D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Sapphire]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/dancing-1.gif Yeah! A new part of the story is up. Thank you for keeping track Janine.
BTW I like the idea of "moral make-up" :lol:

Hi there NightShade :D Glad there is another mind to join is in this discussion :). Are you familiar with Lawrence's work?

Just one thing before I start commenting on the new text, it is @DarkMuse. I totally agree with Virgil and BienVenu on your comments of the narrator's "function". If we combine Virgil's view of the first person and your DarkMuse's view of him being a part of the story I think we might have everything Lawrence could have aimed for. :)


The mother came in again, and the talk became general.
I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.
Except for the Father mentioning her to the narrator as not knowing a thing about it: "Mother, 'er knows nowt about it.". (See post #2930 and #2936).
Maybe it is important for the mother to be there, because it brings a little more flavour to the relationship between Maggie and the Father?

@the New Text

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.
Ah, so the peacock is allowed within the house... He might have been seeking for the warmth and comfort of the fire, but the way he nears Maggie it is rather like he was looking for her. Maggie herself acts like she does not observe him, but just before Lawrence writes "Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.". Does this mean that when she "forgets" about Joey she might be more near to him too?! I think I am looking too much into it though :lol: And after all, forgetting is not the same as not observing. Maggie is just lost in her own world :D

The bird sat silent, seeming to sleep, and the woman also sat hulked and silent, seemingly oblivious.
Well, that bird falls asleep fast - must be the heat of the fire. :p I feel like this sentence implies again that Maggie and Joey have a special bond together (Virgil), both being distant. Yet, they are not really being together (JinJang) - the bird silent and Maggie 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.
Wait - Alfred wasn't inside yet?! Ah, here it is - when the Father asks him to come in we read "but Alfred turned and disappeared. Not a very nice thing to do when there is a guest, is there?
This entrance must be a bit of a shocker to him... He learns once again that he should not leave his woman alone... Though I have to say, it might seem to him that the bird and Maggie are close, her being oblivious might indicate that he is reading it all wrong.

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.
There's the breeched pockets again. And an awkward moment. And Alfred walks away. He's not really a guy to deal with problems, is he?!

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.Maggie responds to the narrators leaving but not to her husbands leaving! Now I know again why I did think her a bit of a flirt... Calling it cosy while her husband was not there. And there is the laugh again - with some observations of the narrator that I do not really see the use for :lol: Maybe to show that her laugh did not attract him?

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.
Albert out of the door, Maggie hitting on the narrator (OK, I am exaggerating :p) and the peacock as a shadow on the background. I wonder why Lawrence did not add the 4th "man" in Maggie's life, this would be a nice moment for the Father to give a wise cracked saying...

'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 narrator is awkward and I do not think he is really planning on going there again. I mean, "one day" is not really how to accept an invitation when you're eager to visit.

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.
Again, Maggie and Joey are put on one line - having the same feelings or such. I am not sure about it... Why are they made so much like one in this part of the story!?
And might it be that the narrator telling about the influence he has on Maggie is relevant for the relation between Albert and Eliza? Just making a big step here, I know. I just don't see an other reason for Lawrence to put so much weight on Maggie's obliviousness. The physical contact when he's there and the forgetting when he's gone...

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.
Yellowish, but no sun. Blue snow?! Interesting... And Maggie has really bewitched the narrator, hasn't she? Him musing on her...

Wow... I did not know such a small part would lead to so many questions :lol:

[Quark]

Wow, quite an explosion of posts since I checked last. I like a lot of what Janine and Sapphire said in their last two giant posts, but it's going to take a moment to read through everything and respond.

[Janine]

Wow, quite an explosion of posts since I checked last. I like a lot of what Janine and Sapphire said in their last two giant posts, but it's going to take a moment to read through everything and respond.

Hi Quark, haha....I had a giant post? me? I never have those, do I? ;) Was it a page or two back? I check in here too, every afternoon and see a dozen new posts. I almost don't have to comment myself (just post text), but I always read what everyone else has to say, even if I don't comment on all. I do hope you can comment on my 'giant' post and on Saphire's, also. I just read her last one and she presented a lot of interesting questions. Not sure I am up to answering them quite yet; at least, I have read all posts up to date. I have to mull them all over or 'muse on them', like the narrator is 'musing' on Maggie, first before responding, unless someone else beats me to it; probably Virgil will; that's my prediction.

Saphire, fine thought out post above; you are really getting into Lawrence, aren't you? Glad of it and look forward to more discussions with you and jinjang and whoever else from the newbies stops back in.

:D Check you 'Alfred's'; one 'Albert' worked it's way in there somehow again.:lol: Also, glad you noticed the new text and that little guy running frantically back and forth is a riot! Where can I get one of those? I really need, at times of stress, this particular emoticon, which I have in my instant messenger program; it's a guy yanking his hair out. ;):lol:

[jinjang]

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.

We forgive old people more easily than others, especially those who feel completely in line with everything and everyone around them. I am sorry for lingering on why Maggie being flushed and handsome. I wonder now whether Lawrence understood women well, if indeed he is implying Maggie and Alfred had sex the night before. Women usually do not consent to have sex if there is a fight going on between the couple. Women usually shun men out until the problem resolves or until the men make it up somehow.

I will follow Sapphire’s breakdown of the text:

If we combine Virgil's view of the first person and your DarkMuse's view of him being a part of the story I think we might have everything Lawrence could have aimed for.

Yes, definitely the narrator is on the table to be dissected-my term- or being judged- Dark Muse’s term- as well as the others.

I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.
I am wondering about why the mother is gloomy. Is she gloomy because she is excluded from the event around her or because the father flirts with Maggie or he cares too much of Maggie and ignores his wife? I have seen some old couple’s indifference towards to each other, living side by side but not connecting with each other at all. I so wish to know more about the mother. Lawrence left her out with the intention to vex us more.

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.
My interpretation: Joey is a teddy bear or a pet or a minor comfort and so forgettable, even though the peacock symbolizes the manhood as an undercurrent of the story. Joey does not satisfy completely her emotional needs. She is absorbed in her puzzlement over the letter because of the dishonesty of Alfred and the narrator while she can still smell fish deep down.

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.
I simply think that Alfred is mapping out the situation and see if there is a room for him to go near Maggie or to make up with Maggie somehow. But he keeps seeing the bird in the way and so he withdraws temporarily, though he may be thinking of getting rid of the bird when Maggie is not around. He went out only temporarily and hasn’t given up yet.

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 can imagine all the rockets there were just before the narrator showed up with the bird. Maggie wants him around as a distraction and as a means to put the distance between her and Alfred. She is not yet ready to make up with Alfred and so buying her time by keeping the narrator. She may be flirting with him, too, but without much thought to it. Her main thought is still at her trouble with Alfred. That is why I agree with Sapphire here below:

Maggie responds to the narrators leaving but not to her husbands leaving! Now I know again why I did think her a bit of a flirt... Calling it cosy while her husband was not there. And there is the laugh again - with some observations of the narrator that I do not really see the use for Maybe to show that her laugh did not attract him?
A nervous laugh is a sign of Maggie’s lingering troubled thoughts. The suspicion is a terrible thing.

The narrator is awkward and I do not think he is really planning on going there again. I mean, "one day" is not really how to accept an invitation when you're eager to visit.
I would be eager to go away and not come back, too, since the narrator has seen enough troubles and awkwardness around the house.

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.
I believe women are impossible even for Lawrence to figure out sometimes. He could almost figure her out but not quite and Maggie or women in general remains mystery to the author. Maggie loves Alfred, despite his unfaithfulness: I said this because there were parts where she said she wrote a lot of loving letters to Alfred. Even if she does not love him as much anymore, her thoughts are occupied by Alfred and her relationship with him.

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.
Now the narrator is gone and the cloud returns to the house and their skirmishing lives will continue until I do not know what. The narrator is still puzzled by Maggie. Impenetrable women!

[Quark]

Hi Quark, haha....I had a giant post? me? I never have those, do I? ;) Was it a page or two back?

It's probably several pages back by now. I did want to bring up one part of that post. I'll talk about it at the bottom of this post--which is probably going to turn into another giant. It seems like that's the only way to communicate in this thread.


I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.
Except for the Father mentioning her to the narrator as not knowing a thing about it: "Mother, 'er knows nowt about it.". (See post #2930 and #2936).
Maybe it is important for the mother to be there, because it brings a little more flavour to the relationship between Maggie and the Father?

Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father. The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites. The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.


There's the breeched pockets again. And an awkward moment. And Alfred walks away. He's not really a guy to deal with problems, is he?!

Alfred is not particularly heroic in this moment. The story led me to think that he was going to be more enthusiastic upon arrival, but he just sulks. Is it just because of the letter, or is this just what their relationship is like?


Yellowish, but no sun. Blue snow?! Interesting... And Maggie has really bewitched the narrator, hasn't she? Him musing on her...

"Bewitched" might be too strong of a word, but, yeah, she does stay in his thoughts. The yellow probably is a reference to Maggie's "yellow" face.


While the narrator does not directly pass judgement and his own ethics can be questioned, there is a very specific reason why a narrator is used within this story and why the letter falls into his pocession more or less. Between Alfred and Maggie he is the only one that knows what it truly says, not matter what the others may susepct or think.

Rather than viewing the story form a more distant stance of a 3rd person narration. In a way the narrator can be seen as creating a more interactive role betwene reader and the characters, as we can see the letter through is eyes, and also see the way he reinterpts the letter later.

I'm a little more sympathetic to the idea of the narrator as a mediator between the wife and husband than as a invitation for the reader to join in the decision making. I do think he is the only conduit for communication the wife and husband have, and the plot really couldn't move forward without him. Yet, I think the story would have just as many ethical dilemma if it were told in the third person.


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.)

I probably should have introduced myself. I have been here for a while, but I was late getting to this story.


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.

That is an important point. I didn't really pick up on it in my first read, but the bird is one of Maggie's last tenuous connections to her past. This is one of Maggie's grievances at the start of the story--that she's lost everything of her former life. I had just written it off as Lawrence trying to make it obvious that the wife was angry, but there is something more to it. The husband does seem to be intentionally destroying her past.


I'll try to get to jinjang's comments in my next post. I can't muster the carpal strength to go at this point.

[Virgil]

I will answer everyone later tonight. But I just wanted to say this thread rocks!! We are having a great discussion. Kudos!

http://www.charthouse.com/assets/library/you_rock_10022.jpg

[Janine]

I will answer everyone later tonight. But I just wanted to say this thread rocks!! We are having a great discussion. Kudos!

http://www.charthouse.com/assets/library/you_rock_10022.jpg

Hey, that's my birthstone. How did you know? I love those. I even have one of those natural rocks, looks like this. It currently needs dusting; then it really sparkles.

This discussion sparkles too. It's been great this month! Thanks everyone for all your fascinating posts. Keep up the good work!:thumbs_up

[jinjang]

Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father. The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites. The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.

This is exactly why I get addicted to this thread even with ups and downs. Everyone brings out a different point of view. It is fascinating! No wonder everyone said you were greatly missed. The story is Rorschach inkblot or the story twirls around with ambiguity.

[Virgil]

Janine, I will not get to the new text tonight I'm afraid. There was a bit to respond to. Perhaps later.


While the narrator does not directly pass judgement and his own ethics can be questioned, there is a very specific reason why a narrator is used within this story and why the letter falls into his pocession more or less. Between Alfred and Maggie he is the only one that knows what it truly says, not matter what the others may susepct or think.

D-M, your insights have been outstanding. Yes, of course. The narrator is the only one who knows the full scope of the letter. Perhaps this is why he laughs at the end.


The only way the story could be told from a completely amoral way would be to simply have some unknown non-exisitent 3rd person, view of Maggie and Alfred, but the story is looked through the eyes of another preson active wihtin the story. This does sort of invite the readers into thier private lives.
Except if the narrator is unethical himself.


Rather than viewing the story form a more distant stance of a 3rd person narration. In a way the narrator can be seen as creating a more interactive role betwene reader and the characters, as we can see the letter through is eyes, and also see the way he reinterpts the letter later.
Yes, we are fixed to the narrator's set of morals. But what are they? Like I just said above, he may not have our morals. Afterall, doesn't he side with Alfred?




I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.
There's lots we don't notice the first time. We pick up so much more in these back and forths. To be honest I barely registered the mother. Here's the extent of the mother:

''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.
The father seems to support the son's deviousness, the fooling around with the French girls doesn't seem to bother him. And he keeps the secret from his wife. Very patriarchal and very Lawrence. What caught my eye here was Maggie's flashing "her eyes" at the narrator. Have we talked about the flirting between Maggie and the narrator? Isn't her frustration from getting a sexual response from the narrator the reason for that "dark moth" between her eyebrows? She's happy as a child "attending her father-in-law" and the narrator, but suddenly the darkness, a result I take from getting a sexual response.


Except for the Father mentioning her to the narrator as not knowing a thing about it: "Mother, 'er knows nowt about it.". (See post #2930 and #2936).
Maybe it is important for the mother to be there, because it brings a little more flavour to the relationship between Maggie and the Father?
I would think it serves as a contrast to Maggie.


We forgive old people more easily than others, especially those who feel completely in line with everything and everyone around them. I am sorry for lingering on why Maggie being flushed and handsome. I wonder now whether Lawrence understood women well, if indeed he is implying Maggie and Alfred had sex the night before. Women usually do not consent to have sex if there is a fight going on between the couple. Women usually shun men out until the problem resolves or until the men make it up somehow.

I don't know if they had sex, but the father makes a quip as to having sex. Or they should have and didn't, which would be signifcant contrast between the generations.


I am wondering about why the mother is gloomy. Is she gloomy because she is excluded from the event around her or because the father flirts with Maggie or he cares too much of Maggie and ignores his wife? I have seen some old couple’s indifference towards to each other, living side by side but not connecting with each other at all. I so wish to know more about the mother. Lawrence left her out with the intention to vex us more.
If the father is Lawrence's ideal man, the mother is the ideal woman, suffering and absorbing the male dominance. She accepts the father, though not necessarily happy about it, which contrasts with Maggie and her husband's infidelities.


My interpretation: Joey is a teddy bear or a pet or a minor comfort and so forgettable, even though the peacock symbolizes the manhood as an undercurrent of the story. Joey does not satisfy completely her emotional needs. She is absorbed in her puzzlement over the letter because of the dishonesty of Alfred and the narrator while she can still smell fish deep down.
Agree, Joey cannot satisfy her needs (that is an important point), and let's hope she doesn't try with him. :lol:


I simply think that Alfred is mapping out the situation and see if there is a room for him to go near Maggie or to make up with Maggie somehow. But he keeps seeing the bird in the way and so he withdraws temporarily, though he may be thinking of getting rid of the bird when Maggie is not around. He went out only temporarily and hasn’t given up yet.
Yes, I think so. The bird is preventing him from taking his proper place as the male of the family.


I believe women are impossible even for Lawrence to figure out sometimes. He could almost figure her out but not quite and Maggie or women in general remains mystery to the author.
If there is ever a male writer who seems to get inside women, it's Lawrence. I've heard it from so many women how he understands them. Ask janine. ;)


Maggie loves Alfred, despite his unfaithfulness: I said this because there were parts where she said she wrote a lot of loving letters to Alfred. Even if she does not love him as much anymore, her thoughts are occupied by Alfred and her relationship with him.

Now the narrator is gone and the cloud returns to the house and their skirmishing lives will continue until I do not know what. The narrator is still puzzled by Maggie. Impenetrable women!
Good points.


Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father.
Like I said above, I think she contrasts Maggie more, but yes there are all sorts of contrasts going on.


The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites.
Exactly. Lawrence is always using doubles and opposites. I think one critic refered to Lawrence as having a binary view of the world: male/female, light/dark, mind/passion, earth/sky, and so on. He is always after a dialectic.


The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.
Yes she is, and this is another example of how the feminists critics absolutely hate Lawrence. The older generation present an ideal in this story for Lawrence and see how the mother is delegated. Now perhaps you can see where I was coming from when I suggested that Maggie and the post war women have altered the social norms of England.

[Dark Muse]

Yes, we are fixed to the narrator's set of morals. But what are they? Like I just said above, he may not have our morals. Afterall, doesn't he side with Alfred?

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not buy anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on to Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.

[Virgil]

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not by anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on toe Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.

Perhaps so. We'll have to see when we get to it. I intend to quote all nine places in the story where someone laughs. We'll have to come to some understanding as to why laughing gets repeated (a leitmotif) through the story. I haven't figured it out.

[BienvenuJDC]

Irony is the root of so many works of literature...

[Janine]

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not buy anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on to Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.

Yes, Dark Muse, this is how I perceived that ending on first reading and I don't think I have changed my thoughs on it after repeated readings. I agree with Bien, there is a certain dry irony at the end of this story. I think the narrator is laughing at the obsurdity of the whole situation and how it turned out. He didn't know he would return to the farm when he read that letter initially. That all depended on the fate of finding the 'wintry peacock' and saving him and having to return him. He might never have met up with Alfred at all had it not been for that one twist of fate.

[Janine]

Perhaps so. We'll have to see when we get to it. I intend to quote all nine places in the story where someone laughs. We'll have to come to some understanding as to why laughing gets repeated (a leitmotif) through the story. I haven't figured it out.

That would be cool; quote to your heart's content, Virgil! Should be interesting to review that.

[Virgil]

That would be cool; quote to your heart's content, Virgil! Should be interesting to review that.

I guess when we get to the ending laugh.

[jinjang]

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not buy anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on to Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Wicked! Is it possible my unyielding friend, Dark Muse, is agreeing with me at last, at least, at one point? Where is the dancing and singing guy Sapphire put up? Come here and dance for me!


Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.
I thought more like the narrator is laughing with the imagination how Alfred will treat Joey and how Alfred would make a big scene of his triumph over Maggie. It could be a comical scene. No offense to Joey.


Perhaps so. We'll have to see when we get to it. I intend to quote all nine places in the story where someone laughs. We'll have to come to some understanding as to why laughing gets repeated (a leitmotif) through the story. I haven't figured it out.

I learned a new word today: leitmotif, a dominant recurring scene. Thank you, Virgil!
A tragedy or despicable acts can be depicted comically . Think of Moliere and think of how the musical Les Miserables makes fun at Ternardier's villainy.


Rather than viewing the story form a more distant stance of a 3rd person narration. In a way the narrator can be seen as creating a more interactive role betwene reader and the characters, as we can see the letter through is eyes, and also see the way he reinterpts the letter later.
Or, is it trying to show how the narrator as a man or men in general if not the author himself can't figure out women? He walks away more puzzled than ever.


The father seems to support the son's deviousness, the fooling around with the French girls doesn't seem to bother him. And he keeps the secret from his wife. Very patriarchal and very Lawrence. What caught my eye here was Maggie's flashing "her eyes" at the narrator. Have we talked about the flirting between Maggie and the narrator? Isn't her frustration from getting a sexual response from the narrator the reason for that "dark moth" between her eyebrows? She's happy as a child "attending her father-in-law" and the narrator, but suddenly the darkness, a result I take from getting a sexual response.
I am not sure on a sexual response from the narrator, but the father certainly is on Alfred's side. I thought it is because he himself possibly and likely fooled around with his debonair look. A sexual response if any would cause an embarrassment not a frown, I think.



Agree, Joey cannot satisfy her needs (that is an important point), and let's hope she doesn't try with him.
Ugh! Your insinuation is repulsive. Maybe I am confused again.
All men should listen to this: Men must invoke love in women first ever so gently and subtly if they want to get what they want. No violence! Alfred should not try to kill Joey, rather he should cuddle Joey along with Maggie. Ugh! Maggie and Alfred are done for.

Oops! While I was posting this, there came more.

Yes she is, and this is another example of how the feminists critics absolutely hate Lawrence. The older generation present an ideal in this story for Lawrence and see how the mother is delegated.
I am not a feminist but I do not like Lawrence'idea of ideal women.


Yes, Dark Muse, this is how I perceived that ending on first reading and I don't think I have changed my thoughs on it after repeated readings. I agree with Bien, there is a certain dry irony at the end of this story. I think the narrator is laughing at the obsurdity of the whole situation and how it turned out. He didn't know he would return to the farm when he read that letter initially. That all depended on the fate of finding the 'wintry peacock' and saving him and having to return him. He might never have met up with Alfred at all had it not been for that one twist of fate.
We said the similar things at the same time and I just saw your posting after posting mine! How interesting!

I think I will leave the lit net for today and hopefully I can catch up when I get back...

[Virgil]

I learned a new word today: leitmotif, a dominant recurring scene. Thank you, Virgil!

You're welcome. It's a recurring theme, not necessarily scene.


Ugh! Your insinuation is repulsive. Maybe I am confused again.
:lol: It was only in jest. Though Maggie probably takes it as far as possible.


All men should listen to this: Men must invoke love in women first ever so gently and subtly if they want to get what they want. No violence! Alfred should not try to kill Joey, rather he should cuddle Joey along with Maggie. Ugh! Maggie and Alfred are done for.
Good advice. My wife would probably whack me over the head if I tried to get my way through viloence.


I am not a feminist but I do not like Lawrence'idea of ideal women.
Most people do not. I'm sure Janine is going to argue with me as to what Lawrence's ideal woman is. Certainly the mother here is a two dimensional character and not fully fleshed out. For a more complex understanding of Lawrence's ideal woman, we woould have to look at the novels. I'm sure Janine is going to bring up Women In Love where Lawrnce has the woman on equal footing with the man in a symbol of star polarities. But some of the othe novels don't have such a generous position for women.

[Sapphire]

It seems like we're agreeing more and more in here http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/Caramel_dansen_emote_by_CookiemagiK.gif There is not much more I have to say in response to the above posts.


Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father. The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites. The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.
I really like this idea: doubles and opposites. One question though: two birds?! I know Joey has 2 descendants, but that would make 3 in total... Are there any other birds in the story?

And Janine, I would like to get back to you about whether Alfred did or did not read the letter in the next part of the text :)

[Virgil]

It seems like we're agreeing more and more in here http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/Caramel_dansen_emote_by_CookiemagiK.gif There is not much more I have to say in response to the above posts.
This happens all the time as we do these short stories. We read them, have our own ideas, and as we discuss and argue we converge and typically agree on its meaning, though we each have our own emphasis. I think these forum discussions like this are invaluable.


I really like this idea: doubles and opposites. One question though: two birds?! I know Joey has 2 descendants, but that would make 3 in total... Are there any other birds in the story?
I think the point of Joey's descendants is to connect with the generational theme, like the father and mother versues Alfred and Maggie. Also it shows Joey to be virile and not sterile.


And Janine, I would like to get back to you about whether Alfred did or did not read the letter in the next part of the text :)I don't think there is any question. Unless I read incorrectly, Alfred never saw the letter in person. Maggie supposedly burned it and Alfred relies on the narrator to tell him what's in it.

[Dark Muse]

Yes it is pretty clear at the end that Alfred never saw the letter, he says to the narrator


"Oh well," he said. "I've never got that letter, anyhow."

"She burnt the blasted thing before I saw it," he said.

[Quark]

I thought more like the narrator is laughing with the imagination how Alfred will treat Joey and how Alfred would make a big scene of his triumph over Maggie. It could be a comical scene. No offense to Joey.

Are we up to the conclusion, yet? I have some comments on the laughter, but I was too far behind before and now I don't want to be too far ahead.


Ugh! Your insinuation is repulsive.

I guess we should remember that Joey is symbolically--and not physically--involved with Maggie.


No violence!

Speaking of leitmotivs, violence is certainly recurring in Lawrence. I'm sure Janine and Virgil have more to say on this. I just remember the scene in Women in Love where Gerald is assaulting some animal in front of Gudrun and that's how they fall in love.

[Sapphire]

Not a comment on the story itself, just on the above post :)


where Gerald is assaulting some animal in front of Gudrun and that's how they fall in love
:eek: Now there is a flip of the mind! Falling in love over assaulting an animal, I would rather like it to happen the other way around. Take for example Jude and Annabel in Jude the Obscure by Hardy - their relation gets quite a blow when they decide to slaughter a pig! Lets say it does not strengthen their love at all. Slaughter is something else than assaulting of course.
How does peacock taste? If they eat Joey afterwards it will at least be a murder for something... can you eat peacock?! I have some vague memory of dishes with peacock feathers in the palaces of the old days... I think they rather looked good but tasted not that well..

Sorry, I am drifting a bit :lol:

[Virgil]

Speaking of leitmotivs, violence is certainly recurring in Lawrence. I'm sure Janine and Virgil have more to say on this. I just remember the scene in Women in Love where Gerald is assaulting some animal in front of Gudrun and that's how they fall in love.

We shouldn't get too far off topic. As to that animal, I assume you mean when Gerald was riding the horse and sticking his spurs into her side (and it was a female horse, hint, hint) to control her. There is a recurring theme of violence in Lawrence and interesting you should bring that up. The violence that Alfred wants to do on Joey is a pent up psychological impulse and that does go through Lawrence. Anyone want to read a great Lawrence short story, read "The Prussian Officer." We discussed it in this thread soemwhere.

[BienvenuJDC]

Also it shows Joey to be virile and not sterile.


I had the question about Maggie's virility/sterility. It's quite obvious that Alfred is not sterile. Obviously, none of the parents are sterile. Joey is not sterile. But what about Maggie?

I don't think that the Narrator wanted to introduce himself in consideration, but gave enough information (the "we" in respects to his own household, which may include a wife and/or children) to conclude a possibility of virility without giving a definite.

Has Alfred and Maggie over the past six years just not given the opportunity for Maggie to conceive. Has the war (or other distractions) kept Alfred from Maggie? Or is Maggie sterile?



As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways, inconceivable.
http://www.insuremeblog.com/affiliate/blogimages/inconceivable.jpg

[BienvenuJDC]

The violence that Alfred wants to do on Joey is a pent up psychological impulse and that does go through Lawrence.

Do you suppose that Alfred has been de-sensitized to death and violence by the war. He was just forced to take gun in hand, pointed toward the enemy, and ordered to kill. If you can and have killed other men, how much easier has it become to kill an animal?

This is not justification, by any means, but this is another psychological consequence of war. One man may come out hating violence, while another (maybe still hating it but) embraces violence as the only way to address issues.

[Virgil]

I had the question about Maggie's virility/sterility. It's quite obvious that Alfred is not sterile. Obviously, none of the parents are sterile. Joey is not sterile. But what about Maggie?

I don't think that the Narrator wanted to introduce himself in consideration, but gave enough information (the "we" in respects to his own household, which may include a wife and/or children) to conclude a possibility of virility without giving a definite.

Has Alfred and Maggie over the past six years just not given the opportunity for Maggie to conceive. Has the war (or other distractions) kept Alfred from Maggie? Or is Maggie sterile?



As I told you, it would be absolutely, totally, and in all other ways, inconceivable.
http://www.insuremeblog.com/affiliate/blogimages/inconceivable.jpg
Good points Bien. Quite possibly.


Do you suppose that Alfred has been de-sensitized to death and violence by the war. He was just forced to take gun in hand, pointed toward the enemy, and ordered to kill. If you can and have killed other men, how much easier has it become to kill an animal?

This is not justification, by any means, but this is another psychological consequence of war. One man may come out hating violence, while another (maybe still hating it but) embraces violence as the only way to address issues.
I don't know about this one. It is a bird afterall. But it is in the realm of possibility.

[Quark]

:eek: Now there is a flip of the mind! Falling in love over assaulting an animal, I would rather like it to happen the other way around.

You mean assaulting an animal over falling in love?


Take for example Jude and Annabel in Jude the Obscure by Hardy - their relation gets quite a blow when they decide to slaughter a pig! Lets say it does not strengthen their love at all.

Oh, I see. Yeah, typically you wouldn't think attacking a horse would attract anyone.


How does peacock taste? If they eat Joey afterwards it will at least be a murder for something... can you eat peacock?

It's a meaty bird, so I sure you could try--might be a little gamy. Okay, now I'm really off topic.


As to that animal, I assume you mean when Gerald was riding the horse and sticking his spurs into her side (and it was a female horse, hint, hint) to control her. There is a recurring theme of violence in Lawrence and interesting you should bring that up. The violence that Alfred wants to do on Joey is a pent up psychological impulse and that does go through Lawrence.

That's what I was thinking of. I figured either you or Janine would have something to say about that.


I had the question about Maggie's virility/sterility.

Do you suppose that Alfred has been de-sensitized to death and violence by the war.

It's possible, but it's hard to speculate about since we don't really have much information to work with.

[jinjang]

Most people do not. I'm sure Janine is going to argue with me as to what Lawrence's ideal woman is. Certainly the mother here is a two dimensional character and not fully fleshed out. For a more complex understanding of Lawrence's ideal woman, we woould have to look at the novels. I'm sure Janine is going to bring up Women In Love where Lawrnce has the woman on equal footing with the man in a symbol of star polarities.
Janine, what do you think Lawrence's ideal woman is? Is Gudrun or Jane(? sister of Gudrun) an ideal woman? I admit I did not read many Lawrence. I read Women in Love and a few short stories in Volume 2.


violence is certainly recurring in Lawrence.
Really? I remember the horse scene Virgil mentioned in Women in Love and I agree with him and it seems to parallel with taming a woman by force.

I can't stay long here on weekend as it is a family time. But I will read all the postings in between.

It is time to get next part of the text, Janine.

[Janine]

Janine, what do you think Lawrence's ideal woman is? Is Gudrun or Jane(? sister of Gudrun) an ideal woman? I admit I did not read many Lawrence. I read Women in Love and a few short stories in Volume 2.

You know, I have no idea! :lol: His ideal woman, to me, seems to change from novel to novel; but maybe, I am wrong. To be honest with you, I think Lawrence was always in pursuit of what his ideal woman should be; but like his journeys for discovery, he never truly settled on a complete answer. I think that Lawrence definitely does not write weak women. He writes them prominent and strong, asside from certain characters. Ursula is the name of Gudrun's sister, by the way. It wasn't Jane;). You are thinking maybe, of Jane Eyre? She was a strong character. I do think Lawrence felt that the natural order of things in the world, derrived from observing nature itself, was that male animal/man is dominent over female animal/women. I don't however, think he believed that man was there to bully women either or visa versa. Lawrence was very complex and to answer what his 'ideal' woman was, is to study him for a lifetime. I really don't have a certain answer myself.


Really? I remember the horse scene Virgil mentioned in Women in Love and I agree with him and it seems to parallel with taming a woman by force. Yes, I recall that and I was thinking of the rabbit scene, also. I don't think Gerald was particularly kind to Winifred's pet rabbit; if I recall that correctly. Both scenes represented to Ursula a sort of power in Gerald, that was to her, at the time irresistable; even thought, she knew it to be dangerous. Many women are spurred on by dangerous men. Look back into history and you will see this is so true. In the end Ursuala didn't not give into Gerald's power, did she?


I can't stay long here on weekend as it is a family time. But I will read all the postings in between.

It is time to get next part of the text, Janine.

Oh jingjang - do enjoy your family time. It's really hot here today; so I don't know how long I will be online today. Computers generate heat. I still don't have my AC in the window.

Like you, I just read all the new postings and think that everyone has come up with good ideas here. I will now post the end of the story and see what everyone has to say regarding 'laugh' s, etc.

[Janine]

LAST SECTION OF TEXT - yeah! :banana: :lol:

Same paragraph continued…

The road made a loop down the sharp face of the slope. As I went crunching over the laborious snow I became aware of a figure striding down the steep scarp to intercept me. It was a man with his hands in front of him, half stuck in his breeches pockets, and his shoulders square--a real farmer of the hills; Alfred, of course. He waited for me by the stone fence.

'Excuse me,' he said as I came up.

I came to a halt in front of him and looked into his sullen blue eyes. He had a certain odd haughtiness on his brows. But his blue eyes stared insolently at me.

'Do you know anything about a letter--in French--that my wife opened--a letter of mine--?'

'Yes,' said I. 'She asked me to read it to her.'

He looked square at me. He did not know exactly how to feel.

'What was there in it?' he asked.

'Why?' I said. 'Don't you know?'

'She makes out she's burnt it,' he said.

'Without showing it you?' I asked.

He nodded slightly. He seemed to be meditating as to what line of action he should take. He wanted to know the contents of the letter: he must know: and therefore he must ask me, for evidently his wife had taunted him. At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person. So he eyed me, and I eyed him, and neither of us spoke. He did not want to repeat his request to me. And yet I only looked at him, and considered.

Suddenly he threw back his head and glanced down the valley. Then he changed his position--he was a horse-soldier. Then he looked at me confidentially.

'She burnt the blasted thing before I saw it,' he said.

'Well,' I answered slowly, 'she doesn't know herself what was in it.'

He continued to watch me narrowly. I grinned to myself.

'I didn't like to read her out what there was in it,' I continued.

He suddenly flushed so that the veins in his neck stood out, and he stirred again uncomfortably. '

The Belgian girl said her baby had been born a week ago, and that they were going to call it Alfred,' I told him.

He met my eyes. I was grinning. He began to grin, too.

'Good luck to her,' he said.

'Best of luck,' said I.

'And what did you tell _her_?' he asked.

'That the baby belonged to the old mother--that it was brother to your girl, who was writing to you as a friend of the family.'

He stood smiling, with the long, subtle malice of a farmer.

'And did she take it in?' he asked.

'As much as she took anything else.'

He stood grinning fixedly. Then he broke into a short laugh.

'Good for _her_' he exclaimed cryptically.

And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big move in his contest with his wife.

'What about the other woman?' I asked.

'Who?' 'Élise.' '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.

'Not me,' he said. 'Back your life it's a plant.'

'You don't think the _cher petit bébé_ is a little Alfred?'

'It might be,' he said.

'Only might?'

'Yes--an' there's lots of mites in a pound of cheese.' He laughed boisterously but uneasily.

'What did she say, exactly?' he asked.

I began to repeat, as well as I could, the phrases of the letter:

'_Mon cher Alfred--Figure-toi comme je suis desolée_--'

He listened with some confusion. When I had finished all I could remember, he said:

'They know how to pitch you out a letter, those Belgian lasses.'

'Practice,' said I.

'They get plenty,' he said.

There was a pause.

'Oh, well,' he said. 'I've never got that letter, anyhow.'

The wind blew fine and keen, in the sunshine, across the snow. I blew my nose and prepared to depart.

'And _she_ doesn't know anything?' he continued, jerking his head up the hill in the direction of Tible.

'She knows nothing but what I've said--that is, if she really burnt the letter.'

'I believe she burnt it,' he said, 'for spite. She's a little devil, she is. But I shall have it out with her.' His jaw was stubborn and sullen. Then suddenly he turned to me with a new note.

'Why?' he said. 'Why didn't you wring that b---- peacock's neck-that b---- Joey?'

'Why?' I said. 'What for?'

'I hate the brute,' he said. 'I had a shot at him--'

I laughed. He stood and mused.

'Poor little Elise,' he murmured.

'Was she small--_petite_?' I asked. He jerked up his head.

'No,' he said. 'Rather tall.' 'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'

Again he looked into my eyes. And then once more he went into a loud burst of laughter that made the still, snow-deserted valley clap again.

'God, it's a knockout!' he said, thoroughly amused. Then he stood at ease, one foot out, his hands in his breeches pockets, in front of him, his head thrown back, a handsome figure of a man.

'But I'll do that blasted Joey in--' he mused.

I ran down the hill, shouting with laughter.

THE END

[Virgil]

You know, I have no idea! :lol: His ideal woman, to me, seems to change from novel to novel; but maybe, I am wrong. To be honest with you, I think Lawrence was always in pursuit of what his ideal woman should be; but like his journeys for discovery, he never truly settled on a complete answer.
After thinking about that for a while, I would have to agree. Possibly Ursula is his most defined ideal woman, and she's in both The Rainbow and Women In Love. And while she's no push over, she stands her ground, she's not exactly a strong feminist either. In fact she sort of rejects that. The other women characters are all interesting in their own way. Mrs. Morel (too strong) and Miriam (too weak) from Sons and Lovers are both problematic; Anna Brangwen (Ursula's and Gudrun's mother) from The Rainbow is incredibly drawn and complex, but ultimately similar to Mrs Morel, an all absorbing woman that reduces the vitality of men; Lady Chatterly could be the best representative of Lawrence's ideal woman after Ursula.


I think that Lawrence definitely does not write weak women. He writes them prominent and strong, asside from certain characters.
He doesn't, but the question is, does he approve? ;)


I do think Lawrence felt that the natural order of things in the world, derrived from observing nature itself, was that male animal/man is dominent over female animal/women. I don't however, think he believed that man was there to bully women either or visa versa. Lawrence was very complex and to answer what his 'ideal' woman was, is to study him for a lifetime. I really don't have a certain answer myself.
Quite right. Lawrence is the ultimate naturalist and that's where he believes in a more deferential role for women. I'm not sure "deferential" is the right word. I couldn't think of the perfect word. And in a perfect lawrence world there wouldn't be a need for bullying. It would be natural, the male acting through his role and the female through hers. To some degree lawrence sees the imperfect roles of men and women as a falling from some edenic ideal. When we fell from eden (and this is Lawrence's view, not mine) we formed individual wills and through those wills we exert our internal desires and this creates interrelationship disharmonies, and ultimately social disharmonies. These disharmonies work themself out with time and conflict in premodern societies, but the modern world (industrialization, freedom, especially women's freedoms, democracy) does not allow these disharmonies to work themself out but lead to sterile and dysfunctionality relationships and societies.

[Janine]

NEW TEXT is post #3030 - falls now on the page prior to this one.


I will answer your post tomorrow, Virgil. It's a good one and interesting to debate this with you. I think mostly now we are in agreement. Well written post, V!

[jinjang]

Ursula is the name of Gudrun's sister, by the way. It wasn't Jane. You are thinking maybe, of Jane Eyre?

I just threw a name :Dbecause I compared the two sisters with the two sisters in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin. Gudrun with Elizabeth and Ursula with Jane.


Lawrence is the ultimate naturalist and that's where he believes in a more deferential role for women. I'm not sure "deferential" is the right word. I couldn't think of the perfect word. And in a perfect lawrence world there wouldn't be a need for bullying. It would be natural, the male acting through his role and the female through hers.
That is fascinating! I really appreciate your expertise on Lawrence. I may have to reread Women in Love because that book puzzled me in many ways. Now I could understand what Rupert, close to Lawrence himself, was trying to reach with Ursula in their love. While Ursula may have been an ideal woman for Lawrence, I, as a woman, found Gudrun far more intriguing and charming and so was Gerald compared to Rupert. Seemingly irrelevant to our current story, your insight will definitely help me understand what Lawrence is trying to convey to us with our story of discussion. Now I understand what you mean by

Certainly the mother here is a two dimensional character and not fully fleshed out. You mean to say that the mother in the story is definitely obscure for us to determine whether she fits into Lawrence’s ideal woman.

To some degree lawrence sees the imperfect roles of men and women as a falling from some edenic ideal. When we fell from eden (and this is Lawrence's view, not mine) we formed individual wills and through those wills we exert our internal desires and this creates interrelationship disharmonies, and ultimately social disharmonies. These disharmonies work themself out with time and conflict in premodern societies, but the modern world (industrialization, freedom, especially women's freedoms, democracy) does not allow these disharmonies to work themself out but lead to sterile and dysfunctionality relationships and societies.
If Lawrence is right on the disharmony between men and women, the only solution would be not to have any marriages at all. The marriage is a byproduct of our modern world and one of the causes of dysfunctional relationship. Many a lucky couples are in harmony while many others are not. Let me quote from a book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Women in Indian society were treated so well as to startle the Spaniards. Las Casas describes sex relations: Marriage laws are non-existent: men and women alike choose their mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy or anger. They multiply in great abundance; pregnant women work to the last minutes and give birth almost painlessly; up the next day, they bathe in the river and are as clean and healthy as before giving birth. If they tire of their men, they give themselves abortions with herbs that force stillbirths, covering their shameful parts with leaves or cotton cloth; although on the whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as much casualness as we look upon a man’s head or at his hands.
The “dysfunction” could happen also if a couple is not attracted to each other or if love in the relationship is lopsided. If a man and a woman want to live in a harmony with nature as a husband and wife, we have to assume there is also the mutual attraction between the couple.

This certainly does not seem to be the case with Maggie and Alfred. I conclude firmly that Maggie is not attractive either to the narrator or to her husband. There were many negative indications the narrator noticed each time Maggie trying to bewitch the narrator. Let me list them here: preposterously short skirt (though contemporary men would not mind the short skirt); odd smile; long sallow face; impudent(applied to cows but induced after Maggie’s sudden appearance) ; she looked straight into my face and I wanted to turn my face away; her look was too near; she asked abruptly; laughed with slightly ugly grimace; I was being cajoled (negative connotation); black bitter-looking; she looked at me shrewdly(negative); (after he returned with Joey) she attended to me with a kind of sinister witch-like graciousness; ominous hulking bearing; and so on…

The negative things about Alfred are a lot more prominent, though he may be handsome, which we all established without any disaccords.

How to prevent such dysfunctional couple? We should not marry or only lucky few couples should marry. Lawrence was an idealist himself, I surmise.

Note for everyone:

NEW TEXT is post #3030 - falls now on the page prior to this one.

[Sapphire]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/aola.gif The last part of the text is up. I'll have a look at it later in the day - I am a bit too busy at the moment.

I do have to say that I read these ideas about what Lawrence thinks to be the ideal woman with great interest. I am a bit ashamed to admit that I never thought about the possibility to distil such an idea from the characters in the story he wrote :redface:
But then again, I have always difficulty with the whole concept of "ideal (wo)man". I know I definitely can not describe mine. I would not be surprised if Lawrence changed his idea every now and then - or at least developed it over the years (and books).

One learns a little every day :)

[Virgil]

That is fascinating! I really appreciate your expertise on Lawrence. I may have to reread Women in Love because that book puzzled me in many ways. Now I could understand what Rupert, close to Lawrence himself, was trying to reach with Ursula in their love.
My pleasure. However there is much more to Lawrence than that. I didn't mention the religious aspect of nature and of sex itself, the sub conscious as a harbor of unconscious impulses and desires, and the social order dependent on natural relationships and spiritual connection. Oh, there's probably more than that too. It's not coming to mind. What makes Lawrence special for me is that he's worked out this unique view of the world and it's derivative of Wodsworth and the Romantics in many respects, but updated to modernity. He could be seen as the last true Romantic writer. He's not just a great writer, but he's unique.


