when he was younger. Mother, the mother of Alfred, does not know anything about Alfred’s tom-foolery. Who knows the father-in-law is showing excessive kindness towards to Maggie and hence causing gloomy-look on the mother-in-law? That is a pure speculation and there is not enough evidence from the story. If it is the case, Virgil's point on the dominance between men and women comes stronger.

From the story:

"She got her color back this morning," continued the father-in-law slowly. "It has been heavy weather with her this last two days. Ay-- she has been northeast since she's seen you on Wednesday."

Sapphire’s response:

mother is just an exclamation again and "she" means Maggie and Maggie knows nothing about the real story with Eliza.

I have never seen “Mother” as an exclamation in his story and so I do not think it is an exclamation. "Mother, Alfred's mother, does not know anything about it." seems more natural to me.

I really just read that part in the immediate context and thought the girl was happy as could be because Joey came back. After all, the sentence is right after she knows the bird is OK - before that the girl's looks are not described...

She had sallow and gloomy face when Joey was with her on the day when she asked the narrator to read the letter. Joey is a minor comfort to Maggie.

Since she got the color back the morning after the letter was read to her, I interpreted this part as follows: the narrator's hiding the true content of the letter has done Maggie good. The narrator is observing the good deed he thinks he did by looking at the flushed and handsome face of Maggie, although the marriage of Maggie and Alfred may still be fragile and unhappy.

"It has been heavy weather with her this last two days. Ay-- she has been northeast since she's seen you on Wednesday.” – My interpretation of this part: Maggie has been brooding over the letter for the last two days, but she got her color back after the letter was read to her.

How else would you interpret “she has been northeast since she’s seen you (the narrator) on Wednesday?” I think that “she has been northeast” means she has changed for the better temperament.

Do you mean he might think his actions justified if the married couple remain together?

The narrator may well think it was good to hide the true content of the letter to Maggie for her and her husband’s sake. The story seems to try to demonstrate how subtle men and women behave and how well we, men and women, know it but hard to express in words but we live with just suspicions.

Humm, how can I explain that expression? It's like having this bad thing thrust on you and your can't get rid of it...or like having your 'neck in a noose', but that's explaining it with another expression. Monkey is like an emotional weight, I believe.

I guess the meaning, but your explanation is a lot clearer. Thank you.

Sapphire

05-18-2009, 02:55 AM

Monday Morning - let's start the day of with some Lawrence :)

@Virgil

"Nesh?" What is that supposed to say?
My first thought was that he meant the bird was sensitive (to changes). Maybe even fragile, but rather "nervous". I googled the word and despite "cold weather" it also means "soft, delicate" or "sensitive to cold". In short, Joey isn't that strong - Albert is stronger ;)

We mun tell 'im it's come
Strange indeed - I guess it means "We must tell him (Albert) it (Joey) is come". If I had not read it in this context though, I would have translated "mun" to "MUst Not" :confused:

For further translation of what the father says, see JinJang's post #2928. I really like how you state "Whatever it is he's saying, it's supposed to show the old man's wisdom." :lol: That's one way to show wisdom: by letting a person talk in a strange language :p.

@JinJang
Interesting to suggest that the Father fooled around in his days (and maybe still does by liking Maggie a bit too much). Could very well be. I think you're indeed spot on when you say that "mother" implies here that the Mother knows nothing about Alfred's tom-foolery. - I'll go for explanation 1 with you ;)

She had sallow and gloomy face when Joey was with her on the day when she asked the narrator to read the letter. Joey is a minor comfort to Maggie.
Interesting... Thus Joey is not as important and Albert really has nothing to worry about?! I mean, if she's not overly happy with Joey being back but rather with knowing the true meaning of the letter... I totally see why you implement it like that, but I myself will go with the explanation that it is both: she's happy after the narrator read her the letter and even more now Joey is back :D

How else would you interpret “she has been northeast since she’s seen you (the narrator) on Wednesday?” I think that “she has been northeast” means she has changed for the better temperament.
It does not really fit though: the narrator read the letter to her on Wednesday, found Joey Thursday morning and brings him back on Friday. It has been heavy weather with her the last 2 days. This would rather mean that the letter reading made her more fierce full - it made her like a storm. Which kind of fits maybe, as since the letter was read to her she might believe there is no secret anymore and she has some sort of power over Albert as he did not read the letter and does not knows what she knows...
It is also funny how the Father fits all these changes in Maggie to the Narrator, instead of to the arrival of Albert on Wednesday evening. He really knows that girl well...

Sapphire

05-18-2009, 07:58 AM

I just found THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HokBbaBfbo4) on youtube (no sound). I know we are reading the Wintry and not the White Peacock, but just look at that bird! Wonderful :D

Janine

05-18-2009, 02:53 PM

I just found THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HokBbaBfbo4) on youtube (no sound). I know we are reading the Wintry and not the White Peacock, but just look at that bird! Wonderful :D

Thanks, Saphire, that was marvelous! I loved it. No wonder Lawrence named his first book "The White Peacock"....just amazing! Guess what? I was looking on Amazon last night and now the book is listed at $39.00, for a mere paperback. Do you know how lucky you are to have found that book for $3? I had to pay about $15 - 20 for a used one ages ago.

Oh, Saphire, I laughed so hard when I saw this line of yours and appropriately in blue type:

Monday Morning - let's start the day of with some Lawrence

hahah...that's great. I hope we have made a Lawrence enthusiast out of you and jinjang, our enthusiastic newbies! Love having you both here; you are both so consistent with posting.

Unfortunately, I woke up with my left arm hurting. I am not sure what I did to it. It may have been from carrying my grandchild around on Saturday at her party. She sure got heavy. I'm not used to carting 20lbs around with me; getting old I guess. I don't know how much posting I will do today, but I am reading all of your posts and so much makes sense to me. Thanks everyone, for writing such great posts. They all are wonderful and insighful. When you want to move on with the text, let me know. I will be ready anytime to progress, but only when you are.

I have one comment about the interpretation or definition of 'nesh'. I think you are right, Saphire, and I would go for the weaker - the "soft, delicate" or "sensitive to cold". Now that I think of it, that would align the narrator (assuming it is Lawrence himself) with the bird. He had nearly died of flu and flu is usually prevalent in the winter/cold months and this had been a unusually harsh winter for him; leaving him in a very weak state. I think this would then align him to Alfred in some respect, in that he also was saved by a doting woman or women - his wife Frieda, who he referred to has being harsh in her treatment as a nursemaid, and his sister, Ada, who he preferred. Now Frieda might be aligned with Maggie, in that, at this time, Lawrence was veiwing his own mate/wife as a sort of witch and Frieda was very strong willed; he could not seem to tame Frieda. The Belgium woman, if she did nurse, Alfred, may have been kinder and gentler to him, than Maggie would have been, and attended to his every whim; therefore, I can see her character aligned with Lawrence's sister, Ada. In fact, biographically speaking, Frieda once actually accused the two of being 'too close', since they were blood/sister and brother; Frieda could be very jealous at times. See the connections or parallels. I find all of this fascinating. I had not picked up on it, until we began discussing all these aspects of the story and I found the additional biographical background. In some sense I believe Ada took the place of Lawrence's mother at this time and we all know the connotations there, that they had an unusually 'close' relationship.

Here are some more peacock videos I found on Youtube. Wow, their call is really strange - sort of sounds like a cat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCJkhdih1cs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWTABEOFYoY&feature=related

jinjang

05-18-2009, 05:50 PM

hahah...that's great. I hope we have made a Lawrence enthusiast out of you and jinjang, our enthusiastic newbies! Love having you both here; you are both so consistent with posting.
I am one of those who like to finish things once started, though slowly and nonchalantly sometimes.:)

Janine and Virgil, this part of the story is possibly the most important one and, if we could decipher it together, it will tell a lot about the story. This is, I think, where the real dissection happens.

It does not really fit though: the narrator read the letter to her on Wednesday, found Joey Thursday morning and brings him back on Friday. It has been heavy weather with her the last 2 days. This would rather mean that the letter reading made her more fierce full - it made her like a storm. Which kind of fits maybe, as since the letter was read to her she might believe there is no secret anymore and she has some sort of power over Albert as he did not read the letter and does not knows what she knows...

