D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Virgil]

Funny you should mention Whitman. Lawrence loved Whitman and modeled much of his poetry on Whitman's.

[Janine]

I agree with the closing remarks; good post, Virgil!
Now I will take my bow for picking such a good story this time. I hope the next one won't disappoint anyone; this story is a hard act to follow. I am currently reviewing L's short stories and even reading a few I had heard were good ones, or have wanted to read. So I am not blank at this point, just investigating. This is to reassure you that I am working behind the scenes to come up with another good story to discuss, that all will connect to and like.

Thumbs up to everyone who participated in this great discussion! How many pages did we fill this time on this one very 'short' story? I believe it was 6 or 7 - that is truly commendable. Keep up the good work, everyone!

Hahaha :lol:islandclimber, I appreciate your creativity in forming the word homo-sensuality....that is a good one!
I definitely am convinced, if Lawrence were standing her right this minute, and we all suggested to him that Bertie was homosexual, he would probably roll his eyes and laugh or make a crazy remark like "no one gets my ideas".:lol:

Yes, so true, Virgil, Lawrence did identify with Whitman and he wrote a commentary paper on Whitman's work. I will have to read it one of these days. My library owns that book or maybe I did purchase it; I lost track of L books here by now...oh me oh my....scatterbrain at this point. That reminds me, Virgil, did you ever locate your lost book?

[Virgil]

. That reminds me, Virgil, did you ever locate your lost book?

Yes, it was in my briefcase. I must have looked in there a number of times and not moticed it.

[Janine]

Yes, it was in my briefcase. I must have looked in there a number of times and not moticed it.

Virgil, I see islandclimber is not the only one making up words here - you 'moticed' it?:lol:
My friend, Carol, said 'when you lose something always go back to the first place you looked and 9 times out of 10 - wala - it will be there!' This is funny, because I have tried it countless times and found it works (well, most of the time, anyway). Glad you found it.
I am mulling over the choices for the next story. I read one longer one last night, but now I don't think I want to suggest that...so back to the old drawing board...I am still undecided, but I did read a number of stories last month so I have a few for candidates. I will post the new story on Monday or Tues....promise.:D

[Dark Muse]

Cannot wait to see what it will be

[Quark]

Virgil, I see islandclimber is not the only one making up words here - you 'moticed' it?:lol:

I wonder about you guys sometimes. Do you type things really fast, or do you not have spell check? I've noticed sometimes when I'm on a different computer computer the red line won't come up when I'm on LitNet. Does that happen often? Usually, though, I get a red line when I write moticed, and then buzzers and sirens go off. While being very annoying, yes, it does let me know that I've mistyped. Does this not happen for you guys?


I am mulling over the choices for the next story. I read one longer one last night, but now I don't think I want to suggest that...so back to the old drawing board...I am still undecided, but I did read a number of stories last month so I have a few for candidates. I will post the new story on Monday or Tues....promise.:D

Make it a good one Janine since we've got two new people joining us. With six people taking part in this one it'll be interesting to see how this goes. Eventually, we may have to break into two Lawrence threads. I foresee a successful, Quark-started offshoot thread. We might run out of stories this way, though. How many did Lawrence write? Do we need to be worried about running out?

[Virgil]

I wonder about you guys sometimes. Do you type things really fast, or do you not have spell check?

You have spell check with lit net? How does that work and how do I get it? I don't have it.

[Quark]

You have spell check with lit net? How does that work and how do I get it? I don't have it.

See, this is what I thought. You don't get a red line under misspellings? I don't know why some computers get this and other don't, but for whatever reason I'm singularly blessed with spellcheck which has just informed me that spellcheck isn't a word.

[Dark Muse]

That would be nice if I had spellcheck in my posts here. I should probably just post in an e-mail or something first, where I do have spell check and than copy and paste here.

[Janine]

I wonder about you guys sometimes. Do you type things really fast, or do you not have spell check? I've noticed sometimes when I'm on a different computer computer the red line won't come up when I'm on LitNet. Does that happen often? Usually, though, I get a red line when I write moticed, and then buzzers and sirens go off. While being very annoying, yes, it does let me know that I've mistyped. Does this not happen for you guys?
No, I feel cheated.:( I have often wondered about 'spell check' on here and thought for sure it would be in the tool bar, at the top of this posting window. I have hunted for it, forever...it is not there to my knowledge.
Once I got this cute little 'widget' - ever have one of those? You can download them free from the net, and I did so - it was a 'spelling bee' and you just entered the word in this tiny little thing, that came up when you were online and it would suggest spellings; even had this cute little bee that swarmed around when it was correct. Only trouble was I got a few more 'widgets' and my computer starting acting wacky and I had to remove them. I really miss that little spelling bee - I thought it was my answer to Lit Net's lack of spell-check. Now if I do copy the text into my 'Word' program, it will authomatically correct the word for me, but then that adds an additional step all the time; so either way, you can't win in the long-run, right Virgil? So we are all not the best spellers in the world, at least we are all brilliant thinkers!;) :( Einstein could not spell either, so there!:D )

Now you must all hear of how ridiculous and lame I have been, all this time I have been on Lit Net. I did not know you could hightlight the text, then click on that one icon above - one that looks like text on a yellow page - and it would add the
format/code at the beginning and the end, automatically. I have been copying and pasting them for years, from other parts of the text....duh, am I computer sauvy or what? I have found this little discovery has really speeded things up.:goof: Better late then never, I suppose. :rolleyes: :nod:


[QUOTE]Make it a good one Janine since we've got two new people joining us. With six people taking part in this one it'll be interesting to see how this goes. Eventually, we may have to break into two Lawrence threads. I foresee a successful, Quark-started offshoot thread. We might run out of stories this way, though. How many did Lawrence write? Do we need to be worried about running out?

Yes, trying to chose one; so many stories so little time....*sigh, sigh*...hummm.... I know, now that there are more anticipative and anxious people here, I feel this I am being squeezed by pressure 'to pick a good one' :brickwall :cold: . Well, I think they all are good, but I keep trying to pick one that will please all of you. :D The thing is I don't think I can quess, just how you each will respond, to any of the stories. Therefore, this is an nearly impossible task for my feeble mind. I will eventually - just pick one and you can all decide if you like it or not; if you hate it, you all can beat me up!

About that spin-off thread, Quark - very funny and the answer is NO!!!! We won't run out of L stories for years and years. He wrote zillions and besides we could always switch to the longer ones, which are sort of novellas. NO, we will never run out, as long as I stay a member of Lit Net! This thread is my 'baby', Virgil's too, I think; was his idea to begin with - he started the thread after we discussed it in a PM. Taking of discussing something I think I will PM him and ask his advice on the stories. He has read quite a few and he may be familiar with the ones I have been reviewing. I asked him last time and he told me "The Blind Man" was a great story. I was favoring that one anyway.

I have in mind one, that is a later story and kind of humorous - yes, our Lawrence did have a keen wit and sense of humor.:D At least I thought this story was funny and even found myself laughing out loud, at times. I will confer first with Virgil, and let you know next week. Also, (biographically) it has some connection to another story we read.

[Quark]

Now you must all hear of how ridiculous and lame I have been, all this time I have been on Lit Net. I did not know you could hightlight the text, then click on that one icon above - one that looks like text on a yellow page - and it would add the format/code at the beginning and the end, automatically. I have been copying and pasting them for years, from other parts of the text....duh, am I computer sauvy or what? I have found this little discovery has really speeded things up.:goof: Better late then never, I suppose. :rolleyes: :nod:

I was a little slow with that too. I was a little afraid of touching the buttons above because I thought it might zap or alter my post in some irrevocably horrible way. A little option-shy, it probably wasn't until my 100th post before I realized I could do that. I still struggle with some things, though: Like indenting. Can anyone indent? I'd like to have actual paragraphs instead of these spaced out blocks of text.


Yes, trying to chose one; so many stories so little time....*sigh, sigh*...hummm.... I know, now that there are more anticipative and anxious people here, I feel this I am being squeezed by pressure 'to pick a good one' :brickwall :cold:

Hey, I've been there. You've done a good job in the past. I think my favorite stories have been "Shadow in the Rose Garden" and "Odour of Chrysanthemums."

[Janine]

I was a little slow with that too. I was a little afraid of touching the buttons above because I thought it might zap or alter my post in some irrevocably horrible way. A little option-shy, it probably wasn't until my 100th post before I realized I could do that. I still struggle with some things, though: Like indenting. Can anyone indent? I'd like to have actual paragraphs instead of these spaced out blocks of text.

Quark, here is another funny thing. I sometimes still have to type the formating code in and I have caught myself doing this in your posts - [quirk]:lol: I guess you could say I got my lines mixed up in my brain-cells! :eek2: Well, it is good to know I have not been the only dummy here.;) I think now, 3 years or more, have passed and I just discovered this shortcut. If in doubt and worrying about losing your post, just copy it to your mouse or paste into your Word program and save, for a few minutes and then try any button above. I think that indend is right below that big bold A - see those lines and arrows - you could try that. It might work, but first make sure you copy off your post, or put it into Word.


Hey, I've been there. You've done a good job in the past. I think my favorite stories have been "Shadow in the Rose Garden" and "Odour of Chrysanthemums."

Quark,Thanks for that compliment; it does mean so much to me. I just have to live up to my reputation now and pick another winner.....a little scary.....

Funny, you say you liked "Shadow in The Rose Garden' story because Dark Muse really hated that woman, remember? If I pick a story I am thinking of picking she will really go bananas, over this one character - the witchy wife. I would pick "Wintery Peacock", but we are all thinking spring now, and that takes place in the winter months and in snow. I figure we get enough 'gloom and snow' in the Chekhov thread.;); even though WP is a very amusing story and well-written, I will reserve that one for later. The other I have in-mind is "Two Bluebirds" - not about two bluebirds per se, but really quite amusing and entertaining. I just want to throw this idea/suggestion out there, for all of you to see if anyone has read this story before. It is in the last volume of the short stories, so let me check if it is available online, or on this site first. I haven't officially picked this yet, so give me a few more days to make up my mind.

The other story 'Odour of Chrysanthemums' was a great one, although so, so sad...it would appeal to a Chekhov fan:( ;) .....Last night, I watched the early play of Lawrence's - a Kultur series DVD. Kultur reproduces videos of Broadway performances/plays, maybe that aired on TV, and of other art films such as Opera, Orchestra, Ballet, Dance. Anyway, you can find their films on Amazon or on their actual site; cheaper on Amazon. I usually look them up on the Kultur site and then track them down on Amazon.

Here is my impression of the film/play. It was very well acted and intense, AND as I predicted, it is nearly the same story as 'Odour of Chrysanthemums'. In fact, a bowl of C's was always on the table and yet there did not seem to be mentioned in the script. The wife and mother-in-law were true to form and the kids also, but it seemed (since this was an early idea and play for Lawrence) that he had not yet fully developed the ideas, that were evident in the short story - intererting though. I found it so, because he wrote this play very early, I believe, and it was performed when he was young and so this leads me to realise just how far back the seeds of his thoughts went, to the writing of 'Odour of Chrysanthemums'. I will look it up, so I have more solid facts on the play. I maybe wrong and conjecturing all this, but I thought the play was written first; it may have been second. There was one big difference in the play, in that there was presented an additional character - a young man 7 yrs junior to the wife, who had a 'thing' for her; I can't say it was 'love', but he was very much attracted to her. This character reminded me of Lawrence, himself and I think I read that indeed he had a close relationship to an older woman whose husband was a coal miner. He would visit her often and formed a kind of attachment that of course did not go anywhere in the end. I will also look this biographical information up and see if I am correct. I just thought I may have read this before.
In the play the rest followed: the drunken husband, with the addition of two 'tarts' he brings home drunk with him. Otherwise, the characters seemed true to the short story. It is interesting to see Lawrence's work played out on screen.

[islandclimber]

two bluebirds (http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-woman-who-rode-away-and-other-stories/part-02/)

Janine here is the story online.. I just read it and quite enjoyed it... it is amusing and very entertaining indeed:D I think pretty much all of Lawrence's stories are on the above site


that play sounds good.. and same with the company kultur.. I may have to look them up:)

also... not for this time(maybe in the future though), but my favourite story of his that I have read so far is "The Witch A La Mode" .. have you discussed it before.. or is there hope for some distant future discussion??? :D

[Janine]

two bluebirds (http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-woman-who-rode-away-and-other-stories/part-02/)


Janine here is the story online.. I just read it and quite enjoyed it... it is amusing and very entertaining indeed:D I think pretty much all of Lawrence's stories are on the above site

islandclimber, thanks for the link; looks like a good site; I will check it out. Oh, I am so glad you read the story -thanks! I really found it amusing/entertaining, too. I think maybe I will choose this one. It is not too long, either. This should be a fun one to discuss. Also, it has a link to the one of the stories we discussed a few months back "The Man Who Loved Islands"....funny, because it starts out in the same 'fairytale' fashion...."There was a woman who...." It is a biographical link and one you all will find somewhat interesting.

I correct myself. This story is in the Volume 2, not 3, of the 'Complete Short Stories of DHL' . In fact, in my book, it proceeds "Sun", another interesting story we have discussed extensively in this thread.
So sad, islandclimber,that you missed these other fine stories. You might want to read them independently, and I would discuss them with you, or you could read the former posts - both stories had excellent discussions:thumbs_up



that play sounds good.. and same with the company kultur.. I may have to look them up:)

Yes, check out the Kultur site online. That is what I did. I think you can have a catalogue send to your house. This is good to browse in; what I do is then check prizes on Amazon. I first became aware of the company (actually based in my state - NJ) when I viewed "Madame Butterfly" on library VHS tape (since then I have bought the DVD). I saw they came from this company and so I looked Kultur up online. By the way, "Madame Butterfly" is excellent starring Richard Troxel and Ying Huang....such a beautiful production. I never was a big opera fan but now I have learned to appreciate it more and more in the past few years. Now I am loving it. I even bought the CD of the ST to the film.

The play was very good. I think it best, if you know Lawrence and his background to view it; since obviously, it explored the themes in "Sons and Lovers" - the coal miner coming home drunk from the pit, the wife who seems to be above him in social graces, but who puts up with the husband's abuse, the man who cannot connect with woman on a love basis.
I also liked the production of "Enemy of the People", play by Isben, that was rewritten for screen/stage by Arthur Miller. I just saw that a few nights ago. It was very well done and interesting; way ahead of it's time in theme. I am not sure, but I think that also was a Kultur product.


also... not for this time(maybe in the future though), but my favourite story of his that I have read so far is "The Witch A La Mode" .. have you discussed it before.. or is there hope for some distant future discussion???

Actually, I did read that one last month when I was trying to choose. That could be a good posibility. I will consider it for next month. Definitely 'hope' for that one. I must refresh my memory, as to the story. I read so many, they are all beginning to run together....eeek......or I am getting senile.....horrors!

Have be off now, I need to go cook dinner for my starving mother and me, as well.

[Virgil]

two bluebirds (http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert/the-woman-who-rode-away-and-other-stories/part-02/)

Janine here is the story online.. I just read it and quite enjoyed it... it is amusing and very entertaining indeed:D I think pretty much all of Lawrence's stories are on the above site


that play sounds good.. and same with the company kultur.. I may have to look them up:)

Thanks Climber. Unfortunately it's not all his short stories, but it adds to the ones we have here.


No, I feel cheated.:( I have often wondered about 'spell check' on here and thought for sure it would be in the tool bar, at the top of this posting window. I have hunted for it, forever...it is not there to my knowledge.

Yeah, I feel cheated too. I'll have to ask Logos how we can get spell check. You all should play around with those buttons to get a feel for what they can do. Recently I learned how to subscribe to threads so I can asily find ones I'm definitely interested in.


Funny, you say you liked "Shadow in The Rose Garden' story because Dark Muse really hated that woman, remember? If I pick a story I am thinking of picking she will really go bananas, over this one character - the witchy wife. I would pick "Wintery Peacock", but we are all thinking spring now, and that takes place in the winter months and in snow. I figure we get enough 'gloom and snow' in the Chekhov thread.;); even though WP is a very amusing story and well-written, I will reserve that one for later. The other I have in-mind is "Two Bluebirds" - not about two bluebirds per se, but really quite amusing and entertaining. I just want to throw this idea/suggestion out there, for all of you to see if anyone has read this story before. It is in the last volume of the short stories, so let me check if it is available online, or on this site first. I haven't officially picked this yet, so give me a few more days to make up my mind.

The other story 'Odour of Chrysanthemums' was a great one, although so, so sad...it would appeal to a Chekhov fan:( ;) .....Last night, I watched the early play of Lawrence's - a Kultur series DVD. Kultur reproduces videos of Broadway performances/plays, maybe that aired on TV, and of other art films such as Opera, Orchestra, Ballet, Dance. Anyway, you can find their films on Amazon or on their actual site; cheaper on Amazon. I usually look them up on the Kultur site and then track them down on Amazon.

I've enjoyed all the stories we've read, but I guess my favorite so far that we covered was "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" with "The Blind Man" a close second.


Here is my impression of the film/play. It was very well acted and intense, AND as I predicted, it is nearly the same story as 'Odour of Chrysanthemums'. In fact, a bowl of C's was always on the table and yet there did not seem to be mentioned in the script. The wife and mother-in-law were true to form and the kids also, but it seemed (since this was an early idea and play for Lawrence) that he had not yet fully developed the ideas, that were evident in the short story - intererting though. I found it so, because he wrote this play very early, I believe, and it was performed when he was young and so this leads me to realise just how far back the seeds of his thoughts went, to the writing of 'Odour of Chrysanthemums'. I will look it up, so I have more solid facts on the play. I maybe wrong and conjecturing all this, but I thought the play was written first; it may have been second. There was one big difference in the play, in that there was presented an additional character - a young man 7 yrs junior to the wife, who had a 'thing' for her; I can't say it was 'love', but he was very much attracted to her. This character reminded me of Lawrence, himself and I think I read that indeed he had a close relationship to an older woman whose husband was a coal miner. He would visit her often and formed a kind of attachment that of course did not go anywhere in the end. I will also look this biographical information up and see if I am correct. I just thought I may have read this before.
In the play the rest followed: the drunken husband, with the addition of two 'tarts' he brings home drunk with him. Otherwise, the characters seemed true to the short story. It is interesting to see Lawrence's work played out on screen.

Definetely interested in that film/play. Perhaps Janine if you see a link on the internet you can post it.


islandclimber, thanks for the link; looks like a good site; I will check it out. Oh, I am so glad you read the story -thanks! I really found it amusing/entertaining, too. I think maybe I will choose this one. It is not too long, either. This should be a fun one to discuss. Also, it has a link to the one of the stories we discussed a few months back "The Man Who Loved Islands"....funny, because it starts out in the same 'fairytale' fashion...."There was a woman who...." It is a biographical link and one you all will find somewhat interesting.

That is a characteristic of Lawrence's late fiction, the starting a story/novella with a abstract character. "The Man Who Loved Islands," The Man Who Died, and my one of my favorite short stories, "The Woman Who Rode Away." I can't wait until we do that story.

"Wintry Peacock" I remember being one of Lawrence's best, and while I can't remember the actual story I do remember liking "The Witch A La Mode." I had to have read "Two Bluebirds" but I don't remember a single thing. That's not the one with the swordfish, is it? I can't remember the one with the swordfish, but it was very good.

[Dark Muse]

I've enjoyed all the stories we've read, but I guess my favorite so far that we covered was "The Horse Dealer's Daughter"

I will have to read that one on my own sometime. I do not suppose, it acutally has anything to do with horses?

I am a bit of a horse fanatic

[Virgil]

I will have to read that one on my own sometime. I do not suppose, it acutally has anything to do with horses?

I am a bit of a horse fanatic

Well, the family breeds hoses. Horses are one of those Lawrence motifs that come up frequently. :)

[Janine]

Well, the family breeds hoses. Horses are one of those Lawrence motifs that come up frequently. :)

:lol: you should could use SPELL CHECK! they breed HOSES????Virgil;) :lol: :lol: Maybe that was a Freudian slip, hose, snake.....?

Virgil, the L play I can send to you to borrow, after I watch it again. I think I need to see it when I am more awake than I was last night. You would like the "Kangaroo" tape also but you don't have a VCR do you? You should buy a cheap one of those. The Kultur site is a good one and you just might find other author's plays you would be interested in; but, remember, the price is usually cheaper on Amazon.


I've enjoyed all the stories we've read, but I guess my favorite so far that we covered was "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" with "The Blind Man" a close second.
That would figure! I think that is because you like the scenes of transfiguration and thigh stroking.....:lol: Sorry, I am feeling kid of giddy tonight. Baby shower is tomorrow; in fact, I should be wrapping the gifts as we speak.


Yeah, I feel cheated too. I'll have to ask Logos how we can get spell check. You all should play around with those buttons to get a feel for what they can do. Recently I learned how to subscribe to threads so I can asily find ones I'm definitely interested in.

Yeah, Logos! I hope she does tell us how to assess it. I need it badly. I should play 'push the buttons' one of these days - my posts might look more professional if I knew how to use that tool bar better. Yeah, just how do you subscribe to certain threads? I've been wondering that for sometime. I usually just come on and put 'Lawrence' in the search box and it seem to take me to the threads, I most often frequent; but, I am probably missing many many more cool threads.


That is a characteristic of Lawrence's late fiction, the starting a story/novella with a abstract character. "The Man Who Loved Islands," The Man Who Died, and my one of my favorite short stories, "The Woman Who Rode Away." I can't wait until we do that story.

Yes, I realised that. Also, the more 'fable' type story seems prominent, symbolism being a big factor in those stories. I think you all will like this story "Two Bluebirds". I actually laughed out loud at some of the scenes. We could use a little levity in this thread - don't you think? Especially after the Chekhov discussions. ;)

Yes, the ones you mention here, are also good ones, but longer I believe. Have you read "Jimmy and the Desperate Women" - just curious? I think I read that years ago and want to re-read it sometime.



"Wintry Peacock" I remember being one of Lawrence's best, and while I can't remember the actual story I do remember liking "The Witch A La Mode." I had to have read "Two Bluebirds" but I don't remember a single thing. That's not the one with the swordfish, is it? I can't remember the one with the swordfish, but it was very good.

I read 'Wintry Peacock" twice now, and I liked it even better, second time around. It is also, a very amusing story. Let us keep it on hold, till we approach next fall/winter. Something more 'springlike' is in order for this month. I don't recall a swordfish in "Two Bluebirds", but I may be wrong. I only read it once and it was awhile ago. It is not a very long story, one can read it in an hour or even a half hr.

[islandclimber]

do you think anyone could tell me what stories you have read so far, so I can possibly read them, seeing as they are not likely to be read again??

here is one more online site with a lot of Lawrence's work that I could not find anywhere else... almost all his prose work anyways...

Lawrence (http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/lawrence.html)

I think though if I'm going to stay with this thread I will have to go purchase his complete short stories that I keep hearing mentioned...