While Ursula may have been an ideal woman for Lawrence, I, as a woman, found Gudrun far more intriguing and charming and so was Gerald compared to Rupert. Seemingly irrelevant to our current story, your insight will definitely help me understand what Lawrence is trying to convey to us with our story of discussion. Now I understand what you mean by
You mean to say that the mother in the story is definitely obscure for us to determine whether she fits into Lawrence’s ideal woman.
Yes, she's only got a couple of sentences devoted to her, and we don't ever see what she thinks or feels. I think one is supposed to find Gudrun more charming and intriguing. She is. She's the ideal mondern woman by everyone else's standards, smart, sophisticated, strong, artist. Lawrence was a rebel against modernity and those (other than the artist) are not attributes he appreciates. His ideal characters are those that are slow to think and ponder. They feel.


If Lawrence is right on the disharmony between men and women, the only solution would be not to have any marriages at all. The marriage is a byproduct of our modern world and one of the causes of dysfunctional relationship. Many a lucky couples are in harmony while many others are not. Let me quote from a book A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.
Lawrence would love that quote. When was that written? It's a idealization of the primitive, something Lawrence would agree with, but frankly I am personally skeptical of. We have this tendency to glorify the past. As to the marriage idea you present. I think part of Lawrence would go along with it and part would not. I think Lawrence would accept the notion of a natural marriage and in a natural society the natural integrates with cultural norms. He was much more intrigued with Catholicism (he spent a number of years living in Italy) than with his own Protestantism. He thought the rituals of Catholicism was closer to a natural religion and his later writings are filled with attempts to create new rituals for a new modern religion. His novel The Plumed Serpent is a perfect example. He felt the modern world had lost connection to the - how should I say? - the efficacy of the power behind the ritual. The best example of a perfect marriage in Lawrnce is the first generation of the Bragwens in The Rainbow. The Rainbow is a novel of three generations, ending with Ursula.


The “dysfunction” could happen also if a couple is not attracted to each other or if love in the relationship is lopsided. If a man and a woman want to live in a harmony with nature as a husband and wife, we have to assume there is also the mutual attraction between the couple.
For Lawrence all this happens sub consciously.


This certainly does not seem to be the case with Maggie and Alfred. I conclude firmly that Maggie is not attractive either to the narrator or to her husband. There were many negative indications the narrator noticed each time Maggie trying to bewitch the narrator. Let me list them here: preposterously short skirt (though contemporary men would not mind the short skirt); odd smile; long sallow face; impudent(applied to cows but induced after Maggie’s sudden appearance) ; she looked straight into my face and I wanted to turn my face away; her look was too near; she asked abruptly; laughed with slightly ugly grimace; I was being cajoled (negative connotation); black bitter-looking; she looked at me shrewdly(negative); (after he returned with Joey) she attended to me with a kind of sinister witch-like graciousness; ominous hulking bearing; and so on…
This is brilliant. Thanks for putting that together. I agree. There were many indications where I felt that Lawrence was not sympathetic to Maggie, but I never coherently idnetified it. But now you have.


How to prevent such dysfunctional couple? We should not marry or only lucky few couples should marry. Lawrence was an idealist himself, I surmise.
Yeah, I think Lawrence might agree with that, though he's never looked at the implications of a marriageless society. Something tells me he wouldn't like that either. But Lawrence in his self rightous way would consider himself one of those who is lucky. :lol: He was able to see problems in other people but never himself. :D

[Sapphire]

Here we go

The road made a loop down the sharp face of the slope. As I went crunching over the laborious snow I became aware of a figure striding down the steep scarp to intercept me. It was a man with his hands in front of him, half stuck in his breeches pockets, and his shoulders square--a real farmer of the hills; Alfred, of course.
Hands in his breeches pockets again ;) What struck me about this is "a real farmer of the hills". Maggie already hinted that Alfred could have become anything - but wanted to be a farmer. I can't find it back, but I remember us talking about how Maggie is rooted in that house and Alfred just goes off to fight a war or drive in France - not really seeming to aspire anything, not a man with a plan. It seems like he's quite at ease in the hills. Thus why did he join up for the army ("he thought he'd like the life") and why did he become a driver?! To run away from Maggie? But was he already married to Maggie when he was a driver? ... Questions, questions... What sticks is that I did not think Alfred to be so at home in the hills, and this sentence changed my opinion on that matter. :)

He waited for me by the stone fence. 'Excuse me,' he said as I came up.
I came to a halt in front of him and looked into his sullen blue eyes. He had a certain odd haughtiness on his brows. But his blue eyes stared insolently at me.
Here my knowledge of the English language is failing: he has an haughtiness in his brows BUT his eyes stare insolently?! Isn't that the same thing: haughtiness and insolence meaning "disdainful". I do not understand the placement of "But"

'Do you know anything about a letter--in French--that my wife opened--a letter of mine--?' etc
This is the part from which I concluded that Alfred did not read the letter, Janine. Just like Maggie, he does not really like to ask the narrator for help, but they do recognize him as the only one who might be of any help - Maggie because he knows France, Alfred because apparently he knows the narrator spoke with Maggie (either from Maggie or his Dad).

At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person.
Untold vengeance. For what? Why? Maybe like BienVenu mentioned, a consequence of the war. He is struggling with himself and needs to let go of his feelings of anger, either on Joey or on the narrator...

So he eyed me, and I eyed him, and neither of us spoke. He did not want to repeat his request to me. And yet I only looked at him, and considered.
The narrator is really waiting for Alfred to draw the information out of him, isn't he? I mean, he must know what Alfred wants to know. He is either playing with Alfred or he is trying to decide on what to do next ("and considered") and how much he will tell the man. Will he lie again?

Suddenly he threw back his head and glanced down the valley. Then he changed his position--he was a horse-soldier. Then he looked at me confidentially.
That surprised me too. Alfred a horse-soldier. Somehow, I had pictured him a foot soldier. Not sure why, for they probably had a horse on the farm... I wonder though, why it is important. Does this help Alfred's status or not? I do not think the cavalry did much charges in WW1 - it being a trench warfare and such...

'She burnt the blasted thing before I saw it,' he said.
'Well,' I answered slowly, 'she doesn't know herself what was in it.'
He continued to watch me narrowly. I grinned to myself.
'I didn't like to read her out what there was in it,' I continued.
"I did not like to" - the narrator has definitely been meddling into affairs! He really points out his own doing in it all.

He suddenly flushed so that the veins in his neck stood out, and he stirred again uncomfortably.
Why did he flush? Out of shame for what was in the letter? He should! :p

'The Belgian girl said her baby had been born a week ago, and that they were going to call it Alfred,' I told him.
He met my eyes. I was grinning. He began to grin, too.
'Good luck to her,' he said.
'Best of luck,' said I.
Here they really start to get on my nerves. What are they grinning about like "good old chaps". What is the use of them bonding over such a thing?

'And what did you tell _her_?' he asked.
'That the baby belonged to the old mother--that it was brother to your girl, who was writing to you as a friend of the family.'
He stood smiling, with the long, subtle malice of a farmer.
Why is the typing like this: "_her_"? Does that mean Alfred paused at that word?
Again it is being said that Alfred is really a farmer. It's written all over him apparently.

'And did she take it in?' he asked.
'As much as she took anything else.'
Now, there is one way to put it. Alfred does not know how she took anything else, does he?

He stood grinning fixedly. Then he broke into a short laugh. 'Good for _her_' he exclaimed cryptically.
Still grinning, then laughing - shortly. And I agree that he's being quite cryptically in the last part. Not too sure who's "_her_" ...

And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big move in his contest with his wife.
There, now it is finally being said. Those two do act like they're in a contest instead of a marriage. One has to have the upper hand. This sentence shows a bit that the narrator sees this and it might be just in my reading it, but I do not think he does really approve of it. No real disapproval either though...

'What about the other woman?' I asked.
Just my thought, what about the other woman. A good question to ask and I'm glad the narrator does mingle in here by asking such.

'Who?' 'Élise.' 'Oh'--he shifted uneasily--'she was all right--' etc 'Not me,' he said. 'Back your life it's a plant.' etcHe laughed boisterously but uneasily. 'What did she say, exactly?' he asked.
It seems to me that Alfred is not at all sure. He tries to laugh of his affair and the fact that there's a baby. But he can not be easy about it all, he is not that non-caring. It might be he's uneasy about his own status, but this part does make me think he wonders about Eliza. Though the next part brings back doubts ... maybe he is only uneasy about himself ...

I began to repeat etc
'They know how to pitch you out a letter, those Belgian lasses.'
'Practice,' said I.
'They get plenty,' he said.
There was a pause.
'Oh, well,' he said. 'I've never got that letter, anyhow.'
What kind of reasoning is that?! Does that make it OK. I am sorry, but he got as much of that letter as if he would have really gotten it himself. I am sure the narrator gave him the drift of it, if not the exact words it was written in. He tries to talk himself out of his responsibilities - both towards himself as towards the narrator.

The wind blew fine and keen, in the sunshine, across the snow. I blew my nose and prepared to depart.
:lol: The wind and the narrator are blowing :lol: Sorry, that just struck me as funny. Not sure why. I wonder if the wind is there to blow the whole matter away? :) In the beginning of the story it was rather a messenger of (more) bad news, wasn't it?

'And _she_ doesn't know anything?' he continued, jerking his head up the hill in the direction of Tible. 'She knows nothing but what I've said--that is, if she really burnt the letter.'
Again that way of writing "_she_".
And I see now why you questioned whether Alfred saw the letter or not. I think maybe Maggie has hidden the thing somewhere, but I also think Alfred did not see it. Otherwise he would not have been so anxious to talk to the narrator about it, would he? Or maybe he would, to know what kind of impression he had made...

'I believe she burnt it,' he said, 'for spite. She's a little devil, she is. But I shall have it out with her.' His jaw was stubborn and sullen. Then suddenly he turned to me with a new note.
"Have it out with her". Does that mean there will be some more fights, or that he will work together with her to find a solution? That he will have his marriage out with her, live it till the end.

'Why?' he said. 'Why didn't you wring that b---- peacock's neck-that b---- Joey?' 'Why?' I said. 'What for?' 'I hate the brute,' he said. 'I had a shot at him--'
Brute? Joey a brute? What's brutal about that bird? That man has quite some anger issues...

I laughed. He stood and mused. 'Poor little Elise,' he murmured.
And back at Elise. He does make jumps in his mind...
Not sure why the narrator laughed - maybe there is just no other respond to it. I mean, it is easy to say now that I would have confronted him about going after an innocent bird, but I did not see Alfred face. Maybe it was very mad/scary/determined...

'Was she small--_petite_?' I asked. He jerked up his head.
'No,' he said. 'Rather tall.' 'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'
Ok, why is this important? Are they talking about height or how "worn out" the women are?! Sorry, but if it is all about sex this part is quite distasteful in my eyes :p But then again, I know quite a few people nowdays might ask about that... and not as subtile as camouflaging it with "height" ...

Again he looked into my eyes.
Again? Where was the first time... And is this to see what the narrator thinks about it all?

And then once more he went into a loud burst of laughter that made the still, snow-deserted valley clap again. 'God, it's a knockout!' he said, thoroughly amused.
Right... And I say that in a very sarcastic manner! What a joke... He has quite an interesting sense of humour...

Then he stood at ease, one foot out, his hands in his breeches pockets, in front of him, his head thrown back, a handsome figure of a man. 'But I'll do that blasted Joey in--' he mused.
Maybe he is called handsome to make it even more absurd that he could feel threatened by a bird like Joey?!

I ran down the hill, shouting with laughter.
Ow great, now everybody has gone mad :p

Well, that is all I have to say now :) A bit much, I know... I think I am starting to finally grasp the text, I just have no way of putting it into words yet :lol:

[Janine]

:lol: Oh my gosh Virgil, I am laughing my head off! I am sorry about those words - like _she_ and _her_ . That happened when I pasted the story from online into my offline program - it didn't pick up the formating, which would have shown the word in italics. It should read her and she. It's not some kind of cryptic code invented by Lawrence. It's my own mistake in transporting it from online to this site.


I will be back later to answer posts. I read them all.

Virgil, I think you are really stretching it on your comments about petite and height - come on now. I don't think there is anything nasty about that at all. If anything I think the horseman reference and the height of the women is a 'power' image. I think he is showing that Elise is powerful while actually Maggie is not. The bird might just be adorable with Maggie and a brute with Alfred. Ever get peeked by a peacock? I had a pet white domestic goose once, who lived on our pond but came to visit me often much like Joey does to Maggie and he loved women; he would actually seek out my mother and then he would act so cute with us, he's gently peck at us or just walk around squawking his fool head off; but let a man come anywhere near him, and he went into instant defense mode and turned into a sort of brute, as well. He lowered his long neck and went on the attack; it was quite sight to behold. He changed like night and day. He knew men were a threat, apparently; women were gentler with him so he was fine with that. I do think these animals know. They are smarter than man gives them credit for.

[Sapphire]

Janine, I think you are giving Virgil a hard time for something he did not do ;) I like your idea better indeed - the "power" that comes from height. I just could not figure out why on earth it could be important and my mind started to wander :redface: If I read my post again, I think it wandered way too far! :brickwall
I should have known though, as I just saw a program on "why girls wear high heels". The power-factor is quite a big factor. As is the "I feel sexier" by the way :p.

And animals might know, for birds are always coming at me. And I can't stand them :lol:

[Janine]

Janine, I think you are giving Virgil a hard time for something he did not do ;) I like your idea better indeed - the "power" that comes from height. I just could not figure out why on earth it could be important and my mind started to wander :redface: If I read my post again, I think it wandered way too far! :brickwall
I should have known though, as I just saw a program on "why girls wear high heels". The power-factor is quite a big factor. As is the "I feel sexier" by the way :p.

And animals might know, for birds are always coming at me. And I can't stand them :lol:

Birds do know as other animals do as well. I know for a fact that if one acted afraid of my goose he would go into attack or defensive mode and come at you; he would not have been able to hurt anyone seriously but a lot of people got upset and they could fall down. Once I showed fear and he lowered his head and came towards me; then I realised if I just took my hand and knocked him on the top of his peak he knew who had the upperhand and did not go on the attack again. It got to the point where he was glad for me to stroke his long elegant neck and pat his back. It was quite a revelation to me at the time but then it got to be second nature with me and he and I felt quite unafraid of him and comfortable with him following me around my garden. He was really something, walking about so proud and parading himself just like a peacock.

Oh my gosh! Sorry, Virgil, I got your and Saphire's post mixed up. Naturally, the way our Virgil thinks I thought he pointed to the tall factor as something a bit sorid. Haha...jokes on me. Saphire the underscores are just a fluke in the formating - nothing that Lawrence is trying to make us wonder about, however he did italize the words for more emphasis. The her and she is Maggie I believe.

It's really hot here today; I may have to take a break tonight. I am sweating and the computer is making more heat; I still do not have the AC in the window. I should shut down for a few hours, and watch a movie or something tonight early evening. Maybe it will get cooler later on. Like I said, I did read all of your posts.

Let me suggest a few things to you all concerning getting to know Lawrence better and his way of thinking. I hold that a good biography book on the author would be invaluable to your understanding of his position on husbands, wives, children, morals, religion, etc. I have read several now and will suggest some to you later on. These really shed a great deal of light on his work for me. Also, there is a commentary book which I will list with the others.

[BienvenuJDC]

Sorry, guys. But y'all post entirely too much for me to keep up... :lol:

[Janine]

Sorry, guys. But y'all post entirely too much for me to keep up... :lol:

I know it. It's a bit overwhelming for me too, Bien. I did read all of the posts but don't quite know where to begin. It will have to wait till later. It is too hot here. I am going to shut computer down for awhile. Thought cooler air was coming this way. :(

[Virgil]

I am completely confused????? :confused: Huh??

[Janine]

I am completely confused????? :confused: Huh??

Forget it. I mixed you up with Saphire's comments in her post. Sorry 'bout that! I can't address your post right now. I think I am going to keel over from this heat and humidity. I sure hope it gets a little cooler tonight. I am suffocating in South Jersey....

[jinjang]

Lawrence would love that quote. When was that written? It's a idealization of the primitive, something Lawrence would agree with, but frankly I am personally skeptical of.
Bartolome de las Casas wrote that around 1530. I do not think the life of Indians is practical to our times. But, I agree with his view: A man and a woman love each other in harmony with nature, sharing responsibilities and taking their roles within their capabilities.


Here my knowledge of the English language is failing: he has an haughtiness in his brows BUT his eyes stare insolently?! Isn't that the same thing: haughtiness and insolence meaning "disdainful". I do not understand the placement of "But"
I think the word “but” is applied to his blue eyes: I looked into his sullen blue eyes but his blue eyes stared insolently at me.

My interpretation is a bit different from Sapphire's and so I am writing my version without quoting Sapphire's but I read and appreciated all of hers.


At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person.
My interpretation: Alfred may have been thinking that the narrator was conspiring with Maggie against him by translating the letter for her and thus revealing his secret to his wife. He has been also brooding over the letter with which Maggie has been taunting him. Hence the untold vengeance.


He nodded slightly. He seemed to be meditating as to what line of action he should take. He wanted to know the contents of the letter: he must know: and therefore he must ask me, for evidently his wife had taunted him. At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person. So he eyed me, and I eyed him, and neither of us spoke. He did not want to repeat his request to me. And yet I only looked at him, and considered.

I consider this part as their initial adjustment and understanding stage. Except the initial adjustment between the two men, I noticed that they ease into conversation without much puzzlement in the narrator. The narrator reads Alfred like a book while Maggie remains mystery. This conversation simply means the narrator can understand Alfred as a man to a man.

Then he looked at me confidentially.
Observe how easily Alfred confides to the narrator after a short exchange of words and after an eye-to-eye comprehension. Right after Alfred’s confidential talk to the narrator, the narrator says the following:

'Well,' I answered slowly, 'she doesn't know herself what was in it.'
He continued to watch me narrowly. I grinned to myself. 'I didn't like to read her out what there was in it,' I continued.
He suddenly flushed so that the veins in his neck stood out, and he stirred again uncomfortably. '
As if to say that your secret is safe from Maggie. The narrator confesses that he personally didn’t like to read it outright what was truly in the letter to Maggie. Here Alfred flushed uncomfortably because a stranger knows his secret. But they grinned at each other soon.

And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big move in his contest with his wife.
The narrator says that Alfred laughs with evident triumph over the fight with Maggie. Notice also Alfred is transparent to the narrator unlike Maggie. This also supports my version how he would revenge his humiliation of two days.

'What about the other woman?' I asked.
'Who?' 'Élise.' '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.
'Not me,' he said. 'Back your life it's a plant.'
Alfred does not like to get investigated by the narrator and he feels shame for his infidelity. But, by saying “Back your life it’s a plant,” he expresses he will stay put and possibly no more tom-foolery. His youthful wandering life is over and will settle down for good. But, he will get the dominance back soon enough by getting rid of Joey. Joey can be a dual symbol for dominance if not manhood here.


'They know how to pitch you out a letter, those Belgian lasses.'
'Practice,' said I.
'They get plenty,' he said.
There was a pause.
'Oh, well,' he said. 'I've never got that letter, anyhow.'
Maybe Alfred is saying Elise is a loose woman or at least he thinks she was in order to justify his action. But later on Alfred says “Poor little Elise.” I cannot make out what he means. He may mean he regrets to leave Elise for devilish spiteful wife Maggie. Does he regret her beauty? He would have all the pretty women if he could. Alpha males!

'And she doesn't know anything?' he continued, jerking his head up the hill in the direction of Tible. 'She knows nothing but what I've said--that is, if she really burnt the letter.'
'I believe she burnt it,' he said, 'for spite. She's a little devil, she is. But I shall have it out with her.' His jaw was stubborn and sullen.
Alfred has now the upper hand to fight with Maggie with the confidence that she does not have a solid proof of his wrongdoing. She has been taunting him for two days over the letter and he couldn’t obviously fight back and he must have borne her reproaches with sullen silence. Men like Alfred do not like to lose his face to their wives. Virgil’s dominance version comes to true right here.

'I hate the brute,' he said. 'I had a shot at him--'
I laughed. He stood and mused.
Joey was acting like a spoiled child, occupying Maggie’s attention. Maggie used Joey to annoy Alfred. He will definitely try to get rid of the nuisance. The whole things can be viewed laughable to the narrator who is now out of their business. He may be laughing with Alfred and at him at the same time.

My husband said I should give a grand finale with a recipe of peacock dish. I do not agree with him, of course. I certainly go against killing someone's pet, even though farmers have peacocks and peahens as poultry.

[Sapphire]

JinJang
I like your ideas :)
I think you might be right about the "but" - it definitely makes more sense.
And I do think Alfred could have been thinking that the narrator was conspiring with Maggie - why not? If he is though, I think he's staying quite calm under the idea that Maggie might be confining in somebody else and maybe even cheat on him.
As you say, the narrator can understand Alfred as a man to a man. Maggie stays a mystery. I had not looked at it like that yet but indeed - maybe it is not as much approval as understanding. Though those two are hard to separate sometimes.
His youthful wandering life is over and will settle down for good.
Yes! I was thinking in that direction but could not quite point it out. I think that might be why in this part so much attention is given to the fact that Albert is a farmer in his whole being. To show he might have accepted that is what his live is gonna be like. Especially as he has the upper hand now :p He "just" needs to eliminate the (imagined?) competition.

Peacock Dish. Now there is an idea :lol:

[jinjang]

Are you just up? I am owling again but I think I should go to bed now.


If he is though, I think he's staying quite calm under the idea that Maggie might be confining in somebody else and maybe even cheat on him.

Alfred does not seem to me an easily excitable guy. I picture him as a hulking quiet manly man who does not express much of his feeling. I can imagine that he shots a gun at Joey quietly; throws a stern glance at Maggie; walks away to show he is the boss now.

[Virgil]

Before I read everyone's comments I will quickly highlight what i found interesting in the last secion.


He nodded slightly. He seemed to be meditating as to what line of action he should take. He wanted to know the contents of the letter: he must know: and therefore he must ask me, for evidently his wife had taunted him. At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person. So he eyed me, and I eyed him, and neither of us spoke. He did not want to repeat his request to me. And yet I only looked at him, and considered.
Inside Alfred there is this constant impulse of violence. This is not unlike many of Lawrence's characters who are associated with the modern world.


Suddenly he threw back his head and glanced down the valley. Then he changed his position--he was a horse-soldier. Then he looked at me confidentially.
Interesting that Alfred is a horse soldier. Horses figure prominantly in lots of Lawrence's work, perhaps the majority of his work. Horses represent various things in various places, but the general drift is that the domestication of the horse - the taming of his natural instincts - is what progressed society away from the primitive. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's a good thumbnail thought to keep in mind. Remember Gerald and the control of the mare in Women In Love.


'Good luck to her,' he said.

'Best of luck,' said I.

'And what did you tell _her_?' he asked.

'That the baby belonged to the old mother--that it was brother to your girl, who was writing to you as a friend of the family.'

He stood smiling, with the long, subtle malice of a farmer.

'And did she take it in?' he asked.

'As much as she took anything else.'

He stood grinning fixedly. Then he broke into a short laugh.

'Good for _her_' he exclaimed cryptically.
I found this to be a guy buddy/buddy bond that I think is the sdource of Dark Muse's hatred for the characters. There is no understanding for the Belgian girl. But in fairness to the narrator, I do get the sense now that he's just playing along. I don't think he wants to provoke Alfred.


'Poor little Elise,' he murmured.

'Was she small--_petite_?' I asked. He jerked up his head.

'No,' he said. 'Rather tall.' 'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'
You guys were right about the narrator living with someone when we were discussing how he nursed the peacock to health at his house. I've read the story three times now and just now I picked up the narrator had a wife. These discussions are invaluable. :)

I purposely didn't mention the laughter here. Tonight I will post and quote all nine places in the story where laughter is mentioned.

[Sapphire]

Virgil, interesting to read about the horse :) I had not thought about the aspect of taming that animal, taking it out of nature and into the war.

'No,' he said. 'Rather tall.' 'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'
I read this differently. I thought that the narrator said the last sentence, not Alfred. This because the ' ' stops and begins again. Not sure now :confused: But how would Alfred know the narrator is married?

[Virgil]

Virgil, interesting to read about the horse :) I had not thought about the aspect of taming that animal, taking it out of nature and into the war.

I read this differently. I thought that the narrator said the last sentence, not Alfred. This because the ' ' stops and begins again. Not sure now :confused: But how would Alfred know the narrator is married?

Oh you're right. It was printed incorrectly in the electronic text. It's much clearer in my printed book. It's set off with a new line. You are right, that's the narrator talking. That's why I never picked up on it in my three reads. So we don't know if the narrator is married.

[jinjang]

Horses represent various things in various places, but the general drift is that the domestication of the horse - the taming of his natural instincts - is what progressed society away from the primitive.
I skipped the mention of Alfred being a horse-solder, knowing full well you, Virgil, would mention it. Great that you gave a consistent interpretation! Alfred is being tamed down not by anyone else but by himself?


'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'
Since Alfred has never met the narrator, I agree with Sapphire that it was the narrator who said the sentence. Does Lawrence prefer taller women? Alfred said Elise was a taller knockout, which insinuates Maggie is not.


Inside Alfred there is this constant impulse of violence.
Really? I did not see much evidence of his impulse of violence except he shots at Joey once. Are you talking about the part when he said to the narrator why he didn't kill the bird? I thought it was one of men's instincts to eliminate a competition.

I am looking forward to hearing from everyone why the narrator ran down laughing at the end.

[Sapphire]

I am looking forward to hearing from everyone why the narrator ran down laughing at the end
My first thought was "he has gone mad". I have to admit that's still the thought that comes to my mind in the end, though it has changed to "they've all gone crazy" :p. And the thing about it all is that everybody acts like all is normal. Appearances are held up. Just not in that last laugh... In my ears, it is a liberating laugh, a non-caring laugh, a disbelieving laugh... a laugh that might grow into madness if it was not about a whole matter which does not affect the narrator (anymore).

Of course, there is also the possibility that he likes to laugh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dkTrNH92Y)

[Virgil]

Really? I did not see much evidence of his impulse of violence except he shots at Joey once. Are you talking about the part when he said to the narrator why he didn't kill the bird? I thought it was one of men's instincts to eliminate a competition.


Well, this is a short story and there are several instances of Alfred's violent impulses: (1) He wants to kill Joey, (2) he wants to enforce his will on his wife and I do believe it's suggested that it's by physical force, and (3) the narrator feels threatened when he meets up with him:

He wanted to know the contents of the letter: he must know: and therefore he must ask me, for evidently his wife had taunted him. At the same time, no doubt, he would like to wreak untold vengeance on my unfortunate person.

[Janine]

Been reading along. Think I am caught up and I commend everyone. You all pretty much covered all aspects of this story. One thing, jinjang....


Since Alfred has never met the narrator, I agree with Sapphire that it was the narrator who said the sentence. Does Lawrence prefer taller women? Alfred said Elise was a taller knockout, which insinuates Maggie is not.

I have to correct you here. Alfred did not refer to Maggie as a taller knockout. Let me quote:


'God, it's a knockout!' he said, thoroughly amused.

In my interpretation, he is referring to the whole affair of the letter and not to Maggie directly. It says 'it's' not 'she's'....See the difference.


Really? I did not see much evidence of his impulse of violence except he shots at Joey once. Are you talking about the part when he said to the narrator why he didn't kill the bird? I thought it was one of men's instincts to eliminate a competition.

Virgil is somewhat correct about this being a recurring element/theme in L's. right. It's usually an underlying theme in many of Lawrence's works; so it may not be blantantly stated.


I am looking forward to hearing from everyone why the narrator ran down laughing at the end.

Virgil seems to have that aspect under control. We be anxious to see what he has to say about it....also to view his long list of 'laugh's'.

[Virgil]

Ok, here are the eleven (I know I said nine, but I found another two) places where laughter comes in this story:

(1) When Maggie asks the narrator to translate the letter, page 380 in my text:

'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.

(2) When he finished reading the letter, p. 381

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.'

(3) When Joey comes up to maggie, p. 382:

'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.'

(4) When the narrator and Maggie are debating the contents of the letter, p. 383:

'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.

(5) When Maggie is picturing Alfred with Else and Maggie's letters, p. 385:

'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--'

(6) And when the conversation ends between Maggie and the narrator that first day, p. 385:

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.

(7) When the narrator and Alfred are talking about Else, p. 391:

He suddenly flushed so that the veins in his neck stood out, and he
stirred again uncomfortably.

'The Belgian girl said her baby had been born a week ago, and that they
were going to call it Alfred,' I told him.

He met my eyes. I was grinning. He began to grin, too.
Not quite a laugh there, but I think it's the same effect.

(8) When the narrator tells Alfred of the lie he told Maggie, p. 392:

He stood smiling, with the long, subtle malice of a farmer.

'And did she take it in?' he asked.

'As much as she took anything else.'

He stood grinning fixedly. Then he broke into a short laugh.

'Good for _her_' he exclaimed cryptically.

And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big
move in his contest with his wife.

(9) When the narrator and Alfred talk about the possibility that Else is probably making it up, p. 392:

'You don't think the _cher petit bébé_ is a little Alfred?'

'It might be,' he said.

'Only might?'

'Yes--an' there's lots of mites in a pound of cheese.' He laughed
boisterously but uneasily.

(10) When the narrator and Alfred talk about killing Joey, p. 392:

'Why?' he said. 'Why didn't you wring that b---- peacock's neck-that
b---- Joey?'

'Why?' I said. 'What for?'

'I hate the brute,' he said. 'I had a shot at him--'

I laughed. He stood and mused.

(11) When the narrator leaves Alfred to go home, p. 393:

'But I'll do that blasted Joey in--' he mused.

I ran down the hill, shouting with laughter.

Perhaps there are even more that I missed. It's also interesting that Lawrence has another short story titled, "The Last Laugh." Unfortunately I don't recall what that story is about. Let's absorb this all and think it over.

[Janine]

Ok, here are the eleven (I know I said nine, but I found another two) places where laughter comes in this story:

(1) When Maggie asks the narrator to translate the letter, page 380 in my text:


(2) When he finished reading the letter, p. 381


(3) When Joey comes up to maggie, p. 382:


(4) When the narrator and Maggie are debating the contents of the letter, p. 383:


(5) When Maggie is picturing Alfred with Else and Maggie's letters, p. 385:


(6) And when the conversation ends between Maggie and the narrator that first day, p. 385:


(7) When the narrator and Alfred are talking about Else, p. 391:

Not quite a laugh there, but I think it's the same effect.

(8) When the narrator tells Alfred of the lie he told Maggie, p. 392:


(9) When the narrator and Alfred talk about the possibility that Else is probably making it up, p. 392:


(10) When the narrator and Alfred talk about killing Joey, p. 392:


(11) When the narrator leaves Alfred to go home, p. 393:


Perhaps there are even more that I missed. It's also interesting that Lawrence has another short story titled, "The Last Laugh." Unfortunately I don't recall what that story is about. Let's absorb this all and think it over.

Good work, Virgil. Maybe all these laughs is why I initially thought the story was amusing. At least it first struck me as being so. Everyone else took it all so seriously. I still think it's amusing and I still hold true to my belief that the narrator is amused at the end by the obsurity of this married couple. I find them a triffle amusing and laughable myself, as the lord their dominince over each other. At anyrate, I do think all these frequent laughs are significant.

I just read "The Last Laugh" - quite frankly, I was going to tell you I didn't exactly understand that story; it's a strange one. Maybe a second reading would help. You should read it; because, I would love to know your take on that story. I think it's a much later story and appears in Volume 3; it's sort of surrealistic, I think. I have been attempting to read all the Lawrence stories that I have left to read. I am making progress, but I stopped to read a short story by another author and then I will go back to the Lawrence ones again very soon. I cross them off in pencil, in the listing in my one paperback book, that lists all of the stories.

[jinjang]

In my interpretation, he is referring to the whole affair of the letter and not to Maggie directly. It says 'it's' not 'she's'....See the difference.
I really misread the part. Thank you for correcting me! A knockout is a blow that knocks out an opponent according to a dictionary.

Maybe then we can align this quote:

'God, it's a knockout!' he said, thoroughly amused. Then he stood at ease, one foot out, his hands in his breeches pockets, in front of him, his head thrown back, a handsome figure of a man.
'But I'll do that blasted Joey in--' he mused.
I ran down the hill, shouting with laughter.

with this one:


And then he laughed aloud once more, evidently feeling he had won a big move in his contest with his wife.

Alfred is laughing a triumphant laugh over the fight with Maggie. The narrator got the influence of the laugh, laughing along with Alfred.

Virgil, thank you for collecting the laughing scenes for us. I notice Maggie's laugh is not so natural as Alfred's. Maggie's laughs are awkward and uneasy and they seems to be an attempt to hide her discomfort or uneasiness. I do not yet find any other coherence.

[Quark]

Ok, here are the eleven (I know I said nine, but I found another two) places where laughter comes in this story:

Good work, Virgil. I hadn't noticed how many times the characters had been laughing, and that each of them were reacting to the affair with laughter.


Let's absorb this all and think it over.

Okay, I'm done absorbing. Let me take a stab at those quotations. The first few are all attributed to Maggie in some way--either she's actually cracking up or she's imagining laughter. Her laughs seem bitter and almost mean-spirited. She's laughing at the affair, and it's something that's completely repugnant to her. There's also some desperation to her laughs. She struggling to maintain self-control and self-respect here, and she wants to deride the affair because she interprets the affair as attack on herself. I agree with jinjang:


Maggie's laughs are awkward and uneasy and they seems to be an attempt to hide her discomfort or uneasiness. I do not yet find any other coherence.

I also agree with this:


Alfred is laughing a triumphant laugh over the fight with Maggie.

Alfred's laughing because he believes that he got away with the affair. It does appear triumphant.

The last laugh, though, I don't think is quite so triumphant. The narrator's laugh is the only one that is actually motivated by mirth. I got the impression that he was laughing at the "absurdity" that Janine was talking about:


Everyone else took it all so seriously. I still think it's amusing and I still hold true to my belief that the narrator is amused at the end by the obsurity of this married couple. I find them a triffle amusing and laughable myself, as the lord their dominince over each other.

This is what happens when you get to the discussion late. All the good ideas are taken, and all you can do is quote people. I will say, though, that the narrator could be laughing at just Alfred at this point. This is the part of the story that Alfred really shows his true colors, and the narrator could be reacting to that. Dark Muse called him a "cad." The narrator might be agreeing.


In my ears, it is a liberating laugh, a non-caring laugh, a disbelieving laugh

I do think it's a little bit of this, too. This could be the narrator's way of saying goodbye. He had been reflecting on the couple for a while now, and his laughter could indicate that he's finally done caring about Maggie and Alfred.

[Sapphire]

I am totally agreeing with Quark on the laughing :D

By the way, is anybody else stricken by the magnitude of the use of the word "indifferent" in this story? It just came to me as I reread the first paragraph: those peacocks are indifferent to the narrator, though he "might have touched them". Was that a forecast to what was going to happen? Maggie being quite indifferent about him (out of sight, out of mind), Alfred only interested in his intervention (never asks about the narrator's life). I can not really find the words for it now but I think indifference of ones own life and other people's life is quite a thing in this story. Really not sure why... just a hunch I get...

[color="blue"]And I wondered: maybe it is nice to mention a favourite part in the story? Just to wrap it all up? :p Though of course it is the story as a whole that makes it a good read.
I just want to mention that I really enjoyed the part where Maggie tells about her husband. She's obviously answering questions that the narrator asks her, but we do not hear the questions - we can make those up ourselves, like Jeopardy :D

'And is your husband at home?'
'I expect him home tonight. etc He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time --'
AND I really liked the irony/double meaning in this one sentence uttered by the narrator after Maggie says there's too many Alfred's in the letter - that's how she knows it's a love-letter.

'One too manny,' I said.
At first I thought he was probably making quite an understatement there. I imagined him saying it in a dry tone, with a bit of a snugger that indicated "fools in love do crazy things, like saying each others name way too often". Then it hit me. There was one little Alfred too many! The baby. :eek: Maybe that's why I like it so much, because it took me a little while to figure it out - now it seems so obvious :D

All in all, I really enjoyed this story - though this might mainly be caused by the fact that we went so deep into it and had such an interesting talk about it! Thank you all for your opinions, and a special thanks for Virgil to invite me and Janine to post new parts of the story so consistently!

[jinjang]

There was one little Alfred too many!
:thumbs_up I did not catch that either. He was being sarcastic! How disapproving the narrator was of Alfred! If so, he was laughing at Alfred at the end.


All in all, I really enjoyed this story - though this might mainly be caused by the fact that we went so deep into it and had such an interesting talk about it! Thank you all for your opinions, and a special thanks for Virgil to invite me and Janine to post new parts of the story so consistently!
I wholeheartedly agree with you, being grateful to Janine and Virgil. I much preferred people I met here to the story itself, though. Did Janine say that some of us are too serious? I hope she is not referring to me. She did not see my mischievous smiling face each time I joined this discussion. :D
How do we celebrate when we finish the discussion? I was waiting for either Virgil or Janine to give an ending.

Quark, how did you manage to agree with everyone? You should be a diplomat.
Dark Muse, Thank you for stimulating discussions!
BienvenuJDC, Thank you for trying to distract us here and there! You would have preferred us going slower.:D
Sapphire, Thank you for being so cheerful!

It was my first discussion and you all bore with me well and I am grateful to all!

[Janine]

This is what happens when you get to the discussion late. All the good ideas are taken, and all you can do is quote people. I will say, though, that the narrator could be laughing at just Alfred at this point. This is the part of the story that Alfred really shows his true colors, and the narrator could be reacting to that. Dark Muse called him a "cad." The narrator might be agreeing.

Quark, liked your post and I laughed so hard at your first statements, about coming in late and quoting others. I am amazed you could comment so effectively, at such a late part of the discussion; you have jumped right in there, and you have made your own comments. You seem aware of all that's going on in this story. Hope you liked it, too. It's like jinjang said:


Quark, how did you manage to agree with everyone? You should be a diplomat.

haha...yes, Quark, you should be one; I think you get good training being a teacher. One must be 'diplomatic' at that profession, I am sure.

Glad you agreed with me in this statement:

The last laugh, though, I don't think is quite so triumphant. The narrator's laugh is the only one that is actually motivated by mirth. I got the impression that he was laughing at the "absurdity" that Janine was talking about...

I think now I go back and answer all the posts after mine. I was overwhelmed at first but now I think I will miss too much unless I take it one at a time. I owe it to all of you; having not posted as much lately. But hey, you are ALL doing a stupendous job. I think we have made some Lawrence enthusiasts here and I am very glad of it. We plan to take off one month from he discussion group, because Quark is setting up the Chekhov discussion soon for this coming month. Several of us are involved in both. I hope that after a month you all come back again. I will come and round you all up and get you all excited about the next story I will pick. I have trying to read all the ones I had missed and I have nearly all the L short stories read by now, except the really long ones; but I am working slowly but surely on them, too. I will announce this again at the end of this story discussion.

[Virgil]

I still want to say something about the laughing, but I can't yet. I'll come back to this. But other than that we may be finished. If you see my closing post you may want to respond.

[Janine]

Quote by Virgil

I found this to be a guy buddy/buddy bond that I think is the sdource of Dark Muse's hatred for the characters. There is no understanding for the Belgian girl. But in fairness to the narrator, I do get the sense now that he's just playing along. I don't think he wants to provoke Alfred.


:
'Poor little Elise,' he murmured.

'Was she small--_petite_?' I asked. He jerked up his head.

'No,' he said. 'Rather tall.' 'Taller than your wife, I suppose.'

No, Virgil,I think I messed up here. 'Taller than your wife, I suppose' should be on the next line and was spoken by the narrator, referring to Maggie, not to the narrators own wife. I do still maintain the inference in the story when using the 'we' several places in the text indicates that the narrator is most likely a married man. That makes more sense to me. It may also have been his sister; since at this time, Lawrence's sister had been staying with him to nurse him back to health. I think though, it more likely, that L would want us to believe it was his wife he referred to included in the 'we'. Married people often use that expression as a substitude for actually saying 'my wife and I'.


You guys were right about the narrator living with someone when we were discussing how he nursed the peacock to health at his house. I've read the story three times now and just now I picked up the narrator had a wife. These discussions are invaluable.

Yes, this is the impression I got right off the bat. I never really thought otherwise.

Quote by jinjang

I really misread the part. Thank you for correcting me! A knockout is a blow that knocks out an opponent according to a dictionary.

Oh, no problem, jinjang; I guess you just read it a little wrong and since English is not your native language I can well understand why. I have to hand it to you, the way you can understand the father's form of speech. Some of this story is hard for me to even understand.


...Maybe then we can align this quote:....
....with this one:...

Alfred is laughing a triumphant laugh over the fight with Maggie. The narrator got the influence of the laugh, laughing along with Alfred.

Yes, I think that saying 'it's a knockout' he has just realised he now has the upperhand since basically Maggie has not proof of what he has been up to in France. If she truly burned the letter, she burned the evidence. Alfred at least thinks she burned the letter, so now he thinks he got away with the entire afair. Out of sight, out of mind. He now finds it totally laughable from his perspective. He is of course a cad and a jerk but he is all powerful now in the ending of the story, or so he believes he is. Time will probably tell about that.


Virgil, thank you for collecting the laughing scenes for us. I notice Maggie's laugh is not so natural as Alfred's. Maggie's laughs are awkward and uneasy and they seems to be an attempt to hide her discomfort or uneasiness. I do not yet find any other coherence.

Yes, I agree, that is very helpful; thanks again, Virgil. Indeed, jinjang, I did notice a lot of times that discomfort or uneasiness is mentioned; mostly, wasn't it in regards to Maggie or to Alfred before he knew that Maggie did not know the absolute truth?


[color="blue"]I am totally agreeing with Quark on the laughing :D

As I am...and agreeing with what I said originally about it as well. I think it was a spontaneous reaction on the part of the narrator. I was just reading L's own words about being spontaneous.....hope I spelled that right. The word comes up often in "Women in Love".