I admit it is confusing. I think we need to re-examine the three sentences in the context of the story:

Ay--'er's bin northeast sin 'er seed you a Wednesday.'
I am still puzzled over this part in the context.

We mun tell 'im it's come.
I still think it says, "We must tell him it's come," because the father calls Alfred right after he says the sentence.

They a bit nesh, you know,' he concluded to me.
Sapphire cleared the third one: nesh = sensitive to cold and nervous
Sapphire, this is my opinion: Joey is a minor comfort to Maggie. One participant strongly disagreed with me at the beginning of the discussion.

And...

"A bit of to-do," another reference to sex, and maggie is flushed again. That's at least three times already lawrence has used that word in referring to her.

I thought "a bit of to-do" means there was a big fight between Maggie and Alfred, especially after "''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam" (She has not been very bright since Alfred came home.)

Alfred's loins are constantly being highlighted. :D
This shows simply that men - not referring to you though, should I?-lose their heads too much to think straight over sex, ruining their marriages and their lives sometimes like Alfred on the expense of happiness of others.

Quark

05-19-2009, 12:08 AM

These Lawrence stories keep getting more and more mysterious. I have even less of an idea what's going on in this one than I did in last story. Who is the narrator, and what are they doing here? Are they just an interloper, or can we say something more about them? This person appears somewhat urbane--at least more so than the other characters. What connection is this person to the family, though? Is it important? It seems like Lawrence could have told this story in the third person without losing much.

it's an assumption that the narrator satnds for Lawrence. But ok, I'll accept it.

The narrator is certainly author-like, if not Lawrence-like. His impressions of the landscape and characters make up the bulk of the story, and these impressions are largely there for thematic and plot reasons--nothing to do with his separate character. This puts him in an author's position. It's difficult to say whether this author-like character is really a stand-in for Lawrence since what we know about the narrator is so slight.

I admit it is confusing

Can someone translate that for me? I can't understand it.

I'm a little confused too. The dialogue is hard to decipher in some place. I will take a stab at this line:

"We mun tell 'im it's come"

Very strange passage. "We mun tell 'im it's come"? What's he referring to? What's come?

I guess it means "We must tell him (Albert) it (Joey) is come".

He could also be refering to the letter. The father is aware of it, and seems to be trying to help his son through this problem.

Janine

05-19-2009, 12:25 AM

Quark, I hate to say this, but I think you need to go back and review all, or most of our posts; and I know, there are tons now to wade through; but, this story turned out to be more complex and complicated, than I first anticipated. We discussed, in detail, the whole matter of the stand-in for the narrator being Lawrence; also themes concerning the war, that was taking place in Europe at the time; also, the fact, that Lawrence had recently nearly died of flu (there was a severe epidemic in England and in Europe that claimed many lives). The descriptions in the story are not there for no apparent reason, but to entertain the author. They are all interconnected with this idea or war and the struggle and strife between husband and wife. I will write more tomorrow. Let me just say, a few pages or posts back, that Saphire did an excellent job of interpretting the text. I believe it was Saphire, or maybe it was jingjang. I would check it out. It's been quite a stimulating discussion!

Quark

05-19-2009, 12:48 AM

I think you need to go back and review all, or most of our posts

That's a tall order, Janine. Let me just say that the narrator's lack of identity is odd, and then I'll wait and catch up to everyone else in the conversation.

Janine

05-19-2009, 12:57 AM

That's a tall order, Janine. Let me just say that the narrator's lack of identity is odd, and then I'll wait and catch up to everyone else in the conversation.

I know....*sigh*...It's just that you are popping in so late, Quark, and so many of the things you questioned, in your post (above) have been explored thoroughly and answered as close as we all could come up with an explanation; that is asside from having to summons Lawrence, himself, from the beyond. I am sorry, I hope I didn't offend you by requesting you review the posts. It would help to answer a lot of the questions you brooched. Maybe, Virgil can answer you more simply than I can. I felt overwhelmed when I read your post. I am super tired out right now and trying to get offline, so I can head for bed in decent time tonight. It's nearly 1AM already. If you just go back to some of the biographical background information I dug up that would give you better insight into this story. I didn't realise this would be such a tough one for everyone, when I picked it. I thought it way less complex and to my astonishment, it has turned out to be super complicated.

Quark

05-19-2009, 01:05 AM

I hope I didn't offend you by requesting you review the posts.

Not at all. I'm just glad there are some answers to my questions.

I thought it way less complex and to my astonishment, it has turned out to be super complicated.

Super complicated is probably better than super simple. If it were easy, there wouldn't be anything to talk about, and the discussion would have ended long before I got here to rehash things.

jinjang

05-19-2009, 03:13 AM

I got up late and had coffee in the afternoon...and so I am up owling again.

My impressions from several participants of the discussion of Wintry Peacock:

Dark Muse adamantly disliked the story on the fact that the narrator and Alfred had a silent pact to deceive Maggie and that they laughed together how they fooled Maggie at the end of the story.

Virgil triumphantly-excuse my impression-thought that the men had their dominance back at home, even though Virgil disliked Alfred and his behavior, while fearing there is still a female power over men.

Emmy Castrol reluctantly blamed Maggie for the fact that she could not keep her husband and indicated that Maggie may have some distasteful qualities. I am inclined to agree with Emmy Castrol, wherever she is.

I naively believed that the narrator meddled, though forced into the meddling, the affair of Maggie and Alfred by hiding the painful truth to Maggie thus temporarily relieving them from their troubles. I agree also with the father-in-law's wisdom not to take any notice to distant troubles without condoning Alfred's misbehavior.

Janine less naively believed that the narrator is a simple observer of the lives of Maggie and Alfred. Janine did not give me a solid ground so far to me where she stands. Neither did BienvenuJDC, even though he thought white lies are good for people sometimes.

Sapphire and Quark recently joined the discussion and I am not sure where they stand, either.

Now, I may be upsetting a lot of participants.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 03:26 AM

I know I have not been around much I have tried to keep up but I have been terribly busy.

but to Virgil and anyone else who might be currious. I do have this small contribution to make.

According to my research Nesh is: being either afraid of the cold or feeling the cold a lot

It is English slang.

jinjang

05-19-2009, 03:50 AM

Hello there,
You should join in because we are quite baffled on this part. What does "she has been northeast" mean in the context, for example? You may have been right all along as a woman's point of view? So may be Virgil.

Sapphire

05-19-2009, 03:57 AM

Hi there Quark :) Glad you have the time again to give your ideas to this story - lets join minds :D

@the word Nesh
Thank you for clarifying that Dark Muse :) Do you by any chance also know what "being northeast" means? I tried to google it, but can not really find any meaning to it in relation to human emotion.
I like Janine's idea on aligning Lawrence with the bird, and the women in his life with the women in the story. I think it is a bit far fetched though. I would rather think of Joey as a soldier wounded in battle (WWI), getting into a conflict which is not really his fight (Albert and Maggie their relationship).

@JinJang

Joey is a minor comfort to Maggie
I think I misunderstood this. I read this first like Joey is of minor importance to Maggie - as in that the bird does not really comfort her so (and here comes my wrong conclusion) he's not that much of an important figure in this story. I now get that is not what you mean - or at least I think so as I went back to the earlier posts you talked about. I get that you rather mean that Joey is in the way between Maggie and Alfred, and that he can never give her the comfort a husband can. This does not diminish his role in the whole story :brickwall: Sorry that I made that connection, it is not in your statement at all!

This shows simply that men - not referring to you though, should I?-lose their heads too much to think straight over sex, ruining their marriages and their lives sometimes like Alfred on the expense of happiness of others.
Same goes for women.