Janine I took a look at the kultur website and I am in love with it now.. :D

I already have one of their videos... The best version of the Nutcracker ballet ever.. the one with Mikhail Baryshnikov... it is so so so amazing... He is such an amazing dancer... :D and then there are the broadway plays, and the operas... that is a great company... you said they are cheaper on amazon???
I have a few nonverbal films I am going to purchase in the next little while and then I may be buying some opera... and a few plays as well! If you're interested in nonverbal documentary style films that are just incredibly beautiful and have amazing music, I would recommend checking out this website Baraka (http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/):thumbs_up

and I'm going to see Eugene Onegin Wednesday night which should be fun!

[Virgil]

do you think anyone could tell me what stories you have read so far, so I can possibly read them, seeing as they are not likely to be read again??

here is one more online site with a lot of Lawrence's work that I could not find anywhere else... almost all his prose work anyways...

Lawrence (http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/lawrence.html)

Climber!!! I can damn near kiss you for that, if you weren't so masculine. :p That looks like most of Lawrence's work. How did you find that? I do searches for Lawrence's work every so often and I never came across that. I've already added that to my internet favorites. Thanks. :)

The stories we read are:
“Things”
“The Horse Dealer’s Daughter”
“Sun”
“The Man Who Loved Islands,”
“A Shadow in the Rose Garden”
"The Blind Man"

Did I miss any Janine?


I think though if I'm going to stay with this thread I will have to go purchase his complete short stories that I keep hearing mentioned...
Yes, unless you don't mind reading off a computer. It comes in three penguin volumes, paperback so their not too expensive.

[Virgil]

:lol: you should could use SPELL CHECK! they breed HOSES????Virgil;) :lol: :lol: Maybe that was a Freudian slip, hose, snake.....?

No not a Freudian slip, silly. Just poor typing. :p


Yeah, Logos! I hope she does tell us how to assess it. I need it badly. I should play 'push the buttons' one of these days - my posts might look more professional if I knew how to use that tool bar better. Yeah, just how do you subscribe to certain threads? I've been wondering that for sometime. I usually just come on and put 'Lawrence' in the search box and it seem to take me to the threads, I most often frequent; but, I am probably missing many many more cool threads.
I'll send her a PM. As to subscribing for threads, look at the top of this page at thread tools, pull down the menu, and click subscribe to this thread, and finally acknowledge that you want to subscribe. Then under Quick Links you'll see "Subscribed Threads" and it will pull up all your subscribed threads.


Yes, I realised that. Also, the more 'fable' type story seems prominent, symbolism being a big factor in those stories.
The word I was searching for and I couldn't come up with before was architypical. It came to me earlier. Lawrence was after a certain architypical characterization, if you know what i mean, in his later years.


I think you all will like this story "Two Bluebirds". I actually laughed out loud at some of the scenes. We could use a little levity in this thread - don't you think? Especially after the Chekhov discussions. ;)

Yes, the ones you mention here, are also good ones, but longer I believe. Have you read "Jimmy and the Desperate Women" - just curious? I think I read that years ago and want to re-read it sometime.
Looking forward to Bluebirds. I think I may have read "Jimmy" but frankly many of them are a blurr to me at this point.

[Janine]

Climber!!! I can damn near kiss you for that, if you weren't so masculine. :p That looks like most of Lawrence's work. How did you find that? I do searches for Lawrence's work every so often and I never came across that. I've already added that to my internet favorites. Thanks. :)

The stories we read are:
“Things”
“The Horse Dealer’s Daughter”
“Sun”
“The Man Who Loved Islands,”
“A Shadow in the Rose Garden”
"The Blind Man"

Did I miss any Janine?


Yes, unless you don't mind reading off a computer. It comes in three penguin volumes, paperback so their not too expensive.

This is so odd. I ran to get my book and half of what I had just written, in this post disappeared. Hummm...I can't figure out why. Ok, I will have to begin again....*groan...sigh*

Virgil, I will answer your post first, since you have seniority (not in age but in number of posts on this thread). Ok, first off you did miss some and they were really important ones. Here are the ones I recall:

"The Prussian Officer"
"Odour of Chrysanthemums"
"The White Stocking"
"The Shades of Spring"

How you missed those first two are beyond me. You loved the first one, I know, and the second I thought you liked very much. I just checked the complete list in the first volume of the "Complete Short Stories". I don't think I missed any, do you? That would make 10 altogether; and I assure you all - there are plenty more to come.

I see some more that I have read recently and reviewed and may be good possibilities for the future.

[Virgil]

This is so odd. I ran to get my book and half of what I had just written, in this post disappeared. Hummm...I can't figure out why. Ok, I will have to begin again....*groan...sigh*

Virgil, I will answer your post first, since you have seniority (not in age but in number of posts on this thread). Ok, first off you did miss some and they were really important ones. Here are the ones I recall:

"The Prussian Officer"
"Odour of Chrysanthemums"
"The White Stocking"
"The Shades of Spring"

How you missed those first two are beyond me. You loved the first one, I know, and the second I thought you liked very much. I just checked the complete list in the first volume of the "Complete Short Stories". I don't think I missed any, do you? That would make 10 altogether; and I assure you all - there are plenty more to come.

I see some more that I have read recently and reviewed and may be good possibilities for the future.

Thanks Janine, you are correct. I don't know how i missed them. ;)

[Quark]

As to subscribing for threads, look at the top of this page at thread tools, pull down the menu, and click subscribe to this thread, and finally acknowledge that you want to subscribe. Then under Quick Links you'll see "Subscribed Threads" and it will pull up all your subscribed threads.

Thanks for the tip, Virgil.

[Janine]

do you think anyone could tell me what stories you have read so far, so I can possibly read them, seeing as they are not likely to be read again??

10 stories, I counted so far - see my and Virgil's lists. I can tell you they all are great! So are the discussions!:thumbs_up Enjoy your reading.:) I so appreciate that you care enough to go back and read and review these stories. You will not regret it.
I feel badly about only one discussion; the first one. The thread had not been up long, so we did not talk a lot about one of my favorites: "Things". If you read, it let me know what you think. I love the irony in this story.


here is one more online site with a lot of Lawrence's work that I could not find anywhere else... almost all his prose work anyways...
Lawrence (http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/lawrence.html)

Fantastic - yeah, how did you find this site??? I must send you the link to a site about Lawrence at Nottingham University - there is a whole online exhibit there that is marvelous. I hope it is still there; pictures, places he lived, writings, poems, even photos of original manuscripts in L's handwriting. I just love to explore that site.



I think though if I'm going to stay with this thread I will have to go purchase his complete short stories that I keep hearing mentioned...

islandclimber, I will go on Amazon and try and research this for you. If I find any good deals I will email you right away and first I will put them into a file so we can find them easily again. I bought used books; pretty much that is what you have to do. These are out of print now. That is the problem with L's books. I saw one of his post death going for as much as 2000 bucks...ridiculous! But on a cheerier note I found these two books (I had Volume Three already) quite reasonable. I am good at finding them on Amazon.



Janine I took a look at the kultur website and I am in love with it now.. :D

It's amazing, isn't it? Really rare stuff there. I think they send me a catalogue and then I looked it up online. I have purchased a number of the Kultur videos now and my library has gotten so many from time to time - they have a 'circulating' collection which goes to different libraries monthly; this is in addition to their own huge collection. I am truly blessed. I saw "Carmen" with Placido Domingo and that may have been another Kultur videos. It was great!


I already have one of their videos... The best version of the Nutcracker ballet ever.. the one with Mikhail Baryshnikov... it is so so so amazing... He is such an amazing dancer... :D

I have that on a home recorded VHS tape. I just may invest soon in the DVD. I do want it badly - may be nice for next Christmas. I adore Mikhail Baryshnikov. I recently bought several films he is featured in. "White Nights" is one; Gegory Hinds is great, too....they dance together and it is amazing. Ever see the film? Worth it for the dancing alone. I saw another film from the library a few weeks back - his version of "Don Quixote" - the man is so amazing, he outshown all the others. I also saw some short ones he does on one video but now the name eludes me. I saw his one to Sinatra music and that was interesting. The man is so versatile; he could do anything. I also love Nureveyv(sp?); I own one film with him and Fountaine. You are speaking my language now. I draw ballet dancers in ink and pencil.


and then there are the broadway plays, and the operas... that is a great company... you said they are cheaper on amazon???

The ones I have looked for, I have found cheaper on Amazon. I usually buy from the independent seller under the link to "new and used"...I try to find someone with over 98, 99% positive (100% best) and mostly get the factory sealed ones, but have bought some 'used - like new'; depends on the price. An incredible ballet CD I just bought, had just become available on DVD, is 'Lady of the Camillias". The dancing is so sensual. I am now reading the Dumas book, and am nearly done it. One the Kultur site check out Tosca with Roberto Alagna and his real life wife, Angela Gheorghiu....it is amazing. I love Roberto Alagna and have three of his DVD films. I have his "Cerano(sp?) d 'Bergerac" and his "Romeo and Juliet". I love them all.


I have a few nonverbal films I am going to purchase in the next little while and then I may be buying some opera... and a few plays as well! If you're interested in nonverbal documentary style films that are just incredibly beautiful and have amazing music, I would recommend checking out this website Baraka (http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/):thumbs_u

I will check that out. I like that sort of thing very much. I have "Tim Janis' Coastal America". I bought it mainly since they show tons of photos of the West coastline and those sea-stakes in WA; and Rialto beach.


and I'm going to see Eugene Onegin Wednesday night which should be fun!
I don't know who that is but it sounds great to me. I love live orchestra and live choral productions and of course, live ballet!

Just wanted to add this: I just looked up your site 'Baraka' and I love it. I have seen some of those - I saw "Winged Migration" - love it, love it, love it!!!! I liked the extra features as well. Same with "March of the Penquins" - the features are a whole new film! I also put some into my wish list - that one called "Chrono" - something like that, sounds interesting. I also recently saw "Deep Blue" and I bought the soundtrack. Marvelous film - amazing footage!
I love adventure stories too; like I am especially enamoured with the Ernest Shackleton story in the Antarctic and read three books on it, own the miniseries, own some books and other films on the story, collect stuff from online.

[Dark Muse]

Thanks Virgil and Janiniefor posting a list of the stories that have already been discussed, now I know what to look for to read on my own.

[Janine]

Really funny how you snuck another post in there when I was not looking. Then I went to answer islandclimber and finally got back to you. I am getting worn out! We sure do have a lively group and much enthusiasm this month. I am so pleased!


Thanks Janine, you are correct. I don't know how i missed them.
Early senility???:lol:....or a simple case of brain overload; I suffer from that one.


No not a Freudian slip, silly. Just poor typing. :p :lol: I knew that - just kidding with you!



I'll send her a PM. As to subscribing for threads, look at the top of this page at thread tools, pull down the menu, and click subscribe to this thread, and finally acknowledge that you want to subscribe. Then under Quick Links you'll see "Subscribed Threads" and it will pull up all your subscribed threads.
Oh good, I think that Logos will respond and help us. Maybe we just need to set something differently to acquire spell-check. That is such a great tip, Virgil....you know I have been meaning to ask you about that for sometime. I seem to always forget so I am delighted it came up here today. I will try it and then when you go to pull them up (your thread list) - how do you go about it? Thanks for instructing all of us.



The word I was searching for and I couldn't come up with before was architypical. It came to me earlier. Lawrence was after a certain architypical characterization, if you know what i mean, in his later years.

Good word! What exactly does it mean - have you a definition? Is that spelled right? I thought it would be 'archetypical'.


Looking forward to Bluebirds. I think I may have read "Jimmy" but frankly many of them are a blurr to me at this point.

Tell me about it.:( I read those several new stories about a month ago and I could not hardly recall what they were about....let alone ones from years ago - mine a blur, too. I had to go back and review some that I just read. I did however, recall "Two Blue Birds" vividly....so that must say something about the story, right?

Dark Muse, you are welcome.

[islandclimber]

wow, this is a fun thread... you go away for a few hours and there are half a dozen posts to respond to when you get back! I love it:D

starting with Virgil... yep I don't know about the whole kissing thing here... maybe just a russian greeting type of kiss :lol: :lol: (masculine! pardonnez moi!!! who would have thought it...:lol: )

I found that site on wikipedia of all places... at the bottom where they have the links to external sites.. there were three to places with Lawrence's works... and the other two didn't have that many... so I tried the Australian one, and wow, there was almost everything.. the aussies must love Lawrence too!! Strangely when I was searching for Lawrence on google, I found a site with everything Thomas Hardy has ever written in Ebooks.. I guess in the 20s there was a 37 volume compendium of Hardy's work put out, and it is all on there!!:D I love Hardy too, so an added bonus of searching for Lawrence...

I was looking for the collection at amazon, and they appear to have many copies, but only on the US website of amazon, and sometimes the little associated dealers, don't ship to Canada, but Janine let me know if you find something for me... I don't mind reading on the computer screen, just as long as it is not too often.. it makes my sight go all hazy...

Thank you both so much for the list of what you have already read... I am looking forward to beginning on it tonight... see what kind of indent I can make!!

Janine I will send a pm of my thoughts on "Things" when I finish...
I love ballet as well... I've only been to see a few... umm... The Nutcracker several times, Swan Lake, Giselle, Carmen, Scherazade... but I do quite enjoy it.. so having some dvds would be great... Nureyev is amazing, and a film with him and Fountaine would be special.. which one do you have? I know they were in a few together... oh and if you ever scan any of those drawings... I would love to see...:)

Eugene Onegin is Tchaikovsky's opera masterpiece, based on Pushkin's poem... I have a cd of the music, and I absolutely love it.. it is so amazing, and quite tragic... I can't wait to see it live.. and then later in april I'm seeing the Mozart opera "Idomeneo"...

Everyone here should really try to check out the film Baraka.. It is quite amazing!!! Maybe the best film I have ever seen, the most powerful anyways... it is spectacular.. I know you can get it at amazon for not to bad a price I think... But I really really recommend it.. it is beautiful!:)

so we have decided on "Bluebird" ??? I am looking forward to the discussion!

Oh yeah, DarkMuse if you want to discuss any of the stories you missed as well, just say... I'd be happy to...

[islandclimber]

Good word! What exactly does it mean - have you a definition? Is that spelled right? I thought it would be 'archetypical'.
.

yep that is how you spell it Janine... it is interchangable with the word "archetypal" too... which is a more common spelling now I think, I had never seen it the way spelled above before Virgil posted, so I had to look it up, and it appears "archetypical" and "archetypal" mean the same thing, and both are just adjectival forms of the noun "archetype"!!

[Janine]

yep that is how you spell it Janine... it is interchangable with the word "archetypal" too... which is a more common spelling now I think, I had never seen it the way spelled above before Virgil posted, so I had to look it up, and it appears "archetypical" and "archetypal" mean the same thing, and both are just adjectival forms of the noun "archetype"!!

Thanks for looking that up. Now it makes more sense to me.
Yes, is this the most popular site on Lit Net? I do the same and then check back and wow, more posts to answer. Unfortunately, I really do have to head for bed now. I have to get up early tomorrow. I want badly to answer more of your post but it will have to wait till probably tomorrow night or even Monday. Anyway, I wanted now to thank you for that Lawrence site. I was able to copy of the play, I watched last night, onto my hard-drive. If I reduce the type, I can get it down to about 50 pages, maybe less. I really want to print it out, but that is a lot. I still might go for it, on fast draft printing. Last night I kept thinking I wished I had read the play first. Wow, what a bonus! Now I am hunting for "The Boy in the Bush" - most others of the novels listed in that site, I have read - all I think. Australian's loves Lawrence because he wrote two books there "Boy in the Bush" and "Kangaroo" - my movie of "Kangaroo" came from Australia, via the USA on Amazon! I would like to find "The Boy in the Bush" film starring a very young Kenneth Branagh. So far it eludes me.
I have been researching for books for you. I was afraid mailing to Canada might be a problem...drat it! We will work something out for you. Some sellers must ship to Canada. We have to investigate that a little closer.

So 'Baraka' is the best one. I will put that into my wishlist.

Yes, the story will be "Two Blue Birds", but on Monday I will make up an offical announcement page, and a brief introduction and maybe add an illustration or photo to enhance it.

See you later and have fun reading those short stories!

[Dark Muse]

Oh yeah, DarkMuse if you want to discuss any of the stories you missed as well, just say... I'd be happy to...

I will be sure to keep that in mind, thank you

[Logos]

There is no built-in spell check with this forum software version. It might happen in the future if Admin waves his magic wand and adds it :p

The only spell checker I am familiar with and use is the one built in to the web browser Firefox
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features.html

I don't know about Internet Exploder because I don't use it :) but I suppose it has one too.

Spell checkers work for *any* place web-based forms or fields where you enter text into a text field such as a forum post, a blog entry, or say a gmail message, etc.

Google Toolbar has a spell checker too
http://www.google.com/tools/firefox/toolbar/FT3/intl/en/index.html

ok, hope this helps :)

[Virgil]

Thanks Logos. I wonder if Quark's computer with spell check runs off of frefox.

As to my splling of archetype, I wasn't spelling it in a rare or fancy way; I was just misspelling it. :blush:

[Janine]

Thanks Logos. I wonder if Quark's computer with spell check runs off of frefox.

As to my splling of archetype, I wasn't spelling it in a rare or fancy way; I was just misspelling it. :blush:

We know and you have two typos in this post too, unless 'frefox' is something I don't know about :rolleyes: :lol:

[Dark Muse]

I just finnised reading Two Bluebirds, and I just had to say, incredibly, I did not in fact hate the woman in this one.

[Quark]

Thanks Logos. I wonder if Quark's computer with spell check runs off of frefox.

You got me. Yeah, it must be Firefox correcting my mistakes. Of course, a LitNet spell check would be useful improvement.


I just finnised reading Two Bluebirds, and I just had to say, incredibly, I did not in fact hate the woman in this one.

Are we set on a story now? I'm ready to start posting whenever, but I suppose I should wait for Janine's intro.

[islandclimber]

has anyone else heard of the "open Library project"??? It is pretty darn cool... you go to the internet archive and search for an author in the text sections, and if you click on the books that aren't from project gutneberg, you can open them in a style called FLIP which allows to read the books as though you were turning the pages, they have all the stains from use and sometimes students or borrowers have circled lines... I guess they scan them page by page.. it is like you are actually reading a book... a living book... pretty neat.. doesn't have a ton of Lawrence, but has a bit...

text archive (http://www.archive.org/details/texts)

[Dark Muse]

Are we set on a story now? I'm ready to start posting whenever, but I suppose I should wait for Janine's intro.

Yes, the story is set for Two Bluebirds, Janine said she was going do an offical annoucment on Monday

[Janine]

Quote by Quark

You got me. Yeah, it must be Firefox correcting my mistakes. Of course, a LitNet spell check would be useful improvement.

Quark, :( I don't have foxfire so that is probably why I don't have spell-check, either.:bawling:


Are we set on a story now? I'm ready to start posting whenever, but I suppose I should wait for Janine's intro.

"Two Blue Birds" - go ahead and begin to read it; certainly. I read it a month or so back and only need to re-read it and review, hopefully tonight, if I can keep my eyes open long enough...*huge yawn, the coffee I drank seems to be doing nothing for me; why?*:yawnb: I will formally announce the short story tomorrow; but it won't be early in the day...sorry gang. I am dead tired out right now; I did not sleep much last night:( . I want to post some background on the story and a little synopsis, without giving away, too much.....be patient......Monday......:D

Quote by islandclimbrer

has anyone else heard of the "open Library project"??? It is pretty darn cool... you go to the internet archive and search for an author in the text sections, and if you click on the books that aren't from project gutneberg, you can open them in a style called FLIP which allows to read the books as though you were turning the pages, they have all the stains from use and sometimes students or borrowers have circled lines... I guess they scan them page by page.. it is like you are actually reading a book... a living book... pretty neat.. doesn't have a ton of Lawrence, but has a bit...

text archive (http://www.archive.org/details/texts)

Hmmm...islandclimber, I never heard of that or of an FLIP file? What is that anyway. Do you need a program to open it, or must you download one that reads FLIP files? It sounds fascinating, but I doubt my computer would handle it. I should wait till I get a new computer with more RAM and memory to try it. I will check out the site, anyway. How funny - virtual books and some with coffee stains and all!:lol:
Quote by Dark Muse

Yes, the story is set for Two Bluebirds, Janine said she was going do an offical annoucment on Monday
Hopefully... I will announce it formally tomorrow - not too late, but not in the morning either. I am NOT a morning person!


I just finnised reading Two Bluebirds, and I just had to say, incredibly, I did not in fact hate the woman in this one.

Heheee, I can't figure you Dark Muse. I was going to suggest this one last month but thought you would hate the wife. How funny, I can't guess how you will react. Did you like the story?

[Dark Muse]

Hehe yes I did enjoy the story

and well not to go into too much deatil I think the reason my feelings were different in this story, is becasue for one I did not find the husband as symapathic in this story as the one in The Shadow in the Rose Garden

And the other thing, is that in Two Bluebirds, I felt husband and wife were more on equal footing with each other, they knew each other for what they were, I did not get so much the impression as I did in The Shadow in the Rose Garden, of some poor devoted husband beeing trampled over by his selfish wife.

[Virgil]

And the other thing, is that in Two Bluebirds, I felt husband and wife were more on equal footing with each other, they knew each other for what they were, I did not get so much the impression as I did in The Shadow in the Rose Garden, of some poor devoted husband beeing trampled over by his selfish wife.

Yeah, let's hear it for poor trampled husbands. :p :D

[Janine]

Yeah, let's hear it for poor trampled husbands. :p :D

The baby shower was great, but I ate too much, and now am too tired out to post. I can only reply to your comment to DM - :lol: :lol: :lol:

See you all tomorrow - I will be more awake hopefully!:yawnb:

[Janine]

Hehe yes I did enjoy the story

and well not to go into too much deatil I think the reason my feelings were different in this story, is becasue for one I did not find the husband as symapathic in this story as the one in The Shadow in the Rose Garden

And the other thing, is that in Two Bluebirds, I felt husband and wife were more on equal footing with each other, they knew each other for what they were, I did not get so much the impression as I did in The Shadow in the Rose Garden, of some poor devoted husband beeing trampled over by his selfish wife.

That really does make a lot of sense, Dark Muse. :) The story was very amusing, wasn't it? :lol: and now I am going to bed!.... "perchance to read....more like dream...." *enormous yawn*

[Dark Muse]

Yes, that it was, and I look forward to our discussion of it

[Janine]

Yes, that it was, and I look forward to our discussion of it

Well, I am awake :eek: and I have had coffee so that is promising. Funny, after reading the story again, last night and digesting it, I was thinking about what you wrote DM, and now I don't think I am in full agreement with you about the husband and wife being on 'even footing', but I could be wrong, too. Therefore, this can be something we can furthur explore and disguss, after I officially post the story introduction. I have been trying to locate the original references, to the person, this story was based on, and there is an actual person. I found something new, but not the exact thing I had read before, so I am still researching that online and in my books. Be back in awhile with my introduction or later, tonight. I have to go out this evening for a short while, but will be back, not too late and may have to post it then if I don't do so in the day. Sorry for the delay, it can't be helped.