By the way, is anybody else stricken by the magnitude of the use of the word "indifferent" in this story? It just came to me as I reread the first paragraph: those peacocks are indifferent to the narrator, though he "might have touched them". Was that a forecast to what was going to happen? Maggie being quite indifferent about him (out of sight, out of mind), Alfred only interested in his intervention (never asks about the narrator's life). I can not really find the words for it now but I think indifference of ones own life and other people's life is quite a thing in this story. Really not sure why... just a hunch I get...

Yes, I noticed that also. Good observation. I think the 'indifferent' aspect could also be applied to wartime, when people became indifferent after a time, concerning the war effort. This again is reflecting the way the world was becoming, more 'unnatural', losing it's sense of caring and connection. Families and married couples were distanced by the war - torn appart were the relationships due to conflict, until 'indifference' replaced deep/connected feelings between people.


And I wondered: maybe it is nice to mention a favourite part in the story? Just to wrap it all up? :p Though of course it is the story as a whole that makes it a good read.

I just want to mention that I really enjoyed the part where Maggie tells about her husband. She's obviously answering questions that the narrator asks her, but we do not hear the questions - we can make those up ourselves, like Jeopardy :D

I liked that part, too. But I also liked the part where the narrator saved the bird and I loved the winter decriptions and found those totally prose poetic. Lovely sensitive intuitive writing.


AND I really liked the irony/double meaning in this one sentence uttered by the narrator after Maggie says there's too many Alfred's in the letter - that's how she knows it's a love-letter.

Oh yes, I get that from that statement as well. I love how subtle that is. Lawrence often does that sort of thing and you have to pay close attention to pick up on it. It's a true sign of his genius, I believe....his use of sublty.


At first I thought he was probably making quite an understatement there. I imagined him saying it in a dry tone, with a bit of a snugger that indicated "fools in love do crazy things, like saying each others name way too often". Then it hit me. There was one little Alfred too many! The baby. :eek: Maybe that's why I like it so much, because it took me a little while to figure it out - now it seems so obvious :D

I think Lawrence intended it that way; to take the reader by surprise and make him chuckle a bit at this or feel amused. I was amused, when I first read this interchange, between Maggie and the narrator, while discussing the letter. I even thought it so funny, she thought the other woman was Eliza and the narrator corrected her saying she was Elise; later on Maggie still refers to the woman as Eliza. That sort of cracked me up at the time...I know, I have a weird sense of humor.:D I kept thinking of Eliza in the musical "My Fair Lady". This even felt to me like a class distinction or is the difference just English verses the French?


All in all, I really enjoyed this story - though this might mainly be caused by the fact that we went so deep into it and had such an interesting talk about it! Thank you all for your opinions, and a special thanks for Virgil to invite me and Janine to post new parts of the story so consistently!

I have always held to the idea of posting the text, as we go along. In that way, we always discover so much more, than we did on our first or even second read-through individually. In a short story, ALL of the text is significant and I think you can now see so many details, which we first missed. The story discussion transcends, those overlooked words or phrases or emphasis or ideas, by the end/conclusion of the discussion and often reveals a whole new idea or new emphasis on the story - new meanings. When this happens I think it is pretty marvelous to behold. I really love these discussions and learn so much more as a group. I think you will all agree with this idea.


:thumbs_up I did not catch that either. He was being sarcastic! How disapproving the narrator was of Alfred! If so, he was laughing at Alfred at the end.

I think he was just laughing at the entire situation. By then he was not really connected to them in anyway; as he said, Maggie forgot him as soon as he left the house. I am sure that Alfred will do the same. By the end, the narrator is out of the fray. Maybe the laugh is even now from relief.


I wholeheartedly agree with you, being grateful to Janine and Virgil. I much preferred people I met here to the story itself, though. Did Janine say that some of us are too serious? I hope she is not referring to me. She did not see my mischievous smiling face each time I joined this discussion. :D Thanks, jinjang, it feels good to be appreciated. :lol: I could see you mischievous smile indeed. :brow:


How do we celebrate when we finish the discussion? I was waiting for either Virgil or Janine to give an ending.

How 'bout some nice cake and ice-cream? Or we could all take a tropical vacation on a deserted island? Dream on, Janine.....


Quark, how did you manage to agree with everyone? You should be a diplomat.
Dark Muse, Thank you for stimulating discussions!
BienvenuJDC, Thank you for trying to distract us here and there! You would have preferred us going slower.:D
Sapphire, Thank you for being so cheerful!

hahah....I love this part. I do think Bien and Sapphire contributed well to the discussion. Thanks to you also, jinjang! :thumbs_up


It was my first discussion and you all bore with me well and I am grateful to all!

:lol: Like I said - thanks. Seriously, you were great, also very diplomatic at times. :)

[Quark]

By the way, is anybody else stricken by the magnitude of the use of the word "indifferent" in this story?

That is interesting. I wonder what Lawrence was going for. I wouldn't call many of the characters in the story indifferent--maybe Alfred, but the others are all quite involved. The narrator considers the couple on his walk, the father is pushing for a reconciliation, and Maggie is consumed with the whole affair.


And I wondered: maybe it is nice to mention a favourite part in the story?

The conversation at the beginning was quite comical, and the description of the landscape was very well-done. The phrase "abstracted as a grove of death" might have been a little over-the-top, but the rest of the description was perfectly vivid and real.


Did Janine say that some of us are too serious?

Too serious? Really? When did that happen?


It was my first discussion and you all bore with me well and I am grateful to all!

Hopefully you'll be around for the next story. I'm sure it will be good. There hasn't been a dud, yet.


Hope you liked it, too. It's like jinjang said:

The story was a good one. Any ideas for the next one?


Quark is setting up the Chekhov discussion soon for this coming month. Several of us are involved in both. I hope that after a month you all come back again.

Yeah, the Chekhov discussion is in the works. It looks like we'll start sometime around this weekend. I promise outrageous amounts of insightful discussion and witty conversation. Or not, we'll see what happens.

[Janine]

I still want to say something about the laughing, but I can't yet. I'll come back to this. But other than that we may be finished. If you see my closing post you may want to respond.

Good, will you be writing a 'closing post'? I will anxious to read it and may want to comment as well.


That is interesting. I wonder what Lawrence was going for. I wouldn't call many of the characters in the story indifferent--maybe Alfred, but the others are all quite involved. The narrator considers the couple on his walk, the father is pushing for a reconciliation, and Maggie is consumed with the whole affair.

Quark, here is what I had to say about it a few posts back. Basically, I was just thinking out loud; throw this out there and see what everyone might think of this idea, since we earlier talked about the unnatural aspect the war would have on a couple or a family.


Yes, I noticed that also. Good observation. I think the 'indifferent' aspect could also be applied to wartime, when people became indifferent after a time, concerning the war effort. This again is reflecting the way the world was becoming, more 'unnatural', losing it's sense of caring and connection. Families and married couples were distanced by the war - torn appart were the relationships due to conflict, until 'indifference' replaced deep/connected feelings between people.

[jinjang]

Wow, Janine, how did you post 6 posts in less than 2 hours? What energy drink did you take this afternoon? :D Because I need it, too.
I am procrastinating my work but I should get to it instead of lingering here.

[Janine]

Wow, Janine, how did you post 6 posts in less than 2 hours? What energy drink did you take this afternoon? :D Because I need it, too.
I am procrastinating my work but I should get to it instead of lingering here.

Was it really six? It seemed like more time than an hour. No, actually by then, I had only eatten my breakfast/brunch and it was nearing dinner hour. Now I had coffee; reved up and ready to go. Well, maybe the small cup earlier, had not quite wore off. I was just determined to answer everyone. Not sure now I answered Quark's fully, but most of his I agreed with. Also, most of my posts were at least half, if not more so, quotes from everyone else. Of course, I can write up a storm, when the mood strikes me, especially in this thread.

I am procrastinating my work too - laundry and organizing, sorting out junk to donate somewhere. My house is a mess and it needs help. I spend too many hours on here and don't get anything else done, like the housework, or even catch up on my reading. :(

Edit:

You know what I just noticed? I think the moderator merged a few of my posts. I thought they might do that and was going to tell them I fully expected it and that was just fine with me. I think it was over an hour of posting though, all told.

Late edit:

Some additional thought I happen to have today and wish to share with you.
It's about this part of the text:


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.

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 just thought it was interesting to note that #1. the woman is feeling empathy for the other woman, #2. the narrator is stating that probably the other woman was more experienced than Alfred, not naive at all, and #3. Maggie believes Alfred did father the child.

Another edit:

See jinjang, I am worse than you! :lol:

well ho hum....where is everybody? I thought Virgil had some closing remarks to make....so we can officially close this discussion once and for all....not the thread but the discussion on 'Wintry Peacock', which I really really enjoyed!

[Virgil]

Let me close this out with my thoughts on the laughters. Here's how i see why the person is laughing. I'm just going to reference the laughs by the number I established in my post #3054. So you may have to look back.

Laugh# 1: Maggie seems to laugh out of nervousness.

#2: The narrator is laughing based on his personal reading of what's in the letter.

#3: Maggie is laughing from Joey's affection.

#4: Maggie is laughing based on what she hears is in the letter.

#5: Maggie is laughing at the irony of her sending packages to Belgium for Alfred.

#6: Maggie is laughing upon leaving for some mysterious unknown reason. Possibly nervousness, possibly having learned of what the letter says.

#7: Alfred is laughing based on what he hears is in the letter.

#8: Alfred is laughing based on his winning against his wife.

#9: Alfred is laughing based on abandoning Else.

#10: Narrator is laughing based on Alfred's hatred of the bird.

#11: Narrator is laughing upon leaving for some unknown reason.

The only common denominator that I see of these laughs is that whomever is laughing seems to think they know more than someone else. Maggie essentially laughs from learning the contents of the letter, Alfred laughs by thinking he has pulled a fast one on both women, and the narrator seems to laugh by knowing the total of the story, which neither Maggie or Alfred know. The laughing seems to be a feeling of superiority. This in a way goes back to the morality theme. Ultimately the last laugh is directed at the immorality and dysfunctionality of the Maggie/Alfred realtionship.

[Janine]

The only common denominator that I see of these laughs is that whomever is laughing seems to think they know more than someone else. Maggie essentially laughs from learning the contents of the letter, Alfred laughs by thinking he has pulled a fast one on both women, and the narrator seems to laugh by knowing the total of the story, which neither Maggie or Alfred know. The laughing seems to be a feeling of superiority. This in a way goes back to the morality theme. Ultimately the last laugh is directed at the immorality and dysfunctionality of the Maggie/Alfred realtionship.

Virgil, I think this about sums it up. Thanks for listing all of those. I said from the beginning, that I thought this was an ironical story, in many respects. I think the narrator, knowing all, knowing they each doesn't know all, laughs ironically as he runs down the hill. That was a good observation and thing to point out. It is totally significant, in my opinion. This was a very good story and I am glad of all the wonderful new participation. Thanks everyone for such a great learning experience and terrific 'enjoyable' discussion.

Wow, we should do the story 'The Last Laugh', Virgil, first reason - all the 'laughs'; I could just envision you listing them all and interpretting them; now that would be a challange; second, because I for one didn't really understand that story at all. It's from L's last stage of stories and I believe it's either psychological or supernatural; I am still not sure which or perhaps a little of both.

[jinjang]

See jinjang, I am worse than you!
I accept my defeat on editing! :D Have you read the game Character Brawls? Those little ones are hilarious. Some mature people are humoring the young ones there, too. We could head down there and throw each other editing pens.:D


Ultimately the last laugh is directed at the immorality and dysfunctionality of the Maggie/Alfred realtionship.

Wisdom! Should I imagine your superior laugh:D over all of us?

This little corner of the forum will have a special place at my heart and I look forward to joining your discussions next time around if I can.

[Janine]

I accept my defeat on editing! :D Have you read the game Character Brawls? Those little ones are hilarious. Some mature people are humoring the young ones there, too. We could head down there and throw each other editing pens.:D

No defeat; I believe we are about even. No, I didn't read the game Character Brawls; is it on this site? :lol: editing pens; yes we need a whole box of them!


Wisdom! Should I image your superior laugh:D over all of us?

Is this to Virgil? hahaha...maybe V had the last laugh and it was superior!:lol:


This little corner of the forum will have a special place at my heart and I look forward to joining your discussions next time around if I can.

This is lovely to hear. I am so happy you feel this way; I know we will have more great discussions on here in the future. Glad to have you onboard, jinjang! You and the newcomers really made this last discussion exciting. It also kept us on our toes. No slacking in this discussion. It was great!

[Virgil]

Wisdom! Should I image your superior laugh:D over all of us?

No. I am not superior in any way. I just happen to know Lawrence well.


This little corner of the forum will have a special place at my heart and I look forward to joining your discussions next time around if I can.
That is very knid of you Jin. I really enjoyed your thoughts and company here. :)


Is this to Virgil? hahaha...maybe V had the last laugh and it was superior!:lol:

:p

[Quark]

It's looks like I was a little late for the group hug, but let me say that I thought the discussion went really well. I've never seen it that active.

Oh, and Virgil is most certainly superior.

[Janine]

It's looks like I was a little late for the group hug, but let me say that I thought the discussion went really well. I've never seen it that active.

Oh, and Virgil is most certainly superior.

Quark, never to late for the group hug - here is a*big teddy bear hug*! ;) Yes, it certainly was a good lively discussion, wasn't it? and no doubt Virgil had some very superior remarks, truly insightful. Quark are you keeping a thread post count here. We are nearing another milestone, I believe....we must have a party!:D

[Quark]

Quark are you keeping a thread post count here. We are nearing another milestone, I believe....we must have a party!:D

The thread just past a milestone, actually: 3000. You're only 926 away from 4000, though. It's something to shoot for.

[Janine]

The thread just past a milestone, actually: 3000. You're only 926 away from 4000, though. It's something to shoot for.

Oh heck, you are right....can we have a belated party. The rate we have been posting we will hit 4000 in no time....guess we should wait....:(

[Virgil]

Oh you guys. :blush: You were just as insightfulas I was. *group hug* :D

[Janine]

Oh you guys. :blush: You were just as insightfulas I was. *group hug* :D

We sure are warm and fuzzy it this thread all of a sudden!;)...got that group hug, V :lol: - thanks!

[Sapphire]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/grouphugg.gif

[Janine]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/grouphugg.gif

Adorable! :):lol:

[Virgil]

Thank you Sapphire. I love that. :)

[Janine]

Came in to share this with all of you. Our friends went to Santa Fe recently and I mentioned to the woman friend, that Lawrence lived near Taos at a ranch. They didn't make it to the shrine and the ranch houses, but Carol sent a postcard that said I would love this: Lawrence's suitcase and luggage tags were displayed in the brandnew New Mexico Museum. I would love to see them. I wonder if she was able to get a photo. I was thinking, if only that suitcase could talk, what tales it would tell!

I also want to share this with all of you. I have set out to read all the short stories in the three book set. I am now nearing my goal. I believe I am currently reading the first of 6 that are left. I counted and there are 48 in the Complete Short Story Set; so I have read 42. I counted up how many novellas I have read also, and I think I read most of them. I will try after this to complete those. I know I read all of the major novels. My ultimate goal is to read nearly all that Lawrence wrote and a few more biographies.

I ordered a VHS tape from Amazon on Lawrence's life. I didn't want to pay the price for the DVD; 4 times as much, because it's only a half hour viewing time. They have a series of many novelists/authors. I hope to view that soon. It may fill in the details, on what I know so far about the author's life. I am hoping they show great photos.

Hey, everyone, have a great day! I am going out for the day, even though it's dreary here and looks like storms again. Oh well, mostly I will be inside anyway.

[Virgil]

Would love to see pictures Janine if you get any. Oh great on reading all the short stories. Now you know which ones to pick. Have you read "The Woman Who Ran Away" yet?

[jinjang]

Sapphire, that was a great clip! I am the one without face because I am laughing too hard to lift my face up. I also saw you at Character Brawls and there you guys are hilarious. I am a fan of Calvin and Hobbes! My favorite comic book has the episode when Calvin sang "On top of spaghetti" and got kicked out of the house.

Virgil and Janine, I will read the Rainbow and Sons and Lovers soon.

[Janine]

Would love to see pictures Janine if you get any. Oh great on reading all the short stories. Now you know which ones to pick. Have you read "The Woman Who Ran Away" yet?

Virgil, 'The Woman Who Road Away' is on my list, but it's a bit longer/almost a novella; so I have not gotten to it yet; but soon I will. I left the longer ones till last; although, last night I did read 'Glad Ghosts'; that one is a bit longer, too. It's quite interesting, I might add. I also read 'Rocking Horse Winner'...that's in the same collection - the third volume of his short stories, so both are a bit surrealistic. All of my paperbacks of the stories (except one, which is just a collection of selected stories) have now fallen appart. It's almost humorous, since I end up tearing off the stories, so I can cart them around with me to read on the go. I sure wish they would come out with one book with all the short stories included. I would definitely be the first one to order one. Most of the novellas I have read before; but they are on my goal list, as well. Some of the short stories and the novellas I have read twice. I am rather proud now of my Lawrence readings. I have read a great deal now that I reviewed what I exactly I did read. I hope to read the book I purchased used from Amazon - his posthumous writings. I already read a delightful story written in his youth about a pet rabbit named 'Adolf'. I loved it since I once had a pet rabbit. I could fully relate to it's antics. Cute story! If anyone is interested, one can find it online.

I was going to check online to see if I could find a photo of the suitcase anywhere. Surely if it is in the museum I should be able to come up with something somewhere. I do have some samples of Lawrence's handwriting and hand revisions to his stories. In the interim between stories I will try and post some of these photos I have been long collecting. I think you will all find them of great interest.


I was to my library the other night and did I get lucky. I was checking out the cheap bin and found three good classic books for 25 cents each. One happens to be one I thought I had to once request from our library and I didn't happen to own - "Dubliners". I was thrilled to finally get my own copy. Other two were "Red Badge of Courage" - read that before, too and a novel by Hawthorne, one I didn't know before. From now on I will check that sale bin out everytime I go there. You never know what you will find. My friend found a Lawrence book in her library and is keeping it for me.

Edit: I already came up with something interesting - someone visited the Lawrence ranch and took some very nice photos of the homestead and Lawrence cabin and the room with his typewriter and the shrine. Here is the link:

Opps, I was updating and lost it the link; going back to find it...be back soon...

Well, back again and unfortunately, I could not find that particular site again. I did, however, copy the photos for my offline files, before the update happened. In the meantime, I found this site. It's an actual tour video of the homestead and shrine. I thought it was interesting; especially to view Lawrence's cabin and his mantle, bedroom and typewriter up close. I have a typewriter somethink like that one; which is, of course, strictly for display....enjoy the mini-tour.

[the_black_skye]

Hi everyone.

Yeah I'm studying three Lawrentian novella's for school at the moment.
The Fox, The Captains Doll, and The Ladybird.
If you've read them I'd love for you to share your impressions.

"There would be no light if there was no refraction, no bits of dust and stuff to turn the dark fire into visibility. You know that’s a fact. And that being so, even the sun is dark. It is only his jacket of dust that makes him visible. .... we’ve got the world inside out. The true living world of fire is dark, throbbing, darker than blood. Our luminous world that we go by is only the reverse of this."
Luv it.

[Virgil]

Hi everyone.

Yeah I'm studying three Lawrentian novella's for school at the moment.
The Fox, The Captains Doll, and The Ladybird.
If you've read them I'd love for you to share your impressions.

"There would be no light if there was no refraction, no bits of dust and stuff to turn the dark fire into visibility. You know that’s a fact. And that being so, even the sun is dark. It is only his jacket of dust that makes him visible. .... we’ve got the world inside out. The true living world of fire is dark, throbbing, darker than blood. Our luminous world that we go by is only the reverse of this."
Luv it.

Nice to meet you Black Skye. Of the three you list I've only read the The Fox and that was some time ago. I've actually been meaning to re-read it. We have a passionate group of Lawrence appreciaters here. Perhaps we can round the group up for a group read of one of those works. Let's see if anyone else responds. I hope you come back and join our group.

[Sapphire]

Geez... I've been gone way too long :redface: Not much time now either, but I just want to say: If we're gonna read another story - I'll definitely join in :cool:

Take care you all, greetings Sapphire

[Virgil]

Sapphire, Janine and I decided we were just too personally busy for a story right now. Sounds like you are too. So lets hold off for now.

[Sapphire]

OK, but to me this is just one of those things that can always get squeezed in ;) Let me know when you guys do find the time, and I'll find some myself :D

[Janine]

OK, but to me this is just one of those things that can always get squeezed in ;) Let me know when you guys do find the time, and I'll find some myself :D

Sapphire, that would be great. I am glad to know you are still so interested in discussing a Lawrence story. I read them all by now and will sometime soon, in the very near future post, one to discuss. I am sorry we have to put it off temporarily. A shame you weren't here the last few years; then the thread did run continually. It's just that right now, we are emersed in Shakespeare's Henry Plays; they can be quite complicated and a little demanding. I also may be experiencing, anyday now, some much needed home renuvations. I can't commit to a month's short story, till I know when that event will take place. Sorry for all the delays; but stay tuned to this station, for any new developments. I will post a note in your profile page, when I do intent to start the next story.


Hi everyone.

Yeah I'm studying three Lawrentian novella's for school at the moment.
The Fox, The Captains Doll, and The Ladybird.
If you've read them I'd love for you to share your impressions.

"There would be no light if there was no refraction, no bits of dust and stuff to turn the dark fire into visibility. You know that’s a fact. And that being so, even the sun is dark. It is only his jacket of dust that makes him visible. .... we’ve got the world inside out. The true living world of fire is dark, throbbing, darker than blood. Our luminous world that we go by is only the reverse of this."
Luv it.

Hi the_black_skye, sorry to not answer your post till now. I would say those are all longer stories, than we don't normally discuss in this thread. It might be worth our while to start another Lawrence thread devoted just to the novellas. There are quite a number of those Lawrence wrote. Others that come to mind are Love Among the Haystakes, The Virgil and the Gypsy, The Man Who Died. Presently, I don't have time to start a thread for the subject; but it certainly is a great possibility for the future on this forum. I have read all of the novellas mentioned and they all are wonderful stories; I especially love The Fox. Enjoy your class and your reading.

Yes, isn't that quote marvelous? That was part of Lawrence's idea on man; expressing his 'blood philosophy'.

[Janine]

Was thinking about this thread today and actually couldn't find it for a time. I had better post some photos of the Lawrence ranch or other related photos before everyone entirely forget this thread exists. I will try to do so on the weekend.

[Janine]

Here's some photos until we pick our next short story to discuss....

Lawrence's birthplace...from meger beginnings...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/BirthplaceLawrence.jpg

Youthful picture of the young genius...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/DHLawrence.gif

Mexico and Lawrence and others in Oaxaca
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/DHL_oaxaca.jpg

View in Vence, Italy...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/Lawrence_Vence_1986CliftonSnider.jpg

Another youthful photo of Lawrence...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/DHLYoung.jpg

The Lawrence homestead at the range in New Mexico...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/HomesteaderCabin_DHL_Ranch_1998Clif.jpg

The little Chapel dedicated to Lawrence's ashes and his wife's are buried there as well.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/-DHLawrenceChapelTaosNM.jpg

Some interior shots of the homestead....
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/HomesteaderCabin_Interior_2_1998.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/Homesteader27sCabin_Interior_1_1998.jpg

I believe this is on the Lawrence ranch or nearby the area...reminds me of barns in some of his stories...
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/attractions_01.jpg

A Painting by Lawrence.....
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/dhlawrence-top.jpg

Two friends who run a restaurant in New Mexico which features Lawrence paintings....
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/meeting1.jpg

[Dark Muse]

I wondered what became of this thread, nice photos. I really like the painting

[Janine]

I wondered what became of this thread, nice photos. I really like the painting

Hi Dark Muse, long time no see. Yes, I was getting worried this thread was lost in the archives; so I thought I had better take some action to pull it back up to page one. I am glad you like the photos. I have more I can post. I need to get my main file off my old disks and onto this computer. My generous friend, Lynne, recently went to Las Vegas and surprised me with a copy of Lawrence's book of paintings when she got back; I had been toying with the idea of buying it. I need to actually read the whole thing as well; I am sure it is interesting. Some were confiscated back in the day when he had a one man show in London. I will look that up and post all about it, if you are interested. His paintings caused a real scandal at that time of history in England.

[Dark Muse]

Yes I guess outside of this thread we don't travel in the same circles Haha

[Janine]

Yes I guess outside of this thread we don't travel in the same circles Haha

Does seem that way; but I haven't been too active lately on this forum...I guess I needed a bit of break. Mostly, I have been PM'ing friends or sometimes hanging out in the mindless game threads; or ocasionally write a movie review, when I can find the time. I will have work up my ambition again for a winter Lawrence short story, what do you think?

[Dark Muse]

I would not object to that. It has been a while.

[Janine]

I would not object to that. It has been a while.

I know it and I am now missing the Chekhov thread, as well. I wonder where Quark ran off to. Guess he is busy with school. Watch, now that mentioned his name he will arrive any minute. We seem to have ESP.:alien:

[Dark Muse]

Hahaha yeah!

[Virgil]

I've never seen pictures of the New Mexico homestead, inside or out. Thanks. Looks cozy. :)

Oh and that pine tree outside his hous. Lawrence has an essay where he uses the pine tree as an anaolgy. It also figures in several of the New Mexico poems.

[Janine]

I've never seen pictures of the New Mexico homestead, inside or out. Thanks. Looks cozy. :)

Oh and that pine tree outside his hous. Lawrence has an essay where he uses the pine tree as an anaolgy. It also figures in several of the New Mexico poems.

Virgil, I have a better photo of the homestead. I was looking for it but can't find it presently. This one looks newer and the roof looks odd to me with green slats. I think the other one is quainter looking. People can actually stay in it or they could and I read one account of a man and his wife which was truly interesting; they felt like they experienced the ghost of Lawrence; well, the spirit at least, in the middle of the night; sounded sort of spooky to me. I will look again to locate that other photo. I used to have it for a time on my desktop. It really did look cozy. That tree, I believe is the Lawrence tree...but maybe not that exact one. That is the one you are referring to and also Georgia O'Keefe painted it naming it the Lawrence Tree. People are always hanging it upside-down, which is rather funny. I did it once, too, when I used it as my signature photo. I have more photos from the area he lived in in NM and I can find a Youtube video for you of the tour and the chapel. I think I may have copied that account that the married couple who visited wrote up online. I copy most things I find interesting about Lawrence.

[Virgil]

Hey the picture and the video would be great. :)

[Janine]

Hey the picture and the video would be great. :)

Ok, too busy now to look for the right cabin but it is cool. I think it's on a zipdisk...but there is the remote possibility, it's on here but hidden in my archives somewhere. Let me go now and see if I can find the links to the video and any other neat photos.

Edit: For now, I found the other photo of the cabin. I like this view better. I will send you a whole article on the homestead...too long to post in here...I can send it in regular email via attachment.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/cabin_Lawrence-1.jpg

[Janine]

Here's some more photos of the surrounding areas and of Mabel Dodge's house...

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/road_LawrenceRancharea-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/AsyoutravelnorthfromSantaFethesm-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/mabel_splitslide.jpg

I guess this is Lawrence's resume...hahah...I get a kick out of these old documents!


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/ThesolariumatMabelDodgeLuhanshome.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/LawrenceAppicationpage1a.jpg

[Virgil]

Neat-o! Thanks Janine. :)

[Janine]

Neat-o! Thanks Janine. :)

Glad you liked those. I keep a whole folder of things I find on Lawrence. Wish now, I had copied more. Like I said before, there may be more items on a zipdisk or floppy; no problem, I have two external drives to read both. I really need to get that stuff on my computer before those disks go bad. I can't seem to find one article I recall, but when I have more time I will track it down. It's about a man and his wife staying all night in the cabin and how they felt Lawrence was there in the middle of the night. It was beautifully written and very believable. The feeling was there more than anything else.

For now here is one little tidbit I found online:


British poet and author D. H. Lawrence spent much of his time reconciling the relationship between the blissful, heavenly state he occasionally visited and the concrete, often painful world in which he lived. I consider this balance as I head down a dusty road into the northern New Mexico village of San Cristobal, where the novelist, best known for the novels Lady Chatterly’s Lover and Women in Love, lived for nearly a year in the 1920s, after being expelled from Cornwall when authorities accused him of spying for the Germans during World War I.
Fifteen miles north of Taos on N.M. 522, the village spreads across a valley of broad grass fields cut by San Cristobal Creek. Cottonwoods shade the acequias and century-old adobe homes. Though Hispanic homesteaders have inhabited the area since the 1860s, San Cristobal is best known for the D. H. Lawrence Ranch.
It’s no surprise that Lawrence became so enamored of the area—like much of New Mexico, it has a luminescent beauty. San Cristobal resident Alfred Cordova, whom I meet in the village, agrees. His home, where he and his wife, Susan, raised their two children, sits along the creek; in their back yard, acres of smooth grass stretch toward the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Looking out across the fields, I try to imagine living on land passed down from generation to generation, as Alfred lives.

[Sapphire]

Luminescent beauty indeed!

Thanks for posting those pictures Janine - they're wonderful :)

[Janine]

Luminescent beauty indeed!

Thanks for posting those pictures Janine - they're wonderful :)

Sapphire, glad you liked them. I will have to post some more soon.

[Virgil]

Are we doing another story soon?

[Buh4Bee]

Janine- It's interesting to read the small tidbit you found on the web about Lawrence and the world he lived in. I am reading the Rainbow and I can see how "the struggle with love" was a strong theme for Lawrence in life and in his writing. Thanks for posting the quote.

[Janine]

Janine- It's interesting to read the small tidbit you found on the web about Lawrence and the world he lived in. I am reading the Rainbow and I can see how "the struggle with love" was a strong theme for Lawrence in life and in his writing. Thanks for posting the quote.

jersea, did you ever read his book Sons and Lovers? That one is actually autobiographical; with the exception of one character (Clara) in the second half, who is a combination of a couple of women he was close to. So if you want to really dig into what Lawrence was about personally I would highly recommend that novel to you. It was his coming of age novel and it's very good.

He then wrote The Rainbow and the sequel (which doesn't have to be read as such) Women in Love. I actually read that book first of L's and was hooked. I still say it's my favorite L book. I read The Rainbow after; then much later I read Sons and Lovers when I found it was about L's family and early life.

I am glad you enjoyed the little tidbit I posted. I am always cruising around the net and looking for new Lawrence stuff to put into my extensive file of 'tidbits', such as that one. I will try to post some more interesting articles and maybe some more photos. Maybe soon we can pick a short story to discuss.

[Sapphire]

Maybe soon we can pick a short story to discuss
I'm looking forward to it :)

[Sapphire]

Hi all :) It's been a while. Anybody in for a new short story?! :D

In the meantime, here's a (instrumental) song from the soundtrack of the Swedish movie Farval Falkenberg. It is called "the joy of D.H. Lawrence" and I can imagine it would make good background music for his stories.

The Joy of DHLawrence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdQh26ovW0Y)

Greetings, Sapphire

[Virgil]

Hi all :) It's been a while. Anybody in for a new short story?! :D

In the meantime, here's a (instrumental) song from the soundtrack of the Swedish movie Farval Falkenberg. It is called "the joy of D.H. Lawrence" and I can imagine it would make good background music for his stories.

The Joy of DHLawrence (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdQh26ovW0Y)

Greetings, Sapphire

Yes! My God it's been a while. I'm in.

[Dark Muse]

It has been a long time

[Janine]

I'm in, too. I have been in serious 'Lawrence withdrawal' lately. I had better find us a story quick and post the introduction soon before you all lose interest. How about starting it this coming week....maybe by the weekend? I am happy to see such a great response. It feels good to be back here.

[Sapphire]

:hurray: I am looking forward to it! :hurray:

[Janine]

:hurray: I am looking forward to it! :hurray:

Great! I better get my books out and dust them off and review the stories and try to pick a good one. I am looking forward to this as well.

[Virgil]

Great! I better get my books out and dust them off and review the stories and try to pick a good one. I am looking forward to this as well.

Good thing, because i was going to recommend we do a story without you. :D

[Janine]

Good thing, because i was going to recommend we do a story without you. :D

Gee, thanks....are you serious....an L story without little old me???

[Quark]

Good thing, because i was going to recommend we do a story without you. :D

Wow, who lit a fire under Virgil? Usually, he's telling us to go ahead of him.


I better get my books out and dust them off and review the stories and try to pick a good one.

Oh, good.

If I participate, I will probably be a little behind the rest of you since I don't have that much time to post right now. But, these discussion go for almost a month, so I should be able to catch up eventually.

[Janine]

Wow, who lit a fire under Virgil? Usually, he's telling us to go ahead of him. Yeah really...he's usually 3 book reads behind, as well. I have a story in mind, but it's another long one, but excellent. I will review some more stories, before I make my final decision. It's good to see you here, Quark.



If I participate, I will probably be a little behind the rest of you since I don't have that much time to post right now. But, these discussion go for almost a month, so I should be able to catch up eventually.

That would be fine. I hope you can join in from time to time. They definitely go on at least a month if not longer...until we finish the discussion....no time limit really. If we do a longer story, might take two months.

Be back soon with the story introduction.

[Virgil]

Yeah really...he's usually 3 book reads behind, as well. I have a story in mind, but it's another long one, but excellent. I will review some more stories, before I make my final decision. It's good to see you here, Quark.


Boy, you guys are brutal. :D

I can't wait to see which one you pick. :wink5:

[Virgil]

Just got a note from Janine. She is not feeling well, and may be away for a bit. But she will come back with a story to read.

Hope you feel better Janine.

[Quark]

If we do a longer story, might take two months.

No problem there. I heard you were think about England, My England. That's a good one, but I probably wouldn't be able to start reading until Wednesday. I'd want to get a book for that, and right now my library and I are like 50% of marriages: unhappily separated. I'm at my parents' house at the moment--looking after their animals--and I won't get back until late Tuesday. Even if I read it Wednesday, the earliest I could start posting is Thursday. So there's no rush to start the discussion now--at least for me.


Just got a note from Janine. She is not feeling well, and may be away for a bit.

Well that's no good. When she gets sick it's usually quite bad. I hope it gets better soon.

[Virgil]

Quark, somehow you screwed up your quoting. I didn't say that first quote.

[Quark]

Quark, somehow you screwed up your quoting. I didn't say that first quote.

True.

Originally, I was just going to respond to your post, but then I saw that Janine had posted something too. So I pulled some of her text into my post and copied the quote command from the part I quoted from your post. I meant to change the name in the quote command, but forgot. I'll correct the quote command now so that no one is confused. Thanks, Virgil.

[Janine]

Boy, you guys are brutal. :D

I can't wait to see which one you pick. :wink5:

Sorry, Virgil, if I was brutal....but then again, I know you can take it. You're tough! :lol:

Quark, that would be fine. I am not dying, but I had a lot of pain which eased up some. I found some medication my dr prescribed in Sept and it might help until I call her on Tues. Another med she gave me made me sick so I stopped taking it....had bad side-effects. I am hoping to be better soon.

So you like that story, too? I guess it would be a good one to do. I seem to be in the mindset for war since I just watched a war miniseries "Band of Brothers"...it was quite good. The entire story doesn't deal with war but it's significant in the end.

I will be back soon with an introduction and photo. It won't matter if you have the book right away; I plan to post the beginning text, which I got easily on this site and copied into a offline file...so I am semi-prepared. I will skim the story and then go find an appropriate picture and a little background on the time when L wrote this one. That always makes it interesting.

[Virgil]

Sorry, Virgil, if I was brutal....but then again, I know you can take it. You're tough! :lol:


That's just my exterior. Inside I'm as mushy as rice pudding. :p

[Quark]

Quark,[/B] that would be fine. I am not dying, but I had a lot of pain which eased up some. I found some medication my dr prescribed in Sept and it might help until I call her on Tues. Another med she gave me made me sick so I stopped taking it....had bad side-effects. I am hoping to be better soon.

Well that's good--the part about not dying.


So you like that story, too? I guess it would be a good one to do. I seem to be in the mindset for war since I just watched a war miniseries "Band of Brothers"...it was quite good. The entire story doesn't deal with war but it's significant in the end.

It was one of the first Lawrence stories I read, but I don't remember much about it--other than I appreciated it. It'll be good to look at it again and see if I still like it.


I will be back soon with an introduction and photo.

Okay, but nothing too fancy. We're all regulars here. No need to impress.

[Sapphire]

*peeks in*

Hi you all, just wondering whether we might get this show on the road this month? :) No worries if not, just checking.

BTW, I've been reading Lawrence's poetry lately. I am quite enjoying it actually :D My favourite line (today :p) is

And oh, behind the cloud-sheaves, like yellow autumn dapples,
Did you see the wicked sun that winked!

And it made me wonder: might Lawrence have ever written a short story inspired by one of Shakespeare's plays? Or is there a story with a reference to a character from Shakespeare in it - as in this poem? As you might have guessed I'm currently reading some Shakespeare and it's always fun to combine :) It also makes you find connections that aren't there at all though ;)

Sorry, I'm rambling. I hope everybody is doing well and we'll soon find the time to do a short story! Really looking forward to it.

[Virgil]

*peeks in*

Hi you all, just wondering whether we might get this show on the road this month? :) No worries if not, just checking.

BTW, I've been reading Lawrence's poetry lately. I am quite enjoying it actually :D My favourite line (today :p) is

And it made me wonder: might Lawrence have ever written a short story inspired by one of Shakespeare's plays? Or is there a story with a reference to a character from Shakespeare in it - as in this poem? As you might have guessed I'm currently reading some Shakespeare and it's always fun to combine :) It also makes you find connections that aren't there at all though ;)

Sorry, I'm rambling. I hope everybody is doing well and we'll soon find the time to do a short story! Really looking forward to it.
Haha, I don't know Sapphire. I will shortly be going away for at least a month, and I'm not sure i'll have easy access to the internet. But you can start the story without me if everyone wishes.

As to the Shakespeare question, I'm not aware of such a story.

That is a cool two lines. I'm going to have to look up that poem. :)


Edit. I found the poem on line. Here:


Ballad Of Another Ophelia
By D. H. Lawrence

OH the green glimmer of apples in the orchard,
Lamps in a wash of rain!
Oh the wet walk of my brown hen through the stack-yard,
Oh tears on the window pane!

Nothing now will ripen the bright green apples,
Full of disappointment and of rain,
Brackish they will taste, of tears, when the yellow dapples
Of autumn tell the withered tale again.

All round the yard it is cluck, my brown hen,
Cluck, and the rain-wet wings,
Cluck, my marigold bird, and again
Cluck for your yellow darlings.

For the grey rat found the gold thirteen
Huddled away in the dark,
Flutter for a moment, oh the beast is quick and keen,
Extinct one yellow-fluffy spark.

Once I had a lover bright like running water,
Once his face was laughing like the sky;
Open like the sky looking down in all its laughter
On the buttercups, and the buttercups was I.

What, then, is there hidden in the skirts of all the blossom?
What is peeping from your wings, oh mother hen?
'Tis the sun who asks the question, in a lovely haste for wisdom;
What a lovely haste for wisdom is in men!

Yea, but it is cruel when undressed is all the blossom,
And her shift is lying white upon the floor,
That a grey one, like a shadow, like a rat, a thief, a rain-storm,
Creeps upon her then and gathers in his store.

Oh the grey garner that is full of half-grown apples,
Oh the golden sparkles laid extinct!
And oh, behind the cloud-sheaves, like yellow autumn dapples,
Did you see the wicked sun that winked!

[Janine]

Wow, that poem is powerful and beautiful as well....I wonder when he wrote this. I pick up on several lines the significance of the sun. I can fully relate to the natural elements in the poem and the way the cat finds the yellow chicks. I live on a lake and that is nearly the same scenerio often with new born ducklings. Immediately they head for the lake and one day there are 17 and next 12 and next 8 and so on and sometimes none survive...it saddens me. I find that stark imagery fascinating in this poem. The yellow would also relate to the sun which he can't seem to percieve now because of his state of mind and emoticons. I must read the poem over again and again before I post anymore ideas on it. I hope others post about it as well. It could provide a short break till we start a new story.

The poem also seems to point to his mother's death but then he mentions a male who is the lost lover so I am not sure about the connections to his own life. I can easily see the meaning of the title and comparisons to Hamlet and his mother in Lawrence's own life. The title would definitely appeal to Lawrence, don't you think, Virgil?

Saphire, I am so sorry I have not started up a new Lawrence story. I have not felt well and then with Virgil soon going away I put it on the back burner. I will try to review the stories and pick a shorter one than I originally suggested. I am some better now but I can't overdo my time sitting at the computer. I will definitely make an effort soon concerning the story. I so miss this thread and our lively discussions. I am very happy, Saphire that you didn't forget and you posted yesterday and still have the interest in Lawrence.

I read all the short stories and I don't believe any have references to Shakespeare - one of my own passions. Perhaps the plays do but the stories I doubt. His poetry is quite beautiful and amazing to me. I love the visual aspects of it and the way he describes nature so precisely. Thanks for posting that poem, Virgil. I really need to get reading my Complete Poems of D.H.Lawrence soon. It sits here begging to be read; all my fine books do. I had become quite winter lazy but I am hoping to revive my interests as days are longer with sunlight and spring is more inspiring.

[Virgil]

Wow, that poem is powerful and beautiful as well....I wonder when he wrote this. I pick up on several lines the significance of the sun. I can fully relate to the natural elements in the poem and the way the cat finds the yellow chicks. I live on a lake and that is nearly the same scenerio often with new born ducklings. Immediately they head for the lake and one day there are 17 and next 12 and next 8 and so on and sometimes none survive...it saddens me. I find that stark imagery fascinating in this poem. The yellow would also relate to the sun which he can't seem to percieve now because of his state of mind and emoticons. I must read the poem over again and again before I post anymore ideas on it. I hope others post about it as well. It could provide a short break till we start a new story.

It is beautiful. Lawrence is so under rated as a poet. What do you suppose the significance of the sun is? It is certainly critical to understanding the poem. The poem starts with the rain and ends with the sun peeking through. I think it's just the callusness of nature at the face of everyday tragedies. The tragedies all fit within nature. At least that's how I see it. Colors are also important here. Green apples, yellow chick, brown hen, grey rat. Nice contrasts. Almost like a painting. But I'm not sure if there is any significance in the colors.