Sapphire and Quark recently joined the discussion and I am not sure where they stand, either.
I am afraid I agree with everybody - kind of makes me feel like I don't have an opinion of my own :lol: Like Dark Muse I dislike the attitude of the narrator and Albert to deceive Maggie and how they seem to brag about it and talk about whether the women were small or not (what's that about?!). I am not sure about Virgil's "dominancy back home", as I think Maggie feels like she is the mistress of the house after she feels like she knows all about the letter and Albert does not - which would not make me fear but acknowledge that there's a female power over men like there's a power of men over women ;) Emmy Castrol might be right or not about Maggie, she could be a bit promiscious - keep in mind though, she has been 4 years without a man (who's coming back that day - maybe the reason why she's dressed like that?). I don't see much pain in flirting a bit :) I agree with JinJang in the forced meddling of the narrator, making the (in his eyes) best of it when he realized what he was being asked. I am not sure about the Father's wisdom though... If he knows that much he could make the household a bit more truthful - he's quite a believer of ignorance is bliss (as long as he's not the one being ignorant).
I am still trying to figure out where I stand. I intuitively feel like the narrator is doing the wrong thing, but I can not really find the arguments to where he goes wrong as he does try to make it such that least pain is caused... I guess I just like the truth too much, even though the whole truth (about the affair) is not clear in this story and also very difficult to find in real life.
I would have made other decisions than the narrator. But then again, I do not know French well enough to translate it to the girl :p And it is always easy to judge in hindsight.

jinjang

05-19-2009, 04:06 AM

I get that you rather mean that Joey is in the way between Maggie and Alfred, and that he can never give her the comfort a husband can.
Yes, I said that. Could Joey make Maggie completely happy? I would say, no and obviously not.

I am afraid I agree with everybody - kind of makes me feel like I don't have an opinion of my own
I definitely feel the same and I have not been able to make up my minds. Sometimes Dark Muse is very convincing and sometimes so is far-fetching Virgil.

I don't see much pain in flirting a bit. I know it is irrelevant. Is it common to flirt between men and women, though they are married to someone else, in your part of the world as it is in France?

I am not sure about the Father's wisdom though... If he knows that much he could make the household a bit more truthful - he's quite a believer of ignorance is bliss.

I am not sure now since I can see the father-in-law has been paying too much attention to Maggie. The first time I read the story I exclaimed that the father-in-law was my favorite. Then the wise Janine told me that she does not side with anyone or favor anyone in particular. They are all meddlesome and manipulating bunch of miserable people!

I am still trying to figure out where I stand. I intuitively feel like the narrator is doing the wrong thing, but I can not really find the arguments to where he goes wrong as he does try to make it such that least pain is caused... I guess I just like the truth too much, even though the whole truth (about the affair) is not clear in this story and also very difficult to find in real life.
You are with Dark Muse here. Her insight was right, I think.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 01:13 PM

I will have to go back and re-read that part about northeast and see what I might be able to conclude from that part.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 01:48 PM

I could not find any sort of slang difinetion for any possible meaning for "north-east"

But from the passage

"'Er's got 'er colour back this mornin'," continued the father-in-law
slowly. "It's bin heavy weather wi' 'er this last two days. Ay--'er's
bin north-east sin 'er seed you a Wednesday."

I can only presume that it must somehow mean, unwell, or ill, or something of that nature becasue it says that she "got her color back" and the weather was heavy.

And prior to that he walks about how she has not been very "bright" since Alfred returend and Joey left, so I presume that to be "north-east" is to allude to ailing in someway.

or pehraps it means to be pale, or "down" or depressed. Something along those lines.

That is the best I can make from it.

BienvenuJDC

05-19-2009, 02:31 PM

Neither did BienvenuJDC, even though he thought white lies are good for people sometimes.

No...no...not upsetting anyone at all. (or at least not upsetting me...)

Despite what I may have commented earlier. I wouldn't say that white lies are good, but I would say that it is not necessarily good for everyone to know everything. Sometimes ignorance is to our benefit.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 05:31 PM

I think a wife does deserve to know that her husband is cheating on her though. I do not think there is any blissful ignorance or benifit in that.

BienvenuJDC

05-19-2009, 05:37 PM

I would agree! A wife deserves to know that a husband IS cheating on her. But I am not so sure that it is beneficial that a spouse knows every little thing that the other as ever done.

Janine

05-19-2009, 05:40 PM

Hi there Quark :) Glad you have the time again to give your ideas to this story - lets join minds :D

Seems to be working well so far. I like the idea of joining our minds. :)

@the word Nesh
Thank you for clarifying that Dark Muse :) Do you by any chance also know what "being northeast" means? I tried to google it, but can not really find any meaning to it in relation to human emotion.

I like Janine's idea on aligning Lawrence with the bird, and the women in his life with the women in the story. I think it is a bit far fetched though. I would rather think of Joey as a soldier wounded in battle (WWI), getting into a conflict which is not really his fight (Albert and Maggie their relationship).

Saphire, only answering a small part of your post for now. When I heard you all discussiong her as being 'Northeast' it seems to have set off a bell in my head and I thought of something that Hamlet said when talking to Polonius in double meanings or it may have been R & G, is former classmates. I tried to find it just now, but haven't located it. Something about being 'north by northeast,' although the expression may be northwest. He was trying to convince them he as mad and he is definitely melancholy. I wondered therefore, if the father-in-law didn't mean that Maggie was either 'cold' or 'distant' or 'melancholy' the last day or so. It may just be a local expression or English expression on the mood of a person.

Good work, Dark Muse, on finding the definition of 'Nesh.' That works a lot better; fits the story's meaning.

I still think there is an alignment with the narrator and Joey. Both felt helpless and were saved and therefore it would have been an incentive for the narrator to risk his own life to save the bird. It also definitely is reminescent of a fallen soldier; I had said that before. It is two fold in meaning.

I did read all your posts; I still have a somewhat sore arm but don't worry; I am keeping up with everyone's ideas and posts. It's typing which is a little difficult right now.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 05:40 PM

I would agree! A wife deserves to know that a husband IS cheating on her. But I am not so sure that it is beneficial that a spouse knows every little thing that the other as ever done.

Are you playing semantics here?

So it is pefectly ok for someone to have an affair as long as they don't get caught in the act, and after the fact the spouce does not need to know anything about it. And as long as the said affair is no longer in process than it is perfectly ok to have has many flings as you want and there is no obligation of need for the spouse to know about it.

BienvenuJDC

05-19-2009, 05:47 PM

Are you playing semantics here?

So it is pefectly ok for someone to have an affair as long as they don't get caught in the act, and after the fact the spouce does not need to know anything about it. And as long as the said affair is no longer in process than it is perfectly ok to have has many flings as you want and there is no obligation of need for the spouse to know about it.

Don't put words into my mouth!! It is NOT okay to commit fornication EVER!!! It's not about getting caught or not. It is wrong. I ONLY said that it is not always beneficial for one to know everything that a spouse has done in the past.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 07:36 PM

Considering the child had just been born recently I would not call it "the past" it was a fairly recent event. I do not see how a spouse could not possibly have a right to know that thier husband fathered a child with another woman while they were married. It is not like something he did 20 years ago.

jinjang

05-19-2009, 11:25 PM

I left you a happy child. Why are you returning a crying one? Of course, the thread is not mine. It belongs to Virgil and Janine and I am just a guest here.

Dark Muse, I like you, girl. You can be so carefree and pleasant and gifted, too, but sometimes you can be so exasperating. I think you know that. Others can have different opinions. I may be inclined to agreeing with your version of the story in the end because of your well-put interpretation below in the quote which nullifies my version:

I can only presume that it must somehow mean, unwell, or ill, or something of that nature becasue it says that she "got her color back" and the weather was heavy.

And prior to that he walks about how she has not been very "bright" since Alfred returend and Joey left, so I presume that to be "north-east" is to allude to ailing in someway.

or pehraps it means to be pale, or "down" or depressed. Something along those lines.

BienvenuJDC is not saying the narrator did the right thing to hide the truth. I think he is saying that it may be good for some people who cannot digest the whole truth and who may simply get a nervous breakdown, which may be irrelevant to the story.

I could give you an anecdote, though irrelevant to the story: My husband, a boyfriend back then, had a good friend who was a little weird. I privately and casually expressed my opinion of him to my boyfriend. As French as he was, he told his friend how I thought of him. He lost that friend soon after because the friend was very sensitive. If he did not tell him my feeling then, I could have in time gotten used to him and they would have remained friends.

What do Britains get from northeast? They just get cold wind and so I definitely agree with Dark Muse's interpretation of "northeast."

Virgil

05-19-2009, 11:25 PM

Ok, trying to catch up. I suppose I will not be able to respond to everything. But here's my best.

I just found THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HokBbaBfbo4) on youtube (no sound). I know we are reading the Wintry and not the White Peacock, but just look at that bird! Wonderful :D
Fantastic! And thanks for yours too Janine. Now is that a phallic looking creature or what? :D

I thought "a bit of to-do" means there was a big fight between Maggie and Alfred, especially after "''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam" (She has not been very bright since Alfred came home.)