[Janine]

Hello Everyone!

Our next discussion will be on the short story:

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/BlueBirdsTypeFeatherWhiteT.jpg

This story involves a man and woman who have been married for a number of years and gotten used to each other. They cannot seem to coexist in the same house for long. The man is an author and therefore works at home, while the wife seems prone to spending much of the husband’s money and traveling extensively. The wife often goes off to parts of Europe or warmer climates, for extended periods of time and they have a sort of agreement that she has her affairs and that has nothing to do really with their marriage, claiming they love each other. The husband relies heavily on his devoted young secretary and so eventually, on returning home, the wife becomes observant and jealous of this dedicated relationship the secretary has with her husband, something the wife knows she could never give to him. I won’t give away anymore of story. I only want to comment, that I felt it was one of the more quick witted and amusing stories of Lawrence’s with an underlying feeling of resentments, unspoken between the husband and wife. This makes for an interesting study and scenario between wife, husband and secretary.

Interesting facts I was able to research about this story:

From: D.H.Lawrence A Calender of his Works by Sagar:

May 1926 At Pensione Lucchesi, Florence, until 6, then to Villa Mirenda, Scandicci, Florence, which was then the Lawrence home until June 1923.

SUMMARY Lawrence wrote his Introduction to Max Havelaar [B21 and Phoenix] and ‘Two Blue Birds’ [C154 B222 A41], and continued to work on the Etuscans.

13 MAY To Nancy Pearn: I send you a story, ‘Two Blue Birds’ – probably to be another tribulation to you [Huxley 658].

This ‘tribulation’ that Lawrence refers to is most likely his anticipation of protest from Compton Mackenzie, who you may have remembered was the model for Lawrence’s short story ‘The Man Who Loved Islands’; later when Lawrence’s publisher wanted to include the story in “The Prussian Officer and Other Short Stories” collection, Mackenzie threatened to sue, or pressured the publisher not to include it or he would find another publisher himself, because Mackenzie had the same publisher. A while back I read an account of Lawrence having lunch with Mackenzie’s wife Faith Mackensie, who confided in Lawrence about she and her husband’s separate life styles. Somewhat like Lawrence and Frieda, they had been married for awhile and apparently Faith spend much time away from their home, in Scotland. Like Lawrence, Compton Mackenzie was a productive author. Mackenzie apparently did not protest when his wife wished to wander off, from time to time. There are many references, in my biography books, mentioning Faith’s visits(alone and husband-less) to various place or groups of people Lawrence knew. After this fateful lunch with Faith, Lawrence wrote ‘Two Blue Birds’, obviously basing the story on her character and her husband. Of course, with L's writing of TMWLI - more fuel was added to the fire.

In another reference, found in my new Cambridge biography of L – “The Life of an Outsider” by John Worthen, I found this account:


But Lawrence was now properly back at work, typing out Frieda’s translation of [i]David, though he hated doing it (‘I loathe the typewriter’), writing essays about Florence and producting two pieces of work provoked by conversations, in Capri in March, with Compton Mackenzie’s wife, Faith: ‘another who loves her husband but can’t live with him.’ That wasn’t exactly true of him and Frieda, but the subject obviously appealed. ‘Two Blue Birds’ was a skit and no more, but ‘The Man Who Loved Islands’ became one of Lawrence’s greatest works: a profound criticism of the temperament that seeks out separation from the world.

Interesting to note, that the next story that follows this one, in the 2rd volume of the set, is the short story we all read and liked so much, "Sun". I sense the progression that took place in Lawrence's creative process, and find it a very interesting period in this writing. Chronologically, 'The Man Who Loved Islands' follows in the next and final volume (3).


I found these biographical notes of some interest, in the way in which the two short stories are linked somewhat, in Lawrence's original concept, basing them on the husband and wife. Also, rather humorous to me, was the fact, that Lawrence was retyping his wife’s work (probably annoyed at that) and hating the typewriter. He mentioned the secretary several times typing up manuscripts for the husband/author in this story.

Well, enjoy the story everyone! Now we can officially begin discussing it.:)

[Dark Muse]

Hehe well now that it has offically begun, I will be sure to work on picking out passages of which most stand out to me

[islandclimber]

Yay Janine!!!!!

[Janine]

Yay Janine!!!!!

Thanks all! I made it just in-time.....now about Chekhov and the ship.....well, I still have not read 'Gooseberries' - would it hurt, do you think, to read that one later and the story we will be discussing tomorrow, tonight? Or will I miss out on something taking them out of sequence. I will do my best I guess.


One thing I noticed about this Lawrence story, that seems so much different in form from other stories we read so far, is that even though there is a first person narrator, I feel that the things being thought and said, come directly from the wife's viewpoint. I also get the sense, throughout the story, that this is from the wife's point of view, entirely. I guess that would make sense since, in fact, Faith Mackenzie, who the story was fashioned after, was the one narrating her personal business, about her marriage to Lawrence, directly confiding in him, over a casual lunch. In this way, the story almost, but not quite, feels like a frame story. I like the quirky way the story is written. It moves along quickly, with many double meaning phrases, that really made me think and laugh, as well. I felt the story was very cleverly written and had more of an 'edge' - something like the way Chekhov wrote....is the story a little Chekhovian, do you think? or am I spending too much time in that other thread? ;) :lol:

[Quark]

Good introduction, Janine. I'll post something tomorrow when I get back from work.


Thanks all! I made it just in-time.....now about Chekhov and the ship.....well, I still have not read 'Gooseberries' - would it hurt, do you think, to read that one later and the story we will be discussing tomorrow, tonight? Or will I miss out on something taking them out of sequence. I will do my best I guess.

The order isn't that relevant. As long as you read "About Love" and "Gooseberries" together, it doesn't matter which one comes first. See you guys tomorrow.

[Janine]

Hehe well now that it has offically begun, I will be sure to work on picking out passages of which most stand out to me

Dark Muse, Oh good. If you do so, can you try and keep it in sequence, as to how the story develops? It is often good to work up the discussion, as the story progresses; otherwise, everyone just get randomly lost. At least for me this true when we jump way ahead too quickly. We have a whole month to discuss this story so let's take our time. At least going slowly and in order of events is less confusing for me.
I can't wait to hear what you have to say about the story and especially about the wife. I thought you were going to hate her. I even refrained from picking this story (last month) on account of your hatred for the lady in "Shadow in the Rose Garden":lol:

[islandclimber]

And she didn't really want him to kiss her; she knew him too well. Yes, she knew him too well. If you know a man too well, you don't want him to kiss you.

:D :D DH Lawrence in a "Wildesque" moment to coin another term... This is fantastic... Maybe not the best part of the story, but the wittiest... I love it... How come I've never seen this as a quote before?!?!?!

Janine great intro!!! It is a little like some of Chekhov's more comedic works... actually one comes to mind, "The Darling" where the lady only feels happy when she is married to someone and lives for them and through them.. she reminds me of the secretary in this story.. it is quite good as well.. One of Chekhov's better non tragic works...

I also saw the story as basically told by the wife and from her own viewpoint entirely... I think this was necessary to make the wife have some redeeming features... for if we did not have her thoughts to accompany the story, I would see her as pretty awful... but her thoughts put her actions and words into a more positive light... which is why I assume Lawrence wrote from the wife's perspective, so we all don't hate her... :D

sorry about quoting half way through the book.. :p I just saw Oscar Wilde in big bold letters when I read that, and I absolutely had to!!! :D

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, Oh good. If you do so, can you try and keep it in sequence, as to how the story develops? It is often good to work up the discussion, as the story progresses; otherwise, everyone just get randomly lost. At least for me this true when we jump way ahead too quickly. We have a whole month to discuss this story so let's take our time. At least going slowly and in order of events is less confusing for me.
I can't wait to hear what you have to say about the story and especially about the wife. I thought you were going to hate her. I even refrained from picking this story (last month) on account of your hatred for the lady in "Shadow in the Rose Garden":lol:

You got it, I will be sure to keep my quotes toward the begining of the story, and save the others untill we progress more to that point

[Janine]

You got it, I will be sure to keep my quotes toward the begining of the story, and save the others untill we progress more to that point

Hi again, Dark Muse! Ok, good you both get the system/my thought process. The discussions, where we 'refrained from' charging head-first to the very end of the story in the initial 24 hours, were the best in the long-run, so let's all take it s l o w l y and post segments, as the story progresses: highlight certain phrases and talk about them, as they develop. This worked well in the previous (successful discussions) so stay in the same frame of mind...chronological. We will get more out of it that way. There is a lot here to discuss and many of the lines are just so witty and great to think about in different contexts. This should be great fun!


And she didn't really want him to kiss her; she knew him too well. Yes, she knew him too well. If you know a man too well, you don't want him to kiss you. Isn't this just great...only Lawrence would write it just that way!


DH Lawrence in a "Wildesque" moment to coin another term... This is fantastic... Maybe not the best part of the story, but the wittiest... I love it... How come I've never seen this as a quote before?!?!?!

It is a thought and a consideration. Lawrence did like Wild, I believe. I should research that, before I make that statement. Lawrence knew first-hand how to dish out creative insults, he being constantly attacked and rejected, by former friends, publishers and the public. I think this comes out in this story. Lawrence could get so angry and say something when lashing out it, was actually funny to hear. He used the word 'swine' liberally. I laugh when I read his letters - they're so entertaining!

[quote]Janine great intro!!! It is a little like some of Chekhov's more comedic works... actually one comes to mind, "The Darling" where the lady only feels happy when she is married to someone and lives for them and through them.. she reminds me of the secretary in this story.. it is quite good as well.. One of Chekhov's better non tragic works...

Thanks so much, islandclimber. I am glad the 'introduction' works. I really did not quite know what to write, in summary, about this story. I tried finding a written summary or introduction, online and in my books, and came up blank, so I had to just make it up in my own words. I never like to tell too much anyway; just something short, to entice a person to read the story.
It was not easy finding that other biographical information, either. I had to hunt and hunt through countless books.
I would like that story "The Darling" I think. I will have to fit it in sometime soon. Thanks for the suggestion.

[quote]I also saw the story as basically told by the wife and from her own viewpoint entirely... I think this was necessary to make the wife have some redeeming features... for if we did not have her thoughts to accompany the story, I would see her as pretty awful... but her thoughts put her actions and words into a more positive light... which is why I assume Lawrence wrote from the wife's perspective, so we all don't hate her...

So you did also see it from her point of view...interesting way of writing, isn't it? I like your ideas on why. It makes her feelings seem 'human', reactions seem entirely believable, I imagine. We can see through her eyes and I will not say sympathise, but we can view the scenes unfolding, as she is percieving them. That may indeed, have been L's motive. However, the woman the story was fashioned after, Faith - I don't think she would have agreed with that idea. Her real husband, Compton, was very put-out at Lawrence over that story. But then again, maybe Lawrence was favoring her side - interesting thought - after all she had confided something to Lawrence about her married life and gave him the idea for this story to begin with. I believe it was a friendly lunch they had together. I had not viewed it quite that way. I might have to go back and read it a third time.;)

[quote]sorry about quoting half way through the book.. I just saw Oscar Wilde in big bold letters when I read that, and I absolutely had to!!!

[Dark Muse]

So you did also see it from her point of view...interesting way of writing, isn't it? I like your ideas on why. It makes her feelings seem 'human', reactions seem entirely believable, I imagine. We can see through her eyes and I will not say sympathise, but we can view the scenes unfolding, as she is percieving them. That may indeed, have been L's motive. However, the woman the story was fashioned after, Faith - I don't think she would have agreed with that idea. Her real husband, Compton, was very put-out at Lawrence over that story. But then again, maybe Lawrence was favoring her side - interesting thought - after all she had confided something to Lawrence about her married life and gave him the idea for this story to begin with. I believe it was a friendly lunch they had together. I had not viewed it quite that way. I might have to go back and read it a third time.;)

I rather enjoyed the way the story was written from her point of view, and though I cannot say I entirely agree with her, in someways I can understand/relate to her feelings. Though it is true I did not dislike her, I also would not say I completely sympathathied with her, than I do not think she was seeking any sympathy.

One of the things that really struck me about her, and perhaps contributed to my feelings toward her, is the fact that she came off as being both a very strong woman as well as independent. And in many ways, she does admit her own faults.

I must admit that I also do enjoy her sardonic cynicism


But when he sat in the greyness of England, at the back of his mind, with a certain grim fidelity, he was aware of his wife, her strange yearning to be loyal and faithful, having her gallant affairs away in the sun, in the south. And she, as she drank her cocktail on the terrace over the sea, and turned her grey, sardonic eyes on the heavy dark face of her admirer, whom she really liked quite a lot, she was actually preoccupied with the clear-cut features of here handsome young husband, thinking about how he would be asking his secretary to do something for him, asking in that good-natured confident voice of a man who knows his request will be only too gladly fulfilled

I really enjoyed the passage. I liked the contrast it showed between the two. The husband in grey England, while the wife, away in the sun. I also like the way in which while the wife is perceived here as being rather gay and vibrant, the husband is seen as being more grim and dreary.

Though I did find it interesting the fact that the wife's eyes are described as being grey as well, while is gazing upon her admirer with her thoughts turning back to her husband.


You never knew how catty a man was being, when he was really clever and enigmatic, withal a bit whimsical. He was adorably whimsical, with a twist of his flexible handsome, clear-cut mouth, that had a long upper lip, so fraught with vanity! But then a handsome clear-cut histrionic young man like that, how could he help being vain? The women made him so.

First of all, I just loved the fact that he was described as being catty here, sense such is a term most often used to refer to women. And I loved the whimsical description. I found something almost charming in this passage.


Ah, the women! How nice men would be if there were no other women!

And how nice the women would be if there were no other men!

I just love these lines.


That is best of a secretary. She may have a husband, but a husband is the mere shred of a man, compared to a boss, a chief, a man who dictates to you and whose words you faithfully write down and then transcribe. Imagine a wife writing down anything her husband said to her! But a secretary! Every and and but of his she preserves for ever. Where are candied violets in comparison

I really liked this passage. It displays a certain kind of intimacy which exists between a man and his secretary for the special sort of relationship they have together. The secretary is seen as being in some sort of awe over the man whom dictates to her while she gives him a special importance.

I particularly like


Imagine a wife writing down anything her husband said to her!

To me there is a certain humor here, for it is a rather timeless joke, the fact that women are so often portrayed as not paying attention to their husbands or listening to them.

[Virgil]

As usual I'm behind. I haven't read it yet. I'll jump in as soon as I can, but don't wait for me.

[Janine]

I rather enjoyed the way the story was written from her point of view, and though I cannot say I entirely agree with her, in someways I can understand/relate to her feelings. Though it is true I did not dislike her, I also would not say I completely sympathathied with her, than I do not think she was seeking any sympathy.

I agree with that assessment and observation.



One of the things that really struck me about her, and perhaps contributed to my feelings toward her, is the fact that she came off as being both a very strong woman as well as independent. And in many ways, she does admit her own faults.

Dark Muse, I read your post last night and thought it was excellent. I just was way too tired (it was 3 AM here!) to respond. Glad you jumped right in and posted the passages to discuss. Thanks so much for that.

True - a more modern thinking woman perhaps and one has to consider the time this is set in. Women were not known to work if they were married unless they were established authors or artists. I felt she was somewhat like Lawrence's own wife, who was known to have a few affairs, here and there in their marriage, but felt it was nothing that affected their marriage or love for each other. That is questionable on Lawrence's end but it seemed her attitude was more liberated, although I don't personally subscribe to infidelity. So, in this story I think Lawrence is merely exploring that idea and the fact that eventually the wife returns home and does have some feelings of resentment and being left out of her husband's life. It sets up an interesting case to look at. True she can see her own faults. She later says that she could not do the things that his secretary does for him. I don't think the wife is practical minded at all or does any bit of work. She's much like a 'kept woman', enjoying the benefits of her husband's income, but that always does have it's downside.


I must admit that I also do enjoy her sardonic cynicism

Very much so, and 'sardonic' and 'cynicism' are a good words. I was gropping for words that would describe her cynicism and her remarks. This is why I said this story reminded me of a Chekhov story - he often is sardonic and cynical when describing the thoughts of a person or viewing people.


I really enjoyed the passage. I liked the contrast it showed between the two. The husband in grey England, while the wife, away in the sun. I also like the way in which while the wife is perceived here as being rather gay and vibrant, the husband is seen as being more grim and dreary.

Good observation - good contrast. It seems to me they both are somewhat in a state of 'inertia' in the marriage, although she takes the step to try and escape it. Apparently, when she does so, she can't really leave her life behind; it trails along with her, even if she tries to shut out thoughts of him. We will get to those passages, later on. Yes, she seeks the sun - strange since the story following this one, is similar in that the wife leaves the gray existence, which is restrictive and stagnant, with her huband in the states, and then gravitates to warmer, sunnier climates. It seems that in the next story, Lawrence advances the characters to find the 'sun' and the healing powers, it can provide. In this story we see only the bitter conflict.


Though I did find it interesting the fact that the wife's eyes are described as being grey as well, while is gazing upon her admirer with her thoughts turning back to her husband.

Lawrence really had a thing for describing eyes. He often even changes the color of one character's eyes somewhat, throughtout the story, to depict a mood or a change. It is an interesting thing to observe. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study or a thesis on 'eyes' in Lawrence's literature. In one book I read, he described the eyes of this man, who was more 'blood conscious', and a sort of wandering gypsy performer in threater group, as yellow; I am referring to the novel "The Lost Girl". I think in 'The Fox' he also used the image of yellow eyes. Do these depict the sun, do you think? I recall mention of it often, in "The Plumed Serpent". I want to throw this in now, so I don't forget it. I read in a letter, while researching for this story, that when Lawrence's publisher suggested that name for the novel "The Plumed Serpent", Lawrence made the remark in a letter that he thought it was a silly name. He originally was going to entitle the novel "Quentzalcoatl", the name for the lost sun god in Mexico. The publisher did not like the name at all, so Lawrence relented. That is just a little tidbit, I thought of interest. Many of Lawrence's stories and novels were renamed by others or his publishers. No wonder he became cynical and annoyed at so many people. I say leave the author to his own concepts and titles!


First of all, I just loved the fact that he was described as being catty here, sense such is a term most often used to refer to women. And I loved the whimsical description. I found something almost charming in this passage.

That is quite interesting. I think that men can be 'caddy' at times, just the same as women, but you are right - it has been a term assigned solely to women, mostly since men tagged them! ;) :lol:. Battle of the sexes ensues once again....hahaha....Hey, DM, now we women are outnumbered on this thread again, unless Pensive shows up to even things out.:D

Let me further comment on those quoted lines:


You never knew how catty a man was being, when he was really clever and enigmatic, withal a bit whimsical. He was adorably whimsical, with a twist of his flexible handsome, clear-cut mouth, that had a long upper lip, so fraught with vanity! But then a handsome clear-cut histrionic young man like that, how could he help being vain? The women made him so.

I do notice this is entirely from the wife's opinion, but I do like that she is saying this. Then she turns it to whimsy and to her husband as being adorable when whimsical...interesting. In one paragraph, she is criticising him, and then by the end, she is admiring him. In fact, she is defending him by the last statement. She is basically saying it is not his fault for being vain; women made him that way. This paragraph is quite intricate and 'telling' of the wife's truer impressions of her huband.


I just love these lines.




I really liked this passage. It displays a certain kind of intimacy which exists between a man and his secretary for the special sort of relationship they have together. The secretary is seen as being in some sort of awe over the man whom dictates to her while she gives him a special importance.

Then I will requote these lines and I love them, too:


That is best of a secretary. She may have a husband, but a husband is the mere shred of a man, compared to a boss, a chief, a man who dictates to you and whose words you faithfully write down and then transcribe. Imagine a wife writing down anything her husband said to her! But a secretary! Every and and but of his she preserves for ever. Where are candied violets in comparison.

It is true too, and probably why so many bosses go for their secretaries or have affairs with them; sometimes they actually marry them, but most times not...that would ruin the whole deal. The secretary is in a position of 'unconditional' love and respect for the man. Maybe, it is not true love, but it is devotion and attentiveness. What wife can possible fill those shoes, all of the time? Unrealistic! The husband/secretary relationship is a unique one and often it leads to illicit affairs or breakups in the marriage. The wife does usually know, to begin with and ignores it. I think back to our US president, FDR; it was common knowlegde he had affairs with his secretary, until he became disabled. His wife knew. She was home raising the kids and how could she find time to listen to every little thing her husband said or wrote down? Yet to the day he died they professed to love one another, and they did stick it out and stay together. From what I understand, his disability changed him and so the relationship finally had a chance, but then who really knows? At least after that they came to some kind of mutal understanding of each other and respect and better communication.


I particularly like

I do too, and I requote them here:

Imagine a wife writing down anything her husband said to her!

Exactly! Lawrence even complained about having to retype "David" which his wife, Frieda, had typed for him, filling in for his usual typist. He was grumbling and annoyed, just about the time he was also writing this story. I think that comes through in this story. What wife could take on the secretary job realistically???

Requoting your lines:

To me there is a certain humor here, for it is a rather timeless joke, the fact that women are so often portrayed as not paying attention to their husbands or listening to them.

Absolutely! It can go both ways though. Lots of men don't pay any attention to what their wives say, either. It is a universal and timeless joke or observation. Men are different than women; that is for certain! Obviously, this particular couple did not have a good communication, but then that may have been, because of the time this story was set in. Still many don't to this day. Communication takes work and attention.

Quote by Virgil:


As usual I'm behind. I haven't read it yet. I'll jump in as soon as I can, but don't wait for me.

Virgil, that is ok, but try and catch up soon, so you don't repeat what we say. I am dying for you to be in this discussion. It should add a lot to the interpretation.

[SleepyWitch]

oh shoot, you guys have already got started on the new story?
how many pages is it?

[Janine]

oh shoot, you guys have already got started on the new story?
how many pages is it?

SleepyWitch, I am so sorry; I nearly forgot about you joining our group. I only posted the 'introduction' last night...one day ahead of schedule...I was being pressured to do so...all these anxious participants;) . When I mentioned the 'girls against the guys' in my post to Dark Muse, I forgot you were also planning on joining in. If Pensive arrives, we girls will outnumber the guys.;) If not we are even. :lol:
Don't worry; you can catch up easily now. We did not get far into the story yet, and we start (in this thread) with the beginning passages, and progress as we go along. It is less confusing that way, and we can see just how the story builds.
Did you read the story yet? If not the story is about 10, 11, 12 pages - I can't seem to find that part of my book, that fell off the binding (the ending pages)...it is somewhere here hiding from me. The story is not a terribly long one to read, and it is comprised of much 'snappy, witty' dialogue, which makes it go quickly. You will enjoy it. The wife is sort of 'witchy' at times and very humorous. :D Enjoy your reading!:) It is an interesting story.