The poem also seems to point to his mother's death but then he mentions a male who is the lost lover so I am not sure about the connections to his own life. I can easily see the meaning of the title and comparisons to Hamlet and his mother in Lawrence's own life. The title would definitely appeal to Lawrence, don't you think, Virgil?
I don't know when it was written. I don't see his mother's death in here. There is an extensive note on this poem in the Complete Poems book. This is an early poem, written before July 1914. I would date it even earlier judging by the style and theme. The note says that he wrote to someone that he was very proud of this poem and that it's some sort of dream symbollism. That dream symbolism recalls one of Chaucer's Canterbury's tales, the Nun's Priest Tale with Chanticleer.

[Sapphire]

I had totally forgotten about this poem :blush: I just came across it again and thought "that would be good to post in the short story tread". Obviously, I'm slowly loosing my mind :arf:

How about a song about Ophelia, to see another artists view on things?
Nathalie Merchant - Ophelia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cgYm7Hhgpw)
Way more upbeat than the Lawrence poem, and I can't find any relation but the title character ;)

As for the short stories: I've recently read England My England and I would like to talk about one of the stories in there, but I really don't know where to start... I mean: we do not really seem to get around to picking a new story, so maybe there could be just a part from an older story somebody would like to go a bit deeper into?

Maybe for now I should just catch up with the older posts in this thread - the ones before I got around :) I'll just have to figure out a way to download this thread so I don't keep the internet occupied all week :crash:

I really hope everybody is having fun things which keep them away from reading Lawrence. Take care you all, greetings Sapphire

[kelby_lake]

I like 'Piano'. That appears in a lot of poetry anthologies.

[Janine]

I had totally forgotten about this poem :blush: I just came across it again and thought "that would be good to post in the short story tread". Obviously, I'm slowly loosing my mind :arf:

How about a song about Ophelia, to see another artists view on things?
Nathalie Merchant - Ophelia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cgYm7Hhgpw)
Way more upbeat than the Lawrence poem, and I can't find any relation but the title character ;)

As for the short stories: I've recently read England My England and I would like to talk about one of the stories in there, but I really don't know where to start... I mean: we do not really seem to get around to picking a new story, so maybe there could be just a part from an older story somebody would like to go a bit deeper into?

Maybe for now I should just catch up with the older posts in this thread - the ones before I got around :) I'll just have to figure out a way to download this thread so I don't keep the internet occupied all week :crash:

I really hope everybody is having fun things which keep them away from reading Lawrence. Take care you all, greetings Sapphire

Sapphire, I owe you a huge apology. I was just so lax about picking another story, but I have been thinking about it this week. I actually hadn't been reading at all and then picked up another short story - small edition at a bargain book store the other night and read it in two days....not Lawrence. However, I am direly missing our wonderful Lawrence and need a dose of his stories once again. I also picked up, at the new discount book store, a book of his short stories. I already own the collection you mentioned titled "England My England and other short stories"...which of those did you think would be good to discuss? I have read all of L's stories at least once, so I would be game. I had thought of doing the title story, but then I thought it was too long. I don't think it's too long now, but maybe you had another in mind. Let me know.

Perhaps we could also start a Lawrence poetry thread. We did once discuss his 'Tortoise' poems, which proved to be quite interesting. We could just post poems and not discuss them in great length, but at least those out there would be exposed to some of Lawrence's fine poetry. I also love the poem "Piano" , Kelbylake. Which is very autobiographical, obviously; given the fact he was so connected to his mother emoticonally. It's a very nostalgic and touching poem. He has many more that strike one right to the soul and I like how direct Lawrence is in his poetry...no beating around the bush.

Let me know what you all think, including you, Virgil. I am now game for a short story by our master story teller.

[Virgil]

I'm definitely game for anything by Lawrence. :D

[Janine]

I'm definitely game for anything by Lawrence. :D

Good! I am waiting for Sapphire to suggest which she had in mind from her book. I found a L book of "The Virgin and the Gypsy" and other short stories (paperback) at a new discount store near our mall....only 2.95. Lynne told me about it and I went right away. They only had two left. I also got a nice thick paperback of "Collected Short Stories" by Katherine Mansfield. So I am going through a Lawrence withdrawal right now; will be anxious to get back in the groove of reading him once again. Also, found a taped set of "The Fox" free from my library. I got lucky.

[Sapphire]

Sapphire, I owe you a huge apology.
No you don't - I also lost track of time. I am just happy to hear you've had fun reading other stories :) Trust me, I did too. Mostly Chesterton and Salinger :D.

I had thought of doing the title story, but then I thought it was too long. I don't think it's too long now, but maybe you had another in mind. Let me know.
I'm definitely in for a "share of thoughts" on the title story :). I already have one question: why did they pick that story as the title for the book? :D I mean, "You touched me" would also be a great title for a collection of short stories (as: these are stories which will touch your soul). Though maybe a bit too controversial for that time? It is easier to suspect "a dirty book" behind such a title, than behind "England, My England"

Perhaps we could also start a Lawrence poetry thread.
I thought there was one ... I actually felt a bit "I hope the moderators will allow this" when I posted the poem I did - I thought they would send me a message to tell me that the poetry is to be posted in another section :blush: I posted it here because it is this thread which got me into Lawrence, and thus made me look for his poetry ;) Hold on, I'll search for the thread I had in mind. It could well be the Tortoise one. :p

Edit Yes, it is (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25671). I'll have to check that one out more thoroughly, some day :D I am enjoying my holidays now, so if you want to start a poem-thread about his other poems... I am happy to participate!

How about this one,
No! Mr. Lawrence!

No, Mr Lawrence, it's not like that!
I don't mind telling you
I know a thing or two about love,
perhaps more than you do.

And what I know is that you make it
too nice, too beautiful.
It's not like that, you know; you fake it.
It's really rather dull.I found it online, so I have no clue whether it is from the Tortoise book or not... :blush: To me, it shows... Wow. Hold on. This is the Short Story Thread. Lets not get all confused :lol:

[Janine]

No you don't - I also lost track of time. I am just happy to hear you've had fun reading other stories :) Trust me, I did too. Mostly Chesterton and Salinger :D.
I'm definitely in for a "share of thoughts" on the title story :). I already have one question: why did they pick that story as the title for the book? :D I mean, "You touched me" would also be a great title for a collection of short stories (as: these are stories which will touch your soul). Though maybe a bit too controversial for that time? It is easier to suspect "a dirty book" behind such a title, than behind "England, My England"

I actually have a few minutes here till I go out. I read "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" which I have to point out is nothing like the plot of the film. They only took the concept of aging backwards from the short story. Story was good but I wasn't crazy over the film. Thomas Hardy short stories are good if you can locate them.

I think Lawrence himself picked "England, My England" to be the title of that particular collection. If anything he would not want to draw attention to anything subversive or dirty because he had already had a few books banned in England. I liked the story "You Touched Me"...not sure if we did that one before...I will check.


I thought there was one ... I actually felt a bit "I hope the moderators will allow this" when I posted the poem I did - I thought they would send me a message to tell me that the poetry is to be posted in another section :blush: I posted it here because it is this thread which got me into Lawrence, and thus made me look for his poetry ;) Hold on, I'll search for the thread I had in mind. It could well be the Tortoise one. :p Na...they won't say anything about deviating in this thread. I imagine they are just happy to see it active again and us on our way to discussing another short story - reviving the thread. Also, often the poems relate to the short stories. I have posted a few myself. Did Lawrence write that poem above? I don't recall seeing it before...not sure what he is saying here.


Edit Yes, it is (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25671).

I'll have to check that one out more thoroughly, some day :D I am enjoying my holidays now, so if you want to start a poem-thread about his other poems... I am happy to participate! Yes, I think that would be great. I will get one started real soon. We can then bouce back and forth between his poetry and his prose.[/quote]


How about this one, I found it online, so I have no clue whether it is from the Tortoise book or not... :blush: To me, it shows... Wow. Hold on. This is the Short Story Thread. Lets not get all confused :lol:

This is the one has me miffed. Where did you find it online. Do you have the link? I will check it out. Sounds more like someone writing about Lawrence and not his writing but I could be wrong.

[Sapphire]

I'm in a bit of a hury, so just a quick response :)

First
I remember the colour I use on LitNet is a bit difficult for some to read, so I'll go Back to Black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1evzhSast8) :D

Second

I think Lawrence himself picked "England, My England" to be the title of that particular collection.
I just found something which contradicts your statement. This is from the introduction of the Cambridge University Edition of this bundle (link (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/88035341.pdf))
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/LitNet/TitleofbundleEnglandMyEnglandCambri.jpg
Whoops... that looks big in here :blush:
There's quite some information in this (incomplete) introduction. I'm not much for reading on a story before I've formulated my own thoughts on it, so I only scanned this text. But I think the source is reliable...
Janine, I understand your statement was from memory. I'm not trying to proof you wrong here, just trying to figure it all out. :) I think the publisher choose England, My England because it has a certain patriotic feel to it which might attract buyers in 1920? Not sure, as the introduction keeps talking about publishing it in America, where the patriotic feel of England might not have been that high. :confused:

Third
This (http://www.cswnet.com/~erin/dhlpoem.htm) is the site where I found the poem. I didn't really recognize it as Lawrence either, but if it is it is quite cynical. The site seems to present it like it is written by Lawrence, but in the end everybody can start a site and claim the poetry on it is by somebody famous. That might be me being cynical though :p

Fourth
As far as locating stories goes (for example by Thomas Hardy), do you all know the site "Project Gutenberg" [link (http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page)]? You can find quite some authors there, as long as there are no copyright issues. DH Lawrence is well represented :D And as I just saw, the Curious Case of Benjamin Button (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6695) is also to be found there.

Have fun reading you all, I can hardly wait to begin analysing - does it show? :p

[Janine]

Sapphire, thanks for abliging and using all black. It's just that when I quote you I find I have an awful time with the blue and the quotes. This would be much easier if you would stick to the black. I want to answer your post above but I am rushed today and going out to babysit my granddaughter. I hope to answer it later on and definitely I am NOT put off by your research and I was relying on memory of something I thought I read. I will check that source and get back to you on it later...it might be tomorrow...so please be patient. Often the publishers did indeed pick the titles to L's books and collections.

I love Gutenburg and I also am addicted now to Librivox...actually they are in conjunction I believe. I download a lot of audiobooks there...usually read by different volunteers, but I have been enjoying them. I also got several of L's poems being recited by various individuals. I keep everything in a file zipped offline for when I need it.

[Sapphire]

I've checked Librivox out - what an amazing initiative :D All read by volunteers and all free! Thank you for sharing, Janine.

[Janine]

I've checked Librivox out - what an amazing initiative :D All read by volunteers and all free! Thank you for sharing, Janine.

You are welcome, Sapphire! Yes, is it not great? I just downloaded "Sons and Lovers" for later on. I have read the book twice; but I find later listening to the audio adds to the experience. I also read "Women in Love" twice and a good friend lend me the audiobook, which I have on my ipod and computer. I listened to it once and would even listen to it again - it's one female narrator who is quite good. If you noticed on Librivox there are several of L's poems on audio. I downloaded those to my computer, too. My L collection is growing. If you look up "Coming Through" starring Kenneth Branagh on YT you will find some excerpts of his poems being recited and acted out. Kelbylake would like the one called "Piano" and get a better understanding of it being his mother playing the piano and his childhood remembrance. I will try to locate the links. I have downloaded some from YT and will find where they are listed so you can all enjoy them, too. I believe they also have "The Trespaser", which is a good early novel, but not as well known as his others. I read it not long ago. It is beautifully written and has a bit of a surprise ending. I think you would like it. It's quite poetic.

[Janine]

Ok, it's been a long time since I announced another Lawrence story to read and I made up my mind long ago, but things held me up; please forgive me everyone.

So, without further ado, let me announce that the next story we will read and discuss is:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/Lawrence/EnglandMyEcompositegood.jpg

A brief synopsis
From enotes online

World War I was a major event in the evolution of Lawrence's aesthetic principles. Like many artists of the time, Lawrence viewed a cycle of apocalypse and rebirth as a necessary corrective to the apparent depravity of the modern world. In his postwar stories he presents intense personal engagements as essential in giving new life to people and societies on the verge of despair. Sensual love stands as an alternative to the mechanisms of modern warfare and technology, and the closed community that Lawrence valued and portrayed in his earlier writings becomes extended and reshaped to incorporate all of Western culture. To dramatize this concern for regeneration, Lawrence often utilized elements of religious ritual and myth. Stories from this period include the title story from England, My England, and Other Stories (1922) and “The Horse-Dealer's Daughter.”


In “England, My England,” Lawrence symbolizes the self-destructive yearning of the fading English gentility through the protagonist Egbert, an effete aristocrat who ends up enlisting in the army in an attempt to reassert his masculinity.

Let's give everyone a chance to start the story or finish it before we begin discussing formally.

[Sapphire]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/dancing-1.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/1cb353a84e3f54c4ba093705cf1ca29dcfa.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/jump.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif

Hurray! A new Lawrence Short Story :hurray:

Let's give everyone a chance to start the story or finish it before we begin discussing formally.
Of course! But it is allowed to say something about the introduction part, right? :) I do like the illustration - I had to think what the gun was for though :crazy: When I saw the country side the whole war went right out of my head :eek:


World War I was a major event in the evolution of Lawrence's aesthetic principles.
Just his aesthetic principles?! I know I shouldn't read this as "just", but it was my first reaction. I mean, it does surprise me that one of the influences of the war was that people got a different idea of "beauty and good taste". Maybe it shouldn't, with dadaism starting in 1916 ;). Lawrence did not went the way the dadaists went though. Or maybe he did, as the introduction says:

a cycle of apocalypse and rebirth as a necessary corrective Lets tear it all down and start something new. Everything was pretty much destroyed after the First World War anyway...


often utilized elements of religious ritual and myth
I think this is very apparent in the current story. :)

The two lines describing the story itself are in my eyes quite a good way to describe it. I think it focusses a bit too much on Egbert though

protagonist Egbert
He's not the only protagonist. There is an "all knowing" narrator, who shares his world views with us and describes the lives of Egbert and Winifred, through the eyes of both. To me it was rather the story of a marriage going wrong, than of the fading English gentility.

EDIT On third read: those two lines are just describing how Lawrence symbolizes something. It is not a description/summary of the story. My bad!

[downing]

YES! I WILL read this! Thank you Janine for letting me know about it :nod:

[Janine]

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/dancing-1.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/1cb353a84e3f54c4ba093705cf1ca29dcfa.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/jump.gif http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/ari.gif

Hurray! A new Lawrence Short Story :hurray:

Hello, Miss Enthusiastic!:smilewinkgrin:


But it is allowed to say something about the introduction part, right? :) I do like the illustration - I had to think what the gun was for though :crazy: When I saw the country side the whole war went right out of my head :eek:

Sure you can, but don't put much stock in that synopsis. I got it offline from enotes. Who knows if it's accurate (?). I had to say something about the story and I was rather blank, even after reading the story twice. I should have made YOU write the introduction. :lol: I am going to recruit you next time.
By the way, that gun is authentic to WWI. It wasn't easy finding it. I did want to make it more subtle, but I haven't yet mastered Adobe Photoshop Elements, so it's the best I could do for now.



Just his aesthetic principles?! I know I shouldn't read this as "just", but it was my first reaction. I mean, it does surprise me that one of the influences of the war was that people got a different idea of "beauty and good taste". Maybe it shouldn't, with dadaism starting in 1916 ;). Lawrence did not went the way the dadaists went though. Or maybe he did, as the introduction says:
Lets tear it all down and start something new. Everything was pretty much destroyed after the First World War anyway... Right - don't inject "just' in there. It's a pretty simplified version of what to expect from the story. That is why we are here to disect it and analysis it to find out just what L might be getting at; even at that, should L pay us a ghostly visit, he might inform us we are all wrong! :nono: Um....duh, what is dadaism? You brilliant informed college girls! :lol:



I think this is very apparent in the current story. :) I am lost here - what is apparent?


The two lines describing the story itself are in my eyes quite a good way to describe it. I think it focusses a bit too much on Egbert though. I don't know if it is or not since I need to refresh my memory and re-read the story. This will be my third or fourth reading, but apparently I need a better memory bank!


He's not the only protagonist. There is an "all knowing" narrator, who shares his world views with us and describes the lives of Egbert and Winifred, through the eyes of both. To me it was rather the story of a marriage going wrong, than of the fading English gentility. Well, many of Lawrence's stories are about marriages going wrong; that is true. That came from his own experience of his childhood and his own parents so it natually surfaces very often. There is a lot going on here beneath the surface and in the coming weeks we will review the text and it will become more apparent. Plus each person disgussing the story will have a slightly or completely different bend on what is taking place and the ultimate meaning of the ending.


EDIT On third read: those two lines are just describing how Lawrence symbolizes something. It is not a description/summary of the story. My bad! Yes, that is correct. Also, L didn't write this summary; I found it hard to find anything at all on the story online but then I did come up with a PDF file with some analysis. I have not yet read it. I can post the thread to it, if anyone is interested. Not sure how accurate that will be either. Someone wrote it other than L. Only L would know the true meanings behind his stories. All the rest is only conjecture but that's ok. That is what discussions are all about. Everyone sees things in a different light/way.

Take time to read the story this week and then I will post sections of it to discuss; it's helpful if we don't jump ahead because often telling endings and such spoil the story for those who haven't yet read it. Sapphire, so happy to have you onboard!

[Janine]

YES! I WILL read this! Thank you Janine for letting me know about it :nod:

Another young enthusiatic. Fantastic! I am soooo happy to have you onboard for this discussion. Thanks, downing.

Is your avy the wire walker from France? I just saw a film on him walking between the Twin Towers and other locations. He was amazing, although I think a bit crazy!

[Sapphire]

Um....duh, what is dadaism? You brilliant informed college girls!
I never had any arts in college, but this is something which I heard about in high school and I thought it such a crazy art period that it stuck :) I am not sure how to describe it... very abstract. They tried to re-invent art. Many people thought the practitionars had lost their heads ;) Ever heard of Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray? Especially Duchamp was good at making art from every day items. Or at least declaring it art :p
Here's the link to the wiki-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada). Oh, what would we do without wikipedia :crazy: :p Actually, they call it DaDa... maybe it is just a matter of mistranslation on my part, the Dutch word would be Dada-isme and I just turned it into something which sounded English :blush: I should have checked! So much for being brilliantly informed :lol:

I am lost here - what is apparent?
I tried to agree with Enotes :) I think there are indeed quite some references to the Bible (religious ritual) and some myths in this story. I sometimes even thought he was trying to write his own myth.

I did come up with a PDF file with some analysis.
I found a pdf which is called "England, my England: Lawrence, War and Nation". Is that it? I think that's where I got the information in post #3142 from, though I'm not sure now :crazy:.

Happy to be on board. ;)

[Janine]

I never had any arts in college, but this is something which I heard about in high school and I thought it such a crazy art period that it stuck :) I am not sure how to describe it... very abstract. They tried to re-invent art. Many people thought the practitionars had lost their heads ;) Ever heard of Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray? Especially Duchamp was good at making art from every day items. Or at least declaring it art :p

:yikes: horrors and shame on me! I went to art college and had art history; of course, my instructor showed slides all the time and it was dark in the room and I tended often to doze. Why of course, I know of the two artist's you mention; I love their work. I have seen both in museums often. I just was not so familar with the term. At first, I thought it had something to do with Salvador Dali; he's a favorite of mine.

I think maybe you did make up a new term since I had not heard of it. I think I have heard of DaDa-ism; but I am not real familar with it. I am going now to check out your Wiki link. Yeah, what would do without Wiki?

[Virgil]

Fantastic. I don't remember this story, so it will be like reading it fresh. I'll have to find my book. You can find the electronic version here: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/england-my-england/1/

[Janine]

Fantastic. I don't remember this story, so it will be like reading it fresh. I'll have to find my book. You can find the electronic version here: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/england-my-england/1/

Virgil, thanks for posting the link. It also can be found on Librivox and other sites. Funny, I don't recall the particulars either. I read it last year; I guess I just have a poor memory or a congested brain. Glad you will be doing the discussion, also. Enjoy your reading.

[Janine]

I read a bit of the story today at breakfast. I think I will post this introductory section for us to discuss. It's a good story already. I have to go out for coffee today - ran out. I will be back later and may post that section of the story for all to mull over. If you haven't read the entire story, don't worry. I will be posting it in parts on here expecting a lot of good comments from all.

[Virgil]

Oh my gosh, already. I can't even find my book. :eek2:

[Janine]

Oh my gosh, already. I can't even find my book. :eek2:

Cheer-up, neither could I find mine (yesterday). It finally surfaced right before I went to bed, which was super late. I only read a few pages and I went out all day today and actually was shopping for groceries at Wegmans at
11:00PM...long story...but a rather funny one.

Therefore, I guess you know I won't be posting any text yet. I have something to do tomorrow as well, so let's just keep reading or hunting for our books until further notice. :idea: good idea?

[Quark]

I read the first page of the story while I was at McDonald's today eating the most unhealthy thing they offer: #7 Crispy Chicken Sandwich and Fries with mega drink of cola. The story sounds very Lawrencian. The contrast between the rugged worker out in the primitive Anglo-Saxonish wilds and the pretty, civilized path is exactly what I've come to expect from Lawrence. I think I'll read through the rest of the story Thursday. If I can find time, I'll try to post something.

[Sapphire]

The contrast between the rugged worker out in the primitive Anglo-Saxonish wilds and the pretty, civilized path is exactly what I've come to expect from Lawrence.
I thought it was Mr. Lawrence the moment I read these lines:

girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering
:p The girls had to be given some negative adjectives ;)

[Janine]

I'am still contemplating the chicken sandwich.

....off to bed for me......*yawn*yawn*....

[Janine]

I thought it was Mr. Lawrence the moment I read these lines:

:p The girls had to be given some negative adjectives ;)

Back again briefly ~ I read this wrong last night. Actually, those exact lines stood out to me as well, being so typically Lawrence. Good observation. You all can recognise a Lawrence phrase now. A for everyone!

[Virgil]

Cheer-up, neither could I find mine (yesterday). It finally surfaced right before I went to bed, which was super late. I only read a few pages and I went out all day today and actually was shopping for groceries at Wegmans at
11:00PM...long story...but a rather funny one.

Therefore, I guess you know I won't be posting any text yet. I have something to do tomorrow as well, so let's just keep reading or hunting for our books until further notice. :idea: good idea?

I found it too. :lol: But I won't be able to read until the weekend. Work is too exhausting right now and I just want to vegetate when I get home.


I thought it was Mr. Lawrence the moment I read these lines:

:p The girls had to be given some negative adjectives ;)

:lol: Yes, not a surprise.

[grace86]

I'm currently reading some stuff to teach a youth group - but I'm going to download this story. Virgil I already downloaded Salinger's, so give me a bit of time and I'll get to both of them!

[Virgil]

I'm currently reading some stuff to teach a youth group - but I'm going to download this story. Virgil I already downloaded Salinger's, so give me a bit of time and I'll get to both of them!

Great! Salinger's will be a really fast read. This one is a bit harder. :)

[Sapphire]

As most of you are still reading, the discussion won't start untill the weekend :) In the meantime: some more "background" information.
I promise I will not give the ending away. ;)

Publishing date and different versions
The Cambridge University Press version of the bundle England, My England has an introductory in which is mentioned that this story was written in June 1915. This is quite remarkable, for the story itself lasts until late autumn/winter 1915 - so though the story is based upon real life figures, he is not exactly describing their life. Let me rephrase that: he is not following the happenings in their lives to the book. Of course he isn't giving a biographical account of his friends lives: the story is fiction.
It was published first in the English Review in October 1915. It did not appear in bookform until 1922 - in those days it was financially preferable to periodical publication (in magazines), which offered substantial fees. Once a story was in volume-form, there would be no such fees, only
the likelyhood of a much lower income from royalities for a year or two.
But in September 1920 Mountsier (from what I gather, an American publisher or agent whom [gr? object? :crazy: :blush:] he later has a falling out with) suggests a volume of short stories and Lawrence starts to gather them. Late in 1921, Lawrence set himself to this task and starts to send in stories. The story England, My England was posted on 9 January 1922,

much expanded and retyped
This makes me very curious about the original (1915) version. :nod: This was written in the middle of the war. Or well, maybe rather the beginning: the trenches were dug, but the people weren't tired of the war yet - they still had some hopes. Lawrence might have been unhappy about the war, but I find it hard to imagine he could grasp the total horror of it all at that stage. His revision for the story to put it into the "collected stories" called England, my England is from around 1920: by this time the First World War was over, and most of its horrors were known, even to the ones who "stayed at home". I imagine this can have had huge effect on the last part of the story (the war scenes).
If I understand the introduction correctly, there even is a difference between the English bundle (Seeker) "England, My England", and the American (Mountsier) - though maybe not in this story. But

The nature of Lawrence's revisions to the stories intended for the collection is not uniformily clear.
For not only Lawrence rewrote the stories, things got changed during the editing for publication as well :crazy:
When anybody wants to read about this all for himself (it will make it clearer, promise ;) ), here is the {link} (http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/88035341.pdf)

The bottom of the Sea
In the introduction of the Penguin book from 1960 (my version), it is said that


This was Lawrence's second volume of short stories, and although most of them ahad already appeared in magazines and reviews, he carefully re-wrote them for book publication.
An underlying theme in all stories is the emotional and physical conflict between men and women, and there is a frightening hardness and disillusion in the sexual relationships of the people involved, a disillusion which the author was later to shed in Lady Chatterley's Lover.
Many of the characters were drawn from Lawrence's friends and acquaintances in real life and some stories caused great offence when they were published. [revised to avoid spoiler] When the original of Egbert in England, My England had something happen to him which was predicted in the story, even Lawrence was aghast. [/ end rivision] 'I wish that story at the bottom of the sea, before it ever had been printed,' he wrote, but added a characteristic postscript: 'No, I don't wish I had never written that story' .
:eek: He said this due to a nasty coincidence of reality and fiction... And I can totaly imagine his first reaction was to wish it to the bottom of the sea! But, in my opinion, wishing something to the bottom of the say doesn't necessarily mean you want to never have written it. You just don't want anybody to read it (anymore). It might still be important in his development as a writer.. Or he just changed his mind at the end of the letter - it is hard to use "backspace" or "delete" on a written letter :lol:

Story Title
There's a William Ernest Henley poem called "Pro Rege Nostro" (http://poemhunter.com/poem/pro-rege-nostro/) It became popular during the First World War because it was quite patriotic: it has the lines "England, My England" in them - more precisely, in every second line of each verse - 5 in total.

(v1) WHAT have I done for you,
England, my England?

(v4)They call you proud and hard,
England, my England:

It might be that Lawrence knew this poem and used the phrase in his title (as wikipedia claims). He probably uses it in a cynical manner, though. I don't think the story is patriotic, or at least not in the propaganda (for the war) kind of way.
As for the Book Bundle title, see post 3140 2nd alinea (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=923366&postcount=3140), 3141 2nd alinea (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=923516&postcount=3141) and finaly 3142 Second (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=923544&postcount=3142)

Well, that is all for now. :D I'll be of reading the pdf "Lawrence, War and Nation" now ;) Have fun reading the story! :hurray:

After reading the commentary Lawrence, War and nation (http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/uploads/docs/090067.pdf). All the quotes are from this pdf.

In the previous post I mentioned that I am curious about the differences between the 1915 version and the 1922 version of this story. So I am happy to tell you all that some of these differences are mentioned in the above pdf-file :hurray:
Next to this, it pays attention to the context of the tale in the time it was written. It gives some motives of the story and tries to make clear why Lawrence used those - within his ideas and the ideas of his time. In the end, it focusses on Expressionism, as they see the part about WWI in Flanders as an expression of this movement.

Publication history
I think this is a bit clearer than the way I put it:

The original version of ‘England, My England’ had appeared in the English Review in October 1915, and was subsequently published in a slightly revised form in the American magazine Metropolitan in April 1917. When Lawrence, now actively seeking an American audience, began to prepare a collection of short stories for publication in 1920, he altered ‘England, My England’ radically, expanding it to double the length and changing the ending. The first edition of England, My England and Other Stories was published in New York by Thomas Seltzer in October 1922, and in England by Martin Secker in January 1924.

Relation to real life
Lawrence stayed very close to real life events in this story - following their exact timeline!

In January 1915 the Lawrences moved into a cottage in Sussex, andLawrence informed his old Eastwood friend Willie Hopkin:

It is the Meynells’ place. You know Alice Meynell, Catholic poetess rescuer of Francis Thompson. The father took a big old farm house at Greatham, then proceeded to give each of his children a cottage. Now Viola lends us hers.
Whilst living in the cottage Lawrence proceeded to compose a story, originally intended for the Strand magazine, drawing in its detail upon life at Greatham, the estate cottages of the Meynell family, and the domestic life of
Madeline, one of the Meynell daughters, and her husband, Perceval Lucas. Perceval had been a keen gardener at Rackham Cottage, and [SPOILER] Sylvia, the eldest daughter.
So Winifred would be Madeline, Perceval becomes Egbert and Sylvia is Joyce.

Different versions
As said under publication history, the 1922 version of the story is about twice as long as the 1915 story. A lot has happened between 1915 and 1922, and Lawrence's ideas have developed. Personally, I think the version we read (the 1922 version) is very "explaining". Motives get repeated quite a bit, and while reading I really got the idea that the writer wanted to show his worldview. I wonder how apparent this is in the shorter 1915 version.
Another difference is that Egbert (1922) was called Evelyn (1915), Evelyn Daughtry. :D I always thought that was a girls name! :blush:
The end and the beginning differ. If you want to know the alternative ending, I suggest you read the pdf, page 8. It moves towards the horror-genre :eek: As for the original start of the story: it starts the narration at the end. While the 1922 version starts in 1913, moves back to 1904 and then towards 1913 and towards 1915 - the original version of the story starts in 1915, moves to 1913 (begin 1922 version) and then probably as the 1922 version. Probably, for this is not mentioned in the pdf and it could be that the whole 1904 to 1913 is missing in the 1915 version - that would explain the fact that the 1922 version is twice as long!
In pictures:
ORIGINALLY
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/LitNet/Narrationtimeline-1915version.jpg
REVISED (1922)
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/LitNet/Narrationtimeline-1922version.jpg

I personally think this is a very interesting commentary, but maybe it is more fun to read it after we've discussed it. That way, it is easier to keep an open mind :D At least, that is how I look at commentaries ;)

NOTIFICATION
We have not start discussing the real story yet - the first part of the story will be posted on Saturday Evening (Janine time-zone :p).
For the introduction to the story, see this post (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932112&postcount=3146)

[Janine]

NOTIFICATION
We have not start discussing the real story yet - the first part of the story will be posted on Saturday Evening (Janine time-zone :p).
For the introduction to the story, see this post (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932112&postcount=3146)

Janine's time zone :rofl:...now that could be anywhere for 10PM to wee hours of Sunday! As most know here, Janine is a nite owl. Sapphire - you asked my hours of operation in your message post - answer: anytime at all but usually late in the evening. I am just waking up then! I am much more creative at night and more productive; or at least, I used to be.

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up Incredible - you indepth study of the commentary. Geez, usually no one reads the links I provide. Now I am anxious to read the entire commentary, as well. One comment - Lawrence often rewrote his stories and even his novels. Lady Chatterly has at least 3 versions. We could either say that Lawrence was never satisfied and changable or that he was versatile. One thing for certain, he was prolithic. The man wrote a ton of stuff; of which I am just now discovering even more. Who knows how much more he may have written that did indeed end up at the bottom of the sea. Anyway, salt water preserves certain things so maybe years from now they will bring up more of Lawrence's brilliant gems. And by the way, Sapphire, you are a 'gem'....I mean that, no pun intended! I just might have to sign you on as my assistent in posting stories. See what you started. :lol:

Excellent commentary on the commentary and well written! Good job!!!:iagree: with everything you observed, even though I have not yet read the commentary paper. Way to go - let's celebrate :cheers2:

PS: thanks for not using the blue!

[Sapphire]

Thank you for your kind words :blush: And sure, always in for a celebration ;) :hurray:

Lawrence often rewrote his stories and even his novels. Lady Chatterly has at least 3 versions. We could either say that Lawrence was never satisfied and changable or that he was versatile. One thing for certain, he was prolithic.
I had to google "prolithic" and I have to say: I am not sure what it means :blush: - And yes, I also tried the good old dictionary ;) Is it the words "lit(h)erature" and "prolific" thrown together? I know it is a long shot, but in that context I can imagine it means "productive writer" :D

As for his other brilliant gems, I guess that is a perfect excuse to learn to dive :lol: Diving for hidden Lawrence treasures... Now the only question is - where did he throw them overboard? For then we can trace back the streams and maybe we could minimize the search grid :angel:

[Quark]

NOTIFICATION
We have not start discussing the real story yet - the first part of the story will be posted on Saturday Evening (Janine time-zone :p).
For the introduction to the story, see this post (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=932112&postcount=3146)

Oh, I saw the intro a couple of pages back and thought I was already late to the discussion. Looks like I'm early. I'll just wait until later on in Janine Stardard Time.

[Janine]

Thank you for your kind words :blush: And sure, always in for a celebration ;) :hurray:

I had to google "prolithic" and I have to say: I am not sure what it means :blush: - And yes, I also tried the good old dictionary ;) Is it the words "lit(h)erature" and "prolific" thrown together? I know it is a long shot, but in that context I can imagine it means "productive writer" :D

As for his other brilliant gems, I guess that is a perfect excuse to learn to dive :lol: Diving for hidden Lawrence treasures... Now the only question is - where did he throw them overboard? For then we can trace back the streams and maybe we could minimize the search grid :angel:

hahaha....,most likely I spelled it wrong. Why doesn't Litnet have 'spell check' ? grrrr. You will learn Janine's weak point is her spelling. It does mean productive and I don't think it has to necessarily apply to authors. It would apply to any accomplishment. Perhaps, it would apply to the arts which encompass many accomplishments.

Yes, let's all take diving lessons. We could comb the various oceans where Lawrence hung out; or we could search the hills of New Mexico and Mexico, the country. Perhaps someone in Australia is hording his works silently as we speak. They need to share these Lawrence tidbits with us now!


Oh, I saw the intro a couple of pages back and thought I was already late to the discussion. Looks like I'm early. I'll just wait until later on in Janine Stardard Time.

:seeya: Hi Quark! Not too late at all. We have some people dragging their heels. Hopefully, by this weekend they will have started the story, at least. To be honest, I have not read anymore since I started it a week ago; but then again I did read it many times prior. I am just so forgetful about the stories and the plots or meanings. I have to reread all over each time. I could just post parts (intend to start doing that later tonight), and then we can all read along at the same pace. So if you haven't read the entire story yet, it's no big deal. We can read and discuss it together. What do you think of that idea anyway?

hahah....Janine Standard Time....did you mean to type that as 'Stardard' Time? If so,:smilielol5: that is rather funny!

[Sapphire]

No worries. :) I think everybody makes a mistake every now and then - especially while typing - though I also have it while writing, as I think about the next word to write already and somehow manage to combine them :crazy: It is funny when one creates new words that way though ;)
New Mexico, Mexico, Australia... I wouldn't mind visiting those places :D.

So if you haven't read the entire story yet, it's no big deal. We can read and discuss it together.
I myself think that is quite possible, but I would prefer if everybody had read it at least once - so I can not spoil the ending ;) . I am a bit afraid that I could give it away :blush: I really do not want to spoil the story for anybody! I can get carried away a bit sometimes http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/hlk1220/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif

[Janine]

No worries. :) I think everybody makes a mistake every now and then - especially while typing - though I also have it while writing, as I think about the next word to write already and somehow manage to combine them :crazy: It is funny when one creates new words that way though ;)
New Mexico, Mexico, Australia... I wouldn't mind visiting those places :D.

I myself think that is quite possible, but I would prefer if everybody had read it at least once - so I can not spoil the ending ;) . I am a bit afraid that I could give it away :blush: I really do not want to spoil the story for anybody! I can get carried away a bit sometimes http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/hlk1220/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif

That's true...some people may be blabber-mouths, like me. :lol: Anyway, best plan is for everyone to read it once and then we can begin. Perhaps I should post that text tomorrow; what does everyone think? Personally I have some things to do today out and I might be tired when I get home, although what is there to copying and pasting a bunch of text? Let me know, Sapphire, what you think? Can you wait until tomorrow; afterall by the time I do post it you are already one half a day ahead of me in time.

[Sapphire]

I've waited this long - what's another day ;) If it is more convenient for you, please: just do it when you are ready. Lets give everybody another day to read this story. :D

For the meantime: Johnny Logan - What's another year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b3XTj5G_SA) :p I didn't know that was a Eurovision song! One learns something every day... :)

[Janine]

I've waited this long - what's another day ;) If it is more convenient for you, please: just do it when you are ready. Lets give everybody another day to read this story. :D

For the meantime: Johnny Logan - What's another year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b3XTj5G_SA) :p I didn't know that was a Eurovision song! One learns something every day... :)

:lol: I promise - it won't be another year!....Hey, isn't it night time where you live? I still haven't figured out the time difference.

Hey, nice song. I never heard it but like it very much!

Here's the beginning section of the text to study and begin our discussion:


England, My England

He was working on the edge of the common, beyond the small brook that ran in the dip at the bottom of the garden, carrying the garden path in continuation from the plank bridge on to the common. He had cut the rough turf and bracken, leaving the grey, dryish soil bare. But he was worried because he could not get the path straight, there was a pleat between his brows. He had set up his sticks, and taken the sights between the big pine trees, but for some reason everything seemed wrong. He looked again, straining his keen blue eyes, that had a touch of the Viking in them, through the shadowy pine trees as through a doorway, at the green-grassed garden-path rising from the shadow of alders by the log bridge up to the sunlit flowers. Tall white and purple columbines, and the butt-end of the old Hampshire cottage that crouched near the earth amid flowers, blossoming in the bit of shaggy wildness round about.

There was a sound of children's voices calling and talking: high, childish, girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering: 'If you don't come quick, nurse, I shall run out there to where there are snakes.' And nobody had the sangfroid to reply: 'Run then, little fool.' It was always, 'No, darling. Very well, darling. In a moment, darling. Darling, you must be patient.'

His heart was hard with disillusion: a continual gnawing and resistance. But he worked on. What was there to do but submit!

The sunlight blazed down upon the earth, there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace of the commons. Strange how the savage England lingers in patches: as here, amid these shaggy gorse commons, and marshy, snake infested places near the foot of the south downs. The spirit of place lingering on primeval, as when the Saxons came, so long ago.

Ah, how he had loved it! The green garden path, the tufts of flowers, purple and white columbines, and great oriental red poppies with their black chaps and mulleins tall and yellow, this flamy garden which had been a garden for a thousand years, scooped out in the little hollow among the snake-infested commons. He had made it flame with flowers, in a sun cup under its hedges and trees. So old, so old a place! And yet he had re-created it.

The timbered cottage with its sloping, cloak-like roof was old and forgotten. It belonged to the old England of hamlets and yeomen. Lost all alone on the edge of the common, at the end of a wide, grassy, briar-entangled lane shaded with oak, it had never known the world of today. Not till Egbert came with his bride. And he had come to fill it with flowers.

The house was ancient and very uncomfortable. But he did not want to alter it. Ah, marvelous to sit there in the wide, black, time-old chimney, at night when the wind roared overhead, and the wood which he had chopped himself sputtered on the hearth! Himself on one side the angle, and Winifred on the other.

Ah, how he had wanted her: Winifred! She was young and beautiful and strong with life, like a flame in sunshine. She moved with a slow grace of energy like a blossoming, red-flowered bush in motion. She, too, seemed to come out of the old England, ruddy, strong, with a certain crude, passionate quiescence and a hawthorn robustness. And he, he was tall and slim and agile, like an English archer with his long supple legs and fine movements. Her hair was nut-brown and all in energic curls and tendrils. Her eyes were nut-brown, too, like a robin's for brightness. And he was white-skinned with fine, silky hair that had darkened from fair, and a slightly arched nose of an old country family. They were a beautiful couple.

The house was Winifred's. Her father was a man of energy, too. He had come from the north poor. Now he was moderately rich. He had bought this fair stretch of inexpensive land, down in Hampshire. Not far from the tiny church of the almost extinct hamlet stood his own house, a commodious old farmhouse standing back from the road across a bare grassed yard. On one side of this quadrangle was the long, long barn or shed which he had made into a cottage for his youngest daughter Priscilla. One saw little blue-and-white check curtains at the long windows, and inside, overhead, the grand old timbers of the high-pitched shed. This was Prissy's house. Fifty yards away was the pretty little new cottage which he had built for his daughter Magdalen, with the vegetable garden stretching away to the oak copse. And then away beyond the lawns and rose trees of the house-garden went the track across a shaggy, wild grass space, towards the ridge of tall black pines that grew on a dyke-bank, through the pines and above the sloping little bog, under the wide, desolate oak trees, till there was Winifred's cottage crouching unexpectedly in front, so much alone, and so primitive.

It was Winifred's own house, and the gardens and the bit of common and the boggy slope were hers: her tiny domain. She had married just at the time when her father had bought the estate, about ten years before the war, so she had been able to come to Egbert with this for a marriage portion. And who was more delighted, he or she, it would be hard to say. She was only twenty at the time, and he was only twenty-one. He had about a hundred and fifty pounds a year of his own--and nothing else but his very considerable personal attractions. He had no profession: he earned nothing. But he talked of literature and music, he had a passion for old folk-music, collecting folk-songs and folk-dances, studying the Morris-dance and the old customs. Of course in time he would make money in these ways.

If you haven't read the story yet, don't panic. We can take this slowly. I am sure it will take longer than a month to discuss this story; since it is a longer story to begin with.

[Virgil]

Oh great, I just finished the story moments ago. I found it fascinating. I didn't remember a thing of it and it felt fresh from the beginning, though I thought I knew how it would end. There is lots to talk about. I certainly will have to read it again.

Now I have a question, especially to anyone joiniung this discussion who is British. What exactly is a "common"? Lawrence uses the word twice in that very first sentence. It also recurs throughout. I assume it's some sort of public property, but somehow I feel I'm missing a nuance of the word.

