D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread [Archive] - Page 4

Janine

01-10-2008, 12:43 AM

I can't believe it, I just spend an hour on a post that did not go through. So here I am starting all over again.

The following is from the book "D.H. Lawrence, Dying Game, 1922-1930: The Cambridge Biography of D. H. Lawrence" By David Ellis

‘Mercury’ was probably the only writing Lawrence did in Germany given that he had posted ‘The Man Who Loved Islands’ to Nancy Pearn just before leaving Italy (v.498). When in 1927 this story was to be included in the Women Who Rode Away collection, Compton Mackenzie put so much pressure on Martin Secker, his publisher as well as Lawrence’s, that Secker felt obliged to omit it.37 Mackenzie is the obvious model for the chief character since not many other men in Britain could have moved fromone island to another (from Herm to Jethou in the Channel Islands), and then acquired a third (the Shiants); and at the start of the story the treatment is mildly satirical. But as in “Mercury’ the tone also changes half-way, and by the end of the story it is so absolutely justifies Lawrence’s own angry claim ‘the man is no more he than I am’ (vi.205) that one has to believe that in protesting as he did Mackenzie was objecting to ‘Two Blue Birds’ by proxy. Lawrence’s further claim in his comments on Mackenzie’s threats was that ‘The Man who loved islands has a philospophy behind him, and a real significance (vi.218), and insofar as the story deals rigorously and in a relatively abstract way with a quite specific issue, it is probably the most philosophical fiction he ever wrote.

The man who loves islands is called Cathcart. On the first of them he has a whole retinue and lives in semi-feudal state. But partly because his retainers cheat him, he moves to a second, smaller island accompanied only by one old couple, a widow and her daughter to keep his house, and an orphan boy. Still he loses money. On the second island Cathcart slides automatically and not very willingly into an affair wih the widow’s daughter. 38 When the daughter becomes pregnant, he marries her but, after the birth of the child, makes a generous financial provision and escapes any further involvement by moving alone to a third island which, like the Shiants, is little more than a rock in the sea. There he becomes irritated by the company of some sheep and has them removed; and when his cat leaves him he is relieved. Cathcart has been writing a reference book to all the flowers mentioned in Greek and Latin literature (this is more or less what Lawrence had believed Douglas was doing but when his book appeared in Florence in 1927 it was in fact entitled Birds and Beasts of the Greek Anthology)
On this third island he abandons the book and loses interest in this own powers of visual and linquistic discrimation:

Many gulls were on the island now: many sea-birds of all sorts. It was another world of life. Many of the birds he had never seen before. His old impulse came over him, to send for a book, to know their names. In a flicker of the old passion, to know the name of everything he saw, he even decided to row out to the steamer. The names of these birds! he must know their names, otherwise he had not got them, they were not quite alive to him.
But the desire left him, and he merely watched the birds as they wheeled or walked around him, watched them vaguely, without discrimination.39

It is impossible to read this without recalling Lawrence’s own extraordinary expertise, in botany especially, and how shocked he was by others who did not seem to know the names of things. One critic has worked out that in his first novel, The White Peacock., 145 different trees, shrubs or plants are identified and 40 different kinds of birds;40 and certainly the success of Lawrene’s famous ‘nature descriptions’ is inseparable from a high degree of technical and linquistic knowledge. For the man on the island works no longer mean anything; he finds it repulsive to read his name on an envelop and, in a master stroke of narrative, he is described as tearing ‘the brass label from his paraffin stove’. 41 What Lawrence is showing here is a profound understanding of the relationship between language and society. Without words Cathcart has completely cut himself off from the human world and his human existence has then no meaning/ At the end of the story the snow which falls has entirely obliterated the island’s distinctive features; all discrimination is lost. With some initial help from Mackenzie, and then with a good deal more from Lawrence’s critical understanding of tendencied in himself, ‘The Man Who Loved Islands’ is a remarkable, general reflection on the impossibility of separating ourselves off from others entirely. In the second of his postcards to Brett after she had left Ravello, Lawrence had written:

Frieda wrote much more quietly and humanly – she says, we must live more with other people: which I think is true. It’s no use trying to be exclusive. There’s a good bit in quite a lot of people. If we are to live, we must make the most of that, and not cut ourselves off.

I think this exerpt from the book is quite revealing and brings up some very good points; and I think the final quote of the words of Lawrence himself, is quite revealing as to his philosophy and ideas and how he felt at this later stage of his life. As you can see, by then he may have become more accepting of being with other people and not 'exclusive', as he stated it. I think in writing the story, Lawrence could have been working this part of himself and his ideas out, so that he could come to a final conclusion or peace with his modified ideals.

Dark Muse

01-10-2008, 12:50 AM

Dark Muse, I love Waterhouse! I bought a calender one year featuring his paintings - oh my goodness - it is just gorgeous! I had to have it and of course I still own it. I keep all my old calenders for the pictures. I also love Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and his sister and both their poems. Such moody stuff, this is why I love them all so.

I hate to go off topic, but have you heard the sort of legendary story about Rossetti's Mistress?

Janine

01-10-2008, 03:29 AM

Yes, I once heard that when she died he had his poems buried with her I think or was it when he died he had them buried with him? Now I am not sure which was it was but eventually the grave was opened and the poetry retrieved. DM is that the legend you are referring to?

Thomas Hardy had his heart buried with his exwife - his first wife. Pretty strange, don't you think?

Dark Muse

01-10-2008, 03:33 AM

Janine

01-10-2008, 02:51 PM

Yes, but as the story goes, it was the woman who was burried, but he later decided he wanted the poems back, so a friend of his, along with a judge, and an officer of the law, and a doctor I think came to see to the digging up of the body, and all them swore, that when the grave was dug up, she looked just as she had the day she died, as if she had only been sleeping, there was no sign of rot or decay upon her, the only thing that changed was her hair continued to grow and filled the whole coffin, while the poems themslves had showed signs of age, thier pages had yellowed and began to tatter on the edges.

Dark Muse;) Sounds like a likely tale. I know I am a cynic, but you know these myths do grow and become exaggerated in time, to impart a very romantic notion. I can actually believe the woman still looking good after many years, because a friend of mine is an undertaker; he told me of an exhuming of a body, at which he was present, and he made the comment that the man looked so good, they could easily have had another viewing, as he was. Odd, isn't it? But it can be true. Back in Rossetti's time I don't know if they had inbalming, but they may have prepared the body in such a way to prevent decay and also it depends on conditions - perhaps the body was sealed in the casket so no air got to it or in a dry vault. I have heard the hair tale before, about hair continuing to grow, but I am not sure that can truly happen. I would have to look it up. The papers sheets would most probably yellow and tatter naturally, but then who knows? It does make for a fine romantic myth and story, doesn't it? :)

I wonder, if Thomas Hardy's first wife's grave were exhumed, if they would find poor Hardy's heart beating away....:eek: Now that would be truly bizzare!

Dark Muse

01-10-2008, 03:04 PM

[b] I have heard the hair tale before, about hair continuing to grow, but I am not sure that can truly happen. I would have to look it up. The papers sheets would most probably yellow and tatter naturally, but then who knows? It does make for a fine romantic myth and story, doesn't it? :)

I know that it is true that hair and nails can continue to grow after a person dies it was in part because of this phenomen that the led to the beleif and myth of vamprisim, becasue a body would be dug up, and discovered to have longer hair and nails, so it was belived they were indeed the living dead.

Janine

01-10-2008, 06:05 PM

I know that it is true that hair and nails can continue to grow after a person dies it was in part because of this phenomen that the led to the beleif and myth of vamprisim, becasue a body would be dug up, and discovered to have longer hair and nails, so it was belived they were indeed the living dead.

That is really strange, isn't it? how can that be when the cells are die? There is no life left in them so how can they still grow. I wonder how I would research that phenomen online? Do you know?

Dark Muse

01-10-2008, 07:42 PM

I really do not know how it happens, but I have heard nuermous times about it, as I have done a lot of study into vamprisim and vampire lore and seen it said more then one by experts on the subject.

Quark

01-10-2008, 08:06 PM

Which story are you guys reading? I think I might get some time this weekend to read it.

Dark Muse

01-10-2008, 08:09 PM

The Man Who Loved Islands

Janine

01-10-2008, 11:01 PM

Which story are you guys reading? I think I might get some time this weekend to read it.

Hi Quark,good to see you here. It is a very good story this time. I hope you get time to read it on the weekend. We already have a lot of good posts (do review them, after your reading, if you have the time). I am not sure now where everyone ran off to. As for myself, I just needed a short break. I will re-read the story this weekend, if I have a chance to. I am sure you will have some very good comments and ideas, to add to this discussion. I always enjoy hearing what you have to say.

Janine

01-11-2008, 12:13 AM

DM, I guess we better get back on topic, or everyone will think we are discussing vampires instead of 'Islands'. :lol:

Here are some thoughts I had the other day ,so I made some notes on particular segments of the text that interested me:

Since, if you are like Abraham, and want your offspring to be numberless as the sands of the sea-shore, you don't choose an island to start breeding on. Too soon there would be overpopulation, overcrowding, and slum conditions. Which is a horrid thought, for one who loves an island for its insulation. No, an island is a nest which holds one egg, and one only. This egg is the islander himself.

Even from the beginning of the story, I noticed that - by contrast, Lawrence is demonstrating in this paragraph the opposite conditions to his idyllic world and what negative results (specifically) would develop, if this island could be populated, or overpopulated. This world is the world the islander has left to found a new world of his own making, I believe.

In contrast, the next paragraph shows this ‘new world’ to be a splendid, idyllic place and there seems to be only one word in this paragraph to foreshadow this feeling of paradise and that is the word ‘gloomy’ to describe the main dwelling-house; curious. Also, curious to me is the fact and the authors stating so, that the island is ‘quite near at home’ it is ‘not in the remote oceans’. I am thinking that in actuality, L fashioned this story after his friend, who indeed did own an island just off the coast of Scotland, and Scotland is part of a larger island, the UK, which was ‘home’ at one time to Lawrence. I find the words ‘all neat and white-washed interesting, because later in the story, it was stated and emphasized that the man liked to wear white clothing, also that he was always clean and neat…which reflects a kind of ‘perfection’ in mannerism.

The island acquired by our potential islander was not in theremoteoceans. It was quite near at home, no palm-trees nor boom of surf on the reef, nor any of that kind of thing; but a good solid dwelling-house, rather gloomy, above the landing-place, and beyond, a small farmhouse with sheds, and a few outlying fields. Down on the little landing bay were three cottages in a row, like coastguards' cottages, all neat and white-washed.
And when you came to the edge, you could see another, bigger island lying beyond…….you saw to the east still another island, a tinyone this time, like the calf of the cow. This tiny island also belonged to the islander.
Thus it seems that even islands like to keep each other company.

Interesting to me are the three islands together, one larger, one smaller – not that he owns them all, but perhaps the number might be prophetic or representative of the three islands of the story and this is suggestion set early in the story. Could the larger island be Scotland, or the land of the islander left behind? Someone already quote that last line; I think it is worth quoting again. It is a great statement!

Our islander loved his island very much.
Thus it has a lovely description suggesting the image of a 'paradise', in the presentation of beautiful natural elements of the island; and in the final statement
Wonderful what a great world it was!

In contrast the next paragraph stated…

So autumn ended with rain, and winter came, dark skies and dampness and rain, but rarely frost. The island, your island, cowered dark, holding away from you. You could feel, down in the wet, sombre hollows, the resentful spirit coiled upon itself, like a wet dog coiled in gloom, or a snake that is neither asleep nor awake.

Interesting personification of the island “cowerd dark, holding away from you”, also “the resentful spirit coiled upon itself”, as though it were indeed a human or a distinct character in the story. I like the references of the ‘dog coiled in gloom” and the snake in this limbo state of neither sleep or awakedness. This seems to reflect the state of this man.

I like this part of the statement describing the island at night in the wind and how the islander felt:

….you felt that your island was a universe, infinite and old as the darkness; not an island at all, but an infinite dark world where all the souls from all the other bygone nights lived on, and the infinite distance was near.
Note this exquisite use of words and repetition of the word 'infinite', which is especially significant to these thoughts.

Strangely, from your little island in space, you were gone forth into the dark, great realms of time, where all the souls that never die veer and swoop on their vast, strange errands. The little earthly island has dwindled, like a jumping-off place, into nothingness, for you have jumped off, you know not how, into the dark wide mystery of time, where the past is vastly alive, and the future is not separated off.

I think those lines are amazing. Here 'time' or the concept is repeated and emphasized. It is written so poetically. Just so beautiful!

This is the danger of becoming an islander. When, in the city, you wear your white spats and dodge the traffic with the fear of death down your spine, then you are quite safe from the terrors of infinite time. The moment is your little islet in time, it is the spatial universe that careers round you.
But once isolate yourself on a little island in the sea of space, and the moment begins to heave and expand in great circles, the solid earth is gone, and your slippery, naked dark soul finds herself out in the timeless world, where the chariots of the so- called dead dash down the old streets of centuries, and souls crowd on the footways that we, in the moment, call bygone years. The souls of all the dead are alive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in the other infinity.

That is great and the whole concept of ‘time’ or perhaps ‘time in relation to isolation’ is embodied here in these statements. I found this so interesting when I first read it. I was thinking of how time chances or is perceived differently by people who are in captivity. This whole passage also seems to me to question the idea of perception and how we view things from different vantage points. I think this part of the story is brilliant writing.

Dark Muse

01-11-2008, 12:39 AM

DM, I guess we better get back on topic, or everyone will think we are discussing vampires instead of 'Islands'. :lol:

LOL yes I must take the blame for that one.

You did bring up a lot of really good points, as well as found some great passages to post.

Even from the beginning of the story, I noticed that - by contrast, Lawrence is demonstrating in this paragraph the opposite conditions to his idyllic world and what negative results (specifically) would develop, if this island could be populated, or overpopulated. This world is the world the islander has left to found a new world of his own making, I believe.

Yes this is a good point. I really like the lines

No, an island is a nest which holds one egg, and one only. This egg is the islander himself.

For some reason this makes me think of the cookoo bird. Mother cookoo birds will lay only a single egg, within another birds nest, and when the cookoo hatches it will kick out its "adopted" siblings, the hatchinlings of the true owner of the nest, so the best will become his own without compeition from other birds for nourishment.

Interesting to me are the three islands together, one larger, one smaller – not that he owns them all, but perhaps the number might be prophetic or representative of the three islands of the story and this is suggestion set early in the story. Could the larger island be Scotland, or the land of the islander left behind? Someone already quote that last line; I think it is worth quoting again. It is a great statement!

I never thought of the idea, that the larger island might in fact be Scotland itself.

[In contrast the next paragraph stated…

Interesting personification of the island “cowerd dark, holding away from you”, also “the resentful spirit coiled upon itself”, as though it were indeed a human or a distinct character in the story. I like the references of the ‘dog coiled in gloom” and the snake in this limbo state of neither sleep or awakedness. This seems to reflect the state of this man.

That is a very good point about the state of the island here refelcting the islanders own state. As well it seems to be another use of foreshadow. It seems as if there are a lot of clues within the first island as to what the ultimate outcome for the islander will be.

That is great and the whole concept of ‘time’ or perhaps ‘time in relation to isolation’ is embodied here in these statements. I found this so interesting when I first read it. I was thinking of how time chances or is perceived differently by people who are in captivity. This whole passage also seems to me to question the idea of perception and how we view things from different vantage points. I think this part of the story is brilliant writing.!

That was a great passage, and an intresting concept. I think it also shows that beyond the basics of the changing of the seasons, and the passage from day to night, time is indeed a human invetion and human preception. If you are living upon an island apart from the world. What does it really matter what week it is, or if it is Saturday or Thrusday, or if it is 10 o clock or 2 o clock. And indeed people do tend to loose track of time when the world and responseablities of the world are not there to remind them.

I am sure many have had that exeprince as a kid during the summer months when you were out of school of loosing track of time, when you really did not have to pay attention to what time it was becasue you were free of your usual responsbilites.

Quark

01-11-2008, 12:50 AM

The Man Who Loved Islands

Hi Quark,good to see you here. It is a very good story this time. I hope you get time to read it on the weekend. We already have a lot of good posts (do review them, after your reading, if you have the time). I am not sure now where everyone ran off to. As for myself, I just needed a short break. I will re-read the story this weekend, if I have a chance to.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it over the weekend.

Hira

01-11-2008, 03:30 AM

I really do not know how it happens, but I have heard nuermous times about it, as I have done a lot of study into vamprisim and vampire lore and seen it said more then one by experts on the subject.

Sorry don't want to take this off-topic. But I read this only a few days ago that the belief of nails and hairs growin after death is a myth. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071221/sc_livescience/7medicalmythsevendoctorsbelieve)

Strangely, from your little island in space, you were gone forth into the dark, great realms of time, where all the souls that never die veer and swoop on their vast, strange errands. The little earthly island has dwindled, like a jumping-off place, into nothingness, for you have jumped off, you know not how, into the dark wide mystery of time, where the past is vastly alive, and the future is not separated off.

But once isolate yourself on a little island in the sea of space, and the moment begins to heave and expand in great circles, the solid earth is gone, and your slippery, naked dark soul finds herself out in the timeless world, where the chariots of the so- called dead dash down the old streets of centuries, and souls crowd on the footways that we, in the moment, call bygone years. The souls of all the dead are alive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in the other infinity.

They are beautiful, Janine. Such beautiful language.

I haven’t done much pondering or reading or anything :blush: Am just reading people’s posts at the moment. And they are very thought-provoking.:thumbs_up

Thanks for sharing that poem, Nossa. I was wondering, initially the islander didn't particularly want to be alone in it

He wanted an island all of his own: not necessarily to be alone on it, but to make it a world of his own.

But he never really tried to have that relationship with people, initially he was the Master. Never liked anyone man-to-man or man-to-woman. And then onwards onto the second island. He never attempted to seek that balance. On the third, of course, he recoiled from any sort of company, companionship altogether. So, I think its a very good point you make and which I think Amalia, was it? pointed out earlier.

P.S. He buried his heart with his wife? Gosh. Curious.

P.P.S. I know next to nothing about art or artists Janine, wouldn't know anything about the Pre-Raphaelites. I'll look them up.

P.P.P.S. Every time I try to post there is a power failure, lol.

Janine

01-11-2008, 03:56 PM

DarkMuse, Not your fault at all. We all took a little detour while things were slow. Just need now to get back on-track.

You did bring up a lot of really good points, as well as found some great passages to post.

DM, thanks for taking the time to read them. Hope they were helpful.

Yes this is a good point. I really like the lines

Thanks, and glad you agree, I like those lines very much, too.

For some reason this makes me think of the cookoo bird. Mother cookoo birds will lay only a single egg, within another birds nest, and when the cookoo hatches it will kick out its "adopted" siblings, the hatchinlings of the true owner of the nest, so the best will become his own without compeition from other birds for nourishment.

That is an interesting idea and thought in relation to his line and Lawrence did know a great deal about birds. No doubt he knew this, as well.

I never thought of the idea, that the larger island might in fact be Scotland itself.

Well, I think it could be any island or all islands such as an archipelago, which is a group of many islands. It could even represent a continent...aren't these surrounded by water, too? But considering Lawrence's source for his idea (merely) to form the story, I thought of Scotland and England - this representing the civilized industrial world, he might be indicating in that passage - the world the islander originally called 'home' which is in one of the first passages, before he bought island #1 and moved there. This would make sense to me from a personal Lawrence history in which Lawrence became disgusted first with his own England and later exciled himself from his homeland, to live abroad. However, Lawrence never truly departed from his 'Englishnish'.

That is a very good point about the state of the island here refelcting the islanders own state. As well it seems to be another use of foreshadow. It seems as if there are a lot of clues within the first island as to what the ultimate outcome for the islander will be.

I thought it definitely a use of 'foreshadowing' because Lawrence does this in all his stories and novels. It is very characteristic of his writing.

That was a great passage, and an intresting concept. I think it also shows that beyond the basics of the changing of the seasons, and the passage from day to night, time is indeed a human invetion and human preception. If you are living upon an island apart from the world. What does it really matter what week it is, or if it is Saturday or Thrusday, or if it is 10 o clock or 2 o clock. And indeed people do tend to loose track of time when the world and responseablities of the world are not there to remind them.

Yes, time is certainly a human convention - it is merely a division and a calibration and to some cultures there is no sense of weekends or working days or this distinct division of time. The American Indians lived by the sun, moon, stars; all time just flowed from this point of the day into the next like a wheel turning...like the blank face of a clock. If someone is marooned on a island alone, their whole concept of time is completely changed. Now time passes in the same way, the movement of the sun and the stars and moon at night become the timepiece and are significant. Even when a person no longer works or follows a routine schedule, it hardly matters when a weekend arises or a week begins, does it? We all have a strong concept of weekends in modern working societies. Also, when doing a task one truly loves, have you ever noticed, just how fast the time seems to advance, but then the opposite is true, when in pain or having to wait for something? Then time seems almost to halt and we are anxious for it to passby quickly.

I am sure many have had that exeprince as a kid during the summer months when you were out of school of loosing track of time, when you really did not have to pay attention to what time it was becasue you were free of your usual responsbilites.

Absolutely true. Then do you recall how hard it was to get back into the routine of school and the concept of time and schedules?

Quote by Hira:

Sorry don't want to take this off-topic. But I read this only a few days ago that the belief of nails and hairs growin after death is a myth. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071221/sc_livescience/7medicalmythsevendoctorsbelieve)

Hello Hira, I tended to believe this is myth. It was funny, last night I was watching the film "The Secret Garden" and the little girl said that about hair and nails growing after death. I had laugh since life does have it's coincidences. I will read that article. It is quite prominient in many stories and myths I know; but I did not think it truly possible for humans who die to achieve this. When the body is dead all the cells are dead as well. We are one entity.

DM, you have been watching too many vampire movies.;)

They are beautiful, Janine. Such beautiful language.

I agree completely and to think there were critics and still are, of Lawrence's writing skill, who say he had 'no form' or was 'not that great a writer, or poet'. Are they kidding? These passages are poetry and so wonderful to read! So deep and rich with meaning, too.

I haven’t done much pondering or reading or anything :blush: Am just reading people’s posts at the moment. And they are very thought-provoking.:thumbs_up

Hira, ponder all you like! We have lots of time. This is a short story you know; we still have the whole month to discuss it, longer than that if you desire it. These threads never truly close, although in this one, everyone will want to get to the next story by the beginning of next month. It is only the 11th though so, as I said, we have much time left on this story. Ponder all you want to and please do review all the posts...there are some good comments there and valuable information.

Thanks for sharing that poem, Nossa. I was wondering, initially the islander didn't particularly want to be alone in it.

I liked that poem very much. Showed how Lawrence was thinking at that time. I think I will investigate and see just what year her wrote that poem so we have some kind of perspective on how he felt at different times in his life. As I said before, Lawrence did waver in his beliefs and concepts, so you must take this into consideration. Basically he did believe strongly in somethings that never truly changed, like his disgust of the modern industrial world and the 'machine'.

But he never really tried to have that relationship with people, initially he was the Master. Never liked anyone man-to-man or man-to-woman. And then onwards onto the second island. He never attempted to seek that balance. On the third, of course, he recoiled from any sort of company, companionship altogether. So, I think its a very good point you make and which I think Amalia, was it? pointed out earlier.

Yes, that is true. Kind of abstract in his ideas on forming this utopian society, don't you think. He obviously could not realistically connect with other people and form true bonds of love and friendship. Even his marriage failed as I think someone pointed out that it was only mechanical and never a truly love experience. I agree that there really never was any balance; perhaps there was for a short time on island #1 but it did not last long or having any stability really.

P.S. He buried his heart with his wife? Gosh. Curious.

He absolutely did. Strange, isn't it? I think his body was cremated but not quite sure of that. He was remarried, also, when he died and send the heart to wife #1. I think wife #2 got his ashes, and maybe a nice urn;) .

P.P.S. I know next to nothing about art or artists Janine, wouldn't know anything about the Pre-Raphaelites. I'll look them up.

I will look something up on them and send to you in a PM, so we don't go off topic again.:lol:

P.P.P.S. Every time I try to post there is a power failure, lol.
So sorry about that. We had thunderstorms today and I had to unplug...I don't take any chances after my computer got hit with a surge during a summer storm.
Power failures seem to be a common problem in some areas/countries these days. One suggestion to you would be write your post offline and save it continually; then copy, paste and post into the forum. I do that often. It is easier to think that way, and not be under the pressure to post immediately.

Dark Muse

01-11-2008, 04:19 PM

Yes, that is true. Kind of abstract in his ideas on forming this utopian society, don't you think. He obviously could not realistically connect with other people and form true bonds of love and friendship. Even his marriage failed as I think someone pointed out that it was only mechanical and never a truly love experience. I agree that there really never was any balance; perhaps there was for a short time on island #1 but it did not last long or having any stability really.

Yes I agree that it did not seem that is first and only real attempt at having any sort of relationship and intimate interaction with other people had not come about becasue of any true feelings of love at least on his part. But rather it almost seemed as if it was simply easier to just go along with the relationship instead of his trying to explain to the girl that he really did not care for her, and sense she was there all the time, he figured he might just as well untill it grew to be too much and so he had to leave once again.

When I was frist reading this, I also could not help but to think that it seemed as it the Islander had some issues with conmentiment, in a way he did abandon each of the islands the same way in which he ended up abandoning the child, instead of staying to try and work at something with any one of the islands and develop what could have been a good if not purely perfect long term arragement. But whenever things got too involved with each of the islands he just left. In the first he began to have the finicial trouble so he decided instead of trying to work through the hardships he would start over again, and then in the second island he left to aviod the responseablity of having to take care of the child.

I find it intresting then that the last island ended up comming off as this very cold and baren as well as lonely place and far from the hopeful paradise of the fist island, was full of missery and pain.

Janine

01-11-2008, 04:47 PM

Yes I agree that it did not seem that is first and only real attempt at having any sort of relationship and intimate interaction with other people had not come about becasue of any true feelings of love at least on his part. But rather it almost seemed as if it was simply easier to just go along with the relationship instead of his trying to explain to the girl that he really did not care for her, and sense she was there all the time, he figured he might just as well untill it grew to be too much and so he had to leave once again.

Well, I think the man had a real problems connecting with any humans and so the woman was not quite real to him either. He had similiar problems perhaps to Lawrence character, Gerald, in "Women In Love". Since this short story is presented as a fable or folktale we aren't privy to the inner-workings of the minds of the man and the woman and how they interact. We can only assume that he is distant having been his characteristic behavior with the other islanders. True that she was there, available and convenient for him. I think when she had the child and then he married her then it would go into a whole new realm, one he definitely could not handle. He married her as a gesture only and surely after that she became repulsive to him and as you said below he could not really commit to anything, let alone a relationship with a woman and his child.

When I was frist reading this, I also could not help but to think that it seemed as it the Islander had some issues with conmentiment, in a way he did abandon each of the islands the same way in which he ended up abandoning the child, instead of staying to try and work at something with any one of the islands and develop what could have been a good if not purely perfect long term arragement. But whenever things got too involved with each of the islands he just left. In the first he began to have the finicial trouble so he decided instead of trying to work through the hardships he would start over again, and then in the second island he left to aviod the responseablity of having to take care of the child.

Absolutely, he had problems from the start with 'commitment'...and actually, doesn't this epitomize or represent many a man or woman who can't commit to a relationship, with another human being or partner? I think the theme of this story is quite universal and it is more broad than we think, on first reading. Yes, you brought up a good point here with his 'commitment' issues. What made this man this way is never really stated. But when he started out he seemed to be able to commit to the first island until hardships arose. This could be just like a love relationship when the honeymoon period ends and reality sets in. I think we already stated that this islander could not deal with 'reality'. He was living a sort of dreamworld existence and a vague idea of what he wanted his utopia to be like, the last being very characteristic of Lawrence himself.

I find it intresting then that the last island ended up comming off as this very cold and baren as well as lonely place and far from the hopeful paradise of the fist island, was full of missery and pain.

Yes, it is really just the opposite of how the story begins in springtime. It ends in winter. Interesting, isn't it?

Dark Muse

01-11-2008, 04:59 PM

Yes, it is really just the opposite of how the story begins in springtime. It ends in winter. Interesting, isn't it?

This just brought an intresting thought to mind. It seems almost as if each of the islands represents a different stage in life.

The first island is like childhood growing into adolecents. Where at first everything seems like paradise, it is knew, there are no worries or cares, but still he is faced with some fears and anctipation in the form of the ghosts which arrise, but still for the most part there seems to be harmony, but then as people are brought to the island, it is like the transistion from child into young adult, where a little more responsblity starts to arise, and things become a little less carefree.

Then the second island if full blown adulthood, on the second island he is never quite as happy as he frist strared on the first island, but for a while at least it seems there is some contentment, but still there is even more responsebalites that arise, and he has a harder time trying to find his uptopia.

And finally the last island is the comming of end of life. Where fears seem to start to emger once again, but even greater then before, and one is truly confronted with thier isolation and aloness in the world.

Virgil

01-11-2008, 06:25 PM

Sorry I've had to be away form the conversation most of the week. I'm a little overwhelmed. Janine, thanks for bringing us back on topic, and thanks for this excellent post. You bring up a few questions, and I'm not sure if they got answered after your post, since I haven't read beyond this. But let me see if I could comment on what you have here.

Quote:
Since, if you are like Abraham, and want your offspring to be numberless as the sands of the sea-shore, you don't choose an island to start breeding on. Too soon there would be overpopulation, overcrowding, and slum conditions. Which is a horrid thought, for one who loves an island for its insulation. No, an island is a nest which holds one egg, and one only. This egg is the islander himself.
Even from the beginning of the story, I noticed that - by contrast, Lawrence is demonstrating in this paragraph the opposite conditions to his idyllic world and what negative results (specifically) would develop, if this island could be populated, or overpopulated. This world is the world the islander has left to found a new world of his own making, I believe.

Good point. Contrast is a very important method Lawrence uses (actually most writers); remember Lawrence thinks in binary.

Interesting to me are the three islands together, one larger, one smaller – not that he owns them all, but perhaps the number might be prophetic or representative of the three islands of the story and this is suggestion set early in the story. Could the larger island be Scotland, or the land of the islander left behind? Someone already quote that last line; I think it is worth quoting again. It is a great statement!
I agree!

Interesting personification of the island “cowerd dark, holding away from you”, also “the resentful spirit coiled upon itself”, as though it were indeed a human or a distinct character in the story. I like the references of the ‘dog coiled in gloom” and the snake in this limbo state of neither sleep or awakedness. This seems to reflect the state of this man.
I took the snake reference, like the snake in "Sun" as a suggestion of paradise lost.

I like this part of the statement describing the island at night in the wind and how the islander felt:

Quote:
….you felt that your island was a universe, infinite and old as the darkness; not an island at all, but an infinite dark world where all the souls from all the other bygone nights lived on, and the infinite distance was near.
Note this exquisite use of words and repetition of the word 'infinite', which is especially significant to these thoughts.
Now here's where I would like people's thoughts. What is the significance of the "infinite" references through the story? I think I understand the story pretty well, but this is one aspect I can't figure out.

Quote:
Strangely, from your little island in space, you were gone forth into the dark, great realms of time, where all the souls that never die veer and swoop on their vast, strange errands. The little earthly island has dwindled, like a jumping-off place, into nothingness, for you have jumped off, you know not how, into the dark wide mystery of time, where the past is vastly alive, and the future is not separated off.
I think those lines are amazing. Here 'time' or the concept is repeated and emphasized. It is written so poetically. Just so beautiful!
Actually this strikes me as another off hand reference to infinite. There are lots of these references to infinite. I should go through the story again and document them. But what's Lawrence suggesting?

Quote:
This is the danger of becoming an islander. When, in the city, you wear your white spats and dodge the traffic with the fear of death down your spine, then you are quite safe from the terrors of infinite time. The moment is your little islet in time, it is the spatial universe that careers round you.
But once isolate yourself on a little island in the sea of space, and the moment begins to heave and expand in great circles, the solid earth is gone, and your slippery, naked dark soul finds herself out in the timeless world, where the chariots of the so- called dead dash down the old streets of centuries, and souls crowd on the footways that we, in the moment, call bygone years. The souls of all the dead are alive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in the other infinity.
That is great and the whole concept of ‘time’ or perhaps ‘time in relation to isolation’ is embodied here in these statements. I found this so interesting when I first read it. I was thinking of how time chances or is perceived differently by people who are in captivity. This whole passage also seems to me to question the idea of perception and how we view things from different vantage points. I think this part of the story is brilliant writing.

It is brilliant writing. Yes i agree time is in relation to isolation (and I uderstand that), but I think it's also connected to the infinite, and I don't quite understand that. I hope we can work through a meaning for it. :)

Janine

01-11-2008, 06:26 PM

This just brought an intresting thought to mind. It seems almost as if each of the islands represents a different stage in life.

DM, Excellent point! I also thought of seasons, on each island, representing these various stages or periods in a man's life; such as spring/summer representing his childhood, autumn his adolescence or even adulthood, and winter mature years when he is anticipating and approaching death and the end of his life. This would make sense in the context of the time period that Lawrence wrote this short story -he was about to approach the death stage. In fact this story is discussed in the biography put out by Cambridge - the third in a the series on Lawrence - called "Dying Game". This period of L's life he pretty much knew that he did not have long to live. He had already cheated death so many times and lived way past the years he was predicted to live, so surely in this period his thoughts turned more towards death and the questions of eternity. His poetry from this time period even reflect this fact.

The first island is like childhood growing into adolecents. Where at first everything seems like paradise, it is knew, there are no worries or cares, but still he is faced with some fears and anctipation in the form of the ghosts which arrise, but still for the most part there seems to be harmony, but then as people are brought to the island, it is like the transistion from child into young adult, where a little more responsblity starts to arise, and things become a little less carefree.

Then the second island if full blown adulthood, on the second island he is never quite as happy as he frist strared on the first island, but for a while at least it seems there is some contentment, but still there is even more responsebalites that arise, and he has a harder time trying to find his uptopia.

And finally the last island is the comming of end of life. Where fears seem to start to emger once again, but even greater then before, and one is truly confronted with thier isolation and aloness in the world.

Yes, it pretty clearcut isn't it. The snow could represent 'death' itself encrouching on us and 'obliterating' life itself.

Virgil

01-11-2008, 06:33 PM

This just brought an intresting thought to mind. It seems almost as if each of the islands represents a different stage in life.

The first island is like childhood growing into adolecents. Where at first everything seems like paradise, it is knew, there are no worries or cares, but still he is faced with some fears and anctipation in the form of the ghosts which arrise, but still for the most part there seems to be harmony, but then as people are brought to the island, it is like the transistion from child into young adult, where a little more responsblity starts to arise, and things become a little less carefree.

Then the second island if full blown adulthood, on the second island he is never quite as happy as he frist strared on the first island, but for a while at least it seems there is some contentment, but still there is even more responsebalites that arise, and he has a harder time trying to find his uptopia.

And finally the last island is the comming of end of life. Where fears seem to start to emger once again, but even greater then before, and one is truly confronted with thier isolation and aloness in the world.

Interesting Dark Muse. It kind of fits, so I would agree.

Dark Muse

01-11-2008, 06:39 PM

DM,Yes, it pretty clearcut isn't it. The snow could represent 'death' itself encrouching on us and 'obliterating' life itself.

Yes that is a good point, about the snow being the comming of death.

I have also though of the idea of ferlitlity vs bareness particualy with the idea of the seasons.

With the springtime of the first island representing fertility, where there is more life and more of the utoptian idea, and then moving more toward the winter of the thrid island represnting barness and the abcenses of life.

Particuarly with the idea, of how when he leaves his child behind, he is turning away from new life and growth, so he goes to a cold place of winter where life could not grow.

Janine

01-11-2008, 07:09 PM

Sorry I've had to be away form the conversation most of the week. I'm a little overwhelmed. Janine, thanks for bringing us back on topic, and thanks for this excellent post. You bring up a few questions, and I'm not sure if they got answered after your post, since I haven't read beyond this. But let me see if I could comment on what you have here.
Virgil, no problem. Glad to see you back. I realise you are emersed in the Aeneid discussion and that certainly is enough for one person for this month. I have tried to check occasionally on that progress and it looks like an active thread...great! Sorry you are overwhelmed; you can always review when you are less busy. This story has been going along well. Some were answered but that is ok; I always like to hear your thoughts and feedback on what I have written and considered.

Good point. Contrast is a very important method Lawrence uses (actually most writers); remember Lawrence thinks in binary.

Yes, I knew it to be a big element in this other stories we studied and the novels, as well. Hey, it is getting easier now to spot these devises of Lawrence's. I think I know how the man thinks - well, to some extent. Is 'binary' the right word to use in this instance? Would you believe it; I had to look it up for exact meaning and I thought it would indicate 'contrast' but according to my pocket dictionary this seems to state having to do with doubles or twos. Can you explain more clearly what you mean by it specifically?

I agree!...haha, brilliant minds think alike!:lol:

I took the snake reference, like the snake in "Sun" as a suggestion of paradise lost.

I think I did also, but it does seem to indicate the state of the man and the island in winter months and when the trouble and uneasiness set in in this particular image of the snake in this state of not being asleep or awake. Isn't the islander in this limbo state himself? Well, the snake could indeed suggest the snake/serpent of the lost paradise, or Eden. I am not sure how temptation fits into this story except in the case of the widow. What do you think? In his way, this man is seeking the lost paradise, but he never is able to regain that. In seeking it it is the opposite to losing it and being driven out of paradise. He instead drove himself out of the negation of paradise (the industralial world) to embark on creating his own paradise; but of course it never works out for him, same as it never did work out for Lawrence.

Now here's where I would like people's thoughts. What is the significance of the "infinite" references through the story? I think I understand the story pretty well, but this is one aspect I can't figure out.

I think the idea of infinity has a huge significance here. I think for one thing it must have been greatly on Lawrence's mind at this stage in his life. At the end, when the snow comes to the last island, is that not like the total obliteration of 'life' itself, as we know it and death comes to replace what we have known? We cannot know exaclty what death is as we don't know what infinity is either; both are beyond our earthly comprehension. Time is a limited thing and infinity is the opposite of time; it has no beginning and end. This image of the snow blending into the sea, seems to me, to indicate infinity...a endless space with no limitations and no boundaries. No longer can the island be differenciated from the sea. This represents infinity conceptually.