[Dark Muse]

True - a more modern thinking woman perhaps and one has to consider the time this is set in. Women were not known to work if they were married unless they were established authors or artists. I felt she was somewhat like Lawrence's own wife, who was known to have a few affairs, here and there in their marriage, but felt it was nothing that affected their marriage or love for each other. That is questionable on Lawrence's end but it seemed her attitude was more liberated, although I don't personally subscribe to infidelity. So, in this story I think Lawrence is merely exploring that idea and the fact that eventually the wife returns home and does have some feelings of resentment and being left out of her husband's life. It sets up an interesting case to look at. True she can see her own faults. She later says that she could not do the things that his secretary does for him. I don't think the wife is practical minded at all or does any bit of work. She much like a kept woman enjoying the benefits of her husband's income, but that always does have it's downside.

Yes I agree wit this, and in fact she herself says how incompotent she really is, and this seems to be a source of sone of her resentment, the fact that she knows she could never do the things for her husband that the secerety can and the fact that perhaps in someways she feels a burdon becasue she knows she is not good for any sort of work.

There are simillar aspcets to the last story in this one I think. As it seems in someways the wife does leave and get away from her husband to escape the fact that there is an asepct of her husbands life she can never truly be a part of and she does not want to have to live with that every day. So she goes away to distract herself.



Good observation - good contrast. It seems to me they both are somewhat in a state of inertia in the marriage, although she takes the step to try and escape it. Apparently when she does so she can't really leave her life behind; it trails along with her, even if she tries to shut out thoughts of him. We will get to those passages later on. Yes, she seeks the sun - strange since the story following this one is similar in that the wife leaves the gray existence, which is restrictive and stagnant, with her huband in the states and then gravitates to warmer sunnier climates. It seems that in the next story, Lawrence advances the characters to find the 'sun' and the healing powers it can provide. In this story we see only the bitter conflict.

Yes, this is very true, and I liked the part where it said:


They had the most sincere regard for one another, and felt, in some odd way, eternally married to one another.

Though they cannot stand to acutally be together, they are still forever bonded to each other. They can never completely escape one another.



Lawrence really had a thing for describing eyes. He often even changes the color of one character's eyes somewhat to depict a mood or a change. It is an interesting thing to observe. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study or a thesis on eyes in Lawrence's literature. One book I read he described the eyes of this man who was more 'blood conscious' and a sort of wandering gypsy performer in threater group, as yellow; I am referencing to the novel "The Lost Girl". I think in 'The Fox' the also used the image of yellow eyes. Do these depict the sun, do you think? I recall mention of it often in "The Plumed Serpent". I want to throw this in now, so I don't forget it. I read in a letter, while researching for this story, that when Lawrence's publisher suggested that name for the novel "The Plumed Serpent" Lawrence made the remark in a letter that he thought it was a silly name. He originally was going to entitle the novel "Quentzalcoatl", the name for the lost sun god in Mexico. The publisher did not like the name at all, so Lawrence relented. That is just a little tidbit, I thought of interest. Many of Lawrence's stories and novels were renamed by others or his publishers. No wonder he became cynical and annoyed at so many people. I say leave the author to his own concepts and titles!

That is indeed interesting.



I do notice this is entirely from the wife's opinion but I do like that she is saying this. Then she turns it to whimsy and to him being adorable when whimsical...interesting. In one paragraph she is criticising him and then by the end she is admiring him. In fact, she is defending him by the last statement. She is basically saying it is not his fault for being vain; women made him that way. This paragraph is quite intricate and 'telling' of the wife's truer impressions of her huband.


Yes, that is a very good point. Her conflict with her feelings for her husband can be seen in her view of him here. And the fact that she did turn her slight around to compliment him, as well the last line in which she does justify him by finding the fault in the other women, can reflect some of her views reguarding the secerety and her relation to her husband.




It is true too, and probably why so many bosses go for their secretaries or have affairs with them; sometimes they actually marry them but most times not...that would ruin the whole deal. The secretary is in a position of 'unconditional' love and respect for the man. Maybe, it is not true love, but it is devotion and attentiveness. What wife can possible fill those shoes, all of the time? Unrealistic! The husband/secretary relationship is a unique one and often it leads to ilicit affairs or breakups in the marriage. The wife does usually know, to begin with and ignores it. I think back to our US president, FDR; it was common knowlegde he had affairs with his secretary, until he became disabled. His wife knew. She was home raising the kids and how could she find time to listen to everything little thing her husband said or wrote down? Yet to the day he died they professed to love one another and they did stick it out and stay together. From what I understand his disability changed him and so the relationship finally had a chance, but then who really knows?

Yes that is very true, and another interesting thing, is that it does mention within the story, how much the husband and wife had gotten along so well before they were married, but now that they are married they only seem to serve to irritate each other. The wife contemplates how she herself can find other men enjoyable and yet not her own husband whom she sees still as being very handsome, and yet she still thinks of him, when she is having her affairs.

I also found this passage interesting


So they remained friends, in the awful unspoken intimacy of the once-married. Usually each year they went away together for a holiday, and if they had not been man and wife they would have found a great deal of fun and stimulation in one another. The fact that they were married, had been married for the last dozen years, and couldn't live togehter for the last three or four, spoilt them for one another. Each had a private feeling of bitterness about the other.

Though they are still married, this brought to mind the sentiment, and relationship that sometimes seem to exisit between divorced couples whom seem to still get along and care for each and yet can never manage to live with each other.



Absolutely! It can go both ways though. Lots of men don't pay any attention to what their wives say, either. It is a universal and timeless joke or observation. Men are different than women; that is for certain! Obviously, this particular couple did not have a good communication, but then that may have been because of the time this story was set in. Still many don't to this day. Communication takes work.

Yes, that is very true

[SleepyWitch]

ok 12 pages sounds managabel :) but I can only copy the story at univ tomorrow. heheh, but the time difference between Europa and America gives me a little head start :)

[Janine]

ok 12 pages sounds managabel :) but I can only copy the story at univ tomorrow. heheh, but the time difference between Europa and America gives me a little head start :)

SleepWitch,Yes, but doesn't the time difference go the other way? Isn't it later there now than here - it is 5:16 PM here right now. If you are in Europe then it is later there, right? Anyway, when I recently printed out the Chekhov stories, I reduced them in my Word program - I used Ariel 10pt and they came down to a few less pages. You might try that, to save money, or are photocopies free at your university? I have my own printer, but did not want to waste too much ink, on each story. Good luck and hope you can read the story soon. You can catch up easily. I don't think Virgil read it yet either. We will try to go along slowly till everyone is present.

[Quark]

Maybe I'm getting ahead myself here, but I can't get over the ending. The last two stories end with a reconciliation, but where the previous one was effected through "blood consciousness" this one is reached through derision and sarcasm. The "Blind Man" conclusion is a typical instance of the rejuvenating power in "blood consciousness." This one, however, I don't know what to make of. It seems odd that Lawrence would use the caustic banter of the wife to heal their relationship. Isn't that un-Lawrencelike?

[Janine]

Maybe I'm getting ahead myself here, but I can't get over the ending. The last two stories end with a reconciliation, but where the previous one was effected through "blood consciousness" this one is reached through derision and sarcasm. The "Blind Man" conclusion is a typical instance of the rejuvenating power in "blood consciousness." This one, however, I don't know what to make of. It seems odd that Lawrence would use the caustic banter of the wife to heal their relationship. Isn't that un-Lawrencelike?

Quark, not sure how to answer this. I do think if you knew more of Lawrence's personal life/biography, you would see he often was pretty caustic or could be. He was never really 'mean' to my knowledge, but he could lash back with witty cynisism to his enemies (and he had a few) and to his public and publishers. I don't think the story surprised me, nearly as much as it has you. I think that, if we take it from the beginning and not jump too far ahead yet, (SleepWitch is still reading it and so is Virgil;) ) we should take a slow look at the whole story and how it develops and see where that ending does lead us.

This story might be just what was stated in something I read earlier - 'a sketch' - in other words, a window into someone's personal life and relationship. The outcome? I really don't know yet. I am hoping that Virgil has some ideas on it. I don't think this story relies much on the 'blood consciousness' ideas we have seen in previous stories....not all do explore that idea. It is more like Chekhov, just showing us the bare facts of what is going on and leaving the conclusion for us to draw. I honestly had a hard time writing up a short description of this story. I can't wait till Virgil joins in and also will be interested in others comments; but I think we should discuss this as the story unravels and worry about the outcome and ending later on. We have a whole month to discuss this story and it is not that long a one.

[Quark]

Quark, not sure how to answer this. I do think if you knew more of Lawrence's personal life/biography, you would see he often was pretty caustic or could be. He was never really 'mean' to my knowledge, but he could lash back with witty cynisism to his enemies (and he had a few) and to his public and publishers. I don't think the story surprised me, nearly as much as it has you.

SPOILERS
So you don't see this as against the grain for Lawrence? This story was definitely much different from last story. That isn't to say that plot was different. That was almost the same: marriage interrupted by an interloper (Bertie, Wexall) which eventually leads to reconciliation. What differs dramatically (well, besides the tone) is the resolution. This story seems to skip over where the reconciliation scene was in the last story. When she sees the bluebirds in the garden I thought here we go again. We're going to have this connection scene in the midst of nature. But, read further, and no there's no such scene here. Instead, it moves into the last conversation in which the one bluebird sarcastically derides the other and drives her off. This caught me a little by surprise. It did seem like an odd departure from what I had come to expect.


I think that, if we take it from the beginning and not jump too far ahead yet, (SleepWitch is still reading it and so is Virgil;) ) we should take a slow look at the whole story and how it develops and see where that ending does lead us.

Sorry to jump ahead. The ending was just the first thing that came to mind.


The outcome? I really don't know yet. I am hoping that Virgil has some ideas on it.

Where is our other Lawrence guru anyway?


It is more like Chekhov, just showing us the bare facts of what is going on and leaving the conclusion for us to draw.

"The Two Bluebirds" does have a sort of Chekhov-like sparseness of detail.

[islandclimber]

Janine, Quark, DarkMuse.. Great posts... I took a lot of the same ideas from the story as you mentioned already DM....

Quark, do you think in either story there was any real reconciliation at the end... I mean, the last story, only the main character Maurice, is content.. his wife is perplexed, and Bertie is destroyed... this story, The wife has done her ill work, and is satisfied with herself, but the secretary is distraught, and the husband I think is for the most part somewhat annoyed...


By DarkMuse Yes I agree wit this, and in fact she herself says how incompotent she really is, and this seems to be a source of sone of her resentment, the fact that she knows she could never do the things for her husband that the secerety can and the fact that perhaps in someways she feels a burdon becasue she knows she is not good for any sort of work.

There are simillar aspcets to the last story in this one I think. As it seems in someways the wife does leave and get away from her husband to escape the fact that there is an asepct of her husbands life she can never truly be a part of and she does not want to have to live with that every day. So she goes away to distract herself.


Oh I agee with this too... and the similarity of the wives knowing there is an aspect of their husbands they do not have access to, and seemingly cannot.. but in the last one it was on a deep level, that blood-conscious level... this one it is more of a vanity, an external thing, an illusion, that they put between themselves I think.... she can't be part of it, partly because she thinks it is beneath her,, and she doesn't want to be.. I don't think she is overly interested in her husband outside of the fact he is her husband...

but back to the beginning... I love how Lawrence starts this almost as a fairytale... when the story is so far from a fairytale... "There was a woman who loved her husband---"... just add, "Once upon a time" before that and we have a fairytale... :D .. You don't often see stories beginning with the words, "there was" at least outside of fantasy... And Lawrence uses this kind of fantasy beginning, this simple statement, to great effect in introducing the story... I do find it interesting how he tells the story as though it almost were a fairytale... Does anyone else see that or am I off my rocker (it has been getting kind of rickety recently so I wouldn't be surprised :p )???

And these lines as well from the start impressed me, and gave me a feel for the essence of the relationship

"So they remained friends, in the awful unspoken intimacy of the once-married."

it is quite the cynical statement about the wonders of marriage... as though a friend is the best one could hope for, never a lover, definitely never a passionate lover.. he almost puts an exclamation point on that with this line... they have this conscious intimacy that needs no words, but it is more of a trouble than a good thing coming out of a great love... they love each other at a distance, but as he states later in that same paragraph, they both have private feelings of bitterness towards the other... so it seems they love an idealized version of the other they have in their minds, and can't handle the real, living version when they are together... the wife's idle thoughts about the nature of her husband kind of seem idealistic, idyllic, in a sense... and she only thinks that at a distance... but I think that proximity, and nearness, physical intimacy sour this for her with him, she finds he doesn't live up to that idyllic perfection she builds up in her mind while apart....

I also found it very interesting, that while talking of her love affairs, and paramours, right after she speaks of:

"When a man has an adoring secretary, and you are the man's wife, what are you to do? Not that there was anything 'wrong' - if you know what I mean! - between them. Nothing you could call adultery, to come down to brass tacks. No, no! They were just the young master and his secretary. He dictated to her, she slaved for him and adored him, and the whole thing went on wheels."

so it is okay for her to be adulterous, but not for him??? that is an interesting idea and definitely a very one sided morality...

well, that's a far into the story as I'll go tonight... I need a real sleep tonight,.. for once...:D I look forward to everyone's continued thoughts...

[Janine]

So you don't see this as against the grain for Lawrence? This story was definitely much different from last story. That isn't to say that plot was different. That was almost the same: marriage interrupted by an interloper (Bertie, Wexall) which eventually leads to reconciliation. What differs dramatically (well, besides the tone) is the resolution. This story seems to skip over where the reconciliation scene was in the last story. When she sees the bluebirds in the garden I thought here we go again. We're going to have this connection scene in the midst of nature. But, read further, and no there's no such scene here. Instead, it moves into the last conversation in which the one bluebird sarcastically derides the other and drives her off. This caught me a little by surprise. It did seem like an odd departure from what I had come to expect.

Seriously, I have read enough Lawrence material by now, that I don't see this story against the grain of Lawrence, at all. I guess you have be looking at it from my viewpoint. I don't think Lawrence always ends a story with a solution or reconciliation and if you are expecting that to happen it just doesn't in many of the short stories and sometimes in the novels, as well. We can work up to the ending and talk about the significance of those bluebirds when we get to them. I thought the last line curious and still don't know exactly how to take it. I don't want to jump to that yet...ok?


Sorry to jump ahead. The ending was just the first thing that came to mind.

Yeah....grrrr...it is only April 1st and you are giving away the ending already. I don't see the word 'spoiler' above your post either. Two or three people had not read the story yet.


Where is our other Lawrence guru anyway?

Well, I am wondering just where anybody is tonight, let alone Virgil, the 'Lawrence guru'....that is a good name for him!:lol: I thought you guys were all pressuring me to get started, and I was tired last night, but posted the intro anyway.... and now no one seems to be here. Where is everyone - speechless? I think, personally, I am going to call it a night and go read in bed. I am super tired out, anyway. I didn't even watch a movie tonight - and that is highly unusual.

"The Two Bluebirds" does have a sort of Chekhov-like sparseness of detail.[/QUOTE]

I thought so too, but I thought the sadonic tone and the wit reminded me of a Chekhov story. I think that the short story by Lawrence 'Things' - one of my favorites, also has a sort of wit and irony to it. It was the first one we did here, but really we did not discuss it very well. I wish we could redo that discussion. There were not enough participants at the time and it got glazed over. You should read 'Things' Quark, I think you would like it. I also think others who missed it would find it of interest. It is a good story and moves quickly.

[Dark Muse]

so it is okay for her to be adulterous, but not for him??? that is an interesting idea and definitely a very one sided morality...

well, that's a far into the story as I'll go tonight... I need a real sleep tonight,.. for once...:D I look forward to everyone's continued thoughts...

Yes, that is true, but than she does have those couple of moments where she seems almost annoyed with her husband that he does not acutally give more intimacy to his seceretray for all she does for him.


That girl-she was only twenty-eight-really slaved herself to skin and bone. She was small and neat, but she was acutally worn out. She did far more work than he did, for she had not only to take those words he uttered, she had to type them out, make three copies, while he was resting.

"What on earth she gets out of it" thought the wife, "I don't know. She's simply worn to the bone for a very poor salery, and he's never kissed her, and never will, if I know anything about him"

Wheather his never kissing her-the secretary, that is-made it worse or better, the wife did not decide. He never kissed anybody. Whether she herself - the wife, that is- wanted to be kissed by him, even that she was not clear about. She rather thought she didn't


"A very different way!" said the wife ironicaly. "Why don't you make him think about you?" she added, with a sort of a drawl. "On a soft spring afternoon like this, you ought to have him dicating poems to you, about the blue birds of happiness fluttering round your dainty little feet. I know I would, if I were his scretary"

Some of the wifes agitation seems to be over the devotion that the women give to her husband, without seeming to get any real benfit in return from him. Though in part this could be, becasue she knows she herself would never be so selflessly devoted to him in such a way. And that she would be incapable of working for him.

[grace86]

BOO!!! :lol:

Just thought I'd say hello and scare ya'll to see me here! Thought I was dead didn't you?


As usual I'm behind. I haven't read it yet. I'll jump in as soon as I can, but don't wait for me.

Not nearly as far behind as I am...in fact, I am not even in the running!

[Janine]

BOO!!! :lol:

Just thought I'd say hello and scare ya'll to see me here! Thought I was dead didn't you?



Not nearly as far behind as I am...in fact, I am not even in the running!

Hey,grace - BOO, yourself!!! Where have you been hiding? I have been thinking about your lately and wondered where you ran off to. Hey, you should read this story and join the discussion. It is a very short story. We have to talk soon on IM. I miss our late night conversations. Of course, I did not think you were dead - oh horrors! Perish the thought. You probably have been up to no good. I must hear about it all and university life.

Hey, islandclimber, somehow you snuck in, when I was posting and I missed your post, and then checking back, I finally I did read your latest posts and Dark Muse'sposts, as well; but, to be honest with you both, I can't fully function right now or process anyone's post on the story. I need sleep, too...badly.:yawnb:
I do have an answer to your one question, islandclimber, as to the fairytale beginning. We did discuss this a short while back and infact this story is much like one we did a few months ago which starts out "There was a man who loved islands"....same sort of fairytale or fable device. Yes, you are very observant (not crazy at all), and I will expand on this idea tomorrow. Lawrence wrote several stories, in this vain, towards the end of his career and life. More on all this tomorrow, when hopefully, my brain will be working much better. Night all!:)

[Quark]

Quark, do you think in either story there was any real reconciliation at the end... I mean, the last story, only the main character Maurice, is content.. his wife is perplexed, and Bertie is destroyed... this story, The wife has done her ill work, and is satisfied with herself, but the secretary is distraught, and the husband I think is for the most part somewhat annoyed...

Contentment is a little different than just reconciliation. I wasn't saying that the stories ended happily, just that they ended with characters connecting.


I don't want to jump to that yet...ok?

Alright, I'll wait.


but back to the beginning... I love how Lawrence starts this almost as a fairytale... when the story is so far from a fairytale... "There was a woman who loved her husband---"... just add, "Once upon a time" before that and we have a fairytale... :D .. You don't often see stories beginning with the words, "there was" at least outside of fantasy... And Lawrence uses this kind of fantasy beginning, this simple statement, to great effect in introducing the story... I do find it interesting how he tells the story as though it almost were a fairytale... Does anyone else see that or am I off my rocker (it has been getting kind of rickety recently so I wouldn't be surprised :p )???

That's a good observation. Do you think Lawrence uses that fairy-tale tone sarcastically, or is he in earnest here?

[Janine]

Hi Everyone, I am back and now awake finally....wait until you see just how awake and alert I am...this post is gigantic...I wrote it offline and it took me forever, so I do hope someone reads it. Sorry I was so out of it yesterday; apparently I just needed sleep.
Ok, the only way to stay focused for me, was to go back to the posts and review them and recap somethings that already have been said. I felt much had gotten skipped over. I have requoted some; some of my own quotes with highlights in bold, also…please forgive these repeats, but mostly I have commended on them after re-thinking the story and reviewing some text..

Pg. 87 #1296 Posted Introduction; discussion officially began

#1299
Quote by Janine

One thing I noticed about this Lawrence story, that seems so much different in form from other stories we read so far, is that even though there is a first person narrator, I feel that the things being thought and said, come directly from the wife's viewpoint. I also get the sense, throughout the story, that this is from the wife's point of view, entirely. I guess that would make sense since, in fact, Faith Mackenzie, who the story was fashioned after, was the one narrating her personal business, about her marriage to Lawrence, directly confiding in him, over a casual lunch. In this way, the story almost, but not quite, feels like a frame story.

#1302
Quote by islandclimber in answer

I also saw the story as basically told by the wife and from her own viewpoint entirely... I think this was necessary to make the wife have some redeeming features... for if we did not have her thoughts to accompany the story, I would see her as pretty awful... but her thoughts put her actions and words into a more positive light... which is why I assume Lawrence wrote from the wife's perspective, so we all don't hate her...

#1304
My request
Quote by Janine

The discussions, where we 'refrained from' charging head-first to the very end of the story in the initial 24 hours, were the best in the long-run, so let's all take it s l o w l y and post segments, as the story progresses: highlight certain phrases and talk about them, as they develop. This worked well in the previous (successful discussions) so stay in the same frame of mind...chronological. We will get more out of it that way. There is a lot here to discuss and many of the lines are just so witty and great to think about in different contexts. This should be great fun!

Quote by Janine

Lawrence knew first-hand how to dish out creative insults, he being constantly attacked and rejected, by former friends, publishers and the public. I think this comes out in this story. Lawrence could get so angry and say something when lashing out it, was actually funny to hear. He used the word 'swine' liberally. I laugh when I read his letters - they're so entertaining!

I will have to dig up some of Lawrence’s best insults and share them with you all. They are so laughable. Leave it to Lawrence and his endless sense of creativity, even in insults.

#1305
Quote by Dark Muse

I rather enjoyed the way the story was written from her point of view, and though I cannot say I entirely agree with her, in someways I can understand/relate to her feelings…… I did not dislike her, I also would not say I completely sympathized with her, than I do not think she was seeking any sympathy…….
One of the things that really struck me about her, and perhaps contributed to my feelings toward her, is the fact that she came off as being both a very strong woman as well as independent. And in many ways, she does admit her own faults…….
I must admit that I also do enjoy her sardonic cynicism

These are 3 interesting points to bring up and something we might want to talk about further. Was the wife really ‘independent’, if she had to live/rely on her husband’s income? Also, how strong was she, if she gravitated back to her husband, a person she did not truly feel emotionally connected to or did she? I am not sure at all that she was strong or independent in truth. I am also in question as to whether the husband and wife are indeed on equal footing. I don’t see that they are, financially, not if the wife depends on the husband’s money for her countless trips abroad.