I know some joked about this in earlier posts but it's definitely relevant and the core of the story:

There was a sound of children's voices calling and talking: high, childish, girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering: 'If you don't come quick, nurse, I shall run out there to where there are snakes.' And nobody had the sangfroid to reply: 'Run then, little fool.' It was always, 'No, darling. Very well, darling. In a moment, darling. Darling, you must be patient.'

His heart was hard with disillusion: a continual gnawing and resistance. But he worked on. What was there to do but submit!

This is the thematic link between the first two thirds of the story and the last third. Yes, this will be Lawrence at his anti-feminist best. :D

In the rest of that passage, Lawrence establishes a pre-lapsarian Eden-esk setting. That snake is important!

[Janine]

Oh great, I just finished the story moments ago. I found it fascinating. I didn't remember a thing of it and it felt fresh from the beginning, though I thought I knew how it would end. There is lots to talk about. I certainly will have to read it again.

Now I have a question, especially to anyone joiniung this discussion who is British. What exactly is a "common"? Lawrence uses the word twice in that very first sentence. It also recurs throughout. I assume it's some sort of public property, but somehow I feel I'm missing a nuance of the word.

I know some joked about this in earlier posts but it's definitely relevant and the core of the story:


This is the thematic link between the first two thirds of the story and the last third. Yes, this will be Lawrence at his anti-feminist best. :D

In the rest of that passage, Lawrence establishes a pre-lapsarian Eden-esk setting. That snake is important!

Glad you liked the story, Virgil. Good on your commentary; but you jumped a little ahead. I knew when the snake was mentioned the tone of the story began to change so I didn't include that in the first section of text. I agree with what you said though. I hope we can just discuss the beginning first. I also thought the snake was vitally important. Right off, I thought of L's famous 'snake' poem. I should post that, when we get to that part. Also, snakes appear so often in L's works. We have run into them quite a bit on this very thread.

Hummm...if you look up 'common' online, doesn't it give you the British meaning. I just took it as an expanse of land. I will look in my home dictionary which contains British meanings as well as American English.

Ah...on Wikipedia it says this about 'common':


Common land (a common) is land owned collectively or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights, such as to allow their livestock to graze upon it, to collect firewood, or to cut turf for fuel.[1] By extension, the term "commons" has come to be applied to other resources which a community has rights or access to. The older texts use the word "common" to denote any such right, but more modern usage is to refer to particular rights of common, and to reserve the name "common" for the land over which the rights are exercised.

[Sapphire]

Wow, that's a big part of the story indeed :D And here I was, thinking we might get only the first paragraph or something :lol:


I assume it's some sort of public property, but somehow I feel I'm missing a nuance of the word.
Janine, thank you for quoting wikipedia (I need a wikipedia smiley! :p). I think the importance of "common" in this story, is that the house and the garden is owned by the Marshall, but the common "beyond the brook at the bottom of the garden" is not their property anymore. It is the part where Egbert shouldn't try to cultivate anymore - where the flowers grow on their own. :nod:

these shaggy gorse commons
It is part of the savage England :)


This is the thematic link between the first two thirds of the story and the last third.
I do feel this thematic link, but I can not put it in words.
You call it anti-feministic, but I did not read the story that way. I do have to admit that for this particular part my eyes fell on "girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering" and they started to roll :p. But on second thought, would Egbert not be just as annoyed if he had 3 boys who were behaving like that? Or is it rather the way Winifred and the Nurse deal with it, the way they raise the children which is anti-feministic?
The line "what was there to do but submit" really intrigues me. There is a lot he can do, but submit! Egbert does not make a good impression in this first part, not at all :nonod: But it does point out how he stands in live: no active interference. Though on the other hand, he does not submit in getting a job - so he does not submit there. Comming to think of it, he never really submits... he just goes his own way and let others go theirs, and while his way collides with others he refuses to change. :crazy:


In the rest of that passage, Lawrence establishes a pre-lapsarian Eden-esk setting. That snake is important!
Yes, it seems like Eden, doesn't it? :) A dark Eden though ;) The fact that the place is snake-infested is point out over and over again. And indeed, the snake is important. But not as important as I thought it would be :nonod:

My next post will be a commentary on the part of the story Janine posted. :D Give me some time though - I've got a lot of things jumping through my mind and a bit of a hard time putting it into words ;)

The first paragraph [He was working… wildness round about] tells a lot.

First, it gives the impression that “he” is working hard. The goal is clear: carry the garden path in continuation from the garden over the plank bridge on to the common. He has been busy :nod: Then, we read that “he” is worried. :eek: He thinks the job might not be well done.
No worries we think, just start all over again. But the point is, he did all according to plan, he set up his sticks and all – it did not work, it should have worked!
So the reader is left with the question: will he try again, will he start all over again? Or will he just do an half-*** job?

Further, we read about his eyes. :D I think one could write an essay about Lawrence’s use of eye-colour in his stories ;) It might be interesting to know what kind of characters he gives blue eyes, and what kind brown. I do not think he ever gave one green eyes – but do correct me when I’m wrong – I would be delighted ;). Any way, the “he” character has blue eyes,

that had a touch of the Viking in them
As England and heritage/breeding is quite important in this story, this probably means that “he” is a descendant of the Vikings. Later on in the story, both Saxons and Normans are named. So maybe it is time for a little history?!
As far as I can figure out, the Saxons were a confederation of Old-Germanic tribes which conquered England and merged with the Angles and Jutes and Frisians (:hurray:) to become Anglo-Saxons. These were dominant in England until the Norman Conquest in 1066. And these Normans were descended form Viking conquerors in France, Normandy. So, by having a touch of a Viking in him, he might be related to the Normans – NOT the Saxons. Or well, maybe them too (other line of breeding) ;) And it might also be that the Vikings also had left their DNA in the Anglo-Saxons, I know they did so in the Frisians :nod: So all in all, this history lesson does not learn us that much, just that he is portrayed as coming from a strong heritage.
Which is strange, for I myself do not see a Viking concerning himself with a garden :no: Very prejudice, I know – but the word Viking brings to my mind a strong warrior, and quite a brutish one for that matter. Nothing like Egbert… Except for the eyes :p No gateways to the soul this time…

While the reader is wondering about this all, the countryside is being described :) All those wonderful flowers :hurray: But surrounded by shaggy wilderness… there is bound to be trouble! Especially as Egbert does not seem very capable of taming the garden…

I really try to be as brief as I can… really :blush: :lol: I think I'll stop here for today or I'll overflow the thread :nod:

[Janine]

Sapphire, keep on writing. I am loving it; I am totally captivated. Of course, your pages might turn over and then others won't read what you have so carefully analysised and written. Good job and I especially like the contrast of the weedy 'uncontrolled' part of the common to the structured English garden. I wonder if Egbert is a bit a perfectionist and control freak. I think he can't have control over his family so he transfers that to his garden. The idea of planning the path and then not being able to have it just as he envisions it says much about his character. Perhaps, he is an idealist, much like the author. Bye the way, Lawrence was known by Bert in his youthful years. See any connection?
Thank you - you have given me a lot to think about. I will go and review that part of the text today more clearly myself.

[grace86]

Sorry for the delay, I won't be able to start reading it until this afternoon, I'll join in and read up on the posts when I do finish!

[Janine]

Sorry for the delay, I won't be able to start reading it until this afternoon, I'll join in and read up on the posts when I do finish!

You are fine; not late at all. We barely scratched the surface so far. Grace, I am so glad you will take part. I have missed you. It will be fun. We have a good group here...a few more told me they will be joining us. Enjoy your reading. J

[Virgil]

Janine, thank you for quoting wikipedia (I need a wikipedia smiley! :p). I think the importance of "common" in this story, is that the house and the garden is owned by the Marshall, but the common "beyond the brook at the bottom of the garden" is not their property anymore. It is the part where Egbert shouldn't try to cultivate anymore - where the flowers grow on their own. :nod:

It is part of the savage England :)

Yes, I guess so. I can't help but feel that there is a suggestion of socialism in there. Afterall, it would contrast with the Marshall's wealth. For people's information, Lawrence was not enamored with socialism, but he disliked capitalism too. He believed in a sort of natural inheretance to land, as if human constructs can't define ownership. It's part of his primitivism, and I do think he's suggesting something like that with the "commons."


I do feel this thematic link, but I can not put it in words.
You call it anti-feministic, but I did not read the story that way. I do have to admit that for this particular part my eyes fell on "girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering" and they started to roll :p. But on second thought, would Egbert not be just as annoyed if he had 3 boys who were behaving like that? Or is it rather the way Winifred and the Nurse deal with it, the way they raise the children which is anti-feministic?
Ah, I will put it into words by the end of our discussion. :wink5:


The line "what was there to do but submit" really intrigues me. There is a lot he can do, but submit! Egbert does not make a good impression in this first part, not at all :nonod: But it does point out how he stands in live: no active interference. Though on the other hand, he does not submit in getting a job - so he does not submit there. Comming to think of it, he never really submits... he just goes his own way and let others go theirs, and while his way collides with others he refuses to change. :crazy:
No I have to disagree, I do think he submits. He accepts the Marshall's money and their way of life. And he joining the war is an act of submission, in Lawrence's world view.


Yes, it seems like Eden, doesn't it? :) A dark Eden though ;) The fact that the place is snake-infested is point out over and over again. And indeed, the snake is important. But not as important as I thought it would be :nonod:
Yes, I think the snakes are part of Eden, just like the Biblical paradise. No, the snakes are important, but not in snake form. We'll get to that. :)


The first paragraph [He was working… wildness round about] tells a lot.

Agreed. This is part of the Eden Lawrence creates at the beginning of the story. The narrative is essentially a fall from grace and the ramifications of the fall.


Further, we read about his eyes. :D I think one could write an essay about Lawrence’s use of eye-colour in his stories ;) It might be interesting to know what kind of characters he gives blue eyes, and what kind brown. I do not think he ever gave one green eyes – but do correct me when I’m wrong – I would be delighted ;). Any way, the “he” character has blue eyes,
Absolutely siginificant. Blue eyes are a recurring symbol in Lawrence's works. Egbert is Nordic, from the north. Brown is from the south. Lawrence has associations with north and south. Remember the Mareshalls are from the north too but they come south to make their money.


As England and heritage/breeding is quite important in this story, this probably means that “he” is a descendant of the Vikings. Later on in the story, both Saxons and Normans are named. So maybe it is time for a little history?!
As far as I can figure out, the Saxons were a confederation of Old-Germanic tribes which conquered England and merged with the Angles and Jutes and Frisians (:hurray:) to become Anglo-Saxons. These were dominant in England until the Norman Conquest in 1066. And these Normans were descended form Viking conquerors in France, Normandy. So, by having a touch of a Viking in him, he might be related to the Normans – NOT the Saxons. Or well, maybe them too (other line of breeding) ;) And it might also be that the Vikings also had left their DNA in the Anglo-Saxons, I know they did so in the Frisians :nod: So all in all, this history lesson does not learn us that much, just that he is portrayed as coming from a strong heritage.
Which is strange, for I myself do not see a Viking concerning himself with a garden :no: Very prejudice, I know – but the word Viking brings to my mind a strong warrior, and quite a brutish one for that matter. Nothing like Egbert… Except for the eyes :p No gateways to the soul this time…
Nice history lesson. :lol: I think Anglo-Saxon and Vikings are interchangable here - they are of Germanic origins. Egbert is a very old anglo-saxon name. Contrast that with the name "Marshall" which is French and has a military association.


While the reader is wondering about this all, the countryside is being described :) All those wonderful flowers :hurray: But surrounded by shaggy wilderness… there is bound to be trouble! Especially as Egbert does not seem very capable of taming the garden…
Very pretty flowers and garden description. Lawrence is always great at that. :)

[Janine]

Yes, I think the snakes are part of Eden, just like the Biblical paradise. No, the snakes are important, but not in snake form. We'll get to that.

Here we go.......tell me we are not getting into the phallic quality of the snake again....
:nono::rofl:

I will let Sapphire answer your post...asside from your suggestive snake remark...

She is probably snoozing away now half way round the world.

[Virgil]

Here we go.......tell me we are not getting into the phallic quality of the snake again....
:nono::rofl:


:lol: :lol: I wasn't even thinking of that. But now that you mention it, I will have to give it some thought. Actually I was thinking of the snake as introducing evil into the world.

[Sapphire]

I will let Sapphire answer your post...asside from your suggestive snake remark...
She is probably snoozing away now half way round the world.
:rofl: Yes Madam :D I was sleeping like a baby at this time - 3:30 (am). As for the snake - I'll even remark on that http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/hat.gif. As I see in the above post, it is you who goes into the dirty corners of the mind here :p :D (I went there too, don't worry ;) )


I can't help but feel that there is a suggestion of socialism in there. Afterall, it would contrast with the Marshall's wealth. For people's information, Lawrence was not enamored with socialism, but he disliked capitalism too. He believed in a sort of natural inheretance to land, as if human constructs can't define ownership. It's part of his primitivism, and I do think he's suggesting something like that with the "commons."
I have read the word "common" in quite a lot of books, and the word in itself does not reek of socialism. Well, except for the fact that it is "common propriety". :crazy: :lol: What I mean to say is this: the word was around before socialism was :nod:
Thank you for the insight in Lawrence's view on socialism/capitalism. I myself thought he migth be in favour of socialism, but with his amorism towards the primitive world I see how he did not really fall for it. I wonder what they had back in those days though... Survival of the fittest? They did stick in communities to stay strong against the primitive land around them, like Mr. Marshall has a small community there in Hampshire. I can see how you can read that in the word "common" :nod:
I guess that in the end everybody has to live somewhere, and the garden has to end at either a road, a brook or a common. In this case, it ends in a brook that has a common on its other edge.

Ah, I will put it into words by the end of our discussion.
I'll patiently wait another month for the answer/explination http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/trampoline.gif

No I have to disagree, I do think he submits. He accepts the Marshall's money and their way of life. And he joining the war is an act of submission, in Lawrence's world view.

Yes, there are parts where he submits. But never fully, and that's the whole problem of it. For if he had taken a job, who knows how things whould have ended? Well, knowing Lawrence probably with an equally miserable Egbert, but it is a submission which he does not do. He IS a stubborn guy ;) Though Lawrence throws it all on breeding :p

Yes, I think the snakes are part of Eden, just like the Biblical paradise. No, the snakes are important, but not in snake form. We'll get to that.
You point the snake out as introducing evil into this world (as in Eden) - I think I know what part of the story you want to refer to... Is there a frog in the picture? We'll talk about it when we get there :nod: I've got quite some ideas :D

Agreed. This is part of the Eden Lawrence creates at the beginning of the story. The narrative is essentially a fall from grace and the ramifications of the fall.

That's a literary way to put it - ramifications is a wonderful word.

Absolutely siginificant. Blue eyes are a recurring symbol in Lawrence's works. Egbert is Nordic, from the north. Brown is from the south. Lawrence has associations with north and south. Remember the Mareshalls are from the north too but they come south to make their money.

Yes - the North/South differences in England. They are really pointed out in this story, or at least how Lawrence looked at them. I do think winifred is born in the South though - she has got brown eyes. It is George Marshall who is said to be from the North - we do not know where his wife is from and where the children were born. He might have waited to mary untill he had some money, he seems that kind of man. And with Winifred having brown eyes, I think genetically this means his wife should have brown eyes too. But maybe they did not know this back then? Or I am mistaken - very possible, for I was never interested that much in biology in High School. Wiki says that "any combination can occur". So there goes my theory :lol: http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/wikismiley.gif

Nice history lesson. I think Anglo-Saxon and Vikings are interchangable here - they are of Germanic origins. Egbert is a very old anglo-saxon name. Contrast that with the name "Marshall" which is French and has a military association.
I think you might be right there. I just thought it a bit queer, as the Saxons were "raided" by the Normans - 1066 is a year even we learned in high school (and we live at the other side of the Channel :p). To put those two in the same pot is a bit awkward... but then again they were both people from the (far) past, and Lawrence tries to make clear that it is an old, old place.
As for the names - I'll get back to that. I did some name-researching :p I'll point it out at the text where people indeed get a name - notice how Egbert is a "he" until the 6th paragraph.

Very pretty flowers and garden description. Lawrence is always great at that.
Agreed. I am still not sure whether the flowers are just flowers that grow in South England, or whether there is more behind it. Egbert does like his mulleins - a torchlike plant (flame + erect).
Go ahead Janine, you are free to roll your eyes at this http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/angel-1.gif :D

I'll be back...

More paragraphs of the chunck of the story posted by Janine


There was a sound of children's voices calling and talking: high, childish, girlish voices, slightly didactic and tinged with domineering: 'If you don't come quick, nurse, I shall run out there to where there are snakes.' And nobody had the sangfroid to reply: 'Run then, little fool.' It was always, 'No, darling. Very well, darling. In a moment, darling. Darling, you must be patient.'
Children playing in the garden :D This should be a wonderful picture, and the first part of the sentence seems to indicate that. But then we get some negative adjectives: didactic, domineering. And the children speak in a daring manner. :nod: They seem indeed to be the ones in control.

His heart was hard with disillusion: a continual gnawing and resistance. But he worked on. What was there to do but submit!
Still “his”, Egbert’s name is not named yet. And though we learn here that he’s disillusioned, we do not exactly know what in. In his children? In his own capabilities? In the garden?
“What was there to do but submit!” :rolleyes: I wish I knew the English translation of the Dutch word “lapswans” :biggrinjester:

The sunlight blazed down upon the earth, there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace of the commons. Strange how the savage England lingers in patches: as here, amid these shaggy gorse commons, and marshy, snake infested places near the foot of the south downs. The spirit of place lingering on primeval, as when the Saxons came, so long ago.
This paragraph is here for one reason and one reason only: to make it very clear that the location is a savage, primitive one! And though I am bound to say this is dangerous, the writer tells us there’s peace in the savageness – while in continuation he tells about the shaggy gorse, marsh and snake-infested places. I connect “peace” with safety, but that is not what these things imply :nonod:
Note also that “there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace”. I take it the flamy vegetation indicate the flowers Egbert is so determined to have his garden covered with ;) So the garden lies in “fierce seclusion” amidst these primitive surroundings – this paragraph seems to say it is NOT a part of it.
Flamy… Now what were flames a symbol of in Lawrence-land? :blush: I really should know this! I think it stands for prosperity in the sexual life. Something like that. :flare: :p

Ah, how he had loved it! The green garden path, the tufts of flowers, purple and white columbines, and great oriental red poppies with their black chaps and mulleins tall and yellow, this flamy garden which had been a garden for a thousand years, scooped out in the little hollow among the snake-infested commons. He had made it flame with flowers, in a sun cup under its hedges and trees. So old, so old a place! And yet he had re-created it.
We go back in time (still no name). The description of the place is more detailed now, with the names of the flowers so we can really get a picture of a flamy garden in our mind :D We learn it is an old place, it has been there for a thousand years. So it has been amidst these primitive commons (older) for quite a while – even before the Normans came :) But not before the Saxons came… So the garden might be created by Saxons.
“And yet he had re-created it”. This is a very important sentence in my eyes: it shows how Egbert is aware that he has changed something very, very old. He has mendled in something enduring. The sentence does NOT read “He had tried to re-create it” – no, he has done it, he has succeeded!
I am a bit confused about the word “re-created” though. For it seams to imply that he has created something which was already created once. So he has not made something new. Until now, I saw the flamy garden as something created by Egbert – the flames/flowers that is, not the garden. But if he re-created it, what was his example? Which other flamy garden did he copy?
Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?

The timbered cottage with its sloping, cloak-like roof was old and forgotten. It belonged to the old England of hamlets and yeomen. Lost all alone on the edge of the common, at the end of a wide, grassy, briar-entangled lane shaded with oak, it had never known the world of today. Not till Egbert came with his bride. And he had come to fill it with flowers.
Again the savageness versus the world of today. The cottage is old and forgotten, on the edge of the common – so almost swallowed into the common, into the savageness. Closer to the old days than the new. But the arrival of Egbert and his bride might make this different (“till”), for he “had come to fill it with flowers”.
Is there anybody else here who was reminded of Shakespeare when reading “hamlets”? I had to grab a dictionary to figure out what it means – funny how one ordinary word can be so connected to a character. :rofl: “Yeomen” did not ring a bell in any way, though apparently that word is mentioned in Hamlet (Act5, Scene 2, line 36) :p Here is the explanation from The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable:

Anciently, a forty-shilling freeholder, and as such qualified to vote and serve on juries, but not qualified to rank as one of the gentry. In more modern times it meant farmer who cultivated his own freehold. Later still, an upper farmer, tenant, or otherwise, is often called a yeoman.
Oh, and this is the paragraph where Egbert's name is finaly revealed :hurray:

NAMES
Virgil mentioned Egbert and Marshall:

Egbert is a very old anglo-saxon name. Contrast that with the name "Marshall" which is French and has a military association.
Janine mentioned Egbert:

Perhaps, he is an idealist, much like the author. Bye the way, Lawrence was known by Bert in his youthful years. See any connection?

Marshall

(A.S. mere = mare, scealc = servant; O.Fr. mareschal) Originally one who tended horses, either as a groom or farrier; now the title of high officials about the Court, in the armed forces etc.
This really fits Mr. Marshall: poor in the North (mabye even a servant), wealthy and influenceful in the South (in control).
I also noted something else, probably just a coincidence but it stuck in my head. :nod: Marshall = Marsh + all. So marshes all around ;)

Egbert
As Virgil said it is of Old English origin, and some googling learned me that it means as much as "bright sword" (beorht ecg). So there is brightness (flame) in his name, and an erect weapon :angel:
Apparently the name has been rarely used after the Norman conquest, but revived in the 19th century. So to me, this is rather a reference to the Saxons than the Vikings.
The meaning of the name must be important, as in the first version of the story, Egbert was called Evelyn. The origin of that name is a bit obscure, but from what I gather one of its meanings refers to Eve - not Adam, but Eve; the woman who was seduced by the snake and in turn seduced Adam. So the lead character had some feminine features in the early version! It is a commenly accepted male name though ;)

George
As George is Catholic, I searched for the meaning of St. George

St George has been the patron saint of England since about 1348. St. George had been popular in England from the time of the early Crusades (1089). He is the patron of soldiers and the war-cry of England was "St George!"
He was probably a Cappadocian who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian (303). The legend tells of him and a dragon. One version states that he was asked to come and subdue a dragon that infested a pond at Silene, Libya, and fed on the dwellers in the neighbourhood. He came, rescued a princess (Sabra) whom the dreagon was about to make his prey, and slew the monster after he had wounded it and the princess had led it home in triumph by her girdle.
St. George and the dragon! I should have thought of that before :) A well known legend :nod: Slaying a dragon (evil) comes pretty close to slaying a snake.
So, the name George fits Mr. Marshall neatly: very English, Catholic, and a fighter. George is not a military man, but he has a controlling side to him which could be connected to the military (giving commands).
Strangely enough, the name in itself is of Greek origin and means "farmer". He does not strike me as a farmer at all - rather a business man :nod:

Winifred
Being her father's daughter and a Catholic I also researched St. Winifred in the Dictionary of Phrase and Fabel. It states that St Winifred is the patron saint of virgins, because she was beheaded by Prince Caradoc for refusing to marry him. This makes sense if you see the changes Winifred goes trough in this story, especially after her daughter is hurt and she turns to the Catholic churge again.
The name Winifred in itself means "holy, blessed reconciliation; joy and peace". That sounds like the woman Egbert fell in love with :)

the other Marshall sisters
The name Priscilla has no saint connection. Her name means as much as "Ancient, Venerable". I do not know how to connect this to her living in a shed with white-blue check curtains :p.
Magdalen means "Woman from Magdala", and the most famous woman to be known as such is Mary Magdalen. In the bible, Mary Magdalen is a follower of Jezus, probably a prostitute. We find another reference to her later on in the story.

I think the sisters names are just names - but then again maybe all names are ;) When I want to look into something, find a deeper meaning, I usually succeed :rofl: No matter how I get there ;)
If the sisters names have no meaning, why are they named at all? The mother is not...

Looking into the names raises more questions than answers, does it not? :lol:

[Janine]

Amazing Sapphire; wish I wasn't going out soon so I could answer some of your questions. I think I know a few answers or can suggest things to you. Anyway, you are a real Lawrence detective....I think your ideas are very insightful. About the names, most likely you are correct or close. Winifred was a name that poppped up often in Lawrence's work. He must have had a connection in-mind. I certainly didn't pick up on the original name for Egbert being Evelyn, indicating Eve. That's a very interesting observance. Not sure if it's correct but it certainly does make for an interesting thought and connection to the Garden of Eden theory. Of course, we can't know all is certain since our Lawrence ghost has not yet shown up on the scene. Would it not be incredible if suddenly someone with the user name of Lawrence, showed up on this thread only! :lol:

More later to comment on....three posts by you....good work...and great information! I will have to read it a second time. You totally have me cativated. Glad you are getting deeply into the story. I like to see that sort of interest. Thanks for writing so much and researching so much, as well. It's very helpful and insightful.

[Virgil]

I have read the word "common" in quite a lot of books, and the word in itself does not reek of socialism. Well, except for the fact that it is "common propriety". :crazy: :lol: What I mean to say is this: the word was around before socialism was :nod:
Thank you for the insight in Lawrence's view on socialism/capitalism. I myself thought he migth be in favour of socialism, but with his amorism towards the primitive world I see how he did not really fall for it. I wonder what they had back in those days though... Survival of the fittest? They did stick in communities to stay strong against the primitive land around them, like Mr. Marshall has a small community there in Hampshire. I can see how you can read that in the word "common" :nod:
I guess that in the end everybody has to live somewhere, and the garden has to end at either a road, a brook or a common. In this case, it ends in a brook that has a common on its other edge.

Yes, I guess you're right. It's at the edge of their property. Perhaps it's only significance is that it's wild land rather than cultivated.


Yes, there are parts where he submits. But never fully, and that's the whole problem of it. For if he had taken a job, who knows how things whould have ended? Well, knowing Lawrence probably with an equally miserable Egbert, but it is a submission which he does not do. He IS a stubborn guy ;) Though Lawrence throws it all on breeding :p
I think it's a process toward submission for Egbert. And yes Lawrence was stubborn and never submitted. :D


That's a literary way to put it - ramifications is a wonderful word.
Thanks. :)


Yes - the North/South differences in England. They are really pointed out in this story, or at least how Lawrence looked at them. I do think winifred is born in the South though - she has got brown eyes. It is George Marshall who is said to be from the North - we do not know where his wife is from and where the children were born. He might have waited to mary untill he had some money, he seems that kind of man. And with Winifred having brown eyes, I think genetically this means his wife should have brown eyes too. But maybe they did not know this back then? Or I am mistaken - very possible, for I was never interested that much in biology in High School. Wiki says that "any combination can occur". So there goes my theory :lol: http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/wikismiley.gif
I don't think Lawrence was thinking genetics. I think the nordic blue eyes suggest a certain idealism while the brown symbolize common and practical.


I think you might be right there. I just thought it a bit queer, as the Saxons were "raided" by the Normans - 1066 is a year even we learned in high school (and we live at the other side of the Channel :p). To put those two in the same pot is a bit awkward... but then again they were both people from the (far) past, and Lawrence tries to make clear that it is an old, old place.
As for the names - I'll get back to that. I did some name-researching :p I'll point it out at the text where people indeed get a name - notice how Egbert is a "he" until the 6th paragraph
Yes, but the Normans ultimately won and established the South as more continental as opposed to the North as more nordic/saxon.


Agreed. I am still not sure whether the flowers are just flowers that grow in South England, or whether there is more behind it. Egbert does like his mulleins - a torchlike plant (flame + erect).
Go ahead Janine, you are free to roll your eyes at this http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/Smiley/angel-1.gif :D
:lol: Yes, flame comes up a few times. And the flowers are symbolic as the ideal being as in other Lawrence stories.


Still “his”, Egbert’s name is not named yet. And though we learn here that he’s disillusioned, we do not exactly know what in. In his children? In his own capabilities? In the garden?
“What was there to do but submit!” :rolleyes: I wish I knew the English translation of the Dutch word “lapswans” :biggrinjester:
Where does the story start? Is it at the beginning of the marriagfe or is it mid way and then Lawrence backtracks to the early marriage? That's sort of ambigous. I think that "what to do but submit" is coming from later in the time sequence of the story. He's already disillusioned here and ready to submit.


This paragraph is here for one reason and one reason only: to make it very clear that the location is a savage, primitive one! And though I am bound to say this is dangerous, the writer tells us there’s peace in the savageness – while in continuation he tells about the shaggy gorse, marsh and snake-infested places. I connect “peace” with safety, but that is not what these things imply :nonod:
Agreed. The snakes are there but there is peace with the savage beasts, edenic.


Note also that “there was a vividness of flamy vegetation, of fierce seclusion amid the savage peace”. I take it the flamy vegetation indicate the flowers Egbert is so determined to have his garden covered with ;) So the garden lies in “fierce seclusion” amidst these primitive surroundings – this paragraph seems to say it is NOT a part of it.
Flamy… Now what were flames a symbol of in Lawrence-land? :blush: I really should know this! I think it stands for prosperity in the sexual life. Something like that. :flare: :p
Yes, you're right in your blushing. That's what Lawrence is suggesting. And we get more of it later which I'm sure will be pointed out.


We go back in time (still no name). The description of the place is more detailed now, with the names of the flowers so we can really get a picture of a flamy garden in our mind :D We learn it is an old place, it has been there for a thousand years. So it has been amidst these primitive commons (older) for quite a while – even before the Normans came :) But not before the Saxons came… So the garden might be created by Saxons.
“And yet he had re-created it”. This is a very important sentence in my eyes: it shows how Egbert is aware that he has changed something very, very old. He has mendled in something enduring. The sentence does NOT read “He had tried to re-create it” – no, he has done it, he has succeeded!
I am a bit confused about the word “re-created” though. For it seams to imply that he has created something which was already created once. So he has not made something new. Until now, I saw the flamy garden as something created by Egbert – the flames/flowers that is, not the garden. But if he re-created it, what was his example? Which other flamy garden did he copy?
Not sure what to make of "re-create" either. Perhaps Janine can help here.


Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?
It does seem to have some special significance. I'm not sure either.


Again the savageness versus the world of today. The cottage is old and forgotten, on the edge of the common – so almost swallowed into the common, into the savageness. Closer to the old days than the new. But the arrival of Egbert and his bride might make this different (“till”), for he “had come to fill it with flowers”.
Is there anybody else here who was reminded of Shakespeare when reading “hamlets”? I had to grab a dictionary to figure out what it means – funny how one ordinary word can be so connected to a character. :rofl: “Yeomen” did not ring a bell in any way, though apparently that word is mentioned in Hamlet (Act5, Scene 2, line 36) :p Here is the explanation from The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase & Fable:
No I don't think it refers to the Shakespeare play. It means small village and very rural. It's a common English word you may not have come across yet.


ham·let (ham′lit)
noun
a very small village
Origin: ME hamelet < OFr (Anglo-Fr hamelete), dim. of hamel (Fr hameau), dim. of LowG hamm, enclosed area, akin to OE: for IE base see hem



Janine mentioned Egbert:
Good pick up Janine. I hadn't realized it.


Marshall

This really fits Mr. Marshall: poor in the North (mabye even a servant), wealthy and influenceful in the South (in control).
I also noted something else, probably just a coincidence but it stuck in my head. :nod: Marshall = Marsh + all. So marshes all around ;)
Oh yes, marsh. The setting is in a marshy place, isn't it?



Egbert
As Virgil said it is of Old English origin, and some googling learned me that it means as much as "bright sword" (beorht ecg). So there is brightness (flame) in his name, and an erect weapon :angel:
:lol: Yep! I'm sure Lawrence liked that.


Apparently the name has been rarely used after the Norman conquest, but revived in the 19th century. So to me, this is rather a reference to the Saxons than the Vikings.
The meaning of the name must be important, as in the first version of the story, Egbert was called Evelyn. The origin of that name is a bit obscure, but from what I gather one of its meanings refers to Eve - not Adam, but Eve; the woman who was seduced by the snake and in turn seduced Adam. So the lead character had some feminine features in the early version! It is a commenly accepted male name though ;)
Egbert is a very odd name to give a 20th century character. Surely Lawrence is picking it for a purpose. Thank God he changed his mind from Evelyn. :sick:



George
As George is Catholic, I searched for the meaning of St. George
Is his first name George? I have Godfrey in my edition:


Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the
ménage down at Crockham Cottage. He thought Egbert was wonderful, the
many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical
passion between the two young people.

May I ask what you guys think is the significance of the Roman Catholicism? It's very prominant in the story and it was not that common in England. Mostly Anglican protestants there and Lawrence grew up protestant. I don't know what to make of it but I do think it has significance, especially since Christian motifs run through the story. If this story was written in 1915, that would be before he went to live in Italy and encountered Catholics there. He came to think highly of Catholicism (not for any theological reasons but because i think he liked the mediterranian way of life) but that would be after he wrote this story. And i don't think he portrays the Catholicism in a positive way. So I'm not sure what he's saying with it.

[Sapphire]

Interesting post Virgil - I have to go now, so I can not answer thoroughly.

By this evening I'll at least have an answer to your last question (for I have 3 possible reasons in mind already) :D

EDIT (later this day):


I think it's a process toward submission for Egbert. And yes Lawrence was stubborn and never submitted.
:lol: I meant Egbert was stubborn, but I see what you mean :D

I don't think Lawrence was thinking genetics. I think the nordic blue eyes suggest a certain idealism while the brown symbolize common and practical.
Not genetics, just symbolism - got it.

Yes, but the Normans ultimately won and established the South as more continental as opposed to the North as more nordic/saxon.
:confused: or well, a little bit. I understand the history, but Egbert is the one with Viking eyes - if Norman, indeed from the South. You say he has "nordic" eyes, which would mean North... But then again, it would be symbolism and not genetics :D. And I bet there were enough Saxons with blue eyes :p.

And the flowers are symbolic as the ideal being as in other Lawrence stories.
All flowers? Does this mean one can say that Egbert was trying to turn himself into an (more) ideal being by planting a flowery garden? Himself and his wife - everybody who lived there...
If that is the case, it is a bit strange: he loves the old place, but he creates something new with the flamy flowers. Flowers which are not enduring. So apparently, enduring is not ideal.
Or flowers are like the phoenix, which is printed on the cover of my "England, My England" bundle: they disappear and reappear according to the seasons. Enduring in a certain way...
As you can see, I am a bit torn on this point :lol: Didn't Lawrence also like to think both ways?

I think that "what to do but submit" is coming from later in the time sequence of the story.
I agree. But while he sighs "what to do but submit", he hasn't submitted to the factor of "Work" yet. So he might submit in the upbringing of his children, but not yet in earning money. And after he sighs this way, there is the time when he behaves like Ishmael which is not submitting either. In the end, in joining the war, he does submit though. So maybe, it is not only a statement of what is happening, but also of things to come? He failed at being Ishmael and gave in eventually - after 11 years of marriage.

And we get more of it later which I'm sure will be pointed out.
I do not doubt it :smilielol5:


Egbert is a very odd name to give a 20th century character.
The name looked so familiar to me, and I figured out why :hurray: A well known coffee brand over here is "Douwe Egberts". So I have been looking at the name Egbert(s) all my life - that's why it did not seem that odd a name to me :rofl:

Is his first name George? I have Godfrey in my edition
:eek: I was talking about Albert instead of Alfred in the discussion of the story "the wintry Peacock" and now I go for George instead of Godfrey :banghead: I do not know how I could read that word wrong over and over! I thought it was George, looked back to check and sure enough it said George in my eyes. But now I see it is Godfrey! There are gremlins at work here - I am sure! :p

Lets look into Godfrey then. :nod: This name also has, quite obvious, religious connotattions. It is of Old German origin and means "God-peace" and can even be interpreted as "free man in service of god". It was a popular name among crusaders (medieval times). This is probably not only for its meaning, but also because of that famous crusader, Godfrey of Bouillon - a Frankish knight who was one of the leaders of the first crusade, and the first ruler in Jerusalem. There are some Saints with the surname Godfrey, and the St Godfrey I found was somebody who took care of the poor and the sick - don't all saints? It surely fits Mr Marshall though, with his Roman Catholic religion, love for giving money away and will to "fix" Joyce.


May I ask what you guys think is the significance of the Roman Catholicism? It's very prominant in the story and it was not that common in England. Mostly Anglican protestants there and Lawrence grew up protestant. I don't know what to make of it but I do think it has significance, especially since Christian motifs run through the story. If this story was written in 1915, that would be before he went to live in Italy and encountered Catholics there. He came to think highly of Catholicism (not for any theological reasons but because i think he liked the mediterranian way of life) but that would be after he wrote this story. And i don't think he portrays the Catholicism in a positive way. So I'm not sure what he's saying with it.
Thank you for pointing this out. It did not surprise me that much, as I had the Dutch religious life in my mind: Catholics in the South, Protestants in the North and a Protestant Queen. As I'm from the North, I see the Netherlands as a Protestant country (calvinism), but the further South you go the more Catholics you'll find and when you look at the Netherlands as a whole the percentages are almost the same.
But that is current times and an other country :p I have tried to find statistics about Catholics in England around 1915, but I could not find exactly what I was looking for. You say that there are mostly Anglican protestants in England, but the Church of England (Anglican) is a special one. From what I gather, it is a mix of the Catholic and Protestant faith, with local differences regarding how much Catholicism and Protestantism. :crazy: Religion is such a hard thing to put your finger on!
All in all, I think I can make 3 points in favour of Lawrence using the Roman Catholic faith in this story.

1. Real Life
The Marshall family is based on the Meynell family, which was Roman Catholic. About the mother of the family, the poet/writer Alice Meynell (formerly Thompson), I found the following:

One of the most important events of Alice's early life took place on 20 July, 1868, when Father Augustus Dignam received her into the Catholic Church. Of no less moment than her religious commitment was her passionate attachment to the handsome, intellectual priest; this entirely hopeless love gave rise to some of her most moving poetry, including "After a Parting" and the justly famous "Renouncement." Alice and Father Dignam corresponded for two years, after which their contact became only occasional.
So the mother was definitely Catholic, and on wikipedia we read that the father was too:

After Alice was born, the entire Thompson family converted to the Roman Catholic Church (1868 to 1880), and her writings migrated to subjects of religious matters. This eventually led her to the Catholic newspaper publisher and editor Wilfrid Meynell (1852 - 1948) in 1876.
So Lawrence had been in contact with the Roman Catholic Church before he moved to Italy - and it might well be that his first thorough encounter with it was while living in a cottage of the Meynell family.

2. Catholism in England/UK
Though Anglicism is the leading church of England, Catholism has always stood next to it. Especially with the Roman Catholic Ireland just around the corner. I read in a Google Book about religion in the UK in the 20th century (by Callum G Brown), that the Roman Catholic Church was strongest in the north-west, closest to the ports of Irish disembarkation, and in London. The same book also says that Roman Catholic diocesan hierarchies were re-established in England and Wales in 1850 following an influx of Irish Catholics fleeing the Great Irish Famine. And due to this Irish migration, Catholism had an uprise at the beginning of the 20th century. The one statistic (http://www.drgareth.info/CathStat.pdf) I found, states that in 1915 around 5% of the English were Catholic. This is little if the other 95% was protestant, but I have found no statistics which say anything about that - very frustrating :p. If 5% was Catholic though, it is not that strange a thing to write about a catholic character.

English Catholicism retained its renewed strength throughout the first half of the twentieth century, when it was associated primarily with elements in the English intellectual class and the ethnic Irish population.

3. Symbolism of (using) this religion
As we have pointed out, Lawrence puts great importance on the primitiveness (gr?) of the place. It is the same as when the Saxons came, before the Romans came. Before the Roman Catholics came. England might be Anglician now, but it started all with the first Christian religion: Roman Catholicism. Though the Church of England traces its steps back towards 600 AD, the church was under papal reign untill 1543. So I am bound to say it was Roman Catholic back then. But in 1543 king Henry the VIII wanted a divorce so the whole country changed religion :rofl: Later on, more and more protestant influences came into the church.
It is the religion from the Middle Ages - it is the oldest Christian religion in England, the one that overtook the pagans. From South to North. With the Marshall family being Roman Catholic, one might say that they're doing it again by taking over the Hampshire-land Mr. Marshall has bought.
Apart from its historic value, it is also a religion in which hierarchy is quite important. It is a religion which (protestants) look at as domineering - you do not read the script, you just do as the priest tells you. I am not saying this is the case (or that this wasn't the case with protestant preachers), but it might be how Lawrence looked at it in those days. Mr Marshall rules his family as the Roman Catholic faith ruled him.
Next to this, there is the rich tradition of symbolism within the Roman Catholic Church. Think for example of all the saints and their symbols. Much of the Christian symbolism, is not just Christian but mainly Roman Catholic - the churches are filled with it. And think of the Maria-worship, especially Maria as Mater Dolorosa (later on in this story).
I do not know how much of this is still apparent in the Church of England. I think Lawrence could have used the same symbolism if the Marhall family was of a different religion, as the symbols are embedded in the history of arts. But this way, he stays closer to the core.

[grace86]

Somehow I am always at work when I am posting, so I don't have time to read all of the comments, but I am halfway through the story so I'll just offer some thoughts. Keep in mind I got to the point where Lawrence is explaining that the great war is starting and Lawrence is not fit for it anymore than a rose can be aggressive in and of it's rosiness...

Again, one of my favorite things about Lawrence is how he is able to communicate the relationship between men and women and how they work psychologically, emotionally - and to ring the ever present gong on Lawrence discussions - yes even sexually. It's like he ties all of these together. What interests me the most so far is how Winifred even before Joyce got injured, started transferring her faith in Egbert over to her father - but it seems like she never viewed (up til now that is) Egbert as more than a youthful and lustful plaything - a husband. She married him knowing who he was and comes to resent the fact that he won't work for work's sake. For the sake of the story, it seems like we're supposed to be inclined to take Winifred as an antagonistic character (antagonistic may be a strong word) and that Egbert is the story's hero. But I've yet to see how the whole thing turns out.