Warning - Spoiler "for Women in Love".

This so much reminds me of Gerald's ending in the infinite snowy space in the mountains. Was that not an infinity as well? Also, the snow envoking a luminous white light, as one would see after death, representing infinity.

Actually this strikes me as another off hand reference to infinite. There are lots of these references to infinite. I should go through the story again and document them. But what's Lawrence suggesting?

Oh, would you do that? That would be great and to post the passages and bold up the word 'infinity'. That would be totally interesting to me, to see just how many times it is repeated in the text. As DM, stated the three islands do seem to represent various stages in a man's life, the last looking toward death, and I add 'infinity'. I believe at this stage Lawrence was definitely thinking in terms of 'infinity'...during this time period he had visited the Etruscan tombs and any possibilities of an afterlife in infinite space was greatly present on his mind.

It is brilliant writing. Yes i agree time is in relation to isolation (and I uderstand that), but I think it's also connected to the infinite, and I don't quite understand that. I hope we can work through a meaning for it. :)

I hope I started to work through it; or gave you some ideas towards that end. I know also, that L, soon after this writing, wrote his "Apocalypse", which I read this past year. This Cambridge text, the last in the biography series, looks incredibly interesting to me; I only own the first two editions/installments of the biographies. I looked it up on Amazon and it is highly expensive, but I will keep an eye out for a reasonable copy. How I would love to read it, eventually. First I do hope to read the preceeding two: "The Early Years" and "The Outsider". These are incredibly detailed works and very good with wonderful information.

Virgil

01-11-2008, 07:13 PM

Oh, would you do that? That would be great and to post the passages and bold up the word 'infinity'. I would be totally interesting to me to see just how many times it is repeated in the text.

OK I will do that. :)

Janine

01-11-2008, 07:50 PM

OK I will do that. :)

Virgil - thanks, that would be great!

Hey, I was hoping that you would give me some feedback on my last post and my ideas on the 'infinity' question....well, when you have the time to. Also, in relationship to the ending of "Women in Love"...I value what you think; your opinion of what I was getting at.

Virgil

01-11-2008, 08:10 PM

Yes that is a good point, about the snow being the comming of death.

I have also though of the idea of ferlitlity vs bareness particualy with the idea of the seasons.

With the springtime of the first island representing fertility, where there is more life and more of the utoptian idea, and then moving more toward the winter of the thrid island represnting barness and the abcenses of life.

Particuarly with the idea, of how when he leaves his child behind, he is turning away from new life and growth, so he goes to a cold place of winter where life could not grow.
That is interesting. I did not notice the seasons of the different islands. But what is it on the second island?

Virgil - thanks, that would be great!

Hey, I was hoping that you would give me some feedback on my last post and my ideas on the 'infinity' question....well, when you have the time to. Also, in relationship to the ending of "Women in Love"...I value what you think; your opinion of what I was getting at.

Let the infinity question hold until I look through the story for references. As to Gerald at the end of WIL, yes the same thought came to me as I read. Also reminded me of The Prussian Officer. It seems Lawrence's death scenes are similar. :D

Dark Muse

01-11-2008, 10:13 PM

That is interesting. I did not notice the seasons of the different islands. But what is it on the second island?

Janine is the one who first began to talk about the idea of seasons and the islands, I just sort of linked that idea of seasons to my ideas of fertility vs. barness as the story progressess.

That is an intresting question though.

I would think that Autumn might be the best match for the second island becasue it is the transition period between spring and winter, as well it is in Autumn that things first begin thier decay and that life first starts to wither, and yet it can still have its beauty and pleasent moments.

As we can see on the second island, it is leading up to the ultimate downfall of the last island, and is not quite as fresh as the first island was, and yet there seems to be some contentment there at least for a time.

Janine

01-12-2008, 02:12 AM

Yes that is a good point, about the snow being the comming of death.

Well, this is the thing; this idea crops up often in Lawrence's work. He seems to link 'white' and 'luminous' and 'snow' and 'ice' with death. Did you read the 'Prussian Officer', Dark Muse, or "Women in Love"? If you did, then you see what I mean. I think that the cold could also indicate death - the body goes cold and also the fact the man keeps getting trapped in his house at the end, when the snow comes - the house becomes as a tomb. He desperately keeps digging out and even his boat must be dug out so he has an escape means and route, but ultimately all this is useless and he gives in to death. I can see how Lawrence would understand this entirely from the vivid memory of his own mother's fight for life when she was wasting away slowly and dying of cancer. At this point in Lawrence's mind he must have felt his own death encrouching upon his life and existence and he must have had these feelings of what it would be like to struggle for life but know one would ultimately have to succumb to the inevitable, the final dissolving into nothingness or eternity/infinity.

I have also though of the idea of ferlitlity vs bareness particualy with the idea of the seasons.

That is an interesting idea to bring into this discussion. Afterall, the woman was fertile and bore the islander a child, even though he did not show it love or take it into his life. The first island was full of fertile qualities and full of life and the second less so, almost there to be a transition to island #3, but then he had Flora's fertiliy on the second island. Do you think this 'fertiliy vs bareness' idea coincides with the seasons? Both mark the passage of time, as do the days and the nights, the sun and the moon, the light and the darkness. Without clocks and calibrations, we are shown that time still passes and is not something needing to be measured. It flows naturally; one season flows into the other, darkness flows into light, spring into summer, summer into fall, fall into winter...a natural progression....and thus a natural concept of time and of a man's life proceeding into the realm of death.

With the springtime of the first island representing fertility, where there is more life and more of the utoptian idea, and then moving more toward the winter of the thrid island represnting barness and the abcenses of life.

Yes, quite a contrast between island #1 and island #2, isn't there?

Particuarly with the idea, of how when he leaves his child behind, he is turning away from new life and growth, so he goes to a cold place of winter where life could not grow.

Again a stark contrast indeed! Even to consider - human warmth to cold aloneness.

Janine is the one who first began to talk about the idea of seasons and the islands, I just sort of linked that idea of seasons to my ideas of fertility vs. barness as the story progressess.

DM, thanks for giving me the credit for that idea. We did good, linking our two ideas/concepts into one, didn't we? As they say 'two heads are better than one!':lol:

That is an intresting question though.
It is an interesting question.

I would think that Autumn might be the best match for the second island becasue it is the transition period between spring and winter, as well it is in Autumn that things first begin thier decay and that life first starts to wither, and yet it can still have its beauty and pleasent moments.

I will check the text tonight, but that certainly would make sense and follow the progression or regression here. Yes, 'transition' seems to be the key idea here on island #2.

As we can see on the second island, it is leading up to the ultimate downfall of the last island, and is not quite as fresh as the first island was, and yet there seems to be some contentment there at least for a time.

Seems to start out with some contentment but then it goes sour pretty quickly when things don't go as expected.

Dark Muse

01-12-2008, 02:26 AM

Well, this is the thing; this idea crops up often in Lawrence's work. He seems to link 'white' and 'luminous' and 'snow' and 'ice' with death. Did you read the 'Prussian Officer', Dark Muse, or "Women in Love"?

No I have not yet read either of those books. Though Women in Love is on one of my reading lists.

Do you think this 'fertiliy vs bareness' idea coincides with the seasons? Both mark the passage of time, as do the days and the nights, the sun and the moon, the light and the darkness. Without clocks and calibrations, we are shown that time still passes and is not something needing to be measured. It flows naturally; one season flows into the other, darkness flows into light, spring into summer, summer into fall, fall into winter...a natural progression....and thus a natural concept of time and of a man's life proceeding into the realm of death."?

I did breifly mention in one of my other posts, the idea of the seaons inccorperted into the baren/fertility idea.

And how the springtime of the first island and the paradise like feel of it at the begining could relate to ideas of fertility and life, while the cold and wintertime of the last island corresponded with ideas of barness.

DM, thanks for giving me the credit for that idea. We did good, linking our two ideas/concepts into one, didn't we? As they say 'two heads are better than one!':lol:

Hehe it seemed only fair, and yes that is true. The two ideas do tie into each other nicely I think.

Seems to start out with some contentment but then it goes sour pretty quickly when things don't go as expected.

Yes that is true

Janine

01-12-2008, 04:44 PM

No I have not yet read either of those books. Though Women in Love is on one of my reading lists.

"Women in Love" is great. We recently discussed it on the forum. "Prussian Officer" is a longer short story. We also, discussed it on this thread, not long back; check out the post - there were many. It is a very good story; captivating.

I did breifly mention in one of my other posts, the idea of the seaons inccorperted into the baren/fertility idea.

And how the springtime of the first island and the paradise like feel of it at the begining could relate to ideas of fertility and life, while the cold and wintertime of the last island corresponded with ideas of barness.

Dark Muse, I guess it all got jumbled in my mind, sorry about that...you had linked them; you are quite right. It is like the saying 'which came first, the chicken or the egg' - we both seem to be inspiring the other's thoughts, which is actually a positive thing. I am also thinking how seasons and the fertility processes are based on cycles. These tie in with a conceptual idea of time. Some cultures count out time by cycles and know nothing of clocks.

Hehe it seemed only fair, and yes that is true. The two ideas do tie into each other nicely I think.

Like I said above, we are stimulating each others thought processes, a very good thing; discussions should work this way, don't you think? We learn more when we exchange thoughts and ideas.

Yes that is true

Yes, agree.

Last night I did look up whether island #2 mentions being 'autumn' or starting out that way. It does seem Lawrence emphasises the spring/summer beginning the islander's occupancy on the first island and then on island #2 just a short way in he does mention the work 'autumn'. Now, we know that on island #3, he certainly emphasis' 'winter'....
So all our thoughts on the 'seasons' would seem to be accurately observed. If nothing more, the major part of the time spend on each island relates somehow to one of the seasons, even though that season evenually flows into the next.

Dark Muse

01-12-2008, 07:30 PM

I am also thinking how seasons and the fertility processes are based on cycles. These tie in with a conceptual idea of time. Some cultures count out time by cycles and know nothing of clocks.

Most pre-Christain cultures also viewed time a cyclical, instead of linear which is a newer Westeren idea that first began to emerge with Christainty. As many ancient cultures beleived in the idea of the earth going through a rebirthing process opposed to just comming to an ultimate end as in Armageddon.

Alot of this would come from with the idea of traking time by the rise and fall of the run and moon, and the changes of the seasons, as well as star posistions in the sky, opposed to clocking or tracking hours.

As for most needs of surivival such as planting, harvesting, hunting, it would nto matter the hour in which it was done, only that it was done when the earth would be the most favorable.

[
Like I said above, we are stimulating each others thought processes, a very good thing; discussions should work this way, don't you think? We learn more when we exchange thoughts and ideas.

Yes, that is very true, and I do agree.

Quark

01-12-2008, 07:51 PM

Is the story online anywhere? I'm going to look for it in the library tomorrow, but I don't foresee having much luck there.

Dark Muse

01-12-2008, 07:52 PM

http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-woman-who-rode-away-and-other-stories/part-09/index.html

Janine

01-12-2008, 08:10 PM

http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-woman-who-rode-away-and-other-stories/part-09/index.html

DM, Thanks for posting that link for Quark. I read it offline (in my book), but I am using that online text, to post from for quotes. I copied and pasted it and keep it on my desktop to work on from time to time, or to review. It works out well, this new method of mine.

Dark Muse

01-12-2008, 09:42 PM

No Problem, I had the site book marked becasue it is where I first got the story from.

Janine

01-12-2008, 10:51 PM

I find this passage particularly interesting and these thoughts are expressed so beautifully. It makes me think of how a writer must feel at times:

The islander said to himself: "Is this happiness?" He said to himself: "I am turned into a dream. I feel nothing, or I don't know what I feel. Yet it seems to me I am happy."

Only he had to have something upon which his mental activity could work. So he spent long, silent hours in his study, working not very fast, nor very importantly, letting the writing spin softly from him as if it were drowsy gossamer. He no longer fretted whether it were good or not, what he produced. He slowly, softly spun it like gossamer, and, if it were to melt away as gossamer in autumn melts, he would not mind. It was only the soft evanescence of gossamery things which now seemed to him permanent.

Note this deliberate repetition and use of the word 'gossamer'. This is very effective and sets a definite mood of a dreamlike state. I feel this passage is spinning a kind of web of dreams or subconsicousness. The man seems to be working and writing fluidly, but he is not consciously doing so. He is emersed in another 'unworldly realm' within himself. This mimics the state of the snake in an earier passage of being neither 'awake or asleep'. I love this line also: "letting the writing spin softly from him as if it were drowsy gossamer." Gossamer - what a great word that is!

then, the paragraph continues...

The very mist of eternity was in them. Whereas stone buildings, cathedrals for example, seemed to him to howl with temporary resistance, knowing they must fall at last; the tension of their long endurance seemed to howl forth from them all the time.

The very mist of eternity...this is a very interesting line and starkly contrasts the next lines stating the fact of the temporary resistence, but inevidable fall of the, seemingly, permanent structures, made by man.

While reviewing I recalled two passages where Biblical references were made and wondered if anyone had any ideas on these two passages:

if you are like Abraham, and want your offspring to be numberless as the sands of the sea-shore, you don't choose an island to start breeding on.

Oddly enough later, the islander does just that and breeds, only to spur him to separate himself even more from humanity.

He was wonderful with children, talked to them simply wonderful, made you think of Our Saviour Himself, said the woman.

Especially, this second statement fascinates me, which I find curious and I think must have some definitel significance to the story. I have one idea. This is that Christ suffered on earth from earthly imperfection and he died in the end. He was isolated as the islander was. The islander, like Christ, is seeking perfection on earth and he must also die at the end of the story, because on this earth 'perfection' cannot be realised. Only in the realms of eternity and infinity, can this perfection be realised and obtained.

Let me know what you think of these ideas. I just through them out there for debate.

Dark Muse

01-12-2008, 10:54 PM

Janine

01-12-2008, 11:08 PM

One of the things I have noticed about the story is the way in which it seems to mix its references.

It useses refercenes to the ancient celts, Greek Mythology, and Christianty and varrious points within the story.

This is quite characteristic to Lawrence. In "Women in Love" he did this sort of referencing quite often, I am thinking mainly of the Greek and classical Mythology and Christianity, but he also referenced to other past cultures, such as African or Egyptian. I think these Celtic references in this story are pretty native to this area, he was thinking of when he fashioned this story, after a certain place in his mind. The fact he does use these Celtic references, do clue us in on the location of the story, don't you think? There is something northern or nordic about the location. He said from the start it was not a tropical island with palm trees. Lawrence was quite well read in the classics, aware of local myth and these Biblical references, which lead me to believe that they are very symbolic to Lawrence. This is why I sited them in my last post. I feel if he took the time to include them specifically, in the story, they must have some greater significance.

Hira

01-13-2008, 01:36 AM

The islander said to himself: "Is this happiness?" He said to himself: "I am turned into a dream. I feel nothing, or I don't know what I feel. Yet it seems to me I am happy."

Only he had to have something upon which his mental activity could work. So he spent long, silent hours in his study, working not very fast, nor very importantly, letting the writing spin softly from him as if it were drowsy gossamer. He no longer fretted whether it were good or not, what he produced. He slowly, softly spun it like gossamer, and, if it were to melt away as gossamer in autumn melts, he would not mind. It was only the soft evanescence of gossamery things which now seemed to him permanent.

Oooh, I love those usages of gossamer.

Especially, this second statement fascinates me, which I find curious and I think must have some definitel significance to the story. I have one idea. This is that Christ suffered on earth from earthly imperfection and he died in the end. He was isolated as the islander was. The islander, like Christ, is seeking perfection on earth and he must also die at the end of the story, because on this earth 'perfection' cannot be realised. Only in the realms of eternity and infinity, can this perfection be realised and obtained.

Let me know what you think of these ideas. I just through them out there for debate.

I find that very interesting. Even though I didn't in my mind think him to be a compassionate Christ-like figure while reading. In the end, as he approaches the end, there is the phrase Once, like a wraith

Once, like a wraith, he got out, and climbed to the top of a white hill on his unrecognizable island. The sun was hot. "It is summer", he said to himself, "and the time of leaves." He looked stupidly over the whiteness of his foreign island, over the waste of the lifeless sea. He pretended to imagine he saw the wink of a sail. Because he knew too well there would never again be a sail on that stark sea.

so maybe he became one with those ghosts mentioned in the first island and will perhaps finally attain that perfection, that eternity, that infinity, in his death.

Janine

01-13-2008, 03:11 AM

Hira;513296]Oooh, I love those usages of gossamer.

Isn't it a wonderful word?! It evokes such images. Funny, I just saw the older 'Midsummer Night's Dream' film and in one scene these tiny fairies help to weave a gossamer net over the head of the fairy queen and it becomes a veil. It was so magical and so beautiful. The gossamer came from a spider weaving his web. I was thinking how this passage was like that spider web and not existing in the physical realm or sense, but magical or mystical. It suggests that to me...a dreamlike state. I think the islander is now deep in a trance or dreamlike stage of 'unreality'.

I find that very interesting. Even though I didn't in my mind think him to be a compassionate Christ-like figure while reading. In the end, as he approaches the end, there is the phrase Once, like a wraith

Well, I thought of this correlation, because Lawrence had a real fascination with crucifixes and felt he got crucified by his public and publishers, even his closest friends, time and time again; crucifixes and Christ images are prevalent in Lawrence writings. He once walked through the hills and mountains of Italy, writing his fine travel novel, "Twilight in Italy", and the whole time he notes the various shrines and crosses along the way. Also, late in life he wrote "The Man Who Died" about his Christ figure remaining on earth and exhibiting very human characteristics. Instead of a crucified Christ dying and ascending to heaven, Lawrence's Christ is resurrected to live out his days on earth. It is a complicated story and one you should read someday, when you have devoured more of the early Lawrence work. It needs to be worked up to. It is however a very interesting short piece work.

so maybe he became one with those ghosts mentioned in the first island and will perhaps finally attain that perfection, that eternity, that infinity, in his death.

Possibly, but not sure of this idea. Ghosts are still restless spirits so I think if anything the man, before his death, is a ghost since he is indeed a restless spirit in the flesh.

Virgil

01-13-2008, 10:21 AM

I agree about the quotes; there are lots of pretty quotes throughout the story. I'll have to post one or two myself.

Janine

01-13-2008, 06:38 PM

I agree about the quotes; there are lots of pretty quotes throughout the story. I'll have to post one or two myself.

Virgil, that would be great if you could do so. I would read them, there is such interesting phrasing of words, don't you think? Lots of time, so don't rush.

Dark Muse

01-13-2008, 06:40 PM

Perhpas I should re-read over the story and post a few of my faveorite passages.

Janine

01-13-2008, 07:21 PM

Perhpas I should re-read over the story and post a few of my faveorite passages.

Dark Muse, It is always good to re-read the story,review and then post some things that stand out to you. You might notice something you had not, on your first reading. Hopefully Quark will be joining in tomorrow and can add some comments/ideas to what has already been said.

I am not having a good day, so I am going to take a break tonight. I will try and be back tomorrow when I feel better.

Virgil

01-13-2008, 09:27 PM

I think that the Island may suggest a "remoteness" that is preferable to him-and to others- instead of a "fake", oppressive society, the way they see it. That's why I would say that it is both "Utopia" and "Anti-Utopia", depending on each percpective.

You know, as I'm going back through the old posts n this story, I think this is a very interesting observation that was not discussed. Now at some point on all three islands it does turn for the worse, but the shear beauty and idyllic life just before that turn does suggest a utopia. The utopia is not possible to sustain, but it is there. Perhaps the fault lies in Cathcart. Certainly on the second island what would have been wrong to live with the wife and child? And even on the first one, so it was losing money. Is that a reason to just give up? Lawrence wouldn't consider it so. So look toward the end of the first part:

The people were not contented. They were not islanders. "We feel we're not doing right by the children," said those who had children. "We feel we're not doing right by ourselves," said those who had no children. And the various families fairly came to hate one another.

Yet the island was so lovely. When there was a scent of honey- suckle, and the moon brightly flickering down on the sea, then even the grumblers felt a strange nostalgia for it. It set you yearning, with a wild yearning; perhaps for the past, to be far back in the mysterious past of the island, when the blood had a different throb. Strange floods of passion came over you, strange violent lusts and imaginations of cruelty. The blood and the passion and the lust which the island had known. Uncanny dreams, half-dreams, half-evocated yearnings.

The Master himself began to be a little afraid of his island. He felt here strange violent feelings he had never felt before, and lustful desires that he had been quite free from. He knew quite well now that his people didn't love him at all. He knew that their spirits were secretly against him, malicious, jeering, envious, and lurking to down him. He became just as wary and secretive with regard to them.

So the problem really is in him. He is not like Julia fron "Sun." He just can't find contenment. It's like the utopia is there, but the problem is in himself, either in dealing with people or in committing to it.

Notice that we are told that:"He was born on one, but it didn't suit him, as there were too many other people on it." This could be a criticism to the world as it is.
Your first sentence I think is right on Amalia, but now I think it's not the people who are the problem, but his inability to accept and find happiness.

What I love is the way Lawrence retains the balance between the two "sides" of the issue. He mentions something which is a treasure, in my opinion. "Thus, it seems that even islands like to keep each other company." Here, we see that no matter how "lonely" a person may be, company is vital for the continuation of life. Loneliness may be a "trap", there can be dangers in a life like this. It seems that noone can live all alone.
Yes, you're right he strikes that balance and he does it to show that Cathcart is inherently at fault. Perhaps that's why that Mckenzie guy wanted to sue Lawrence.

Quark

01-14-2008, 05:06 PM

Dark Muse

01-14-2008, 05:12 PM

Janine

01-14-2008, 06:33 PM

I started a thread a while back ago about failure in Modernist literature, and if I had read this story then I would have included it in my original point. This story is series of hopes, frustrations, then failures. Despite his high hopes, he fails to live in a community (first island), fails in his romantic, familial, and professional roles (second island), and fails as an individual on the third island. On each island, he adopts a different attitude and means for success, but none of them actually work. Instead, he suffers from frustration and depression. In the face of all of this, you can only laugh or cry, and the moods of the story reflect this. Early in the story the mood is comical and light-hearted, but in the last parts it's morbidly gloomy. I think if you tried hard enough to moralize on this story you could. One could try to find where the islanders Utopian plans went wrong. Or, you could try to define nature in the story and show how the islander deviated from its precepts. I don't think this kind of analysis would really help us understand the story, though. The story, itself, is more invested in what happens to its main character.

I have some more to say, but I think I should go back and look at the other posts before I get too carried away.

Quark, so glad to see you here! I like how you summed up this story and how you are looking at it. I think if you go back and read the posts, you will get much from that, many varied ideas. There have been some very good comments and I am sure you could expand on those, as well.
Did you like the story? Interesting about the thread you started with this very point in mind. I will have to go back and review that thread. Yes, the story does entail a failed effort, even though it began so hopeful. I do think it has a moral or a lesson and as Virgil mentioned pointed this out in a comparison to a Tolstoy story, and also to Robinson Crusoe, and the fact that the C did succeed in making his island paradise work, by working along with obstacles and nature. Nature here is a key element. As one knows, you cannot control the weather or the seasons.

Quark, I know this is off-topic but will you be starting up the Chekhov thread again soon? I hope to participate again.

Virgil, I will answer your post later on. I know some of the things you brought up were discussed earlier; you bring up some other good points.

Dark Muse, good to see you today and commenting again. This is a good group in this thread. Let's keep it going for awhile longer, more people have shown an interest to me personally, in reading this story.
I hope someone posts some of the lovely passages in the story - quite poetic and I am sure some speak to us in certain broader 'universal' ways.

Dark Muse

01-14-2008, 06:39 PM

I hope someone posts some of the lovely passages in the story - quite poetic and I am sure some speak to us in certain broader 'universal' ways.

I hope to have some to post soon.

Dark Muse

01-14-2008, 08:21 PM

He wanted an island all of his own: not necessarily to be alone on it, but to make it a world of his own.

This sentence I found intresting becasue it seems to suggest that his original intent was not in fact isolataion, but simply to escape the world at large and become master of his own demain, to create his own world, but one that others might inhabit, as long as it was his.

Before the mist came stealing, and you went home through the ripening oats, the glare of the sea fading from the high air as the foghorn started to moo on the other island. And then the sea-fog went, it was autumn, and the oat-sheaves lying prone; the great moon, another island, rose golden out of the say, and rising higher, the world of the sea was white.

I thought this was a great passage, and it used some really good examples of foreshadow. The stealing mist, and glare of the sea, seem to give us a clue that all might not be well. I also love the way the foghorn moo's.

The last line, "the world of the sea was white" seems to suggest the wintery cold end that is to come.

Strangely, from your island in space, you were gone forth into the dark, great realms of time, where all the souls that never die veer and swoop on thier vast, strange errands. The little earthly island had dwindled, like a jumping-off place, into nothingness, for you have jumped off, you know not how, into the dark wide mystery of time, where the past is vastly alive, and the future is not sperated off.

I really like this passage, I have also noticed that Lawrence uses repition alot, as other quotes posted here have shown. The word time, and mystery, also appear in several places throughout the story, as well as references to space.

But once you isolate yourself on a little island in the sea of space, and the moment begins to heave and expand in great circles, the solid earth is gone, and your slippery, naked dark soul finds herself out in the timeless world, where the chariots of the so-called dead dash down the old streets of centuries, and souls crowd on the footways that we, in the moment, call bygone years. The souls of all the dead are alive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in another infinity.

I just love this passage

He began, as we begin all our attempts to regain Paradise, by spending money.

I found this interesting after he departs from the world to form is own perfect world, he begins to try and bring in the world he left in order to make his own world feel more like Paradise.

It is doubtful whether and of them really liked him man to man, or even woman to man. But then it is doubtful if he really liked any of them as man to man or man to woman. He wanted them to be happy, and the little world to be perfect. But still any one who wants the world to be perfect must be careful not to have real likes or disliked. A general good-will is all you can afford.

The idea not liking anyone as an individual or for who they were as people is another demostration of his inability to really have any sort of relationship with anyone. He wanted them to be happy in a general way, simply becasue it was his own world and he wanted it to be his utopia.

Aslo it is a very Buddist like philosophy to love man or woman not personaly or individually but to just generally want goodness for everyone becasue they are a part of the world that you share with them.

Yet the island was so lovely. When there was a scent of honey-suckle, and the moon brightly flickering down on the sea, then even the grumblers felt a strange nostalgia for it. It set you yearning, with the wild yearnings; perhaps for the past, to be far back in the mysterious past of the island, when the blood had a different throb. Strange floods of passion come over you, strange violent lusts and imaginations of cruelty. The blood and the passion and the lust which the island had known. Uncanny dreams, half-dreams, half-evocated yearnings.

Loved this

The island was not longer a "world." It was a sort of refuge.

I found it inresting that with this move to the second island, his view and wants began to change as well. Now it seems that he is begining to shift more toward the longing of isolation.

I loved the line

The silent mystery of travelling birds.

The strange stillness from all desire was a kind of wonder to the islander. He did not want anything. His soul at last was still in him, his spirit was like a dim-lit cave under water, where strange sea-foliage expands upon the watery atmosphere, and scarecely sways, and a mute fish shadowily slips in and slips away again. All still and soft uncrying, yet alive as rooted sea-weed is alive.

Loved the imagery, words and discriptions here.

He no longer workd on his book. The interest has gone.

It seems here the transistion is complete, as on the second island he began to loose desire, and mentioned that he did not care if he got published, now he loseses his will to even attempt anything, but becomes lethargic. Nothing no longer really matters to him. Perhaps this is a warning aganist general good will and not forming personal attachments?

Many gulls were on ths island now: many sea-birds of all sorts. It was another world of life. Many of the birds he had never seen before. His old impulse came over him, to send for a book, to know thier names. In a flicker of the old passion, to know the name of everything he saw, he even decided to row out to the steamer. The names of the birds! he must know their names, otherwise he had not got them, they were not quite alive to him.

I love the way the birds momentairly revive him. And the fact that birds play an important and predominant role through the story. They are given almost an etheral quality. The islander does not truly view them as a part of the world, and so they are the only things that do not seem to intrude upon his isolation.

The dark days of winter drew on. Sometimes there was no real day at all. He felt ill, as if he were dissolving, as if dissolution had already set in inside of him. Everything was twilight, outside and in his mind and soul. Once when he went to the door, he saw black heads of men swimming in his bay. For some moments he swooned unconcious. It was the shock, the horror of unexepcted human apporach. The horror in the twilight! And not till the shock had undermined him and left him disembodied, did he realize that the black heads were the heads of seals swimming in.

I loved this passage, and noticed that on the third island the writing becomes very Poe like in nature.

Janine

01-14-2008, 10:47 PM

Dark Muse, this is great! Good work and good thinking on your part. Thanks for quoting all of those. I will try and comment on each passage later. I love the ones you chose to post. Aren't they deeply poetic? I love things about the sea and some of these are lovely to read independent of the story. I used to write passages, I particularly liked, in a small notebook to read later on, and some of these would be fine to add to that collection. I may just do so.

Dark Muse

01-14-2008, 11:46 PM

LOL I use to do that too. Glad you enjoyed the passages I selected.

Hira

01-15-2008, 06:34 AM

Absolutely loved the passages you posted too!

"The silent mystery of traveling birds" ~ Beautiful.

"The strange stillness from all desire was a kind of wonder to the islander. He did not want anything. His soul at last was still in him, his spirit was like a dim-lit cave under water, where strange sea-foliage expands upon the watery atmosphere, and scarecely sways, and a mute fish shadowily slips in and slips away again. All still and soft uncrying, yet alive as rooted sea-weed is alive."

~ Such a wonderful image-evoking description for that stillness, desirelessness.

Virgil

01-15-2008, 09:07 AM

Let me just say you ladies are really carrying a wonderful conversation on this story and making such interesting observations. I must admit I'm the slacker here. Now I was searching through for the meaning of the infinity referesences and only to find that Janine has figured it out.

Quote:
The very mist of eternity was in them. Whereas stone buildings, cathedrals for example, seemed to him to howl with temporary resistance, knowing they must fall at last; the tension of their long endurance seemed to howl forth from them all the time.
The very mist of eternity...this is a very interesting line and starkly contrasts the next lines stating the fact of the temporary resistence, but inevidable fall of the, seemingly, permanent structures, made by man.

Eternity is a form of infinity and does starkly contrast. As I was going through the story looking through the infinty references, I continually found along side, references to the opposite, to finiteness. We've all seen the infinity passages, but look at this passage near the beginning of the story:

What could be more cozy and home-like? It was four miles if you walked all round your island, through the gorse and the blackthorn bushes, above the steep rocks of the sea and down in the little glades where the primroses grew. If you walked straight over the two humps of hills, the length of it, through the rocky fields where the cows lay chewing, and through the rather sparse oats, on into the gorse again, and so to the low cliffs' edge, it took you only twenty minutes. And when you came to the edge, you could see another, bigger island lying beyond. But the sea was between you and it. And as you returned over the turf where the short, downland cowslips nodded you saw to the east still another island, a tiny one this time, like the calf of the cow. This tiny island also belonged to the islander.
"Cosy," "four miles if you walked around," "If you walked straight over the two humps of hills, the length of it, ... it took you only twenty minutes," "when you came to the edge," these are all references to the opposite of infinity, to finiteness.

While reviewing I recalled two passages where Biblical references were made and wondered if anyone had any ideas on these two passages:

Quote:
if you are like Abraham, and want your offspring to be numberless as the sands of the sea-shore, you don't choose an island to start breeding on.
Oddly enough later, the islander does just that and breeds, only to spur him to separate himself even more from humanity.

Quote:
He was wonderful with children, talked to them simply wonderful, made you think of Our Saviour Himself, said the woman.
Especially, this second statement fascinates me, which I find curious and I think must have some definitel significance to the story. I have one idea. This is that Christ suffered on earth from earthly imperfection and he died in the end. He was isolated as the islander was. The islander, like Christ, is seeking perfection on earth and he must also die at the end of the story, because on this earth 'perfection' cannot be realised. Only in the realms of eternity and infinity, can this perfection be realised and obtained.

Janine I think you're right. There is a sort of contrast set up where the infinity passages tie into a religious concept against the finiteness of reality. Here I think is a very important passage:

But once isolate yourself on a little island in the sea of space, and the moment begins to heave and expand in great circles, the solid earth is gone, and your slippery, naked dark soul finds herself out in the timeless world, where the chariots of the so- called dead dash down the old streets of centuries, and souls crowd on the footways that we, in the moment, call bygone years. The souls of all the dead are alive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in the other infinity.
Circles is the aesthetic principle of the story I think. An island is a circle, a circle is perfection (an endless loop) but a circle is also finite too, it completes. Circles tie in with the concept of circular time as one of you ladies pointed out. I don't think Lawrence is aiming so much at primitive time versues modern time (as I think some one said) but in the religious time of infiinity versues the linear time of mankind.

I probably said too much there and jumbles a bunch of thoughts. I hope it made sense.

If I had realized this religious sense of the story i would have used this in my thesis on Lawrence's use of transfiguration. Does Cathcart reach transfiguration?

Dark Muse

01-15-2008, 01:28 PM

I don't think Lawrence is aiming so much at primitive time versues modern time (as I think some one said) but in the religious time of infiinity versues the linear time of mankind.

Yes that is probably true, but I think in a way the Islander had to go back to the more primitive sense of time, and escape the constant press of civilization and man construrcted time, in order to truly gain the ablitly to experince the religous sense of infinity without being intruded upon by having to conform to mans linear time.

Virgil

01-15-2008, 02:03 PM

Yes that is probably true, but I think in a way the Islander had to go back to the more primitive sense of time, and escape the constant press of civilization and man construrcted time, in order to truly gain the ablitly to experince the religous sense of infinity without being intruded upon by having to conform to mans linear time.

Actually I should have qualified my statement. Primitive time is religious time for Lawrence. Paradise is that primitive state for him. So your statement is right on, Dark Muse.

Janine

01-15-2008, 04:26 PM

Let me just say you ladies are really carrying a wonderful conversation on this story and making such interesting observations. I must admit I'm the slacker here. Now I was searching through for the meaning of the infinity referesences and only to find that Janine has figured it out.

Virgil, you are an real ace. Thanks so much for going back and reading the posts and commenting. That means a lot to me, especially today. It is fine you have not been here too much lately; I know the 'Aeneid' is keeping you plenty busy, also your Christmas poem discussion. We still have plenty of time to discuss the deeper elements of the story; it is only the 15th today. It is always good to have your keen sense of perception a part of the discussion.

First, thanks everybody, for posting those great quotes. I have been the slacker lately. Sorry about that. All of your comments are so important to me, I learn more this way. You are all doing a great job on this discussion.:thumbs_up

The passage with the 'fish' image is so reminescent of something Lawrence wrote (early on) in his first novel "The White Peacock". I must look this up, with some commentary on this idea, since it goes back to primitive man and some interesting ideas, that are definitely unique to 'Lawrence'; they keep cropping up in various pieces of his literture.

Virgil, I had wondered if you would notice the passages I had posted about the biblical references; I had you in-mind when I had posted them. I could not imagine Lawrence including them, unless they had a definite meaning. significance to the story. I like how you have linked them.
Wow, this 'time' thing is really interesting to me. I don't know if I have figured anything out really but thought it was good to throw out here for discussion the various elements of contrast concerning the time. You have expanded on that nicely. Now I really like the idea of the circle; islands being circles; time being a circle, perfection. Everything you wrote below makes perfect sense to me and then the statement:"when you came to the edge," ....then there is this paragraph:

Strangely, from your little island in space, you were gone forth into the dark, great realms of time, where all the souls that never die veer and swoop on their vast, strange errands. The little earthly island has dwindled, like a jumping-off place, into nothingness, for you have jumped off, you know not how, into the dark wide mystery of time, where the past is vastly alive, and the future is not separated off.

I just love that last sentence! Wow, does this speak of 'infinity' to you, or what?

Janine I think you're right. There is a sort of contrast set up where the infinity passages tie into a religious concept against the finiteness of reality. Here I think is a very important passage:

Thanks V, I had gone back over the story paragraph by paragraph and I noticed that it seemed that these contrasts would follow each other, often in the passages. Yes, I agree, I think the 'infinity passages do definitely tie into religious concepts against the finiteness of reality.' That is an excellent way of expressing it.

Eternity is a form of infinity and does starkly contrast. As I was going through the story looking through the infinty references, I continually found along side, references to the opposite, to finiteness. We've all seen the infinity passages, but look at this passage near the beginning of the story:

See, you did a similiar thing. It is so good to review the text, one sees things not noticed, on a first reading, or even a second.

"Cosy," "four miles if you walked around," "If you walked straight over the two humps of hills, the length of it, ... it took you only twenty minutes," "when you came to the edge," these are all references to the opposite of infinity, to finiteness.

Yes, it is cosy and you are right - so opposite the concept of 'infinity'. The island is finite still - perhaps this is why it does not work for Cathcart. Maybe this story is more than a story about 'isolation' and more about impending 'death', and maybe it is about Lawrence's thoughts on that and infinity? Just a wild thought. But think of the ending, with the snow obliterating the shape of the island - the island's restrictions of finiteness, no longer evident. Now Cathcart has achieved what he wanted all along - 'infinity', and yet this can only be achieved by death. As he also wants 'perfection', this too can only be achieved with death and the infinite. Interesting, isn't it?

Circles is the aesthetic principle of the story I think. An island is a circle, a circle is perfection (an endless loop) but a circle is also finite too, it completes. Circles tie in with the concept of circular time as one of you ladies pointed out. I don't think Lawrence is aiming so much at primitive time versues modern time (as I think some one said) but in the religious time of infiinity versues the linear time of mankind.

This term 'primitive time' and 'religious time' interests me. I must learn more about these.
You know, I picked up a book on 'Time' once and I will have to dig it up and read it. It is all about all the concepts of time in the world and history. Now I am intrigued.

I probably said too much there and jumbles a bunch of thoughts. I hope it made sense.

Not at all. I understood all you said perfectly.

If I had realized this religious sense of the story i would have used this in my thesis on Lawrence's use of transfiguration. Does Cathcart reach transfiguration?

Yes, that is true. And this is his later fiction, too. Is it too late to add on to it?....hahah...Lawrence would have done a complete rewrite. ;)
By the way, I came across a book on Amazon that sounded a lot like your thesis. Are you published now? :lol: I will have to look it up again and send you the title; might be something you would be interested in reading.