I took it as a sexual innuendo. The very next sentence Lawrence says: "He [the father] twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who flushed, brilliant and handsome." I do think it was a sexual reference.

This shows simply that men - not referring to you though, should I?-lose their heads too much to think straight over sex, ruining their marriages and their lives sometimes like Alfred on the expense of happiness of others.
Referring to me? :lol: No I have not ruined my marriage if that's what you meant. ;)

That's a tall order, Janine. Let me just say that the narrator's lack of identity is odd, and then I'll wait and catch up to everyone else in the conversation.
This is a form of narrative of a first person narrator observer. This is a common form, especially in short stories, where one sees a story from one relatively removed from the central narrative. That's not unusual. I also don't think the narrator is all together removed, he does participate, though he is not part of the central core of the story. Why does Lawrence choose this form for this story? If he choose third person, he would feel obligated to give us Alfred's and Maggie's thoughts and that would have taken a lot of the mystery out. He could have picked first person from a central character, Maggie or Alfred, but then that would have been a different story and would have been obligated to give their perspective and the sympathies would have changed. I think Lawrence chose the best option.

Virgil triumphantly-excuse my impression-thought that the men had their dominance back at home, even though Virgil disliked Alfred and his behavior, while fearing there is still a female power over men.

I'm not sure I said that. I don't see any dominance by the men in the story. The war has essentially castrated them. There is a male clique where the narrator and Alfred understand each other, and possibly even the father. Maggie's love for a peacock seems to be a manifestation of warped sexual relationships, all caused by the ramifications of the war.

In one of my last posts, I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

jinjang

05-19-2009, 11:35 PM

I took it as a sexual innuendo. The very next sentence Lawrence says: "He [the father] twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who flushed, brilliant and handsome." I do think it was a sexual reference.
Do you really think so? I can't picture an English father-in-law blatantly referencing sex to a daughter-in-law no matter how close they feel.

Referring to me? No I have not ruined my marriage if that's what you meant.

I mean you may be thinking too much of sex to possibly misinterpreting the story.:D

I'm not sure I said that. I don't see any dominance by the men in the story.

Excuse me if I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you mentioned something about the reversed dominance between men and women after the war and how men lost their ruling roles in their households. When Maggie has the letter, she had the upper end of the fight. Now the narrator turned around the situation and gave Alfred the excuse to fight back hence regaining the dominance?

I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

Yes, I wanted to ask you if Wintry peacock, Joey, means the manhood, why Alfred is trying to kill him. I lingered on the statement: Maggie is making too much of the bird. That is when I concluded Joey was in the way between Maggie and Alfred. I also called it Joey interfering innocently. What does it symbolize? I have no idea.

Dark Muse

05-19-2009, 11:37 PM

I left you a happy child. Why are you returning a crying one? Of course, the thread is not mine. It belongs to Virgil and Janine and I am just a guest here.

I think leaving me with any child is considered child endagerment ;)

BienvenuJDC is not saying the narrator did the right thing to hide the truth. I think he is saying that it may be good for some people who cannot digest the whole truth and who may simply get a nervous breakdown, which may be irrelevant to the story.

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

jinjang

05-19-2009, 11:58 PM

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

Now I agree with you because it did not do any good to Maggie since she has been heavy weather since Wednesday after the letter was read to her.

This idea of yours belongs to our modern society: breaking up a marriage by infidelities. But does it fit to that time period? Many women endured with unfaithful husbands in the past because the life of divorced women was a lot worse. They were outcasts in many societies as you well know.

Maggie definitely knows the truth or at least has the strong suspicion. It may be better for her to know it all at this point.

If he choose third person, he would feel obligated to give us Alfred's and Maggie's thoughts and that would have taken a lot of the mystery out. He could have picked first person from a central character, Maggie or Alfred, but then that would have been a different story and would have been obligated to give their perspective and the sympathies would have changed. I think Lawrence chose the best option.
That is an excellent point! Here is a proof of an expert in Lawrence or short stories.

Dark Muse

05-20-2009, 12:05 AM

This idea of yours belongs to our modern society: breaking up a marriage by infidelities. But does it fit to that time period? Many women endured with unfaithful husbands in the past because the life of divorced women was a lot worse. They were outcasts in many societies as you well know.

I did not spicify divorce or breaking up the marraige, I simply said she should be able to make up her own mind on how she wanted to handle the situation, that does not per sae mean explcitiy getting a divorce. But there were women whom even at this period of time did choose divorce over unhappy marraiges even knowing the difficulties that could come from such. So it would not be completely out of the question for Maggie. But I had not acutally directly suggested it. But at any rate Maggie should be alloud to decide for herself with the full truth what she thinks would be within her own personaly best interests.

BienvenuJDC

05-20-2009, 12:07 AM

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know.

If that is the case, then the narrator should say absolutely nothing at all. And I myself would lean toward this. My advice to Maggie would be that she should ask Alfred about his OWN letter.

And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouses

I do not think that there should be secrets between spouses either. But let's put the emphasis where it belongs...between spouses

I am just curious... what is the marital status of each in this thread? If you want to share...

Janine

05-20-2009, 12:12 AM

I think leaving me with any child is considered child endagerment ;) haha..Dark Muse, I think she means she left you (the child) as a happy one. She might have said 'a happy camper' instead. And jinjang, this thread does not belong to anyone. It's just that Virgil and I collaborated (ages ago) to start this thread and we do our darnest each month to keep it running. It helps to have a little structure in these discussions or they tend to get out of hand. We learned that from the past; and infact, these discussions seem to be getting better all the time. No one else that I know, really wants the responsibility of posting text, so that seems to have fallen on my shoulders; and I really don't mind. I love Lawrence's work so I love writing up the introduction or researching a background - it's a pure labor of love. I guess I have read the most Lawrence short stories so far or anyone. In fact, recently, I have been attempting to read all the ones, I have not yet read; so I can say I completed the entire three volume set. I am nearing my goal.

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

I just realised something Dark Muse; you are an 'idealist'. The problem with that is we are reading a story where idealism does not dominate and we are not here to judge the characters by our own standards. Our world is not always an idealistic world either. I think Lawrence is going for reality here and not idealism or moral perfection. I would personally agree with you on the moral issues and very much not approve of a husband sneaking around behind my back or getting another woman pregnant, or even just fooling around, being secretive. I don't think, however, married couples have to tell each other everything about their lives - people need some space. I also think there is a thing called 'forgiveness'; that is not an easy road to travel and not always possible; but one has to consider the possibilty. I doubt I would be too forgiving in the instance of a filandering husband, but this was a different century for one thing; therefore, I am not sure this woman has a lot of options left to her. Apparently, she cannot even return to her former home. The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I think that Virgil's post above is very good and his rendition of why this story was told in first person narrative is excellent. It would have been an entirely different story, as he says, if it had not been first person or had it been told from either Alfred or Maggie's perspective. Much of the mystery would have been lost or unbalanced. Being a first person narrative, also we must consider the perspective of the narrator. I agree with Virgil that Lawrence chose the right option in using the first person narrative.

jinjang

05-20-2009, 12:34 AM

I am just curious... what is the marital status of each in this thread? If you want to share...

I think I have abundantly cleared on this one: I am married with two children and I am the dominating wife or at least my husband allows me to think so so far as it does not interfere with his dominance or his couch. We met as good friends and we are married as good friends. He tells me almost everything honestly and so do I to him. I even told him on which friends or people I had crush. We have incessant topics to talk about over a dinner or on our walk. We fight, too, sometimes.

I know you were not asking me this question.

Janine

05-20-2009, 12:44 AM

Single; no secret there; it's in my profile information. I am divorced with one son. The divorce was eons ago, when I was quite young and foolish; I think that was one of my first lives. In fact, you might now refer to me as a widow, since my ex passed away a few years back. We were on casual speaking terms, since he was the father of my son; also he had been married two more times since.

jinjang

05-20-2009, 12:52 AM

I did not spicify divorce or breaking up the marraige, I simply said she should be able to make up her own mind on how she wanted to handle the situation, that does not per sae mean explcitiy getting a divorce.
That is Maggie's dilemma. I would suggest her not to sleep with Alfred for a long time to punish him, but then he may repeat the offense again. Excuse me if I take it so lightly.