Reading into the Catholic theme is important, but it's kind of disruptive for me. Winifred dives into this almost it seems like she's clinging to a bigger authority. She looked to her father for authority and stability, and not her husband, but it's interesting that she doesn't lean then on God the FATHER but rather the institution of the Church.

From a Christian, non-Catholic perspective though it is odd to see how she cuts herself emotionally and bodily from her husband, feeling that just by looking at him that she is "damned"...because the husband and the wife are supposed to be a gift one unto another - but that's just a side note perspective. She's punishing Egbert and they're becoming strangers.

Guess my thoughts are pretty incomplete because I still have to finish...just wanted to let you know my light bulb is on over here. Great story Janine! Glad to get back to Lawrence.

[Virgil]

:confused: or well, a little bit. I understand the history, but Egbert is the one with Viking eyes - if Norman, indeed from the South. You say he has "nordic" eyes, which would mean North... But then again, it would be symbolism and not genetics :D. And I bet there were enough Saxons with blue eyes :p.

Egbert would be associated with the Vikings/Saxons who lost to the Normans from the south.


All flowers? Does this mean one can say that Egbert was trying to turn himself into an (more) ideal being by planting a flowery garden? Himself and his wife - everybody who lived there...
No not turning into a flower. It's Lawrence's way of bringing flowers into the story. Plus it creates the Eden.


If that is the case, it is a bit strange: he loves the old place, but he creates something new with the flamy flowers. Flowers which are not enduring. So apparently, enduring is not ideal.
Or flowers are like the phoenix, which is printed on the cover of my "England, My England" bundle: they disappear and reappear according to the seasons. Enduring in a certain way...
Great point about the flamy flowers being like the phoenix. I don't know if by 1915 Lawrence had come to associate with the phoenix yet, but it's here in the flaming flowers.


As you can see, I am a bit torn on this point :lol: Didn't Lawrence also like to think both ways?
:p I think we can get overly wrapped up in symbols. First priority is the story. :)


I agree. But while he sighs "what to do but submit", he hasn't submitted to the factor of "Work" yet. So he might submit in the upbringing of his children, but not yet in earning money. And after he sighs this way, there is the time when he behaves like Ishmael which is not submitting either. In the end, in joining the war, he does submit though. So maybe, it is not only a statement of what is happening, but also of things to come? He failed at being Ishmael and gave in eventually - after 11 years of marriage.
Yes, I agree with all that.


Lets look into Godfrey then. :nod: This name also has, quite obvious, religious connotattions. It is of Old German origin and means "God-peace" and can even be interpreted as "free man in service of god". It was a popular name among crusaders (medieval times). This is probably not only for its meaning, but also because of that famous crusader, Godfrey of Bouillon - a Frankish knight who was one of the leaders of the first crusade, and the first ruler in Jerusalem. There are some Saints with the surname Godfrey, and the St Godfrey I found was somebody who took care of the poor and the sick - don't all saints? It surely fits Mr Marshall though, with his Roman Catholic religion, love for giving money away and will to "fix" Joyce.
He is God-like in the story. The name fits, and Frankish is close to the Normans. :eek:


Thank you for pointing this out. It did not surprise me that much, as I had the Dutch religious life in my mind: Catholics in the South, Protestants in the North and a Protestant Queen. As I'm from the North, I see the Netherlands as a Protestant country (calvinism), but the further South you go the more Catholics you'll find and when you look at the Netherlands as a whole the percentages are almost the same.
I didn't realize Holland was half Catholic. I thought it was all Protestant. That's interesting to know. :)


But that is current times and an other country :p I have tried to find statistics about Catholics in England around 1915, but I could not find exactly what I was looking for. You say that there are mostly Anglican protestants in England, but the Church of England (Anglican) is a special one. From what I gather, it is a mix of the Catholic and Protestant faith, with local differences regarding how much Catholicism and Protestantism. :crazy: Religion is such a hard thing to put your finger on!
All in all, I think I can make 3 points in favour of Lawrence using the Roman Catholic faith in this story.
Well, Anglican is the closest to Catholicism of all the Protestant denominations. In fact high Church Anglican is theologically indistinguishable from Catholicism; the only difference is the higharchy to the Pope. All three of your points are excellent by the way.


1. Real Life
The Marshall family is based on the Meynell family, which was Roman Catholic. About the mother of the family, the poet/writer Alice Meynell (formerly Thompson), I found the following:

So the mother was definitely Catholic, and on wikipedia we read that the father was too:

So Lawrence had been in contact with the Roman Catholic Church before he moved to Italy - and it might well be that his first thorough encounter with it was while living in a cottage of the Meynell family.
I didn't realize that the family was modeled after a real life one. Did Janine provide that background earlier and I missed it? Perhaps that's a hole in my knowledge of Lawrence's biography. I had not thought he had come in contact with Catholicism until he went to Italy. I don't recall him mentioning it in any story prior to his travels abroad.


2. Catholism in England/UK
Though Anglicism is the leading church of England, Catholism has always stood next to it. Especially with the Roman Catholic Ireland just around the corner. I read in a Google Book about religion in the UK in the 20th century (by Callum G Brown), that the Roman Catholic Church was strongest in the north-west, closest to the ports of Irish disembarkation, and in London. The same book also says that Roman Catholic diocesan hierarchies were re-established in England and Wales in 1850 following an influx of Irish Catholics fleeing the Great Irish Famine. And due to this Irish migration, Catholism had an uprise at the beginning of the 20th century. The one statistic (http://www.drgareth.info/CathStat.pdf) I found, states that in 1915 around 5% of the English were Catholic. This is little if the other 95% was protestant, but I have found no statistics which say anything about that - very frustrating :p. If 5% was Catholic though, it is not that strange a thing to write about a catholic character.
Yes, and since the middle of the 19th century there has been a lot of conversion from Anglican to Catholicism in England, and it continues today.


3. Symbolism of (using) this religion
As we have pointed out, Lawrence puts great importance on the primitiveness (gr?) of the place. It is the same as when the Saxons came, before the Romans came. Before the Roman Catholics came. England might be Anglician now, but it started all with the first Christian religion: Roman Catholicism. Though the Church of England traces its steps back towards 600 AD, the church was under papal reign untill 1543. So I am bound to say it was Roman Catholic back then. But in 1543 king Henry the VIII wanted a divorce so the whole country changed religion :rofl: Later on, more and more protestant influences came into the church.
It is the religion from the Middle Ages - it is the oldest Christian religion in England, the one that overtook the pagans. From South to North. With the Marshall family being Roman Catholic, one might say that they're doing it again by taking over the Hampshire-land Mr. Marshall has bought.
Apart from its historic value, it is also a religion in which hierarchy is quite important. It is a religion which (protestants) look at as domineering - you do not read the script, you just do as the priest tells you. I am not saying this is the case (or that this wasn't the case with protestant preachers), but it might be how Lawrence looked at it in those days. Mr Marshall rules his family as the Roman Catholic faith ruled him.
Next to this, there is the rich tradition of symbolism within the Roman Catholic Church. Think for example of all the saints and their symbols. Much of the Christian symbolism, is not just Christian but mainly Roman Catholic - the churches are filled with it. And think of the Maria-worship, especially Maria as Mater Dolorosa (later on in this story).
I think this is right. I think it suggests the traditions and people from the south converting from the Viking paganism. Egbert is not suggestive of Protestanism but of a pre-Christian paganism.


I do not know how much of this is still apparent in the Church of England. I think Lawrence could have used the same symbolism if the Marhall family was of a different religion, as the symbols are embedded in the history of arts. But this way, he stays closer to the core.
I guess he could have, but I think Lawrence's point is to show that the old Germanic/Viking paganism was a sort of Eden and disolved by the new Christianity that came into England. Remember, this story is called "England, My England" and i think the story is a sort of analogous microcosm of English history as Lawrence sees it.

[Virgil]

Somehow I am always at work when I am posting, so I don't have time to read all of the comments, but I am halfway through the story so I'll just offer some thoughts. Keep in mind I got to the point where Lawrence is explaining that the great war is starting and Lawrence is not fit for it anymore than a rose can be aggressive in and of it's rosiness...

No problem Gracie. You're almost done. :)


Again, one of my favorite things about Lawrence is how he is able to communicate the relationship between men and women and how they work psychologically, emotionally - and to ring the ever present gong on Lawrence discussions - yes even sexually. It's like he ties all of these together.
He really is great at that. I don't think there is anyone better.


What interests me the most so far is how Winifred even before Joyce got injured, started transferring her faith in Egbert over to her father - but it seems like she never viewed (up til now that is) Egbert as more than a youthful and lustful plaything - a husband. She married him knowing who he was and comes to resent the fact that he won't work for work's sake. For the sake of the story, it seems like we're supposed to be inclined to take Winifred as an antagonistic character (antagonistic may be a strong word) and that Egbert is the story's hero. But I've yet to see how the whole thing turns out.
Yes, we'll get to how the shift in power goes to Winifred's father. Janine has a very methodical way of going through the story. Only sections at a time. :lol:


Reading into the Catholic theme is important, but it's kind of disruptive for me. Winifred dives into this almost it seems like she's clinging to a bigger authority. She looked to her father for authority and stability, and not her husband, but it's interesting that she doesn't lean then on God the FATHER but rather the institution of the Church.
Yes, I think we're distracted with the Catholicism. I think Lawrence is after Christianity in general and he picks Catholicism for historical purposes because it was the first Christianity on England.


From a Christian, non-Catholic perspective though it is odd to see how she cuts herself emotionally and bodily from her husband, feeling that just by looking at him that she is "damned"...because the husband and the wife are supposed to be a gift one unto another - but that's just a side note perspective. She's punishing Egbert and they're becoming strangers.
People evolve in marriages. It's not always ideal. :wink5:


Guess my thoughts are pretty incomplete because I still have to finish...just wanted to let you know my light bulb is on over here. Great story Janine! Glad to get back to Lawrence.
You're almost done. Finish up and reply to our comments. :)

[grace86]

Thanks Virgil, I'll get right on that!! Though...you guys can be quite intimidating...writing commentary that's novel size for a short story!! ;) I got some catching up to do!

[Sapphire]

Grace86
I can imagine it is a bit intimidating - if you have ideas to keep it more brief, I hold myself recommended. I write commentary as some sort of stream of consciousness :lol: And when 3 posts gets merged into one it does start to look like a novel :nod: I myself try to make clear (sub)titles within my posts to keep it all readable... Do let me know whether this is the case or not :)
I am glad you're joining in :hurray:

I totally agree on what you have to say about Lawrence writing abilities regarding the relationship between men and women.

What interests me the most so far is how Winifred even before Joyce got injured, started transferring her faith in Egbert over to her father - but it seems like she never viewed (up til now that is) Egbert as more than a youthful and lustful plaything - a husband. She married him knowing who he was and comes to resent the fact that he won't work for work's sake.
Are you sure about that last statement? For in the part we're discussing now, we find the line "Of course in time he would make money in these things". I'm not sure whether this is something which Winifred thought to happen when she married him, or whether this is something which Egbert also thought he was going to do. It is not quite clear who says it. I think it is more a general saying: what everybody expected to happen, until Egbert got obstinate :p. And the more Winifred trusts on her dad, the less inclined Egbert is to make an effort :banghead:

Reading into the Catholic theme is important, but it's kind of disruptive for me. Winifred dives into this almost it seems like she's clinging to a bigger authority. She looked to her father for authority and stability, and not her husband, but it's interesting that she doesn't lean then on God the FATHER but rather the institution of the Church.
She already has that strong father figure in her life. Maybe God as a Father would colide with that? So she falls for the institution, the hierarchy, the dominance - the "being told what to do".

For the sake of the story, it seems like we're supposed to be inclined to take Winifred as an antagonistic character (antagonistic may be a strong word) and that Egbert is the story's hero.
Maybe for the theme of the story... but the narrator tries just as hard to explain Egbert point of view as he tries to explain Winifred. Surely they become each others opponents, but both persons are described in a sympathic manner. There's judgement on Winifred's behaviour, but so is there on Egbert's. I am not sure who the hero is :lol: To me it is rather a myth which tries to explain something, than a story about morals...

@Virgil
Thank you for your thorough answer to my post: I have nothing more to add :D. Well, to this part that is :smilielol5: I especially like your idea of the story being

analogous microcosm of English history as Lawrence sees it
As for the background information: I mentioned it in this post: #3165 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934332&postcount=3165) under the header "Relation to real life". This story follows real life creepingly close... I can imagine the Meynells weren't happy about it.

Commentary on the last part of the chunck of text Janine posted in post #3173 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=935101&postcount=3173)

The house was ancient and very uncomfortable. But he did not want to alter it. Ah, marvelous to sit there in the wide, black, time-old chimney, at night when the wind roared overhead, and the wood which he had chopped himself sputtered on the hearth! Himself on one side the angle, and Winifred on the other.
So the garden is his project, but NOT the house – no alternations there :nonod:
I wonder whether there is a little mistake in the last sentence: “on one side the angle”. Shouldn’t that be “on one side of the angle”? Though even this is an odd way to put it, I can see this: Egbert on one side of the chimney, Winifred on a side 90 degrees from his – nice and cosy ;)

Ah, how he had wanted her: Winifred! She was young and beautiful and strong with life, like a flame in sunshine. She moved with a slow grace of energy like a blossoming, red-flowered bush in motion. She, too, seemed to come out of the old England, ruddy, strong, with a certain crude, passionate quiescence and a hawthorn robustness. And he, he was tall and slim and agile, like an English archer with his long supple legs and fine movements. Her hair was nut-brown and all in energic curls and tendrils. Her eyes were nut-brown, too, like a robin's for brightness. And he was white-skinned with fine, silky hair that had darkened from fair, and a slightly arched nose of an old country family. They were a beautiful couple.
He had loved the house/place, and probably also Winifred – but what he says/thinks here is “want”. So it is more important to possess the girl than the house? Well, the house came with the girl … at least he did not take the girl for her house!
Winifred is described in wonderful adjectives. She’s compared to a flame and to blossoming, red-flowered bush – so flames and flowers again. Notice the “too” and “seemed” when she is connected to the old England. I think the “too” means both Winifred and the cottage, not both Winifred and Egbert. For though the cottage is firmly connected to old England, Egbert has only been connected to Vikings – and as far as I know they’re from Scandinavia :p. Later in the paragraph his nose is said to be from an “old country family” though :crazy: But this is later…
Winifred is the brown-eyed, South, robust and energic (but quiescence) girl while Egbert is the fair (though dark now), agile, archer-like boy. When I read this, he seemed to me the more dreamy one :D He was daydreaming at the moment, wasn’t he? :p
“They were a beautiful couple”. I can not decide whether this is purely on the outside (aesthetic), or also in a more compatible way. Egbert’s description is mainly in his appearance, but Winifred’s is also her character, or at least the impression she gives: “slow grace of energy”, “crude, passionate quiescence”.

The house was Winifred's. Her father was a man of energy, too. He had come from the north poor. Now he was moderately rich. He had bought this fair stretch of inexpensive land, down in Hampshire. Not far from the tiny church of the almost extinct hamlet stood his own house, a commodious old farmhouse standing back from the road across a bare grassed yard. On one side of this quadrangle was the long, long barn or shed which he had made into a cottage for his youngest daughter Priscilla. One saw little blue-and-white check curtains at the long windows, and inside, overhead, the grand old timbers of the high-pitched shed. This was Prissy's house. Fifty yards away was the pretty little new cottage which he had built for his daughter Magdalen, with the vegetable garden stretching away to the oak copse. And then away beyond the lawns and rose trees of the house-garden went the track across a shaggy, wild grass space, towards the ridge of tall black pines that grew on a dyke-bank, through the pines and above the sloping little bog, under the wide, desolate oak trees, till there was Winifred's cottage crouching unexpectedly in front, so much alone, and so primitive.
Again, a very detailed description of the place. So detailed, that I thought I could make a map. I thought wrong – I miss indications of distances and directions to really figure it out. Here’s what I think it might have looked like, but I am not sure at all of the location of Crockham Cottage. I made it into a link, as a picture in here would have exploded the thread :p {link} (http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/LitNet/Hampshirecottages.jpg) I hope it fits a bit with your ideas of the place: it was hard to puzzle it together. :D
Note how Mr. Marshall’s commodious house stands near a church. How Priscilla lives in a shed. How Magdalen has a new cottage near the vegetable garden. How Winifred’s cottage is so primitive.
Does anybody have an idea what the houses say about Priscilla and Magdalen? I can place Mr. Marshall’s commodious house, and Winifred’s primitive one – but why do we learn what kind of house the other sisters have. It has to say something about their personality, does it not? Why else would Lawrence point it out… maybe just to give us a feel for the surroundings: those cottages weren’t as dark (long window’s in Prissy’s) and primitive as Winifred’s?
Also, this is the paragraph where we’re told that Mr Marshall came from the north poor. So he made his fortune in the south.

It was Winifred's own house, and the gardens and the bit of common and the boggy slope were hers: her tiny domain. She had married just at the time when her father had bought the estate, about ten years before the war, so she had been able to come to Egbert with this for a marriage portion. And who was more delighted, he or she, it would be hard to say. She was only twenty at the time, and he was only twenty-one. He had about a hundred and fifty pounds a year of his own--and nothing else but his very considerable personal attractions. He had no profession: he earned nothing. But he talked of literature and music, he had a passion for old folk-music, collecting folk-songs and folk-dances, studying the Morris-dance and the old customs. Of course in time he would make money in these ways.
Here is stated very clearly that it is Winifred’s own house, as also in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. But already in the next sentence, we are reminded of the fact that it is her father who bought it (as in the previous paragraph) – and gave it to her.
Then it is mentioned that both were delighted. Egbert had two reasons to be happy: he loved the place, and he got the woman he wanted – because of the house given to them, they could marry. For I do not know a lot about the finances in those days, but 150 pounds a year does not sound like enough to live from with 2 people :frown5:.
The last line, I am not sure who says/thinks that. Until now, everything is told as Egbert could look at it. But that last sentence does not sound like him. Did he really had the intention, early on in the marriage, to make money by his hobbies? It sounds more like something the Marshalls would have thought/said and Egbert failed to deny.
Morris-dances… According to the commentary “Lawrence, War and Nation” this hobby of Egbert was added in the 1922 version – or at least this version points it out more clearly. Apparently, it is a type of folk-art: dance is art and the Morris-dances are folk-dances. Funny fact: Lawrence was asked once to enlist into a sword-dance team :rofl: :hurray: The folk-dances had a revival in England in those days, just after/during the war. People searched for their identity, and this was one “answer”.

A grotesque dance, popular in England in the 15th century and later, in which the dancers usually represented characters from the Robin Hood series. It was brought from Spain in the reign of Edward III, and was originally a military dance of the Moors, or Moriscos – hence its name.
I only ever heard of Morris-dances once before in this story: they’re made fun of in Terry Pratchet’s books (http://morrisdancing.wikia.com/wiki/Terry_Pratchett_and_the_morris) :smilielol5:
Notice further how the "common" is Winifreds! That blows the whole theory away which we had about that word :rofl:

[Janine]

Fantastic! Don't think I am not here. I have read every word and enjoyed all the ideas. Don't get overwhelmed Grace. You always add insightful things to the story. I have purposely held back for this first part to let you all get talking without too much confusion. But my presense is very much here. I am enjoying all the commentary and Sapphire I really appreciate all your intense research. You may write a book but at least you don't speak idly and you think before you make a comment. Good job all!

This is rather hysterical - I have been hunting for the new poster Story....now I see you are merely quoting from the story! :lol: silly me ROFLOL

[Virgil]

@Virgil
Thank you for your thorough answer to my post: I have nothing more to add :D. Well, to this part that is :smilielol5: I especially like your idea of the story being

You're welcome, and Sapphire, you are just too charming. :)


As for the background information: I mentioned it in this post: #3165 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934332&postcount=3165) under the header "Relation to real life". This story follows real life creepingly close... I can imagine the Meynells weren't happy about it.

Commentary on the last part of the chunck of text Janine posted in post #3173 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=935101&postcount=3173)
How lazy of me not to have read back. I apologize. :blush: That was excellent research Sapphire and very pertinent and enlightening to the story.


I wonder whether there is a little mistake in the last sentence: “on one side the angle”. Shouldn’t that be “on one side of the angle”? Though even this is an odd way to put it, I can see this: Egbert on one side of the chimney, Winifred on a side 90 degrees from his – nice and cosy ;)
That is oddly written. I wonder myself.


He had loved the house/place, and probably also Winifred – but what he says/thinks here is “want”. So it is more important to possess the girl than the house? Well, the house came with the girl … at least he did not take the girl for her house!
Winifred is described in wonderful adjectives. She’s compared to a flame and to blossoming, red-flowered bush – so flames and flowers again. Notice the “too” and “seemed” when she is connected to the old England. I think the “too” means both Winifred and the cottage, not both Winifred and Egbert. For though the cottage is firmly connected to old England, Egbert has only been connected to Vikings – and as far as I know they’re from Scandinavia :p. Later in the paragraph his nose is said to be from an “old country family” though :crazy: But this is later…
Yes, flame and old England are very important. Also, look at this:


And he, he was tall and slim and agile, like an English archer with his long supple legs and fine movements.
Notice how he repeats "he." "And he, he was tall and slim..." This repetition of words happens so frequently throughout the story. I'll point it out as we go along. It's all over the place and it's not necessarilly a writing quirk for Lawrence. He doesn't do this elsewhere, at least not much. And this was rewritten in 1922 (I think you said) and Lawrnce had become a fine stylist by then. This repetition is not something that makes the prose richer; actually it's usually frowned upon. But given that Lawrence does this so frequently throughout the story, I have to think he's trying to make a point with it. Notice too that the title, "England, My England" repeats a word. Just notice this as we go forward.


Winifred is the brown-eyed, South, robust and energic (but quiescence) girl while Egbert is the fair (though dark now), agile, archer-like boy. When I read this, he seemed to me the more dreamy one :D He was daydreaming at the moment, wasn’t he? :p
“They were a beautiful couple”. I can not decide whether this is purely on the outside (aesthetic), or also in a more compatible way. Egbert’s description is mainly in his appearance, but Winifred’s is also her character, or at least the impression she gives: “slow grace of energy”, “crude, passionate quiescence”.


Again, a very detailed description of the place. So detailed, that I thought I could make a map. I thought wrong – I miss indications of distances and directions to really figure it out. Here’s what I think it might have looked like, but I am not sure at all of the location of Crockham Cottage. I made it into a link, as a picture in here would have exploded the thread :p {link} (http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/PicturesToLinkTo/LitNet/Hampshirecottages.jpg) I hope it fits a bit with your ideas of the place: it was hard to puzzle it together. :D
Ha! What a great sketch. I love it. :D


Note how Mr. Marshall’s commodious house stands near a church. How Priscilla lives in a shed. How Magdalen has a new cottage near the vegetable garden. How Winifred’s cottage is so primitive.
I would never have really picked that up without your sketch. :)


Does anybody have an idea what the houses say about Priscilla and Magdalen? I can place Mr. Marshall’s commodious house, and Winifred’s primitive one – but why do we learn what kind of house the other sisters have. It has to say something about their personality, does it not? Why else would Lawrence point it out… maybe just to give us a feel for the surroundings: those cottages weren’t as dark (long window’s in Prissy’s) and primitive as Winifred’s?
I think those are just incidental details to provide verisimiltude. Perhaps only Godfrey's house next to the church has significance. I bet Lawrence had a particular real life place in mind and noted the details.


Here is stated very clearly that it is Winifred’s own house, as also in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. But already in the next sentence, we are reminded of the fact that it is her father who bought it (as in the previous paragraph) – and gave it to her.
Rich daddy providses everything. :D


Then it is mentioned that both were delighted. Egbert had two reasons to be happy: he loved the place, and he got the woman he wanted – because of the house given to them, they could marry. For I do not know a lot about the finances in those days, but 150 pounds a year does not sound like enough to live from with 2 people :frown5:.
Actually I think that's not bad. I think it would be considered better than average.


The last line, I am not sure who says/thinks that. Until now, everything is told as Egbert could look at it. But that last sentence does not sound like him. Did he really had the intention, early on in the marriage, to make money by his hobbies? It sounds more like something the Marshalls would have thought/said and Egbert failed to deny.
I took that as a common thought throughout the family. Not sure if he really believed it, but that's how he protrayed it to the family.


I only ever heard of Morris-dances once before in this story
I had never heard of them either. thanks. Here's a youtube video of morris dancing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao.


Notice further how the "common" is Winifreds! That blows the whole theory away which we had about that word :rofl:
well, that's what makes me wonder if I'm missing some nuance with the notion of commons. But we'll never know. :)

[Janine]

Sapphire, I love your little map. When we were reading "Women in Love" on this forum I came up with a map of the area...and actual place Lawrence fashioned the story from. No doubt Virgil is right in saying that most likely this place was a real location to Lawrence. It's amazing how well you depicted it in your sketch. Now I can picture it better. Thanks so much for making that extra effort.

You guys are great. I have been reading along and need to reread the first part in order to apply your interpretations to the text. Interesting discussion so far.

[Sapphire]

:eek: Friday the 13th - everybody be aware! :p

@Janine
I thought you would be reading along :) It is a lot to absorb, isn't it? I have the luxery that I can read the posts in the morning and then answer in the late-midday. :D There are some benefits in different timezones :smilielol5:
I wonder whether you'd be searching for Lawrence if I would use him as "quoted" instead of Story :lol:
BTW, did you catch the one thing Virgil and I can not get our heads around? I mentioned it in post #3183

“And yet he had re-created it”. This is a very important sentence in my eyes: it shows how Egbert is aware that he has changed something very, very old. He has mendled in something enduring. The sentence does NOT read “He had tried to re-create it” – no, he has done it, he has succeeded!
I am a bit confused about the word “re-created” though. For it seams to imply that he has created something which was already created once. So he has not made something new. Until now, I saw the flamy garden as something created by Egbert – the flames/flowers that is, not the garden. But if he re-created it, what was his example? Which other flamy garden did he copy? Or do I misunderstand the word “re-create”, and does it simply indicate that he changed the (enduring) garden to his wishes?


Not sure what to make of "re-create" either. Perhaps Janine can help here. It does seem to have some special significance. I'm not sure either.

@Virgil

You're welcome, and Sapphire, you are just too charming.
I know I said I had nothing more to add Virgil, but there is one more point I'd like to make about the eyes - I think we're confusing "nordic" with "North".
In post #3180 you say

Blue eyes are a recurring symbol in Lawrence's works. Egbert is Nordic, from the north. Brown is from the south. Lawrence has associations with north and south. Remember the Mareshalls are from the north too but they come south to make their money.
But Egbert is NOT from the north. He's the ultimite southener, the higher being (in Winifred eyes, see last paragraph story untill now).
Then in post #3185, after I've been rambling about eye colours and genetics, you mention

I don't think Lawrence was thinking genetics. I think the nordic blue eyes suggest a certain idealism while the brown symbolize common and practical.
I think you hit the jackpot there: no connection to North or South, but rather to character. Though with Lawrence such is connected to North and South England ;) It is Godfrey who is from the North, and his daughter is quite like him. It is Egbert, the dreamer, the blue eyed, who's from the South. So his eyes might be nordic, but he is from the South. You connect Vikings to Saxons, but the Vikings are also the Normans. :crazy: Maybe even more so. They sure got around ;)


That was excellent research Sapphire and very pertinent and enlightening to the story.
Thank you. It was very interesting to try and figure it all out :)

This repetition of words happens so frequently throughout the story.
Yes, I noticed that. To be honest, I did have the thought "why on earth does he keep on repeating? He did rewrite this, did he not? Then why on earth does he make the mistake to keep on repeating himself" :blush: Now you connect it with the title and claim it is a motive within the story, it suddenly makes sense :blush: I should have known he would not make a mistake like that :banghead:

I would never have really picked that up without your sketch.
Funny, to me this really stood out. :lol:

I think those are just incidental details to provide verisimiltude. Perhaps only Godfrey's house next to the church has significance. I bet Lawrence had a particular real life place in mind and noted the details.
Agreed, and I've tried to find some pictures of the cottages the Meynell's had - but I cannot find those on the internet. I guess the family does not really want to be connected to this story, so they will not be eager to attract tourists who want to see the place "for real".
BTW, what a wonderful word: verisimiltude. :D

Rich daddy providses everything.
:lol: Yes, but I think we need to keep something in mind here: Mr Marshall has found his fortune, but he was not born rich and STILL has to work for his living. He likes to play father Christmas, because the money is still a bit special to him.
And while he still works, providing for everybody, his son-in-law does not. So what will happen when he stops working? I am not sure there will be enough money to provide for everybody - at least not as they live now. Priscilla nor Magdalen seem to be married... who will take over the family business? Is there a family business? Or does Mr Marshall work for a boss? That is an odd idea... I do not really see him taking orders.
Lawrence does not mention any of this, but it might be playing in the heads of the Marshalls; build up over time. Everybody just seems to think Godfrey will be around forever, like some almighty and immortal provider.

Actually I think that's not bad. I think it would be considered better than average.
So with the Cottage (so no rent to pay) they could probably live of it quite easily? But with 3 children, money would be tight? It is mentioned later that Egbert can not afford the nurse, and - hold on. I'll go into this when we get there :)

I took that as a common thought throughout the family. Not sure if he really believed it, but that's how he protrayed it to the family.
Yes. It is probably what everybody assumed, maybe even Egbert.

Here's a youtube video of morris dancing
:) Well, they sure seem to enjoy it :D

that's what makes me wonder if I'm missing some nuance with the notion of commons.
I've reread what Janine posted from wikipedia and I found this link (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/commonland/default.aspx). It does not tell about any natural inheretance to land, but it does state that "commoners" have rights towards the "common". And obligations, for they have to take care of it :) But I can not really figure out how those commoners get their rights. If Winifred has hers, it does seem to be a bit capitalistic - Marshall must have bought those rights (with the property itself). Or it is rather seen as an obligation: if you live next to that common, you take care of it - taking care of the neighbourhood :D.

But we'll never know.
No! No! No! I for one refuse to submit! :p I am not going to take over Egberts attitude! We are going to figure this one out :D. Even if it means me writing a letter to the English ambassador! Or to some lecturer at Cambridge. :p

[Virgil]

:eek: Friday the 13th - everybody be aware! :p

:eek2: I guess I made it through the day without something happening to me.


I know I said I had nothing more to add Virgil, but there is one more point I'd like to make about the eyes - I think we're confusing "nordic" with "North".
In post #3180 you say

But Egbert is NOT from the north. He's the ultimite southener, the higher being (in Winifred eyes, see last paragraph story untill now).
Then in post #3185, after I've been rambling about eye colours and genetics, you mention

I think you hit the jackpot there: no connection to North or South, but rather to character. Though with Lawrence such is connected to North and South England ;) It is Godfrey who is from the North, and his daughter is quite like him. It is Egbert, the dreamer, the blue eyed, who's from the South. So his eyes might be nordic, but he is from the South. You connect Vikings to Saxons, but the Vikings are also the Normans. :crazy: Maybe even more so. They sure got around ;)

That's true about Egbert. Perhaps we should look at him as someone out of place, a left over from a previous epoch.


Yes, I noticed that. To be honest, I did have the thought "why on earth does he keep on repeating? He did rewrite this, did he not? Then why on earth does he make the mistake to keep on repeating himself" :blush: Now you connect it with the title and claim it is a motive within the story, it suddenly makes sense :blush: I should have known he would not make a mistake like that :banghead:
At this point I can't figure it out either. We'll have to see if something dawns on us as we go through the story.


BTW, what a wonderful word: verisimiltude. :D
A very important word for understanding fiction.


:lol: Yes, but I think we need to keep something in mind here: Mr Marshall has found his fortune, but he was not born rich and STILL has to work for his living. He likes to play father Christmas, because the money is still a bit special to him.
And while he still works, providing for everybody, his son-in-law does not. So what will happen when he stops working? I am not sure there will be enough money to provide for everybody - at least not as they live now. Priscilla nor Magdalen seem to be married... who will take over the family business? Is there a family business? Or does Mr Marshall work for a boss? That is an odd idea... I do not really see him taking orders.
Lawrence does not mention any of this, but it might be playing in the heads of the Marshalls; build up over time. Everybody just seems to think Godfrey will be around forever, like some almighty and immortal provider.
Excellent points here. I take it that Marshall doesn't work for anyone. I'm surprised Lawrence doesn't get more specific as to what his wealth is from.


So with the Cottage (so no rent to pay) they could probably live of it quite easily? But with 3 children, money would be tight? It is mentioned later that Egbert can not afford the nurse, and - hold on. I'll go into this when we get there :)
Ok, I found that the average salary in 1915 in the US was $750 and that a Model T auto cost $345. I also found that the exchange rate between the US$ and the British pound in 1915 was about 1 pound to 4.8$. So 150 pounds equals to $720. That's right around an average salary. Not rich but not poor. Working class.


I've reread what Janine posted from wikipedia and I found this link (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/commonland/default.aspx). It does not tell about any natural inheretance to land, but it does state that "commoners" have rights towards the "common". And obligations, for they have to take care of it :) But I can not really figure out how those commoners get their rights. If Winifred has hers, it does seem to be a bit capitalistic - Marshall must have bought those rights (with the property itself). Or it is rather seen as an obligation: if you live next to that common, you take care of it - taking care of the neighbourhood :D.

No! No! No! I for one refuse to submit! :p I am not going to take over Egberts attitude! We are going to figure this one out :D. Even if it means me writing a letter to the English ambassador! Or to some lecturer at Cambridge. :p
:lol: :lol: Ok.

[Sapphire]

I guess I made it through the day without something happening to me.
Well, something odd did happen to me. Or rather on Saturday the 14th... but that's close enough, is it not? And it is not something which happened to me: it is something I read. It would have perfectly worked as a horror story to be told by the camp fire, but I read it over coffee in the sun in a very realistic setting. It gave me the shivers though. Here is what happened:
I was flipping through a magazine which I think is a bit like "Good House Keeping" in the USA. Except this one has a comic in the back :) My eye fell on a story though, and I started to read... It was about a farmers family with 3 children, 2 girls and a boy. The youngest girl is crazy about the farm. At the time of this story, she is 5 years old and she starts exploring her limits - always pushing a bit after "no" has been said. One day, this goes wrong: she's too curious, she comes too close to the tractor while the farmer does not know she is there. And she dies. A very tragic accident - and especially the father has a strong feeling of guilt about it. Nobody blames him, but he blames himself.
I guess you all see the equalities and the differences of the Lawrence story. And unfortunately it is something which "just happens": about 380 children go to the emergency room every year due to farm-related accidents, of which 4 die. Most of the accidents concern a tractor on the other end. So, sad as it is, it is not that strange to read a story like this while we are reading "England, My England". The one thing that made me catch my breath though, was the name of the farmer. His name is Egbert...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's true about Egbert. Perhaps we should look at him as someone out of place, a left over from a previous epoch.
Probably :nod: A noble man from years gone by. When working was something you just did not do.

We'll have to see if something dawns on us as we go through the story.
I'm sure we'll think of something :) We will probably even find multiple reasons :lol:

A very important word for understanding fiction.
I bet.

I'm surprised Lawrence doesn't get more specific as to what his wealth is from.
Maybe to keep the focus on the fact that he is working, that he makes money, that he stands for something. As the narrator and winifred point out later: it is not just that Egbert makes no money, it is that he stands for nothing. Except for his own "liberty" :wink5: So it is just what Godfrey stands for. Details about his job and the origin of his money are deemed to be not important.

Not rich but not poor. Working class.
Kind of ironic, don't you think? Working class, but not working...

:lol: :lol: Ok.
Do you think we have the word figured out? I for one think we do - a piece of land which has certain rights and obligations attached to it. The right and obligations differ per common, per county. And even the definition of "owner" differs per common. Sometimes it is the county, sometimes it is a group of farmers, sometimes it is one person who has to give right of way, etc.

[grace86]

Sapphire, that bit about the article and the farmer's name being Egbert...that would creep me out a bit too...poor little girl.

I'm late in the coming on comments to the thread, but I've been reading as much of your comments as I can guys. For the most part, I am playing the role of silent observer. You guys are good with your comments - oh and Sapphire I was in no way hinting earlier on that you should shorten your posts. After spending so much time in university critically analyzing much of what I read - and then being out of school for awhile....I find the analyzing and critical thinking task on my part a bit daunting. My brain....is turning to mush :D I'm looking to ease into the process...or rather, make sure I don't fall out of it completely.

So I may be slow in comments but I am loving everything you guys are saying.

Virgil just a side note, your response of my comment about shouldn't Winifred have known who she was marrying reminded me of this saying I heard (in passing and in planning my friend's wedding) - that "men get married hoping their wife will always stay the same and women get married hoping that men will change" and something along the lines that that usually doesn't happen. Then I started thinking about Egbert and Winifred......again. :D

With more time, I'm going to re-read the story.

[Virgil]

Well, something odd did happen to me. Or rather on Saturday the 14th... but that's close enough, is it not? And it is not something which happened to me: it is something I read. It would have perfectly worked as a horror story to be told by the camp fire, but I read it over coffee in the sun in a very realistic setting. It gave me the shivers though. Here is what happened:
I was flipping through a magazine which I think is a bit like "Good House Keeping" in the USA. Except this one has a comic in the back :) My eye fell on a story though, and I started to read... It was about a farmers family with 3 children, 2 girls and a boy. The youngest girl is crazy about the farm. At the time of this story, she is 5 years old and she starts exploring her limits - always pushing a bit after "no" has been said. One day, this goes wrong: she's too curious, she comes too close to the tractor while the farmer does not know she is there. And she dies. A very tragic accident - and especially the father has a strong feeling of guilt about it. Nobody blames him, but he blames himself.
I guess you all see the equalities and the differences of the Lawrence story. And unfortunately it is something which "just happens": about 380 children go to the emergency room every year due to farm-related accidents, of which 4 die. Most of the accidents concern a tractor on the other end. So, sad as it is, it is not that strange to read a story like this while we are reading "England, My England". The one thing that made me catch my breath though, was the name of the farmer. His name is Egbert...

That is amazing. Wow.


Maybe to keep the focus on the fact that he is working, that he makes money, that he stands for something. As the narrator and winifred point out later: it is not just that Egbert makes no money, it is that he stands for nothing. Except for his own "liberty" :wink5: So it is just what Godfrey stands for. Details about his job and the origin of his money are deemed to be not important.
You're probably right.


Kind of ironic, don't you think? Working class, but not working...
:lol: Yes, sort of like Lawrence. But he wrote and that is working.


Do you think we have the word figured out? I for one think we do - a piece of land which has certain rights and obligations attached to it. The right and obligations differ per common, per county. And even the definition of "owner" differs per common. Sometimes it is the county, sometimes it is a group of farmers, sometimes it is one person who has to give right of way, etc.
Yes, I finally think we do with your definition there. Thanks. :)


So I may be slow in comments but I am loving everything you guys are saying.

Thank you Grace. Feel free to join in when something motivates you to either add or contradict a thought.


Virgil just a side note, your response of my comment about shouldn't Winifred have known who she was marrying reminded me of this saying I heard (in passing and in planning my friend's wedding) - that "men get married hoping their wife will always stay the same and women get married hoping that men will change" and something along the lines that that usually doesn't happen. Then I started thinking about Egbert and Winifred......again. :D
I've used that proverb (would you call it a proverb?) myself: Men marry thinking their wives will never change, and of course they do; women marry thinking they can change their husbands and they never can't. :D It's very true. So don't marry a man if you're thinking you'll make him better in the long run. If he's not as you want him now, he'll only get worse. :wink5:

[Janine]

I am so sorry that I have been so absent this week. Let me know when you want me to post more text. I have a few things other than internet going on right now and I have to attend to those - vitally important. Soon you will have more of my attention. I have been reading every single word, like Grace ,and been enjoying this lively interchange of ideas. I will get to the points that Sapphire wanted me to address; but after tomorrow, I must delay, because of this household stuff going on presently. Thanks for everyone's patience.

[Virgil]

I think we're ready for the next text Janine. :wink5:

[Sapphire]

I find the analyzing and critical thinking task on my part a bit daunting.
It can help to write down your toughts, then let it brood a while, and then read those over :nod: Works for me :wink5:

So I may be slow in comments but I am loving everything you guys are saying.
Thanks.


Yes, sort of like Lawrence. But he wrote and that is working.
Especially with the production he had!

Yes, I finally think we do with your definition there.
:hurray: See, we can do it :D


Let me know when you want me to post more text.
I'm with Virgil :)

[Janine]

Be back late afternoon or this evening with more text. Busy right now with PSE&G rep checking out our house. I will be able to think more clearly tonight...hopefully....


edit: please sit tight and I apologise but it won't be until tomorrow that I post the next part of the text. I had a tiresome day and I don't feel that well tonight. Tomorrow I am sure I will be better and will post a good chunk more of the story....so we can keep rolling along...

[Janine]

Here's the next part of the story as promised:


Meanwhile youth and health and passion and promise. Winifred's father was always generous: but still, he was a man from the north with a hard head and a hard skin too, having received a good many knocks. At home he kept the hard head out of sight, and played at poetry and romance with his literary wife and his sturdy, passionate girls. He was a man of courage, not given to complaining, bearing his burdens by himself. No, he did not let the world intrude far into his home. He had a delicate, sensitive wife whose poetry won some fame in the narrow world of letters. He himself, with his tough old barbarian fighting spirit, had an almost child-like delight in verse, in sweet poetry, and in the delightful game of a cultured home. His blood was strong even to coarseness. But that only made the home more vigorous, more robust and Christmassy. There was always a touch of Christmas about him, now he was well off. If there was poetry after dinner, there were also chocolates and nuts, and good little out-of-the-way things to be munching.

Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste. The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.

And Egbert was a born rose. The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry. Winifred loved him, loved him, this southerner, as a higher being. A higher being, mind you. Not a deeper. And as for him, he loved her in passion with every fibre of him. She was the very warm stuff of life to him.