Quark

01-16-2008, 10:28 PM

We already have a lot of good posts (do review them, after your reading, if you have the time).

There have been many good posts, and they've had a surprising wide focus, too: everything from the story to Pre-Raphaelite art to vampires. If anyone accuses me of sidetracking the conversation, I'll know they're joking.

Upon review of the posts, I also noticed how much of a jerk I must have looked telling everyone about the hopelessness of treating the story allegorically right after multiple people attempted precisely that. Sorry. I probably should have gone back and looked--rather than jumped in, totally unaware. Really, though, my point is harmless. I'm only saying that it's difficult to give a point to the story from only the text itself. If you have some other knowledge of Lawrence--which many of you do--you can apply it to this story and perhaps find some instructions encoded in the story. Or, one could follow the symbols and references and link the islands and the main character with certain ideas. From there, you could point to specific actions of the main character that have positive or negative effects on the story. Either way, though, you have to go outside of the story to make you're point, and this is always difficult.

I like what people have been posting about time and the ocean. I'll try to post something on that in a couple of hours when I come back to the computer.

Virgil

01-16-2008, 11:00 PM

The passage with the 'fish' image is so reminescent of something Lawrence wrote (early on) in his first novel "The White Peacock". I must look this up, with some commentary on this idea, since it goes back to primitive man and some interesting ideas, that are definitely unique to 'Lawrence'; they keep cropping up in various pieces of his literture.

Please do Janine. I'm curious.

Virgil, I had wondered if you would notice the passages I had posted about the biblical references; I had you in-mind when I had posted them. I could not imagine Lawrence including them, unless they had a definite meaning. significance to the story. I like how you have linked them.
Wow, this 'time' thing is really interesting to me. I don't know if I have figured anything out really but thought it was good to throw out here for discussion the various elements of contrast concerning the time. You have expanded on that nicely. Now I really like the idea of the circle; islands being circles; time being a circle, perfection. Everything you wrote below makes perfect sense to me and then the statement:"when you came to the edge," Thanks.

Quote:
Strangely, from your little island in space, you were gone forth into the dark, great realms of time, where all the souls that never die veer and swoop on their vast, strange errands. The little earthly island has dwindled, like a jumping-off place, into nothingness, for you have jumped off, you know not how, into the dark wide mystery of time, where the past is vastly alive, and the future is not separated off.
I just love that last sentence! Wow, does this speak of 'infinity' to you, or what?
I thought that was worth repeating. I think it's the heart of the story.

Yes, it is cosy and you are right - so opposite the concept of 'infinity'. The island is finite still - perhaps this is why it does not work for Cathcart. Maybe this story is more than a story about 'isolation' and more about impending 'death', and maybe it is about Lawrence's thoughts on that and infinity? Just a wild thought.
At first when I read that I thought how couod that be? But I think you're right. Life is finite and the spirit/soul is part of eternity/infinity.

But think of the ending, with the snow obliterating the shape of the island - the island's restrictions of finiteness, no longer evident. Now Cathcart has achieved what he wanted all along - 'infinity', and yet this can only be achieved by death. As he also wants 'perfection', this too can only be achieved with death and the infinite. Interesting, isn't it?
Absolutely very interesting. I think we've got it!

This term 'primitive time' and 'religious time' interests me. I must learn more about these.
You know, I picked up a book on 'Time' once and I will have to dig it up and read it. It is all about all the concepts of time in the world and history. Now I am intrigued.Oh you should skim that. Time in fiction is very important, and how a writer uses time is pertinent.

Yes, that is true. And this is his later fiction, too. Is it too late to add on to it?....hahah...Lawrence would have done a complete rewrite. ;)
By the way, I came across a book on Amazon that sounded a lot like your thesis. Are you published now? :lol: I will have to look it up again and send you the title; might be something you would be interested in reading.
What book is that? I would like to check it out. :)

Janine

01-17-2008, 03:27 AM

There have been many good posts, and they've had a surprising wide focus, too: everything from the story to Pre-Raphaelite art to vampires. If anyone accuses me of sidetracking the conversation, I'll know they're joking.

Quark, glad to see you back. Yes, this has been a wide focus and we went a little of-topic one night but hey, we all need to lighten up a little and the art was nice wasn't it. Even Shakespeare realized the need for 'comic relief' once in awhile. If anyone has taken offense to that, then that is truly their problem. We got back on-track and no harm was done. Quark, anytime you feel like 'sidetracking' a bit, I promise to be tolerant! :lol: Anyway, vampires might fit right in with Cathcart's ghostly images, what do you think? ;)

Upon review of the posts, I also noticed how much of a jerk I must have looked telling everyone about the hopelessness of treating the story allegorically right after multiple people attempted precisely that. Sorry. I probably should have gone back and looked--rather than jumped in, totally unaware. Really, though, my point is harmless. I'm only saying that it's difficult to give a point to the story from only the text itself. If you have some other knowledge of Lawrence--which many of you do--you can apply it to this story and perhaps find some instructions encoded in the story. Or, one could follow the symbols and references and link the islands and the main character with certain ideas. From there, you could point to specific actions of the main character that have positive or negative effects on the story. Either way, though, you have to go outside of the story to make you're point, and this is always difficult.

You are right, it is difficult and it seems the more we studied this particular story the more these ideas emerged. I think a good discussion is built this way. I don't think one has to know a great deal about Lawrence, but true it was quite helpful, to know that digging in deeper to these meanings of Lawrence's, such as the hope of one day forming his own utopian society, gave the story more dimension. I think if you merely take the time, to read the short biographical sketch (on this site) it will reveal these basic facts about Lawrence and his life's journey of discovery. Then you can relate some of his biographical facts directly to this story. I know we have had discussions, about separating the biography of the author from his work, but in this case to better understand this story and the meaning one needs to delve below the surface and seek additional facts that help define the story more clearly.

And Quark, you were not a jerk at all. Everyone on this thread and the forum have a right to their opinions. At that time, less had been revealed and this is how you saw the story personally...nothing wrong with that. I think probably, there are so many different ways, to look at and interpret this story, which makes this discussion even more interesting and mulifacted. This has truly been a great discussion and a good group of participants. I think we are all here to learn. We all have to be humble in order to open our minds to new idea and concepts of the story. If not, we will miss the point entirely.

I like what people have been posting about time and the ocean. I'll try to post something on that in a couple of hours when I come back to the computer.

Yes, the 'time' elements have been fascinating. They start one thinking in much broader terms. 'Infinity' is a big word - expansive and evoking such need for deeper considerations and ideas. Now we are getting into a more philosophical realm of discussion, don't you think? Yes, I would like to hear more of your ideas on this, 'time and the ocean'. I recently saw a program on the oceans and these are vastly unexplored areas of this planet, they are still very mysterious and unknown, perhaps relating to 'infinity' , plus the thought has come to me how changable they are. This whole planet is 'ever-changing'. Nothing is truly fixed. All these thoughts make the story even more intriguing.

Quark

01-18-2008, 09:41 PM

Time in fiction is very important, and how a writer uses time is pertinent.

Yes, the 'time' elements have been fascinating. They start one thinking in much broader terms.

The word time, and mystery, also appear in several places throughout the story

Time or timelessness keeps being brought up. Specifically, the kind of time introduced in the first part of the story:

But once isolate yourself on a little island in the sea of space, and the moment begins to heave and expand in great circles, the solid earth is gone, and your slippery, naked dark soul finds herself out in the timeless world, where the chariots of the so- called dead dash down the old streets of centuries, and souls crowd on the footways that we, in the moment, call bygone years. The souls of all the dead are alive again, and pulsating actively around you. You are out in the other infinity.

Lawrence conjures up the idea of a timeless infinity at contrast with the usual limited perspective. I think we're right to think of "infinity" as an important concept in the story, but I think we're wrong to consider the islander somehow willfully embracing "infinity" or timelessness. It seems quite the opposite. Cathcart's Utopian aspirations are not bringing him any closer to infinity; they are a way of overlooking the truth that he sees at night. After Lawrence explains the "infinity" of the island in the dark, he goes on to say, "To escape any more of this sort of awareness, our islander daily concentrated upon his material island. Why should it not be the Happy Isle at last?". Most of the rest of the story is dedicated to Cathcart's attempts to be happy: no more brooding reflections after the sun has gone down. At the end, the islander grudgingly accepts that he is not in control--this could be seen perhaps as a return to infinity. But, during the action of the story Cathcart resists the kind of awareness we have in the beginning of the story. To put this in literary, rather than philosophical, terms, we could say that the timelessness or "infinity" makes up something like the antagonist to Cathcart. It counters the islander and pushes the story to crisis.

Dark Muse

01-19-2008, 12:24 AM

At the end, the islander grudgingly accepts that he is not in control--this could be seen perhaps as a return to infinity. But, during the action of the story Cathcart resists the kind of awareness we have in the beginning of the story. To put this in literary, rather than philosophical, terms, we could say that the timelessness or "infinity" makes up something like the antagonist to Cathcart. It counters the islander and pushes the story to crisis.

This is an intresting observation. And It can be seen as a struggle for control or perhaps to find some sort of balance with it. In a way the Islander does seem huanted by this idea of infinity and timelessness, but I agree that in some reguards it does not appear as if he is seeking it, for he is constnatly trying to fill his world with the material with bits of civilization when the infinity gets too much for him.

You can see in the second island how slowly he starts to give up his attempts for control and began to accept more this idea of the infinte and then by the last island he has completly given up and simply accepts his fate.

Quark

01-19-2008, 01:09 AM

This is an intresting observation. And It can be seen as a struggle for control or perhaps to find some sort of balance with it. In a way the Islander does seem huanted by this idea of infinity and timelessness, but I agree that in some reguards it does not appear as if he is seeking it, for he is constnatly trying to fill his world with the material with bits of civilization when the infinity gets too much for him.

You can see in the second island how slowly he starts to give up his attempts for control and began to accept more this idea of the infinte and then by the last island he has completly given up and simply accepts his fate.

Yeah, it is odd. It's hard to exactly peg Cathcart's relationship with the infinite beyond. In some moments, he appears to hide from it and at other times he welcomes it. On the third island, Lawrence even says, "He wanted only to hear the whispering sound of the sea, and the sharp cries of the gulls, cries that came out of another world to him. And best of all, the great silence." This sounds like a reprise for the thoughts in the beginning--except this time the islander is more attentive. Perhaps a better way of looking at the "infinite" in this story is to consider it as something tempting or luring him. I think you said "haunted"; this would be a good word. I'm starting to think we have to separate Cathcart's idealism in the first part to his ideals later in the story. His Utopian social plan is a communal goal, whereas his hope for a more numinous life at the end is something different from this. The later ambition appears to be driven by the voices that cry out from the ocean that remind him of the "infinite".

The only problem with this approach, though, is the very end. If Cathcart is embracing the "infinite", why is he overcome?

Dark Muse

01-19-2008, 01:22 AM

His Utopian social plan is a communal goal, whereas his hope for a more numinous life at the end is something different from this. The later ambition appears to be driven by the voices that cry out from the ocean that remind him of the "infinite".

Yes this is very true, and a good point. He does seem to want a Utopia for everyone, not just for himself, but later in the story he seems to be driven more into the need for isolation.

The only problem with this approach, though, is the very end. If Cathcart is embracing the "infinite", why is he overcome?

This is a good question, though at the end, I do not know if he is truly embracing it, or if he simply relizes he can no longer fight it, just as his death. A person knows they cannot escape thier death, but that does not mean they always will welcome its comming, but must eventurally simply accept the fact of it.

It could also be the fact that he cannot truly know just what the infinite is like untill he is experincing it. So perhaps, he just begins to get overwhelmed by the idea of it, perhaps it is even more then he had first thought it would be once he was experincing it.

Quark

01-19-2008, 01:36 AM

This is a good question, though at the end, I do not know if he is truly embracing it, or if he simply relizes he can no longer fight it, just as his death. A person knows they cannot escape thier death, but that does not mean they always will welcome its comming, but must eventurally simply accept the fact of it.

Well, the "infinite" concept may be different from the snow at the end. I think the snow belongs more to what Cathcart calls the "invisible hand". Lawrence explains that

"As sure as the spirits rose in the human breast, with a movement of joy, an invisible hand struck malevolently out of the silence. There must not be any joy, nor even any quiet peace."

The "infinite", on the other hand, is what is haunting Cathcart. It's what makes him want to isolate himself on the island. Once again, Lawrence explaining:

"It set you yearning, with a wild yearning; perhaps for the past, to be far back in the mysterious past of the island, when the blood had a different throb. Strange floods of passion came over you, strange violent lusts and imaginations of cruelty. The blood and the passion and the lust which the island had known. Uncanny dreams, half-dreams, half-evocated yearnings."

The snow is this mysteriously destructive object that we're probably supposed to connect with Cathcart's other failures, but it's still unclear how the "infinite" thing works into any of this.

Dark Muse

01-19-2008, 01:51 AM

Well, the "infinite" concept may be different from the snow at the end. I think the snow belongs more to what Cathcart calls the "invisible hand". Lawrence explains that

Sorry if I did not make myself clear, I was not trying to say that the snow or death and the infinte were the same. Only that perhaps the reason Cathcart was overcome was becasue perhaps he did not welcome the infinite with open arms but simply accepted the fact that he could not escape it and that death is also like this, but not to say they are the same thing just a similar idea surrounding the two.

Janine

01-19-2008, 02:10 AM

Quark and Dark Muse,

Good discussion going on here - sorry I missed it, but you two have come up with plenty of new ideas or expanded ones on things earlier discussed and I will think more about all this. I will try to post some comments tomorrow. Keep discussing! I'm listening.

Let me say one thing. I see this story as a progression/regression of life and the path to inescapable 'death', as all must face. In this way death is the pathway to that infinity or eternity...."the vast unknown from which no traveler returns".

Hira

01-19-2008, 10:52 AM

Yep. Good Discussion!:thumbs_up Keep it going.

Just wanted to post an excerpt from a letter (http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=NyudR_ePn8sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=letters+of+D.H.Lawrence&sig=Q5IRgWdhjbX8h5rNOdZjSaewsoM#PRA1-PA350,M1) D.H.Lawrence wrote, which I thought interesting.

I have been reading the poems and am more struck by those I have never seen before. They have got the other-world in them, which is the world of poetry. They are in the other-world. One must either be in this world or in the world beyond, in the temporal or the eternal life. One cannot have one foot on sea and one on shore. And your best poems belong to the eternal world altogether. ‘Loneliness’ is almost perfect.

‘And what has the melodied soul to do
With aught but what is blest?
It cannot laugh, nor blame, nor teach
Defend nor interest.

This is quite perfect and a very great truth. Such loneliness where one lives in the presence of things blest, in the knowledge of the Infinite, the Eternal, where each thing is consummate and completed, this is the very antithesis of loneliness. Loneliness is part of temporality and partiality, it has no place in eternality. Milton’s God is the great Absolute, the Eternity interpreted by us, from mortality, into loneliness. But it is just this which is not loneliness which avails against all loneliness.

I don't know why I thought this passage from 'Twilight in Italy' might be important in some way. There is more too over here. (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lawrence/dh/l41tw/chapter2.3.html) I don't really get all of it or most of it. Janine, since you've read the book, could it have any role in explaining the story?

It is the inevitable philosophic conclusion of all the Renaissance. The deepest impulse in man, the religious impulse, is the desire to be immortal, or infinite, consummated. And this impulse is satisfied in fulfilment of an idea, a steady progression. In this progression man is satisfied, he seems to have reached his goal, this infinity, this immortality, this eternal being, with every step nearer which he takes.

And so, according to his idea of fulfilment, man establishes the whole order of life. If my fulfilment is the fulfilment and establishment of the unknown divine Self which I am, then I shall proceed in the realizing of the greatest idea of the self, the highest conception of the I, my order of life will be kingly, imperial, aristocratic. The body politic also will culminate in this divinity of the flesh, this body imbued with glory, invested with divine power and might, the King, the Emperor. In the body politic also I shall desire a king, an emperor, a tyrant, glorious, mighty, in whom I see myself consummated and fulfilled. This is inevitable!

But during the Middle Ages, struggling within this pagan, original transport, the transport of the Ego, was a small dissatisfaction, a small contrary desire. Amid the pomp of kings and popes was the Child Jesus and the Madonna. Jesus the King gradually dwindled down. There was Jesus the Child, helpless, at the mercy of all the world. And there was Jesus crucified.

The old transport, the old fulfilment of the Ego, the Davidian ecstasy, the assuming of all power and glory unto the self, the becoming infinite through the absorption of all into the Ego, this gradually became unsatisfactory. This was not the infinite, this was not immortality. This was eternal death, this was damnation.

The monk rose up with his opposite ecstasy, the Christian ecstasy. There was a death to die: the flesh, the self, must die, so that the spirit should rise again immortal, eternal, infinite. I am dead unto myself, but I live in the Infinite. The finite Me is no more, only the Infinite, the Eternal, is.

At the Renaissance this great half-truth overcame the other great half-truth. The Christian Infinite, reached by a process of abnegation, a process of being absorbed, dissolved, diffused into the great Not-Self, supplanted the old pagan Infinite, wherein the self like a root threw out branches and radicles which embraced the whole universe, became the Whole.

There is only one Infinite, the world now cried, there is the great Christian Infinite of renunciation and consummation in the not-self. The other, that old pride, is damnation. The sin of sins is Pride, it is the way to total damnation. Whereas the pagans based their life on pride.

And according to this new Infinite, reached through renunciation and dissolving into the Others, the Neighbour, man must build up his actual form of life. With Savonarola and Martin Luther the living Church actually transformed itself, for the Roman Church was still pagan. Henry VIII simply said: ‘There is no Church, there is only the State.’ But with Shakespeare the transformation had reached the State also. The King, the Father, the representative of the Consummate Self, the maximum of all life, the symbol of the consummate being, the becoming Supreme, Godlike, Infinite, he must perish and pass away. This Infinite was not infinite, this consummation was not consummated, all this was fallible, false. It was rotten, corrupt. It must go. But Shakespeare was also the thing itself. Hence his horror, his frenzy, his self-loathing.

The King, the Emperor is killed in the soul of man, the old order of life is over, the old tree is dead at the root. So said Shakespeare. It was finally enacted in Cromwell. Charles I took up the old position of kingship by divine right. Like Hamlet’s father, he was blameless otherwise. But as representative of the old form of life, which mankind now hated with frenzy, he must be cut down, removed. It was a symbolic act.

The world, our world of Europe, had now really turned, swung round to a new goal, a new idea, the Infinite reached through the omission of Self. God is all that which is Not-Me. I am consummate when my Self, the resistant solid, is reduced and diffused into all that which is Not-Me: my neighbour, my enemy, the great Otherness. Then I am perfect.

Janine

01-19-2008, 04:28 PM

Yep. Good Discussion!:thumbs_up Keep it going.

Hira, I like the first exerpt very much. Can you tell me what letter it is from and what the date of the letter is. I wish to look up the entire letter.

This second exerpt from "Twilight in Italy", I must have read before, since I read all three of the travel books. I have been thinking back to the "Sea in Sardinia" book as relating more closely to this story, but now that you present us with this passage, this may directly relate or at least some elements of this writing may; although I have to tell you, Lawrence often changed his mind later about things or modified his ideas. I do think much of this writing does embody many of his beliefs, but I find it confusing, to some degree, as though Lawrence was gropping for the answers to eternity. I will ask Virgil to take a look at this writing and try to explain. My attempts may be somewhat limited or even lame at explaining this. Lawrence often placed long 'sermons' in his books and these have to be read over and over to really comprehend just what he meant by them. This passage is setting forth to the reader all, or some of the various belief systems predominent in the world or throughout history and showing how the idea of 'self' was basically annilated. Or so I think this is what he is saying. Lawrence did believe in some strange things, like the thought of a man's own divinity or a ruling person. I just read "The Plumed Serpent" and this idea is explored in this novel. Two men become as gods on the earth exchanging the place of the 'crucified Christ'. In other words these old gods come to earth to replace the dead Christ present in the Christian churches (crucifixes play heavily into this equation) and therefore Christ ascends to Heaven to be at last with his Father. Now worship turns to these two former, now 'new', Mexican gods to rule the country. What exactly Lawrence was getting at, is difficult to say. He wanted the divine to be present in a real live human being and not in a dead image. This is one thing I believe he was saying in the book. Where one would take this theory is not of my saying.
I am hoping Virgil can shed some light on all this. This is getting deeply into the philosophies of the author, which takes years to really study and analysis. I don't think most people in the thread would be aware of other Lawrence works and how this relates. Virgil might see the relation to this story. I do in a remote way, but I can't really find the word to express that.

Which part of the story do these thoughts take place? Also, I will look up the exact year that Lawrence wrote "Twilight in Italy". This might prove to be very significant.

I did not re-post your passages, so all, please see above to Hira's entry.

I am editing this now since I just looked up somethings about the letter - I now see your link, Hira, about and the letter is around 1915 -this is early in Lawrence's life and career. At about the same period he began writing "Twilight in Italy" so these are very early thoughts coming from the author. Actually, the earliest reference I find in my book is that he was beginning to write this book in 1912, so from what I can see by 1915 he had named the novel and was sending proofs off to his publisher. This all coincides with the same time period he is writing "Sons and Lovers". This is quite interesting to me.
The Plumed Serpent is a much later work and so is this story "The Man Who Loved Islands". The philosophies of Lawrence's presented in a sketchy way in this writing may only be the mere seeds of ideas to be more developed and explored in greater depth, in Lawrence's later work and ideas on 'transfiguration'. Virgil knows greatly of "Transfiguration" concepts in Lawrence works and can tell you more about this idea, since he wrote his thesis on this aspect of Lawrence.

Hira

01-19-2008, 04:44 PM

Here (http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=NyudR_ePn8sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=letters+of+D.H.Lawrence&sig=Q5IRgWdhjbX8h5rNOdZjSaewsoM#PRA1-PA350,M1) is the link to the letter (Its in my first post too though). Written to Margaret Radford, June 1915.

I took it from here. (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lawrence/dh/l41tw/chapter2.3.html) Its part 3 of 'On the Lago di Garda' ,'The Theatre'. Almost beyond half-way down the page is where I took the excerpt.

P.S. I haven't at the moment though fully read or digested what you've written.

Janine

01-19-2008, 04:49 PM

Hira, I edited above and found the letter - thanks anyway, sorry to have troubled you about it. I had not noticed your link.

How interesting - you found the whole book online of "Twilight in Italy"...I have been checking out that site and it is just a shame they don't also have "Sea and Sardinia" and "Etruscan Tombs" as well. I guess that would be asking a lot, right; Hira, you are good, finding this rare book online. You are a research analysis like me! haha. I also looked to see if they might have "The White Peacock", but they don't....oh well.

Quark and Dark Muse, I must address your discussion and debate later on, since I have to go out now for the evening. Sorry.

Dark Muse

01-19-2008, 06:48 PM

Hira,Quark and Dark Muse, I must address your discussion and debate later on, since I have to go out now for the evening. Sorry.

It is alright, take your time

Santé

01-19-2008, 06:49 PM

I've read the Rocking Horse Winner and actually had to do a project on it.

Janine

01-20-2008, 03:45 PM

I've read the Rocking Horse Winner and actually had to do a project on it.

Hi Santé, welcome to the forum. I see you are a new member. There is much here to offer a person. We have a monthly reading of one of Lawrence's short stories; if you check back you will see we have discussed several so far. This month the story is "The Man Who Loved Islands". I believe Lawrence wrote this around the same time as he wrote "The Rocking Horse Winner". This was the late period in Lawrence's career and his short life. This second story, that you mention may be a possibility for one of our discussions. I can't promise when. If you are interested in Lawrence's writing, please feel free to join in our next discussion. We have not decided on a story as yet.

How did you like the story? I can't recall if I read it years ago or not. I think it was presented in most high schools or universities, as a required short story read and essay. I believe I did read it - I have a vague memory but I think I do definitely need a re-reading soon. It has been brought up to me so often - one of his most popular stories I believe.

Hira, If you were to read all three of Lawrence's travel books you would see a progression and changes in his attitudes towards eternity. I also read his "Apocalyse" and this is quite an interesting book, although I don't believe what Lawrence writes to be true I find his theories quite fascinating. I need to re-read this book someday.

Dark Muse and Quark and whomever else is here, I have to delay some more till this coming week; I am quite busy today, it being a weekend day. Keep posting if you all want to. I will go back and read all and comment later.

Virgil

01-20-2008, 07:57 PM

I don't know why I thought this passage from 'Twilight in Italy' might be important in some way. There is more too over here. (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/lawrence/dh/l41tw/chapter2.3.html) I don't really get all of it or most of it. Janine, since you've read the book, could it have any role in explaining the story?

Quote:
It is the inevitable philosophic conclusion of all the Renaissance. The deepest impulse in man, the religious impulse, is the desire to be immortal, or infinite, consummated. And this impulse is satisfied in fulfilment of an idea, a steady progression. In this progression man is satisfied, he seems to have reached his goal, this infinity, this immortality, this eternal being, with every step nearer which he takes.

And so, according to his idea of fulfilment, man establishes the whole order of life. If my fulfilment is the fulfilment and establishment of the unknown divine Self which I am, then I shall proceed in the realizing of the greatest idea of the self, the highest conception of the I, my order of life will be kingly, imperial, aristocratic. The body politic also will culminate in this divinity of the flesh, this body imbued with glory, invested with divine power and might, the King, the Emperor. In the body politic also I shall desire a king, an emperor, a tyrant, glorious, mighty, in whom I see myself consummated and fulfilled. This is inevitable!

But during the Middle Ages, struggling within this pagan, original transport, the transport of the Ego, was a small dissatisfaction, a small contrary desire. Amid the pomp of kings and popes was the Child Jesus and the Madonna. Jesus the King gradually dwindled down. There was Jesus the Child, helpless, at the mercy of all the world. And there was Jesus crucified.

The old transport, the old fulfilment of the Ego, the Davidian ecstasy, the assuming of all power and glory unto the self, the becoming infinite through the absorption of all into the Ego, this gradually became unsatisfactory. This was not the infinite, this was not immortality. This was eternal death, this was damnation.

The monk rose up with his opposite ecstasy, the Christian ecstasy. There was a death to die: the flesh, the self, must die, so that the spirit should rise again immortal, eternal, infinite. I am dead unto myself, but I live in the Infinite. The finite Me is no more, only the Infinite, the Eternal, is.

At the Renaissance this great half-truth overcame the other great half-truth. The Christian Infinite, reached by a process of abnegation, a process of being absorbed, dissolved, diffused into the great Not-Self, supplanted the old pagan Infinite, wherein the self like a root threw out branches and radicles which embraced the whole universe, became the Whole.

There is only one Infinite, the world now cried, there is the great Christian Infinite of renunciation and consummation in the not-self. The other, that old pride, is damnation. The sin of sins is Pride, it is the way to total damnation. Whereas the pagans based their life on pride.

And according to this new Infinite, reached through renunciation and dissolving into the Others, the Neighbour, man must build up his actual form of life. With Savonarola and Martin Luther the living Church actually transformed itself, for the Roman Church was still pagan. Henry VIII simply said: ‘There is no Church, there is only the State.’ But with Shakespeare the transformation had reached the State also. The King, the Father, the representative of the Consummate Self, the maximum of all life, the symbol of the consummate being, the becoming Supreme, Godlike, Infinite, he must perish and pass away. This Infinite was not infinite, this consummation was not consummated, all this was fallible, false. It was rotten, corrupt. It must go. But Shakespeare was also the thing itself. Hence his horror, his frenzy, his self-loathing.

The King, the Emperor is killed in the soul of man, the old order of life is over, the old tree is dead at the root. So said Shakespeare. It was finally enacted in Cromwell. Charles I took up the old position of kingship by divine right. Like Hamlet’s father, he was blameless otherwise. But as representative of the old form of life, which mankind now hated with frenzy, he must be cut down, removed. It was a symbolic act.

The world, our world of Europe, had now really turned, swung round to a new goal, a new idea, the Infinite reached through the omission of Self. God is all that which is Not-Me. I am consummate when my Self, the resistant solid, is reduced and diffused into all that which is Not-Me: my neighbour, my enemy, the great Otherness. Then I am perfect.

Absolutely this is relavant Hira. This encapsulates a lot of Lawrence's ideas about religion. Let me recopy this last paragraph:

The world, our world of Europe, had now really turned, swung round to a new goal, a new idea, the Infinite reached through the omission of Self. God is all that which is Not-Me. I am consummate when my Self, the resistant solid, is reduced and diffused into all that which is Not-Me: my neighbour, my enemy, the great Otherness. Then I am perfect.
This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

Janine

01-20-2008, 11:00 PM

Absolutely this is relavant Hira. This encapsulates a lot of Lawrence's ideas about religion. Let me recopy this last paragraph:

This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

Virgil, that helped emensely. Thanks so much. I knew you could explain it much better than I could. My attempt was somewhat feeble, I am afraid. I know how L throught, but I just can't explain it, or write it properly. You did a great job here and in minimal words. I perfectly understand what you wrote here. I hope this helps Hira, to grasp the meaning behind the passage quoted.

It is curious to note just when L wrote the passage - quite early in his life and career. What do you make of that in regard to 'Islands' being written much later?

Dark Muse

01-20-2008, 11:21 PM

His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants.

I really like your definition of the Ego, in the sense of Lawrence, I found it very interesting, and can definately see what you are seeing. It does make a great deal of sense.

Hira

01-21-2008, 04:48 AM

Hira, I edited above and found the letter - thanks anyway, sorry to have troubled you about it. I had not noticed your link.

There was no trouble. I just copy/pasted the link!

Hira, If you were to read all three of Lawrence's travel books you would see a progression and changes in his attitudes towards eternity. I also read his "Apocalyse" and this is quite an interesting book, although I don't believe what Lawrence writes to be true I find his theories quite fascinating. I need to re-read this book someday.

Where did this progression lead to Janine? These letters, they were written quite early. I suppose there has been a lot of change in his opinions between 1915 and 1929. There are a lot of things that are familiar though.

I would try to read them, the 'Twilight in Italy' is available online so I can read that. Will try to find the others.

Absolutely this is relavant Hira. This encapsulates a lot of Lawrence's ideas about religion. Let me recopy this last paragraph:

This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

Yes, I agree with Dark Muse, it does make a lot of sense now. So he had to suffer, the way he did, fade out, suffer crucifixion like the Christ so to speak and then finally after all that be elevated up to perfection.

quasimodo1

01-21-2008, 10:38 PM

response to post #834...Holy Moses, Virgil!

Janine

01-22-2008, 12:50 AM

Will come back tomorrow with more comments. Sorry again, I have been attending to other online and offline matters that are important to me. I feel I have sort of neglected this discussion lately.

Hira, one thing. Lawrence had the Phoenix for his symbol. This mythological bird burns down to ash, only to rise again to rebirth, or eternal life. You might research more about the Phoenix and Lawrence online. In fact, on Lawrence's memorial gravesite, in New Mexico, there is a small chapel that houses a mosiac of this symbol. I found photos of it online. If I can find the link, I will send it to you.
The point is this would be relative to your last statement, to Dark Muse.

Quasi, I will let Virgil answer your post.

Virgil

01-22-2008, 08:05 AM

response to post #834...Holy Moses, Virgil!

I hope that means you liked what I wrote. ;)

Quark

01-25-2008, 04:29 PM

This is Lawrence stating his belief that perfection is the loss of our self, our egos as he refers to it. That is why Cathcart cannot achieve utopia, at least not until death. His ego (and I use this in the Lawrencian sense, not the common sense or the Freudian sense; Lawrence's use is different, almost synonmous with self or an individual's personality or individual's persona) conflicts with others and with nature and the elements. Like I've said, for Lawrence the ultimate perfection of existence is a flower, the absense of ego. So as you read this passage again, think of ego as I've extracted the meaning from Lawrence's writings. So let me also say that when you see in a Lawrence work an exertion of will, that is an outpouring of a character's ego, and that's contrary to the religious ideal that Lawrence wants. I hope that answered it Hira and Janine, who was asking for my opinion in this.

Interesting. How do you think this relates to symbolism and action in the story? Dark Muse and I were having some problems (or, rather, I was) explaining how the island, snow, and the ocean compare with notions like utopia or that "infinite" we've talked so much about. If you're right that Lawrence is opposed to any expression of the "ego", then why does the story take such a depressing turn as Cathcart gives up on his utopian ambitions. If the story were about Cathcart's disillusionment with his own "ego" or will, you would think that the that the ending wouldn't be so bleak. One of the final observations Cathcart makes is how the warmth and sunshine have receded to the south which is where his previous islands were. The islander has moved away to the desolate north. So, despite Cathcart's rising asceticism, the setting becomes more and more depressing. Why is this? Is it because Cathcart's moves are still motivated by Lawrencian "ego"? Clearly, I need some help here.

Dark Muse

01-25-2008, 06:11 PM

If you're right that Lawrence is opposed to any expression of the "ego", then why does the story take such a depressing turn as Cathcart gives up on his utopian ambitions. If the story were about Cathcart's disillusionment with his own "ego" or will, you would think that the that the ending wouldn't be so bleak. One of the final observations Cathcart makes is how the warmth and sunshine have receded to the south which is where his previous islands were. The islander has moved away to the desolate north. So, despite Cathcart's rising asceticism, the setting becomes more and more depressing. Why is this? Is it because Cathcart's moves are still motivated by Lawrencian "ego"? Clearly, I need some help here.

Yes I can see your concerns and confussion, and though I can understand what Virgil is saying about Lawrence's idea of the ego, and it makes sense, you do bring up an intresting point. As it seems by the end, Cathcart has given up the idea of his ego, and completely loseses himself, but this seems only to have ill consequences upon him.

If the story were about Cathcart's disillusionment with his own "ego" or will, you would think that the that the ending wouldn't be so bleak

This reminds me of a quote I read in a book I am reading, which made me think of this story:

There is no light for me to mark time so I have slipped into a delirium of eternity

Virgil

01-25-2008, 07:17 PM

Interesting. How do you think this relates to symbolism and action in the story? Dark Muse and I were having some problems (or, rather, I was) explaining how the island, snow, and the ocean compare with notions like utopia or that "infinite" we've talked so much about. If you're right that Lawrence is opposed to any expression of the "ego", then why does the story take such a depressing turn as Cathcart gives up on his utopian ambitions. If the story were about Cathcart's disillusionment with his own "ego" or will, you would think that the that the ending wouldn't be so bleak.
Well, the story is not about Cathcart's disillusionment with his ego. Cathcart is not conscious of the ego phenomena. That's Lawrence. The story is about Cathcart's disillusionment with finding a utopia. It's his ego that prevents him from finding or establishing it.

One of the final observations Cathcart makes is how the warmth and sunshine have receded to the south which is where his previous islands were. The islander has moved away to the desolate north. So, despite Cathcart's rising asceticism, the setting becomes more and more depressing. Why is this?
That is a good observation. Cathcart's movement northward is the opposite of the story "Sun" where the warm setting of the mediteranian is where health and good life (if not quite utopia) is found. This is not uncommon in other Lawrence works. I can't quite answer it difintively. All I can say is that Lawrence associated the cold north with degeneration and the warm south with generation. I always go back to the flower as the ideal state of life for Lawrence, and flowers die in the cold and prosper in the warmth.

Is it because Cathcart's moves are still motivated by Lawrencian "ego"? Clearly, I need some help here.
His ego forces his actions, makes his decisions. I'm not sure what you mean by motivated.

Good questions and post Quark.

Virgil

01-25-2008, 07:21 PM

Yes I can see your concerns and confussion, and though I can understand what Virgil is saying about Lawrence's idea of the ego, and it makes sense, you do bring up an intresting point. As it seems by the end, Cathcart has given up the idea of his ego, and completely loseses himself, but this seems only to have ill consequences upon him.

That too is a good observation. He does seem like he gives up his ego in the end. Perhaps it was forced on him. Perhaps an irony. Perhaps a complex ending to imply that he has reached finally his utopia. I'm not sure how to interpret it. There's probably only so much one can put into a short story. Other character's who's fate ends in death in Lawrence's work, seem to find a certain peace. I'm thinking of "The Prussian Officer" and even the ending of Women In Love. But death is not an earthly utopia.

Dark Muse

01-25-2008, 07:26 PM

There's probably only so much one can put into a short story.

Yes, that is so very true

Quark

01-26-2008, 01:21 AM

This reminds me of a quote I read in a book I am reading, which made me think of this story:

Yeah, the dejected feeling at the end of this story certainly isn't new to literature. It made me think of "The Wanderer" actually. "I left that place in wretchedness,/ plowed the icy waves with winter in my heart."

Well, the story is not about Cathcart's disillusionment with his ego. Cathcart is not conscious of the ego phenomena. That's Lawrence. The story is about Cathcart's disillusionment with finding a utopia. It's his ego that prevents him from finding or establishing it.

Right, but don't you think that Cathcart's utopia is an egotistical one. From the very beginning he looks at islands as a personal retreat into himself:

He was born on one, but it didn't suit him, as there were too many other people on it, besides himself. He wanted an island all of his own: not necessarily to be alone on it, but to make it a world of his own.

Saying that he loves islands is much like saying he loved himself--including that Lawrencian "ego" sense. How does his "ego" sabotage his utopian designs? It sounds like his "ego" is what he's gratifying with his plans. How can that also be the cause of his downfall? The forces that overcome him in the end actually come from without rather than within. Things like the snow at the end appear alien to him. When the snow blankets the island, Cathcart remarks how everything looks entirely different from when he was in control. That means that the snow is the contradiction of will and ego. The snow is aligned more with that "invisible hand" which maliciously and inexplicably destroys. I don't think that the snow or weird hand are really meant to represent anything; they're probably just plot devices to get Cathcart to his depressed final state. I just wanted to point out that "ego" doesn't necessarily prevent Cathcart from reaching his utopia.

I'm not sure what you mean by motivated.

That's funny. I thought you'd be more thrown by the way I used "moves". Sometimes I'm not even sure what I mean. If it sounds good, I just go with it.

There's probably only so much one can put into a short story.

Sorry, I don't mean to over-analyze the story. I'm just trying to keep the conversation going long enough for Janine to post something.

Janine

01-26-2008, 03:49 AM

Sorry, I don't mean to over-analyze the story. I'm just trying to keep the conversation going long enough for Janine to post something.