But there were women whom even at this period of time did choose divorce over unhappy marraiges even knowing the difficulties that could come from such. So it would not be completely out of the question for Maggie. But I had not acutally directly suggested it. But at any rate Maggie should be alloud to decide for herself with the full truth what she thinks would be within her own personaly best interests.

One compensation for women is, as we men and women get older, we need men less and men need women more in their emotional need. I am past 30.
I was needy when I was 20's and happily not anymore.

BienvenuJDC

05-20-2009, 01:01 AM

Dark Muse

05-20-2009, 01:25 AM

I just realised something Dark Muse; you are an 'idealist'. The problem with that is we are reading a story where idealism does not dominate and we are not here to judge the characters by our own standards. Our world is not always an idealistic world either. I think Lawrence is going for reality here and not idealism or moral perfection. I would personally agree with you on the moral issues and very much not approve of a husband sneaking around behind my back or getting another woman pregnant, or even just fooling around, being secretive. I don't think, however, married couples have to tell each other everything about their lives - people need some space. I also think there is a thing called 'forgiveness'; that is not an easy road to travel and not always possible; but one has to consider the possibilty. I doubt I would be too forgiving in the instance of a filandering husband, but this was a different century for one thing; therefore, I am not sure this woman has a lot of options left to her. Apparently, she cannot even return to her former home. The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I really do not consider myself an idealist. I just have very high standards and hold people up to high expectations though part of this comes from the fact that while I do not make any claims to perfection, the moral code I judge others by I do uphold for myself, so it is hardly something impossible that I am seeking. I just do not have much give when it comes to those of a weak willed nature. I am just very much into personal reasonability and people being held accountable for their actions.

There is this quote I read somewhere that sums up my basic feelings I cannot recall the exact words off the top of my head but it says basically. "You cannot always control what you feel, but you can control how you behave"

Janine

05-20-2009, 01:29 AM

That is Maggie's dilemma. I would suggest her not to sleep with Alfred for a long time to punish him, but then he may repeat the offense again. Excuse me if I take it so lightly.

I know this is to Dark Muse, but I think that tactic would drive him to more straying from the nest. The we would have a second story perhaps - a sequel.;)

One compensation for women is, as we men and women get older, we need men less and men need women more in their emotional need. I am past 30.
I was needy when I was 20's and happily not anymore.

jinjang, wait till you reach my age! :lol:

jinjang

05-20-2009, 01:29 AM

jinjang, wait till you reach my age!
What do you mean? Do women get the upper hand? Or we are just better off without any men?

Do you say upper hand or upper end?

BienvenuJDC

05-20-2009, 01:36 AM

I really do not consider myself an idealist. I just have very high standards and hold people up to high expectations

That is pretty much what an idealist is...

Janine

05-20-2009, 01:43 AM

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:
a single person (Never been married)
a young married person
an experienced married person
a married person (as the unfaithful one)
a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)
a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)
a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)
a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)
a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)
a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?

Bien, you are doing a whole study here. Interesting I admit. I do wonder how our perspectives change according to our own experience and circumstances. I also think it has a lot to do with age. When we are younger we expect the world to run like clockwork. As we get older, we realise people have to make concessions and also people are fallible and we accept that more readily, than we might have done in our youth; that does not mean a wife should let a husband walk all over her or visa versa. I think a lot needs to be factored in. With a husband, I now know to have been a philandering mate, it's odd that I don't condemn Alfred. I certainly, would not find Alfred a suitable kind of husband. I just think that war drives people appart and as Virgil pointed out, gives rise to 'unnatural' circumstances, where perhaps people, who would have lived descently prior to the war, are drawn into doing things they later regret. Now if the lies in this story, can't be forgiven as human weaknesses, then I don't know what we can forgive. 'Forgiveness' is a Christian ideal and I believe in it. Other's might not. Christ forgave the theives hanging on the cross with him and he even forgave his crucifiers, am I not right? As the bibical verse goes "Let those free from sin cast the first stone." I think that is very wise.

BienvenuJDC

05-20-2009, 01:48 AM

And what goes around comes around...

maybe someday we might be in need of forgiveness...and I'm not talking about from God...but from each other...

Dark Muse

05-20-2009, 02:25 AM

Janine

05-20-2009, 02:41 AM

I suppose that is the key for me there are some things that are beyond forgiveness and should not be forgiven nor do they deserve to be forgive. As well I do not think that "human weakness" is an excuse to let one off the hook. There should be consequences for ones actions.

While Maggie might "choose" to stay with Alfred, I do not think there is anything within her behavior that suggests she genuinely forgives him for what he did. She accepts and perhaps sees that her prospects are better with him than if she had attempted to left, but I don't think this story leaves one with the idea that from where on out they are going to repair their marriage. I think Maggie is still bitter toward him (and rightfully so) and no matter what Maggie may or may not do in regards to him, I do not think that this incident is just a one time thing.

Maggie's behavior and remarks about Alfred earlier within the story suggest that prior to the letter he has already acted in an untoward way toward her, be it another affair or some other less than appealing behavior. I just do not see Alfred as someone who has only made one mistake in his life and is now going to amend for it.

I think he is a cad through and through. Not just because of this single episode but because of what the story suggests to me about his past and future behavior outside of this incident.

Well, even if what you say is the absolute truth then so what? How does it effect the story? I don't see why we have to take a stand either way. I just see this as a story or slice of life that we will never know all the circumstances behind the characters actions. Maybe Alfred was shell-shocked when he had his affair? of course I am just kidding but still the point is we don't know that much truly about #1 the affair with the Belgium girl #2 what Alfred went through in the war #3 how his married life has been with his wife up until now. Everything in the story is suggested but not spelled out, so who is to possitively say how things were. We only have gotten a glipse into Maggie and Alfred's personalities and dispositions. I don't think anyone can make a fair judgement on just these scanty impressions one gets of the characters, same applies for the narrator; whom actually we can feel his mind more clearly than the others since the story is in first person.

Asside from this, your personal beliefs, along with all others here are their own. They all 'own' them and have the right to think morally, as they feel compelled to think. You can't force your views on anyone else here or in the world in general. To say you don't believe in forgiveness (specifically, that there are some things beyond forgiveness) is one of those personal beliefs and you can't force others to agree with you, so you are wasting your time trying to do so. We need to respect everyone's person perspective on this story and their own opinions/beliefs.

I wish to move on with the text. Any objections to that idea? Otherwise, I see this going nowhere again, but round and round in endless circles. Let's shove on and explore the next part of the text. I will post that tomorrow, in a separate post; it is too late now.

Dark Muse

05-20-2009, 02:47 AM

I did not accuse you forcing your beliefs on others when you mentioned your views on forgiveness, so are people who disagree with you not alloud to express opinons without being accused of something.

Virgil

05-20-2009, 07:40 AM

Do you really think so? I can't picture an English father-in-law blatantly referencing sex to a daughter-in-law no matter how close they feel.

He's certainly a very earthy fellow who is quite comfortable in his way of the world. This is Lawrence's ideal person, one whose gone through life and been honest about his sexuality, link to the nature and the cycles of life. Also he is the pre-war person of the story, removed from the distorted and dysfunctional ways of post war England. (Before I get comments on this, I am speaking from Lawrence's point of view, not my personal. How can I do this? Well, if I haven't mentioned this before, I did my master's thesis on DH Lawrence and have read not only a lot of his fiction, not only biographies, but also his a bit of his non-fiction ideas and many of his letters. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his ideas, I'm just presenting them.)

I mean you may be thinking too much of sex to possibly misinterpreting the story.:D
:lol: I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

Excuse me if I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you mentioned something about the reversed dominance between men and women after the war and how men lost their ruling roles in their households. When Maggie has the letter, she had the upper end of the fight. Now the narrator turned around the situation and gave Alfred the excuse to fight back hence regaining the dominance?
Actually I did say that. I meant that in the post war scene of the story, the men have lost dominance, and I think now I see the witch references to Maggie as a suggestion by Lawrence to women's gaining of power in the post war world.