Wonderful then, those days at Crockham Cottage, the first days, all alone save for the woman who came to work in the mornings. Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage! The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations. The silent house, dark, with thick, timbered walls and the big black chimney-place, and the sense of secrecy. Dark, with low, little windows, sunk into the earth. Dark, like a lair where strong beasts had lurked and mated, lonely at night and lonely by day, left to themselves and their own intensity for so many generations. It seemed to cast a spell on the two young people. They became different. There was a curious secret glow about them, a certain slumbering flame hard to understand, that enveloped them both. They too felt that they did not belong to the London world any more. Crockham had changed their blood: the sense of the snakes that lived and slept even in their own garden, in the sun, so that he, going forward with the spade, would see a curious coiled brownish pile on the black soil, which suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing. One day Winifred heard the strangest scream from the flower-bed under the low window of the living room: ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. She ran out, and saw a long brown snake on the flower-bed, and in its flat mouth the one hind leg of a frog was striving to escape, and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream. She looked at the snake, and from its sullen flat head it looked at her, obstinately. She gave a cry, and it released the frog and slid angrily away.

That was Crockham. The spear of modern invention had not passed through it, and it lay there secret, primitive, savage as when the Saxons first came. And Egbert and she were caught there, caught out of the world.

[Sapphire]

:hurray:

First Paragraph NEXT TEXT Janine posted

Meanwhile youth and health and passion and promise.
:) I think this is a wonderful sentence – full of happiness for the moment and hope for the future :hurray: Those two were so happy, once.
The story has more sentences like this - summarizing.

Winifred's father was always generous: but still, he was a man from the north with a hard head and a hard skin too, having received a good many knocks. At home he kept the hard head out of sight, and played at poetry and romance with his literary wife and his sturdy, passionate girls. He was a man of courage, not given to complaining, bearing his burdens by himself.
A description of the father, the (formerly poor) northerling.

No, he did not let the world intrude far into his home.
The father is a man of the world, but he tries to keep the world away from his family. The world is there to make money in, to acquire means to live – but not to truly live in. Apparently, when you want to live happily, you need to shut the world out. It is the world which brings trouble.

He had a delicate, sensitive wife whose poetry won some fame in the narrow world of letters.
Ay… little stab at the literary world there… The real person the wife is based on, Mrs. Alice Meynell, was indeed quite known in the literary world. One of her more known poems is “Summer in England, 1914” (http://war-poets.blogspot.com/2009/11/alice-meynell-summer-in-england-1914.html).

He himself, with his tough old barbarian fighting spirit, had an almost child-like delight in verse, in sweet poetry, and in the delightful game of a cultured home. His blood was strong even to coarseness. But that only made the home more vigorous, more robust and Christmassy. There was always a touch of Christmas about him, now he was well off. If there was poetry after dinner, there were also chocolates and nuts, and good little out-of-the-way things to be munching.
I think that last part is wonderful: “good little out-of-the-way things to be munching” :cheers2: It really sounds like Christmas :D Mr Marshall must have been a good host :D.

[Janine]

:hurray:

First Paragraph NEXT TEXT Janine posted Surprise, surprise...I am here! :seeya: Yep, nice to have a fresh bunch of words/sentences, expressive phrases for us to study and dissect. I actually like this section of text very much. It's so beautifully written. And Sapphire, thank you for not using blue!


:) I think this is a wonderful sentence – full of happiness for the moment and hope for the future :hurray: Those two were so happy, once.
The story has more sentences like this - summarizing. I did as well; considering the way things go sour after the child's accident it makes the story even more sad and poignant to see how happy the two were in the beginning of their marriage. They used to say that the real test of love is raising children and money managing; I believe both have broken many a couple. If you notice the first years were lovely and not so complicated between them. There was a harmony and later it got interrupted by the child's accident and the feeling on Egbert's part of not being as productive as he was expected to be.


A description of the father, the (formerly poor) northerling.

The father is a man of the world, but he tries to keep the world away from his family. The world is there to make money in, to acquire means to live – but not to truly live in. Apparently, when you want to live happily, you need to shut the world out. It is the world which brings trouble.


Ay… little stab at the literary world there… The real person the wife is based on, Mrs. Alice Meynell, was indeed quite known in the literary world. One of her more known poems is “Summer in England, 1914” (http://war-poets.blogspot.com/2009/11/alice-meynell-summer-in-england-1914.html). Yes, I find this a little more interesting as to what made the old man tick. He was rather a complex fellow and I liked him in this passage. Perhaps shutting out the world for your loved ones at times made the family unit stronger - everyone, does need 'down' time...even in our own fast paced society. He did seem to wish to control his little clan; that is obvious from his offerings of houses for all his daughters. I wonder if it would have been different had he had sons instead....most likely. Anyway, he definitely played the all protective father. Today, more than ever, the world can bring us trouble but of course it's a two sided sword. The world and it's offerings (globally) can also be a marvelous thing. However in the changing world of England at the time and considering the horrifying war taking place, truly the world needed to be forgotten at home for a time to preserve one's sanity.



I think that last part is wonderful: “good little out-of-the-way things to be munching” :cheers2: It really sounds like Christmas :D Mr Marshall must have been a good host :D.

The poem is amazing and very powerful. I know of Owen's poems and have copied many to my hard-drive. Someone put them being read up on Youtube; narration by Kenneth Branagh. Wilfred Owens apparently knew Mrs. M? I adore Owens' poems. I downloaded many and someone from YT sent me the audiofiles as well. I must try and find more of the woman's poems. Wonder why she was so overlooked. She had a fine talent. Thanks so much, Sapphire, for looking this up and finding this poem, which I believe relates well to this story.

[Sapphire]

Surprise, surprise...I am here!
:D Great :D

Considering the way things go sour after the child's accident it makes the story even more sad and poignant to see how happy the two were in the beginning of their marriage. (...) There was a harmony and later it got interrupted by the child's accident and the feeling on Egbert's part of not being as productive as he was expected to be.

I think it is quite interesting (though indeed sad) to read how this marriage full of hope and happiness falls apart. I disagree on the child's accident being the main stressor: even before that, things start to go sour. It really is something which develops over time. To me, Joyce's accident is rather the last drop or a catalysator than a main reason for the marriage to go wrong. I do not even know whether it is that important. It is really just another step in the wrong direction...
But we'll get there in the story :) First we have a few pages of a "happy marriage" full passion :hurray:.

Perhaps shutting out the world for your loved ones at times made the family unit stronger
I like that idea: not only to shut the world out, but more importantly to keep your family close :)

He did seem to wish to control his little clan; that is obvious from his offerings of houses for all his daughters. I wonder if it would have been different had he had sons instead....most likely.
There is a part in the story where the narrator talks about the possibility of sons and how he would have taken care of them. We will read that later on, but the point of it is that he would learn his sons to be an authority like he himself has become - mainly within his own family. Lawrence really stresses the father's wish for authority and controll.

However in the changing world of England at the time and considering the horrifying war taking place, truly the world needed to be forgotten at home for a time to preserve one's sanity.
I see where you're going with this, with the industrial revolution and the war in South Africa and colonialism and... well, there was a lot going on in those days :) But do remember that this is a description of the beginning of the wedding, even a description of how Godfrey Marshall raised his daughters. So we're not talking about WWI yet - Egbert and Winifred got married in 1904. I do not think there were that many people who saw the war coming at that stage in time... especially not the furious war it would be.

I know of Owen's poems and have copied many to my hard-drive.
Ah, Wilfred Owen. I am not sure whether he knew Alice Meynell, but he probably knew of her and he might have read her work. She was a fellow English poet.
I quite like WWI poetry. Or well, like... it is often sarcastic and dark. I like that style. Take Owen's "Anthem for Doomed Youth" or "Dulce Et Decorum Est". I think those were among the first English poetry I read. I still think it is tragic that he died a week before the war ended. A bit like Anna Frank, who died 3 months before the liberation... They never knew the end of it.

I must try and find more of the woman's poems.
I found this site: {link} (http://poetry.elcore.net/CatholicPoets/Meynell/index.html) I think many of her poems are to be found there. I do not know whether she was overlooked - maybe she was quite known in her time? She seems to be... She has been forgotten over time though. :nod: BTW, did you know that she was quite the suffragette? :D

Thanks so much, Sapphire, for looking this up and finding this poem, which I believe relates well to this story.
You're welcome :) And yes, that's why I picked it. I have tried to figure out whether she ever wrote a poem about what happened to her son-in-law (Egbert in this story, Percival in real life), but I could not find anything specific. That does not mean there is nothing - just that I could not find it on the internet.

[Janine]

Sapphire, I am going out for some errands and to eat a burger with my mother. I will be back later to answer your post. Lots there to discuss.

[Sapphire]

Have fun! :wave: I'll probably won't be back untill in the morning :D

BTW, I flipped through the booklet I have with war poetry in it: I've found at least 4 which I can connect to specific parts of this story :). Now all I have to do is remember them when we get to those parts :lol: Wish me luck ;)

[Janine]

Have fun! :wave: I'll probably won't be back untill in the morning :D

BTW, I flipped through the booklet I have with war poetry in it: I've found at least 4 which I can connect to specific parts of this story :). Now all I have to do is remember them when we get to those parts :lol: Wish me luck ;)

Luck! see you later - tomorrow your time! ha

[Virgil]

I found the descriptive metaphors interesting:


Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste. The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.

And Egbert was a born rose. The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry.
If Winifred's family is "true English" what is Egbert? Holly trees and hawthorn versus a rose. Are these two sides of an "English" character? The rose almost seems to allude to the War of the Roses, the Plantagenet civil war - the house of Lancaster (red rose) versus the house of York (white rose).


The name "Wars of the Roses" is not thought to have been used during the time of the wars but has its origins in the badges associated with the two royal houses, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. The term came into common use in the nineteenth century, after the publication of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott. Scott based the name on a fictional scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI Part 1, where the opposing sides pick their different-coloured roses at the Temple Church.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

This story does have a sort of Walter Scott plot and characterization.

[Sapphire]

Luck! see you later - tomorrow your time! ha
You bet ya :thumbsup:

I found the descriptive metaphors interesting
Me too :D I've written something about it in my commentary, which I will post underneath. You say:

If Winifred's family is "true English" what is Egbert? Holly trees and hawthorn versus a rose. Are these two sides of an "English" character? The rose almost seems to allude to the War of the Roses, the Plantagenet civil war - the house of Lancaster (red rose) versus the house of York (white rose).
That war came to my mind too, but I think we're jumping a bit too far here. If that is what the narrator wants to allude too, why does he not talk about red and white roses? He mentions "a common pink rose" vs. "a born rose". I think this is rather pointing towards "common people" vs "noble people", the Marshalls being common and the southern Egbert being of higher breeding. Mind you, I am not too sure about this. After all, it is mentioned nowhere that Egbert is of nobility.
And I do not think that calling the Marshalls "true English" means that Egbert is not (not that you say that). You mention it might be that there are two sides of an "English" character, I think there are different English characters - either North vs South or common vs noble. One thing I do know for sure, is that all characters are "really English". Egbert and Godfrey are even said to be "two real Englishmen, and their instincts were almost the same" towards the end of the story.

This story does have a sort of Walter Scott plot and characterization.
Any special story you have in mind? I actually only know Ivanhoe :redface: And I do not see the similarities there.


-------------------------------------------------


Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste.
And though Egbert’s paste will be explained, his past will not. We know what house Winifred is from, but we do not know what Egbert’s parents are like. His mother is named later on, but even shorter than Winifred’s mother. He really marries into the Marshall family :nod: Compare this to how women become a part of their husbands family… I wonder though: was that the case in England? I think I am comparing to Middle Eastern and Southern Europe families now :brickwall

The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.
“True English”. But if the father is from the North, he’s rather from Wales and thus British instead of English :angel: I am sorry, I just had to point that out :p It is a little pet peeve of me: do not call the Netherlands Holland and do not call the United Kingdom England ;) “North” can of course also just mean “Northern England”, it is not necessarily the extreme north of the British Island. I do think Lawrence just meant the country… it is probably not really important. “ Great Britain, My Great Britain” would just sound stupid for a title, would it not? :lol:
“English as holly trees and hawthorn are English”. I never especially linked those two with England. I do connect holly with Christmas, and hawthorn with the start of spring (it is called May-thorn over here). I guess both are native plants?! I see the connection with the Marshalls and especially Godfrey: strong plants, with a tough shell (thorns).
I like the metaphor of the rose. It really helps to explain the point. Though I did need the sentence “it did not alter their blood” to completely grasp its meaning ;) And I do wonder why it has to be a “common pink rose”. All the other roses in the story are white or red, as are the famous symbols of roses in England itself (York and Lancastre). Are wild roses usually pink? I can not say I see those often around, but the huge question for red roses might have changed that over the years.

And Egbert was a born rose.
Completion of the metaphor.

The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry. Winifred loved him, loved him, this southerner, as a higher being. A higher being, mind you. Not a deeper.
Note how it is stressed that he’s the last in a long line of breeding. I almost wanted to say he is of noble heritage, but that is never explicitly stated. I really got that impression - most be the “born rose” part :wink5:.
While for the Marshalls it is stressed that they’re “true English”, this is not stressed for Egbert in this part of the story. For this moment it is more important that he is “higher” than that he is English. Or wait… “southerner” – that implicates South England. Lets state it is more subtle then :).
What is this “higher not deeper” stuff? I kind of grasp it, but I really can not put my finger on it. I see how Winifred puts him above herself in this stage of her life, sees him as a higher and maybe even better being. But what would Egbert have been if he was a “deeper” being? Would he be more grounded, more in touch with the world. Less of a dreamer. Or would it be a matter of knowing himself thoroughly?

And as for him, he loved her in passion with every fibre of him. She was the very warm stuff of life to him.
He needs her to be happy. He not just loves her, he loves her with passion. Is it too much to make the connection: passion – warm – flame? :aureola:

[Virgil]

That war came to my mind too, but I think we're jumping a bit too far here. If that is what the narrator wants to allude too, why does he not talk about red and white roses? He mentions "a common pink rose" vs. "a born rose". I think this is rather pointing towards "common people" vs "noble people", the Marshalls being common and the southern Egbert being of higher breeding. Mind you, I am not too sure about this. After all, it is mentioned nowhere that Egbert is of nobility.

Yes I agree. It was a thought to consider but I didn't put too much stock in it myself. I think you got it right.


And I do not think that calling the Marshalls "true English" means that Egbert is not (not that you say that). You mention it might be that there are two sides of an "English" character, I think there are different English characters - either North vs South or common vs noble. One thing I do know for sure, is that all characters are "really English". Egbert and Godfrey are even said to be "two real Englishmen, and their instincts were almost the same" towards the end of the story.
I say two sides because Lawrence is known for his dualism. He always seems to think in opposing contrasts: male/female, north/south, industrial/rural.


Any special story you have in mind? I actually only know Ivanhoe :redface: And I do not see the similarities there.
No, just the fact that it's historical fiction set in England.


And though Egbert’s paste will be explained, his past will not. We know what house Winifred is from, but we do not know what Egbert’s parents are like. His mother is named later on, but even shorter than Winifred’s mother. He really marries into the Marshall family :nod: Compare this to how women become a part of their husbands family… I wonder though: was that the case in England? I think I am comparing to Middle Eastern and Southern Europe families now :brickwall
Interesting that Egbert's past isn't more defined. Perhaps the story was getting too long. But it does seem like a hole in the story.


“True English”. But if the father is from the North, he’s rather from Wales and thus British instead of English :angel: I am sorry, I just had to point that out :p It is a little pet peeve of me: do not call the Netherlands Holland and do not call the United Kingdom England ;)
:blush: I'm so sorry if I did. I did not realize there is a distinction. I find it easier to trype out Holland.


“North” can of course also just mean “Northern England”, it is not necessarily the extreme north of the British Island. I do think Lawrence just meant the country… it is probably not really important. “ Great Britain, My Great Britain” would just sound stupid for a title, would it not? :lol:
:lol: :lol: Yes.


“English as holly trees and hawthorn are English”. I never especially linked those two with England. I do connect holly with Christmas, and hawthorn with the start of spring (it is called May-thorn over here). I guess both are native plants?! I see the connection with the Marshalls and especially Godfrey: strong plants, with a tough shell (thorns).
I like the metaphor of the rose. It really helps to explain the point. Though I did need the sentence “it did not alter their blood” to completely grasp its meaning ;) And I do wonder why it has to be a “common pink rose”. All the other roses in the story are white or red, as are the famous symbols of roses in England itself (York and Lancastre). Are wild roses usually pink? I can not say I see those often around, but the huge question for red roses might have changed that over the years.
Don't know if there is a particular color to wild roses. What do you think Lawrence is alluding to by comparing Egbert to a rose? Delicate? pretty?


Note how it is stressed that he’s the last in a long line of breeding. I almost wanted to say he is of noble heritage, but that is never explicitly stated. I really got that impression - most be the “born rose” part :wink5:.
Oh that's a possibility too, though we never get his background. That may be why he's so wasteful and not a worker.



What is this “higher not deeper” stuff? I kind of grasp it, but I really can not put my finger on it.
I would associate that with the Nordic. Lawrence associates Nordic with idealism and etheral, more abstract.


I see how Winifred puts him above herself in this stage of her life, sees him as a higher and maybe even better being. But what would Egbert have been if he was a “deeper” being? Would he be more grounded, more in touch with the world. Less of a dreamer. Or would it be a matter of knowing himself thoroughly?
I think the reference is that he is less grounded in hard reality.


He needs her to be happy. He not just loves her, he loves her with passion. Is it too much to make the connection: passion – warm – flame? :aureola:
Ah yes, lots of flames in the story. :wink5:


One day Winifred heard the strangest scream from the flower-bed under the low window of the living room: ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. She ran out, and saw a long brown snake on the flower-bed, and in its flat mouth the one hind leg of a frog was striving to escape, and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream. She looked at the snake, and from its sullen flat head it looked at her, obstinately. She gave a cry, and it released the frog and slid angrily away.
And here is that passage with the sanke. That littel drama with the frog in the mouth is fascinating. Very suggestive of something, but of what?

[Sapphire]

Hey, a new avatar :) I hardly recognised you, Virgil ;) I miss the blue, but this white/black contrast is certainly appealing. At first I thought it was abstract, with a big fork featuring in it :p Now I think it is Moby Dick :nod: :D


Yes I agree. It was a thought to consider but I didn't put too much stock in it myself. I think you got it right.
:)

I say two sides because Lawrence is known for his dualism.
Ah yes. So North/South like two sides of the same medallion.

No, just the fact that it's historical fiction set in England.
Funny thing: I bought myself the book "Sons and Lovers" two days agoo and in Chapter 7 Lawrence himself refers to Mr. Walter Scott :D

The girl was romantic in her soul. Everywhere was a Walter Scott heroine being loved by men with helmets or with plumes in their caps. She herself was something of a princess turned into a swine-girl in her own imagination. And she was afraid lest this boy, who, nevertheless, looked something like a Walter Scott hero, who could paint and speak French, and knew what algebra meant, and who went by train to Nottingham every day, might consider her simply as the swine-girl, unable to perceive the princess beneath; so she held aloof.
The girl in this paragraph is Marianne from the Willey Farm, and the boy is Paul, a miner's son. I cannot really point out Egbert or Winifred as a hero/heroinne. As for the plot, I do see it: two people fall in love and marry (a bit too easy for Mr. Scott :p) and then there is the misery of a wounded child and it all ends with the hero dying. That is a bit like a historical tale, isn't it? :D

Perhaps the story was getting too long. But it does seem like a hole in the story.

Especially as his mother does come into play a tiny bit. If she would have just been left out we could just assume his parents weren't in the picture anymore - but now they're just not in the part of the story the narrator tells and I do start to wonder... :)

I'm so sorry if I did. I did not realize there is a distinction. I find it easier to trype out Holland.
:lol: Thank you, but it really ... it really is just a pet peeve: many people just say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands". I know they do not mean that only the west of our country is important. It is just something which makes me want to explain the matter :p
I do realise though that lately I start saying "England" rather than "Great Brittain". Especially since it was England that played the World Cup, not Great Brittain or the United Kingdom. In that case it really is England: they use the English flag and everything!

Don't know if there is a particular color to wild roses.
Me neither. In Sons and Lovers there's a wild rose bush with white roses - very usefull as it alludes to virginity in that scene :wink5: I am not sure what pink refers to... baby girls? :p I read somewhere that pink is considered a color of good health and life - think of people being "in the pink" or the "freshness" of a newborn baby. I guess that would fit the Marshalls

That may be why he's so wasteful and not a worker.
:nod: Maybe :)

I think the reference is that he is less grounded in hard reality.
Probably, that would make him higher indeed - floating :p Funny though, in Sons and Lovers Miriam is called deeper because of her religious outtake. As far as I can detect, Egbert does not really have any religious feelings whatshowever... But he is a dreamer, just like Miriam.

Ah yes, lots of flames in the story.
:D

And here is that passage with the snake. That little drama with the frog in the mouth is fascinating. Very suggestive of something, but of what?
PRIMITIVENESS! :p
Seriously: I have to ponder on that one, but on first thought it might be a lesson of what will be: Joyce who gets her leg hurt, while this is the only part of the frog that stays untouched by the snake. After all, it is not the snake that catches Joyce... It might be a bit farfetched...
I think it is interesting how the snake takes notice of Winifred: apparently, she has some influence on the native world around her. She does save the frog from the haughty snake - that is, it is not told whether the frog survives but otherwise it would be quite futile: denying the snake its dinner.

I have two more scenes from Sons and Lovers which reminded me of this story :)

In return, they taught him to milk, and let him do little jobs--chopping hay or pulping turnips--just as much as he liked. At midsummer he worked all through hay-harvest with them, and then he loved them. The family was so cut off from the world actually. They seemed, somehow, like "les derniers fils d'une race epuisee"*. Though the lads were strong and healthy, yet they had all that over-sensitiveness and hanging-back which made them so lonely, yet also such close, delicate friends once their intimacy was won. Paul loved them dearly, and they him.
* the last sons of a worn out race.
Again, a family which is cut off from the world - just as the Marshalls are at Cottingham Cottage.

There began a battle between the husband and wife--a fearful, bloody battle that ended only with the death of one. She fought to make him undertake his own responsibilities, to make him fulfill his obligations. But he was too different from her. His nature was purely sensuous, and she strove to make him moral, religious.
Again a marriage in which the one person wants the other to be something he can not be, does not want to be. I think Winifred is a bit too impressed by Egbert to really be like the "she" in this paragraph, but the battle over responsibilities is also aparent in this story.

Does it show that I'm reading the book? :p :)

[Janine]

Wonderful! I somehow just knew you were reading the book Sapphire. I think you can find the book read on Librivox as well. I often will listen to a book read after I read it myself. I find I actually notice new things about the story or descriptions. Strange, isn't it? I knew the temptation would be too great for you to resist. Reading S &L's is going to support your ideas of the short stories. Everything Lawrence wrote points to his own personal life and experience. He is a very intimate and personal author. That is what I like about Lawrence. If there is pain, I feel that pain. He makes one feel it. It's as though he paints a vivid picture that goes beyond the canvas into dark regions of the mind.

I am very much enjoying both of your interpretation of this story. I know I haven't taken much of an active role this time but just maybe that is ok, seeing I have done so many of the stories and perhaps I need a change in position - sitting her being the observer and learning a great deal. I appreciate both of your avid interest and enthusiasm for the story. When I pick one I never know if someone else will see what I had seen in it that attracted me enough to pick that particular story. I am happy to know you both liked it and are coming up with such great analysis and fresh ideas.

Hey, keep up the good work Miss. Netherlands and Mr. Virgil!

[Virgil]

Hey, a new avatar :) I hardly recognised you, Virgil ;) I miss the blue, but this white/black contrast is certainly appealing. At first I thought it was abstract, with a big fork featuring in it :p Now I think it is Moby Dick :nod: :D

I guess you missed the literary villains weekend. We were to choose a literary villain for an avatar and i chose Moby. :D


Funny thing: I bought myself the book "Sons and Lovers" two days agoo and in Chapter 7 Lawrence himself refers to Mr. Walter Scott :D
That is interesting. It's beens so long (15 years or more) since I read S&L that it's become vague in my mind. But that is important to note.


The girl in this paragraph is Marianne from the Willey Farm, and the boy is Paul, a miner's son. I cannot really point out Egbert or Winifred as a hero/heroinne. As for the plot, I do see it: two people fall in love and marry (a bit too easy for Mr. Scott :p) and then there is the misery of a wounded child and it all ends with the hero dying. That is a bit like a historical tale, isn't it? :D
I don't think there's any question that Lawrence envisions this short story to be historical. One cannot get away from the WWI events, and of course there are all those English historical allusions.


Especially as his mother does come into play a tiny bit. If she would have just been left out we could just assume his parents weren't in the picture anymore - but now they're just not in the part of the story the narrator tells and I do start to wonder... :)
I agree. Unfortunately short stories are usually published with length restrictions.


:lol: Thank you, but it really ... it really is just a pet peeve: many people just say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands". I know they do not mean that only the west of our country is important. It is just something which makes me want to explain the matter :p
Could you be so kind and explain the matter to me? I am not aware of the distinction. :blush:


I do realise though that lately I start saying "England" rather than "Great Brittain". Especially since it was England that played the World Cup, not Great Brittain or the United Kingdom. In that case it really is England: they use the English flag and everything!
:lol: But I think it's significant in this story. It is definitely not British history but English.


PRIMITIVENESS! :p
Seriously: I have to ponder on that one, but on first thought it might be a lesson of what will be: Joyce who gets her leg hurt, while this is the only part of the frog that stays untouched by the snake. After all, it is not the snake that catches Joyce... It might be a bit farfetched...
Interesting. I does foreshadow Joyce's injury, and the scyth is a sort of snake like object. But it foreshadows in reverse. The thought that came to me yesterday was that at this stage of the story, we are in an idyllic paradise, where even animals don't kill each other, at least not successfully.


I think it is interesting how the snake takes notice of Winifred: apparently, she has some influence on the native world around her. She does save the frog from the haughty snake - that is, it is not told whether the frog survives but otherwise it would be quite futile: denying the snake its dinner.
Yes, and it suggests Eve and the snake, does it not? Only the snake has not deceived (ensnared?) Eve yet.


I have two more scenes from Sons and Lovers which reminded me of this story :)

Again, a family which is cut off from the world - just as the Marshalls are at Cottingham Cottage.

Again a marriage in which the one person wants the other to be something he can not be, does not want to be. I think Winifred is a bit too impressed by Egbert to really be like the "she" in this paragraph, but the battle over responsibilities is also aparent in this story.
There are definitely parallels.


Does it show that I'm reading the book? :p :)
Yes, you've become quite a Lawrence afficionado. :D

[Sapphire]

I knew the temptation would be too great for you to resist.
:angel: Well, it is still a holiday over here :wink5: And it is a good way to pass the time :D

perhaps I need a change in position - sitting her being the observer and learning a great deal.
That is good to hear :) Do put your opinion in when you find the time though: especially when Virgil and I start to agree too much :rofl: Commentary does need criticism :nod: :)

I am happy to know you both liked it and are coming up with such great analysis and fresh ideas.
I will try.

Hey, keep up the good work Miss. Netherlands and Mr. Virgil!
I see you changed the Mr into Miss ;)


I guess you missed the literary villains weekend.
Yes, sounds like a good idea though :D I have no clue who I would pick... The other day I saw the movie "A league of extraordinary gentleman" - it was fun to try and identify the characters (I fell in half way). :nod: It is not a great movie in itself, but to figure out which characters from novels are portrayed is quite the puzzle :) Ishmael is in it, but I did not identify him :blush: One of the villains is Dorian Gray, and I think I would choose him as an avatar-villain :nod:

It's beens so long (15 years or more) since I read S&L that it's become vague in my mind. But that is important to note.
Maybe it was there, somewhere in your unconscious, when you made the comment :p.

I don't think there's any question that Lawrence envisions this short story to be historical. One cannot get away from the WWI events, and of course there are all those English historical allusions.
Yes, I definitely think you have a point there. WWI would be a current event for him the first time round, but in 1922 it was (close) history.

Could you be so kind and explain the matter to me? I am not aware of the distinction.
I posted some details on your profile page, but basically the west of the Netherlands ("the low lands") is called Holland, as the south of Great Britain is England.

It is definitely not British history but English.

Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!

It does foreshadow Joyce's injury, and the scyth is a sort of snake like object.
That is one way to look at it :nod:. But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.

But it foreshadows in reverse.
I am not sure what you mean by that...

The thought that came to me yesterday was that at this stage of the story, we are in an idyllic paradise, where even animals don't kill each other, at least not successfully.
Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.

Yes, and it suggests Eve and the snake, does it not? Only the snake has not deceived (ensnared?) Eve yet.
I like this idea better :D I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman :)

There are definitely parallels.
:nod: I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book :lol:

Yes, you've become quite a Lawrence afficionado.
:nod: Definitely!

It's as though he paints a vivid picture that goes beyond the canvas into dark regions of the mind.
Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love :)

As I've been reading the book Sons and Lovers I have not yet written my commentary on the last 2 paragraphs of the text Janine posted. I think I will not have the time to get into that until tomorrow. :blush:

[Virgil]

Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!

Oh I think it was even before that but it must have been particularly eventful around the war time.


That is one way to look at it :nod:. But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.
That's a good way to read it. You're right. But a scythe is a fairly primitive tool. But I guess it isn't natural but less modern than the war weopons.


I am not sure what you mean by that...
I meant that the frog gets away while Joyce gets severely hurt and Egbert dies. So instead of a foreshadow it's the opposite of death.


Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.
True, but I think Lawrence is presenting an idyllic place.


I like this idea better :D I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman :)
:wink5:


:nod: I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book :lol:
When you get the chance you must read The Rainbow. It's my favorite of all his novels. I think it's his greatest.


:nod: Definitely!
Great. :D


Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love :)
I agree. No one portrays unconscious actions better than Lawrence.

[Sapphire]

Oh I think it was even before that but it must have been particularly eventful around the war time.
Yes, that is a better way to put it.

But a scythe is a fairly primitive tool. But I guess it isn't natural but less modern than the war weopons.
Yes, I remember an Asterix & Obelix comic book about golden scythes :p You're right to point that out: not natural rather than not primitive/old.

I meant that the frog gets away while Joyce gets severely hurt and Egbert dies. So instead of a foreshadow it's the opposite of death.
Ah, yes - Winifred can save the frog, but not Joyce or Egbert.

True, but I think Lawrence is presenting an idyllic place.
:nod: Very idyllic :nod:

When you get the chance you must read The Rainbow. It's my favorite of all his novels. I think it's his greatest.
I'll keep my eyes open for it :).


----------------------------------------------

Last part of the text Janine posted.

Wonderful then, those days at Crockham Cottage, the first days, all alone save for the woman who came to work in the mornings.
Nice detail: all alone, but they do have a house cleaner. I bet Mr Marshall paid her wages!

Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage!
"Wonderful" and "marvellous". But it did end, even before one of them died. :(

The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations.
There's the flame again :D It is a dark house, with dark rooms: it needs a flame to bring some light :). Funny how I always tought a haunted house was a bad thing. The two of them seem pretty happy with the physical desire the place is calling for :D Notice the mentioning of "generations": it has been going on for ages, without any change.

The silent house, dark, with thick, timbered walls and the big black chimney-place, and the sense of secrecy. Dark, with low, little windows, sunk into the earth. Dark, like a lair where strong beasts had lurked and mated, lonely at night and lonely by day, left to themselves and their own intensity for so many generations.
In case we had not noticed it yet: the place is dark and secretive...
I wonder why the strong beasts, which mated in there, are said to be so lonely. Left to themselves. Don't they need to be with at least 2 to be mating? But I guess even beast can be lonely in company... Not sure why it has to be mentioned though. A foreshadowing of what Winifred and Egbert become? They might be happy together now, mating happily - but this will change, as it was for those beasts long ago...

It seemed to cast a spell on the two young people. They became different. There was a curious secret glow about them, a certain slumbering flame hard to understand, that enveloped them both. They too felt that they did not belong to the London world any more.
"They became different". As far as I can make out, the difference is that they are out of this (city, modern) world - they already were passionate, weren't they?

Crockham had changed their blood: the sense of the snakes that lived and slept even in their own garden, in the sun, so that he, going forward with the spade, would see a curious coiled brownish pile on the black soil, which suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing.
This is quite a long sentence :) I thought "the sense of the snakes" was a phrase which would be repeated in this story, but "ctrl+f" made clear that this is the only place in the story where it is used. It sounds familiar though...
Egbert, while working in the garden, disturbes these snakes. Just like Winifred denies one of them dinner :p. Those snakes must have been pretty annoyed with the pair :lol:

ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. /.../ and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream.
I can not really imagine what that sounds like: a screaming frog. It must be frightful.

That was Crockham. The spear of modern invention had not passed through it, and it lay there secret, primitive, savage as when the Saxons first came. And Egbert and she were caught there, caught out of the world.
Again, the primitiveness of the place is mentioned. Lawrence really stresses this point to annoyance :p :biggrin5:
And being this primitive, it is not really in the “now” – in the world itself. And people who live there loose touch with the world “outside”. So Egbert and Winifred are “caught” there. Is it me, or is there a slightly negative connection to that word? I read it a bit like “trapped"... Which is odd, for I do get the idea that the narrator likes the “being out of the world”-feeling.

BTW is there anybody who has an idea what "Crockham" might mean? As far as I know, it is only the cottage of Winifred and Egbert which is called that way, so I do not think it is the name of the hamlet.

[Janine]

:angel: Well, it is still a holiday over here :wink5: And it is a good way to pass the time :D Maybe you will finish it before your holiday ends. It's a great read and a great book. It provides a lot of insight into Lawrence's early developmental years and his strange and close, thought suffocating relationship to his mother.


That is good to hear :) Do put your opinion in when you find the time though: especially when Virgil and I start to agree too much :rofl: Commentary does need criticism :nod: :)
I will try to and when Virgil goes to Europe again I will have to try and make a better effort to be more interactive. For now I am enjoying reading what you two write each day. I got quite busy asside from internet stuff but I will definitely not let the thread trail off to nothing. I am always determined to finish each story. Whenever you two want me to post more of the story - just give a yell and let me know. I have it marked off from where I left off and a copy on my desktop.


I will try. I don't think you have to; commentary seems to come naturally to you Sapphire. You are very perceptive and smart about the stories. Keep up the good work.


I see you changed the Mr into Miss ;) You are quick - didn't think I got caught. Yes, definitely a typo on my part - sorry about that.


Yes, sounds like a good idea though :D I have no clue who I would pick... The other day I saw the movie "A league of extraordinary gentleman" - it was fun to try and identify the characters (I fell in half way). :nod: It is not a great movie in itself, but to figure out which characters from novels are portrayed is quite the puzzle :) Ishmael is in it, but I did not identify him :blush: One of the villains is Dorian Gray, and I think I would choose him as an avatar-villain :nod: Wow, Dorian would be a great one. I love that story. I didn't even notice the avy change thread or I would have come up with someone - probably Iago from Othello.


Maybe it was there, somewhere in your unconscious, when you made the comment :p. haha....Virgil doesn't believe in the subconscious; not sure about the unconscious. I seem to be in a state of that lately - fatique getting the best of me most nights.


Yes, I definitely think you have a point there. WWI would be a current event for him the first time round, but in 1922 it was (close) history. Good observation. Was this story actually published after 1922 and did the war end earlier?


I posted some details on your profile page, but basically the west of the Netherlands ("the low lands") is called Holland, as the south of Great Britain is England. Gee, I never knew this. Thanks for the geography lesson. I am sorry if I mistook you for living in Holland. I didn't realise a difference in terms.


Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?! I am not sure but I am always so fascinated with the Irish revolts. I think it was during or after the war it began. I just know that from some films I have seen...one being "Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.


That is one way to look at it :nod:. But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake. Seems these elements are always so present in L works - snakes, primativeness, war beneath the surface, discord in families. The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden. The scyth might represent this and then it is spoiled once the child is injuried.


Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it. Interesting take on that. I think I agree.


I like this idea better :D I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman :) Good point.


:nod: I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book :lol: Good book and then you will want to read "Women in Love"; Virgil's favorite is the first and mine the second. WIL was the first L book I ever read and I was hooked after that.


Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love :) This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.


As I've been reading the book Sons and Lovers I have not yet written my commentary on the last 2 paragraphs of the text Janine posted. I think I will not have the time to get into that until tomorrow. :blush:[/QUOTE]

Take your time. I will keep reading along.

[Sapphire]

:hurray: You've found the time to post :hurray: :D

Maybe you will finish it before your holiday ends.
I have ;)

It provides a lot of insight into Lawrence's early developmental years and his strange and close, thought suffocating relationship to his mother.

I know that is a main theme, but somehow it did not stand out that much to me :blush: Maybe because I knew it would be there :) Oedipus definitely came to mind a couple of times :nod:

Whenever you two want me to post more of the story - just give a yell and let me know.
Well, I am ready - post #3219 was on the last part of the text you posted :D Not sure whether Virgil is though - he must be busy planning his trip :hurray:

commentary seems to come naturally to you Sapphire. You are very perceptive and smart about the stories. Keep up the good work.
:blush: Thank you.

You are quick - didn't think I got caught. Yes, definitely a typo on my part - sorry about that.
No worries, made me smile :D

Wow, Dorian would be a great one. I love that story. I didn't even notice the avy change thread or I would have come up with someone - probably Iago from Othello.
I really like that story too :nod: I always thought I never liked Oscar Wilde's work, but last year that somehow changed :crazy: I have no clue what happened :lol: Just yesterday I bought "the greatest works of Louis Couperus", a Dutch writer who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde with one of his stories/novelles. There are said to be some similarities in style between his work "Footsteps of Fate" and "the Picture of Dorian Gray". I need to get into that when I find the time.
Iago is a great choice indeed!

I seem to be in a state of that lately - fatique getting the best of me most nights.

Aw... take good care of yourself and try to get your energy back! Don't force it too far because you think you have to post something here.

Was this story actually published after 1922 and did the war end earlier?
It was published first in 1915 (during the war), but the edition we're reading is from 1922 and he rewrote the whole thing until it became twice as long. It is from the beginning of 1922 and as WWI ended 11/11/1918 I would say the war was over for 3 years when this story was published.

I am sorry if I mistook you for living in Holland. I didn't realise a difference in terms.
I thought about it again and I think "Holland" is also an accepted term in the English language. Like saying "America" when you mean the USA. Basically it is not the right term, but everybody knows what you mean and only the nitpicks (like me :rofl:) notice :wink5: So really, no need for appologies!

I am not sure but I am always so fascinated with the Irish revolts. I think it was during or after the war it began. I just know that from some films I have seen...one being "Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.
I think it is as Virgil says: Ireland has an history of "struggling for independence" and how far they've come really depends on where you stand in history. In 1916 there was the "Easter Rising (1916)" which was pretty major, but as this story plays from 1903 to 1915 it can not be featured. I think I see what you mean with "fascination": I've had the same thing ever since I heard "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. Just the thought that there is a region of this much tension so nearby... Europe is not that peaceful: both world wars started here. I think me realising that started with that song...

Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.
The other day I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct etc.) and he talked about his admiration for David Lean. :) There's always a connection, isn't there? :lol: I checked the movie out on wiki (a classic, I know :blush:), and it says there that it was loosely based on Madame Bovary by Flaubert. I think this was very loosely, for the summary I read does not resamble that book at all. I do think I need to see it for myself before I judge: it is a classic. And it says there's a reference to Lawrence of Arabia in it, which I think to be one of the greatest movies ever :D. Which brings us to T.E. Lawrence and back to D.H. Lawrence :p.

The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden.
Well, there's his spade which he uses when the snake hisses away:

the sense of the snakes that lived and slept even in their own garden, in the sun, so that he, going forward with the spade, would see a curious coiled brownish pile on the black soil, which suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing.
A spade could also have made a good "injury" weapon. I myself tried to do some gardening when I was about 10: I used a "grown up" spade while I was barefoot... Almost cut my heal of :banghead

Good book and then you will want to read "Women in Love"
I've added it to my list :D

This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.
:nod: Nicely said.

This story does make us talk about all sort of stuff :D

Note: my last "direct" commentary is in post #3219, under the dotted/striped line.

[Janine]

:hurray: You've found the time to post :hurray: :D Sort of; didn't write my usual long epic posts though. I was late when I posted and only one eye was still open. I just looked at when you posted this and it 8:30 this morning - Yikes, I don't even have one eyelash open at that time. :smilewinkgrin:


I have ;) Fantastic! Good for you. You must be one of those fast readers! I read it twice. I wasn't as impressed first time around but then on second reading I saw the genius in it. First time I tried it I didn't realise it was Lawrence's story with the names changed. That made all the difference to me in the world. I must love prying into other's lives since I loved all the biographies I read on L as well and loved the travel book because the experience of mentally traveling elbow's length from our Lawrence was amazing and so intimate. By the end of the three books on his travels I felt I actually knew the man personally.


I know that is a main theme, but somehow it did not stand out that much to me :blush: Maybe because I knew it would be there :) Oedipus definitely came to mind a couple of times :nod: People always say so and point out the Oedipus thing but I think it went beyond that. Many parents latch onto children for comfort in a bad marriage. I don't think that is necessarily a matter of Oedipus complex; people get carried away with that term as they do in "Hamlet"...I personally have never seen Hamlet's jealousy and suspicion of his mother that way. At any rate a lot more is going on in S&L, don't you think? It's a coming of age story and it chronicles the Lawrence family dynamics well. I loved the book. I hope to listen to the narration soon. I have a film adaptation done not long ago which is quite good but basically is altered some from the novel - they always are. I still think it's a fine film - a miniseries - so they were able to expand on the finer points of the novel. The young man playing Lawrence is quite good. I have watched it many times now and enjoy it each time. So sad when the brother died.


Well, I am ready - post #3219 was on the last part of the text you posted :D Not sure whether Virgil is though - he must be busy planning his trip :hurray: Ok, I will do so soon; either tonight or tomorrow - ok? Yes, Virgil must be soooo busy and excited about the trip as well to reunite with his little boy.


:blush: Thank you.No need to blush because it is true. Hey, Sapphire I think you have blossomed and matured in the past few years; I can imagine you are quite good at your studies.


No worries, made me smile :D It did me as well. :smile5:


I really like that story too :nod: I always thought I never liked Oscar Wilde's work, but last year that somehow changed :crazy: I have no clue what happened :lol: Just yesterday I bought "the greatest works of Louis Couperus", a Dutch writer who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde with one of his stories/novelles. There are said to be some similarities in style between his work "Footsteps of Fate" and "the Picture of Dorian Gray". I need to get into that when I find the time.