Quark,Gee, am I missed that much? I feel flattered. I have been in the background reading the posts...just been 'invisible' this week.
I guess I let you down, Quark; I am sorry about that. I need to go back to your post, a page or two ago, that I promised to address. So sorry, I got busy and overly tired out. I guess Christmas took a lot out of me and now I have been trying to recouperate.

Quark

01-26-2008, 04:45 PM

Quark,Gee, am I missed that much? I feel flattered. I have been in the background reading the posts...just been 'invisible' this week.
I guess I let you down, Quark; I am sorry about that. I need to go back to your post, a page or two ago, that I promised to address. So sorry, I got busy and overly tired out. I guess Christmas took a lot out of me and now I have been trying to recouperate.

Well, I thought I would put you on the spot.

Janine

01-26-2008, 04:54 PM

Quark, and you have!

Seriously though, I am just now going out for the rest of the day and early evening.... and will try to think of something brilliant to write...so that when I come back I will stun you!.... Hahaha

Quark

01-26-2008, 05:01 PM

I'll fold my arms and wait impatiently then.

Virgil

01-26-2008, 10:04 PM

Right, but don't you think that Cathcart's utopia is an egotistical one. From the very beginning he looks at islands as a personal retreat into himself:

Quote:
He was born on one, but it didn't suit him, as there were too many other people on it, besides himself. He wanted an island all of his own: not necessarily to be alone on it, but to make it a world of his own.

Saying that he loves islands is much like saying he loved himself--including that Lawrencian "ego" sense. How does his "ego" sabotage his utopian designs? It sounds like his "ego" is what he's gratifying with his plans. How can that also be the cause of his downfall? The forces that overcome him in the end actually come from without rather than within. Things like the snow at the end appear alien to him. When the snow blankets the island, Cathcart remarks how everything looks entirely different from when he was in control. That means that the snow is the contradiction of will and ego. The snow is aligned more with that "invisible hand" which maliciously and inexplicably destroys. I don't think that the snow or weird hand are really meant to represent anything; they're probably just plot devices to get Cathcart to his depressed final state. I just wanted to point out that "ego" doesn't necessarily prevent Cathcart from reaching his utopia.

You make very good points and observations Quark. Yes, apparently his quest was ego driven as you finely point out. So the irony is that the seeds of his failure are in the very quest itself. I can see this as a later Lawrence acknowledgment to the failure of his inability to find utopia. I don't think this invalidates anything I've said above, but I think, Quark, you found another layer to the story.

That's funny. I thought you'd be more thrown by the way I used "moves". Sometimes I'm not even sure what I mean. If it sounds good, I just go with it.
:lol: Do you do that on term papers too?

Sorry, I don't mean to over-analyze the story. I'm just trying to keep the conversation going long enough for Janine to post something.
No, you made a very good obseration. I'm glad you did. Janine seems to be preoccupied these days. :p ;)

Janine

01-26-2008, 11:58 PM

I'll fold my arms and wait impatiently then.

WeLLLL,You might have your arms folded for quite awhile :lol:....just got home, not long ago, had to eat some ice-cream, of course, and now I definitely have run out of energy; I am typing with only one eye opened;)! I don't think I can coherently think to post anything 'brilliant' or even half-way 'intelligent' tonight. Quark, most 'impatient' person you admit to be, I guess you will just have to wait until I do get around to posting....:lol: Hopefully, tomorrow this event will take place. I plan on being home, so that is a good sign.:D

Janine seems to be preoccupied these days.
Definitely! Today, I had to get out of this house - cabin fever!
:eek: :eek2: I was starting to hate my :crash: and we don't want that to happen, do we?
Well, now that I have said absolutely nothing of worth in this post I will depart to finish watching my miniseries. Till I get back, with great pearls of wisdom,... yours truly....:D

Nossa

01-27-2008, 05:08 AM

Virgil

01-27-2008, 10:19 AM

Hey everyone :D
I know it's been a while since I came here. I had my exams for the past couple of weeks, and they didn't exactly go as expected, but it's all good.
I just wanted to know what you guys are gonna read next month? are you done with The Man Who Loved Islands?! I'd love to re-join the dicussion :D

I guess we're just about wrapped up with The Man Who loved Islands. Since I'm currently reading The Aeneid and I did want to participate in the Book Forum read (I think it will The Name of the Rose) I was hopig to take a break next month from this short story. I'm a little overwhemed. But if really want to, I think I could squeeze it in.

Janine

01-27-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote by Hira (few pages back)

Where did this progression lead to Janine? These letters, they were written quite early. I suppose there has been a lot of change in his opinions between 1915 and 1929. There are a lot of things that are familiar though.

Where did this progression lead? In Lawrence's own life, it lead to a sort of 'quest for the truth', and an exploration in his novels, stories, poems, writings, etc.; and a forming of his own ideas on eternity or life after death. I don't know if this could be easily explained at all. Hira, I think one has to study the author for sometime, reading various writings which convey his ideas, and from various periods of his life and then come up with some satisfying personal answer, but I don't think one can be at all definitive about it. I question whether Lawrence, himself, actually was definite in the end. I would not say he totally changed his concepts but he modified them or redirected them. This is quite hard to explain, especially having just read "The Plumed Serpent" and then knowing he wrote "Etrucan Tombs"; it was unclear to me what his final ideas on eternity exactly were, let alone relay them to others or to you. I also read "Apocalyspe", which was published after his death. If you read all three of these, you may be as confused as I am. Maybe Virgil would have a word on that. I think he read them all. These three were written towards the end of L's life.

Yes, I agree with Dark Muse, it does make a lot of sense now. So he had to suffer, the way he did, fade out, suffer crucifixion like the Christ so to speak and then finally after all that be elevated up to perfection.

Yes, one could almost say this is how Lawrence viewed his own life, but I don't know if he was looking to be elevated to pure perfection. Perhaps by the burning down of the Phoenix bird to ash, being reborn, would achieve that 'perfection' in infinity, eternity. Maybe Virgil would add to this or perhaps he has already addressed it in his posts. I know this would relate to his thesis idea of 'transfiguration'. It is all pretty complicated. Lawrence often used the word 'crucifixion'. when referring to his adversaries; such a friends who rejected him, publishers, critics, even the authorities who confiscated his paintings; so I think the word was often on L's mind. He wrote the story "The Man Who Died" late in his life and this deals with crucifixion directly.

Quote by Quark (way back, 2 pages or so...haha)

Lawrence conjures up the idea of a timeless infinity at contrast with the usual limited perspective. I think we're right to think of "infinity" as an important concept in the story, but I think we're wrong to consider the islander somehow willfully embracing "infinity" or timelessness. It seems quite the opposite. Cathcart's Utopian aspirations are not bringing him any closer to infinity; they are a way of overlooking the truth that he sees at night. After Lawrence explains the "infinity" of the island in the dark, he goes on to say, "To escape any more of this sort of awareness, our islander daily concentrated upon his material island. Why should it not be the Happy Isle at last?". Most of the rest of the story is dedicated to Cathcart's attempts to be happy: no more brooding reflections after the sun has gone down. At the end, the islander grudgingly accepts that he is not in control--this could be seen perhaps as a return to infinity. But, during the action of the story Cathcart resists the kind of awareness we have in the beginning of the story. To put this in literary, rather than philosophical, terms, we could say that the timelessness or "infinity" makes up something like the antagonist to Cathcart. It counters the islander and pushes the story to crisis.

Well, I think after reading this several times, I understand what you are getting at, Quark. I do agree that Cathcart does resist or avoid the awareness of infinity, and finally, his own death; only at the end does he seem to give in to the idea, when death cannot be avoided. I see this very much like Lawrence himself in his final hours. He fought death for nearly his entire life and finally death overcame him, as it must all humans. I think this whole story is a statement of avoiding thoughts of infinity and then having to eventually accept these thoughts. If you follow the progression of Lawrence's writings and mind and thoughts on infinity and death you can see how this would lead. Lawrence also had an idea of a utopia and at sometime he had to know this would never be realised in his lifetime. I think this is true of Cathcart but also there is a strong element in the story of irony. This irony I see as Cathcart's own search in life for perfection and his inability to compromise or modify his 'perfectionist views' caused his downfall and demise. He truly brought on the lose of island #1, island #2 and was left to the desolate and undesirable island #3, which would be his tomb. BY the end this human had totally alienated himself from other human beings, and resides in a most 'unnatural' state of isolation on island #3. As we suggested before, I think it was Dark Muse, the three islands could represent stages in a man's life, the seasons, even the great circle, cycle of life. Nature is a huge element to this story. I think in a broader sense this story says much about human tendencies and how people react to things and situations. How many people are disillusioned with life and don't live as they had hoped to live, or don't meet their goals?

I see this story encompassing many ideas. We may be over-analysising, it by now, of course. I think we all can take from the story, the ideas everyone presented in all these fine posts, and form our own conclusion. I know I received much from the discussion and saw more in the story, than I did when I read it on my own initially, which was quite rewarding. Thanks for all the insight from everyone! Sorry I couldn't post more often, but I was reading along all the time. I think the discussion was great this month, one of the best we ever have had! :thumbs_up

Perhaps we can do an easier story next month? ;) :lol: My brain is aching.

Quark

01-29-2008, 12:30 AM

Where did this progression lead? In Lawrence's own life, it lead to a sort of 'quest for the truth', and an exploration in his novels, stories, poems, writings, etc.; and a forming of his own ideas on eternity or life after death.

From what we've read in these short stories, truth seems very important. So many of the characters appear hopelessly deluded. When do you suppose this quest for truth started?

Well, I think after reading this several times, I understand what you are getting at, Quark. I do agree that Cathcart does resist or avoid the awareness of infinity, and finally, his own death; only at the end does he seem to give in to the idea, when death cannot be avoided. I see this very much like Lawrence himself in his final hours. He fought death for nearly his entire life and finally death overcame him, as it must all humans. I think this whole story is a statement of avoiding thoughts of infinity and then having to eventually accept these thoughts. If you follow the progression of Lawrence's writings and mind and thoughts on infinity and death you can see how this would lead. Lawrence also had an idea of a utopia and at sometime he had to know this would never be realised in his lifetime. I think this is true of Cathcart but also there is a strong element in the story of irony. This irony I see as Cathcart's own search in life for perfection and his inability to compromise or modify his 'perfectionist views' caused his downfall and demise. He truly brought on the lose of island #1, island #2 and was left to the desolate and undesirable island #3, which would be his tomb. BY the end this human had totally alienated himself from other human beings, and resides in a most 'unnatural' state of isolation on island #3. As we suggested before, I think it was Dark Muse, the three islands could represent stages in a man's life, the seasons, even the great circle, cycle of life. Nature is a huge element to this story.

Yeah, I sort of moved away from my original claim that the "infinite" is a kind of antagonist, but now I'm starting come back to it. I think it works, somewhat.

I think in a broader sense this story says much about human tendencies and how people react to things and situations.

Unfortunately, we never really got to talking about this part. I mean we never really got specific and talked about individual choices and reactions that Cathcart had. We took a rather abstract look at this one with concepts like the "infinite" or utopia.

So, what's up for next month?

Janine

01-29-2008, 01:49 PM

From what we've read in these short stories, truth seems very important. So many of the characters appear hopelessly deluded. When do you suppose this quest for truth started?

Quark, I read your post last night, but I did not know how to respond any further. Maybe my poor brain is just tired by now and of hearing about this story...:lol: Q, you must really think I am briliant. ;) :lol:
I will attempt my best to answer you.

Q, do many of the characters seem deluded? I think this might be more true of the later works of Lawrences (MWLI is a much later story, in Part 3 of the Short Story series, I believe). His early works are more a slice of life or whatever. Whatever Lawrence writes I do believe he is very honest and forthright with his depictions, sometimes brutally so. I do however, think his later period of short story writing take on a more surealistic quality. Another example of this would be "Rocking Horse Winner" and, also "The Man Who Died" - his novella.

'When do I think Lawrence's own personal quest for truth started?' Is this whe question you are asking? I think if one reads the biographies, it began very early on in is life. Perhaps it began after his mother's death, but seeds of it certainly were evident prior to this significant event in his life.

Yeah, I sort of moved away from my original claim that the "infinite" is a kind of antagonist, but now I'm starting come back to it. I think it works, somewhat.

You sure like to waver, something like Lawrence himself.:lol:
I think Lawrence uses the work 'infinite' and other words directly related to the concept to make it appear to be a big part of the story and theme. I don't know why it has to be labeled the antagonist. I don't see it that clearly. I think another antagonist is the man himself, Cathcart. As they say "we are our own worst enemy". I think many of the decisions C makes are to his own detriment and downfall. So one could say he also is the antagonist.

Unfortunately, we never really got to talking about this part. I mean we never really got specific and talked about individual choices and reactions that Cathcart had. We took a rather abstract look at this one with concepts like the "infinite" or utopia.

I am not sure if that is entirely true and if it is you could have brought up this aspect of the story yourself, I think you would have received many responses. In throwing it out there, we certainly would have discussed it in more detail. I do recall talking about Cathcart's poor choices and his intolerance of anything that did not go as he expected it to or wanted it to. This lead to the idea of his own will. I think he did try to force his own will onto nature and the occupants of the island and it did not workout, of course, so he abandoned them. His expectations were those of a 'perfectionist'; nature is unpredicable and so is life; therefore Cathcart was unable to accept these changes or these obstacles that presented themselves to him; one could say he did not even try to confront them and solve his problems or overcome the obstacles of his environment. He, likewise, became 'intolerant' of the other humans about him; therefore, eventually bringing on his own total isolation. I think the story is about much more than merely a man being deluded. I think this story works as a lesson to all, who think they can isolate themselves and exist solely appart from other human beings. As the saying goes - "No man is an island".

So, what's up for next month?

I have been thinking about this, and reviewed a few stories last night. I wondered if we could read/discuss a simplier and shorter short story this month. I wanted to go back to the early ones and perhaps do one I read last time I was trying to choose the story; I will re-read it again, of course. The story is called:

"The Shadow in the Rose Garden".

Even though not a happy love story, still involves a lost/found love, a rose garden, and I thought this would be good for this particular month with Valentine's Day approaching. Let me know what everyone thinks?

Dark Muse

01-29-2008, 02:03 PM

Sounds interesting

Nossa

01-29-2008, 02:07 PM

I guess we're just about wrapped up with The Man Who loved Islands. Since I'm currently reading The Aeneid and I did want to participate in the Book Forum read (I think it will The Name of the Rose) I was hopig to take a break next month from this short story. I'm a little overwhemed. But if really want to, I think I could squeeze it in.

I'd love to read a new story with you guys, but since I couldn't joing you for the whole discussion, you're probably more overwhelmed than me here. So anyways, I'll join the discussion whenever you guys are ready and have the time :D

Quark

01-29-2008, 11:38 PM

I am not sure if that is entirely true and if it is you could have brought up this aspect of the story yourself, I think you would have received many responses. In throwing it out there, we certainly would have discussed it in more detail.

I'll try not to be so narrow-minded next time, I guess.

I do recall talking about Cathcart's poor choices and his intolerance of anything that did not go as he expected it to or wanted it to. This lead to the idea of his own will. I think he did try to force his own will onto nature and the occupants of the island and it did not workout, of course, so he abandoned them. His expectations were those of a 'perfectionist'; nature is unpredicable and so is life; therefore Cathcart was unable to accept these changes or these obstacles that presented themselves to him; one could say he did not even try to confront them and solve his problems or overcome the obstacles of his environment. He, likewise, became 'intolerant' of the other humans about him; therefore, eventually bringing on his own total isolation. I think the story is about much more than merely a man being deluded. I think this story works as a lesson to all, who think they can isolate themselves and exist solely appart from other human beings. As the saying goes - "No man is an island".

Yeah, I would agree that "a man deluded" is probably an insufficient summary of the story; but, I do think that he was deluded. That was some of the point I was trying to make earlier when I pointed out that Cathcart's original plans were based on misguided selfishness. The problem with Cathcart isn't so much that he fails to live happily on an island. It's that he wants to live on an island in the first place.

You do remind me, though, that some of Lawrence's characters do differ radically from Cathcart and that the stories are not all about some deluded person. "White Stocking" was much more about the complicated relationship between two main characters--neither of which were deluded in this sense. I was more thinking about "The Odour of Chrysanthemums" which had a similar storyline to this one.

I have been thinking about this, and reviewed a few stories last night. I wondered if we could read/discuss a simplier and shorter short story this month. I wanted to go back to the early ones and perhaps do one I read last time I was trying to choose the story; I will re-read it again, of course. The story is called:

"The Shadow in the Rose Garden".

Even though not a happy love story, still involves a lost/found love, a rose garden, and I thought this would be good for this particular month with Valentine's Day approaching. Let me know what everyone thinks?

Is this one online somewhere?

Dark Muse

01-29-2008, 11:42 PM

You can find it here

http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-prussian-officer-and-other-stories/part-07/index.html

Quark

01-29-2008, 11:44 PM

You can find it here

http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-prussian-officer-and-other-stories/part-07/index.html

How do you reply so fast? Literally, by the time my screen refreshes with my post, you've already responded.

Janine

01-30-2008, 02:02 AM

How do you reply so fast? Literally, by the time my screen refreshes with my post, you've already responded.

Quark,
:lol: Dark Muse should be on Jeopardy - I bet she would be great on the response buzzer! :lol:

You also can find the story complete text right here on this site:

http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/prussian-officer/7/

Quark, I don't see where you were being narrow-minded at all; what are you talking about? Were you joking with me?
I am not sure how 'Odour of C' relates to 'MWLI' but I will think on that idea.

Well, if it alright with everyone else, let us say this discussion is closed on MWLI,.... and so we can progress onward to the next story.

Then let it be

SHADOW IN THE ROSE GARDEN

We can all begin reading it, so that, hopefully, we can post by the first of February. Enjoy reading everyone!

Dark Muse

01-30-2008, 02:02 AM

LOL probably becasue I am already here on the computer, not doing much of anything else, so as soon as I get the e-mail notification I respond

Hira

01-30-2008, 08:58 AM

Shadow in the Rose Garden? Sounds good. Will start reading it on the weekend. Too much assignment work these days!

Janine

01-30-2008, 05:51 PM

Can we delay the start of the discussion until Monday?
I don't have time to read it this week either; the weekend would be better, like Hira plans on doing.
Monday would be great for me.

Dark Muse

01-30-2008, 06:02 PM

That is fine by me

Janine

01-30-2008, 06:06 PM

That is fine by me

Thanks, DM
You were fast on that trigger again! :lol:

Dark Muse

01-30-2008, 06:07 PM

LOL I know it is sad

Janine

01-30-2008, 07:44 PM

LOL I know it is sad

What too much time on your hands and too much computer, right? I have the same problem but I should be ignoring computer and doing stuff I really need to be doing (real life beckons!).

Quark

01-30-2008, 11:31 PM

Can we delay the start of the discussion until Monday?
I don't have time to read it this week either; the weekend would be better, like Hira plans on doing.
Monday would be great for me.

I wasn't going to read it until the weekend, anyway. It looks like we'll all be talking at the same time on Monday.

Janine

01-31-2008, 12:19 AM

I wasn't going to read it until the weekend, anyway. It looks like we'll all be talking at the same time on Monday.

Yes, Quark, I am sure it will get noisy in here. Maybe I will wear earplugs....;) :lol:

Seriously, glad we are all in agreement on this one. Let us not overwhelm ourselves either. We can take this one real slow. We have a whole month to talk.

Janine

02-04-2008, 06:04 PM

Our current short story is:

A Shadow in the Rose Garden

I found this picture online and thought it would be nice to illustrate our story:

My Sweet Rose by John William Waterhouse, another of the Pre-Raphalite artists I especially enjoy.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/MySweetRose2.jpg

Whenever, anyone wants to begin the discussion is fine with me. I read the story last night. My first impression was how vividly Lawrence described the rose garden. It was so lovely and one could nearly smell the various roses and the aroma of the walk through it. Even the feel of the roses and textures was so beautifully described. Lawrence's mother had a lovely rose garden and at the childhood farm (the Hagg's), Lawrence visited often, there was a very extensive English garden in front of the house. I am sure he drew on his own personal experiences in these gardens to write this story. As far as I could see, he was probably writing this story about the same time he was developing his text for "The Rainbow". This is an early story for Lawrence.

I will try to find some online and book information about the story today. It is a rather simplistic story, this time around, so I am not sure how much I will come up with, but as usual, I will try my best.

Dark Muse

02-04-2008, 06:08 PM

Janine

02-04-2008, 06:25 PM

I loved the discriptions that were given of the garden, and later I may post some passages that I really liked.

But in the meantime, I just have to say, that though I enjoyed the story at large, I did not care for the woman, nor did I find her sympatahtic, but rather I found her quite annoying and cannot say I really felt sorry for her.

That is great, do post those passages, please.
Dark Muse, that is just fine that you don't like the woman; this will make for a better discussion. I did not find her very sympathetic, myself. She seemed to be rather selfish, although I think she suffered great shock seeing her former lover as he now was - so transformed. He is now, but the 'shadow' of what he was when she knew him...a mere shell of the man. I think this would be a shocking experience. If you have ever had a long term or deep love relationship, I think one would understand how it can be imagined to meet sometime later in ones life. Apparently, this was not what this woman had in-mind at all, or even had any concept of. In fact didn't she believe he was indeed dead? I think the ending to this story reminds me somewhat of the James Joyce story, "The Dead", but in a little different way. Have you read that story, DM? It also deals with a husband and wife and the wife telling the husband of her first love; therefore the husband feels he is second best to his wife. A similiar scenerio exists at the ends of both stories. Interesting.

Dark Muse

02-04-2008, 06:59 PM

No I have not read the James Joyce Story.

Yes I agree it must have come as a shock to her, but I think the way she treated her current husband was quite cruel. As it seemed she married him of her own free will, and yet never cared for him or was even particuarly nice to him.

Janine

02-04-2008, 07:13 PM

It did seem that way. I felt as though the two of them had been married for awhile now; maybe 10 yrs or so. Did you get this impression? The story that preceeds this story is called "Second Best", so perhaps we should have read that one first. I just noted this fact, in Lawrence's notes to his publisher; he was quite definite about the order the stories were to appear in the first volume of his short stories. I don't recall, Dark Muse, if you read the story with us, "The White Stocking". If you did not, that also was an early one, in which the woman character was not at all considerate to her husband; she really was not too likable. I noticed references here to the two sets of hands. The ones of the former lover and her husband's. Her husband's hands were apparently large and crude, since he worked at some job having to do with the coal mines - the pits - this was mentioned. I don't have the time now to quote these two references, but I will when I return home later tonight. The delicate hands of the lover seem to indicate a 'refinement' that the husband does not possess or lacks. I want to review the whole story paragraph by paragraph, to see just what Lawrence planted between the lines...he always does. Sometimes the implied information is of great significance.

Dark Muse

02-04-2008, 08:47 PM

I was not here when you read The White Stocking, it sounds like an intresting read though.

Here are some of the passages that stuck out in my mind which I had highlighted.

A rather small young man sat by the window of a pretty seaside cottage trying to persuade himself that he was reading the news paper.

For some reason, I just really liked this line and it stuck with me, in particular, the last half of it is what struck me the most.

trying to persuade himself that he was reading the news paper

I just love the feeling and concept behind this idea. You can really feel the distraction of his mind here, while he is trying to wait but growing ever impaitient.

His jacket, however, did not look dejected. It was new and had a smart and self-confident air, sitting upon a confident body.

I found this rather interesting use of imagery, the way in which he is physcialy descirbed as being confident, considering the lingering uncertainties regaurding his wife and his marriage

There in the magic beyond the doorway, patterns of shadow lay on the sunny court, on the blue and white sea-pebbles of its paving, while a green lawn glowed beyond, where a pay tree glittered at the edges. She tiptoed nervously into the courtyard, glancing at the house that stood in shadow. The uncurtained windows looked black and soulless, the kitchen door stood open. Irresolutely she took a step forward, and gain forward, learning, yearning, towards the garden beyond.

I just loved this passage, the use of the words shadow, particuarly, as well as the way the lawn glowed, and the black soulless windows, which can make an intresting comparrion to the black eyes of her lover, which are now vacant with madness. Perhaps this is another instance of foreshadow?

Slowly she went down one path, lingering, like one who has gone back into the past. Suddenly she was touching some heavy crimson roses that were soft as velvet, touching them thoughtfully, without knowing, as a mother sometimes fondles the hand of her child. She leaned slightly forward to catch the scent. Then she wandered on in abstraction. Sometimes a flame-coloured, scentless rose would hold her arrested. She stood gazing as it as if she could not understand it. Again the same softness of intimacy came over her, as she stood before a tumbling heap of pink petals. Then she wondered over the white rose, that was greenish, like ice in the center. So, slowly, like a white, pathetic butterfly, she drifted down the path, coming at last to a tiny terrace all full of roses. They seemed to fill the place, a sunny, gay throng. She was shy of them, they were so many and so bright. They seemed to be conversing and laughing. She felt herself in a strange crowd. It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself. She flushed with excitement. The air was pure scent.

Another beautiful passage.

She was no more than a rose, a rose that could not quite come into blossom, but remained tense. A little fly dropped on her knee, on her white dress. She watched it, as if it had fallen on a rose. She was not herself.

I really like the way in which the woman is portrayed as if she is one of the roses here. And I think a lot could be read into the statement, as to me personaly though she is descirbed as being physicaly beautiful he beauty is only skin deep. As she does not seem to be a good or generous person on the whole, and what does a rose have without its physical beauty?

I also like the way in which she is portrayed as physicaly resmebling the rose, where it talks of the fly landing upon her white dress. It makes me think of the petals of a white rose. And it seems to suggest a certain delicateness of her charactor. She is seen as being weak perhaps both in mind as well as body.

Janine

02-05-2008, 12:48 AM

Good post Dark Muse! I agree with most of what you have observed and considered. I particularly like this passage, too:

There in the magic beyond the doorway, patterns of shadow lay on the sunny court, on the blue and white sea-pebbles of its paving, while a green lawn glowed beyond, where a pay tree glittered at the edges. She tiptoed nervously into the courtyard, glancing at the house that stood in shadow. The uncurtained windows looked black and soulless, the kitchen door stood open. Irresolutely she took a step forward, and gain forward, learning, yearning, towards the garden beyond.

I felt the use of frames such as the doorway was evident throughout the story. The frames seem to draw us into this other world of her past. Time seems divided by these window and doorways. I liked very much this phrase, "sea-pebbles of its paving" - it made one think of the sea by the
cottage.

It may be that the woman's beauty is only 'skin-deep', but I wonder if we are really given enough information, to fully judge her, or her husband, or see the full picture of their marriage.

I also like the way in which she is portrayed as physicaly resmebling the rose, where it talks of the fly landing upon her white dress. It makes me think of the petals of a white rose. And it seems to suggest a certain delicateness of her charactor. She is seen as being weak perhaps both in mind as well as body.

I liked this extensively. The fly being added to this idyllic scene does seem to add some feeling of forshadowing. I like the way the word 'shadow' is used as she goes through the doorway and enters the garden. I don't know if I would agree with your assessment of her weakness, since I don't know how much we really know about her or her past. We can only surmise what passed between her and the soldier in years gone by. The use of the word 'shadow' is certainly a deliberate reference to the man who will appear to her and be as a shadow. Did you also notice a reference to fallen rose petals? I thought that statement interesting. Also, some of the roses were briliant in color, but had no scent. I believe this also, had significance to the story's central idea. The man may still be beautiful to her, but hollow or without any substance (as with the rose scent).

That opening line struck me particularly, with the man trying to read the newspaper. Just the way it was written seemed so realistic and said so much. Also, the references to his clothing were important to set forth an image of the husband. Yes, 'distraction of his mind' is a good way of stating that. In one simply paragraph depicting the husband one is lead to believe he is complex as all humans are and so the story feels completely real and believable right from the start.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 12:58 AM

It may be that the woman's beauty is only skin-deep but I wonder if we are really given enough information to fully judge her or her husband, or see the full picture of their marriage.

In a way though, being that they do not exisit outside the story, I think that is the only means in which we have to judge thier charactor. Though we can try and imagine senerios in our mind of what thier life might have been like, we only have what was written, and from the information provided I just did not feel moved to her cause.

I liked this extensively. The fly being added to this idylic scene does seem to add some feeling of forshadowing. I like the way the work shadow is used as she goes through the doorway and enters the garden. I don't know if I would agree with your assessment of her weakness since I don't know how much we really know about her or her past. We can only surmise what passed between her and the soldier in years gone by. The use of the word 'shadow' is certainly a deliberate reference to the man who will appear to her and be as a shadow. Did you also notice a reference to fallen rose petals? I thought that statement interesting. Also some of the roses were briliant but had no scent. I believe this also had significance to the story's central idea. The man may still be beautiful to her but hollow or without any substance (as with the rose scent).

Good point about the use of foreshadow with the fly. As well as the idea of the solider only being a shadow of himself. I did notice the presistince of the roses that held no scent and thier importance to the story and its meaning.

As to her weakness, in my mind, she is weak in the way in which she seems unable to just move on with her life, but she cannot get over her love of the solider whom had left her, and even when she thinks he is dead, she is drawn back to the place she had shared with him, but lots of people deal with lost love and are able to move on, but she reamins stuck in the past, and in my eyes, that is a weakness.

That opening line struck me particularly, with the man trying to read the newspaper. Just the way it was written seemed so realistic and said so much. Also the references to his clothing were important to set forth an image of the husband. Yes, 'distraction of his mind' is a good way of stating that.[/QUOTE]

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 01:16 AM

Just out of curriosity I looked up the painting that was referenced in the story.

This is the Stag at Bay
the artist is Sir Edwin Henry Landseer

http://www.irater.cz/data/historicke_obrazky/Stag-at-Bay.jpg

Janine

02-05-2008, 01:20 AM

In a way though, being that they do not exisit outside the story, I think that is the only means in which we have to judge thier charactor. Though we can try and imagine senerios in our mind of what thier life might have been like, we only have what was written, and from the information provided I just did not feel moved to her cause.

Well, this is true that we must work within the structure of the story but I did not feel as harshly toward her as you seem to have. I just felt there must be more she knows and had harboured in her heart that is not shared in the story, only implied. I think also she innocently went back to their meeting ground - the garden to reminese about him and muse on the past, not expecting to actually confront the past in the form of the physical man. That would be quite unnerving I would imagine. Therefore considering the shock she must have felt I think it would be understandable the way she reacted. She was later quite honest with her husband. She could have lied to him or just avoided the whole situation altogether. As in the James Joyce story "The Dead' the wife confesses her past attachment to her former lover to her husband.

Good point about the use of foreshadow with the fly. As well as the idea of the solider only being a shadow of himself. I did notice the presistince of the roses that held no scent and thier importance to the story and its meaning.

Yes, thanks...the fly just seemed so graphic against the purity of the background of her white dress, didn't it? I will review the walk through the rose garden and site certain details of that tomorrow. I am too tired out presently to do so. I am going to quite the computer really soon now for tonight.

As to her weakness, in my mind, she is weak in the way in which she seems unable to just move on with her life, but she cannot get over her love of the solider whom had left her, and even when she thinks he is dead, she is drawn back to the place she had shared with him, but lots of people deal with lost love and are able to move on, but she reamins stuck in the past, and in my eyes, that is a weakness.

Many people though are routed still in their pasts, so I feel this woman is probably a realistic portrayal of a person who feels this dug back to her past and a time she was exceedingly happy and blissful. I don't know if a person can control this and how they would feel. Even though he left her and she thought he had died she still might have strong feelings for someone she loved that intensely. To me it is an interesting scenerio. Who would think of it; seeing an ex-lover and finding him, firstly, alive when considered dead, and yet really dead in spirit and soul, being only the shell of the person he had once been. That would be very startling indeed.

Thanks, Dark Muse...how interesting that painting is. I will have to review the text to see what significance this has to the story.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 01:30 AM

Well, this is true that we must work within the structure of the story but I did not feel as harshly toward her as you seem to have. I just felt there must be more she knows and had harboured in her heart that is not shared in the story, only implied. I think also she innocently went back to their meeting ground - the garden to reminese about him and muse on the past, not expecting to actually confront the past in the form of the physical man. That would be quite unnerving I would imagine. Therefore considering the shock she must have felt I think it would be understandable the way she reacted. She was later quite honest with her husband. She could have lied to him or just avoided the whole situation altogether. As in the James Joyce story "The Dead' the wife confesses her past attachment to her former lover to her husband.

I personaly felt that she intentionally went back becasue of her inability to get over the past and it seems in this action she appears completely unwilling to try and make any attempt to be happy with the man she married. It seems from the beigning of the story to the end she shows no devotion or affection for her husband whatsoever, but if she was so unable to give her heart to another man, she never had to marry again, she did so of her own choice.

Many people though are routed still in their pasts, so I feel this woman is probably a realistic portrayal of a person who feels this dug back to her past and a time she was exceedingly happy and blissful. I don't know if a person can control this and how they would feel. Even though he left her and she thought he had died she still might have strong feelings for someone she loved that intensely. To me it is an interesting scenerio. Who would think of it; seeing an ex-lover and finding him, firstly, alive when considered dead, and yet really dead in spirit and soul, being only the shell of the person he had once been. That would be very startling indeed.

I think to an extent people can control thier feelings, one does not forget or stop loving thier former or first loves, but they move on from that point typically and learn to live thier life in the present and the future instead of trying to have what is no more.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 01:42 AM

I never heard of the Tree of Heaven before so I looked it up, and this it what it looks like

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vroimages.nsf/Images/heaven_tree/$File/tn_tree_of_heaven.jpg

Janine

02-05-2008, 02:17 AM

I personaly felt that she intentionally went back becasue of her inability to get over the past and it seems in this action she appears completely unwilling to try and make any attempt to be happy with the man she married. It seems from the beigning of the story to the end she shows no devotion or affection for her husband whatsoever, but if she was so unable to give her heart to another man, she never had to marry again, she did so of her own choice.

But I think somewhere in the story it indicated that she never did love her husband. I will have to look this up tomorrow to be exact. I am falling asleep right now. We hardly see she and her husband together so how do we know she is always this unaffectionate with him. Lawrence and his wife, Frieda, often quarreled and were at odds with each other but then they did profess to love each other. I really don't know the full dynamics of this couple's interpersonal relationship here. I think the concentration is more on the fact of the meeting with the man from her past. I think at the end it states that with patience they have now to wait to see what will happen. My memory is foggy now on this so I will review later tonight and post something more precise tomorrow.

I think to an extent people can control thier feelings, one does not forget or stop loving thier former or first loves, but they move on from that point typically and learn to live thier life in the present and the future instead of trying to have what is no more.

If they are healthy mentally and sound emotionally. they might be able to break entirely from their past. but there are a lot of people who truly cannot do so entirely. What you are stating is indeed healthy and ideal, and mature, but all people do not achieve this - afterall, we all have human weaknesses.

Interesting photo of the 'Tree of Heaven'. I will review where these things are related to the text, mentioned - this 'Tree of Heaven' and the painting you posted earlier. They must have some deep significance to this story.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 02:25 AM

But I think somewhere in the story it indicated that she never did love her husband.

Yes at the end of the story she states that she never did love him, which is one of the reasons I have little respect and compassion for her. If she never loved him or could not be capable of loving anyone again sense her first love, she should never have married him to start with.

If they are healthy mentally and sound emotionally. they might be able to break entirely from their past. but there are a lot of people who truly cannot do so entirely. What you are stating is indeed healthy and ideal, and mature, but all people do not achieve this - afterall, we all have human weaknesses.

This is the point I was trying to make about her weakness in comparing her to the roses. The fact that her actions and feelings are in some ways very immature. It is natural for people to still care about the people of thier past, but not to the extent in which she seems to carry it. In this way she is weak. Her emotions and mentality are very fragile.

Interesting photo of the 'Tree of Heaven'. I will review where these things are related to the text, mentioned - this 'Tree of Heaven' and the painting you posted earlier. They must have some deep significance to this story.

Yes I felt they must hold some meaning becasue they were pointed out and named in such a way. It will be an intresting discussion to delve into that further.

Hira

02-05-2008, 04:20 AM

Woah, so many posts!!!

I just loved this passage, the use of the words shadow, particuarly, as well as the way the lawn glowed, and the black soulless windows, which can make an intresting comparrion to the black eyes of her lover, which are now vacant with madness. Perhaps this is another instance of foreshadow?

I so much agree with that, great observation. And then there was later again a similar kind of indication with the house.

The house had a sterile appearance, as if it were still used, but not inhabited. A shadow seemed to go over her

Just like the man having lost his soul, not inhabited.

I felt the use of frames such as the doorway was evident throughout the story. The frames seem to draw us into this other world of her past. Time seems divided by these window and doorways. I liked very much this phrase, "sea-pebbles of its paving" - it made one think of the sea by the
cottage.

I liked this extensively. The fly being added to this idyllic scene does seem to add some feeling of forshadowing. I like the way the word 'shadow' is used as she goes through the doorway and enters the garden. I don't know if I would agree with your assessment of her weakness, since I don't know how much we really know about her or her past. We can only surmise what passed between her and the soldier in years gone by. The use of the word 'shadow' is certainly a deliberate reference to the man who will appear to her and be as a shadow. Did you also notice a reference to fallen rose petals? I thought that statement interesting. Also, some of the roses were briliant in color, but had no scent. I believe this also, had significance to the story's central idea. The man may still be beautiful to her, but hollow or without any substance (as with the rose scent).

I agree with that too. Her exultation in her past, her wanting to preserve the beauty of her memories, past being somehow more potent than the present. And those memories suddenly stained by the actual arrival of her mad lover. A Shadow. A foreshadowing exactly, by the fly, the black on the white.

Interesting about the doorways. I'll look them up, find them in the story.

She was later quite honest with her husband. She could have lied to him or just avoided the whole situation altogether. As in the James Joyce story "The Dead' the wife confesses her past attachment to her former lover to her husband.

I think she decides to tell her husband in the end because she feels herself so terribly bound. As described in the passage she felt so destructive, she wanted to be done with everything. To wound him and end this relationship with the man she had not loved.

But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free. She wanted to be free of it. It was not him so much, but it, something she had put on herself, that bound her so horribly. And having put the bond on herself, it was hardest to take it off. But now she hated everything and felt destructive. He stood with his back to the door, fixed, as if he would oppose her eternally, till she was extinguished. She looked at him. Her eyes were cold and hostile. His workman's hands spread on the panels of the door behind him.