Yes, I wanted to ask you if Wintry peacock, Joey, means the manhood, why Alfred is trying to kill him. I lingered on the statement: Maggie is making too much of the bird. That is when I concluded Joey was in the way between Maggie and Alfred. I also called it Joey interfering innocently. What does it symbolize? I have no idea.
Very good questions. I'm not sure I've reached any conclusions on this yet. Let me hold off, but the tension between Alfred and the peacock and Maggie's love for the peacock creates a classic triangle of jealosies. I guess it comes down to what exactly the peacock is symbolizing.

Nightshade

05-20-2009, 08:24 AM

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:
a single person (Never been married)
a young married person
an experienced married person
a married person (as the unfaithful one)
a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)
a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)
a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)
a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)
a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)
a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?

Bien, you are doing a whole study here. Interesting I admit. I do wonder how our perspectives change according to our own experience and circumstances. I also think it has a lot to do with age. When we are younger we expect the world to run like clockwork. As we get older, we realise people have to make concessions and also people are fallible and we accept that more readily, than we might have done in our youth; that does not mean a wife should let a husband walk all over her or visa versa. I think a lot needs to be factored in. .

Right having finally pulled myself together and decided to join in I just want to say before i forget after rereading the thread and reading thje story, what your talking about here bein is really an application of media relativist ( or was in the pluralist?)audiance theory. and ther have been studies that show that people form different backgrounds bring differnt things to a 'reading' of a pice. If you are intrested I could dig out the referances to studies sometime this week. :D

Sapphire

05-20-2009, 08:29 AM

Wow... that's a lot of posts since I left! Lets try catching up...

And sorry in advance for talking about ALBERT all the time instead of ALFRED. I have been making this mistake all along and I try to catch myself before I post my messages. It might go wrong one day though: So if I write Albert I mean Alfred :).

@Virgil
I really liked to read your explanation of why Lawrence choose for a narration in the first person here. Thank you for that.

n one of my last posts, I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.
I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.
Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.
Having said that, I think that in a short story like this Lawrence will probably have thought ever sentence over and over and I think high enough of him to believe he saw every possible connection :p So I think you're right in always pointing it out. :) Especially if Lawrence looked at sex as the "central experience". I think that explains a lot, thank you for pointing that out.

@JinJang

They are all meddlesome and manipulating bunch of miserable people!
Definitely. And maybe that is why I appreciate having read this story. :) Humans will be humans, humans make mistakes (and I believe they SHOULD admit those). Here we see the mistakes being made over and over again and all on top of one another. The one lie follows on the next - maybe the message of it all is that once you start being untrue (both as in sleeping with another girl as in not telling about it or lying about it) you can never ever be truthful again? You just get sucked into the lies and people around you start/keep lying too. Just a thought ;)

@Dark Muse
I see your strong point on never keeping secrets from your spouse. However, I think both Maggie and Albert are keeping their secrets too much to themselves.

I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to approach the situation.
I do not know what Maggie told to Albert about the letter, but he never read it. And even after the narrator told his version of the letter Maggie did not seem to believe him - what stopped her from throwing that letter in Albert face, telling him she knew all about (OK, putting in a lie there) this Eliza and letting him explain? He did not know the narrator's version of the story so he might just have admitted the whole thing. Instead she... well, we do not know what she does, do we? I am pretty sure she is keeping her own secrets about it all - maybe not even telling Albert there is a child.
I do think the moment Albert got home - he should have told Maggie about Eliza. If he did not, the coming of the letter might have been a good reason to come clean. And I think his response to the narrator when he told him there was a baby (after all, why would Albert know that if he did not read the letter) was downright appealing. But there is enough time to rant about that when we come to that part of the text. ;)

The narrator was (in my eyes) wrong in reading a personal letter. Maggie was wrong in burning a letter that was meant for her husband.

@BienVenuJDC
A whole study indeed! Of course our perspective is influenced by our marrital status, but lets not put too much weight on it. I think that in the end it is all our experiences in this world, and all our circumstances that make our out/inlook on life (even fictional life). To make your "study" thorough, one should definitely add the kind of marriage (or not) a person's parents/guardians had/have. Just everything that might shape our idea of this institution. :)
That is, if you would want to make this study scientific. Reading your post I take that you "just" think it an interesting idea - I am all in favour of exploring such. So here is my status: single, and not planning on ever getting married or having children for that matter. I know my mother was the same at this age though, so you never know :p.

@Janine

When I heard you all discussiong her as being 'Northeast' it seems to have set off a bell in my head and I thought of something that Hamlet said when talking to Polonius in double meanings or it may have been R & G, is former classmates.
I found in ACT2, SCENE2 the following: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind :lol:. I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.
I do think this story was meant to make people think about morality and what to do in situations like that. In that light, it is interesting to talk about this. I do not think there is one answer to it - people will see it in their own light. I totally agree with you though, that we should not get too much hung up about it - lets not forget about the text itself.

Janine, I think we're all ready for a new piece of this wonderful story! Bring it on :D

Quark

05-20-2009, 12:28 PM

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

The one lie follows on the next - maybe the message of it all is that once you start being untrue (both as in sleeping with another girl as in not telling about it or lying about it) you can never ever be truthful again? You just get sucked into the lies and people around you start/keep lying too. Just a thought ;)

I don't know if there's much of a message to this one. I tend to agree with Janine that this is slice of life kind of story. There isn't really much you're left with at the end of the story other than a dysfunctional couple. I suppose that's why the story ends with laughter. There really isn't anything else one can do with this.

I do think lies are important somehow, but I'm not entirely sure what exactly they do. Obviously, they cover the truth from the person being lied to. But, then again, they don't really seem to work. The other person always knows what's going on, and the lies are circumvented. Maggie knows Alfred is having an affair, and Alfred knows that Maggie knows. Even the family knows. Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

I found in ACT2, SCENE2 the following: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind :lol:. I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.

Sapphire

05-20-2009, 02:14 PM

Just passing through...

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.
I really think that if the father refers to Maggie as being North-East the last 2 days, he's referring to her being ill WHEN ALFRED IS HOME. Isn't he home those last 2 days?! At this moment, it is the time frame that might confuse me more than the expression itself...

Quark

05-20-2009, 03:30 PM

?!

Yes, my bad. Alfred had "come whoam a Wednesday night."

At this moment, it is the time frame that might confuse me more than the expression itself...

Oh, when you said

"I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind :lol:. I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

I thought you were wondering about the connection between the expression and the story.

Anyway, I do hope there's something beside the last word of my post that's interesting.

Sapphire

05-20-2009, 03:59 PM

I thought you were wondering about the connection between the expression and the story.
Yes, thank you for the explanation. I am sorry that I forgot to state so :brickwall

I guess it is the time frame that confuses me now ;) One problem solved, one to go :)

Janine

05-20-2009, 04:41 PM

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

Hi Quark, glad you returned and glad you read the story. You have been highly missed here.

I agree with you two. Good observation and we have seen many a 'triangle', before in Lawrence's short stories, haven't we?

I don't know if there's much of a message to this one. I tend to agree with Janine that this is slice of life kind of story. There isn't really much you're left with at the end of the story other than a dysfunctional couple. I suppose that's why the story ends with laughter. There really isn't anything else one can do with this.

That is how I saw it; how I saw the narrator perceive it. I said before, that he was not laughing 'with' the couple, or with Alfred, but at him and the whole scene, sort of like the whole joke was on him at the end, ironic. He couldn't really spare the couple from each other. He's seeing that, in the end, they are are rather ridiculous in their little lies and deceits. Maybe the fact that, the narrator got dragged into this whole affair of lying, also is ridiculous to himself, at the end. Really, as soon as he runs down the hill and away from the scene and the family, it's all up to them to carry on as they will. I see the ending as a sort of letting go, for the narrator. He's done with the whole sorid affair now. Let what comes next naturally happen. It's out of his hands, his control.

Quote by Quark

I do think lies are important somehow, but I'm not entirely sure what exactly they do. Obviously, they cover the truth from the person being lied to. But, then again, they don't really seem to work. The other person always knows what's going on, and the lies are circumvented. Maggie knows Alfred is having an affair, and Alfred knows that Maggie knows. Even the family knows. Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

Exactly, no one is being fooled here. That also could be why the narrator laughs, as he runs home. He realises now, that no one is fooling anyone in the end. Let's look at that text more closely, when we get to it and see what we can discover. I think the timing of the words and conversation between the two men is important, crucial.