I was lucky that my father introduced us to Oscar Wilde's children's fairytales at a young age. I loved them all and thought they went beyond the ordinary. I loved the one about the giant building a wall around his estate and not letting the children in to play. I also loved the one about the Prince and the little bird. They have such deep meanings; I suppose are more intended for adults. Interesting about that other author's novels. I will keep them in-mind.


Iago is a great choice indeed! He is puzzling and evil, isn't he? I like at the end when he says he will speak no more...something like that.


Aw... take good care of yourself and try to get your energy back! Don't force it too far because you think you have to post something here. I won't; I can't. I am having some health issues and they haven't improved with medications. I hope soon they find out specifically which antibiotic will work. Thanks for being understanding.


It was published first in 1915 (during the war), but the edition we're reading is from 1922 and he rewrote the whole thing until it became twice as long. It is from the beginning of 1922 and as WWI ended 11/11/1918 I would say the war was over for 3 years when this story was published.

That makes sense; Lawrence often rewrote his works. I think he was a tortured perfectionist; because most cases, he did this rewriting. Who would think he would produce so much material and have time for all the re-writes? I read a lot of Lawrence but keep discovering more. How did he have time to sleep?


I thought about it again and I think "Holland" is also an accepted term in the English language. Like saying "America" when you mean the USA. Basically it is not the right term, but everybody knows what you mean and only the nitpicks (like me :rofl:) notice :wink5: So really, no need for appologies! I thought that as well. Good I wasn't totally wrong. I get what you mean. America one thinks of the US; but really the America's encompasses the whole two continents.


I think it is as Virgil says: Ireland has an history of "struggling for independence" and how far they've come really depends on where you stand in history. In 1916 there was the "Easter Rising (1916)" which was pretty major, but as this story plays from 1903 to 1915 it can not be featured. I think I see what you mean with "fascination": I've had the same thing ever since I heard "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. Just the thought that there is a region of this much tension so nearby... Europe is not that peaceful: both world wars started here. I think me realising that started with that song... My son is Irish; his great-grandmother (now deceased) lived during those periods. It was sort of family joke, since when I meet her grandson he said she hated the English; and my background was English, Protestant, and Scottish - three strikes against me. However, his grandmother took to me and loved me dearly which was mutual. My ex took my son to Ireland for a visit. I have an Irish last name since it was never changed back. So I feel this affinity to my son's cultural background. I have been watching a lot of plays and movies based on those uprisings and revolutions...they are very interesting. The author Sean O'Casey wrote some good plays and one is "Shadow of a Gunman" which is on YT; it stars a younger Kenneth Branagh and I love the play. Another film I recently bought is "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" about the uprising in the country. It stars Cillian Murphy, a young Irish actor with emense talent. I like the film very much; you get a sense of how it was back then - brothers pitted against each other and all this upheaval in political beliefs.

You are probably right about the tension beginning there at home; not sure but it must have had an influence.


The other day I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct etc.) and he talked about his admiration for David Lean. :) There's always a connection, isn't there? :lol: I checked the movie out on wiki (a classic, I know :blush:), and it says there that it was loosely based on Madame Bovary by Flaubert. I think this was very loosely, for the summary I read does not resamble that book at all. I do think I need to see it for myself before I judge: it is a classic. And it says there's a reference to Lawrence of Arabia in it, which I think to be one of the greatest movies ever :D. Which brings us to T.E. Lawrence and back to D.H. Lawrence :p.


Well, there's his spade which he uses when the snake hisses away: True


A spade could also have made a good "injury" weapon. I myself tried to do some gardening when I was about 10: I used a "grown up" spade while I was barefoot... Almost cut my heal of :bangheadYikes, glad you didn't! You better stay clear of gardening.


I've added it to my list :DChronologically, " he did write a few early novels - "White Peacock" and "The Trespasser". I read them both and liked them.


:nod: Nicely said. Oh, thank you.


This story does make us talk about all sort of stuff :D Best thing about these discussions I believe. Opens many new worlds of thought to us.


Note: my last "direct" commentary is in post #3219, under the dotted/striped line. Ok, thanks.

[Virgil]

Ah, yes - Winifred can save the frog, but not Joyce or Egbert.

Now that I think of it, Winifred, through her father does save Joyce.

Nice detail: all alone, but they do have a house cleaner. I bet Mr Marshall paid her wages!


Originally Posted by Story
Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage!

"Wonderful" and "marvellous". But it did end, even before one of them died. :(
That is very sensual writing, with double entendre. :D


Originally Posted by Story
The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations.

There's the flame again :D It is a dark house, with dark rooms: it needs a flame to bring some light :). Funny how I always tought a haunted house was a bad thing. The two of them seem pretty happy with the physical desire the place is calling for :D Notice the mentioning of "generations": it has been going on for ages, without any change.
I wonder if Lawrence connects the flame with the bombs that kill Egbert? It wouldn't fit logically as far as I can tell, but the thought occurred to me. Generations recalls The Rainbow, which is a novel about generations.


In case we had not noticed it yet: the place is dark and secretive...
I wonder why the strong beasts, which mated in there, are said to be so lonely. Left to themselves. Don't they need to be with at least 2 to be mating? But I guess even beast can be lonely in company... Not sure why it has to be mentioned though. A foreshadowing of what Winifred and Egbert become? They might be happy together now, mating happily - but this will change, as it was for those beasts long ago...
Interesting you should point out the loneliness of the beasts. Lawrence's ideal creature is a flower, which is a solitary being and has the absense of will. Creatures that have mates have a battle of wills between them. I think the solitude suggests a happy state, closer to nature. And yes it does foreshadow as well.


"They became different". As far as I can make out, the difference is that they are out of this (city, modern) world - they already were passionate, weren't they?
I just realized. That flame is a suggestion of a certain spirituality, and that spirituality is rooted in nature, the Eden, and yes out of the modern world.


This is quite a long sentence :) I thought "the sense of the snakes" was a phrase which would be repeated in this story, but "ctrl+f" made clear that this is the only place in the story where it is used. It sounds familiar though...
Egbert, while working in the garden, disturbes these snakes. Just like Winifred denies one of them dinner :p. Those snakes must have been pretty annoyed with the pair :lol:
It's a beautiful sentence, especially this: "suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing." The snakes seem to threaten the hapiness, no? That frog in the mouth suggests their danger.


And being this primitive, it is not really in the “now” – in the world itself. And people who live there loose touch with the world “outside”. So Egbert and Winifred are “caught” there. Is it me, or is there a slightly negative connection to that word? I read it a bit like “trapped"... Which is odd, for I do get the idea that the narrator likes the “being out of the world”-feeling.
"The spear of modern invention..." Ha, a war metaphor tied into the modern world, and the spear is connected to the snakes. The snakes (modern world, war) do threaten their Eden.


BTW is there anybody who has an idea what "Crockham" might mean? As far as I know, it is only the cottage of Winifred and Egbert which is called that way, so I do not think it is the name of the hamlet.
I can't think of any connection with the name.



I will try to and when Virgil goes to Europe again I will have to try and make a better effort to be more interactive.
I'm going to Kazakhstan, which is in Asia not Europe. :wink5:


haha....Virgil doesn't believe in the subconscious; not sure about the unconscious.
The sub-conscious is mostly B.S. :D


Seems these elements are always so present in L works - snakes, primativeness, war beneath the surface, discord in families. The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden. The scyth might represent this and then it is spoiled once the child is injuried.
Yes, this is very classic Lawrence.


This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.
I agree. But where I disagree with lawrence is that there is no sub-conscious phenomena behind it. :)

[Sapphire]

Didn't write my usual long epic posts though.
:rofl: Trust me, they're long enough :wink5: And always a treat to read :)

Yikes, I don't even have one eyelash open at that time.
I do like the morning :) But also the (late) night :lol:

Many parents latch onto children for comfort in a bad marriage. I don't think that is necessarily a matter of Oedipus complex; people get carried away with that term as they do in "Hamlet"
Hamlet an Oedipus complex? First time I heard of it... No, I would not state that :nonod: And yes, there is a lot more going on - that is probably why it did not stand out to me so much. I did not mean to state Paul has a problem as huge as Oedipus had :p But he is a mother's boy.
Is the miniseries from BBC? They are quite productive in that department :) If it is, I should keep an eye on the TV-guide - they might air it sometime soon.

Hey, Sapphire I think you have blossomed and matured in the past few years
And that makes me blush again ;)

I was lucky that my father introduced us to Oscar Wilde's children's fairytales at a young age. I loved them all and thought they went beyond the ordinary. I loved the one about the giant building a wall around his estate and not letting the children in to play. I also loved the one about the Prince and the little bird. They have such deep meanings; I suppose are more intended for adults.
That sounds wonderful! :hurray: I'll have to check those out. My mother never let us read fairytales: she thought them too gruesome.

He is puzzling and evil, isn't he? I like at the end when he says he will speak no more...something like that.
Yes, he is :nod: I always wondered why Othello calls him a "demi-devil". I mean, he's not HALF mean is he? He's quite whole in his meaniness :nod:

Demand me nothing: what you know, you know: From this time forth I never will speak word
And then everybody dies, like so often in Shakespeare :coolgleamA:

I hope soon they find out specifically which antibiotic will work.
Me too. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Novithiliel/smiley/hug.gif

I think he was a tortured perfectionist; because most cases, he did this rewriting.
Yes, he wrote so much - and then re-wrote almost everything! :crazy: It must have been both a blessing and a curse...

So I feel this affinity to my son's cultural background. I have been watching a lot of plays and movies based on those uprisings and revolutions...they are very interesting. The author Sean O'Casey wrote some good plays and one is "Shadow of a Gunman" which is on YT; it stars a younger Kenneth Branagh and I love the play. Another film I recently bought is "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" about the uprising in the country.
I can imagine: it comes closer that way, doesn't it? For me geographically, for you familiary (:p I don't think that is right regarding the grammar, but I hope you get the point). I think I've heard about both the titles you mention. Especially the movie sounds very familiar.

You better stay clear of gardening.
I'm a born amateur at it ;) Or rather a born destroyer :lol: Cutting bushes way too small and tearing out plants which turned out to be beautiful flowers instead of weed...

"White Peacock" and "The Trespasser". I read them both and liked them.
I've read the first, not yet the second. I can not really recall the story anymore though :blush: I mix it up with "the Wintry Peacock" all the time :banghead:


Winifred, through her father does save Joyce.
From death, yes. But not from being a cripple.

That is very sensual writing, with double entendre.
You mean the implication of sex? :angel: Very sensual indeed, and in my opinion much stronger than when it would have been explicit.

I wonder if Lawrence connects the flame with the bombs that kill Egbert?
Maybe... but it is not really his passion which kills him, does it? It is rather the fact that he gives in to letting go of his passion and to just take orders. I think to Lawrence flames mean life. But in his dualism life might mean death so death can be connected to flames: phoenix-like.

Generations recalls The Rainbow, which is a novel about generations.
Well, he did write "the Rainbow" while he also wrote this story (1915) :).

Interesting you should point out the loneliness of the beasts. /.../ I think the solitude suggests a happy state, closer to nature.
I also think that solitude is connected to happyness - or maybe rather seclusion, and being away from the modern world. But loneliness implies sorrow. You can be alone in a room full of people...

That flame is a suggestion of a certain spirituality, and that spirituality is rooted in nature, the Eden, and yes out of the modern world.
Nicely put. And yet it is fire which the humans took from the gods and which made them think they could act like gods... Creating their own garden...

I can't think of any connection with the name.
Me neither, but it is named so explicitely. :idea: We could read it as Crock+ham. Isn't "crock" slang for somebody who's not good on his/her legs, somebody who is broken? And "ham" just means "city/village", possibly from "hamlet". I'm just throwing this out: I have no proof for this idea! Just a dictionary with synonyms :p.

I'm going to Kazakhstan, which is in Asia not Europe.
I hope you'll have a good trip and wish you and your wife the best with this new stage in your lives!

Ok, this is odd: all my "quotes" are italic! Always! And the quotes in your posts are not?! :out: :crazy: Sometimes computers dazzle me :rofl:

[Sapphire]

I just thought of something: We've been talking about Ireland and about Roses, but we did not make the connection. Roses remind of the Wars of the Roses and thus England, but in Irish mythology Ireland is called "Roisin Dubh" or "the dark rose". The roses in this story by Lawrence are not dark, so I do not think there is a connection there, but it did remind me of a poem by Yeats. He could have read it, for it was in a collection called "the Rose" from 1893. Did Lawrence read Yeats?

To the Rose upon the Rood of Timeby

Red Rose, proud Rose, sad Rose of all my days!
Come near me, while I sing the ancient ways:
Cuchulain battling with the bitter tide;
The Druid, grey, wood-nurtured, quiet-eyed,
Who cast round Fergus dreams, and ruin untold;
And thine own sadness, whereof stars, grown old
In dancing silver-sandalled on the sea,
Sing in their high and lonely melody.
Come near, that no more blinded by man's fate,
I find under the boughs of love and hate,
In all poor foolish things that live a day,
Eternal beauty wandering on her way.


Come near, come near, come near—Ah, leave me still
A little space for the rose-breath to fill!
Lest I no more hear common things that crave;
The weak worm hiding down in its small cave,
The field-mouse running by me in the grass,
And heavy mortal hopes that toil and pass;
But seek alone to hear the strange things said
By God to the bright hearts of those long dead,
And learn to chaunt a tongue men do not know.
Come near; I would, before my time to go,
Sing of old Eire and the ancient ways:
Red Rose, proud Rose, sad Rose of all my days.
It has some sense of history and primitiveness which I also find in this story by Lawrence :).

[Janine]

Sapphire, that is a beautiful poem. I have no idea if Lawrence read Yeats but I will try looking that up in the index of my autobiography books. I will come back later this evening to comment more and to post some new text.

Back again - here is the link to the YT poetry reading of Lawrence's "Snake"...it's an interesting poem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vddYmmxdKZo

Here is the next part of the text:


He was not idle, nor was she. There were plenty of things to be done, the house to be put into final repair after the workmen had gone, cushions and curtains to sew, the paths to make, the water to fetch and attend to, and then the slope of the deep-soiled, neglected garden to level, to terrace with little terraces and paths, and to fill with flowers. He worked away, in his shirt-sleeves, worked all day intermittently doing this thing and the other. And she, quiet and rich in herself, seeing him stooping and labouring away by himself, would come to help him, to be near him. He of course was an amateur--a born amateur. He worked so hard, and did so little, and nothing he ever did would hold together for long. If he terraced the garden, he held up the earth with a couple of long narrow planks that soon began to bend with the pressure from behind, and would not need many years to rot through and break and let the soil slither all down again in a heap towards the stream-bed. But there you are. He had not been brought up to come to grips with anything, and he thought it would do. Nay, he did not think there was anything else except little temporary contrivances possible, he who had such a passion for his old enduring cottage, and for the old enduring things of the bygone England. Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

Winifred could not criticize him. Town-bred, everything seemed to her splendid, and the very digging and shovelling itself seemed romantic. But neither Egbert nor she yet realized the difference between work and romance.

Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the ménage down at Crockham Cottage. He thought Egbert was wonderful, the many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical passion between the two young people. To the man who in London still worked hard to keep steady his modest fortune, the thought of this young couple digging away and loving one another down at Crockham Cottage, buried deep among the commons and marshes, near the pale-showing bulk of the downs, was like a chapter of living romance. And they drew the sustenance for their fire of passion from him, from the old man. It was he who fed their flame. He triumphed secretly in the thought. And it was to her father that Winifred still turned, as the one source of all surety and life and support. She loved Egbert with passion. But behind her was the power of her father. It was the power of her father she referred to, whenever she needed to refer. It never occurred to her to refer to Egbert, if she were in difficulty or doubt. No, in all the _serious_ matters she depended on her father.

For Egbert had no intention of coming to grips with life. He had no ambition whatsoever. He came from a decent family, from a pleasant country home, from delightful surroundings. He should, of course, have had a profession. He should have studied law or entered business in some way. But no--that fatal three pounds a week would keep him from starving as long as he lived, and he did not want to give himself into bondage. It was not that he was idle. He was always doing something, in his amateurish way. But he had no desire to give himself to the world, and still less had he any desire to fight his way in the world. No, no, the world wasn't worth it. He wanted to ignore it, to go his own way apart, like a casual pilgrim down the forsaken sidetracks. He loved his wife, his cottage and garden. He would make his life there, as a sort of epicurean hermit. He loved the past, the old music and dances and customs of old England. He would try and live in the spirit of these, not in the spirit of the world of business.

Go to it Sapphire! hahahaha

[Sapphire]

Snake is indeed an interesting poem :nod: it was also quoted while talking about the stories "the Sun" - Lawrence did use this imagery quite a bit :wink5: In this post {link to 583, last paragraph} (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=475058&postcount=583) you say you are not sure when it was written: either in 1920 or 1923. You state it might be that he wrote it in 1920 in Taormina and then got it published in 1923. Do you think you can check on this: if he wrote it in 1920 he had already written it when he rewrote this story, in 1923 he would have written it after he rewrote this story. So what I mean to say is: I wonder whether the poem influenced the story or the other way around.
Maybe it is neither, probably he just has a thing for snakes :lol: He was afraid of them...

And truly I was afraid, I was most afraid, But even so, honoured still more
That he should seek my hospitality
From out the dark door of the secret earth.


Go to it Sapphire!
Well, lets start with the first paragraph you posted :)


He was not idle, nor was she.
This gets said 2 more times: “he was not idle”. And no, he was not. But he was not doing anything enduring either. But in the big scheme of things, what is enduring? :p Let’s go philosophical! :nonod: :lol:
I guess the point is that he is not idle, but he might as well have been. He only works for himself: only to be busy. To feel the joy of doing something, creating something. While over time, he does not create anything. He amounts to nothing.
I am not sure what he should have done to avoid this though… Earning money would not exactly have been enduring either, would it? Does “being paid” for a job make that job worthy?

There were plenty of things to be done, the house to be put into final repair after the workmen had gone, cushions and curtains to sew, the paths to make, the water to fetch and attend to, and then the slope of the deep-soiled, neglected garden to level, to terrace with little terraces and paths, and to fill with flowers.
:D Plenty indeed! At this point in the story I felt like I should step in and lend a hand. Not that I am very handy :rofl:
We do know, from the beginning of the story, that Egbert succeeds in filling the place with flowers :nod: He has to keep attending to the garden, but in my experience even the best gardener has to keep on working to get his/her garden trough the seasons.

He worked away, in his shirt-sleeves, worked all day intermittently doing this thing and the other.
Maybe his work was a bit superficial? Jumping from one job to the next before the first was done?
And I noted the "shirt-sleeves". Am I right to assume that in those days there was something slightly sensual about him being dressed like that? Like when a woman would go with bare arms?

And she, quiet and rich in herself, seeing him stooping and labouring away by himself, would come to help him, to be near him.
Aw… so sweet :)

He of course was an amateur - a born amateur. He worked so hard, and did so little, and nothing he ever did would hold together for long.
A born rose and a born amateur. I wonder whether those two are automatically connected? Too much of an idealist and a dreamer to ever be practical.

If he terraced the garden, he held up the earth with a couple of long narrow planks that soon began to bend with the pressure from behind, and would not need many years to rot through and break and let the soil slither all down again in a heap towards the stream-bed.
Which would be understandable the first time around, but he should have learned from his mistake and do a better job next time. Apparently not…

But there you are. He had not been brought up to come to grips with anything, and he thought it would do.
Ah… so now it is not only breeding, but also upbringing. I guess those two are connected though :wink5: Sentences like this make me wonder what family Egbert is from.

Nay, he did not think there was anything else except little temporary contrivances possible, he who had such a passion for his old enduring cottage, and for the old enduring things of the bygone England. Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.
Curious indeed, and nicely put. Again: two sides of the medallion, like nord/south and dark/light.

[Janine]

Sapphire, I loved what you wrote but I have to delay until the weekend. I cut two fingers and they are hurting a lot. I wrote you a more detailed note in messages. Stay calm and patient and I will get back to you on the Saturday. Enjoy the rest of your vacation. I am sure by now you have read dozens of commentaries on S&L's, too. I love your enthusiasm for our guy, L. I cherish sharing that with you.

[Sapphire]

I'm really looking forward to start this discussion again :hurray:
Two months of silence - time to get back into this story :D

Lets remember where we're at:
In the beginning, we are introduced to a man who's working in the garden - it seems quite idillic, but he's not happy. He can not conquer nature and is "fighting" to cultivate the garden - without hope and pleasure. He thinks back to happier days. Back when he fell in love with his (now) wife, back when this cottage seemed a dream come true, back when being one with nature was enough.
The family of his wife is introduced: a patriarchal father, an artistic mother and 3 daughters. They all have a (second?) house near the cottage. Egbert and Winifred live in the country all the time though - "caught out of the world".

This was where we were before Janine posted a new part of the text (#3226 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=946438&postcount=3226), first post on this page). I commented on the first paragraph (post #3227 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=946858&postcount=3227), 2 posts up). Here, we read about the first cracks in this ideal life. Or at least about something which is not a problem yet, but might become in the future. I did not mention this before, but this working in the garden is also what the story starts with. From the beginning Egberts is presented as a hard working man - as flawed as his works might be.

I wonder what you all think of that first paragraph of the next text :) I can not have gotten it right on the first try :lol:

I really think the last line is key to Egberts dualism:

Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

I'm really looking forward to start this discussion again :hurray:

[Janine]

Hi Sapphire, good post summarizing and keeping us up-to-date on the story. You write like a teacher, organized in your mind. Lately I have been so scatter-brained; this really helps to anchor me again. I like the fact you bring up the time element - present and past.
Indeed the past is more comfortable a zone for Egbert to live in. He has no ambition to break out of his routines and he might work hard but the world would look on his work as pointless. I can't help but think that this mimic's Lawrence's own life - the part about not wanting to give oneself over to the world or the norm. Lawrence, as we all know, was very prolithic and productive with his writing and art, but at the time, many thought he was wasting his time and puttering. Lawrence fought the establishment and always traveled his own path. He wanted nothing to do with capitalism and lived frugally, just enough to travel and to support his wife and himself. Unlike Egbert he never truly settled down but he did have 'homes' for periods of time in certain locations which he loved. Oddly enough, Lawrence chose his early nickname, Bert, to form his protagonist's name - Egbert...so there must be some connection there to how he could relate to the character. Lawrence also loved gardens and was ambitious in this way.


Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

Interesting line indeed.

I am also looking forward to picking up from where we left off. Nice to see some action in this thread after all those silent months.

[Sapphire]

Thank you :blush: My mind might be organized when it comes to this story, but you should see my room :lol: Total dualism there :p.

I myself like how time is used in this story: we drop in with a disillusioned Egbert, get a look in the past (how it got this way) and then ... but we're not there yet :wink5: Rembember how I tried to visualise the timeline in post #3165 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934332&postcount=3165)? (bottom of the page, 3 posts got merged) It helps me to keep things organized :lol:

The past is more comfortable a zone for Egbert to live in
I agree with this. Those are the days when he lives his romance, when he is not expected to take any responsibility. This is the time when the people who surround him accept him to behave like a newly wed - just enjoying life as it comes with the seasons. He is less comfortable in the present, because people expect him to develop in a certain way - and he refuses ;) But we're not there yet :nonod:
This all brings me back to high school literature lessons: flat characters and full characters. Flat characters are something like a caricature: they don't change during the story - at least, that is the definition I remember. Egbert is definitely a full character, but he refuses to be one - he refuses to develop. He wants to be a flat character :D.

I can't help but think that this mimic's Lawrence's own life
Maybe, with the difference that Egbert's work is the labour of the body, he tries to influence the country. Lawrence's work is the labour of the mind, he tries to influence the way people think. Or at least to tell a story which will linger in our thoughts. You're right that they both "do" a lot, while this is but limitedly appreciated during their lifetime. This must have frustrated Lawrence, he must have doubted his own talents... But he stubbornly went on, just like Egbert :)

NEXT PART OF THE TEXT, the second alinea

Winifred could not criticize him. Town-bred, everything seemed to her splendid, and the very digging and shovelling itself seemed romantic. But neither Egbert nor she yet realized the difference between work and romance.
First I thought Winifred could not criticize him as she sees him as a “higher” being. But the second sentence seems to imply she can not criticize him as she does not know what to do herself either. I wonder whether Egbert is town-bred... maybe he’s city-bred. NOTE: he isn't, we'll learn this soon :) It is just what I thought at this point.
The last sentence is again a warning, a foreshadowing of what they will learn: the (will to) work (for money) will kill the romance. Right now, work (as unproductive as it is) and romance are one.

[Janine]

Thank you :blush: My mind might be organized when it comes to this story, but you should see my room :lol: Total dualism there :p.

:seeya:Hi Sapphire, Mine, too....you should see how much I have crammed into a small space.....pretty hopeless....:brickwall


I myself like how time is used in this story: we drop in with a disillusioned Egbert, get a look in the past (how it got this way) and then ... but we're not there yet :wink5: Rembember how I tried to visualise the timeline in post #3165 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=934332&postcount=3165)? (bottom of the page, 3 posts got merged) It helps me to keep things organized :lol:

:iagree:I agree. Not sure what post that is, but I agree with you either way...and you sure are organised on here. :lol:


I agree with this. Those are the days when he lives his romance, when he is not expected to take any responsibility. This is the time when the people who surround him accept him to behave like a newly wed - just enjoying life as it comes with the seasons. He is less comfortable in the present, because people expect him to develop in a certain way - and he refuses ;) But we're not there yet :nonod:

That seems like the 'honeymoon' period. It eventually turns out to be real life with responsibilies and that is why there was so many divorces. Fairytales are nice but they are not realistic....neither is Egbert.



This all brings me back to high school literature lessons: flat characters and full characters. Flat characters are something like a caricature: they don't change during the story - at least, that is the definition I remember. Egbert is definitely a full character, but he refuses to be one - he refuses to develop. He wants to be a flat character :D.

That's really good. I like the way your teacher described the characters...I never thought in these terms before. Mostly I think I agree with you...in Egbert's case, he is wishy washy and not really thinking of anything to do of great importance. He just muddles along at his own pace, yet his life in his way is full...that is, for a time; then after the child's accident, the dynamics of the family just don't work anymore and he is forced into accepting the quote 'normal' way of life. In other words stark reality settles in. He has lost the magic of his existence when he was forced to see outside his perimeters and his garden project and his so called, idealic life. I think the story has a lot to do with idealism vs. realism, don't you?


Maybe, with the difference that Egbert's work is the labour of the body, he tries to influence the country. Lawrence's work is the labour of the mind, he tries to influence the way people think. Or at least to tell a story which will linger in our thoughts. You're right that they both "do" a lot, while this is but limitedly appreciated during their lifetime. This must have frustrated Lawrence, he must have doubted his own talents... But he stubbornly went on, just like Egbert :)

It is that but also Lawrence very much liked to putter and work around the house or his ranch in New Mexico. He was never idle or lazy even though he would take breaks from his writing. I think he would have related well to his character in this way. Some of his happiest and most idyllic moments were those spend on a farm or tending a garden. Lawrence indeed was frustrated often with his work because he was simply not accepted in his day as he is now. He fought against so much hypocrisy and unfair criticism.



NEXT PART OF THE TEXT, the second alinea

First I thought Winifred could not criticize him as she sees him as a “higher” being. But the second sentence seems to imply she can not criticize him as she does not know what to do herself either. I wonder whether Egbert is town-bred... maybe he’s city-bred. NOTE: he isn't, we'll learn this soon :) It is just what I thought at this point.
The last sentence is again a warning, a foreshadowing of what they will learn: the (will to) work (for money) will kill the romance. Right now, work (as unproductive as it is) and romance are one.

:nod:Correct. It sounds logical. Lawrence hated 'the love of money'.

Let me know when you want to move onto new text.

[Sapphire]

Not sure what post that is, but I agree with you either way...and you sure are organised on here.
:lol: Thank you :)

That seems like the 'honeymoon' period. It eventually turns out to be real life with responsibilies and that is why there was so many divorces. Fairytales are nice but they are not realistic....neither is Egbert.
Spot on :nod: He surely tries to stay in that honeymoon period. He even expects things to stay the same when the children are born... A man can dream ;)
In the biography on DH Lawrence by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, it is mentioned that the first version of this story was mainly about Egbert living in a dream at Crockham - while the later (1922) version turned Crockham much more into a place from the past, the old England.

The first version made Evelyn's garden the beautiful dream of an unworldly man opting out of society - till ... {spoiler, so I deleted it}
But in the rewriting, the garden and the ancient yeoman's cottage in the old 'savage' place become a final and beautiful flowering of a long English history. The spirit of place lingers on primeval, snakes and all, in the ancient setting. The lovers inherit a dark home where generations have loved and coupled before them.
This is also what Virgil has been saying, about this being meant by Lawrence to be a historical story.

He just muddles along at his own pace, yet his life in his way is full...that is, for a time; then after the child's accident, the dynamics of the family just don't work anymore and he is forced into accepting the quote 'normal' way of life. In other words stark reality settles in.
I'm with you on most, but I don't think the child's accident is when the dynamics of the family stop to work. I would rather put that moment at the birth of the first child - but we'll get there ... Moving slowly :)

I think the story has a lot to do with idealism vs. realism, don't you?
Yes :nod: I think you found a theme there :hurray:

It is that but also Lawrence very much liked to putter and work around the house or his ranch in New Mexico.
I just thought he wouldn't have time for that anymore, with all the writing he did! :) Thank you for telling this.
The difference though, is that Egbert is not happy with his work in the garden. Or at least he does not seem to be all that happy at the beginning of the story: being worried about how he doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe I should say he isn't ALWAYS happy to work in the garden. But then again, we all have our "off" days :p.

Let me know when you want to move onto new text.
Hold on, we still have quite some text to cover :D

I'll be back :)

[Sapphire]

Back :D

On to the NEXT PARAGRAPH of the text

Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the ménage down at Crockham Cottage.
I had to read this sentence 3 times before I realized it just said “ménage” and not “ménage a trois”. Funny how some words are always connected to others – or at least in my brain ;).
Notice how this sentence is a warning again, just like the last one in the previous paragraph. It is all positive, but by adding the word “first” the reader immediately knows that the opinion of the father is probably going to change.
This was also the point in the story where I realized I wasn’t reading Egbert his view on things. Until here I did not realize there was a (omniscient) narrator. I thought we were just in Egberts mind while he thought back at days gone by :) But we do not just learn his point of view, we learn a lot about the ideas and dreams of the father and the daughter too.
He thought Egbert was wonderful, the many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical passion between the two young people.
Notice the part “the many things he accomplished”. What had Egbert accomplished at this point in time?! Concluded his study? Married Winifred? Surely the dad would not look at that last one as an accomplishment – he himself made that possible by giving them the cottage. He does expect Egbert to accomplish things, and that is what drives the two apart in the end… That is why I am so surprised to read here that he thought Egbert had accomplished things…
I think the last part of the sentence might have made some people frown in 1920. :wink5:

To the man who in London still worked hard to keep steady his modest fortune, the thought of this young couple digging away and loving one another down at Crockham Cottage, buried deep among the commons and marshes, near the pale-showing bulk of the downs, was like a chapter of living romance.
Wow, this is quite a sentence :D It points a lot of things out again: how mr. Marshall has enough money, but is not rich – he still has to work to provide. How he loves his daughters and is glad one of them has found a partner that loves her. How he is a bit Christmassy: a sucker for a happy ending :p.
Here we read their life at the cottage is like a “chapter of living romance”. A chapter, not the whole book. And again that word romance, that word which the happy couple can not yet differentiate from “work” (see last paragraph)

And they drew the sustenance for their fire of passion from him, from the old man.
What?! Erm… I’m not really feeling this… :blush:

It was he who fed their flame.
Flame again :D

He triumphed secretly in the thought. And it was to her father that Winifred still turned, as the one source of all surety and life and support.
He stays the responsible one, the patriarch. He likes to be the one in control.

She loved Egbert with passion. But behind her was the power of her father. It was the power of her father she referred to, whenever she needed to refer. It never occurred to her to refer to Egbert, if she were in difficulty or doubt. No, in all the serious matters she depended on her father.
I’m not sure what to say about this last bit, just that it is important :D Winifred keeps attached to her father, reliant on her father. Egbert does not only not take that responsibility, Winifred does not ask it of him either. “It never occurred to her”.
I am not sure whether marrying somebody means you have to refer to that person in difficulty and doubt. I do think something like that is said in the vows…

[Janine]

Sapphire, I hurt my shoulder; think it's burstitis. It's getting better with rest. I had to take my mother out today and I am exhausted. Hold up a day and don't post anymore and tomorrow hopefully I can answer what you wrote. It's quite insightful and good.

[Janine]

I hope you will understand Sapphire...can't get back to this until the weekend. I seem to be overly busy all week; whereas weekends feel a little more relaxed. Be back soon, unless some earth shattering event happens here...hope surely it doesn't...haha.

[Sapphire]

No worries :D Take all the time you need - there are no deadlines :wink5:

[Janine]

:lol: Thank you :)
Well, I found it more difficult than I predicted to get back here again...but better late than never. Anyway, I meant what I said. You think clearly and write well expressing yourself about the story.


Spot on :nod: He surely tries to stay in that honeymoon period. He even expects things to stay the same when the children are born... A man can dream ;) Yes, so true. He is rooted in the soil which comprises his little quiet fantasy world. He is very comfortable - it's his comfort zone, so to speak. When the children come along reality does alter; things get more real and he is forced to face reality. He's very much a dreamer I believe.


In the biography on DH Lawrence by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, it is mentioned that the first version of this story was mainly about Egbert living in a dream at Crockham - while the later (1922) version turned Crockham much more into a place from the past, the old England. And that is so Lawrence...looking at the old England in contrast to a new one. Lawrence is always about opposites. Looking at his early life one can see why.


This is also what Virgil has been saying, about this being meant by Lawrence to be a historical story. Definitely so. I think everything that Lawrence writes is historical or autobiographical in a sense. His work is so intimate and personal. This is what always draws me to the author and his words.


I'm with you on most, but I don't think the child's accident is when the dynamics of the family stop to work. I would rather put that moment at the birth of the first child - but we'll get there ... Moving slowly :) You are probably right. It begins before that when the child comes into the picture. The dynamics between he and his wife change as they natually do in most instances in life. Egbert fights against any change so that his whole fantasy world is then disrupted and that is dramatic for him; even more so when he is blamed for the child's injuries.


Yes :nod: I think you found a theme there :hurray: Hopefully...haha.


I just thought he wouldn't have time for that anymore, with all the writing he did! :) Thank you for telling this. You kidding, surprisingly Lawrence seemed to have time to do a lot of unusual things. I sometimes wonder when he slept. He was so prolithic a writer/artist but he also was a regular man and liked simply living and taking part is joyous things in life, like baking bread. He was quite extraordinary. He loved living on a ranch and back then, that meant a lot of work, like hauling your own water. I have a movie version of Lawrence in Australia and he loved being a part of a group working the land. Well, the character is not really based on Lawrence, but somehow one gets the sense, that a lot of the character is Lawrence. I think this closeness to nature and land gave his work the richness it has.


The difference though, is that Egbert is not happy with his work in the garden. Or at least he does not seem to be all that happy at the beginning of the story: being worried about how he doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe I should say he isn't ALWAYS happy to work in the garden. But then again, we all have our "off" days :p. True. Not sure if that was not due to some sense of being a perfectionist or an idealist in whatever the work in the garden entailed or his vision of what is should become. L and the character, remember, had that artistic temperment.


Hold on, we still have quite some text to cover :D How true. Well, I will only answer this one tonight and do the other soon. I am so darn busy. Wish I wasn't, but it's going to get worse with the construction taking place in our house. I am starting to get stressed about that...it may involve more than I anticipated.


I'll be back :) I see you did come back by the entry below. Don't answer yet and I will get to that one, too...promise.

[trypsin]

i never predcited that the thread about D.H. LAWRENCE could last such long, but i really him, and his writing, i gotta read this thread from the very beginning~

[Janine]

i never predcited that the thread about D.H. LAWRENCE could last such long, but i really him, and his writing, i gotta read this thread from the very beginning~

Welcome trypsin, I hope you can join us; although not much action is happening presently. One person dropped out of the site for a time and I am awfully busy with home improvement projects and the impending holidays; but pay no mind to that. I am sorry I only just now noticed you here. Yes, indeed this thread has run a long time and we have discussed many a great L story. I am an avid fan of the author and proudly say I have read most of all he wrote; although some has still eluded me since he was such a prolithic author. Take you time reading back and enjoy yourself. Sapphire very kindly copied everything in PDF format for eternity; so, if you need a copy it is possible you can get one or read along online.

Hope my 'welcome' didn't come too late and you stick around the site. It's a good one and this thread has been very rewarding.

[Emmy Castrol]

Can anyone read and understand DH Lawrence? I gave a colleague of mine some of his short stories (second best, sun & odour of chrysanthemums) and I was really surprised - and disappointed - when she told me she couldn't see the point in them. "It's as if he is writing about nothing at all,' she said to me. Just curious if anyone else has come across this...

So, anyone know when the next story is to be discussed and what it will be?

How can I get a copy of the pdf version of this thread? I tried reading online but I seem to get stuck on page 18 and find it difficult to get past there.

[Janine]

Hi Emmy, sorry it took till now to get back to you. This thread needs reviving for certain but I am afraid, as far as my own contribution, I can't commit until later this spring or summer. Then hopefully I can lure others back in here. I have a PDF of the whole thread. Another member on here sent it to me via email. If you want to email me and give me your email address I can send one off to you. It's just a text file but it's quite interesting and you can read it at your leisure.

Why of course your friend who read Lawrence is soooo wrong. His books and his stories have so much meaning. I am sad to know she could not see it, but then some do not appreciate Lawrence the way others do. I am huge advocate of his work. This thread has been a life-altering experience and on totally worth every minute. We discussed most the stories and I have read them all by now but I would definitely like to discuss the ones we didn't, on this thread eventually.

[Janine]

I found a gem on Audible on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/DH-Lawrence-The-Short-Stories/dp/B003F7R97M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295208167&sr=8-2

The narration is quite good and I believe most of these we already discussed. Hope you enjoy them, whoever may be paying attention.

[Emmy Castrol]

Why of course your friend who read Lawrence is soooo wrong. His books and his stories have so much meaning. I am sad to know she could not see it, but then some do not appreciate Lawrence the way others do.

I agree with your views on DH Lawrence and I am happy because the existence of this thread shows there are people in the world who love his work. Unfortunately, everyone I seem to know in person either can't appreciate his work or think he's a mad man. I think DH Lawrence is one of the most honest writers I have come across and I find his sincerity uplifting, especially since I have a somewhate melancholy disposition and withdraw regularly. I am reading Kangaroo at the moment and it is very interesting seeing how he viewed Australia.

[Janine]

I agree with your views on DH Lawrence and I am happy because the existence of this thread shows there are people in the world who love his work. Unfortunately, everyone I seem to know in person either can't appreciate his work or think he's a mad man. I think DH Lawrence is one of the most honest writers I have come across and I find his sincerity uplifting, especially since I have a somewhate melancholy disposition and withdraw regularly. I am reading Kangaroo at the moment and it is very interesting seeing how he viewed Australia.

Emmy, I read "Kangaroo" ages ago and liked it very much; many do not understand it or consider it a minor work. It's actually based on Lawrence and his wife's time in Australia; it reveals a lot about their relationship at that point. I agree with you in that Lawrence is such a totally true and honest writer. That is what I like about him. Other writers may have thought of what he actually comes out and says but restrained themselves because of the times and censorship, etc. I think Lawrence was a trail-blazer and far ahead of his times. If you enjoy "Kangaroo", seek out "Boy in the Bush" (also set in Australia)...Lawrence colaborated with Molly Skinner to write it; but now scholars all agree that the book is 'all Lawrence'. I have the 'made for TV' series based on the book, starring a young Kenneth Branagh, on DVD. A very good friend in the UK kindly made me the copy and sent it to me. I have watched it many times now; but would definitely like to revisit the book in the future; I would like to read "Kangaroo" again as well. I recently got an iPod Touch and hope to find them both on one of the sites to read on the device or perhaps an audiofile. I love to listen to the books being read and acted out.

[Virgil]

Can anyone read and understand DH Lawrence? I gave a colleague of mine some of his short stories (second best, sun & odour of chrysanthemums) and I was really surprised - and disappointed - when she told me she couldn't see the point in them. "It's as if he is writing about nothing at all,' she said to me. Just curious if anyone else has come across this...

So, anyone know when the next story is to be discussed and what it will be?

How can I get a copy of the pdf version of this thread? I tried reading online but I seem to get stuck on page 18 and find it difficult to get past there.

Welcome Emily. It's good to meet another Lawrence fan. One day we may actually start up another group reading. Until then, I hope you enjoy reading through our wild and often loony comments here. :wink5:

[Janine]

Welcome Emily. It's good to meet another Lawrence fan. One day we may actually start up another group reading. Until then, I hope you enjoy reading through our wild and often loony comments here. :wink5:

Virgil, isn't it great that Emmy surfaced again in this thread. I am happy to have another Lawrence enthusiast at last and we also have several others - when we do start up again we will have a great group.

Did you check out that audiobook? It is really good....5 of Lawrence's stories and they all seem new to me except the first on. "The Old Adam" seems different but perhaps it's just since it's being read. I love them all. I would copy the file but I don't think I can since it's from Audible. Can you get books from Audible for your Kindle? Oh that's right - it's not a audio device. Still you should sign up and get it on your computer. I highly recommend it and the site.

[redrobot]

hello

i seem to remember reading a short story by dhl in which a woman stays at a house near the sea and reads poetry written on the wall by her bed put there by a departed poet who she falls in love with. there's some mention of samphire growing on the cliff. i've googled it but can't find it. have i got the wrong author?

:banana::banana::banana: :banana::banana::banana: :banana::banana::banana:

[adityaverma]

just found this book belongs to my mother, the pages have yellowed down, but the the picture on the cover of this book is really intriguing .It has a slivery vulture like bird figure in its nest, with its wings waving in the air..... anybody knows what its supposed to mean??The woman who rode away and other stories / DH Lawrence