Pg 88

#1307
Quote by Janine

True - a more modern thinking woman perhaps and one has to consider the time this is set in. Women were not known to work, if they were married, unless they were established authors/artists. I felt she was somewhat like Lawrence's own wife, who was known to have a some casual affairs, from time to time during their marriage, but felt it was nothing that affected their marriage or love for each other. That is questionable on Lawrence's end for I think it did bother him to an extend; but it seemed her attitude was more liberated, although I don't personally subscribe to infidelity.

So, in this story, I think Lawrence is merely exploring that idea and the fact, that eventually, the wife returns home and does have some feelings of resentment and being left out of her husband's life. It sets up an interesting case to look at. True she can see her own faults. She later says that she could not do the things that his secretary does for him. I don't think the wife is practical minded at all or does any bit of work. She's much like a 'kept woman', enjoying the benefits of her husband's income, but that always does have it's downside.
#1310
Quote by DarkMuse in answer

Yes I agree with this, and in fact she herself says how incompetent she really is, and this seems to be a source of some of her resentment, the fact that she knows she could never do the things for her husband that the secretly can and the fact that perhaps in some ways she feels a burden because she knows she is not good for any sort of work.

…. similar aspects to the last story…. As it seems in some ways the wife does leave and get away from her husband to escape the fact that there is an aspect of her husband’s life she can never truly be a part of and she does not want to have to live with that every day. So she goes away to distract herself.

Quote by Janine in answer

It seems to me they both are somewhat in a state of 'inertia' in the marriage, although she takes the step to try and escape it. Apparently, when she does so, she can't really leave her life behind; it trails along with her, even if she tries to shut out thoughts of him. We will get to those passages, later on.

….. the story following this one, is similar in that the wife leaves the gray existence, which is restrictive and stagnant, with her husband in the states, and then gravitates to warmer, sunnier climates. It seems that in the next story, Lawrence advances the characters to find the 'sun' and the healing powers, it can provide. In this story we see only the bitter conflict.

So in answer to your post, Quark, about this being a much different story for Lawrence; I don’t think it is at all. I find the ending in ‘Sun’ just a bit ambivalent in the end too, but maybe a little more resolved, than this one, at least hinting at some ‘hope’ in the future. This story, ‘Two Bluebirds’. is much more cynical and bitter (at the end), in it’s tone; but, Lawrence has left us hanging like this, in other stories we read, where the bitterness is more apparent at the end and leaves us with a sort of endless questioning.


Quote by Janine in answer (husband being caddy):

I do notice this is entirely from the wife's opinion, but I do like that she is saying this. Then she turns it to whimsy and to her husband as being adorable when whimsical.. .In one paragraph, she is criticizing him, and then by the end, she is admiring him. In fact, she is defending him by the last statement. She is basically saying it is not his fault for being vain; women made him that way. This paragraph is quite intricate and 'telling' of the wife's truer impressions of her husdband.

Quote by DarkMuse

Imagine a wife writing down anything her husband said to her!

Quote by Janine in answer

Exactly! Lawrence even complained about having to retype "David" which his wife, Frieda, had typed for him, filling in for his usual typist. He was grumbling and annoyed, just about the time he was also writing this story. I think that comes through in this story. What wife could take on the secretary job realistically???
Some wives say ‘I won’t be your mother or your secretary!:lol:
Quote by DarkMuse

I liked the part where it said: “They had the most sincere regard for one another, and felt, in some odd way, eternally married to one another.”
If we read the whole first two paragraphs, and other paragraphs early in the story from which this quote was extracted, it will tell us more I think. For one, we do see the word ‘love’, but only on the part of the woman, but not of the man. Here is the complete quote:

There was a woman who loved her husband, but she could not live with him. The /b]husband, on his side, was sincerely attached to his wife,[/b] yet he could not live with her. They were both under forty, both handsome and both attractive. They had the most sincere regard for one another, and felt, in some odd way, eternally married to one another. They knew one another more intimately than they knew anybody else, they felt more known to one another than to any other person.
Dark Muse, I only bolded up what I was trying to stress – there are other facts you stressed before. I did not bold the fact, that neither could not live with each other. We discussed that part.
Quote from story

Yet they could not live together. Usually, they kept a thousand miles apart, geographically. But when he sat in the greyness of England, at the back of his mind, with a certain grim fidelity, he was aware of his wife, her strange yearning to be loyal and faithful, having her gallant affairs away in the sun, in the south. And she, as she drank her cocktail on the terrace over the sea, and turned her grey, sardonic eyes on the heavy dark face of her admirer, whom she really liked quite a lot, she was actually preoccupied with the clear-cut features of her handsome young husband,…. thinking of how he would be asking his secretary to do something for him, asking in that good-natured, confident voice of a man who knows that his request will be only too gladly fulfilled.
Right away, the narrator, is telling us just what the score is between the husband and wife, and yet it is such a potpourri and complexity of feelings underlying the whole arrangement, don’t you think? The wife is neither happy living away from the husband, or with him. It is a rather impossible situation. Again, England is depicted as grey; whereas, the wife is seeking the sun. Maybe it is not entirely the husband she is fleeing from, but the whole environment in which the husband has determined to live and center his life and be a part of. If you take a look at the next story ‘Sun’, the husband was very ‘rooted’ in his northern residence in NYC. Only after a time, does he follow after the wife to her new found sunny environment, where she intices him to stay for a time. This husband, in “Two Bluebirds”, also seems very rooted and unwilling to budge from his ‘inert’ existence. Also, he appears to be a chronic workaholic. Somewhere in the text it told just how many countless hours this man worked….all the time or most, of course, with the secretary. I think the existence of the secretary, just added fuel to the fire. I don’t think the secretary, per ce, is the problem, nor true jealousy. Those are just symptoms of a much deeper/broader problem. Perhaps the wife truly does love and admire her husband, but he will not connect with her, on that deeper physical level she desires. I can see this more clearly now; maybe the ‘blood consciousness’ idea does indeed exist, just below the surface, in this story. The wife seeks the more ‘sensual’ life in the warmer climates, trying to make up for the loss of her love life with her husband, and in the end it does not really work for her. The husband is rooted, not only in his physical environment in the north, but in his cold ‘intellectual’ world and this closed environment he has established around himself. In a sense, the husband is in his own little shell/world and will not venture out of it. The secretary comes to him and is always readily available, at his ‘beck and call’. How different is this from the the way Lawrence thinks in other stories, especially in ‘Sun’, when the wife discovers her own ‘blood-consciousness’ and sensuality? Except in that story, by the ending, there some shred of hope that the husband might be able to break out of his inertia and routine, and eventually join the wife entirely.

In this story, the next line changes focus abruptly focusing on the man’s secretary:

The secretary, of course, adored him. She was very competent, quite young, and quite good-looking. She adored him.

I don’t believe it says the husband adores the secretary, (but I will check the text). Basically, the wife is right. The husband uses the secretary, but the secretary adores him, so she puts up with anything from him. “He dictated to her, she slaved for him and adored him, and the whole thing went on wheels.”

Ok, I did find some text indicating the man’s feeling towards his secretary:

He didn't 'adore'her. A man doesn't need to adore his secretary. But he depended on her. "I simply rely on Miss Wrexall." Whereas he could never rely on his wife. The one thing he knew finally about her was that she didn't intend to be relied on .
As I said before, Lawrence was retyping his wife, Frieda’s terrible typing, around the time he was wrting this story. This amuses me. I can see where all the animosity comes from. Like this man, Lawrence ‘could not rely on his wife’…why should he really? Frieda was not his secretary, it is not the definition of wife – ‘must type 1000 words per minute!’ This is exactly how Lawrence would feel about Frieda, I believe ‘that she didn't intend to be relied on’…I can see how Lawrence could relate/connect easily to this story. Sometimes, Lawrence, himself was quite unreasonable. Haha.


Quote by DarkMuse

Though they cannot stand to actually be together, they are still forever bonded to each other. They can never completely escape one another.

Does everyone think this is true? I am not sure why they feel this way. I can now see it from the wife’s point of view that maybe truly she does deep down love him; I don’t see the same sentiment for the husband, but then again his may translate to a deep need for her and not truly a love.

Quote by DarkMuse

…. that it does mention within the story, how much the husband and wife had gotten along so well before they were married, but now that they are married they only seem to serve to irritate each other.

Quote from story

So they remained friends, in the awful unspoken intimacy of the once-married. Usually each year they went away together for a holiday, and if they had not been man and wife they would have found a great deal of fun and stimulation in one another. The fact that they were married, had been married for the last dozen years, and couldn't live together for the last three or four, spoilt them for one another. Each had a private feeling of bitterness about the other.

Quote by DarkMuse

Though they are still married, this brought to mind the sentiment, and relationship that sometimes seem to exist between divorced couples whom seem to still get along and care for each and yet can never manage to live with each other.

I agree, DMit is as though they are half-divorced or separated at least. However, I think they are too inert to actually divorce and move on and so they try the vacation together each year. Obviously it does not work for them and they are right back where they started. It seems they are so used to each other there is no stimulation or fun left in their relationship. It does not actually say here that they ever were truly in-love. The last line clearly states that they both are ‘bitter’. I think that is an important factor here. They obviously resent each other.

Quote by Quark

It seems odd that Lawrence would use the caustic banter of the wife to heal their relationship. Isn't that un-Lawrencelike?

I don’t think that the ‘caustic banter’ of the wife heals anything at all, let alone the relationship. I personally think the relationship is beyond hope but I could be wrong. I think that these two people are too set in their ways by now. I actually met this couple once who could not live with each other and yet professed to be in-love; they had houses right next to each other – isn’t that a strange one? Hey, maybe it works for some people, who knows. Years ago it was not that uncommon for men to be away for long periods of time from their wives, many sailed ships and were away most of the time, many explorers didn’t see their wives for years. I don’t say it is the ideal way – hardly, but I don’t think it was that uncommon in England or Scotland for this to be the case. Perhaps, in writing this story, Lawrence is showing just how poorly, this separate way of life works for everyone.


…When she sees the bluebirds in the garden….
Quark, let’s hold off to discuss this scene until later. I think we can say much about it and the significance of the two bluebirds. It was an interesting scene, wasn’t it. But I must tell you – get used to Lawrence surprising us. It happens more than you would think. You really can’t ever second guess Lawrence, but that makes his writing more interesting, I think.

Quote by islandclimber

....wives knowing there is an aspect of their husbands they do not have access to, and seemingly cannot.. but in the last one it was on a deep level, that blood-conscious level... this one it is more of a vanity, an external thing, an illusion, that they put between themselves I think.... she can't be part of it, partly because she thinks it is beneath her,, and she doesn't want to be.. I don't think she is overly interested in her husband outside of the fact he is her husband...

Islandclimber, I might have agreed with this last night, but now after reviewing all the posts and some of text, I see that it does state that the wife did love her husband. I can see now how she would feel left out/shut out of his life. I don’t think it is all vanity and illusion, and even when she makes a later statement that maybe she will buy something and spend his money (which seems like a vain gesture), I think she is doing that to get attention from him, or get back at him the only way she knows how to. If she did not care about him at all, she would be bothered.

During this period of Lawrence’s writing there was a number of stories that followed the more fairytale format. If you go online and look up ‘Rocking Horse Winner’, you will come up with some commentary that expresses this idea and talks about this period in Lawrence’s writing; when his stories are not quite realistic, but more fantasy-like and fable-like and meant to convey a deeper meaning. ‘The Man Who Loved Islands’ is another good example of this. There is much symbolism and irony in that story.


Quote by islandclimber

And these lines as well from the start impressed me, and gave me a feel for the essence of the relationship

"So they remained friends, in the awful unspoken intimacy of the once-married."
it is quite the cynical statement about the wonders of marriage... as though a friend is the best one could hope for, never a lover, definitely never a passionate lover.. he almost puts an exclamation point on that with this line... they have this conscious intimacy that needs no words, but it is more of a trouble than a good thing coming out of a great love... they love each other at a distance, but as he states later in that same paragraph, they both have private feelings of bitterness towards the other... so it seems they love an idealized version of the other they have in their minds, and can't handle the real, living version when they are together... the wife's idle thoughts about the nature of her husband kind of seem idealistic, idyllic, in a sense... and she only thinks that at a distance... but I think that proximity, and nearness, physical intimacy sour this for her with him, she finds he doesn't live up to that idyllic perfection she builds up in her mind while apart....

I agree – those are interesting thoughts and you expressed them well here. Seems the distance enhances their feelings, and then in ‘close proximity’ they can’t handle any bit of intimacy. I wonder though, if that cannot be somehow resolved. I don’t know if their relationship is totally based on idealism, but it might be so. Maybe they each went into the marriage, with the wrong impressions and expectations. Whatever; the marriage,the way it stands, is not working for them. “I think that proximity, and nearness, physical intimacy sour this for her with him” – do you think they truly have any nearness or physical intimacy between them? I don’t see that they do but that might be unwritten here.

Quote from story

…Nothing you could call adultery, to come down to brass tacks. No, no! They were just the young master and his secretary….


so it is okay for her to be adulterous, but not for him??? that is an interesting idea and definitely a very one sided morality...

I thought so too. It seemed like the old double standard in reverse. The woman having the affairs of no consequence or importance and the husband remaining faithful sexually towards his wife. It therefore seems, symbolically, like the wife sees the devotion of the secretary and her adoration of her husband even more threatening than if he was having casual affairs with other women. Interesting….and I can sort of understand that.

Quote by DarkMuse

Yes, that is true, but than she does have those couple of moments where she seems almost annoyed with her husband that he does not actually give more intimacy to his secretary for all she does for him……….

Some of the wife’s agitation seems to be over the devotion that the women give to her husband, without seeming to get any real benefit in return from him. Though in part this could be, because she knows she herself would never be so selflessly devoted to him in such a way. And that she would be incapable of working for him.


Yes, and these two statements of yours, Dark Muse, support my last statement. I think the wife is now in a ‘no win’ situation. She can’t be devoted to her husband as the secretary is and yet she resents that in the secretary as a woman who she now feels threatened by.

[Dark Muse]

These are 3 interesting points to bring up and something we might want to talk about further. Was the wife really ‘independent’, if she had to live/rely on her husband’s income? Also, how strong was she, if she gravitated back to her husband, a person she did not truly feel emotionally connected to or did she? I am not sure at all that she was strong or independent in truth. I am also in question as to whether the husband and wife are indeed on equal footing. I don’t see that they are, financially, not if the wife depends on the husband’s money for her countless trips abroad.

Well when I refered to as being independent, I was not finically speaking, I think there are other ways to be independent than just for one to be able to provide for themselves. She is independent in the way in which she lives very much her own life seperate from her husband. She is also very much of her own mind

In other Lawrence stories it seems in varrious different ways the women are more dependent upon thier husbands, emotionally. For example in the story Sun, the woman romanticies about having an affair with the peasent man, but in the end she would not acutally do it.

While the woman in this story, would not think twice about it.

And thought she still remains conntected to her husband, and peridoically returns back to him, I think she is still a strong personality and when I said they were on equal footing, I did not mean so much, finiance wise, but more in the fact that to me the husband in this story did not seem as downtrodden by his wife as the one in The Shadow in the Rose Garden. They meet on equal terms with each other. I do not think she is truly taking advantage of her, becasue he knows her just for what she is, and he allows it.



Right away, the narrator, is telling us just what the score is between the husband and wife, and yet it is such a potpourri and complexity of feelings underlying the whole arrangement, don’t you think? The wife is neither happy living away from the husband, or with him. It is a rather impossible situation.

Yes I agree, though it seems that most of the struggle is with the wife, perhaps just becasue it is told from her point of view, but the husband seems in his own way content with whatever happens, though he does implore his wife to stay at one point:


"You have got your secretary and your work" she said, "There is no room for me."

"There is a bedroom, and a sitting-room exclussively for you" he replied. "And a garden and half a motor-car. But please yourself entirely. Do what gives you most pleasure"

But he seems to suffer no anxeity from her commings and goings.




Again, England is depicted as grey; whereas, the wife is seeking the sun. Maybe it is not entirely the husband she is fleeing from, but the whole environment in which the husband has determined to live and center his life and be a part of. If you take a look at the next story ‘Sun’, the husband was very ‘rooted’ in his northern residence in NYC. Only after a time, does he follow after the wife to her new found sunny environment, where she intices him to stay for a time. This husband, in “Two Bluebirds”, also seems very rooted and unwilling to budge from his ‘inert’ existence. Also, he appears to be a chronic workaholic. Somewhere in the text it told just how many countless hours this man worked….all the time or most, of course, with the secretary.

Yes, everything seems to just revolve around the husband, even within the story he is not seen as being very physcialy active, he is always lounging somewhere, while everyone else is moving around him, attending to his chores



I think the existence of the secretary, just added fuel to the fire. I don’t think the secretary, per ce, is the problem, nor true jealousy. Those are just symptoms of a much deeper/broader problem. Perhaps the wife truly does love and admire her husband, but he will not connect with her, on that deeper physical level she desires. I can see this more clearly now; maybe the ‘blood consciousness’ idea does indeed exist, just below the surface, in this story. The wife seeks the more ‘sensual’ life in the warmer climates, trying to make up for the loss of her love life with her husband, and in the end it does not really work for her. The husband is rooted, not only in his physical environment in the north, but in his cold ‘intellectual’ world and this closed environment he has established around himself. In a sense, the husband is in his own little shell/world and will not venture out of it. The secretary comes to him and is always readily available, at his ‘beck and call’. How different is this from the the way Lawrence thinks in other stories, especially in ‘Sun’, when the wife discovers her own ‘blood-consciousness’ and sensuality? Except in that story, by the ending, there some shred of hope that the husband might be able to break out of his inertia and routine, and eventually join the wife entirely.

Yes this is very true. In this story, there does not seem to be any change by the end of the story, but only that everything appears it will remain just the same as it has always been.

I agree that the secretary is not truly the problem, and I do not think that the wife acutally does feel any true jealously for the woman, but seems more annoyed with her husbands own actions, and how content he is to just be served upon by this women and to have all his own needs provided for, without giving much thought to others.

It could be that one of the problems the wife has with her husband is the fact that he does not give her the attention which she seeks, as she says at one point


He never kissed anybody


Being his wife, she felt she ought to do something to save him. But how could she? That perfectly devoted marvellous secretarial family, how could she make an attack on them? Yet she'd love to sweep them into oblivion. Of course they were bad for him: ruining his work, ruining his reptuation as a writer, ruining his life. Ruining him with thier slavish service.

Here she seems to express her desire to try and break her husband free from his rut and routine.

[Virgil]

Wow, I haven't read these posts yet, but they are awfully long. You guys must really be into this story. ;)

[Janine]

Wow, I haven't read these posts yet, but they are awfully long. You guys must really be into this story. ;)

We are into all the stories - has there been a bad one yet???:lol: I feel the same way in the Chekhov thread - awfully long and I am totally lost in there, and lost my footing and am behind now. I finally copied everything out and trimmed the posts and will print out to read, later tonight; I also have to reread the story. I hope that helps me organise my feeble little brain waves.:eek2: Virgil, I did the same in here today; put everyone's former posts into my Word program and recapped a lot of it in my new post...see my very long post - Today 7:16 PM. You might be able to catch up just reading that for now - it is like a review; I copied the most important parts of each person's posts. I was getting totally lost and confused myself. I think soon I will post some passages directly from the story, more of the beginning parts to start with. Then we can talk about them. Because we seem to be jumping around a little for now.

[Quark]

Okay, you win for longest post. #1322 is truly an epic. It's difficult to respond to all that at once, so I'll break it down into a few separate responses. First, this idea:


These are 3 interesting points to bring up and something we might want to talk about further. Was the wife really ‘independent’, if she had to live/rely on her husband’s income? Also, how strong was she, if she gravitated back to her husband, a person she did not truly feel emotionally connected to or did she? I am not sure at all that she was strong or independent in truth. I am also in question as to whether the husband and wife are indeed on equal footing. I don’t see that they are, financially, not if the wife depends on the husband’s money for her countless trips abroad.

I agree with Dark Muse on this one. While the wife is financially dependent on the husband, I think she does maintain an independent lifestyle and attitude. Her affairs and just her general manner speak to that. Lawrence tells us that she always has her back half-turned to everything which creates this image of a reserved, independent, and somewhat haughty woman. Even though her affection for her husband makes her return, she still projects this kind of strength.

[Janine]

Well when I refered to as being independent, I was not finically speaking, I think there are other ways to be independent than just for one to be able to provide for themselves. She is independent in the way in which she lives very much her own life seperate from her husband. She is also very much of her own mind

Dark Muse, I hope you laugh at this but when I put your quotes (really applies to all of us) in my Word program it corrected the typos and the spelling. At least that has spell-check! So your quotes might look a little altered to you.;)

Well, considering the word 'independent' what definition can you give to it, if indeed this person, the wife, is not finanically 'independent'? I am trying to say this: if that be the case, and the woman must rely solely on her husband's support how can you say she is actually 'independent'? She might think 'independenly', but she is not in reality 'independent', she is 'dependent' on her husband who is providing for her. How does she truly live her own life, separate from her husband? He is all the time footing the bill. I don't agree at all. She is not truly independent and I think she probably is quite aware of that fact, which would only lead to added resentment towards him. If she was independent, she would take off and leave him far behind. She would have the means and funds to do so.


In other Lawrence stories it seems in varrious different ways the women are more dependent upon thier husbands, emotionally. For example in the story Sun, the woman romanticies about having an affair with the peasent man, but in the end she would not acutally do it.

But in Sun is the woman really romantic at all about her own husband? I don't think she has such an emotional connection to him at the point that story takes place. They seem more distant with each other. I don't see that this woman in TBB's is any more independent. They both live in a time when the husband paid their way, in return they raised the children perhaps. It seems not to be the case in TBB's. This wife seems to me to be more spoiled and not needful in anything she wishes for. Her husband may be distant towards her and in a world of his own but he doesn't seem to deny her anything material. She could not be independent if she did not have the means from him to be so. She would then be at his mercy and stuck at home.


While the woman in this story, would not think twice about it.

That is true, but I still don't believe, that having extra-martial affairs liberates a person or makes them independent. The only way I would agree with you, anyway close, would be to say she is not inert, like her husband but takes the inititive to go places/travel and see other people and socialise and even take on lovers; but I still don't feel that is being independent. In spirit, maybe but not truly so. She is getting a free pass for her independence.



And thought she still remains conntected to her husband, and peridoically returns back to him, I think she is still a strong personality and when I said they were on equal footing, I did not mean so much, finiance wise, but more in the fact that to me the husband in this story did not seem as downtrodden by his wife as the one in The Shadow in the Rose Garden. They meet on equal terms with each other. I do not think she is truly taking advantage of her, becasue he knows her just for what she is, and he allows it.