"You know I used to live here?" she began, in a hard voice, as if wilfully to wound him. He braced himself against her, and nodded.

Great paintings and pictures. I wasn’t aware either how Tree of Heaven looked like. So thanks for that. I just read in Wikipedia about the tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima#Culture), that it is quite unlike the name it is known by. In some countries it is considered as a weed and as a Tree of Hell. Quite contradictory to what its name indicates. Perhaps it’s a suggestion towards the fact that appearances might not necessarily indicate what is truly happening. The way their marriage was rotting inside. And just after that he finds a sweet-tasting apple in a crooked, twisted tree. I also read that it grows in the most hostile of conditions so perhaps it’s a pointing towards that too.

‘The Stag at Bay’ might be a reference to him finding no way out of his predicament. Just like the stag in the pictures with dogs on one side and sea on the other. Stuck totally.

I love the garden passages too! They are lovely, very beautiful.

I do agree with you Dark Muse in that I did not have quite particularly sympathetic emotions for the woman when she treats her husband in that pathetic condescending way. But did find powerful those passages when she encounters her lover.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 04:32 AM

I think she decides to tell her husband in the end because she feels herself so terribly bound. As described in the passage she felt so destructive, she wanted to be done with everything. To wound him and end this relationship with the man she had not loved.

Yes I agree with that, I do not think her telling of her husband had anything to do with any sort of repsect toward him nor for the sake of wanting to be hoenst with him, but rather I think she did it becasue she cares nothing for him.

Great paintings and pictures. I wasn’t aware either how Tree of Heaven looked like. So thanks for that. I just read in Wikipedia about the tree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima#Culture), that it is quite unlike the name it is known by. In some countries it is considered as a weed and as a Tree of Hell. Quite contradictory to what its name indicates. Perhaps it’s a suggestion towards the fact that appearances might not necessarily indicate what is truly happening. The way their marriage was rotting inside. And just after that he finds a sweet-tasting apple in a crooked, twisted tree. I also read that it grows in the most hostile of conditions so perhaps it’s a pointing towards that too.

Thanks for your great insights and research upon the tree. That is most intresting to know that information, compared to how it is used in the story. I think that is defineinately meaningful and significant.

‘The Stag at Bay’ might be a reference to him finding no way out of his predicament. Just like the stag in the pictures with dogs on one side and sea on the other. Stuck totally.

That is a good observation, in a way I could view it at another angel as well. I could see the woman being the stag, as the hounds in the picture could represent, either the past of the present which she is stuck between. Unable to go back to one, but unable to move forward into the other. Or the two men, the one whom holds her heart, but can no longer return her feelings, and the one that can be there for her but she is incapable of loving.

Hira

02-05-2008, 04:39 AM

That is a good observation, in a way I could view it at another angel as well. I could see the woman being the stag, as the hounds in the picture could represent, either the past of the present which she is stuck between. Unable to go back to one, but unable to move forward into the other. Or the two men, the one whom holds her heart, but can no longer return her feelings, and the one that can be there for her but she is incapable of loving.

That is a very meaningful observation! I can see that, her hemmed in between the two. There is one dog lying dead beside the stag too. And also the traces of the storm breaking with shafts of light. Might these represent anything?

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 04:47 AM

There is one dog lying dead beside the stag too. And also the traces of the storm breaking with shafts of light. Might these represent anything?

I wondered about that myself, that is a good question. The dead dog, could represent her true love, as once thought he was dead, only to find he still lived, and yet now would be dead to her forever.

Perhaps in the end this will give her some sort of clousure? Perhaps she can stop living in the past now? Though she may never truly grow to love her husband maybe she will stop living in that lie.

Hira

02-05-2008, 05:01 AM

I wondered about that myself, that is a good question. The dead dog, could represent her true love, as once thought he was dead, only to find he still lived, and yet now would be dead to her forever.

Perhaps in the end this will give her some sort of clousure? Perhaps she can stop living in the past now? Though she may never truly grow to love her husband maybe she will stop living in that lie.

Yes, a closure from the past, I agree, that could be a possibility. This wanting inside her to be free and break the bounds she had imposed upon herself.

Perhaps the dead dog could also refer to memories now dead, which were pursuing her originally in a similar way to those dogs. The time now come to actually counter her yearning to live in them, rather than the reality. Get a reality-check so to speak. The shafts of light speaking perhaps of this sundering from the past as a good thing, so that now she is forced upon to look at her life and make a decision. Though I think perhaps I am getting carried away with the painting, lol.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 05:07 AM

Yes, a closure from the past, I agree, that could be a possibility. This wanting inside her to be free and break the bounds she had imposed upon herself.

Perhaps the dead dog could also refer to memories now dead, which were pursuing her originally in a similar way to those dogs. The time now come to actually counter her yearning to live in them, rather than the reality. Get a reality-check so to speak. The shafts of light speaking perhaps of this sundering from the past as a good thing, so that now she is forced upon to look at her life and make a decision. Though I think perhaps I am getting carried away with the painting, lol.

Haha I know that feeling, and that is very easy to do, but I think those are some excellent insights and good observations.

I cannot offer much more intelligent remarks tonight becasue I am about to slump off, so I will rejoin you all again in the morning.

Hira

02-05-2008, 05:20 AM

Good Night!:) I am off to do some very stupid Calculus homework questions too.

Janine

02-05-2008, 05:11 PM

Wow, you too did a great job so far. Last night I read the first 3 or 4 pages again. Second readings always seem to help me better understand the story or novel. I have been trying to research this story. The only reference I found so far is in a letter Lawrence was writing when in Australia - this is so strange to me considering, he and his wife lived remotely there in a cottage (similiar to this story), by the sea and hardly knew anyone. He wrote "Shadow in a Rose Garden" years before this, but he mentions that it is to be included in a new collection of his short stories; but that orginally it was published in "The Prussian Officer and other Short Stories". This revival of this one story seems so odd to me now. I am presently reading "Kangaroo" which is set on the Australian coast he speaks of in this letter. I was thinking when I read "The Shadow in the Rose Garden" that most likely he took the setting from Cornwall, and his time living in a small cottage by the sea with his wife, there again, they both were very seclusive. Interesting, isn't it? I want to further research this story. I may find references in some of my other biographical books, such as the complete letters volumes or "The Intelligent Heart", an earlier biography on Lawrence's life. I am hoping if I find his exact words, I can get some better insight into the story.

Both of you have brought out such good points; the tree seems to indicate to me a dicotomy, which is so typical of Lawrence writing. Interesting that really it is also known as the 'Tree of Hell'. The man seems to turn away from the tree as though he is replused by it. The painting is of particular interest to me, as well. I would think the shafts of light would also be such a typical Lawrence image and theme. He often sees 'light' as an awakening or a sudden insight or tranformational element. Recall the light in "Sun". I have to go back now and view that painting again more closely.

It proves one thing, the more we talk about this seemingly simple story, the more we see it is not at all 'simplistic', but quite complex.

It is curious how hostile you feel towards the woman, Dark Muse. She has really annoyed you. I feel sort of ambivalent towards her, myself. I don't know why she married her husband, but back then in this time frame, I think woman were given very few choices in life; therefore, I could not judge her for her actions of marrying her husband, because I do not know her circumstances at that time. Perhaps she was so distraught or poor and he was kind to her. I don't think she would be the only woman who married a man, who she did not truly love with a passion, as she once knew. She may love him in a quite different way. It is strange, because the physical description very much reminds me of Frieda - Lawrence's wife. Also, the description is similar to Lawrence himself, but not quite.

I can't write much more now because I am going out for dinner with my mother. Keep posting and I will read what the two of you write. You both are thinking hard about this story and it's various elements - great! Your posts are interesting and stimulate me to think of various devices used in this story.

Glad you liked the painting of the woman experiencing the scent of the roses, Hira. You might look up 'Waterhouse' online to see so many lovely paintings. I only wish she had been wearing a white dress as in the story...oh well, close enough, I guess.

Thanks - DM, for posting the photos. Those were very helpful. Being trained as an illustrator, I think these bits of art/photography help nicely to illustrate the story and add something of interest to this thread.

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 06:33 PM

It is curious how hostile you feel towards the woman, Dark Muse. She has really annoyed you. I feel sort of ambivalent towards her, myself. I don't know why she married her husband, but back then in this time frame, I think woman were given very few choices in life; therefore, I could not judge her for her actions of marrying her husband, because I do not know her circumstances at that time. Perhaps she was so distraught or poor and he was kind to her. I don't think she would be the only woman who married a man, who she did not truly love with a passion, as she once knew. She may love him in a quite different way. It is strange, because the physical description very much reminds me of Frieda - Lawrence's wife. Also, the description is similar to Lawrence himself, but not quite.

She just seemed so daft and selfish to me. That whole scene at the end, where she locks herself in her room, and tells her husband to go away and is mad at him becasue he wants to know what is wrong. That is how a child might respond to thier parents, when they are upset about something, but it is not the way a woman should respond to her husband.

And though we do not know thier history prior to the story, the impression given to me, is that he does generally care for her, and though she makes him angery he does not seem as if he is really mean to her, and he seems to be indgulgent of her to some degree, as he moved out here becasue she said she wanted to come, but she does not show any sign of gratefulness in the least.

And then when they were having thier argument, and he is trying to find out what is going on, it just annoyed me the way she kept saying

"What do you mean"

and acting like she did not understand his questions and accused him of asking "not-straightforward questions"

Becasue it seemed to me what he was asking as perfectly clear.

It just seems as if she was not really ready yet to acutally be a grown up, but still trying to pretend to be one.

Virgil

02-05-2008, 09:32 PM

Wow, you guys are doing great. I feel left out. But I didn't read it yet. :bawling:

Dark Muse

02-05-2008, 09:53 PM

*Pats Virgil on the back* We still love ya, I wondered where you have been.

Virgil

02-05-2008, 09:55 PM

*Pats Virgil on the back* We still love ya, I wondered where you have been.

Thank you Muse. :)

Janine

02-05-2008, 10:42 PM

Thank you Muse. :)

Yes, Virgil, you have been missed in here....at least by me and Dark Muse. Hurry and finish the story, so you can give us some opinions and thoughts on it soon.

Dark Muse, I don't know what to say, except to just state that I don't think it that important if we like the characters at all. You can maintain your opinion of the woman, as you stated it, but I can also have my own opinion of her. I feel that at this particular time, towards the ending of the story, she needed her space. She seemed to need the time to be alone; at least this is how I view that ending. Even married couples need this from time to time; I have encountered this often in other Lawrence writings, so that I did not find it that unusual that she should ask to be left alone. As I stated, I don't know if this aspect of the story is terribly significant. Lawrence is portraying a married couple in a realistic light. He was married and his marriage had it's 'ups and downs' at times. I think it is realistic that the wife might react this way, and that in turn, the husband would also react in his own manner. Often couples do not understand one another. I think this story in particular shows this sense of confusion between them, that is often evident in complex human relationships, especially between man and woman.

I did find one reference in one of my biography books entitled "The Life of D.H.Lawrence 'The Intelligent Heart' by Harry T. Moore.

And on 10 August, he and Frieda sailed on the Tahiti for San Francisco, touching at Wellington, New Zealand; at Avatiu, Raratonga; and at Papeete, Tahiti. From Welington he sent a friendly postcard to Katherine Mansfield, with a one word message, 'Ricordi', to break their years of silence. Only a day earlier, Katherine Mansfield, on the point of leaving Switzerland for London, had made her will and had named Lawrence among those of her friends who were to receive small remembrances. Aaron's Rod had roused her admiration for the writer so that she could forgive the man. Reading it in July, and coming across an old story of Lawrence's, 'The Shadow in the Rose Garden' (from The Prussian Officer), she had spoken of these in two letters to Koteliansky. Lawrence's 'Rose Garden' story was 'one of the weakest he ever wrote', yet it was 'so utterly different from all the rest' in a collection of modern stories that she read it 'with joy. When he mentions gooseberries these are real red, ripe gooseberries that the gardener is rolling on a tray. When he bites into an apple it is a sharp, sweet, fresh apple from the growing tree.' And the faults of Aaron's Rod, she thought, were minor: the book lived, and it was a relief to read it after 'all these pre-digested books written by authors who have nothing to say!' She could not agree with much of what Lawrence said, and his ideas of sex were meaningless to her, 'but I feel nearer to L, than anyone else. All these last months I have thought as he does about many things.' Indeed, these two writers had similarities in their physical vision, as a close examination of their prose will show: in an age of journalese and of pallid stereotypes, they both wrote in a style that was concrete, sharp-coloured, and kinetic, each of them with a distinct personal cadence. (In the July 1954 issue of Essays in Criticism, Robert Liddell wrote: 'Katherine Mansfield said somewhere that there were three Lawrences: the black devil, whom she hated; the prohet, in whom she did not believe; and the man and artist whom she loved and valued. Now that is it twenty-four years since he died, can we not rid ourselves of the devil and the prophet - for whom there is no future - and find the man and the artist, who is immortal?')

I did think this an interesting passage. Obviously, the author Katherine Mansfield saw the brilliance in this story, from a realistic and artistic viewpoint. Frieda was Lawrence's wife. They traveled extensely after leaving England. At the time this story was written, I believe they were residing in Cornwall in a cottage near the sea and were indeed quite reclusive. The quotes are merely opinions set forth by Katherine Mansfield, who was a good friend to Lawrence.

Hira

02-06-2008, 04:34 AM

I was thinking when I read "The Shadow in the Rose Garden" that most likely he took the setting from Cornwall, and his time living in a small cottage by the sea with his wife, there again, they both were very seclusive. Interesting, isn't it? I want to further research this story. I may find references in some of my other biographical books, such as the complete letters volumes or "The Intelligent Heart", an earlier biography on Lawrence's life. I am hoping if I find his exact words, I can get some better insight into the story.

Why Cornwall? It does look very beautiful in these pictures (http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/photos/cat4.htm?page=1). I did not find many references to this story in his letters but hope you do.

It is curious how hostile you feel towards the woman, Dark Muse. She has really annoyed you. I feel sort of ambivalent towards her, myself. I don't know why she married her husband, but back then in this time frame, I think woman were given very few choices in life; therefore, I could not judge her for her actions of marrying her husband, because I do not know her circumstances at that time. Perhaps she was so distraught or poor and he was kind to her. I don't think she would be the only woman who married a man, who she did not truly love with a passion, as she once knew. She may love him in a quite different way. It is strange, because the physical description very much reminds me of Frieda - Lawrence's wife. Also, the description is similar to Lawrence himself, but not quite.

Glad you liked the painting of the woman experiencing the scent of the roses, Hira. You might look up 'Waterhouse' online to see so many lovely paintings. I only wish she had been wearing a white dress as in the story...oh well, close enough, I guess.

Loved it! Yep, I'll look him up.

She just seemed so daft and selfish to me. That whole scene at the end, where she locks herself in her room, and tells her husband to go away and is mad at him becasue he wants to know what is wrong. That is how a child might respond to thier parents, when they are upset about something, but it is not the way a woman should respond to her husband.

And though we do not know thier history prior to the story, the impression given to me, is that he does generally care for her, and though she makes him angery he does not seem as if he is really mean to her, and he seems to be indgulgent of her to some degree, as he moved out here becasue she said she wanted to come, but she does not show any sign of gratefulness in the least.

And then when they were having thier argument, and he is trying to find out what is going on, it just annoyed me the way she kept saying

"What do you mean"

and acting like she did not understand his questions and accused him of asking "not-straightforward questions"

Becasue it seemed to me what he was asking as perfectly clear.

It just seems as if she was not really ready yet to acutally be a grown up, but still trying to pretend to be one.

Yes, Virgil, you have been missed in here....at least by me and Dark Muse. Hurry and finish the story, so you can give us some opinions and thoughts on it soon.

Dark Muse, I don't know what to say, except to just state that I don't think it that important if we like the characters at all. You can maintain your opinion of the woman, as you stated it, but I can also have my own opinion of her. I feel that at this particular time, towards the ending of the story, she needed her space. She seemed to need the time to be alone; at least this is how I view that ending. Even married couples need this from time to time; I have encountered this often in other Lawrence writings, so that I did not find it that unusual that she should ask to be left alone. As I stated, I don't know if this aspect of the story is terribly significant. Lawrence is portraying a married couple in a realistic light. He was married and his marriage had it's 'ups and downs' at times. I think it is realistic that the wife might react this way, and that in turn, the husband would also react in his own manner. Often couples do not understand one another. I think this story in particular shows this sense of confusion between them, that is often evident in complex human relationships, especially between man and woman.

I did find one reference in one of my biography books entitled "The Life of D.H.Lawrence 'The Intelligent Heart' by Harry T. Moore.

I did think this an interesting passage. Obviously, the author Katherine Mansfield saw the brilliance in this story, from a realistic and artistic viewpoint. Frieda was Lawrence's wife. They traveled extensely after leaving England. At the time this story was written, I believe they were residing in Cornwall in a cottage near the sea and were indeed quite reclusive. The quotes are merely opinions set forth by Katherine Mansfield, who was a good friend to Lawrence.

I love what Katherine Mansfield says about the story

When he mentions gooseberries these are real red, ripe gooseberries that the gardener is rolling on a tray. When he bites into an apple it is a sharp, sweet, fresh apple from the growing tree.

I think I agree with you both Janine and Dark Muse, I really do not like her treatment of her husband but I do agree with what you say Janine about the possible misunderstanding between the two. And perhaps her behaviour is merely instigated by the trauma she has just suffered. But perhaps as you say we are not really required to judge her.

I don't really have anything worthwhile to add at the moment. Didn't do a second reading or anything!

Janine

02-06-2008, 06:08 PM

Why Cornwall? It does look very beautiful in these pictures (http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/photos/cat4.htm?page=1). I did not find many references to this story in his letters but hope you do.

Thanks - this site is wonderful. I love this part of England. The photos are so beautiful and evoke the feeling I get from some of Lawrence's writings by the seaside.

Hira, this may answer your question. I found this online today.

When Lawrence, with his wife Freida, moved to Cornwall in1916 he saw it as a first step toward emigrating to America and away from a war he did not support..
Any plans Lawrence and his German wife Freida might have had to move from London to Cornwall, and then to Ireland and eventually America, where they planned to settle, were quickly scuppered by the new British Military Service Act of 1916, which forbad foreign travel by civilians, and put Lawrence in danger of being called-up for military service himself. Lawrence felt trapped.

And it wasn't only the new travel restrictions that made him feel trapped ( to be honest he felt trapped wherever he lived), no, this time it was also because of the suppression, due to the so called 'obscene' content of his recently published novel The Rainbow. As a result Lawrence was getting close to a nervous breakdown. The couple decided to move to Cornwall anyway.

You can find the rest of the article here: http://literaryculture.suite101.com/article.cfm/dh_lawrence_cornwall_1916
It is quite interesting and revealing.

Quote by Hira:

Loved it! Yep, I'll look him up.
Fabulous work! Such romantic and interesting work he did.

Quote by Hira:

I love what Katherine Mansfield says about the story

Glad you found that helpful. I really liked what she said also. It was interesting to me. I liked several of the things she pointed out. This story is really sensual - about the senses and feeling things from a different level...like the taste of the apple, the red berries on the tray, the feel of the sea air, the smell of the roses, and the sense of the man being not as he had once been. I will re-read this story, although I read it twice so far and pick out other references that make this story so alive.

I think I agree with you both Janine and Dark Muse, I really do not like her treatment of her husband but I do agree with what you say Janine about the possible misunderstanding between the two. And perhaps her behaviour is merely instigated by the trauma she has just suffered. But perhaps as you say we are not really required to judge her.

Yes, exactly. There are many stories of Lawrence's where we don't necessarily like the characters. I think we always feel the need to try and explain them or understand what motivates them. I think, the fact they interact with each other is a vitally important factor. None are as 'islands unto themselves' - they act on impulse and they react also, on impulse or are inclined to react in the moment. It is not a planned reaction. They don't always act logically, this being common behavior of normal human beings. I think Lawrence captures this perfectly. We all have flaws and weaknesses and we don't always act so nice but we all have to realise that we can try and understand why the person reacts as they do.

I was reading a commentary book last night on "Tale of Two Cities" and this study quide actually gave me good ideas on how to study any work. First off, it is good to look at the characters, then themes and then symbols. I was thinking how the roses are a fleeting symbol of beauty and might represent the lose of the woman's first love. The sea also is a very changable element in the story.

I love this paragraph; note all the key words I have underlined:

Slowly she went down one path, lingering, like one who has gone back into the past. Suddenly she was touching some heavy crimson roses that were soft as velvet, touching them thoughtfully, without knowing, as a mother sometimes fondles the hand of her child. She leaned slightly forward to catch the scent. Then she wandered on in abstraction. Sometimes a flame-coloured, scentless rose would hold her arrested. She stood gazing at it as if she could not understand it. Again the same softness of intimacy came over her, as she stood before a tumbling heap of pink petals. Then she wondered over the white rose, that was greenish, like ice, in the centre. So, slowly, like a white, pathetic butterfly, she drifted down the path, coming at last to a tiny terrace all full of roses. They seemed to fill the place, a sunny, gay throng. She was shy of them, they were so many and so bright. They seemed to be conversing and laughing. She felt herself in a strange crowd. It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself. She flushed with excitement. The air was pure scent.

I wonder, firstly, about the meaning of the various roses as she encounters them. At the end I ponder this reference to a 'strange crowd'; also the meaning of 'conversing and laughing'. The phrase "It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself" seems to indicate she is not acting as she normally would act.
I particularly love the line refering to the fondling of a child's hand. That is lovely and so heartfelt an image, one that does indeed transport a person back to their past and their own childhood.

Quote by Hira

I don't really have anything worthwhile to add at the moment. Didn't do a second reading or anything!

That is fine. Take your time. I am going to try for a third reading myself, now that we brought up some good points. I will notice more on this repeat reading because I will know what to look for. Interesting how that works, isn't it? I will also continue my research and hope to find something more in the letters.

Dark Muse

02-06-2008, 06:31 PM

I wonder, firstly, about the meaning of the various roses as she encounters them. At the end I ponder this reference to a 'strange crowd'; also the meaning of 'conversing and laughing'. The phrase "It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself" seems to indicate she is not acting as she normally would act.

Yes I found that imagery to be interesting, the way in which the roses are descirbed making her almost seem a stanger at a party. It could perhaps be becasue she is likely not the same person she was when she first lived there, as a place always seems strange when a person returns after being away, as they would usually be older and have had difference exeprinces in thier life sense thier first parting of the place.

And it does state later on that "She was not herself"

I particularly love the line refering to the fondling of a child's hand. That is lovely and so heartfelt an image, one that does indeed transport a person back to their past and their own childhood.

I found this an odd use of imagery for this story, but interesting, and it does seem that Lawerence uses somewhat contradictory images within this story. As within the story, the woman does not really appear to be very maternal, nor does she have kids of her own, and we know nothing of what her relationship with her own family was like.

And as I mentioned early at the beginign of the poem when speaking of the husband, these lines had stuck out to me:

His jacket however, did not look dejected. It was new, and had a smarl and self-confident air, sitting upon a confident body

This to me seemed a bit contridictory, considering the uncertaintiy of his situation and the fact that he did not seem confidant in his marraige or his wife's feelings for him, as several times he refers to his concerns that she was unaware of him or ignoring him.

Janine

02-06-2008, 08:22 PM

Yes I found that imagery to be interesting, the way in which the roses are descirbed making her almost seem a stanger at a party. It could perhaps be becasue she is likely not the same person she was when she first lived there, as a place always seems strange when a person returns after being away, as they would usually be older and have had difference exeprinces in thier life sense thier first parting of the place.
DM, I like that "almost seem a stranger at a party". Yes, the roses in the one part seem to overwhelm her as a crowd would, or a crowd at a party, where one does not know anyone and feels to be an outsider. I think it is a good observation that she indeed, is not the same person she once was. Apparently, when she was intimate with the soldier they both were younger, although she still does not seem to be quite middle-aged or old. I think this in indicated by the description we now get of the soldier and the slight changes in his appearance and the mention of "growing slightly stout".

He was a young man, military in appearance, growing slightly stout. His black hair was brushed smooth and bright, his moustache was waxed.

And it does state later on that "She was not herself"

Exactly.

I found this an odd use of imagery for this story, but interesting, and it does seem that Lawerence uses somewhat contradictory images within this story.

Yes, and this is very typical of Lawrence's writing. He often sets up contrasts in his descriptions, even within just one sentence, suggesting a kind of questioning and dicotomy, like seeing two sides of the coin.

As within the story, the woman does not really appear to be very maternal, nor does she have kids of her own, and we know nothing of what her relationship with her own family was like.

True but one cannot really tell. She may have been more maternal, than you think. We don't know anything about her really - family or otherwise. We just don't have enough information about her in this short story. The story is only a brief impression of a day in her life. How different we can all be on different days of the year and under different circumstances. Also, we are usually much different away from our families than when we are within the family unit. People and their personalities fluctuate with the interaction with various other people also and in the environments we occupy. All of life fluctuates and chances from moment to moment; we change as well.

And as I mentioned early at the beginign of the poem when speaking of the husband, these lines had stuck out to me:

Again the physical impression of the husband has an element of contrast to it. Nothing in this story is black and white. We all live with contridictions and this makes life interesting actually. We might be strong in character but not in appearance. Complexity again is evident and this seems to make the characters come alive to me. Things are not always as they appear to be on the surface.

This to me seemed a bit contridictory, considering the uncertaintiy of his situation and the fact that he did not seem confidant in his marraige or his wife's feelings for him, as several times he refers to his concerns that she was unaware of him or ignoring him.

I think it does appear contradictory but that is ok. Life is contradictory and ironic at times. Maybe he was trying hard to get her attention by the way he dressed and carried himself or maybe this was just his natural manerism. I don't see anything really odd about that part. It seemed lifelike enough. People can look a certain way but actually feel rejected. People hide feelings well.

Dark Muse

02-06-2008, 08:54 PM

Apparently, when she was intimate with the soldier they both were younger, although she still does not seem to be quite middle-aged or old.

Though we do not know how old she was when she was with the solider, we do know it has been around 10 years sense they have been together, as she said he was 26 when she knew him, and would now be 32

Also there is the one descirption of her which states:

She was a good-looking woman who seemed older then he

True but one cannot really tell. She may have been more maternal, than you think. We don't know anything about her really - family or otherwise. We just don't have enough information about her in this short story. The story is only a brief impression of a day in her life. How different we can all be on different days of the year and under different circumstances. Also, we are usually much different away from our families than when we are within the family unit. People and their personalities fluctuate with the interaction with various other people also and in the environments we occupy. All of life fluctuates and chances from moment to moment; we change as well.

Yes that is true, but within the story, to me she appears to be too much in a child-state herself to really appear to be or have the ablity to be very matronly.

Again the physical impression of the husband has an element of contrast to it. Nothing in this story is black and white. We all live with contridictions and this makes life interesting actually. We might be strong in character but not in appearance. Complexity again is evident and this seems to make the characters come alive to me. Things are not always as they appear to be on the surface.

I also find it intresting that the story seems to make a point, of pointing out how attractive and physicaly good looking both the woman and the husband are.

Janine

02-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Though we do not know how old she was when she was with the solider, we do know it has been around 10 years sense they have been together, as she said he was 26 when she knew him, and would now be 32

Also there is the one descirption of her which states:

"She was a good-looking woman who seemed older then he"

Thanks, DM I did not recall the first part when I posted. Now I vaguely think I remember reading that. Glad you pointed that out. You would think by 2 1/2 readings I would have remembered that. So 10 years has elapsed - interesting. I did note that she was older than he. This interested me, because Lawrence was 7 yrs younger than his wife, Frieda. The woman's description reminds me of Frieda except, I think, it said this woman had reddish hair. Frieda was light haired with blue eyes. Frieda had had previous lovers before, she met Lawrence so maybe in this story he musing on the fact, of how it would be if his wife were to meet an ex-lover, after 10 yrs of their marriage. I wish I could find more references to this story. I will keep looking, just to find out where he got the story idea or seeds of this idea from. Lawrence wrote tons of letters so it is bound to show up in one of them. I just have to search my reference books.

Yes that is true, but within the story, to me she appears to be too much in a child-state herself to really appear to be or have the ablity to be very matronly.

I don't know. How old does one have to be to be matronly? I think there are young mothers who feel greatly for their children. I don't know if Lawrence used the child reference to her as more to something that would strike us all and pull us back to our pasts.

I also find it intresting that the story seems to make a point, of pointing out how attractive and physicaly good looking both the woman and the husband are.

Yes, it certainly did do that. I wonder why, also. I don't really have an answer to why I think Lawrence made them both physically good looking.

Dark Muse

02-06-2008, 10:30 PM

"Thanks, DM I did not recall the first part when I posted. Now I vaguely think I remember reading that. Glad you pointed that out. You would think by 2 1/2 readings I would have remembered that. So 10 years has elapsed - interesting. I did note that she was older than he. This interested me, because Lawrence was 7 yrs younger than his wife, Frieda. The woman's description reminds me of Frieda except, I think, it said this woman had reddish hair. Frieda was light haired with blue eyes. Frieda had had previous lovers before, she met Lawrence so maybe in this story he musing on the fact, of how it would be if his wife were to meet an ex-lover, after 10 yrs of their marriage. I wish I could find more references to this story. I will keep looking, just to find out where he got the story idea or seeds of this idea from. Lawrence wrote tons of letters so it is bound to show up in one of them. I just have to search my reference books.

That is very interesting to know about Lawrence and his wife. And yes in the story the woman is said to have aubron hair.

" don't know. How old does one have to be to be matronly? I think there are young mothers who feel greatly for their children. I don't know if Lawrence used the child reference to her as more to something that would strike us all and pull us back to our pasts.

I was not speaking of her physical age, but the way I precieived her in reading the story, she seemed to have the mentality of a child, she seemed immature herself. And instead of trying to advance forward with her life, it seems she is trying to move backward through it.

Yes, it certainly did do that. I wonder why, also. I don't really have an answer to why I think Lawrence made them both physically good looking.

Perhaps it has to do with the way things are not always how they appear. To look at them they are both physcial attractive, and yet, they have inward blemishies that cannot be seen. It seems to be a theme with the story, the idea of outward beauty, as with the mention of the scentless roses. They are nice to look at, but do not hold anything inside of them.

Virgil

02-06-2008, 11:02 PM

I'm not sure if you guys realize it, but the story is available electronically here on lit net: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_lawrence/prussian-officer/7/.

Janine

02-06-2008, 11:10 PM

That is very interesting to know about Lawrence and his wife. And yes in the story the woman is said to have aubron hair.

Well, his wife was the model for 'Ursula' in "The Rainbow" and "Women in Love", so I thought maybe there was some connection in this story, as well, or even to his mother, who loved roses and kept a rose garden.

I found this online in E-Notes, I believe; if you notice there are different stages of development in Lawrence's short stories. The last story we discussed was quite different, since it belonged to the last stage of short stories; but according to this online criticism, this story "Shadow in the Rose Garden" belongs to his second stage of short stories (still early); I underlined that reference:

Major Works of Short Fiction
Many critics consider Lawrence's short stories his most artistically accomplished writings and have attributed much of their success to the constraints of the form that forced Lawrence to deny himself the elaborations, diversions, and repetitions that characterize his longer works. In comparison with his novels, Lawrence's short fiction is economical in style and structure. His early stories are written in the manner of Robert Louis Stevenson and Rudyard Kipling, whose anecdotes and tales of adventure epitomized the traditional nineteenth-century English short story. Most critics concur that “Odour of Chrysanthemums” marked the emergence of a second stage in the development of Lawrence's short fiction. Composed in 1911 and published in The Prussian Officer, and Other Stories (1914), this piece incorporates the heightened realism of Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and Leo Tolstoy, and like most of Lawrence's stories from the years 1909 to 1912, focuses on the familiar events and problems of twentieth-century industrial society, while displaying concern for the lives of ordinary men and women. The title story from The Prussian Officer is regarded by many as Lawrence's first completely visionary work. This piece signaled another change in the direction of Lawrence's writing and, to some critics, in the art of short fiction at large. Written in 1913, “The Prussian Officer” combines accurate social setting with penetrating psychological analysis, exhibiting Lawrence's eagerness to explore areas beneath the surface of human behavior. Characterized by intense observation, this and other works of the period before 1925 imply the depth and complexity of ordinary experience and retain Lawrence's sharp observation of character and place.

I was not speaking of her physical age, but the way I precieived her in reading the story, she seemed to have the mentality of a child, she seemed immature herself. And instead of trying to advance forward with her life, it seems she is trying to move backward through it.

I think we just differ on this opinion of the woman and that is fine. We all maintain our own interpretation and impression. This is what makes the world an interesting place. I don't feel she is mentally like a child. I feel the woman is acting out her sincere shock at the man she has seen. I think she needs time to think about it and deal with it. I think, by the ending lines of this story, the husband and wife have a good chance now of working through this. It is better sometimes to have things out in the open and stated honestly. She did not deceive her husband in my opinion. Many husbands and wives do not reveal all they have experienced in their pasts to their spouses. I think this is a common thing. I don't believe the woman ever expected to encounter the supposedly dead ex-lover. Just seeing him would be a shock - even if he had merely been a friend - to see him now alive but not truly alive. How sad that would make one feel.
Lawrence and his wife Frieda had there periods of disagreement and strife. I think Lawrence had insight into being a husband and how it sometimes changed between husband and wife. I wish Virgil could comment now since he is married and would lend his perspective on this point of view. Hopefully he will read the story and be here to comment soon. I know he is tied up with personal matters more pressing than this story for now. We have a whole month so I am sure he will comment eventually on this whole point.

Perhaps it has to do with the way things are not always how they appear. To look at them they are both physcial attractive, and yet, they have inward blemishies that cannot be seen. It seems to be a theme with the story, the idea of outward beauty, as with the mention of the scentless roses. They are nice to look at, but do not hold anything inside of them.

Don't we all have inward blemishes? Yes, I thought the scentless roses quite significant. It seems the ex-lover also has some outward attractiveness or beauty but he is hollow within and witless (scentless) like that particular rose. I think the roses act as metaphors for the characters. Also, if you think of it the beauty of a rose quickly fades and the petals fall eventually and a bare bush is left behind. The rose metaphors in this story are really brilliant, I think.

Quark

02-06-2008, 11:16 PM

Perhaps it has to do with the way things are not always how they appear. To look at them they are both physcial attractive, and yet, they have inward blemishies that cannot be seen. It seems to be a theme with the story, the idea of outward beauty, as with the mention of the scentless roses. They are nice to look at, but do not hold anything inside of them.

You're suspicious of the roses? They seemed like they made her genuinely happy, though they do destabilize her marriage. I think they're more representative of her past relationship than her present one, too. She has a rather idealized notion of her previous lover, and her entrance into this flower-strewn garden reads like a fond reminiscence of a time of when her romantic desires weren't blocked by a mediocre husband. The actual appearance of the former lover ruins it, though: just a little too real for her. This leads me to think her thoughts in the garden are half memory and half fantasy. The tension between the two pushed her toward that divided sensation she feels towards the end of the episode. ("It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think and feel"). You could say that the flowers are part of her problem, but I don't know if you could claim they're hollow and not real. They seem pretty genuine.

Dark Muse

02-06-2008, 11:31 PM

I found this online in E-Notes, I believe; if you notice there are different stages of development in Lawrence's short stories. The last story we discussed was quite different, since it belonged to the last stage of short stories; but according to this online criticism, this story "Shadow in the Rose Garden" belongs to his second stage of short stories (still early); I underlined that reference:

I will not repost what you quoted, but it was very interesting informaiton.

I think we just differ on this opinion of the woman and that is fine. We all maintain our own interpretation and impression. This is what makes the world an interesting place.

Yes that is true, she just rubbed me the wrong way, and I do not think my opinon of her will soften.

She did not deceive her husband in my opinion. Many husbands and wives do not reveal all they have experienced in their pasts to their spouses. I think this is a common thing. I don't believe the woman ever expected to encounter the supposedly dead ex-lover.

I think there was some deciption in the begining, she did not just accidently return to the place where she had been with her first love, but it seemed untill she was forced to tell her husband the truth, becasue of the encounter she had, she had no real intention of doing so, but remained vauged about why she wanted to go back to that spot. And it seemed she was trying to keep her husband from knowing the truth by insisting he said nothing of who she was or of her having lived there before.

Just seeing him would be a shock - even if he had merely been a friend - to see him now alive but not truly alive. How sad that would make one feel.Lawrence and his wife Frieda had there periods of disagreement and strife. I think Lawrence had insight into being a husband and how it sometimes changed between husband and wife. I wish Virgil could comment now since he is married and would lend his perspective on this point of view. Hopefully he will read the story and be here to comment soon. I know he is tied up with personal matters more pressing than this story for now. We have a whole month so I am sure he will comment eventually on this whole point.

I might feel differently if I beleived she had any affection for her husband whatsoever, but it seems she is showing no concern for his own feelings. It seems that he truly loved her and she led him to beleive that she would return those feelings by agreeing to marry him, but then she is horribly mean to him and shows no love for him. I think the fact that her heart still seems to be with her old lover, even when she thought him dead, she clearly had not gotten over him, is in a way being unfaithful to the man she married.

Dark Muse

02-06-2008, 11:35 PM

Quark

02-06-2008, 11:42 PM

Well my opinion of the woman being what it is, the way I interpted the roses, were reflecting her own shallowness. Not to say the roses were not real, but they are an expression of the fact that her beuaty is only extneral. For she did not to me appear to have much attraction behind her apperance. As the roses are only pretty to look at and to veiw them might bring one joy, but other than that they do not offer much more.

I'm going to have to go back and read some more of your posts. I actually thought she was a likable character. I found the self-absorbed husband to be more shallow. I'll go back and look at the earlier post and see if I still feel that way.

Janine

02-06-2008, 11:43 PM

You're suspicious of the roses? They seemed like they made her genuinely happy, though they do destabilize her marriage. I think they're more representative of her past relationship than her present one, too. She has a rather idealized notion of her previous lover, and her entrance into this flower-strewn garden reads like a fond reminiscence of a time of when her romantic desires weren't blocked by a mediocre husband. The actual appearance of the former lover ruins it, though: just a little too real for her. This leads me to think her thoughts in the garden are half memory and half fantasy. The tension between the two pushed her toward that divided sensation she feels towards the end of the episode. ("It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think and feel"). You could say that the flowers are part of her problem, but I don't know if you could claim they're hollow and not real. They seem pretty genuine.