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.

You are right, after reading that quotation over a few times here, I finally got it's full meaning. That one had stumped me for sometime. That whole double meaning conversation with Polonius, in that part of the play, always fascinates me. I knew Lawrence's line was something like this line, but now I see not quite the same - here it is 'Northwest'. But, it still describes a temperment or a state of being. Apparently, the term 'Northwest' and the term 'Northeast' is used to indicate a person's temperment, at that particular time. Like someone pointed out, in relation to England, Northeast would be windy and colder. I think that is what he is referring to. Northeasters here are storms so maybe hs is saying that Maggie has been like a storm, 'stormy', the past few days, since Alfred returned.

I agree with Saphire, that Maggie may have shown Alfred the letter and then burned it or destroyed it; or even mentioned that she knows the contents. I think that part is not made very clear and besides we only have the narrators impression of what happened to that letter, after it left his hands. Let me review what she wrote:

Quote by Saphire

I do not know what Maggie told to Albert about the letter, but he never read it. And even after the narrator told his version of the letter Maggie did not seem to believe him - what stopped her from throwing that letter in Albert face, telling him she knew all about (OK, putting in a lie there) this Eliza and letting him explain? He did not know the narrator's version of the story so he might just have admitted the whole thing. Instead she... well, we do not know what she does, do we? I am pretty sure she is keeping her own secrets about it all - maybe not even telling Albert there is a child.
I do think the moment Albert got home - he should have told Maggie about Eliza. If he did not, the coming of the letter might have been a good reason to come clean. And I think his response to the narrator when he told him there was a baby (after all, why would Albert know that if he did not read the letter) was downright appealing. But there is enough time to rant about that when we come to that part of the text.

"but he never read it." How do you know that - didn't Alfred read French? It was only Maggie and the parents who could not interpret the letter. Perhaps, Alfred saw that letter, but is not letting on he did; playing dumb.

"she... well, we do not know what she does, do we?" Exactly, we don't what she does or what Alfred and her say to each other. We can't know what goes on behind closed doors. Now, I can picture Maggie simply lying to Alfred or stretching the truth and she might say 'I know the truth of this letter'; lead him into admitting his fault. I can easily see this, happening with Maggie. She seems very sly to her filandering husband. I will, of course, have to take a closer look at that part of the text (if we ever get there...*sigh*)...

Quote by Saphire

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

I can see it this way, also. I think her affection for the bird intimidates Alfred's manhood and degrades him in his eyes; must have been a huge putdown to know your wife perfers a bird over you! Therefore, he wishes, even needs to eliminate the bird, the object of her admiration. She certainly doesn't admire her husband - that's evident. Should he kill the animal, he would show his male dominance; or so he views it that way. Isn't hunting a male thing and nurturing a womanly thing? He is exerting his maleness very much by striking out at the bird. Also, the bird is connected to Maggie's past. He wishes to sever that tie forever. He definitely wishes to rule the roost, but in the end, it's questionable as to who will do that - the wife or the husband? It's a whole power-play; that's how I see it.

Quote by Virgil

He's certainly a very earthy fellow who is quite comfortable in his way of the world. This is Lawrence's ideal person, one whose gone through life and been honest about his sexuality, link to the nature and the cycles of life. Also he is the pre-war person of the story, removed from the distorted and dysfunctional ways of post war England.

Virgil,You know, in someways this character reminds me of Lawrence's character in "The White Peacock", Frank Annable; however more developed and probably kinder, as well; it's been awhile, since I read the novel; I should read it again; the descriptions are beyond compare in that first novel. I agree with you that he represents the 'ideal man' for Lawrence. He is tied to the earth in a natual way and he is honest about his own sexuality, being fully in tune with the earth's cycles/seasons. Good point, your last statement here!

Quote by Virgil

I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

I can and cannot agree with you on this entirely. I know that statement sounds odd. Sex is not always central to his work. I would agree that exploring comflict, between sexes is, even between same sexes, in some of the works is central. In this story we are primarily interested in that of husband and wife. At this particular time, this was very much an issue with Lawrence, concerning his own marriage. He was not all that trusting of Frieda, when she went off to Germany alone. A lot more was going on there, than mere sex or lust. No, in this way, I disagree. Sex is a huge part of Lawrence's work, but in "Women in Love" , Birkin says, when asked what he wishes for, 'he wants to sit in a field of daisies perfectly happy with the woman he loves'. He does want sex, but it goes far beyond mere sex. He refuses to call it 'Love' at times, abhoring the word, because of it's connotations and restrictions. He feels the coming together is holy and worthy of comparison to two stars in the heavens uniting or facing each other in perfect balance; it's a great mystery not to be solved. Isn't that how it goes, something like that? It's not mere sex that is central to Lawrence's stories; that would make him ordinary and Lawrence was no ordinary author. I see the central theme in this story, as much more than mere sex; I see it as the war background and the alienation of the couple in an unnatural time; barring them from the sensual life, they might have had, had the war not driven them appart. In "Women in Love" I see a sense of letting go and experiencing a true sensualtiy. Sex and sexuality must go hand in hand here and are connected with nature. I guess this could be a whole debate in itself. Leave that for another day, we need to progress with this story.

:wave:Hi Nightshade! Glad to have you on board. I am glad too, that you reviewed all the posts and were able to locate the story to read. It's never too late to join in, as you are proving. That study sounds interesting. It would interesting to post that at the end of this discussion so that we can discuss those ideas separately.

We need to move onto more text today. I will post that in my next post.

Virgil

05-20-2009, 10:56 PM

@Virgil
I really liked to read your explanation of why Lawrence choose for a narration in the first person here. Thank you for that.

Thank you. I think that comes more from my writing short stories than my reading Lawrence.

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!
I think Janine answered it well and I'll address it below.

Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.
Having said that, I think that in a short story like this Lawrence will probably have thought ever sentence over and over and I think high enough of him to believe he saw every possible connection :p So I think you're right in always pointing it out. :) Especially if Lawrence looked at sex as the "central experience". I think that explains a lot, thank you for pointing that out.
Yes, and I think Janine makes it clearer as to how sex is important to Lawrence. I'll get to that below too.

@Dark Muse
I see your strong point on never keeping secrets from your spouse. However, I think both Maggie and Albert are keeping their secrets too much to themselves.
I haven't addressed D-M's comments about the slimyness of this marriage, especially Alfred. I agree with D-M. I don't think any of these characters are supposed to be likable. I think Alfred is supposed to be dispicable. I think Maggie is supposed to be witchy.

I do think this story was meant to make people think about morality and what to do in situations like that. In that light, it is interesting to talk about this. I do not think there is one answer to it - people will see it in their own light. I totally agree with you though, that we should not get too much hung up about it - lets not forget about the text itself.
I guess I can go along with that, though is it so much morality or the dysfunctionality of the marriage realtionship? They are kind of intertwined.

[color="blue"]Janine, I think we're all ready for a new piece of this wonderful story! Bring it on :D
Yes. :)

Hi Quark, glad you returned and glad you read the story. You have been highly missed here.

[QUOTE]I agree with you two. Good observation and we have seen many a 'triangle', before in Lawrence's short stories, haven't we?
Well, that's just classic approach to creating conflict. But who in there right mind would have used a peacock as the third party? :lol:

That is how I saw it; how I saw the narrator perceive it. I said before, that he was not laughing 'with' the couple, or with Alfred, but at him and the whole scene, sort of like the whole joke was on him at the end, ironic.
We have to look at those laughs. I re-read the story looking for all the laughs and found there were nine references to laughs in there.

I can see it this way, also. I think her affection for the bird intimidates Alfred's manhood and degrades him in his eyes; must have been a huge putdown to know your wife perfers a bird over you! Therefore, he wishes, even needs to eliminate the bird, the object of her admiration. She certainly doesn't admire her husband - that's evident. Should he kill the animal, he would show his male dominance; or so he views it that way. Isn't hunting a male thing and nurturing a womanly thing? He is exerting his maleness very much by striking out at the bird. Also, the bird is connected to Maggie's past. He wishes to sever that tie forever. He definitely wishes to rule the roost, but in the end, it's questionable as to who will do that - the wife or the husband? It's a whole power-play; that's how I see it.
Yes, I think this is right on how we should see Alfred's antogonism toward Joey. His manhood is threatened, and that is a manisfestation of the dysfunctionality of the modern post-war time. Who in there right mind would be threatened by it? But then again who but Maggie would feel such sexual attraction towrd him? The whole situation exudes dysfunctionality.