Well, who is to say what his true feelings really are. Maybe he is just good at hiding them. Some men are. He seems self-centered with his work, but under his veneer there actually might be a feeling human-being, and he could feel hurt without showing it. I will have to review the text and see if there is even a hint of that about him.



Yes I agree, though it seems that most of the struggle is with the wife, perhaps just becasue it is told from her point of view, but the husband seems in his own way content with whatever happens, though he does implore his wife to stay at one point:

Yes, he does request her to stay home, but then he seems to know he will not be able to win in the end, so he is very resigned. I don't know how much struggle there is going on within the husband. He may act accepting of his wife's activities but actually be very disturbed beneath about them. Who knows? Like I said, we don't know what is going on inside him, because basically we are being given the story from the woman's point of view, which of course is tainted to suit her and colored with her sarcasm.



But he seems to suffer no anxeity from her commings and goings.

How do we know that?



Yes, everything seems to just revolve around the husband, even within the story he is not seen as being very physcialy active, he is always lounging somewhere, while everyone else is moving around him, attending to his chores

Yes, interesting that he is lounging about. I found that image of him that Lawrence paints quite revealing of his state and his personality. It adds to this inert and inactive idea. His body language tells much....again it seems to me to mirror his resigned state with his wife.


Yes this is very true. In this story, there does not seem to be any change by the end of the story, but only that everything appears it will remain just the same as it has always been.

Still not entirely sure of that but a second reading should make up my mind. I tend to think there will be no change but I don't really know.


I agree that the secretary is not truly the problem, and I do not think that the wife acutally does feel any true jealously for the woman, but seems more annoyed with her husbands own actions, and how content he is to just be served upon by this women and to have all his own needs provided for, without giving much thought to others.

Oh, good we do agree on something.;) :lol: I like the way you put that last part. Of course, this again is how the wife is perceiving it. Lawrence should have re-written this story from the husband's point of view - might have been much different take....:lol:



It could be that one of the problems the wife has with her husband is the fact that he does not give her the attention which she seeks, as she says at one point

I think that is part of the problem. I think that there are direct things in the story that point to that fact. Being a writer it would make sense that he is absorbed in his own world of literature and sort of has blinders on most of the time as to what is going on with his wife and the outside world. I think the wife does grave attention from her husband. I think this is why she is so resentful towards the secretary being so much in his sphere. She isn't jealous of her in a sexual way, but she is in an 'attentive' way. Let's face it this man, who gives no one much attention is focused on the secretary all the time. Sure he is working and dictating to her but the focus it there and the wife reads this as a place that she is shut out of. So, in some rudimentary way she is jealous of the secretary because she has commanded his attention. I think the wive's anger is basically directed towards the husband but by attaching the secretary she know it will bounce off and hit her husband at his weakest part.



Here she seems to express her desire to try and break her husband free from his rut and routine.

[Janine]

Okay, you win for longest post. #1322 is truly an epic. It's difficult to respond to all that at once, so I'll break it down into a few separate responses. First, this idea:

Most of this emorously long post #1322, was recapping/reviewing/ extracting the good parts/then adding some new comments. Basically, now it is all the important/key things we said, and not the others that were tending to distract me.;) If you could take that post piece by piece, I would greatly appreciate it, Quark, since it took me so long to write...hours really.


I agree with Dark Muse on this one. While the wife is financially dependent on the husband, I think she does maintain an independent lifestyle and attitude. Her affairs and just her general manner speak to that. Lawrence tells us that she always has her back half-turned to everything which creates this image of a reserved, independent, and somewhat haughty woman. Even though her affection for her husband makes her return, she still projects this kind of strength.

I still don't agree and I gave my reasons in the post above. You said the word - 'image' - she may have acquired/created this image of an 'independent woman', but I don't consider her truly one. If she were self-sufficient and an author/artist/professional woman, then I might agree, even a working class woman who is supporting herself. We might be mixing up the term 'modern thinking' woman with 'independent'.

[Dark Muse]

Well, considering the word 'independent' what definition can you give to it, if indeed this person, the wife, is not finanically 'independent'? I am trying to say this: if that be the case, and the woman must rely solely on her husband's support how can you say she is actually 'independent'? She might think 'independenly', but she is not in reality 'independent', she is 'dependent' on her husband who is providing for her. How does she truly live her own life, separate from her husband? He is all the time footing the bill. I don't agree at all. She is not truly independent and I think she probably is quite aware of that fact, which would only lead to added resentment towards him. If she was independent, she would take off and leave him far behind. She would have the means and funds to do so.

I still personally believe that there are different types of indecency, and dependency, and the finance is not the only possible definition for the word. The husband and the wife live independently from each other. And it is the wife that takes the initiative. While the husband remains at home, she is the one that ventures out into the world.

Just as you can say that her husband is dependent. Though he might be financially secure, he relies and depends upon his secretary, as well as her family to do everything for him. In this way, he is not independent.



How do we know that?

Well I said "seems" to be, becasue there is nothing within the text in which to tell us that he does feel any anexity over his wife's behavior.


I think that is part of the problem. I think that there are direct things in the story that point to that fact. Being a writer it would make sense that he is absorbed in his own world of literature and sort of has blinders on most of the time as to what is going on with his wife and the outside world. I think the wife does grave attention from her husband. I think this is why she is so resentful towards the secretary being so much in his sphere. She isn't jealous of her in a sexual way, but she is in an 'attentive' way. Let's face it this man, who gives no one much attention is focused on the secretary all the time. Sure he is working and dictating to her but the focus it there and the wife reads this as a place that she is shut out of. So, in some rudimentary way she is jealous of the secretary because she has commanded his attention. I think the wive's anger is basically directed towards the husband but by attaching the secretary she know it will bounce off and hit her husband at his weakest part.

Yes this is true, though I think some of her frustration is directed at herself as well, she is angry with the fact that the secretary is a part of her husband's world that she is not, and at the fact that he relies upon her, but I think part of that comes from her knowledge that she could never replace the secretary, that she could not be relied upon by her husband. She projects her anger upon her husband, and the secretary, but I think that is in part her projecting her anger at herself upon them, because she feels so incompetent.

Though she would never actually want to do what the secretary does, I think she is jealous of the fact that the woman can do one thing of which she knows she never could.

[Janine]

Quote by Dark Muse

Yes this is true, though I think some of her frustration is directed at herself as well, she is angry with the fact that the secretary is a part of her husband's world that she is not, and at the fact that he relies upon her, but I think part of that comes from her knowledge that she could never replace the secretary, that she could not be relied upon by her husband. She projects her anger upon her husband, and the secretary, but I think that is in part her projecting her anger at herself upon them, because she feels so incompetent.

DM, Wow, you are quick posting tonight. haha.
This first part is an interesting thought, and I believe I agree with you on the fact, that in reality, she is angry with herself as much, as she is with her husband and the secretary. I do also, think she feels 'incompetent'...but see this is my point, woman who are 'incompentent', do depend on others, so I can't envision her totally independent. I had a 'so called' friend like this. She thought she was the most modern progressive independent woman in the world and she always ended up being dependent on her husbands (married twice) and they both indulged her. All she need do, was ask for something and she got it. Like this woman she was never truly happy or satisfied. I just have to stick to my own opinion here on true independence. Maybe we should look the definition up and see exactly what is says. Ok here is what my dictionary says:


independent (-dant) adj.1. free from the influence or control of others; specif., a) self-governing b) self-determined, self reliant, etc. c) not adhering to any political party d) not connected with others (ex: an independent grocer). 2. not depending on another for financial support --n. one who is indedpendent in thinking, action, etc.

Obviously, 1. c and 1. d. don't apply here. Ok, 1.free from the influence or control of others....if she was that, she would be totally free of her husband's influence - how can she be entirely? The very fact that she is married to him influences her life. 1. b) self-determined - this might be be true, but this could apply to a happily married woman, as well. 'self reliant' in my opinion does not fit her because she is reliant on her husband for her very existence. Even if far from home in another country she can't be self-reliant' if she is living on his money.
If you refer to the word 'independent' as a noun, then you can say it is one who is independent in thinking, action, etc.
Therefore, you might say that she was an independent 'thinking' and 'acting' woman, but to me she is not truly independent.

[Dark Muse]

She might not be independent in all ways, I just do not think fiance is everything. And I think comparatively she is more independent than the previous women we have read about in other stories. She might still rely upon her husband finically but in other ways she is over her own mind, and makes her own decisions. She has control over her own actions.

I guess for me she just really had a presence that I did not notice in women of previous stories. Perhaps progressive, or modern would be a better word for her than independent. In many ways I think she is her own woman. Another thing which I noticed about her, is that she seems to have more witty discourse with her husband, and talk to him on more of an equal level than previous women we have discussed.

There is one description of her I really love, but I do not want to jump too far ahead so I will save it for later.

But there is one passage I really loved, that is towards the beginning I wanted to share.


So the winter wore away, and it was spring, when the swallows homeward fly, or northward, in this case. This winter, one of a series similar, had been rather hard to get through. The bit of grit in the gallant lady's eye had worked deeper in the more she blinked. Dark faces might be dark, and icy cocktails might lend a glow; she blinked her hardest to blink that bit of grit away, without success. Under the spicy balls of the mimosa she thought of that husband of hers in the library, and that neat, competent, but common little secretary of his, for ever taking down what he said.

For one thing I loved the bird symbolism which held throughout the story. And the fact that she herself would fly south for the winter, and than come back again to her roost in the spring. In fact her connection to her husband can be seen as being very bird like in nature. The way in which many birds always return back to the exact same nesting sites time and time again. And even the hatchlings, when they grow will return to their parents nesting site. In this way she is always drawn back to her husband, as if by some instinct within her.

I also loved the descriptions of the "grit" within her eye, and her struggles to free herself of it. I think this is quite a humorous view of it. As her husband in someway's is a constant irritation to her she can never be completely free from.


And if he had been a fairy prince who could call all the ants to help him, he would not have been more wonderful than securing this secretary and her family. They took hardly any wages. And they seemed to perform this miracle of loaves and fishes daily.

I love the description of the fairy prince here. And it goes along with the fairy tale idea which others have discussed.

[islandclimber]

Oh my!!! I go to the opera tonight.. and 10 new long posts spring up!!!!!!! ahhhh... so I am going to have to review these and post tomorrow, when with my luck, there will be 10 more, undoubtedly... :p and then the Chekhov thread.. I dread to look!!!!

[Janine]

She might not be independent in all ways, I just do not think fiance is everything. And I think comparatively she is more independent than the previous women we have read about in other stories. She might still rely upon her husband finically but in other ways she is over her own mind, and makes her own decisions. She has control over her own actions.

Well, let me just say this - remove the financial security and see just how long she would be independent. I don't think, we will ever fully agree on this idea, of her being independent. I think, to be as she is, is a false sense of independence. If she were to leave her husband, or he her, and be poor would she then be independent? When I do think of independent, I think of someone like Clara in "Sons and Lovers', who left her husband and worked for a living, and had progressive ideas on woman's rights, etc. I think that this woman in TBB's, is independent, as long as she doesn't have to be bothered, worrying about where her next meal comes from or where she will sleep or how she will travel to such exotic sunny locations. Take the means for all that away and I don't think she would be too independent or modern or liberated. Her type independence, to me is a false sense of independence, that could easily dissolve away.



I guess for me she just really had a presence that I did not notice in women of previous stories. Perhaps progressive, or modern would be a better word for her than independent. In many ways I think she is her own woman. Another thing which I noticed about her, is that she seems to have more witty discourse with her husband, and talk to him on more of an equal level than previous women we have discussed.

Actually, she is much like Frieda this way, Lawrence's wife; she was a strong independent woman, also. She was a 'force to be reckoned with' and Lawrence and she fought it out often, but they seemed to really love and repect each other. Their relationship was complicated. I can't help but feel, that Lawrence is projecting some of that friction between them, into this story. I read that, when he wrote this story, he and Frieda were not getting along well, at all. One would have to be affected. The only thing about Frieda, that is different in independence and strength, is that she did come from family that had some source of money. However, following her husband faithfully around the world, did not insure her any bit of financial independence. I prefer to think of the difference, in that these two women, were more modern thinking and progressive. In Frieda's case she did take an active role at times in Lawrence's work, so she definitely earned her way and she did housework and did not depend on servants as this woman in 'Two Blue Birds' does. This woman strikes me more as a pampered type, who doesn't have to lift a finger, if she chooses not to. She has no source of income of her own, and does not help her husband with his. She admits she would be inept at that. I get the sense she has no interest at all in his writing or his work and does not lend him support in that way.



There is one description of her I really love, but I do not want to jump too far ahead so I will save it for later.

Ok, thanks for that. I know, sometimes it is so hard to hold back, when a though just comes to you.


But there is one passage I really loved, that is towards the beginning I wanted to share.

Good quote indeed!


For one thing I loved the bird symbolism which held throughout the story. And the fact that she herself would fly south for the winter, and than come back again to her roost in the spring. In fact her connection to her husband can be seen as being very bird like in nature. The way in which many birds always return back to the exact same nesting sites time and time again. And even the hatchlings, when they grow will return to their parents nesting site. In this way she is always drawn back to her husband, as if by some instinct within her.

Lawrence very often refers to birds; bird references and symbolism is found widely throughout his literature. I just love that one aspect of his writing. I have even heard him refer to a baby tortoise, in his poetry, as having a 'beak like a bird'. I am so interested in the significance of the two blue birds at the end of the story and why 'blue' - the bluebird of happiness? We should wait to discuss that part; but, you are right I believe; this earlier reference is very representative of the woman flying south for the winter, just like the birds and then flying back home in the summer. Everything you say here is right-on and accurate, I think. Good interpretation, DM. Although, I know some birds mate for life; this set did not, apparently; but then again, their dedication to staying married seems to be for life, I suppose. Yes, instinct does bring her back to him, and to their home (nest), and perhaps that annoying bit of 'grit' lodged in her eye!;)



I also loved the descriptions of the "grit" within her eye, and her struggles to free herself of it. I think this is quite a humorous view of it. As her husband in someway's is a constant irritation to her she can never be completely free from.

Yes, I thought, symbolically, that was just great. It was, as if the 'irritation' she felt towards her husband was manifest within her eye. Also, since earlier on, it said that when she looked at her lover, she only could see the handsome face of her husband, back in the north. This passage combined humor, with an underlying serious element and was very cleverly written.



I love the description of the fairy prince here. And it goes along with the fairy tale idea which others have discussed.

I love that passage too, and I love the witty way Lawrence wrote the last couple words, referring to the bible - the "loaves and fishes"...when I first read this line, I actually laughed out loud, thinking how clever this whole paragraph was. God, I love reading Lawrence!....and there is always something new to marvel at, in his prose.

[Dark Muse]

Well, let me just say this - remove the financial security and see just how long she would be independent. I don't think, we will ever fully agree on this idea, of her being independent. I think, to be as she is, is a false sense of independence. If she were to leave her husband, or he her, and be poor would she then be independent? When I do think of independent, I think of someone like Clara in "Sons and Lovers', who left her husband and worked for a living, and had progressive ideas on woman's rights, etc. I think that this woman in TBB's, is independent, as long as she doesn't have to be bothered, worrying about where her next meal comes from or where she will sleep or how she will travel to such exotic sunny locations. Take the means for all that away and I don't think she would be too independent or modern or liberated. Her type independence, to me is a false sense of independence, that could easily dissolve away.

LoL yes I think we are going to have to put this issue to rest, and just agree to disagree, as I still beleive there are different types of independnce





Actually, she is much like Frieda this way, Lawrence's wife; she was a strong independent woman, also. She was a 'force to be reckoned with' and Lawrence and she fought it out often, but they seemed to really love and repect each other. Their relationship was complicated. I can't help but feel, that Lawrence is projecting some of that friction between them, into this story. I read that, when he wrote this story, he and Frieda were not getting along well, at all. One would have to be affected. The only thing about Frieda, that is different in independence and strength, is that she did come from family that had some source of money. However, following her husband faithfully around the world, did not insure her any bit of financial independence. I prefer to think of the difference, in that these two women, were more modern thinking and progressive. In Frieda's case she did take an active role at times in Lawrence's work, so she definitely earned her way and she did housework and did not depend on servants as this woman in 'Two Blue Birds' does. This woman strikes me more as a pampered type, who doesn't have to lift a finger, if she chooses not to. She has no source of income of her own, and does not help her husband with his. She admits she would be inept at that. I get the sense she has no interest at all in his writing or his work and does not lend him support in that way.

Acutally, in one of my classess, we are going to be discussing Lawrence, and the first day Tuesday we watched a video about his life, and it talked a lot about his relationship to Fredia within the movie.




Lawrence very often refers to birds; bird references and symbolism is found widely throughout his literature. I just love that one aspect of his writing. I have even heard him refer to a baby tortoise, in his poetry, as having a 'beak like a bird'. I am so interested in the significance of the two blue birds at the end of the story and why 'blue' - the bluebird of happiness? We should wait to discuss that part;

Yes I found that part tword the end interesting as well, and look forward to dicussing it.


but, you are right I believe; this earlier reference is very representative of the woman flying south for the winter, just like the birds and then flying back home in the summer. Everything you say here is right-on and accurate, I think. Good interpretation, DM. Although, I know some birds mate for life; this set did not, apparently; but then again, their dedication to staying married seems to be for life, I suppose. Yes, instinct does bring her back to him, and to their home (nest), and perhaps that annoying bit of 'grit' lodged in her eye!;)

Yes in a way they do seem to be mated for life, for the fact that they always end up coming back to each other, or her to him. And perhaps sense it did mention they have been married for a significant amount of time, it has just become almost habtitial for them. Maybe they just do not know how to live any other way anymore, they fell into this pattern together.



Yes, I thought, symbolically, that was just great. It was, as if the 'irritation' she felt towards her husband was manifest within her eye. Also, since earlier on, it said that when she looked at her lover, she only could see the handsome face of her husband, back in the north. This passage combined humor, with an underlying serious element and was very cleverly written.!

Eyes do seem to be imporant to this story. There was also the fact that when she was "looking" back toward England, her eyes were descirbed as being grey, as the greyness of England was, where she left her husband behind.

[Janine]

LoL yes I think we are going to have to put this issue to rest, and just agree to disagree, as I still beleive there are different types of independnce

Dark Muse, I don't think we need to say a thing more. We simply disagree and that's all there is to it. It really does not matter at all. Just petty to keep talking about it, don't you think? Let's go onto more interesting topics in the story.



Acutally, in one of my classess, we are going to be discussing Lawrence, and the first day Tuesday we watched a video about his life, and it talked a lot about his relationship to Fredia within the movie.

Oh, that is so great! DM, I wish I could attend you class. Now I am truly jealous; I want to see that video...do you know what it was called? Yes, Frieda was a huge part of Lawrence's life and I think, a definite influence on his writing, past a certain time. Will you be reading some Lawrence works - book, stories, etc? You must keep me informed as you go along. I hope this class does not make you more Lawrence informed than me;) ...just kidding with you. You might be 'setting me straight', on things I post about his background/concepts/life.



Yes I found that part tword the end interesting as well, and look forward to dicussing it.

So do I; we will get there eventually. Just have to be patient. I think I will once again re-read this story. I already read it twice. I don't mind though - Lawrence's stories are so good, that repeat readings always seem to reveal more to me, and I enjoy them even more.


Yes in a way they do seem to be mated for life, for the fact that they always end up coming back to each other, or her to him. And perhaps sense it did mention they have been married for a significant amount of time, it has just become almost habtitial for them. Maybe they just do not know how to live any other way anymore, they fell into this pattern together.

So, maybe the way they gravitate back to each other, is more 'instinctive' and a pattern they have fallen into? They sound like ducks! But seriously, I agree with that idea.



Eyes do seem to be imporant to this story. There was also the fact that when she was "looking" back toward England, her eyes were descirbed as being grey, as the greyness of England was, where she left her husband behind.

Always, the mention of eyes with Lawrence. It is interesting, isn't it? Yes, and 'grey' would definitely be the color Lawrence would view for the Bristish Isles and also anywhere cold in the North. Remember the 'greyness' and 'whiteness' in "The Man Who Loved Islands"....I am sure eyes were also mentioned in that story, with color significance.

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, I don't think we need to say a thing more. We simply disagree and that's all there is to it. It really does not matter at all. Just petty to keep talking about it, don't you think? Let's go onto more interesting topics in the story.

Agreed



Oh, that is so great! DM, I wish I could attend you class. Now I am truly jealous; I want to see that video...do you know what it was called? Yes, Frieda was a huge part of Lawrence's life and I think, a definite influence on his writing, past a certain time. Will you be reading some Lawrence works - book, stories, etc? You must keep me informed as you go along. I hope this class does not make you more Lawrence informed than me;) ...just kidding with you. You might be 'setting me straight', on things I post about his background/concepts/life.

I fear I do not recall what it was called but I think it was something that was recorded off of TV. But it says on the syllabals, next class we will be watching more about Lawrence so I will have to pay attention and let you know if it is interesting.

We are doing Sons and Lovers, with just my luck, I already read that one haha. It was interesting watching the video though, how much the book paralled with his own life, and after acutaly watching more background information on him, you can see more of how he incoperatres his life into his stories and characters.

Hehe, I do not think you have to fear, I think you shall still remain the expert.



Always, the mention of eyes with Lawrence. It is interesting, isn't it? Yes, and 'grey' would definitely be the color Lawrence would view for the Bristish Isles and also anywhere cold in the North. Remember the 'greyness' and 'whiteness' in "The Man Who Loved Islands"....I am sure eyes were also mentioned in that story, with color significance.

I have also noticed how much flowers and gardens seem to be incorperated and play a role within his stories.

[Janine]

Agreed

:D Good! We agree on something then - not agreeing.:lol:


I fear I do not recall what it was called but I think it was something that was recorded off of TV. But it says on the syllabals, next class we will be watching more about Lawrence so I will have to pay attention and let you know if it is interesting.

One film I have seen and actually own, is "Coming Through", but that only explored his life during the time shortly before he meet Frieda. Mostly, it highlights his life connected to his poetry. I really like the film and it was a TV production, but some think it is boring. I don't, because anything to do with Lawrence's life I find fascinating; besides one of my favorite actors plays the young Bert Lawrence. The other film I own, is the newer adaptation of "Sons and Lovers"...it follows the story pretty closely, but it does deviate some and they even added somethings (never know why they do that). I like the characterizations though. They are quite well done and well acted.


We are doing Sons and Lovers, with just my luck, I already read that one haha. It was interesting watching the video though, how much the book paralled with his own life, and after acutaly watching more background information on him, you can see more of how he incoperatres his life into his stories and characters.

The book is still good for a second reading and you will appreciate it so much more, when you know more of the biographical facts...it certainly does run parallel to Lawrence's real life; the story is so personal. I actually, never read the book, not until I did read a few biographies first. I just couldn't get into it, when I was younger and then, reading is not long ago, I just loved it.


Hehe, I do not think you have to fear, I think you shall still remain the expert.