Quark, you are finally here; glad you didn't forget us. I agree with your observations and interpretation. I agree with what you say "she has a rather idealized notion of her previous lover" - well it has been 10 yrs since she last layed eyes on him, so her memory would be faded somewhat, and I think we do tend to 'idealise' those who pass from us, especially those who die. I think this is a totally realistic depiction of what would happen, if a woman were to encounter the man, she had been intimate with and loved and believed deceased. It is an interesting scenerio. I agree that her walk through the garden is 'half memory and half fantasy.' I find that sentence you quoted, particularly revealing of her state of mind at this time " It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think or feel". Therefore I don't think we can hold her totally responsible for not being able at this time to coherently communicate with her husband. We don't know what has transpired between husband and wife in the last 10 yrs either. Have they been happily married or at loose ends with each other. I don't think we have enough information to pass judgement on either one of them. The story has few characters and basically no one else who knows the couple, so any information is internal to each of them - the husband and the wife, until they comfront each other with this situation.

Here too one can see how discheveled her mind is at this point - how much shock she is experiencing:

She was mute and helpless. He was scrupulously dressed in dark clothes and a linen coat. She could not move. Seeing his hands, with the ring she knew so well upon the little finger, she felt as if she were going dazed. The whole world was deranged. She sat unavailing. For his hands, her symbols of passionate love, filled her with horror as they rested now on his strong thighs.
I wondered if the ring had been her engagement ring since it now was on his little finger. He might have taken it away with him to the war as a token of her love. Quite blantantly the author says "The whole world was deranged."

Dark Muse

02-06-2008, 11:47 PM

I'm going to have to go back and read some more of your posts. I actually thought she was a likable character. I found the self-absorbed husband to be more shallow. I'll go back and look at the earlier post and see if I still feel that way.

That is funny how people can read so differently into the same thing. As my view is the exzact oppoiste of your own. I felt sympahty for the husband while I was turned off by the woman.

Janine

02-06-2008, 11:59 PM

I identified more with the woman and the idea of returning to a place that had been special to you and full of memories of love. I have done this myself, but of course never again encountered the person. I can imagine the shock if I had.
I didn't think badly of either characters, throughout this story. I merely tried to understand them and their relationship and the way they reacted to each other at this particular time. One doesn't know how they act or react to each other on a daily basis. Lawrence usually writes in this manner with some questions at the end of a story, open for our own interpretation, so I did not think it any different of this, than other stories he had written. I can't see that Lawrence would judge either person harshly. In "Sons and Lovers" his father could be a true brut at times, and yet he found times in the book to show his side and lend sympathy to the very human qualities of his character and what made him as he was. I always see this balance in Lawrence's writing, so I could not feel any different about these two very 'human' characters, who I know little about, on a personal level.

Janine

02-07-2008, 08:45 PM

Hira

02-07-2008, 10:42 PM

Janine

02-07-2008, 11:20 PM

Yep, used so many times when she makes her way to the rose garden. The shadow of her sunshade, a shadow crossing her. An omen of what is to happen I suppose.

Unfortunately I haven't had the time to read much of the previous posts:(. I don't think I'll be able to came here much in the coming week, lots and lots of tests. But I'll try to read all of it.

That's ok, Hira, very understandable. School must come first! I have been working on some new posts, mostly about this idea of shadow and contrasts of the light. Also, the colour red, which is quite prominent in the story. I will post those next and if you find the time you can read them whenever you find the time. This thread is ongoing and will always be active I am sure so there is no time limit. Best of luck with your tests.

An email will be coming shortly; yours is next in line. Thanks for being patient.

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 12:04 AM

Did anyone else notice just how often the word shadow is mentioned in this story? I will try and post some of the passages and underline the words, later on tonight. I still have not totally re-read the story; I had planned it last night and then got side-tracked while researching this story and was reading Lawrence's early letters - how fascinating they are.
I think the various uses of 'shadow' in this story is quite significant.

Yes i did notice that. I think that the use of the word shadow, could perhaps be another instance of foreshadow as to what she is about to discover, that her lover is still alive, but only a shadow of himself.

And to me shadows can somtimes have a haunting feel to them, and with the woman's obcession with her past, in a way it is as if she is being haunted by her past or her memories and her lover is like a shadow that looms over her marriage or perhaps blocks the light from it.

Janine

02-08-2008, 12:15 AM

Hi Dark Muse, sorry about that, I didn't see you there until I posted just now - we must have posted same time, althought this has taken me awhile to write. My brain is aching. Yes, I agree with what you just posted and this is a excellent idea/thought, also:

Quote by Dark Muse:

And to me shadows can somtimes have a haunting feel to them, and with the woman's obcession with her past, in a way it is as if she is being haunted by her past or her memories and her lover is like a shadow that looms over her marriage or perhaps blocks the light from it.

I noticed that people in this story view others or themselves within frames - such as mirrors, windows, arches, doorways, etc.

The husband viewing his own image:

He caught sight of his own face in a little mirror,..

The husband viewing his wife's image:

Then again he turned to survey the bedroom windows overlooking the garden. He started, seeing a woman's figure; but it was only his wife.

Referring to Mrs. Coates viewing the couple together:

The delightful, erect old lady hastened to the window for a good view of her visitors.

The woman viewing the courtyard:

The uncurtained windows looked black and soulless, the kitchen door stood open. Irresolutely she took a step forward, and again forward, leaning, yearning, towards the garden…

..and later on approaching the rose garden:

…Glancing round, she saw all the windows giving on to the lawn were curtainless and dark.......
She went across the lawn towards the garden, through an arch of crimson ramblers, a gate of colour.

That last part underlined seems like the final window or passage into that other world of the past in the rose garden, which is magical in her memory and mind.

*******

Also, I noted the repetitive use of the word shadow and light, varied in different ways, throughout the story:

She wore a hat with roses, and a long lace scarf hung over her white dress. Rather nervously, she put up her sunshade, and her face was half-hidden in its [/u]coloured shadow[/U].

Under this she went slowly, stopping at length by an open doorway, which shone like a picture of light in the dark wall.

There in the magic beyond the doorway, patterns of shadow lay on the sunny court, on the blue and white sea-pebbles of its paving, while a green lawn glowed beyond, where a bay tree glittered at the edges. She tiptoed nervously into the courtyard, glancing at the house that stood in shadow.

Particularly in this last passage, she passes from this magic glittering, luminous, sunny world into the courtyard and this moment ends with her viewing the house shrouded in shadow. This is a very forbodding image and forshadowing of what will come. This writing so beautifully leads up to the meeting with her former lover, who indeed is a human shadow.

The uncurtained windows looked black and soulless…

…Glancing round, she saw all the windows giving on to the lawn were curtainless and dark. The house had a sterile appearance, as if it were still used, but not inhabited. A shadow seemed to go over her. She went across the lawn towards the garden, through an arch of crimson ramblers, a gate of colour.

There beyond lay the soft blue sea with the bay, misty with morning, and the farthest headland of black rock jutting dimly out between blue and blue of the sky and water.

Interesting contrasts of cool blues and deep blacks, also. Below is the quote -the 'darkness of the tree-tops covering the beck'. 'Misty' also makes me think of shadows; so the morning is full of 'shadows and mist'.

Her face began to shine, transfigured with pain and joy. At her feet the garden fell steeply, all a confusion of flowers, and away below was the darkness of tree-tops covering the beck. [/quote]

This use of the word transfigured is emensely important. Transfiguration is a word often used by Lawrence and part of his philosophy and beliefs. Here the woman passes back into time and is transfigured by pain and joy. This seems to suggest to me the shedding of blood that Lawrence spoke of so often and the combination of the 'pain and joy' in order to reach this moment of transfiguration.

Then she started cruelly as a shadow crossed her and a figure moved into her sight. It was a man who had come in slippers, unheard.

Interesting that he moves silently as a shadow would, unheard...silent.

He wore a linen coat. The morning was shattered, the spell vanished away.

The linen coat suggests a whitish light garment as well.
So I wondered if this last passage meant her transformation also, had been shattered and the magic left her - the spell had vanished away.

*****
I also noted colours used in the story - notably, the reds and whites.

Hastily, she went to a little seat among the white roses, and sat down. Her scarlet sunshade made a hard blot of colour.

Interesting colour contrast here. She sits among the 'white' roses, her dress is pure 'white', and her sunshade is 'scarlet'. I noticed 'reds' and 'scarlet' and 'flame' colours used throughout the story, in contrast with the white or blue or pure light. I wondered if this indicated references to purity/illumination/blood. I know in other stories of Lawrence’s these are repeated themes. I wondered if this woman, having suffered the revisiting of the old lover, experiences this deep wound which the crimson represents or suggests. Could this be a form of forshadowing in the story? In the beginning, the apple, which her husband bites into, is 'brownish red'. I found this to be strange and thought of the colour of dried blood. The next red reference seemed to be the ‘dark red’ gooseberries. Those seem to be particularly noted in the text - twice noticed by her. As she walked through the rose garden, there were many references to red among the roses:

Suddenly she was touching some heavy crimson roses that were soft as velvet……. Sometimes a flame-coloured, scentless rose would hold her arrested

Then the references change to 'white' and even 'ice':
[quote] Then she wondered over the white rose, that was greenish, like ice, in the centre. So, slowly, like a white, pathetic butterfly, she drifted down the path, coming at last to a tiny terrace all full of roses.

Then she goes to the corner with the seat among the white roses.

She sat quite still, feeling her own existence lapse. She was no more than a rose, a rose that could not quite come into blossom, but remained tense.
In the last story Virgil made reference to Lawrence idea of a person being as a flower. In this case the woman is like the rose, but one that does not come into full blossom.

A little fly dropped on her knee, on her white dress. She watched it, as if it had fallen on a rose. She was not herself.
I picture the black fly against the pure white dress, another fine contrast. A moment before the woman was referred to as a 'white butterfly' and now another winged insect is used to show the forshadowing...interesting....

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 12:32 AM

Hi Dark Muse, sorry about that, I didn't see you there until I posted just now - we must have posted same time, althought this has taken me awhile to write. My brain is aching

Hehe no worries

I noticed that people in this story view others or themselves within frames - such as mirrors, windows, arches, doorways, etc.

Hehe I will not repost everything you just posted, just say, you made some great observations, but with the doorways, and the colors and repeition used within the story. That is intresting the way the people do see themselves or others within frames in the story.

II also noted colours used in the story - notable the reds and whites.

Interesting colour contrast here. She sits among the 'white' roses, her dress is pure 'white', and her sunshade is 'scarlet'. I noticed 'reds' and 'scarlet' and 'flame' colours used throughout the story, in contrast with the white or blue or pure light. I wondered if this indicated references to purity/illumination/blood. I know in other stories of Lawrence’s these are repeated themes. I wondered if this woman, having suffered the revisiting of the old lover, experiences this deep wound which the crimson represents or suggests. Could this be a form of forshadowing in the story? In the beginning, the apple, which her husband bites into, is 'brownish red'. I found this to be strange and thought of the colour of dried blood. The next red reference seemed to be the ‘dark red’ gooseberries. Those seem to be particularly noted in the text - twice noticed by her. As she walked through the rose garden, there were many references to red among the roses

Yes I noticed the way the color white was used within the story particuarly in relation to the woman.

Good observation upon the use of the color.

If I remeber correctly, I think in the story, it was also the red roses that were described as being without scent, perhaps this is another use of forshadow regaurding the encounter she is about to have with her lover.

You mentioned how the color red within the story could be representive of blood but within roses espcially red is often a color of love and passion.

It was always within the back of mind to think, if she had discovered that her lover was not only still alive, but also still within his right mind, how would thier encounter have been different? Would she have been unfaithful and tried to pick up again where her and her lover left off?

Perhaps the pressence of the white is also representive of the innocence of thier meeting, for whatever thoughts she may have had, in his state nothing could happen between them again.

Janine

02-08-2008, 01:33 AM

Hehe no worries

Good, you are there. I surely didn't want you to think I ignored your post. You are just so fast responding. haha

Hehe I will not repost everything you just posted, just say, you made some great observations, but with the doorways, and the colors and repeition used within the story. That is intresting the way the people do see themselves or others within frames in the story.

Well, in doing these stories, it is always good to breakdown the various elements one notices. These seems so prominent in the story, the more I re-read it. You know - they just stood out. I guess one gets a different perspective. Also, after discussing so many of Lawrence's works this last year I can sort of spot things common to all the stories - elements and devices he uses. For one, he is so poetic and uses repetition poetically. The woman's walk throught the rose garden reads like a magical poem. It is like Alice through the looking glass or down the rabbit hole. Eventually this woman will return to reality. This hour or so in her life is now merely a dream sequence.

I even went so far to think of the beginning lines, when the husband viewed the clock and then his watch and I said - hummm, what significance did that have for Lawrence, and I think I know. Again, he is viewing something - 'time' in the clock face and the watch face - both within a dial or frame. The woman sees 'time' also, through a frame when she enters the garden. She goes back in time. The husband is rooted in the present time. The wife is rooted in the past and must make the transition now, to her present life and accept it, by the end of the story. The time away in the garden proves to be a total shadow of time, and an 'illusion' as a memory is an illusion or a fleeting white butterfly, one cannot keep or own.

Yes I noticed the way the color white was used within the story particuarly in relation to the woman.

Good observation upon the use of the color.

Thanks. I think the use of color as it is used here is highly significant to this story. Again there is so much repetition in the color so that it is stressed often and colors are so intensified. One can see them so vividly. I really believe the white, knowing Lawrence's other works and his mind and how he referenced things, indicates the 'light' and light is vital to Lawrence and to life. Recall it in the last two stories and what a major role it played? I think the linen jacket the lover was wearing would have also been white and so he would have been more like a ghost or shadow. Ghosts are white and also as shadow. The man is in essense a ghost now from her past. I am glad Lawrence did not resort to using the word ghost. This use of shadow is so much more effective and original, don't you think? I think it is a deeper meaning than ghost, also.

If I remeber correctly, I think in the story, it was also the red roses that were described as being without scent, perhaps this is another use of forshadow regaurding the encounter she is about to have with her lover.

Yes, I think that is probably correct. There is a lot of forshadowing in this story, if you take the time to hunt for it. I wondered about this line in the beginning of the story:

Outside, the glory roses hung in the morning sunshine like little bowls of fire tipped up.
What do you make of that line? I keep musing over it and feel it means something significant.

You mentioned how the color red within the story could be representive of blood but within roses espcially red is often a color of love and passion.

Yes, it is very true that red roses symbolise true love and passion, but in Lawrence's case, I just think they mean more. I do think though, this being an early story and Lawrence being an avid student of botany at that time of his life, he would know this and the meanings of all the flowers - that roses mean true love/passion. It is hard to explain Lawrence's blood philosophy and I think Virgil did in one of the other stories. I do think the various ways L is presenting the color of red indicates blood, but I am not quite sure why. Is it that the soldier was wounded, is it that the woman is wounded to her heart/soul? Is it that they went through a true blood experience of closeness (as Lawrence believed in) and are bound to each other for eternity? I don't really know. I wish I could find some commentary on this story, but so far I can't find much, only that apparently, Lawrence liked this story very much; and he was paid handsomely for it. I don't know exactly. Could it be that she has to go through this cleansing by the roses and blood, to become awakened to reality and become a new person living in the present day? I will ask Virgil what he thinks. Lawrence's ideas can be very complicated at times.

It was always within the back of mind to think, if she had discovered that her lover was not only still alive, but also still within his right mind, how would thier encounter have been different? Would she have been unfaithful and tried to pick up again where her and her lover left off?

You know, I never felt she expected to meet him. I felt she knew he was dead. However, I do think she went there to commune with his memory and spirit. She wanted her perfect reminescense and dream in the rose garden. She did not bargain for finding the man alive, and without his spirit - this former lover quite altered. No, I believe she was in total 'shock' when she realised who he was. Wouldn't you be? Think of it. If you truly loved someone with a deep passion, would you ever forget them? Then if they died, you still would never forget them in your heart and you would hold the memory of them dearly within your deepest self, your soul. I think this must have been an earth-shattering moment in this woman's life. I can not imagine how I would feel myself. It is a strange thought to me.

Perhaps the pressence of the white is also representive of the innocence of thier meeting, for whatever thoughts she may have had, in his state nothing could happen between them again.

Well, considering he may be wearing white also, maybe the white is like innocense in eternity for both of them or perhaps only the lover. I don't know; the white seems to indicate a heavenly light. He has died already in a sense, but she still lives in the material world and is very much alive. She leaves him behind in the garden - a sort of 'rose heaven' and she must return to the natural world and her husband. For a short period of time it is as though she resides in heaven sitting there all in white with white roses surrounding her on their bench, but then there is that fly and the fly may just represent reality. What do you think?

I hope all of this makes sense and is not too confusing to you.

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 01:58 AM

I think the linen jacket the lover was wearing would have also been white and so he would have been more like a ghost or shadow. Ghosts are white and also as shadow. The man is in essense a ghost now from her past. I am glad Lawrence did not resort to using the word ghost. This use of shadow is so much more effective and original, don't you think?

Yes I really like the use of shadow in this story, and think it holds many possible meanings.

What do you make of that line? I keep musing over it and feel it means something significant.

Outside, the glory roses hung in the morning sunshine like little bowls of fire tipped up.

That line stuck out in my mind as well

You know I never felt she expected to meet him. I felt she knew he was dead. However I do think she went there to commune with his memory and spirit. She did not bargain for finding the man alive with no spirit - a person quite altered. No, I believe she was in total shock when she realised who he was. Wouldn't you be? Think of it. If you truly loved someone with a deep passion would you ever forget them and then if they died you still would not and you would hold the memory of them dearly within your secret self. I think this must have been an earth-shattering moment in this woman's life.

I think she did beleive that he really was dead, but just the feeling I got. I think that if when he appeared, had he proven to be mentally as well as physcialy well the fact that she was married would have gone right out of her mind and she would have been all over him.

Janine

02-08-2008, 03:02 AM

Yes I really like the use of shadow in this story, and think it holds many possible meanings.

Dark Muse, looks like only you and I are up this late on here. Are we really still at this this late at night? It is nearly 2:00 AM here...haha...two night owls or shadows. ;) I am starting to feel like a 'shadow' - kind of tired out and spent.

Yes, shadows would have lots of connotations and meanings, I think. I will have to think on the word further. It is an interesting work. Remember the old TV show - probably before your time - "Only the Shadow Knows":alien: ; actually, I think it was an old radio program, called "The Shadow".

I was reading this letter Lawrence wrote to a budding young author and he was criticising her use of words and kept saying don't use trite ones, use new ones, and I think by not using ghost and using shadow instead, in the various ways he does in this story, shows exactly what he meant. It gives the story a freshness. Also, the title is great, I think. It makes one want to read the story. One does not think of shadows in a rose garden - more like sunlight in a rose garden.

That line stuck out in my mind as well

So any ideas or musings on that line?

I think she did beleive that he really was dead, but just the feeling I got. I think that if when he appeared, had he proven to be mentally as well as physcialy well the fact that she was married would have gone right out of her mind and she would have been all over him.

I don't know. I was trying to place myself in her position, like thinking of someone I once loved and I broke up with. Actually, he broke off with me. If you go through that hurt and pain, you don't easily want to try it again, let alone with the same person. It seems in this story it stated he was the one to leave her behind. She may have been idealising the memory of her time with this man and not truly still in-love with the man himself. In 10 yrs, one can feel so much different and change so much, also. In reality it might never have worked out, if he had been sane. But really, we need not conjecture if he had been sane, because the story is about someone you rediscover who is not sane. How would one feel then? I only know a really close friend who died, and I was trying to put myself in the position, of going to places we shared that were memorable to times we spent together; then if suddenly I saw him and he was not dead at all, and yet he was such as this man - being only the shell or shadow of the person, he had once been. It is a strange thought. I had never considered this before. It would be truly shocking and odd.

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 03:14 AM

Remember the old TV show - probably before your time - "Only the Shadow Knows":alien: ; actually, I think it was an old radio program, called "The Shadow".

I have heard of that

So any ideas or musings on that line?

I will have to mull this one over and maybe take another look the story.

I don't know. I was trying to place myself in her position, like thinking of someone I once loved and I broke up with. Actually, he broke off with me. If you go through that hurt and pain, you don't easily want to try it again, let alone with the same person. It seems in this story it stated he was the one to leave her behind. She may have been idealising the memory of her time with this man and not truly still in-love with the man himself. In 10 yrs, one can feel so much different and change so much, also. In reality it might never have worked out, if he had been sane. But really, we need not conjecture if he had been sane, because the story is about someone you rediscover who is not sane. How would one feel then? I only know a really close friend who died, and I was trying to put myself in the position, of going to places we shared that were memorable to times we spent together; then if suddenly I saw him and he was not dead at all, and yet he was such as this man - being only the shell or shadow of the person, he had once been. It is a strange thought. I had never considered this before. It would be truly shocking and odd.

Perhaps my problem is I really cannot relate to the woman. I am the kind of person who really puts my past behind me. I do not forget it, but nor do I try and relive or revisit it. Though I do not have any past loved ones who have died, I have had some past loves, but they are no longer a part of my life, and I do not need them to be anymore then a memory to me, I do not have any desire to try and reconnect with them in anyway, not becasue I feel ill toward them but I am with someone else now, and he is what matters, now what I had before but what I have now.

Though without experincing it I cannot say just how I would react, but knowing my personality as it is, and maybe this will sound a bit cold but honestly, if I had a past love whom I thought was dead and discovered they were in fact a live but insane, I would probably just go home and tell my husband, supposing we were married, hey, the strangest thing just happend.

Janine

02-08-2008, 04:17 PM

I will have to mull this one over and maybe take another look the story.

Dark Muse, Good idea. I re-read the story last night, too. It does help to see it in a different light. One thing now stands out to me, is the signs that they were at odds and seems to have friction between them from the very beginning of the story. Even Mrs. Coates notes that the woman has married someone somewhat incompatable with herself; this situation would be similar to Lawrence's parents - the mother was more refined and educated and the father more a working type man who worked as a coal miner. This disparity of backgrounds is often explored in many of Lawrence's works and shows how complex these type marriages can be. I will look up exact quotes later.

Perhaps my problem is I really cannot relate to the woman. I am the kind of person who really puts my past behind me. I do not forget it, but nor do I try and relive or revisit it. Though I do not have any past loved ones who have died, I have had some past loves, but they are no longer a part of my life, and I do not need them to be anymore then a memory to me, I do not have any desire to try and reconnect with them in anyway, not becasue I feel ill toward them but I am with someone else now, and he is what matters, now what I had before but what I have now.

Though without experincing it I cannot say just how I would react, but knowing my personality as it is, and maybe this will sound a bit cold but honestly, if I had a past love whom I thought was dead and discovered they were in fact a live but insane, I would probably just go home and tell my husband, supposing we were married, hey, the strangest thing just happend.

Yes, I think this is a personal thing, and really we should stick to the story and the various elements of the story and the structure and what Lawrence is trying to convey, by presenting this tale. If we read books with villans, we don't always judge them as totally inhuman or hateful, but we try to understand their behavior. We kind of delve into their character and try to figure out what makes them tick.

Virgil

02-08-2008, 04:39 PM

OK I read the story and mostly went through the posts, except for the last page. I got a little tired reading. I will read the last page; it seemed like there was some good observations. I do think this is a fine story, perhaps even a profound story, despite a couple of poorly worded sentences.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to take a step back and just outline the structure of the story. It's the story of a husband and wife who are staying at the wife's old town or region. I guess it's not clear whether they are visiting or coming to live there permanently. The wife has a past here (symbolized by the shadow motif perhaps that keeps coming up), and she "rids" her husband so that she can go back to a place that was particularly meaningful to her, where she had spent time with the man she loved before her husband. This place is a garden at the church grounds, a place where beuatiful roses are grown. She marvels at the roses and sort of lives in the remembrance of her love. And low and behold her old lover actually comes by, but she finds he has lost his sanity. When she realizes how damaged her old lover is, she runs off and returns home. At home her husband confronts her, she confesses of her past love, and they reach a point of climax in their relationship. It seems that the marriage will be better for it at the end, a sort of cathartic purging of past demons. So in summary it is a story of a past that must be overcome.

Janine, can you look up in Lawrence: A Calandar of His Works when this story was written? I know you posted something on the story where it was written in Cornwall. I'm wondering what that book says about this story.

Also I saw you all had something to say on whether we should be sympathetic to the woman. I don't know. It's mixed. She is tormented by her past (so one feels for her there), but she does treat her husband rather poorly. Also it is she who holds the power in the relationship, she is the wealthy one and her husband is the laborer. There is a sort of class subtheme to the story, although I don't see yet how it fits.

Janine

02-08-2008, 05:20 PM

Virgil, glad you are come onboard. We need your help. In the last posts I think I would like your opinions on what I wrote because I was floundering some with the symbols and themes throughout the story (please see my post #920; I took a long time writing that one) - the repetitions I noticed such as the colors of red and white, the use of the word or variations of the word 'shadow', and the contrasts of light and dark.
Another theme here is as you stated:

Also it is she who holds the power in the relationship, she is the wealthy one and her husband is the laborer. There is a sort of class subtheme to the story, although I don't see yet how it fits.
I agree with this. I think there is a issue with 'wills' as well in this story, between husband and wife.
Funny, I am reading "Kangaroo" and this couple at time with their everyday interaction reminds me of Lawrence and Frieda. I guess one writes best what one know of. I don't think they represent the couple but the 'will' issue is similiar in each of the two works. "Kangaroo" was written shortly after this story I believe, but I could be wrong about that. I know after staying in Cornwall the Lawrence's did proceed to Australia and occuppied a cottage by the sea. I will look in the book for the timeline of when this story was written.

I do think this is a fine story, perhaps even a profound story, despite a couple of poorly worded sentences.

This idea just came to me. In the story two gardens are mentioned. The husband enters a garden by their new cottage/residence. The woman later enters a garden and the garden she enters is a sort of perfect dream-like heavenly garden. The husband's garden is ordinary and grounded in reality. The garden in the courtyard is like entering a perfect dreamworld. I believe the woman idealises the man she believes dead - not even the man, himself, but the 'memory' of this man. By dying he has become flawless and perfect, and she can bask in the sunlight and the roses, and have her perfect little dream of him. When people die, we often only view the good points they had, and disregard any flaws they might have exhibited. We forgive them for those, or we just accept them, as if they were perfect now, having passed into death and another world. Heaven and the dreamworld of this woman are similiar in concept and so she looks back and sees only the perfect parts of her time with him. Now when the real flesh and blood man presents himself, indeed he is human and imperfect; thus shattering her perfect dream and memory. This why she quickly departs - she wants to escape this harsh reality. It is interesting that this man, this former lover, loses his memory of her, but by her seeing him, she loses her dream. Eventually, this will bring closure to her 'dream', that she has harboured all this time, deep within herself. It will put an end to her dreaming and living within her past; by the last few lines of the story, one can see it says 'it will work itself out'...both parties seem to believe this. She also refers to herself as having put 'this thing upon herself and that her husband is 'not at fault'. When she mentions a membrane being torn within her, I think this symbolises this perfect dream and remembrance she has had and kept hidden, which now is torn from her. Through a blood cleansing - the word 'blood' is used in that paragraph - she will be healed of old wounds and be able to proceed with her marriage and her life.

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 06:33 PM

One thing now stands out to me, is the signs that they were at odds and seems to have friction between them from the very beginning of the story. Even Mrs. Coates notes that the woman has married someone somewhat incompatable with herself; this situation would be similar to Lawrence's parents - the mother was more refined and educated and the father more a working type man who worked as a coal miner. This disparity of backgrounds is often explored in many of Lawrence's works and shows how complex these type marriages can be. I will look up exact quotes later.

This is quite interesting, and I have noticed that ide appearing within what of his works I have read thus far. I have also noticed it does seem to often by the woman within his stories whom is the more well off within the mismatched couples.

If we read books with villans, we don't always judge them as totally inhuman or hateful, but we try to understand their behavior. We kind of delve into their character and try to figure out what makes them tick.

Haha it depends on the villian for me, sometimes I am just like, ok would someone just kill him already please.

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 06:45 PM

Good to have you join in

but she does treat her husband rather poorly. Also it is she who holds the power in the relationship, she is the wealthy one and her husband is the laborer. There is a sort of class subtheme to the story, although I don't see yet how it fits.

Yes I did notice that, which makes it even more currious why she had married the poor man to start with. As it seems she did not need to in order to support herself being she holds the wealth in the relationship.

He says himself that she never had loved him and alwyas held herself surperior to him and never took him seriously

It seems as if she married someone whom she knew she could trample all over, as she has the finical power in the relationship, he has nothing he can really hold over her and it seems his feelings for her are genuine, so she can do what she pleases and he inguldges her whims.

Janine

02-08-2008, 07:19 PM

This is quite interesting, and I have noticed that ide appearing within what of his works I have read thus far. I have also noticed it does seem to often by the woman within his stories whom is the more well off within the mismatched couples.

Yes, true because this was such a common theme of Lawrence and very prominent in his novels; the class differences and the working man verses the well-to-do. I don't see this wife holding the finances, where does it say that? This mismatching of couples is a common thing Lawrence is forever exploring; definitely this came from growing up in a household with entirely different class parents who were very much at odds with each other. Today one would just say it was a very disfunctional family.

Haha it depends on the villian for me, sometimes I am just like, ok would someone just kill him already please.

Well, in "Othello", I would definitely like to strangle, or smother, Iago and I am glad to see him get his just reward in the end; however, I love the play and I find Iago one of the most fascinating of villans. I continually try to figure out just why he acted as the did. I will never find the answer and so it continues to fascinate me. One can be fascinated by bad behavior, as easily as by good; this does not make the reader a bad person. To the contrary - it teaches us to not act or respond in that manner. It acts as a lesson to us. There would be no Shakespeare plays, if it were not for the villans, all of whom are fascinating characters. Without Iago, there would be no plot in "Othello". Iago drives the plot.

Virgil

02-08-2008, 07:20 PM

Virgil, glad you are come onboard. We need your help. In the last posts I think I would like your opinions on what I wrote because I was floundering some with the symbols and themes throughout the story (please see my post #920; I took a long time writing that one) - the repetitions I noticed such as the colors of red and white, the use of the word or variations of the word 'shadow', and the contrasts of light and dark.

I will get to your post in a bit Janine. I promise.

I agree with this. I think there is a issue with 'wills' as well in this story, between husband and wife.
Oh you're probably right. The battle of wills is a recurring Lawrence theme. I hadn't picked up on it here, but I'll go back and check.

Funny, I am reading "Kangaroo" and this couple at time with their everyday interaction reminds me of Lawrence and Frieda. I guess one writes best what one know of. I don't think they represent the couple but the 'will' issue is similiar in each of the two works. "Kangaroo" was written shortly after this story I believe, but I could be wrong about that. I know after staying in Cornwall the Lawrence's did proceed to Australia and occuppied a cottage by the sea. I will look in the book for the timeline of when this story was written.
So this is a later story? Kangaroo was written in 1923.

This idea just came to me. In the story two gardens are mentioned. The husband enters a garden by their new cottage/residence. The woman later enters a garden and the garden she enters is a sort of perfect dream-like heavenly garden. The husband's garden is ordinary and grounded in reality.
There is an interesting contrast between gardens. The man's garden has trees, the woman's has roses. My first thought was the Garden of Eden. There is the mention of the Tree of Heaven and the husband eats an apple. It couldn't help feeling that the story was a loss of innocence story. Both characters lose a certain innocence by the end of the story.

The garden in the courtyard is like entering a perfect dreamworld. I believe the woman idealises the man she believes dead - not even the man, himself, but the 'memory' of this man. By dying he has become flawless and perfect, and she can bask in the sunlight and the roses, and have her perfect little dream of him. When people die, we often only view the good points they had, and disregard any flaws they might have exhibited. We forgive them for those, or we just accept them, as if they were perfect now, having passed into death and another world. Heaven and the dreamworld of this woman are similiar in concept and so she looks back and sees only the perfect parts of her time with him. Now when the real flesh and blood man presents himself, indeed he is human and imperfect; thus shattering her perfect dream and memory. This why she quickly departs - she wants to escape this harsh reality. It is interesting that this man, this former lover, loses his memory of her, but by her seeing him, she loses her dream. Eventually, this will bring closure to her 'dream', that she has harboured all this time, deep within herself. It will put an end to her dreaming and living within her past; by the last few lines of the story, one can see it says 'it will work itself out'...both parties seem to believe this. She also refers to herself as having put 'this thing upon herself and that her husband is 'not at fault'. When she mentions a membrane being torn within her, I think this symbolises this perfect dream and remembrance she has had and kept hidden, which now is torn from her. Through a blood cleansing - the word 'blood' is used in that paragraph - she will be healed of old wounds and be able to proceed with her marriage and her life.
Interesting observations. I'll have to look back and see if it's characterized as a dream world.

Good to have you join in
Thank you.

Yes I did notice that, which makes it even more currious why she had married the poor man to start with. As it seems she did not need to in order to support herself being she holds the wealth in the relationship.

He says himself that she never had loved him and alwyas held herself surperior to him and never took him seriously
Yes this marriage is very mysterious. We never get details of how it came about. I'm wondering if Lawrence is basing this on his marriage or another.

It seems as if she married someone whom she knew she could trample all over, as she has the finical power in the relationship, he has nothing he can really hold over her and it seems his feelings for her are genuine, so she can do what she pleases and he inguldges her whims.
You might be right. It is an overturning of the noraml male/female relationship of its time, and Lawrence was very critical of this. This too is a shadow that hangs over the relationship.

Janine

02-08-2008, 07:32 PM

Dark Muse, how did you come up with this assumption?

Yes I did notice that, which makes it even more currious why she had married the poor man to start with. As it seems she did not need to in order to support herself being she holds the wealth in the relationship.

Is it stated in the story somewhere? I must have missed it. Can you quote the part that implies she is weathly and he is poor?

As far as Lawrence's own parents are concerned, his mother had come from a well established family, who actually lost much of their money, and she was educated and refined, but not of sound financial means, when she married Lawrence's father, the miner. In fact her family worked at home making lace in order to support themselves. It was not an easy life for them. Lawrence's father married her and supported her. Woman back then did not always have many choices and many did not marry for love. They could not afford to. Women were not liberated, as they are today, and often were stuck in circumstances beyond their control. It was either marry a man you liked but did not love or feel passion for, or go hungry in the streets.

Virgil, I looked up the timelines and they are complicated - first off, L started this story way back 1908, when he was writing his first novel "The White Peacock"; later revised "Shadow in the Rose Garden" as late as 1914 (he was then writing "The Rainbow"). It is possible he did do further revisions after this, although I think at that time he did publish it in a periodical. I will list the exact places and the full timeline later. Going to eat dinner now and go out for awhile. One has to consider when this story was written. It was begun in 1908; Lawrence was only 23 yrs of age. It could actually be about someone in that year or earlier, perhaps in the previous century.

Virgil, Sorry, I just saw your new post. I will answer it later tonight. No, I was wrong - the story didn't originate in the time of Kangaroo. I only felt the same thing about husband and wife throughout both stories - like they are often at odds about normal everyday things like when to have their breakfast...a sort of bickering or tension. Who knows how many times L revised or rewrote the story though. It felt like he was speaking of his time living by the sea in a cottage in England - just the way the story is fashioned but it could be anywhere really. The rose garden might be more suggestive of a garden in Italy, for instance. I will further see where he wrote the story. It was one of his most early stories - begun in 1908, but developed over 6 years time.

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 07:40 PM

Dark Muse, how did you come up with this assumption?

Virgil is the one that first brought up the idea that she was the wealthy on in the relationship.

Also I saw you all had something to say on whether we should be sympathetic to the woman. I don't know. It's mixed. She is tormented by her past (so one feels for her there), but she does treat her husband rather poorly. Also it is she who holds the power in the relationship, she is the wealthy one and her husband is the laborer. There is a sort of class subtheme to the story, although I don't see yet how it fits.

Is it stated in the story somewhere? I must have missed it. Can you quote the part that implies she is weathly and he is poor?.

And I am sorry of I mispoke and confussed you, I did not mean that he was phsycialy poor in my statement, just poor, as in I felt sorry for him becasue of how she treats him.

There is an interesting contrast between gardens. The man's garden has trees, the woman's has roses. My first thought was the Garden of Eden. There is the mention of the Tree of Heaven and the husband eats an apple. It couldn't help feeling that the story was a loss of innocence story. Both characters lose a certain innocence by the end of the story.

Good observation comparing the too gradens, and bringing up the idea of the Garden of Eden, I would agree with innoncence does play a role within this story, particuarly the promoimence of using the color white.

Virgil

02-08-2008, 08:59 PM

Virgil is the one that first brought up the idea that she was the wealthy on in the relationship.

Here it's toward the end when she returns home:

It was difficult for her to endure his presence, for he would interfere with her. She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own. He tried to go on as if nothing were the matter. But at last he became silent with fury. As soon as it was possible, she went upstairs again, and locked the bedroom door. She must be alone. He went with his pipe into the garden. All his suppressed anger against her who held herself superior to him filled and blackened his heart. Though he had not know it, yet he had never really won her, she had never loved him. She had taken him on sufference. This had foiled him. He was only a labouring electrician in the mine, she was superior to him. He had always given way to her. But all the while, the injury and ignominy had been working in his soul because she did not hold him seriously. And now all his rage came up against her.

She was superior, and apparently she acted it. Also at the beginning he is described as a smallish man, and I picture her as larger: she had a "fine carriage" which I take as busty and larger. She's also described as "very proud."

Dark Muse

02-08-2008, 09:04 PM

There is also a scene in which Mrs. Coates coments, that they are close in hieght, but he is not her equal otherwise

Janine

02-09-2008, 12:42 AM

I edited this out because I don't know how it happened but I posted this twice as I was revising and adding to it....sorry to confuse everyone.

Dark Muse

02-09-2008, 12:51 AM

What do you suppose she was about to say when he cut her off? A least she is being honest with him at this point. She is asking he doesn't attack her with his questioning. She probably her privacy is greatly invaded by her husband. Even married couples need some privacy from time to time. When she was lovers she was not married to her husband.