Quote by Virgil
Virgil,You know, in someways this character reminds me of Lawrence's character in "The White Peacock", Frank Annable; however more developed and probably kinder, as well; it's been awhile, since I read the novel; I should read it again; the descriptions are beyond compare in that first novel. I agree with you that he represents the 'ideal man' for Lawrence. He is tied to the earth in a natual way and he is honest about his own sexuality, being fully in tune with the earth's cycles/seasons. Good point, your last statement here!
Yes, and he reminds me of Tom Brangwen in The Rainbow when Tom has aged.

Quote by Virgil
I can and cannot agree with you on this entirely. I know that statement sounds odd. Sex is not always central to his work. I would agree that exploring comflict, between sexes is, even between same sexes, in some of the works is central. In this story we are primarily interested in that of husband and wife. At this particular time, this was very much an issue with Lawrence, concerning his own marriage. He was not all that trusting of Frieda, when she went off to Germany alone. A lot more was going on there, than mere sex or lust.
When I mean sex, I do not mean lust. You know that Lawrence was against porn and trivial sex. "Sex in the head" is what he called it.

No, in this way, I disagree. Sex is a huge part of Lawrence's work, but in "Women in Love" , Birkin says, when asked what he wishes for, 'he wants to sit in a field of daisies perfectly happy with the woman he loves'. He does want sex, but it goes far beyond mere sex.
Yes, for Lawrence true sexual relations is a transcendence into a spiritual dimension. That is completely lacking in this story. The sexual dynamics that go on ion this story are warped.

He refuses to call it 'Love' at times, abhoring the word, because of it's connotations and restrictions. He feels the coming together is holy and worthy of comparison to two stars in the heavens uniting or facing each other in perfect balance; it's a great mystery not to be solved. Isn't that how it goes, something like that? It's not mere sex that is central to Lawrence's stories; that would make him ordinary and Lawrence was no ordinary author.
We completely agree on this Janine.

I see the central theme in this story, as much more than mere sex; I see it as the war background and the alienation of the couple in an unnatural time; barring them from the sensual life, they might have had, had the war not driven them appart. In "Women in Love" I see a sense of letting go and experiencing a true sensualtiy. Sex and sexuality must go hand in hand here and are connected with nature. I guess this could be a whole debate in itself. Leave that for another day, we need to progress with this story.
I think we agree. *shocking* :D That is the central theme of the story.

Dark Muse

05-20-2009, 11:02 PM

I guess I can go along with that, though is it so much morality or the dysfunctionality of the marriage realtionship? They are kind of intertwined.

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

Virgil

05-20-2009, 11:15 PM

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

Good point.

BienvenuJDC

05-20-2009, 11:19 PM

jinjang

05-20-2009, 11:26 PM

Right having finally pulled myself together and decided to join in I just want to say before i forget after rereading the thread and reading thje story, what your talking about here bein is really an application of media relativist ( or was in the pluralist?)audiance theory. and ther have been studies that show that people form different backgrounds bring differnt things to a 'reading' of a pice. If you are intrested I could dig out the referances to studies sometime this week.

Welcome to the thread, Nightshade! I thought I was reading BienvenuJDC’s posting because he said something similar. I said this once but it is better to repeat that the different views of the story brought by different people in the discussion is more fascinating for me than the story itself. That is why I think I am drawn to the thread.

Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.
This may be also different personal views of the story. Virgil’s view of the story, I mean. He repeats often enough to the point where I am almost convinced but not quite yet.

Maggie and Albert
I think you are like Dark Muse. You just want to hook up Maggie with someone else than Alfred. Here comes a charming prince on a white horse named Albert! Just teasing!

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

Welcome back! Everyone seems to know you except me. I am new and you must be an old timer (not old but been here longer before me.)
We talked about what “wintry peacock” means for a long time. Please look at the thread on P.187 #2799 and a few following posts

Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

People can be elusive and I think people suffer more over the suspicion than the painful truth itself. What the narrator did can then be deemed as cruel to Maggie. Towards the end of our discussion, I am realizing the narrator was not doing any favor to Maggie.

Exactly, no one is being fooled here. That also could be why the narrator laughs, as he runs home. He realises now, that no one is fooling anyone in the end. Let's look at that text more closely, when we get to it and see what we can discover. I think the timing of the words and conversation between the two men is important, crucial.

Yes, now I can’t wait for the conversation between the narrator and Alfred.

"but he never read it." How do you know that - didn't Alfred read French? It was only Maggie and the parents who could not interpret the letter. Perhaps, Alfred saw that letter, but is not letting on he did; playing dumb.

I do not think Alfred read the letter himself. Isn’t it why Alfred intercepted the narrator to know what is in the letter and what Maggie knows?
Yes, Janine. I think we are all ready for the next part.

Janine

05-20-2009, 11:35 PM

I think that Virgil is right...good point...
But I'm just a little short on getting it completely...not your fault DM...the deficiency is in me. Can anyone elaborate a little? Too many engineer's notes fried my brain today!!

Is that why the guy in your avatar looks like that? :lol:

jinjang

05-20-2009, 11:49 PM

I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?

Janine

05-21-2009, 12:00 AM

Before we go on, I wanted to just post this part, because I was not sure we discussed it. This is actually, from the last segment of text that I posted earlier, at the end. It's fairly short and after, this I will add on the new part of the text.

The mother came in again, and the talk became general. Maggie flashed her eyes at me from time to time, complacent and satisfied, moving among the men. I paid her little compliments, which she did not seem to hear. She attended to me with a kind of sinister, witch-like graciousness, her dark head ducked between her shoulders, at once humble and powerful. She was happy as a child attending to her father-in-law and to me. But there was something ominous between her eyebrows, as if a dark moth were settled there--and something ominous in her bent, hulking bearing.

She sat on a low stool by the fire, near her father-in-law. Her head was dropped, she seemed in a state of abstraction. From time to time she would suddenly recover, and look up at us, laughing and chatting. Then she would forget again. Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.

There is one of those 'laughs', Virgil, which you referred to. I also, want to say, I read everyone of your posts today and yesterday, even if I failed to comment on all. I am happy to see all this enthusiasm. Everyone seems to be drawn to this thread and actually having a great time. This story can't be that bad, since we have posted tons of pages of commentary. I am very happy to see that. This is a very lively group, with lots of great ideas and new spins on the story. I didn't answer posts individually for this evening, because I will never get the new part of this text posted. It was difficult to figure out where I left off. So here goes....

Next Part of Text

Same paragraph continued

The door having been opened, the peacock came slowly in, prancing calmly. He went near to her and crouched down, coiling his blue neck. She glanced at him, but almost as if she did not observe him. The bird sat silent, seeming to sleep, and the woman also sat hulked and silent, seemingly oblivious. Then once more there was a heavy step, and Alfred entered. He looked at his wife, and he looked at the peacock crouching by her. He stood large in the doorway, his hands stuck in front of him, in his breeches pockets. Nobody spoke. He turned on his heel and went out again. I rose also to go. Maggie started as if coming to herself. 'Must you go?' she asked, rising and coming near to me, standing in front of me, twisting her head sideways and looking up at me. 'Can't you stop a bit longer? We can all be cosy today, there's nothing to do outdoors.' And she laughed, showing her teeth oddly. She had a long chin. I said I must go. The peacock uncoiled and coiled again his long blue neck, as he lay on the hearth. Maggie still stood close in front of me, so that I was acutely aware of my waistcoat buttons. 'Oh, well,' she said, 'you'll come again, won't you? Do come again.' I promised. 'Come to tea one day--yes, do!' I promised--one day. The moment I went out of her presence I ceased utterly to exist for her--as utterly as I ceased to exist for Joey. With her curious abstractedness she forgot me again immediately. I knew it as I left her. Yet she seemed almost in physical contact with me while I was with her. The sky was all pallid again, yellowish. When I went out there was no sun; the snow was blue and cold. I hurried away down the hill, musing on Maggie.

After this is discussed I will post the last section of text; which is will take us to THE END....

hahah...yes, that is Saphire Blue type...