Oh, Dark Muse, I am far from the 'expert'. I have just read much on Lawrence and retained some of it. I have to look so many facts up. At least, I do own and have assess to additional books now, to do so.



I have also noticed how much flowers and gardens seem to be incorperated and play a role within his stories.

Zillions! Someone once did a study of one of his books and counted just how many species were mentioned - it was thousands. Lawrence spend some time in school studying and loving botony. He made it is business to learn so much about it independently, too. He was quite passionate about flowers and plants, and naturer. In these ways he reflected the influence of Thomas Hardy's work in his early work - like "The White Peacock" which is very pastoral in tone. That may be the one the plant count was done on. Every page was had mention of some plant or more. I personally loved the book, although it is a very young work.

[Dark Muse]

One film I have seen and actually own, is "Coming Through", but that only explored his life during the time shortly before he meet Frieda. Mostly, it highlights his life connected to his poetry. I really like the film and it was a TV production, but some think it is boring. I don't, because anything to do with Lawrence's life I find fascinating; besides one of my favorite actors plays the young Bert Lawrence. The other film I own, is the newer adaptation of "Sons and Lovers"...it follows the story pretty closely, but it does deviate some and they even added somethings (never know why they do that). I like the characterizations though. They are quite well done and well acted.

Yes I was quite annoyed when they did that with the movie Pride and Prejudice, it was a good movie, but they changed some of the Dialogue and deviated from the book, in which they had Elizabeth in the movie say things, which Darcy said in the book


The book is still good for a second reading and you will appreciate it so much more, when you know more of the biographical facts...it certainly does run parallel to Lawrence's real life; the story is so personal. I actually, never read the book, not until I did read a few biographies first. I just couldn't get into it, when I was younger and then, reading is not long ago, I just loved it.

One thing kind of interesting, which I noticed now that I am reading Sons and Lovers again, while we are doing this story, is certain similarities within this story to some of the things within the book. It is kind of an interesting comparison reading the two together.

As there was one part within the book in which, it was William's fiance I think, was said to be wearing a dress blue like a jay



Oh, Dark Muse, I am far from the 'expert'. I have just read much on Lawrence and retained some of it. I have to look so many facts up. At least, I do own and have assess to additional books now, to do so.

Hehe well you are the expert on this forum

I was re-reading over the story again, and there were a few passages I wanted to address.


However they were awfully kind. He was the soul of generosity, and held her in real tender esteem, no matter how many gallant affairs she had. Her gallant affairs were part of her modern necessity. "After all, I've got to live. I can't turn into a pillar of salt in five minutes just because you and I can't live together! It takes years for a woman like me to turn into a pillar of salt. At least I hope so!

As we mentioned early the biblical reference to loaves and fishes, I really liked the reference here to the story of Job, as well as finding it very ironic, considering within the story, Job's wife is turned into a pillar of salt because she looks back, while in this story, the woman, is always "turning back" to her husband.


"Quite" he replied. "Quite! By all means put them in pickle, make pickled cucumbers of them, before you crystallize out. That is my advise"

He was like that: so awfully clever and enigmatic. She could more or less fathom the idea of the pickled cucumbers, but the "crystallizing out" - what did that signify?

And did he mean that he himself had been well picked and that further immersion was for him unnecessary, would spoil his flavor? Was that what he meant? And herself, was she the brine and the vale of tears?

Honestly, the wit here quite looses me, I haven't a clue what they are talking about. I just scratch my head over these lines, so I thought perhaps someone more clever than I, could offer better insight on what I am missing. I have perhaps some vague notion, but I am not at all certain.


What was to be done? Matters, instead of improving had grown worse. The little secretary had brought her mother and sister into the establishment. The mother was a sort of cook-housekeeper, the sister was as sort of upper maid-she did the fine laundry, and looked after "his" clothes, and valeted him beautifully. It was really an excellent arrangement. The old mother was a splendid and plain cook, the sister was all that could be desired as a valet de chambre, a fine laundress, an upper parlor-maid, and table-waiter. And all economical to a degree. They knew his affairs by heart. His secretary flew to town when a creditor become dangerous, and she always smoothed over the finical crisis.

Though it is made quite clear and stressed that the husband does not have any real intimacy, with the secretary, and as far as we know, no relationship with any of the other women in the house, this scene to me seemed very haremesque in a way. Patricianly with the already discussed imagery of him, mostly remaining stationary, lounging, almost like a sultan, in his palace. That is what I think of in these line.


The knight returning from the Crusades didn't create a greeter stir. She felt like Queen Elizabeth at Kenilworth, a sovereign paying a visit to her faithful subjects. But perhaps there lurked always this hair in her soup! Won't they be glad to be rid of me again!

I loved these lines. Particularly the imagery of the knight, sense the word "gallant" is often used in discretion of her, and such is a word that is often associated with knights as well. And the idea that she feels like the Queen whom never can completely trust her servants in spite of their loyal service to her. She always remains in doubt of herself.

[Quark]

Honestly, the wit here quite looses me, I haven't a clue what they are talking about. I just scratch my head over these lines, so I thought perhaps someone more clever than I, could offer better insight on what I am missing. I have perhaps some vague notion, but I am not at all certain.

Some of these exchanges lost me too. Pickles and crystals? Where is he going with this exactly? To some extent it's supposed to be sort of mysterious. She actually talks about that elusiveness as part of his charm. Clearly, though, it's also confusing. I mean what is a pickle crystal?


I loved these lines. Particularly the imagery of the knight, sense the word "gallant" is often used in discretion of her, and such is a word that is often associated with knights as well. And the idea that she feels like the Queen whom never can completely trust her servants in spite of their loyal service to her. She always remains in doubt of herself.

She seems sure of herself. She's just doubtful of the servants. They put on elaborate shows care and concern for her, but she knows that its all just ceremony.

[islandclimber]

As we mentioned early the biblical reference to loaves and fishes, I really liked the reference here to the story of Job, as well as finding it very ironic, considering within the story, Job's wife is turned into a pillar of salt because she looks back, while in this story, the woman, is always "turning back" to her husband.



Honestly, the wit here quite looses me, I haven't a clue what they are talking about. I just scratch my head over these lines, so I thought perhaps someone more clever than I, could offer better insight on what I am missing. I have perhaps some vague notion, but I am not at all certain.
.

Quark and DarkMuse .. I agree with you the lines are a bit confusing... Which is I think what Lawrence is going for in having her mention how the elusiveness is part of his charm...

I think though, that he is telling her to preserve these affairs as memories (hence the pickling process), because eventually she will turn into that pillar of salt, that she mentions above (the crystallizing out...)... or that is what I took from it... preserve these memories, because eventually you will no loger be able to have the affairs, and it will only be the memories that last...

I quite enjoy the biblical references too...

Yes, I agree Quark with your last point as well.. she is sure of herself, she is just uncertain and doubtful of the servants in relation to herself.. she knows like you say that the elaborate show is just for ceremony and their private viewpoints must be different... or so she supposes..

[Dark Muse]

Yes, I agree Quark with your last point as well.. she is sure of herself, she is just uncertain and doubtful of the servants in relation to herself.. she knows like you say that the elaborate show is just for ceremony and their private viewpoints must be different... or so she supposes..

Overall I do not think she is that sure of herself, as she is constantly comparing herself to the secretary, and I think perhaps part of her ironic cynicism is a way of her making fun of herself, because I think in some ways she feels she fails compared to the secretory who can offer her husband something she cannot.

I think perhaps this is way she so often refers to the woman as being "common" it is a way to put the secretary down to try and reassure herself.

[Janine]

Quark and DarkMuse .. I agree with you the lines are a bit confusing... Which is I think what Lawrence is going for in having her mention how the elusiveness is part of his charm...

I think I agree with this, but I do think, we can find a meaning in his words, if we look hard enough. I think this is close, islandclimber:

Quote by islandclimber

I think though, that he is telling her to preserve these affairs as memories (hence the pickling process), because eventually she will turn into that pillar of salt, that she mentions above (the crystallizing out...)... or that is what I took from it... preserve these memories, because eventually you will no loger be able to have the affairs, and it will only be the memories that last...

.....I quite enjoy the biblical references too...

Quote by islandclimber

Yes, I agree Quark with your last point as well.. she is sure of herself, she is just uncertain and doubtful of the servants in relation to herself.. she knows like you say that the elaborate show is just for ceremony and their private viewpoints must be different... or so she supposes..

Quote by Dark Muse

Overall I do not think she is that sure of herself, as she is constantly comparing herself to the secretary, and I think perhaps part of her ironic cynicism is a way of her making fun of herself, because I think in some ways she feels she fails compared to the secretory who can offer her husband something she cannot.

I think perhaps this is way she so often refers to the woman as being "common" it is a way to put the secretary down to try and reassure herself.

Here is where, I actually agree with both of you, and I don't see that you are in opposition against each other on these points, about the wife's surety and confidence. I feel the wife is sure of herself in some situations, true...but then in others, she alows her vulnerable side to come through. I think the first hint of this is, the annoying grain of irritation in her eye. This 'forshadows' what will follow, when she returns home. Afterall, she is only human and she does have flaws and weaknesses, as we all do. Ok, so to the servants she might appear to be very much her own lady and lord her confidence over them and they respond to it accordingly, she is the lady of the estate! But then then in a conversation with her husband, she is somewhat miffed as to just what he means, calling him enigmatic. When the element, being the third party, enters the picture this throws the wife way off kilter; I refer to the secretary (and even her family) First off, it is representative as a sort of triangle, even though the secetary is not sleeping with her husband, or anything of the nature; however there does exist a sort of 'intimacy' between them, that the wife cannot penetrate. Think of how the secretary writes down every word he says, and how this gives the wife the impression that the girl understands his deeper side, far better than the wife could ever begin to...that 'enigmatic' side. I think in this way, the wife does begin to feel inferior, to the secretary. She also feels inferior, in the fact, that the secretary can provide to her husband wtih undivided attention/focus, while the wife knows perfectly well, she is totally incapable of such devotion. 'Devotion' here is a big factor and the wife is not devoted to her husband. She moves and acts on equal terms with him, almost as a sparring partner and not a love partner. Their wills are often matched and this is a big theme very often Lawrence stories - the theme of the 'will' of one person, against the other. By being caddy and critical, towards the secretary, and her devotion to the husband, the wife is indirectly attacking her husband, not the secretary. The secretary's existence is quite insignificant except, to say she is also a woman and so the wills are matched and their is this element of jealous that probably would not exist if the secretary were a male. But the true foe of the wife, at this point, is the husband and she is fighting him, the only way she knows how, and that is indirectly, yet through a means where it will undermine his sensitivities. The secretary is a way to exert her will against him.

I want to review the lines about the crystalising out. I was miffed at first and curious about those lines, too and I wanted to work out exactly what they do mean or meant to Lawrence when he wrote them. It is highly unlikely they mean nothing and are just inserted into the story to be totally enigmatic.


However, they were awfully kind. He was the soul of generosity, and held her in real tender esteem, no matter how many gallant affairs she had. Her gallant affairs were part of her modern necessity.....

I don't know about all of you but here I began to question their marriage and realtionship. Ok, so what was meant by then being awfully kind and he the soul of generosity and tender esteem? I didn't know if this was true or just a facade of how they appeared to be in their relationship. It does seem one is true - that he was generous with her. I felt that when it came to her gallant affairs, Lawrence was saying that sort of rolling his eyes or dubiously or sarcasically. The next line seemed to rub it in even more so "Her gallant affairs were part of her modern necessity". It sounds more like the husband quoting what the wife would have said. I can even picture, Lawrence saying this about his wife, Frieda, and actually underneath it all not liking it at all but putting up with it...what else could he do? Frieda did her own thing always. Ok, let's go on.....


"After all, I've got to live. I can't turn into a pillar of salt in five minutes just because you and I can't live together! It takes years for a woman like me to turn into a pillar of salt. At least I hope so!"

This also sounds so much, like something Lawrence's own wife would say, sometime or other, in their marriage. The couple matched wills and wit often, much like this couple expressing themselves as these phrases are written. No doubt Frieda found Lawrence quite enigmatic, many times over, just as the wife does.

So above, in the quote, the wife is thinking she is going to be able to carry on in her current lifestyle for years, without giving out, and turning into 'a pillar of salt' - she brings up the idea, to begin with. That should tell you something.



"Quite!" he replied. "Quite! By all means put them in pickle, make pickled cucumbers of them, before you crystallise out. That's my advice."

Now, he returns that with a retort of his own and a clever one, one must admit. He picks right up on the idea and expands the bible symbolism. Ok, if one does put salt into water to make brine(pickle) you can pickle or preserve something before it crystallises.


He was like that: so awfully clever and enigmatic. She could more or less fathom the idea of the pickled cucumbers, but the 'crystallising out'--what did that signify?

Well, in the Bible, Lot's wife did look back after being forwarned and she turned to the pillar of salt. She looked back at the sinful city, right? I am not totally up on this story of late. I forget the details. So isn't turning into a pillar of salt the same as 'crystalizing out'? After that Lot's wife was quite 'done for'. So maybe the husband is warning her to not look back at her sins, or this will eventually happen to her. She will be extinquished.


And did he mean to suggest that he himself had been well pickled and that further immersion was for him unnecessary, would spoil his flavour? Was that what he meant? And herself, was she the brine and the vale of tears?

So now, the wife seems to be turning that idea around, in her own mind to mean her husband will be the one who is crystalized in the end or spoiled totally for her excesses and alternate lifestyle and for her his flavour would then be spoiled? Is that what she is saying or interpreting her husband as meaning? She seems to be redirecting the blame towards herself and her actions, by saying she might be 'the brine and the vale of tears' that brings about that result in her husband, not in herself. Is she thinking her actions will end up causing his demise? This last part is confusing to me and I am not sure what to make of it entirely. Any ideas, anyone?



You never knew how catty a man was being, when he was really clever and enigmatic, withal a bit whimsical. He was adorably whimsical, with a twist of his flexible, vain mouth, that had a long upper lip, so fraught with vanity! But then a handsome, clear-cut, histrionic young man like that, how could he help being vain? The women made him so.

These all seem to be characteristics that had attracted her and still apparently do. Interesting. This man is very complex and fascinating to her; quite obvious from this paragraph. The last line, and then the first, in the following paragraph seem to indicate to me a 'forshadowing' of the theme of the jealousy the wife seems to exhibit towards the secretary. The jealousy is not really for the secretary, who is actually no one to anyone, but of the man and his attention to the secretary. In my opinion the true battlefield exists only between the husband and the wife and the 'will' of each set against each other.



Ah, the women! How nice men would be if there were no other women!


I know I have not been here lately, but I have been busy. I hope what I said, makes some sort of sense, and adds to what has already been posted. Sorry about not posting yesterday. It got too late.

[Dark Muse]

You have made some good points, and I hope to be able to come back to it later and make a more detailed response to what you have said, but I am unsable to at this moment.

[Janine]

You have made some good points, and I hope to be able to come back to it later and make a more detailed response to what you have said, but I am unsable to at this moment.

Dark Muse, hope you are ok. Rest up and get better. I can wait. At least, today I resurfaced and made some bit of effort. I am also making headway with my emails, I owed my friends, from awhile ago. Finally, think I am catching up on everything.:) I been feeling unstable myself lately.:( Relax tonight; it is the weekend.

We all have tons of time with this story - it is only the 4th of the month and look how far we already got. :D Good group here!

[Dark Muse]

Thank you, hopefully tomorrow, I will be able to come back to this and give your post closer examination, for now I shall shortly be off to bed

[Janine]

Thank you, hopefully tomorrow, I will be able to come back to this and give your post closer examination, for now I shall shortly be off to bed

I was concerned about you. Hope you are feeling better. I am off to bed, also
...."sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve of care" Macbeth...
It is quite late here again; too late really. I should be in bed by now, even if just to read.
Night, Dark Muse!

[Virgil]

You have made some good points, and I hope to be able to come back to it later and make a more detailed response to what you have said, but I am unsable to at this moment.

I'm not following the conversation, but I did quickly catch this. You mispelled a keyword there Muse, "unsable". Now you could have meant either "unstable" or "unable." Either way I hope you're ok.

[Dark Muse]

Hehe yes I realized that, it was quite late at the time and I was not thinking clearly. I have been sick

[Virgil]

OK, I read the story once, and before I comment I will read through the posts and reread the story. Interesting story, though I don't know if I would consider this a great one. Perhaps I'll be surprised on reread. :)

[Quark]

OK, I read the story once, and before I comment I will read through the posts and reread the story. Interesting story, though I don't know if I would consider this a great one. Perhaps I'll be surprised on reread. :)

Well it's not overly sublime, but it is quite clever. I'm not sure where I'd put it on my list of favorite Lawrence stories--somewhere in the middle, I think. The discussion of the story has sure been active. I struggle to keep up. Janine wrote a post on the last page that I had scroll down for thirty seconds just to get the bottom of it. Tonight I'll make an effort in earnest (no half effort) to write a comprehensive reply that will blow everyone away.

[Janine]

Well it's not overly sublime, but it is quite clever. I'm not sure where I'd put it on my list of favorite Lawrence stories--somewhere in the middle, I think. The discussion of the story has sure been active. I struggle to keep up. Janine wrote a post on the last page that I had scroll down for thirty seconds just to get the bottom of it. Tonight I'll make an effort in earnest (no half effort) to write a comprehensive reply that will blow everyone away.

Quark, :lol: It is not that long! So where is the response - this 'brilliant bit of writing' you conjured up, that will blow everyone away? Oh, now I see, it is in the works and will be posted tonight. I will tune-in later. ;) :lol: Can't wait to read it.:D

Virgil, I have read the story at least 3 times so far. I think I will, no doubt, read it again. I keep trying to figure out, just what to say about it. I was hoping you would arrive soon....rescue me. It is quite unlike other stories by Lawrence, but I quite enjoyed it, even better on additional readings. I found it humorous at times and clever, too although there is definitely an underlying seriousness to it. I like the last line but still not sure what to make of it. We have been trying to work slowly up to the ending so don't fly too far ahead, if you can. Or if you think it benificial to do so, I think everyone has read the story by now. It is up to you.

Later, I will try and post some more of the next part of the story to discuss and I will underline important parts and phrases. It is still early in the month and we can go slowly. Although, I am starting to see this story more in-line of a sketch and simply something Lawrence observed and wrote a witty story about. I don't know if it has terribly deep meanings, as his other stories impart. One critic I read, mentioned this story as a 'sketch' and no more. What would be your opinion on that, Virgil? Answer that, maybe after you review the posts and re-read the story. Glad you are back in the thread. :)

[Dark Muse]

Here is where, I actually agree with both of you, and I don't see that you are in opposition against each other on these points, about the wife's surety and confidence. I feel the wife is sure of herself in some situations, true...but then in others, she alows her vulnerable side to come through. I think the first hint of this is, the annoying grain of irritation in her eye. This 'forshadows' what will follow, when she returns home. Afterall, she is only human and she does have flaws and weaknesses, as we all do. Ok, so to the servants she might appear to be very much her own lady and lord her confidence over them and they respond to it accordingly, she is the lady of the estate! But then then in a conversation with her husband, she is somewhat miffed as to just what he means, calling him enigmatic. When the element, being the third party, enters the picture this throws the wife way off kilter; I refer to the secretary (and even her family) First off, it is representative as a sort of triangle, even though the secetary is not sleeping with her husband, or anything of the nature; however there does exist a sort of 'intimacy' between them, that the wife cannot penetrate. Think of how the secretary writes down every word he says, and how this gives the wife the impression that the girl understands his deeper side, far better than the wife could ever begin to...that 'enigmatic' side. I think in this way, the wife does begin to feel inferior, to the secretary. She also feels inferior, in the fact, that the secretary can provide to her husband wtih undivided attention/focus, while the wife knows perfectly well, she is totally incapable of such devotion. 'Devotion' here is a big factor and the wife is not devoted to her husband. She moves and acts on equal terms with him, almost as a sparring partner and not a love partner. Their wills are often matched and this is a big theme very often Lawrence stories - the theme of the 'will' of one person, against the other. By being caddy and critical, towards the secretary, and her devotion to the husband, the wife is indirectly attacking her husband, not the secretary. The secretary's existence is quite insignificant except, to say she is also a woman and so the wills are matched and their is this element of jealous that probably would not exist if the secretary were a male. But the true foe of the wife, at this point, is the husband and she is fighting him, the only way she knows how, and that is indirectly, yet through a means where it will undermine his sensitivities. The secretary is a way to exert her will against him.

Yes I agree that the wife is confident in some reguards. She does seem to be a very proud woman, but I like your "thrid-wheel" analogy, when she comes back into the house, becasue the scercatray and her family have estrablished thier own little world there with her husband.


Could anything be more impossible! They had the house spotless and running like a dream; how could an incompetent extravagant wife dare to interfere, when she saw their amazing and almost inspired economy. But they rant the place on simply nothing!

The wife does not feel as if she truly belongs within her husbands home. She suddenly feels like an outsider. The world in the house is not truly "her world" anymore, it has been overtaken, so here she is not sure of herself, and she is threatened by the efficiency and devotion of the secretary and her family to her husband. She does not really feel like she belongs there.

I agree that her attacks against the secretary are not really out of any direct feelings she has toward the secretary, but is indeed meant to strike against her husband, whom is the real issue for the wife. As she states somewhere else, that he could not bear it to be mocked for his work, and the secretary was such a intricate part of his work, that it was the best way she had at striking against him.


I don't know about all of you but here I began to question their marriage and realtionship. Ok, so what was meant by then being awfully kind and he the soul of generosity and tender esteem? I didn't know if this was true or just a facade of how they appeared to be in their relationship. It does seem one is true - that he was generous with her.

I was a bit stuck by these lines and found them a bit curious myself, as "generous" seems to be just the opposite of how she later own begins to portray her husband, though it might be true he continued to pay her way for her vacations, throughout the story, the wife is constantly criticizing her husband for being so selfish, in not actually doing anything for the secretary for all that she does for him, and in how little he pays them for their work. But more or less seems to take them for granted.

It seems in someway's, she is almost trying to struggle to understand just how they could be happy in such a situation because she knew she could never be content living the way the secretary and her family does. Though in someway's, I wonder if she does not think that they are indeed more noble than she is for she always seems to speak of them with a certain sarcasm and goads the secretary in someway's for not having the same standards, that she herself has. Though I think this might come from her own insecurities.


So now, the wife seems to be turning that idea around, in her own mind to mean her husband will be the one who is crystalized in the end or spoiled totally for her excesses and alternate lifestyle and for her his flavour would then be spoiled? Is that what she is saying or interpreting her husband as meaning? She seems to be redirecting the blame towards herself and her actions, by saying she might be 'the brine and the vale of tears' that brings about that result in her husband, not in herself. Is she thinking her actions will end up causing his demise? This last part is confusing to me and I am not sure what to make of it entirely. Any ideas, anyone?