The way I see it, by her brigning her husband to this place of her past, she was making it bussiness, making him a part of it. She came home in a huff, and he meerely asked her at first if something was wrong, at first she tried to act as if nothing was wrong, and denyed anythign happen instead of telling him rationally that she needed some time she storms off and locks herself in her room it is only natural he would wonder what is going on and it also seems at this point he is at his last straw with her bad treatment of him and cannot take it anymore.

I have done a re-reading of the story and highlighted a few other lines and phrases that caught my eye, that shortly I shall post.

Dark Muse

02-09-2008, 01:08 AM

She seemed to be avioding her surroundings, as if she remamined safe in the little obscurity of her parasol.

This line came to really jump out at me for some reason. I feel that it must mean something, perhaps it relates to the idea of anomomity, and the fact that she did not wish anyone to know her, or perhaps, in a way she is trying to block out, or protect herself from reality. Maybe she did not want to be confronted with ways things might have changed sense she has been away, becasue she wants to keep things as they were in her memory when she first lived there.

Under this she went slowly, stopping at length by an open doorway which shone like a picture of light in the dark wall.

I found the imagery of the picture of lingt in the dark wall to be particuarly interesting here. It goes alone with the idea of frames that Janine has spoken off, also I found intresting the contrasting of light and dark here.

The house had a sterile apperance, as if it were still used, but not inhabited.

I found this a rather intresting image, perhaps another use of foreshadow for what she is about to encounter?

There beyond lay the soft blue sea with the bay, misty with morning, and the farthest headland of black rock jutting dimily out between blue and blue of the sky and water. Her face began to shine, transfigured with pain and joy. At her feet the garden fell steeply, all a confusion of flowers, and away below was the darkness of tree-tops covering the beck.

With Janine's talking of the meaning and use of colors in this story, upon further reading of this story, this passage leaped out at me. As well earlier it was mentioned how the flowers in the garden were like a strange crowd, and here they are called a confusion of flowers.

Janine

02-09-2008, 01:29 AM

Geez, I might have to read this story a 4th time. You two sure are reading a lot into the story. like now Virgil is seeing the woman 'busty';) ...I am dying laughing..:lol:

I wish we could contact Lawrence himself, and ask him to give us better descriptions of the husband and wife, and just what he meant by their behavior to each other. Also could Lawrence please provide us with more background information on the couple. Well, maybe Lawrence will appear as a 'shadow' to explain this story to us. It certainly becomes very psychological, the interplay between this man and woman.

My take on the ending is so much different. She apparently did not like him asking her directly about things from her past. She mentions that emphatically - about not liking his direct questioning. I don't feel that just because you are married, you must tell your spouse every single thing from your past personal life that happened prior to the marriage; so I really cannot condemn the woman for behaving this way. I think she just needs her privacy and space at this crucial time. She has been through a shock, a trauma. I don't see where her husband is being so understanding, in asking her about her past. If you notice he uses some harsh words and trigger words to set her off. I will underline them in the passage below, first paragraph, I will underline key phrases that lead me to think she is very upset:

"I hate your not-straightforward questions," she cried, beside herself with his baiting. "We loved each other, and we WERE lovers - we were. I don't care what YOU think: what have you got to do with it? We were lovers before ever I knew you - "

What do you suppose she was about to say when he cut her off? A least she is being honest with him at this point. She is asking he doesn't attack her with his questioning. She probably her privacy is greatly invaded by her husband. Even married couples need some privacy from time to time. When she was lovers she was not married to her husband.

Now the key 'trigger' words.

"Lovers - lovers," he said, white with fury. "You mean you had your fling with an army man, and then came to me to marry you when you'd done - "

With the "lovers -lovers" he is chiding her and his manner is furious, angry. Then he proceeds to use the word "fling' which, would set off anyone - it seems to imply she was a slut or loose woman, and is obviously intended to demean her and wound her at the same time. Finally, he acts like she came to him to be saved from disgrace. Like he was so pure. How do we know he didn't have a few flings of his own when he was single?

She sat swallowing her bitterness. There was a long pause.
"Do you mean to say you used to go - the whole hogger?" he asked, still incredulous.

This really angered me - it sounded so crude. Tell me this is not a direct arrow into the woman's heart and open wound. She is hurting and he flings this insult at her. This is being understanding?

"Why, what else do you think I mean?" she cried brutally.

Now I think she simply strikes back, because he has fully attacked her.

Ok, this is just my opinion. I was hoping Quark would pop in again, since he might have some light to shed on this whole debate. I wish we could proceed eventually past this debate, and talk about the symbolic elements in the story.

Virgil,I looked up the timeline and here is what I discovered:

1908 At Lynn Croft, Eastwood (except for holiday in Flamboro, Yorkshire, 8-22August) until 12 October, then to 12 Colworth Road, Croydon where Lawrence was now schoolteaching, until the Christmas holiday spend back in Eastwood.

SUMMARY Lawrence completed the second version of The White Peacock, and began the third. He continued with his poems and paintings, wrote 'Art and the Individual' , probaby an early version of 'The Shadow in the Rose Garden [C32 A6], 'A lesson on a Tortoise' and 'Lessford's Rabbits' [both Phoenix 2]. and possibly an early version of 'Love Among the Haystacks' [A56].

Early 1908 'The Vicar's Garden', a mere sketch for 'The Shadow in the Rose Garden, was apparently not written in time to be considered for the Nottingham Guardian Christmas competition, but is on identical paper to 'Legend' [Tedlock32]. See Delavenay 2, 192.

Lawrence would have been 23 in 1908, but if this was early in the year he would have been a mere 22 yrs old.

Then I found these later references in 1913, 6 yrs later, Lawrence would now be 27 in July, turn 28 in September:

JULY 1913 Ar Cearne until 9 then to 28 Percy Avenue, Kingsgate. Broadstairs, Kent, until 30, then to London.

SUMMARY I have been grubbing away among the short stories. God, I shall be glad when it is done. I shall begin my novel again in Germany. We bathe and I write among the babies of the foreshore: it is an innocent life and a dull one [Moore 215].

14 JULY I am drudging away revising the Stories. How glad I shall be when I have cleared that mess up! [Moore 213]

20 JULY ....'The Shadow in the Rose Garden', which appeared in The Smart Set, March 1914....Lawrence's rewriting had been particularly heavy for 'The Shadow in the Rose Garden' for which 'The Vicar's Garden' had been a mere seven-page sketch [see Cushman, ; Finney2]

Around this same time, I noted that he also submitted manuscripts for two of the stories we presently discussed:
'The White Stocking' and 'The Shades of Spring'

Then I found this entry:

[B]JULY 1914 At 9 Selwood Terrace, South Kensignton, London, with a visit to Ripley 18-22.

SUMMARY......Lawrence and Frieda were married at Kensington Registry Office on 13 of July, 1914.

9 JULY Lawrence asked Clayton for the MS of 'The Shadow in the Rose Garden' so that he cold revise it before it was typed. On this date Lawrence sent the first batch of stories to Duckworth [Huxley 202]

14 JULY To Edward Garnett: I send you herewith another batch of the short stories........
I have gone over the stories very carefully. I wish you would go through the selection I have sent in, and see if there is any you would leave out, and any your would like putting in. I think all the stories have been already printed, except "Daughters of the Vicar'. I would like them arranging so.

Then he lists them...
these are the ones we already have discussed:

5. Odour of Chrysanthemums
8. The Shadow in the Rose Garden
9. The Dead Rose - became The Shades of Spring
10. The White Stocking

Janine

02-09-2008, 01:50 AM

The way I see it, by her brigning her husband to this place of her past, she was making it bussiness, making him a part of it. She came home in a huff, and he meerely asked her at first if something was wrong, at first she tried to act as if nothing was wrong, and denyed anythign happen instead of telling him rationally that she needed some time she storms off and locks herself in her room it is only natural he would wonder what is going on and it also seems at this point he is at his last straw with her bad treatment of him and cannot take it anymore.

Dark Muse,Yes, I agree this part is very true. I wonder if the woman did not subconsciously want her husband to find out about her past so that she could finally rid herself of it. It seemed the past was something keeping her from her present life and moving on, as you pointed out before. As Virgil pointed out the idea of the garden with the trees and the apple is reminescent of 'The Garden of Eden' and this story could be about losing one's innocence. The dream in the garden of the roses was innocent and something the woman had to come to terms with and leave behind her. I think the story actually ends on a positive note when all is out in the open and now healing can take place and perhaps the husband and wife can start afresh and make their marriage work. I am an optimist so I really believe this could happen. Some marriages have to work themselves out.

I have done a re-reading of the story and highlighted a few other lines and phrases that caught my eye, that shortly I shall post.

Excellent. This always helps.

I read your ideas in your next post and agree. The parasol part stood out to me, also. I think it was a symbol of the woman wanting her privacy and her private moment of reminescent in the rose garden. She really did not want interaction with others. The roses are interesting being referred to as 'a strange crowd, and here they are called a confusion of flowers'....interesting, isnt' it when you consider she wanted to be totally alone. Even the invasion of the past lover is not at all welcomed at first or even when she finds out who he is and his state of being. It is like the roses are an invasion as well, adding to her own confusion of thought and mind. Perhaps they are also symbols of forshadowing.
The glowing window or opening in the dark stone wall I felt was wonderfully described and one felt it was heaven/enlightenment beyond that opening. I had underlined that passage earlier.

The house had a sterile apperance, as if it were still used, but not inhabited.
Yes, forshadowing and also I felt the house personified the soldier - he is souless and uninhabited. His mind is vacant like the house. Now he is sterile.

The discussion is quite interesting!

Dark Muse

02-09-2008, 02:01 AM

I think the story actually ends on a positive note when all is out in the open and now healing can take place and perhaps the husband and wife can start afresh and make their marriage work. I am an optimist so I really believe this could happen. Some marriages have to work themselves out.

The problem with that idea though, is both the woman and the husband state point blank, that she does not love him and never has loved him. I do not think that it is entierly becasue of her past, and I do not see her now suddnely having feelings for him, as the husband had put it.

"She had taken him on sufference"

Janine

02-09-2008, 02:44 AM

The problem with that idea though, is both the woman and the husband state point blank, that she does not love him and never has loved him. I do not think that it is entierly becasue of her past, and I do not see her now suddnely having feelings for him, as the husband had put it.

"She had taken him on sufference"

I did think of that, but they may just be feeling this way now, in their state of anger, resentment and shock. I don't say they will gain a complete love of each other, but sometimes our concepts of what love is changes, as time goes by. They may be able to stay with the marriage and make it work. Who knows? It is not ours to know. We can only stop here and wonder. I think with the closing lines in the story Lawrence is leaving us with the idea that there is some hope, even though slim, for this couple, now that this obstacle is out of their way.

He stood and looked at her. At last he had learned the width of the breach between them. She still squatted on the bed. He could not go near her. It would be violation to each of them to be brought into contact with the other. The thing must work itself out. They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other. After some minutes he left her and went out.

I know that 'no longer hated each other' is a far-cry from 'love', but it is start and a possibility that they will come to a better understanding of each other now that this great burden of the past falls away from them both.

In the Thomas Hardy story, "Tess of the D'Urbervilles", this double standard is quite evident. The man has a past and so does the woman, but when she confesses her past to him, he condemns her, even though he has admitted to his past. This story reminds me of that. Who is to say this man doesn't have a secret past of his own he has never told his wife? Who is to say he is being totally honest with her? 'Let those without guilt cast the first stone' - doesn't the Biblical quote go something like that?

Dark Muse

02-09-2008, 02:48 AM

I know that 'no longer hated each other' is a far-cry from 'love', but it is start and a possibility that they will come to a better understanding of each other now that this great burden of the past falls away from them both.

Funny I thought the last line was a bit ominous in a way. As if they have grown completely indifferent to each other, particuarly it says:

After some minitues he left her and went out

Though in the story it only means he walked out of the room, we know how Lawrence does use foreshadow to hint at events to come.

Janine

02-09-2008, 03:17 AM

Funny I thought the last line was a bit ominous in a way. As if they have grown completely indifferent to each other, particuarly it says:

Though in the story it only means he walked out of the room, we know how Lawrence does use foreshadow to hint at events to come.

True, first reading I did feel it was ominous and probably hopeless, but knowing how Lawrence himself, thought and what tiffs he had with his wife, I felt they might end up making a go of it afterall. I guess I am being influenced by the interaction evident in the current Lawrence book I am reading, "Kangaroo", which is based on he and his wife as the main characters. Oddly enough, the two resemble the couple in this story physically and in some other respects, but not entirely, of course. I am sure his wife had some influence on his characterization of the woman character, possibly his mother, as well.

I think the ending is ambivalent and we must take it that way. Really we will never know what transpires past the ending of the story. I like the story very much. I am impressed with the maturity of it since it is an early writing of Lawrence, although as I have quoted the timeline book passages one can see that over a 6 yr period the story was reworked and refined into a more mature work, no doubt. Like all of the Lawrence short stories I have read so far I find it an interesting story. I haven't disliked any of them. The writing is so beautifully portrayed, like a painting (interesting to note was that when Lawrence began this story, he was doing more painting than writing). Also, the structure is so well layed out and the story flows easily from start to finish, at times almost like a poem. I think the tone in the rose garden when she is alone is intentionally poetic to set it appart from the 'reality' of the other parts of the story.

I think I am going to bed now - goodnight, DM!

Dark Muse

02-09-2008, 03:35 AM

Hehe goodnight

Upon my further reading of the story there is one idea that I noticed and which struck me. It had first come about when I was contemplating over the phrase about the Glory roses in the begining of the story. It seems this story plays with a contrast of fire and ice, if you will.

In my reading, and trying to understand the signifigance of that line, I noticed that the roses are often associated with fire, or the sun in some way, but that near the end of her visit to the garden, the imagery becomes colder, particuarly after she encounters her lover.

I will post some passages and underline the key words.

Outside glory roses hung in the morning sunshine like little bowls of fire tipped up.

She tuned to the garden that shone with sunny flowers around her. She knew the little corner where was the seat beneath the yew tree. Then there was the terrace where a great host of flowers shone and from this two paths went down, one on each side of the garden.

Sometimes a flame-colored, sentless rose would hold her arrested.

Then she wondered over over the white rose, that was greenish, like ice, in the centre. So slowly, like a white, pathetic butterfly, she drifted down the path, coming at last to a tine terrace all full of roses. They seemed to fill the place, a sunny gay thong. She was shy of them, they were so many and so bright.

I know that Janine had already mentioned and dicussed some of these same passages.

Then later the warmth seems to fade after she encounters her lover.

She sat still in a frozen kind of suspence

"No," she siad, and her heart was cold, her soul kept rigid.

Janine

02-09-2008, 04:46 PM

Hehe goodnight

DM, did you notice?:lol: I did finally depart and go to bed, too late as usual. I am in need of reform!;)

Upon my further reading of the story there is one idea that I noticed and which struck me. It had first come about when I was contemplating over the phrase about the Glory roses in the begining of the story. It seems this story plays with a contrast of fire and ice, if you will.

I noticed the Glory roses part, too. It seems to stand out, being capitalized. There is definitely a contrast of fire and ice. I was trying to grasp this earlier and point it out, but not sure I was making myself clear. In Lawrence's book -"Women in Love" this contrast is very prominent and used much. It was very significant to Lawrence. In 'Man Who Loved Islands', Virgil pointed out the significance at the end when it snowed and the island was covered with snow/ice and the other island further south that epitomised the sun in the beginning. Also, in 'Sun' this contrast is used. Interesting to note here with this story, that this idea sprung up in Lawrence's mind so early on in his life and career. If I figured this correctly he would have only been about 21 when he began writing this story; true it was re-written and refined later on, so who really knows unless we were to read his original manuscripts.

In my reading, and trying to understand the signifigance of that line, I noticed that the roses are often associated with fire, or the sun in some way, but that near the end of her visit to the garden, the imagery becomes colder, particuarly after she encounters her lover.

DM, that is a good observation. Yes, it does seem to be so as the story progresses.

I will post some passages and underline the key words.

Virgil taught me that method and it really does give one more insight. Things seem to stand out suddenly, like a revelation. I know it is a bit of dissecting but it really makes Lawrence's imagery more clear to me and the symbolism behind it.

I know that Janine had already mentioned and dicussed some of these same passages.

I did and underlined the words I though to be significant. I was trying to look at the different elements, but good, that you have taken that one step further.

Then later the warmth seems to fade after she encounters her lover.

It seems that it does with the passages you have quoted and it seems to have been hinted at earlier with the rose she pondered over with the green icy center. Interesting, isnt' it, the way this all develops and progresses? It is as though Lawrence is 'painting' a vivid story for us. He was as much a painter of words in my opinion. This is very lush in description and very meaningful at the same time.

Virgil

02-09-2008, 07:57 PM

Geez, I might have to read this story a 4th time. You two sure are reading a lot into the story. like now Virgil is seeing the woman 'busty';) ...I am dying laughing..:lol:

:lol: :lol: I just got that image in my head. Wasn't Frieda sort of larger than Lawrence, and wasn't she busty? :p

Virgil,I looked up the timeline and here is what I discovered:

Lawrence would have been 23 in 1908, but if this was early in the year he would have been a mere 22 yrs old.

Then I found these later references in 1913, 6 yrs later, Lawrence would now be 27 in July, turn 28 in September:

[B]

Around this same time, I noted that he also submitted manuscripts for two of the stories we presently discussed:
'The White Stocking' and 'The Shades of Spring'

Then I found this entry:

Then he lists them...
these are the ones we already have discussed:
Thanks Janine. That is helpful. He's relatively young, and it was written prior to The Rainbow but after Sons and Lovers.

Dark Muse

02-09-2008, 08:58 PM

It seems that it does with the passages you have quoted and it seems to have been hinted at earlier with the rose she pondered over with the green icy center. Interesting, isnt' it, the way this all develops and progresses? It is as though Lawrence is 'painting' a vivid story for us. He was as much a painter of words in my opinion. This is very lush in description and very meaningful at the same time.

Yes indeed it is quite interesting. At this moment I do not have much time to offer much more of intelligence.

Janine

02-10-2008, 01:20 AM

:lol: :lol: I just got that image in my head. Wasn't Frieda sort of larger than Lawrence, and wasn't she busty? :p

I was wondering how you were conjuring up this wild image. Here I thought you had been spending too much time in that 'leg' thread.;) :lol:
Yes, that would describe her I believe although she didn't look so robust when she was younger. She looked more delicate and pretty then. Boy, did they both change.

Thanks Janine. That is helpful. He's relatively young, and it was written prior to The Rainbow but after Sons and Lovers.

Yeah, those books are just great, but I have to do all the work!;) It took me quite a while to look all this up and to type it all out. It is true the story was begun, when he was young, but God knows how many times Lawrence rewrote it. He was known for that. It did seem prominent at the time he was writing "The Rainbow". I don't think that was right before he went to Australia, so I was way off on that assumption. Everyone please forgive me - I make mistakes on the biography, now and then. Good to be able to look all this up in the 'Calender of Events' book.

Janine

02-10-2008, 01:22 AM

Yes indeed it is quite interesting. At this moment I do not have much time to offer much more of intelligence.

DM, that is ok, take a break; you posted much and I am sure your brain is aching. Mine is too, and I need to catch up on emails.

Hira

02-10-2008, 11:15 AM

Wow, so many posts to catch up on. I've read only a bit though.

Thanks - this site is wonderful. I love this part of England. The photos are so beautiful and evoke the feeling I get from some of Lawrence's writings by the seaside.

Hira, this may answer your question. I found this online today.

You can find the rest of the article here: http://literaryculture.suite101.com/article.cfm/dh_lawrence_cornwall_1916
It is quite interesting and revealing.

Thanks for that! I found that very informative.

I particularly love the line refering to the fondling of a child's hand. That is lovely and so heartfelt an image, one that does indeed transport a person back to their past and their own childhood.

I love that too, her savouring the past, can almost feel the soft velvety petals.

Yes I found that imagery to be interesting, the way in which the roses are descirbed making her almost seem a stanger at a party. It could perhaps be becasue she is likely not the same person she was when she first lived there, as a place always seems strange when a person returns after being away, as they would usually be older and have had difference exeprinces in thier life sense thier first parting of the place.

And it does state later on that "She was not herself"

I do agree with what you say about her not being the same person, and it is as if the roses are relating the story of those past years.

This to me seemed a bit contridictory, considering the uncertaintiy of his situation and the fact that he did not seem confidant in his marraige or his wife's feelings for him, as several times he refers to his concerns that she was unaware of him or ignoring him.

Yes, I could not make sense of it either. It is perhaps the use of contradictions which Janine talked of earlier, and related to the Tree of Hell and the crooked tree in the next paragraph. Self-commiseration, self-suppression mingled with a self-appreciation.

I found this online in E-Notes, I believe; if you notice there are different stages of development in Lawrence's short stories. The last story we discussed was quite different, since it belonged to the last stage of short stories; but according to this online criticism, this story "Shadow in the Rose Garden" belongs to his second stage of short stories (still early); I underlined that reference:

Thank you for that. Its is very helpful.

You're suspicious of the roses? They seemed like they made her genuinely happy, though they do destabilize her marriage. I think they're more representative of her past relationship than her present one, too. She has a rather idealized notion of her previous lover, and her entrance into this flower-strewn garden reads like a fond reminiscence of a time of when her romantic desires weren't blocked by a mediocre husband. The actual appearance of the former lover ruins it, though: just a little too real for her. This leads me to think her thoughts in the garden are half memory and half fantasy. The tension between the two pushed her toward that divided sensation she feels towards the end of the episode. ("It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think and feel"). You could say that the flowers are part of her problem, but I don't know if you could claim they're hollow and not real. They seem pretty genuine.

I like what you say about it being half-fantasy and half-memory. And as Janine said about how the dead are idealized, how they have their harsh edges smoothed out.

Well my opinion of the woman being what it is, the way I interpted the roses, were reflecting her own shallowness. Not to say the roses were not real, but they are an expression of the fact that her beuaty is only extneral. For she did not to me appear to have much attraction behind her apperance. As the roses are only pretty to look at and to veiw them might bring one joy, but other than that they do not offer much more.

Perhaps its not so much as shallowness of her character but her inability to come out of it, you know there is the red of the roses, the beauty of it, yet there is no point in lingering over them because they have no beauty internally, scentless.

I didn't think badly of either characters, throughout this story. I merely tried to understand them and their relationship and the way they reacted to each other at this particular time. One doesn't know how they act or react to each other on a daily basis. Lawrence usually writes in this manner with some questions at the end of a story, open for our own interpretation, so I did not think it any different of this, than other stories he had written. I can't see that Lawrence would judge either person harshly. In "Sons and Lovers" his father could be a true brut at times, and yet he found times in the book to show his side and lend sympathy to the very human qualities of his character and what made him as he was. I always see this balance in Lawrence's writing, so I could not feel any different about these two very 'human' characters, who I know little about, on a personal level.

Yes, he makes the reader sympathize or see a bit of the other tender side of Morel too. Very human characters, I agree.

Hi Dark Muse, sorry about that, I didn't see you there until I posted just now - we must have posted same time, althought this has taken me awhile to write. My brain is aching. Yes, I agree with what you just posted and this is a excellent idea/thought, also:

Quote by Dark Muse:

I noticed that people in this story view others or themselves within frames - such as mirrors, windows, arches, doorways, etc.

The husband viewing his own image:

I picture the black fly against the pure white dress, another fine contrast. A moment before the woman was referred to as a 'white butterfly' and now another winged insect is used to show the forshadowing...interesting....

I think that was a brilliant post, the one about the colours and the doorways and the windows.

I read those paragraphs keeping in mind what you said about the doorways. And I loved them. How her memories gleam in her mind, how they come to life as she approaches the garden.

Dark Muse

02-10-2008, 12:42 PM

Perhaps its not so much as shallowness of her character but her inability to come out of it, you know there is the red of the roses, the beauty of it, yet there is no point in lingering over them because they have no beauty internally, scentless.

That is a good observation

Janine

02-10-2008, 04:24 PM

Wow, so many posts to catch up on. I've read only a bit though.

Yeah, we have sure been busy! Take your time reading them....I think DM and I need a bit of a break...;)

Wow, Hira - what a long thoughful post you wrote. Glad to read it!:thumbs_up

Thanks for that! I found that very informative.

Hira, so glad that helped you. I love doing research and I love to share the information I do find. I just wish I could have found more direct references to this particular story online and in my reference books.

I love that too, her savouring the past, can almost feel the soft velvety petals.

Yes, I adored that line...it transports one back to one's own past and therefore, I felt more drawn into the story; it felt more personal to me. With this one line, a certain 'nostalgia' for the past is established.

I do agree with what you say about her not being the same person, and it is as if the roses are relating the story of those past years.

I think we all change, from time to time, or develop or modify our behavior, that we once had. She may just be in a stage now, with her husband, where they are quite at odds and not as they had been, but grown some appart. As they say with married couples, they can fall 'in and out of love', from time to time. I believe that is true. I think when she encounters the ex-lover also, she is not the person she was when, she knew him. Time has passed since then, and she must have changed greatly. Not only is he altered, but in a sense this mirrors the fact that she also is altered. To step back into that dream of the past, is totally unreal - a fantasy. She cannot exist there long, as the roses in bloom will not exist past that season of blooming. I liked and agree with what Dark Muse said about her changing, and combined with what you say about 'the roses are relating the story of those past years'....that is a truly interesting thought; they seem to be talking and also painting her past remembrances.

Yes, I could not make sense of it either. It is perhaps the use of contradictions which Janine talked of earlier, and related to the Tree of Hell and the crooked tree in the next paragraph. Self-commiseration, self-suppression mingled with a self-appreciation.

Hira, in the story was it called 'The Tree of Heaven'? But actually, in the definition online it was then known as 'The Tree of Hell', right? If so, another duality or contrast or contradiction is set up early in the story. Could this be mimicking the way the man views himself or we view him in that first paragraph?

Thank you for that. Its is very helpful.

Glad again this aided you and your understanding of Lawrence.

I like what you say about it being half-fantasy and half-memory. And as Janine said about how the dead are idealized, how they have their harsh edges smoothed out.

Quark's post (which you quoted) is so true and observant. You worded that so well, Quark.:thumbs_up I agree with it and the 'half-fantasy, half memory' part especially. Although, the roses and the garden are real, the world of memory is no longer real - only in ones mind. Therefore, when the real world encrouches on the make-believe 'perfect' world, all comes tumbling down in an instant...that membrane within her is torn.

I thought of dead heros and presidents who have been assasinated, when I wrote that part about being 'idealised'. These are more extreme examples, but think of it...how suddenly any flaws they might have had in life, now seem to fall by the wayside...they become 'perfected' in our eyes and minds, by their deaths.

Perhaps its not so much as shallowness of her character but her inability to come out of it, you know there is the red of the roses, the beauty of it, yet there is no point in lingering over them because they have no beauty internally, scentless.

Good point. Also, the roses will fade away or die, but only the blossoms, not the bushes; this seems to symbolise the sense of 'reality' to me' - how 'reality' would encompass all seasons, not just spring and blossoms. This memory she has harboured all these years, is like the rose blooms that will fade in time.

Yes, he makes the reader sympathize or see a bit of the other tender side of Morel too. Very human characters, I agree.

He does do that, from time to time, referring to Morel (the father) in "Sons and Lovers". All of Lawrence's work, as I can see from my reading, seems to show this duality and this searching or struggling for balance. In "Sons and Lovers" Lawrence later admitted he was too harsh to Morel, who does represent his father. It was obvious to his own father, when he read the book, that he was the model and I think he must have felt hurt. Lawrence felt badly about this fact, because even though in that early novel he (represented by Paul) had this unusual closeness to his mother, later on he more fully explores this closeness to woman and this breach between the sexes, so that in some sense Lawrence at times takes a stronger stance against the mother or the woman. In my opinion from further reading, he fluctuates back and forth at times, sometimes favouring the woman and sometimes favouring the man. All of this contrast and friction between sexes, was born from his own parents and their opposite personalities and social differences, and his environment and growing up in this kind of situtation.

I think that was a brilliant post, the one about the colours and the doorways and the windows.

Thanks so much. It took me forever to research and write, so I really appreciate that you read it and found more insight into the story from my post.

I read those paragraphs keeping in mind what you said about the doorways. And I loved them. How her memories gleam in her mind, how they come to life as she approaches the garden.

Yes, and Dark Muse also quoted the glowing doorway part into the garden. That really stood out for both of us. The light is so amazing as we would imagine it, truly luminous and inviting - drawing one into the garden.

Dark Muse

02-10-2008, 04:58 PM

I think we all change, from time to time, or develop or modify our behavior, that we once had. She may just be in a stage now, with her husband, where they are quite at odds and not as they had been, but grown some appart. As they say with married couples, they can fall 'in and out of love', from time to time. I believe that is true. I think when she encounters the ex-lover also, she is not the person she was when, she knew him. Time has passed since then, and she must have changed greatly. Not only is he altered, but in a sense this mirrors the fact that she also is altered. To step back into that dream of the past, is totally unreal - a fantasy. She cannot exist there long, as the roses in bloom will not exist past that season of blooming. I liked and agree with what Dark Muse said about her changing, and combined with what you say about 'the roses are relating the story of those past years'....that is a truly interesting thought; they seem to be talking and also painting her past remembrances.

I have also noticed how the woman seems to change within the story itself. This idea came to me in my discussion of the fire and ice imagery, as the woman herself seems to displacy such tendencies.

Though from the very begining there can be felt tension between the husband and wife, the way in which he is always worried that she is ignorning him or unaware of him, and how she keeps him waiting, and is always distracted by her own thoughts, and then sends him away when she wants to go off on her own in stead of spend her time with him.

But even so, there still seems to be some warmth within her at the start of the story.

There is the scene in which it says she leaned against his arm, while they were walking together, and they had exchanged some smiles and laughter between thesmevles while they sat eating together.

But at the end, she has completely changed, and becomes cold to him. When they sat down to have dinner together, this time she would not eat with him, but rather did not touch her food. While they both convserved and ate breakast together, during dinner is says:

She could neither eat nor talk during the meal.

Janine

02-10-2008, 05:14 PM

I have also noticed how the woman seems to change within the story itself. This idea came to me in my discussion of the fire and ice imagery, as the woman herself seems to displacy such tendencies.

Though from the very begining there can be felt tension between the husband and wife, the way in which he is always worried that she is ignorning him or unaware of him, and how she keeps him waiting, and is always distracted by her own thoughts, and then sends him away when she wants to go off on her own in stead of spend her time with him.

I think the tension is evident from the beginning, also. To be honest with you, I felt he fretted some about the time and his waiting for her, later she says to him that they planned on meeting for breakfast at 9 (I believe it was 9); then he says she knows (assuming this) that he always rises early and can't sleep past a certain time. Still they had set a time and now he is annoyed; he seems peevish to me and a little clinging of her, possesive. I think he seemed to be 'insecure', if she did not give him her full attention. He interprets that as being ignored or being neglected. I think this clinging makes her want to send him away, from her, for a time - a sort of breather. Someone suggested they both were acting childish and I think this is true to some extend. I think he is pushing full togetherness and she is wanting some time to herself without having to cater to his whims.

But even so, there still seems to be some warmth within her at the start of the story.

There is the scene in which it says she leaned against his arm, while they were walking together, and they had exchanged some smiles and laughter between thesmevles while they sat eating together.

Yes, I think that one part, with the couple walking arm in arm, does show this subtle tenderness in the woman towards her husband and he towards her.

But at the end, she has completely changed, and becomes cold to him. When they sat down to have dinner together, this time she would not eat with him, but rather did not touch her food. While they both convserved and ate breakast together, during dinner is says:

Well, I think this is just a window into a brief time in their lives. Both are in shock and so she clams up and cannot speak. What can she really say to him at this point. His confusion is shutting her out and her broken dream is shutting him out. As these fade and they will eventually things will again change between them and they will be able to talk. Human relationships are very complicated and one does not always act according to logic. I think that many times in Lawrence's works he displays this fact. As the end said it will work it's self out. Who knows what is to come for this couple. I think they need a session with Dr. Phil. :lol:

Dark Muse

02-10-2008, 08:47 PM

I think the tension is evident from the beginning, also. To be honest with you, I felt he fretted some about the time and his waiting for her, later she says to him that they planned on meeting for breakfast at 9 (I believe it was 9); then he says she knows (assuming this) that he always rises early and can't sleep past a certain time. Still they had set a time and now he is annoyed; he seems peevish to me and a little clinging of her, possesive. I think he seemed to be 'insecure', if she did not give him her full attention. He interprets that as being ignored or being neglected. I think this clinging makes her want to send him away, from her, for a time - a sort of breather. Someone suggested they both were acting childish and I think this is true to some extend. I think he is pushing full togetherness and she is wanting some time to herself without having to cater to his whims.

I did not really get the feeling of clinginess from the husband, but than my sympathy was always drawn more to his side. But it seems as if he had good cause to be insecure. To me it seemed more as if he was a man that loved a woman whom showed little interest or affection for him and that she meerely tolerated him, and that he simply wished she would show some wanting to spend sometime with him.

later she says to him that they planned on meeting for breakfast at 9 (I believe it was 9); then he says she knows (assuming this) that he always rises early and can't sleep past a certain time. Still they had set a time and now he is annoyed

To me this is telling, as if they have been married, they should know each others patterns, and she should know that he does indeed rise early, and even if they had made a set time to meet married couples need not have acutal appointmetns with each other and it seems she was intentionally keeping him waiting when she knew he would already be up and she could have gone done to see him before the agreed time.

And to the end the fact that the story often referes to his "surpressed anger" and saying he always gave way to her, suggests that she has a history of being inconsiderate toward him and so perhaps his being annoyed is well grounded, as this was not just a one time thing, but often she pays him little heed.

Virgil

02-10-2008, 11:27 PM

Hey I can't keep up with you guys. How about we do this. There are three critical scenes in the story: a) The woman alone in the rose garden, b) when she meets her old lover, and c) when she and her husband confront each other. Let's look at one at a time. If you've made points on them, you might want to rebring them up. Let's start with the first one. Here's the scene:

She went forward, forgetting the gardener in a moment. Her face became strained, her movements eager. Glancing round, she saw all the windows giving on to the lawn were curtainless and dark. The house had a sterile appearance, as if it were still used, but not inhabited. A shadow seemed to go over her. She went across the lawn towards the garden, through an arch of crimson ramblers, a gate of colour. There beyond lay the soft blue sea with the bay, misty with morning, and the farthest headland of black rock jutting dimly out between blue and blue of the sky and water. Her face began to shine, transfigured with pain and joy. At her feet the garden fell steeply, all a confusion of flowers, and away below was the darkness of tree-tops covering the beck.

She turned to the garden that shone with sunny flowers around her. She knew the little corner where was the seat beneath the yew tree. Then there was the terrace where a great host of flowers shone, and from this, two paths went down, one at each side of the garden. She closed her sunshade and walked slowly among the many flowers. All round were rose bushes, big banks of roses, then roses hanging and tumbling from pillars, or roses balanced on the standard bushes. By the open earth were many other flowers. If she lifted her head, the sea was upraised beyond, and the Cape.

Slowly she went down one path, lingering, like one who has gone back into the past. Suddenly she was touching some heavy crimson roses that were soft as velvet, touching them thoughtfully, without knowing, as a mother sometimes fondles the hand of her child. She leaned slightly forward to catch the scent. Then she wandered on in abstraction. Sometimes a flame-coloured, scentless rose would hold her arrested. She stood gazing at it as if she could not understand it. Again the same softness of intimacy came over her, as she stood before a tumbling heap of pink petals. Then she wondered over the white rose, that was greenish, like ice, in the centre. So, slowly, like a white, pathetic butterfly, she drifted down the path, coming at last to a tiny terrace all full of roses. They seemed to fill the place, a sunny, gay throng. She was shy of them, they were so many and so bright. They seemed to be conversing and laughing. She felt herself in a strange crowd. It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself. She flushed with excitement. The air was pure scent.

Hastily, she went to a little seat among the white roses, and sat down. Her scarlet sunshade made a hard blot of colour. She sat quite still, feeling her own existence lapse. She was no more than a rose, a rose that could not quite come into blossom, but remained tense. A little fly dropped on her knee, on her white dress. She watched it, as if it had fallen on a rose. She was not herself.

In that first paragragh, we see that a shadow goes over her. The past is coming up on her. We then come to this key sentence: "Her face began to shine, transfigured with pain and joy." Whenever we come to the word "transfigured" in a Lawrence story, we should always pause. This is definitely an early Lawrence work. First, there is no religious connotation to the transguration. It's not the same as a later Lawrence work. Also, the more experienced Lawrence would have saved the word for the peak of the experience, at the height of the emotion. Here it comes in the first paragragh of this little scene.

Lovely is the profusion of roses that Lawrence gives the garden. Roses all over. Crimson is mentioned, red, white, pink. To be honest i can't decipher the significance of the colors, although it does feel like Lawrence is suggesting something.

Then the key section. Notice this from the third paragragh:

Then she wandered on in abstraction. Sometimes a flame-coloured, scentless rose would hold her arrested. She stood gazing at it as if she could not understand it. Again the same softness of intimacy came over her, as she stood before a tumbling heap of pink petals. Then she wondered over the white rose, that was greenish, like ice, in the centre. So, slowly, like a white, pathetic butterfly, she drifted down the path, coming at last to a tiny terrace all full of roses. They seemed to fill the place, a sunny, gay throng. She was shy of them, they were so many and so bright. They seemed to be conversing and laughing. She felt herself in a strange crowd. It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself. She flushed with excitement. The air was pure scent.
She is in "abstraction." The roses become personified, "conversing and laughing," they created a "crowd." And then "It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself." The abstraction and the carrying her out of herself is what Lawrence calls a loss of ego, her self. The experience is intensified with the personified roses, as if she's in a drugged state. She is living in a state when she felt the most intense, when life was passionate, that past with her lover. Roses are a symbol of idealism. She has idealized the past. there isn't even a mention of the lover here, just the rose that he is symbolized by and rose that she is symbolized by. They are not real people, they are just symbols in her mind. And then we get the last paragragh:

Hastily, she went to a little seat among the white roses, and sat down. Her scarlet sunshade made a hard blot of colour. She sat quite still, feeling her own existence lapse. She was no more than a rose, a rose that could not quite come into blossom, but remained tense. A little fly dropped on her knee, on her white dress. She watched it, as if it had fallen on a rose. She was not herself.
Remember I've said that Lawrence's ideal life is that of a flower. That is what he imagines our souls to be if we are lucky enough to be transfigured. He says here, "She was no more than a rose." But, and this is a big but, "a rose that could not quite come into blossom, but remained tense." She is human. The real world still exists. Real life has to undercut (hehe, sorry about the rose metaphor of cutting ;) ) her idealism.

Let's discuss this for a bit, and then we'll move to the next important scene.

Janine

02-11-2008, 12:33 AM

Hey I can't keep up with you guys. How about we do this. There are three critical scenes in the story: a) The woman alone in the rose garden, b) when she meets her old lover, and c) when she and her husband confront each other. Let's look at one at a time. If you've made points on them, you might want to rebring them up. Let's start with the first one. Here's the scene:

I know - we are fast! ;) But glad you are back here now with us. I like the way you broke that down in three sections or critical scenes. Some of what you say next we have discussed but you put your own wording and ideas into it, to expand the ideas, so this is good which follows:

In that first paragragh, we see that a shadow goes over her. The past is coming up on her. We then come to this key sentence: "Her face began to shine, transfigured with pain and joy." Whenever we come to the word "transfigured" in a Lawrence story, we should always pause. This is definitely an early Lawrence work. First, there is no religious connotation to the transguration. It's not the same as a later Lawrence work. Also, the more experienced Lawrence would have saved the word for the peak of the experience, at the height of the emotion. Here it comes in the first paragragh of this little scene.

Virgil, we discussed the 'shadow that goes over her' as a foreshadowing device, but I like the way you term it her 'past'. That is good, the actual shadow is personifying, or representing, her past. I was hoping you would comment on the use of the word 'transfigured' in this particular part of the story - you are right, it is used differently than in Lawrence's later works and it is used prematurely to the real climax of this story. Also, there doesn't seem to be any religious connotation to it, so it did make me wonder, although do you realise that she is in the rector's garden? Why do you suppose L chose the rector's garden, as the location of this garden?

Lovely is the profusion of roses that Lawrence gives the garden. Roses all over. Crimson is mentioned, red, white, pink. To be honest i can't decipher the significance of the colors, although it does feel like Lawrence is suggesting something.

Absolutely - like a poem of flowers. I do think the colors and the various types of roses have significance, but I don't fully have that part figured out, but I did give some opinions on that earlier and so did Dark Muse and Hira.

Then the key section. Notice this from the third paragragh:

She is in "abstraction." The roses become personified, "conversing and laughing," they created a "crowd." And then "It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself." The abstraction and the carrying her out of herself is what Lawrence calls a loss of ego, her self. The experience is intensified with the personified roses, as if she's in a drugged state. She is living in a state when she felt the most intense, when life was passionate, that past with her lover. Roses are a symbol of idealism. She has idealized the past. there isn't even a mention of the lover here, just the rose that he is symbolized by and rose that she is symbolized by. They are not real people, they are just symbols in her mind. And then we get the last paragragh:

Glad to see you further expound on this word "abstraction". I had wondered about that too, and now you made it more clear to me, just what Lawrence is implying or getting at here. I like the idea, of her being outside her own consciousness and in a drugged state, also the intensity of the roses and the atmosphere in the garden - so dreamlike. "She is living in a state when she felt the most intense, when life was passionate, that past with her lover. Roses are a symbol of idealism. She has idealized the past." This is perfect! I did state before, that she had idealised her ex-lover, now that he had died or so she thought him deceased. This is good that she actually idealized her past. I like the comparison of the intensity of the roses to the intensity she once felt in a passionate love relationship. The 'symbols in mind' part is good, too and true as well and directly relate also to the roses. There is a heightened sense of 'awareness' when she is in the garden, whereas apathy seemed to be her prior state, in everyday life.

Remember I've said that Lawrence's ideal life is that of a flower. That is what he imagines our souls to be if we are lucky enough to be transfigured. He says here, "She was no more than a rose." But, and this is a big but, "a rose that could not quite come into blossom, but remained tense." She is human. The real world still exists. Real life has to undercut (hehe, sorry about the rose metaphor of cutting ;) ) her idealism.

I thought of other posts in other stories when you talked about the flower concept. Glad you cleared this up for us. This makes more sense now the way in which you have worded it.

Let's discuss this for a bit, and then we'll move to the next important scene.

Ok - great - fine with me. Good job on this post, V! :thumbs_up

Dark Muse

02-11-2008, 12:44 AM

In that first paragragh, we see that a shadow goes over her. The past is coming up on her. We then come to this key sentence: "Her face began to shine, transfigured with pain and joy." Whenever we come to the word "transfigured" in a Lawrence story, we should always pause. This is definitely an early Lawrence work. First, there is no religious connotation to the transguration. It's not the same as a later Lawrence work. Also, the more experienced Lawrence would have saved the word for the peak of the experience, at the height of the emotion. Here it comes in the first paragragh of this little scene.

I really like your discussion of the use of the transfiguration here as well as the information provided about Lawrence's use of it. I would agree that the way the idea of transfiguration is used in this story, feels very human, and does not carry any religious connotation behind it. Nice pointing that out.

She is in "abstraction." The roses become personified, "conversing and laughing," they created a "crowd." And then "It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself." The abstraction and the carrying her out of herself is what Lawrence calls a loss of ego, her self. The experience is intensified with the personified roses, as if she's in a drugged state. She is living in a state when she felt the most intense, when life was passionate, that past with her lover. Roses are a symbol of idealism. She has idealized the past. there isn't even a mention of the lover here, just the rose that he is symbolized by and rose that she is symbolized by. They are not real people, they are just symbols in her mind..

I really like the point you made, and the observation about Lawerence's idea of ego, and how it is used in this story, considering the ways in which this concept was discussed in the previous story.

Also, in a way, the way in which the roses are talked about, could almost make them as if they were ghostly aperaitions of people she had once known in the past. The way she refers to them as being a "strange crowd" and makes them seem almost alive here. For she has no real desire to meet with the physical beings of the people she once knew, it is as if the roses represent what she remebers of those people, but they would seem strange to her, sense they are as you mentioned only creations of her own mind, and not the acutal people.

Quark

02-11-2008, 12:59 AM

she had a "fine carriage" which I take as busty and larger.

That's Too funny. You must think most women in 18th century fiction had big jugs. I would think that being large chested might actually make it difficult to have a "fine carriage". Their balance would be thrown off, wouldn't it?

Upon my further reading of the story there is one idea that I noticed and which struck me. It had first come about when I was contemplating over the phrase about the Glory roses in the begining of the story. It seems this story plays with a contrast of fire and ice, if you will.

In my reading, and trying to understand the signifigance of that line, I noticed that the roses are often associated with fire, or the sun in some way, but that near the end of her visit to the garden, the imagery becomes colder, particuarly after she encounters her lover.

Then later the warmth seems to fade after she encounters her lover.

Lovely is the profusion of roses that Lawrence gives the garden. Roses all over. Crimson is mentioned, red, white, pink. To be honest i can't decipher the significance of the colors, although it does feel like Lawrence is suggesting something.

Then the key section. Notice this from the third paragragh:

She is in "abstraction." The roses become personified, "conversing and laughing," they created a "crowd." And then "It exhilarated her, carried her out of herself." The abstraction and the carrying her out of herself is what Lawrence calls a loss of ego, her self. The experience is intensified with the personified roses, as if she's in a drugged state. She is living in a state when she felt the most intense, when life was passionate, that past with her lover. Roses are a symbol of idealism. She has idealized the past. there isn't even a mention of the lover here, just the rose that he is symbolized by and rose that she is symbolized by. They are not real people, they are just symbols in her mind. And then we get the last paragragh:

Yeah, I think this is right. Fire, red, and crimson are all brought up in the story. I think they point to the ideal passion and romance that she wished she had. We get these words most in the garden before either of her lovers arrive. The garden is her idealized world, and those words are often linked to passionate love. I don't think it's too far-fetched to make the connection.

Although, the roses and the garden are real, the world of memory is no longer real - only in ones mind. Therefore, when the real world encrouches on the make-believe 'perfect' world, all comes tumbling down in an instant...that membrane within her is torn.

I thought of dead heros and presidents who have been assasinated, when I wrote that part about being 'idealised'. These are more extreme examples, but think of it...how suddenly any flaws they might have had in life, now seem to fall by the wayside...they become 'perfected' in our eyes and minds, by their deaths.

I think she does idealize her former lover toward the end of the story, but I think she does so by mistake. It seems like she's making him the fixed symbol of her most abstract desire for romance.

Janine

02-11-2008, 01:40 AM

Well, Virgil, now you have to backtrack - you got several responses to your fine post! I am off to bed now - really tired tonight....fading fast....

Virgil

02-11-2008, 08:00 AM

That's Too funny. You must think most women in 18th century fiction had big jugs. I would think that being large chested might actually make it difficult to have a "fine carriage". Their balance would be thrown off, wouldn't it?

:lol: :lol: I guess. What does it mean to have a "fine carriage?" That made me laugh Quark.

Quark

02-11-2008, 10:55 AM

:lol: :lol: I guess. What does it mean to have a "fine carriage?" That made me laugh Quark.

I think Lawrence meant that she moved in a beautiful or dignified way. A person's carriage is similar to their bearing or posture. I suppose if you wanted to very subtly and indirectly talk about a woman's large breasts you could compliment her carriage, but, still, I don't think it would make much sense.

Virgil

02-11-2008, 11:16 AM

I think Lawrence meant that she moved in a beautiful or dignified way. A person's carriage is similar to their bearing or posture. I suppose if you wanted to very subtly and indirectly talk about a woman's large breasts you could compliment her carriage, but, still, I don't think it would make much sense.

I guess all these years I've misunderstood when a writer referred to a woman's carriage. And why is it with woman the word is used, or have you seen it used for men? I guess I jumped to the conclusion as to what the women are carrying. :lol:

Quark

02-11-2008, 12:16 PM

I guess I jumped to the conclusion as to what the women are carrying. :lol:

Ha!

I guess all these years I've misunderstood when a writer referred to a woman's carriage. And why is it with woman the word is used, or have you seen it used for men?

I'm not actually sure whether the term is applied to men. (Someone help me out here). All the examples I can think of are when the term is applied to a female figure. My inner-feminists wants to say that this is because the usage come about when women were only considered to be something pretty: they're referred to as spirits, angels, fairies--anything but human. The Russians even posed the "woman question": "are women even of the same species as men?". I suppose it follows that a woman's carriage would be more important than a man's.

I really like your discussion of the use of the transfiguration here as well as the information provided about Lawrence's use of it. I would agree that the way the idea of transfiguration is used in this story, feels very human, and does not carry any religious connotation behind it. Nice pointing that out.

Could someone say a little more about this? I understand the abstract quality of her experience in the garden, but I have a hard time filling in the actual details of what happens to her. The garden becomes this almost Keatsian bower where desire is idealized and it's gratification is intensified. But it's a little unclear how this vision changes her. What does it mean when Lawrence says she was "transfigured by pain and joy"?

Dark Muse

02-11-2008, 01:17 PM

Could someone say a little more about this? I understand the abstract quality of her experience in the garden, but I have a hard time filling in the actual details of what happens to her. The garden becomes this almost Keatsian bower where desire is idealized and it's gratification is intensified. But it's a little unclear how this vision changes her. What does it mean when Lawrence says she was "transfigured by pain and joy"?

I think her entering into the garden, is symbolic, of her stepping back into her past in a way. And so it is as if for that moment in time she steps out of reality and steps into this "new world" or fantasy/dream world, as it makes references to her not being herself during her time within the garden.

I think transfigured by pain and joy refers to her memorries which are somewhat bittersweelt. For it was her frist true and real love, but it brought her pain becasue he left her, and then she leaned of what she thought was his death.

I think in someways, her discovering that her lover was still alive, be afflecited as her was, finailaized the fact that she never really could go back to the past, though she beleived he was dead, she could still invision or dream of what her life would be like with him, she still had something she could hold onto, but then when she finds him alive, but insane, it shatters the dream and she finally understands that there is no returning back to what once had been, and she must face reality.

Her vision of the past is ruined by this confrintation and her memory of her lover may now forever be tainted by the truth she discovered.

Hira

02-11-2008, 01:52 PM

You guys post so fast! Wonderful posts, understanding the story more, just reading though at the moment. I am sure I am gonna come tomorrow to see two more pages filled up.

Virgil

02-11-2008, 02:02 PM

I'm not actually sure whether the term is applied to men. (Someone help me out here). All the examples I can think of are when the term is applied to a female figure. My inner-feminists wants to say that this is because the usage come about when women were only considered to be something pretty: they're referred to as spirits, angels, fairies--anything but human. The Russians even posed the "woman question": "are women even of the same species as men?". I suppose it follows that a woman's carriage would be more important than a man's.

See it does refer to her chest. :p

Could someone say a little more about this? I understand the abstract quality of her experience in the garden, but I have a hard time filling in the actual details of what happens to her. The garden becomes this almost Keatsian bower where desire is idealized and it's gratification is intensified. But it's a little unclear how this vision changes her. What does it mean when Lawrence says she was "transfigured by pain and joy"?
I think D-M does a good job below:

I think her entering into the garden, is symbolic, of her stepping back into her past in a way. And so it is as if for that moment in time she steps out of reality and steps into this "new world" or fantasy/dream world, as it makes references to her not being herself during her time within the garden.

I think transfigured by pain and joy refers to her memorries which are somewhat bittersweelt. For it was her frist true and real love, but it brought her pain becasue he left her, and then she leaned of what she thought was his death.

Lawrence would later go on to use the word in a religious sense. Christ is transfigured. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus. But so does Moses and St. Francis, and even from other religions. Spiritual figures go through an experience so intense that they physically change, or at least we're told. I did my master's thesis on how Lawrence uses this type of transfiguration in some of his work. I do not believe that the woman in this story is having a religious experience. You can see that the word is on lawrence's mind, though. He doesn't start using the word in its religious connotation until his later fiction.

Janine

02-11-2008, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Quark

I'm not actually sure whether the term is applied to men. (Someone help me out here). All the examples I can think of are when the term is applied to a female figure. My inner-feminists wants to say that this is because the usage come about when women were only considered to be something pretty: they're referred to as spirits, angels, fairies--anything but human. The Russians even posed the "woman question": "are women even of the same species as men?". I suppose it follows that a woman's carriage would be more important than a man's.

Now there is a post that will win points with women!

Quote by Virgil

See it does refer to her chest.

You guys are hilarious!

Virgil

02-11-2008, 09:50 PM

Janine

02-11-2008, 11:12 PM

Janine, you were asking me why Lawrence sets the rose scene in a church. I can't find your post. I can't answer that. Perhaps Lawrence does want a religious connotation to come through. But if he did, I think it was unsuccessful. Like I said I don't pick up a religious connotation in the story.

Virgil, I can't find it either. Is it a church or a parsonage (residence) near the church? I was unclear on that and why a rector's son to have been the lover, do you think? To make it appear to be a more correct or innocent relationship?

Virgil, what do you think of these last lines of the story?

He stood and looked at her. At last he had learned the width of the breach between them. She still squatted on the bed. He could not go near her. It would be violation to each of them to be brought into contact with the other. The thing must work itself out. They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other. After some minutes he left her and went out.

I had posted this and some of my own comments, opinions on this passage, earlier in post #943.

Virgil

02-11-2008, 11:33 PM

Virgil, I can't find it either. Is it a church or a parsonage (residence) near the church? I was unclear on that and why a rector's son to have been the lover, do you think? To make it appear to be a more correct or innocent relationship?

Oh I had not realized he was the rector's son. Quite interesting. I don't still know what to make of it. It seems very Hardyesk. It seems like every British novel from the 19th century has a rector or minister in it. Perhaps Lawrence was emulating.

Virgil, what do you think of these last lines of the story?

I had posted this and some of my own comments, opinions on this passage, earlier in post #943.
I'll check that post out. As to those lines, I was going to get to it. I think that was critical scene number 3 as I listed above. Tomorrow I'll get to scene number two and in another day or so we can discuss that scene. You know I hate to jump around. ;) It makes for confusing discussion. Do you think we're done with the scene with the roses?

Virgil

02-11-2008, 11:37 PM

In the Thomas Hardy story, "Tess of the D'Urbervilles", this double standard is quite evident. The man has a past and so does the woman, but when she confesses her past to him, he condemns her, even though he has admitted to his past. This story reminds me of that. Who is to say this man doesn't have a secret past of his own he has never told his wife? Who is to say he is being totally honest with her? 'Let those without guilt cast the first stone' - doesn't the Biblical quote go something like that?
Yes, it does have the same situation as Tess. I agree, only thing here Lawrence gives the woman the power instead of the man. You can see how he likes to tweak the feminists. :lol: He kind of repudiates their idea that it's always men who control and manipulate woman. He can be so anti-feminism. :D

Janine

02-12-2008, 01:23 AM

Yes, it does have the same situation as Tess. I agree, only thing here Lawrence gives the woman the power instead of the man. You can see how he likes to tweak the feminists. :lol: He kind of repudiates their idea that it's always men who control and manipulate woman. He can be so anti-feminism. :D

Virgil, come to think of it Lawrence wrote a few essays on Hardy. I will have to read it. I think I have it here...yeah, I did recently buy that book of commentary from Amazon. I will have to see his take on Tess. I know he was quite unhappy that Sue in "Jude the Obscure" went back to her legal husband, whom she had never comsumated the marriage with. Lawrence was emphatically put out about that. Yes, he could be quite feminist-tweaker, couldn't he? Perhaps he was influenced by Hardy here and thought he would write this story giving a new bend to the double standard - as you say, in favor of the woman, giving her the power. There is definitely a lot going on in this story about 'will' and I noted much said about this whole 'will' thing in the book I am now reading "Kangaroo". Not only is the book about political tension and matching of 'wills' but, also marital tensions and matching of the male and female 'wills'. Interesting, since I have been reading them at the same time.

Anyway, Virg, thanks for going back to that post and reading it. If I find the other one I will let you know which number post it is. Helpful that they are numbered. Yes, definitely, we are done discussing you designated key scene 1 of the story; so please do proceed to scene 2; I will be anxious to hear what you have to say about the next part.

Quark

02-12-2008, 07:17 PM

See it does refer to her chest. :p

It's a victory for horny guys everywhere, I'm sure

I think her entering into the garden, is symbolic, of her stepping back into her past in a way. And so it is as if for that moment in time she steps out of reality and steps into this "new world" or fantasy/dream world, as it makes references to her not being herself during her time within the garden.

I suppose if we wanted to get Pscho-Analytic about this we could say that her fantasies are located (and must be located) in the past because her id is primal and her social consciousness and self-consciousness are gained later. Often in fiction where there is idealized desire the place where that desire is gratified is placed either in the past or in a secluded area. In both cases the idea of remoteness is key. Keat's romances are a good example. In poems like "Endymion" and "Lamia" the action is placed in this unobtainable, distant past. Also, they take place in these obscure, shaded groves. "Lamia" even tells us why it has to do this:

"Upon a time, before the faery broods
Drove Nymph and Satyr from the prosperous woods,
Before King Oberon's bright diadem,
Sceptre, and mantle, clasp'd with dewy gem,
Frighted away the Dryads and the Fauns
From rushes green, and brakes, and cowslip'd lawns,
The ever-smitten Hermes empty left
His golden throne, bent warm on amorous theft:
From high Olympus had he stolen light,
On this side of Jove's clouds, to escape the sight
Of his great summoner, and made retreat
Into a forest on the shores of Crete." (1-something)

Hermes' "amorous theft" occurs in the past because soon after, apparently, Oberon kills the party. Similarly, in Lawrence's story we have a husband who chills all the romantic impulses in the main character. They both act like a superego and ego chiding an unbounded id. If you're going to have a story that idealizes romantic desire then it seems like you would have to put it in a time before that social consciousness and self-consciousness existed.

I think transfigured by pain and joy refers to her memorries which are somewhat bittersweelt. For it was her frist true and real love, but it brought her pain becasue he left her, and then she leaned of what she thought was his death.

I hadn't thought of that, actually. My thought was that the "pain and joy" just referred to strong sensations--of which pain and joy are the two poles. I had taken "transfigured" to mean simply excited or shocked. Upon closer reading, though, I think you may be right. A lot of what is in the garden point to the two-ness of the experience. There are two paths in the garden, the roses are described as both vibrant and scentless, and the view, itself, is both beautiful and ugly. She can see both the garden and the view of the Cape. While the garden is warm colored and inviting, the seaside that she sees is describes as "There beyond lay the soft blue sea with the bay, misty with morning, and the farthest headland of black rock jutting dimly out between blue and blue of the sky and water". Lawrence contrast between the two and says, "All round were rose bushes, big banks of roses, then roses hanging and tumbling from pillars, or roses balanced on the standard bushes. By the open earth were many other flowers. If she lifted her head, the sea was upraised beyond, and the Cape." While it's true that she may be shocked or excited by what she's seeing, I think it's also true that there are two separate things she's seeing. The two could represent a number of things, too. Her mixed feelings about the past, like you suggested, could be one. It also could be about her feeling toward the two men.

Virgil

02-12-2008, 10:43 PM

Ok, let's get to the second critical scene, the scene where she meets her old lover.

Then she started cruelly as a shadow crossed her and a figure moved into her sight. It was a man who had come in slippers, unheard. He wore a linen coat. The morning was shattered, the spell vanished away. She was only afraid of being questioned. He came forward. She rose. Then, seeing him, the strength went from her and she sank on the seat again.

He was a young man, military in appearance, growing slightly stout. His black hair was brushed smooth and bright, his moustache was waxed. But there was something rambling in his gait. She looked up, blanched to the lips, and saw his eyes. They were black, and stared without seeing. They were not a man's eyes. He was coming towards her.

He stared at her fixedly, made unconscious salute, and sat down beside her on the seat. He moved on the bench, shifted his feet, saying, in a gentlemanly, military voice:

"I don't disturb you--do I?"

She was mute and helpless. He was scrupulously dressed in dark clothes and a linen coat. She could not move. Seeing his hands, with the ring she knew so well upon the little finger, she felt as if she were going dazed. The whole world was deranged. She sat unavailing. For his hands, her symbols of passionate love, filled her with horror as they rested now on his strong thighs.

"May I smoke?" he asked intimately, almost secretly, his hand going to his pocket.

She could not answer, but it did not matter, he was in another world. She wondered, craving, if he recognized her--if he could recognize her. She sat pale with anguish. But she had to go through it.

"I haven't got any tobacco," he said thoughtfully.

But she paid no heed to his words, only she attended to him. Could he recognize her, or was it all gone? She sat still in a frozen kind of suspense.

"I smoke John Cotton," he said, "and I must economize with it, it is expensive. You know, I'm not very well off while these lawsuits are going on."

"No," she said, and her heart was cold, her soul kept rigid.

He moved, made a loose salute, rose, and went away. She sat motionless. She could see his shape, the shape she had loved, with all her passion: his compact, soldier's head, his fine figure now slackened. And it was not he. It only filled her with horror too difficult to know.

Suddenly he came again, his hand in his jacket pocket.

"Do you mind if I smoke?" he said. "Perhaps I shall be able to see things more clearly."

He sat down beside her again, filling a pipe. She watched his hands with the fine strong fingers. They had always inclined to tremble slightly. It had surprised her, long ago, in such a healthy man. Now they moved inaccurately, and the tobacco hung raggedly out of the pipe.

"I have legal business to attend to. Legal affairs are always so uncertain. I tell my solicitor exactly, precisely what I want, but I can never get it done."

She sat and heard him talking. But it was not he. Yet those were the hands she had kissed, there were the glistening, strange black eyes that she had loved. Yet it was not he. She sat motionless with horror and silence. He dropped his tobacco pouch, and groped for it on the ground. Yet she must wait if he would recognize her. Why could she not go! In a moment he rose.

"I must go at once," he said. "The owl is coming." Then he added confidentially: "His name isn't really the owl, but I call him that. I must go and see if he has come."

She rose too. He stood before her, uncertain. He was a handsome, soldierly fellow, and a lunatic. Her eyes searched him, and searched him, to see if he would recognize her, if she could discover him.

"You don't know me?" she asked, from the terror of her soul, standing alone.

He looked back at her quizzically. She had to bear his eyes. They gleamed on her, but with no intelligence. He was drawing nearer to her.

"Yes, I do know you," he said, fixed, intent, but mad, drawing his face nearer hers. Her horror was too great. The powerful lunatic was coming too near to her.

A man approached, hastening.

"The garden isn't open this morning," he said.

The deranged man stopped and looked at him. The keeper went to the seat and picked up the tobacco pouch left lying there.

"Don't leave your tobacco, sir," he said, taking it to the gentleman in the linen coat.

"I was just asking this lady to stay to lunch," the latter said politely. "She is a friend of mine."

The woman turned and walked swiftly, blindly, between the sunny roses, out of the garden, past the house with the blank, dark windows, through the sea-pebbled courtyard to the street. Hastening and blind, she went forward without hesitating, not knowing whither. Directly she came to the house she went upstairs, took off her hat, and sat down on the bed. It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think and feel. She sat staring across at the window, where an ivy spray waved slowly up and down in the sea wind. There was some of the uncanny luminousness of the sunlit sea in the air. She sat perfectly still, without any being. She only felt she might be sick, and it might be blood that was loose in her torn entrails. She sat perfectly still and passive.

Actually this is a fairly straight forward scene. One thing I do notice is how sexual the old lover is alluded to: "For his hands, her symbols of passionate love, filled her with horror as they rested now on his strong thighs." and "She could see his shape, the shape she had loved, with all her passion: his compact, soldier's head, his fine figure now slackened." Hands, thighs, slackened.

Another interesting thing is that both the woman and the man are living in a different world putside of reality. She was in a different world in the rose garden, the world of the past, but not just the rose garden but her life with her husband. He is in his own world ,that of insanity: "he was in another world."

The key thing though I think is the constant reference to the military. It is through the war that he is now insane. The war has caused the schism between the lovers. The war has cuased the her to ultimately marry the lesser man. This is what leads to the most powerful sentence in the scene, of not the whole story: "It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think and feel." The viloence of the war has caused her lover to be insane, caused her to fragment her life, and caused her a psychological tearing. It brings her back to reality.

Janine

02-12-2008, 11:16 PM

Ok, let's get to the second critical scene, the scene where she meets her old lover.[QUOTE]

Oh good - moving right along....

[QUOTE]Actually this is a fairly straight forward scene. One thing I do notice is how sexual the old lover is alluded to: "For his hands, her symbols of passionate love, filled her with horror as they rested now on his strong thighs." and "She could see his shape, the shape she had loved, with all her passion: his compact, soldier's head, his fine figure now slackened." Hands, thighs, slackened.

Yes, I had noticed that and thought it really interesting...and Lawrence has this thing about thighs. You guys have the breast fetish and L had the thigh fetish.:D In "Women In Love" it was when Ursula discovered Birkin's thighs she was entranced or tranfigured - wasn't it? In the current book I am reading the mention of thighs has recently cropped up again...I had to laugh when I noted it. Also, in 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter' thigh touching seems pretty prominent. Hands, I think Lawrence often mentioned. Lawrence, himself, was suppose to have lovely delicate expressive hands. I know he had beautiful handwriting. Personally, I always view a man's hands and think it says something important about him. Janine is a hand girl herself! ;) :lol:
Virgil, what do you suppose the 'slackened' stands for - impotence of the insane lover? I am not joking on this one, but quite serious.

Another interesting thing is that both the woman and the man are living in a different world putside of reality. She was in a different world in the rose garden, the world of the past, but not just the rose garden but her life with her husband. He is in his own world ,that of insanity: "he was in another world."

Good point. Reality is different things to different people.

The key thing though I think is the constant reference to the military. It is through the war that he is now insane. The war has caused the schism between the lovers. The war has cuased the her to ultimately marry the lesser man. This is what leads to the most powerful sentence in the scene, of not the whole story: "It was as if some membrane had been torn in two in her, so that she was not an entity that could think and feel." The viloence of the war has caused her lover to be insane, caused her to fragment her life, and caused her a psychological tearing. It brings her back to reality.

War would have definitely been on Lawrence's mind at this period, would it not? Usually war is not mentioned outright but Lawrence manages to show the ravages and effects of war on individuals. This was evident in "Women in Love" and war was never truly mentioned was it. I believe we did explore this idea in the book discussion group.

Now I have to address Quark's post; I chased him from the Chekhov thread, to over here, to post something brilliant for me. He will get jealous if I don't answer him.:)

Virgil

02-12-2008, 11:27 PM

Yes, I had noticed that and thought it really interesting...and Lawrence has this thing about thighs. You guys have the breast fetish and L had the thigh fetish.:D In "Women In Love" it was when Ursula discovered Birkin's thighs she was entranced or tranfigured - wasn't it? In the current book I am reading the mention of thighs has recently cropped up again...I had to laugh when I noted it. Also, in 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter' thigh touching seems pretty prominent. Hands, I think Lawrence often mentioned. Lawrence, himself, was suppose to have lovely delicate expressive hands. I know he had beautiful handwriting. Personally, I always view a man's hands and think it says something important about him. Janine is a hand girl herself! ;) :lol:
Virgil, what do you suppose the 'slackened' stands for - impotence of the insane lover? I am not joking on this one, but quite serious.

And what makes ceertain hands sexy? ;) Yes slackened for sexual inability. Boy carriage and slackened parts. This story is risque. ;)

War would have definitely been on Lawrence's mind at this period, would it not? Usually war is not mentioned outright but Lawrence manages to show the ravages and effects of war on individuals. This was evident in "Women in Love" and war was never truly mentioned was it. I believe we did explore this idea in the book discussion group.
You know something just crossed my mind. this story may have been written before the war. When was this exactly written, I'm confused?

Janine

02-12-2008, 11:41 PM

It's a victory for horny guys everywhere, I'm

:lol: Chalk one up for the guys factor here!

I suppose if we wanted to get Pscho-Analytic about this we could say that her fantasies are located (and must be located) in the past because her id is primal and her social consciousness and self-consciousness are gained later. Often in fiction where there is idealized desire the place where that desire is gratified is placed either in the past or in a secluded area. In both cases the idea of remoteness is key. Keat's romances are a good example. In poems like "Endymion" and "Lamia" the action is placed in this unobtainable, distant past. Also, they take place in these obscure, shaded groves. "Lamia" even tells us why it has to do this:

"Upon a time, before the faery broods
Drove Nymph and Satyr from the prosperous woods,
Before King Oberon's bright diadem,
Sceptre, and mantle, clasp'd with dewy gem,
Frighted away the Dryads and the Fauns
From rushes green, and brakes, and cowslip'd lawns,
The ever-smitten Hermes empty left
His golden throne, bent warm on amorous theft:
From high Olympus had he stolen light,
On this side of Jove's clouds, to escape the sight
Of his great summoner, and made retreat
Into a forest on the shores of Crete." (1-something)

Quark, "the idea of remoteness is key" - this is good. She is looking for seclusion from the world in order to live in a dream of her past. Here she can imagine she is still back in the past, secluded in this rose garden from her past. But then when reality confronts her, in the form of the man, her actual former lover, it breaks into that dream and shatters it. Interesting, isn't it? Time and it's concept is also of 'non-reality' in my opinion. There is a Greek saying Opus (?) ...can't recall it exactly now (I saw it in a movie)...means 'the future is behind you'. Time and the concepts of time are relative. This dream is relative in a way; in other words when there is no invasion from the outside real physical world, the woman can indeed live here in her past, and a different time zone; as soon as that invasion dominates, time revolves back to the present. I think it is all conceptual. Can you understand my idea or is it too 'far-out'?

Hermes' "amorous theft" occurs in the past because soon after, apparently, Oberon kills the party. Similarly, in Lawrence's story we have a husband who chills all the romantic impulses in the main character. They both act like a superego and ego chiding an unbounded id. If you're going to have a story that idealizes romantic desire then it seems like you would have to put it in a time before that social consciousness and self-consciousness existed.

Still thinking about this, but I think I understand what you are getting at. So, the rose garden setting is helping to place the romantic desire, which is idealized in that setting, back into the time period which is the woman's past? Is this basically what you are saying?

I hadn't thought of that, actually. My thought was that the "pain and joy" just referred to strong sensations--of which pain and joy are the two poles. I had taken "transfigured" to mean simply excited or shocked. Upon closer reading, though, I think you may be right. A lot of what is in the garden point to the two-ness of the experience.

"My thought was that the 'pain and joy' just referred to strong sensations--of which pain and joy are the two poles."
I like this 'polarity' idea of yours and it fits like the contrasts, I had earlier pointed out. Duality often evident throughout the story, as you point out below. I had wondered about those two paths and their significance. Could it be that she must now take one out of the garden back into reality and the lover must take the other deeper into non-reality or his insanity?

There are two paths in the garden, the roses are described as both vibrant and scentless, and the view, itself, is both beautiful and ugly. She can see both the garden and the view of the Cape. While the garden is warm colored and inviting, the seaside that she sees is describes as "There beyond lay the soft blue sea with the bay, misty with morning, and the farthest headland of black rock jutting dimly out between blue and blue of the sky and water". Lawrence contrast between the two and says, "All round were rose bushes, big banks of roses, then roses hanging and tumbling from pillars, or roses balanced on the standard bushes. By the open earth were many other flowers. If she lifted her head, the sea was upraised beyond, and the Cape." While it's true that she may be shocked or excited by what she's seeing, I think it's also true that there are two separate things she's seeing. The two could represent a number of things, too. Her mixed feelings about the past, like you suggested, could be one. It also could be about her feeling toward the two men.

Excellent and I agree. This duality is quite interesting.

Quark, glad I chased you over from the Chekhov thread....and you have stunned me! ;) :lol:

Quark

02-12-2008, 11:42 PM

You know something just crossed my mind. this story may have been written before the war. When was this exactly written, I'm confused?

The story was published in the same year WW I began. I'm not sure which preceded which. I think WW I began in August, and I have no idea what date the story came out on.

Janine

02-12-2008, 11:58 PM

And what makes ceertain hands sexy? ;) Yes slackened for sexual inability.
I don't know why, but many woman feel that way about hands. I was surprised (but not really) when I was in that funny thread awhile back "what do you find appealing?" - something like that; check it out. I think you can tell a lot about a man's intelligence from his hands and how he holds them and expresses himself with them...seriously. Lawrence mentions hands often in his writings, I have noticed that. He seemed to admire hands very much so.

Boy carriage and slackened parts. This story is risque. ;)

You are hilarious with 'boy' and 'carriage' thown in there for good measure...get it?;) I really have to :lol: Oh yeah, really risque.;) :brow: :lol: You have been in the 'legs game' thread a little too long! :blush:

You know something just crossed my mind. this story may have been written before the war. When was this exactly written, I'm confused?
NO - I refuse to look this up again!!! Go back to the long post, when I told you all about when it was written - I quoted from the timeline book extensively! You are a lazy bum, Virgil!:lol:

Virgil

02-13-2008, 12:12 AM

I don't know why, but many woman feel that way about hands. I was surprised (but not really) when I was in that funny thread awhile back "what do you find appealing?" - something like that; check it out. I think you can tell a lot about a man's intelligence from his hands and how he holds them and expresses himself with them...seriously. Lawrence mentions hands often in his writings, I have noticed that. He seemed to admire hands very much so.

Did I ever tell you how sophisticated and elegant and athletic my hands are? :p :p I have the hands of a pianist. ;)

Quark

02-13-2008, 12:19 AM

Actually this is a fairly straight forward scene. One thing I do notice is how sexual the old lover is alluded to: "For his hands, her symbols of passionate love, filled her with horror as they rested now on his strong thighs." and "She could see his shape, the shape she had loved, with all her passion: his compact, soldier's head, his fine figure now slackened." Hands, thighs, slackened.

Another interesting thing is that both the woman and the man are living in a different world putside of reality. She was in a different world in the rose garden, the world of the past, but not just the rose garden but her life with her husband. He is in his own world ,that of insanity: "he was in another world." [QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Janine;530285]Yes, I had noticed that and thought it really interesting...and Lawrence has this thing about thighs. You guys have the breast fetish and L had the thigh fetish.:D In "Women In Love" it was when Ursula discovered Birkin's thighs she was entranced or tranfigured - wasn't it? In the current book I am reading the mention of thighs has recently cropped up again...I had to laugh when I noted it. Also, in 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter' thigh touching seems pretty prominent. Hands, I think Lawrence often mentioned. Lawrence, himself, was suppose to have lovely delicate expressive hands. I know he had beautiful handwriting. Personally, I always view a man's hands and think it says something important about him. Janine is a hand girl herself! ;) :lol:
Virgil, what do you suppose the 'slackened' stands for - impotence of the insane lover? I am not joking on this one, but quite serious.

I hadn't noticed the thigh fetishizing, but I did stop at the line "For his hands, her passionate symbols of love." Certainly physical appearance is important in this story. After all, it begins with the husband's self-examination. Yet, for all the descriptions, I really can't picture the characters in my head since the adjectives he uses are not at all visual. Lawrence calls the husbands figure, "alert and vigorous." The coat he's wearing has a "smart and self-confident air." And, the overall impression of his appearance is "not ill favored." The depiction of the woman is slightly more tangible but still we get "she had a fine carriage, very proud." With all this indirect characterization through personal appearance, it wouldn't surprise me at all if slackened hands were an indication of impotence.

Time and it's concept is also of 'non-reality' in my opinion. There is a Greek saying Opus (?) ...can't recall it exactly now (I saw it in a movie)...means 'the future is behind you'. Time and the concepts of time are relative. This dream is relative in a way; in other words when there is no invasion from the outside real physical world, the woman can indeed live here in her past, and a different time zone; as soon as that invasion dominates, time revolves back to the present. I think it is all conceptual. Can you understand my idea or is it too 'far-out'?

Whoa, you're getting all metaphysical on me.

"My thought was that the 'pain and joy' just referred to strong sensations--of which pain and joy are the two poles."
I like this 'polarity' idea of yours and it fits like the contrasts, I had earlier pointed out. Duality often evident throughout the story, as you point out below. I had wondered about those two paths and their significance. Could it be that she must now take one out of the garden back into reality and the lover must take the other deeper into non-reality or his insanity?

Yes, the two-ness of the garden episode refers to several other things in the story. Her mixed feelings about the past, the two lovers, and that split feeling she gets are all hit upon I think.

Quark, glad I chased you over from the Chekhov thread....and you have stunned me! ;) :lol:

btw, I just remembered that "In the Ravine" is almost 50 pages long. It may be too exhausting to try that one.