Yes I found that whole part quite confussing as well, and could not make anything from it.

[Virgil]

Virgil, I have read the story at least 3 times so far. I think I will, no doubt, read it again. I keep trying to figure out, just what to say about it. I was hoping you would arrive soon....rescue me. It is quite unlike other stories by Lawrence, but I quite enjoyed it, even better on additional readings. I found it humorous at times and clever, too although there is definitely an underlying seriousness to it. I like the last line but still not sure what to make of it. We have been trying to work slowly up to the ending so don't fly too far ahead, if you can. Or if you think it benificial to do so, I think everyone has read the story by now. It is up to you.

I think (and let me emphasize only think) I understand the heart of the story. But let me reread it to make sure. ;)

[Janine]

I think (and let me emphasize only think) I understand the heart of the story. But let me reread it to make sure. ;)

Virgil, Great, I will be anxious to know what you think the 'heart' of the story is. Take your time. I need a break; going now to catch up on my emails....:D

[Virgil]

SPOILERS
So you don't see this as against the grain for Lawrence? This story was definitely much different from last story. That isn't to say that plot was different. That was almost the same: marriage interrupted by an interloper (Bertie, Wexall) which eventually leads to reconciliation. What differs dramatically (well, besides the tone) is the resolution. This story seems to skip over where the reconciliation scene was in the last story. When she sees the bluebirds in the garden I thought here we go again. We're going to have this connection scene in the midst of nature. But, read further, and no there's no such scene here. Instead, it moves into the last conversation in which the one bluebird sarcastically derides the other and drives her off. This caught me a little by surprise. It did seem like an odd departure from what I had come to expect.



Sorry to jump ahead. The ending was just the first thing that came to mind.



Where is our other Lawrence guru anyway?



"The Two Bluebirds" does have a sort of Chekhov-like sparseness of detail.

The Lawrence guru is here. :lol: :lol: Just trying to catch up.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Still haven't reread so I'm still not jumping in. :p

[Quark]

Yes I agree that the wife is confident in some reguards. She does seem to be a very proud woman, but I like your "thrid-wheel" analogy, when she comes back into the house, becasue the scercatray and her family have estrablished thier own little world there with her husband.

Yeah, she feels very alien in her own home because her self-enforced distance. She finds she has almost no effect on her husband's life. Everything in the story heightens this feeling of distance. Even Cameron's (isn't that the husband's name?) manner feels cold and distant. He speaks almost cryptically and has an ironic--or as L puts it "hamletish"--demeanor about him. On top of the elusiveness of Cameron is the wife's own detachment. She's constantly characterized as being out of touch--with her husband's work, with the seasons, and even with her own feelings. Everything contributes to this sense of distance.


I don't know about all of you but here I began to question their marriage and realtionship. Ok, so what was meant by then being awfully kind and he the soul of generosity and tender esteem? I didn't know if this was true or just a facade of how they appeared to be in their relationship.

The generosity of the husband is genuine. He shows it in a number of places by allowing her to have her affairs, trying to make her welcome at home, and even by keeping up his end of the conversation when she interrupts him at work. The wife, though, is looking for something more than just generosity.


Think of how the secretary writes down every word he says, and how this gives the wife the impression that the girl understands his deeper side, far better than the wife could ever begin to...that 'enigmatic' side. I think in this way, the wife does begin to feel inferior, to the secretary. She also feels inferior, in the fact, that the secretary can provide to her husband wtih undivided attention/focus, while the wife knows perfectly well, she is totally incapable of such devotion. 'Devotion' here is a big factor and the wife is not devoted to her husband. She moves and acts on equal terms with him, almost as a sparring partner and not a love partner.

The wife does feel displaced by the secretary. This creates that irritation she feels when away. She knows that she's being replaced.


The jealousy is not really for the secretary, who is actually no one to anyone, but of the man and his attention to the secretary. In my opinion the true battlefield exists only between the husband and the wife and the 'will' of each set against each other.

You could define it as a battle between husband and wife. The wife is trying to get the attention of the husband, but the husband is busy insulating himself to the entreaties of the wife. He buries himself in work and the fawning praise of his servants while the wife is wanting his sincere affection. They don't hate each other, though, nor do they fight their battle with hostility. Their civility isn't just a facade. The husband really is generous and the wife does not really care to do household chores, but the unfortunate emotional aftermath of their arrangement leads them into confrontation.


I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Oh it's very clear that Lawrence doesn't approve of the couple in this story. In certain lines you can see his contempt burst onto the surface. When he describes the wife as a warewolf, you know that character can't be good in the eyes of the narrator. After that he just piles on, too. He makes her pretentious and an admitted parasite. It's not a flattering portrait. The husband fares a little better in the narrator's eyes, but that's only by virtue of being less talked about.

[Virgil]

Acutally, in one of my classess, we are going to be discussing Lawrence, and the first day Tuesday we watched a video about his life, and it talked a lot about his relationship to Fredia within the movie.



Oh, that is so great! DM, I wish I could attend you class. Now I am truly jealous; I want to see that video...do you know what it was called? Yes, Frieda was a huge part of Lawrence's life and I think, a definite influence on his writing, past a certain time. Will you be reading some Lawrence works - book, stories, etc? You must keep me informed as you go along. I hope this class does not make you more Lawrence informed than me;) ...just kidding with you. You might be 'setting me straight', on things I post about his background/concepts/life.


I'm jealous tooo!! I would love to be in a class where we do Lawrence. Yes, please keep us abreast. Perhaps we should have done a story you are covering. Then you would really get a good grade. ;)

[Janine]

I'm jealous tooo!! I would love to be in a class where we do Lawrence. Yes, please keep us abreast. Perhaps we should have done a story you are covering. Then you would really get a good grade. ;)

Virgil, you always get an A+ in my book! :lol:

[Janine]

The Lawrence guru is here. :lol: :lol: Just trying to catch up.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Still haven't reread so I'm still not jumping in. :p

I am freaking out now. :crash: I just typed so much and research: revealing quotes from letters, books; and I lost it all! Apparently, my book hit the esc key. I can't believe it.:bawling: I will have to rethink my whole post and retype it. I came up with such good research too on this time period in L's life. I hope I can recall what I had written. Does anyone know how you can retrieve it? Is that even possible?
If I can't I will have to do this later. It is getting too late now....:(


I learned my lesson and will write this offline this time. Too easy to lose things on here, when typing. Well, back to the old drawing board. I hope I can recall what I had written.

[Janine]

My poor fingers are so tired of typing all this, and also it was not too easy find these references.... so please, please read it. I think this throws a lot of light on the story.


Originally Posted by Virgil
The Lawrence guru is here. Just trying to catch up.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.



Hi Lawrence guru! :lol:

Virgil, that is a very good word for the story – ‘satiric’. Yes, this is the ‘style’ of ‘form’, in which Lawrence wrote this story, and some others from that same time period. The tone certainly is biting and very caustic at times. You and I know how Lawrence could fling comments or insults at his public or publishers and they were quite scathing, in addition to being rather amusing and witty, as well.

It truly helps to see just what was going on in Lawrence’s personal life around this time period. I found this in the introduction ‘Chronology’ in my “Women in Love” book:



1925 Finishes The Plumed Serpent, falls ill and almost dies of typhoid and pneumonia in February; in March diagnosed as suffering from *tuberculosis. Recuperates at Kiowa Ranch, writes David (1926) and compiles Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine (1925). He and Frieda return to settle in Spotorno, Italy; DHL writes first version of *Sun (1926); *Frieda meets Angelo Ravagli.

Then in 1926:


1926 Writes The Virgin and the Gypsy (1930); *serious quarrel with Frieda during visit from DHL’s sister Ada. DHL visits Brewsters and *Brett; has affair with Brett. Reconciled, DHL and Frieda move to Villa Mirenda, near Florence, in May and visit England (his last visit) in late summer. On return to Italy in October he writes first version of Lady Chatterly’s Lover (1944); starts second version in November.

*Up until this time, Lawrence refused to believe he had TB, this doctor in Mexico diagnosed the disease and recommended a warm climate with sun (see excerpt below), or he will surely die. Up until and even after this Lawrence would only refer to his illness as his ‘broncials’. In actuality, TB, was a death sentence for Lawrence and he pretty much knew it.

*Sun - The following story ‘Sun’ also explores the idea of a wife retreating, without her husband to a warmer climate. Obviously, Lawrence was expressing the idea that ‘sun’ would heal and restore life, as was recommended in his own case.

*Frieda meets Ravagli, whom she marries after Lawrence is deceased (Lawrence dies in 1930). She meets him while Lawrence is still recuperating from nearly dying. It was believed, she did indeed have on ongoing affair with Ravagli at this time, and leading up to Lawrence’ death. Lawrence knew about it, resented it, most likely, but could not control his headstrong,’modern thinking’ wife; therefore, he was resigned to the fact, she had her little laisons. No doubt, this ‘resentment’ and ‘bitterness’ resurfaces in the work he did during this period. The themes certainly do come forth and Lawrence is hardly condoning ‘affairs outside of marriage’, as is so apparent in this story – ‘Two Bluebirds’ with his cutting satire.

*serious quarrel with Frieda – one can only conjecture what that quarrel was about. I will try and look up that time, and see if I can dig up any sound reason for the quarrel. It states in the passage, that they did 'reconcil' and then move to Italy. Shortly after his last trip to England, he wrote “Lady Chatterly’s Lover”, which seems to me to follow in his same train of thought, but more developed in the novel. Most importantly to note, during this time period, Lawrence was in great distress and his relationship with his wife was on very shaky ground. It was a very tumultuous time in Lawrence’s life. Very shortly before all this his father died, as well. Several so called friends he either split with or they split with him. Add onto this the diagnosis of TB and it was a good receipe for all kinds of resentments and complex feelings.

*Dorothy Brett – The Lawrence’s met her in New Mexico, at the L's ranch; good friend of the Lawrence’s, she even traveled to Mexico, among other locations, with the couple. I have read several accounts to whether she and Lawrence actually did have an affair. At this time, following this bad illness and near death, I believe Lawrence was suffering impotence, so even if they spend a night together in a hotel room, it was not much of an affair. The whole thing is somewhat doubtful, but then later, Lawrence does mention in a letter to Brett that Frieda claimed she would never speak to Brett again. There could be other reasons for that but from what I read I believe that Frieda did become quite jealous of Brett and her attention to Lawrence. Brett even typed for Lawrence, which caused more animosity in Frieda's eyes. Quite a soap opera, isn't it?


‘Two Blue Birds’ was written in Florence and send to Nancy Pearn May 13, 1926:


I send you a story, ‘Two Blue Birds’ – probably to be another tribulation to you.[Huxley 658]

I just found this very interesting letter concerning Brett – keep in mind this letter was written around the same time Lawrence wrote this story. A few letters before this one, I read another, in which Lawrence professes he will no longer talk to his old friend, Murray because of some critical things Murray said about Lawrence publically. The letter that Brett forwarded to L make him sick and his words were bitter and scathing…”make me sick in the pit of my stomach: the cold, cold insect-like ugliness of it. – I shall avoid meeting Murray.” (January 1925)

This is an excerpt from a letter to Brett a little later:


To Hon, Dorothy Brett, 11 April 1925

You are, you know, a born separator. Even without knowing that you do it, you set people against one another. It is instinctive with you. If you are friendsly with one, you make that one unfriendly to the others: no matter who it is. It’s just a natural process with you. – But it usually turns everyone into an enemy, at last…………………Among three people, always two against one.

Then a little later in the same letter:


A life in common is an illusion, when the instinct is always to divide, to separate individuals and set them one against the other. And this seems to be the ruling instinct, unacknowledged. Unite with the one, against the other. And it’s no good.

Wow, that last part seems to me to be the theme of “Two Bluebirds”, in Lawrence’s own words! This is truly revealing to me.

Note: Lawrence died in 1930, so this story was written about 4 yrs earlier, but in a very bad period for Lawrence; besides continually fighting his health (there were many ups and downs with that) and being in a weakened state, he had experienced so much personal woe and rejection by now, he was quite fed-up. Until nearly his last days, he kept writing, but these later writings, definitely reflect a mood and an 'edge', that Lawrence did not previously reveal so intensely. They also reflect a sort of attitude of 'resignment' at times. It is an interesting mixture.

[Virgil]

Fabulous post Janine! :thumbs_up I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. :D Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all :lol:) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

Now you say:

*Dorothy Brett – The Lawrence’s met her in New Mexico, at the L's ranch; good friend of the Lawrence’s, she even traveled to Mexico, among other locations, with the couple. I have read several accounts to whether she and Lawrence actually did have an affair. At this time, following this bad illness and near death, I believe Lawrence was suffering impotence, so even if they spend a night together in a hotel room, it was not much of an affair. The whole thing is somewhat doubtful, but then later, Lawrence does mention in a letter to Brett that Frieda claimed she would never speak to Brett again. There could be other reasons for that but from what I read I believe that Frieda did become quite jealous of Brett and her attention to Lawrence. Brett even typed for Lawrence, which caused more animosity in Frieda's eyes. Quite a soap opera, isn't it?


‘Two Blue Birds’ was written in Florence and send to Nancy Pearn May 13, 1926:

I just found this very interesting letter concerning Brett – keep in mind this letter was written around the same time Lawrence wrote this story. A few letters before this one, I read another, in which Lawrence professes he will no longer talk to his old friend, Murray because of some critical things Murray said about Lawrence publically. The letter that Brett forwarded to L make him sick and his words were bitter and scathing…”make me sick in the pit of my stomach: the cold, cold insect-like ugliness of it. – I shall avoid meeting Murray.” (January 1925)


This is an excerpt from a letter to Brett a little later:

To Hon, Dorothy Brett, 11 April 1925

You are, you know, a born separator. Even without knowing that you do it, you set people against one another. It is instinctive with you. If you are friendsly with one, you make that one unfriendly to the others: no matter who it is. It’s just a natural process with you. – But it usually turns everyone into an enemy, at last…………………Among three people, always two against one. Then a little later in the same letter:


If I'm remembering correctly both Lawrence and Frieda began to hate Brett. But they always allowed her to hang around. I'm not sure why. There was another woman at the Taos ranch that formed the group, a Mable Dodge Lujan. Here's a picture of the the three of them, taken in the 1940s, well after Lawrence's death:
http://www.cla.purdue.edu/waaw/Jacobs/Images/luhanlawrencebrett-m.jpg

Dorothy Brett figures in several of Lawrence's later short stories. Most notably "The Princess" which I hope we will cover some day.

[Dark Muse]

Fabulous post Janine! :thumbs_up I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. :D Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all :lol:) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

They talked about Dorothy in my class, in the video we watched, and the idea of the secretary did come into my mind at the time. I was going to mention something about it sooner, but you know me, at the time I could not remember what the woman's name was right off the top of my head.

Thanks for the great post Janine and I can definitely relate to how it is to loose a post you just got done typing all out. It is so frustrating and irritating.

[Virgil]

They talked about Dorothy in my class, in the video we watched, and the idea of the secretary did come into my mind at the time. I was going to mention something about it sooner, but you know me, at the time I could not remember what the woman's name was right off the top of my head.

Thanks for the great post Janine and I can definitely relate to how it is to loose a post you just got done typing all out. It is so frustrating and irritating.

That must be some class DM if they are getting into Lawrence's friends. Now I really wish I was in that class.

[Janine]

Fabulous post Janine! :thumbs_up I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. :D Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all :lol:) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

Thanks so much, Virgil! I was really excited to find all this information. It just dawned on me to investigate just what was going on with Lawrence at the time. Other things also turned up and none that would make Lawrence very happy. It was an extremely difficult time for him.


Now you say:
If I'm remembering correctly both Lawrence and Frieda began to hate Brett. But they always allowed her to hang around. I'm not sure why. There was another woman at the Taos ranch that formed the group, a Mable Dodge Lujan. Here's a picture of the the three of them, taken in the 1940s, well after Lawrence's death:

Yes, that is the picture - the famous one of the three, after his death. DB is really appealing isn't she? That has to be the worst photo of Frieda that was ever taken, too. I actually hate that photo...but there they are reunited again. I guess they all made amends eventually. Frieda remarried, so she no longer felt threatened by either. It was Mable Dodge who invited them to New Mexico, to begin with; she is the one who gave them their ranch. She pictured prominently and colorfully in Lawrence's biographies and the New Mexico years. That was a strange time...sometimes good and sometimes not so good. They had a lot of falling out's, quarrels. Mabel lived with Tony, an Indian man, who she later married.

Yes, us Lawrence geeks would love this stuff; but still there is so much here that points to this one story - "Two Blue Birds", I think all this is quite significant, don't you?

Yep, Brett did seem to latch onto Lawrence, especially Lawrence, and trail along with he and Frieda. I don't think Frieda ever really liked that; eventually they did have a big clash. Also, Lawrence wrote Brett countless letters - they don't seem at all romantic, or as if they had anything going sexually, but they did seem to be good close friends, for a time. He confided much in her and she would fit the 'secretatary image' in this respect - she was unconditionally devoted to Lawrence, quite enamoured with the man, I believe, and would probably have done anything for him; much as the secretary in his story is depicted. Let me add she would have with very little in return from L. Interesting, isn't it? I definitely think Lawrence originally got the idea from Faith Mackenzie at the lunch with her, that has been well documented. However, you know how Lawrence altered things and characters, to suit himself and his stories. I think Dorothy Brett definitely plays into this equation and one could say she depicts his image for the rather meek, yet devoted secretary.
That is pretty funny - what you observed in the name - "Wrecks-all" - you are really keen, Virgil. I truly think Lawrence did do that on purpose. Phonetically the name could be said that way, right? Oh, that is just great!!!:lol: Leave it to Lawrence!



Dorothy Brett figures in several of Lawrence's later short stories. Most notably "The Princess" which I hope we will cover some day.

I have been wanting to read "The Princess"....yes, maybe we can do that one real soon. Now you have me interested. Do you know which other ones she figures in?


They talked about Dorothy in my class, in the video we watched, and the idea of the secretary did come into my mind at the time. I was going to mention something about it sooner, but you know me, at the time I could not remember what the woman's name was right off the top of my head.

That is totally interesting Dark Muse; glad I mentioned her today. Don't worry, I forget names too, if I don't write them down. You should have just thrown it out there and I could have tried to research, although this connection the secretary didn't come to me until I did this research today.



Thanks for the great post Janine and I can definitely relate to how it is to loose a post you just got done typing all out. It is so frustrating and irritating.

Glad it was so helpful. Thanks for reading it, DM.
Yes, I was dying; all that work and it went flying off somewhere in outer-space, not even cyber-space, where I may have been able to retrieve it. :(

[Dark Muse]

That is totally interesting Dark Muse; glad I mentioned her today. Don't worry, I forget names too, if I don't write them down. You should have just thrown it out there and I could have tried to research, although this connection the secretary didn't come to me until I did this research today.

I probably just thought of it, sense I had so recently read the story. Watching the film while the story was still fresh within my mind made it easy for me to begin to see the parallels between the two.

His life, and the events and characters of the story.

[islandclimber]

Janine, thank you for the great post above.. it helps put this story in context and gives one a better idea of what Lawrence was thinking about at the time... Fascinating... wonderful post:)

so in rereading this story, I like the husband and the wife less and less.. the husband I find behaves very generously and wonderfully with regards to his wife, if being a bit of a push over, and a trod upon man... which I fully see, though he allows it completely.. his choice I guess.. matrimonial harmony requires sacrifices, and I guess in this case it is all about allowing the wife to commit adultery in the sake of happiness.. why not get a divorce? it appears they have no reason to be together... unless they are waiting for old age and making sure they have a companion, but surely they could find someone they actually want to be with....

I find the husband treats his secretary with little generosity as the wife seems to imply, but the problem is that the secretary and her family seem perfectly content with this, and the wife is thinking of how she herself would feel in the secretary's position, which is absurd, because they are two quite different creatures... still the husband could do more for them... or so I believe....

the wife though,... even if she is narrating the story, and appears in a somewhat favourable and sympathetic light at first glance.. rereading and looking deeper, does she have any redeeming qualities... no... not a single one.. she is lazy, doesn't want to help earn income, doesn't care for being around her husband, however much she claims to esteem him, I don't believe she seriously loves him, maybe in a platonic sense, as one loves someone who appears to be genuinely good and noble for the most part... but not in any other way,.. she takes his money, she sleeps with other people and then comes home and tries to play the part of the home-wrecker herself, and destroy the situation that everyone in the house is quite happy with, except herself, being the jealous woman that she is... in wanting to possess everything of her husband, yet not wanting to give anything in return.. it seems she wants her husband to need her and pine for her while she is away, but she still believes her affairs are necessary and explains it away to being a modern woman.... it is a little ridiculous.. but the only redeeming factor is that the husband is seemingly okay with this and supports her in doing so... I just dislike her quite a bit... she is a woman, who does nothing and is given everything all the same, and shows no gratitude, instead makes up excuses and reasons to create problems in what is a happy situation with the husband and secretary and her family at home... what is sympathetic about her?

[Dark Muse]

Though I perhaps do not per sae like the husband within the story, I would say my feelings upon him are perhaps rather neutral in nature, as I do not truly dislike him either.

And the wife I must admit does amuse me. I appreciate her wit and sarcasm, and quite honestly, I do not feel I can truly judge either of them for how they choose to live their life, as neither one is doing anything behind the back of the other they are open and honest with each other, and thus they are two grown adults choosing to live their life in a way that perhaps is unconventional.

But the wife has no reason to stop living the way she does, because she is given no consequences, and as far as we can see in the story, the husband does not express to her any true wish for her to stop her behavior.

I am not to say that all marriages must follow the same standard. And the secretary does toward the end of the story express how deeply happy and content she is with her current relation to the husband, so I cannot truly say she or her family are suffering at his hands.

Thus he really has no reason to act any differently toward them as they do not seem to desire it.

They may not be all wholly content with their arrangements, but it is they choices they made for themselves. The husband could probably stop the wife by refusing to continue to finically support her if he wished but he does not make any such actions.

[islandclimber]

Oh I agree with you completely.. ANd that is what I said was the only sympathetic and redeemable thing about the wife's behaviour and viewpoints, is that the husband does not care... but I don't believe he could stop her.. I do believe she would go find some other sucker if he tried to... I just find her kind of to be a superfluous person.... she serves no purpose for anyone or anything in life.. even for herself she has not much of a purpose or idea... she just has affairs, spends alot of money, and contributes to putting he husband in debt... and does it with a seemingly complete lack of conscience.. she just doesn't care... and even if the husband allows her to act this way, doesn't she have any sense of responsibility for her own actions, doesn't she feel at all that she should contribute, and not put her husband further in debt, just for the sake of a good time, she is an entirely selfcentred, egotistical, selfish, princess type character... she is entirely useless, however clever her wit is, and however amusingly sarcastic she can be... I do like those things and enjoy the story because of it... I just find her to be useless... the husband I don't like much more, though like you I am for the most part neutral as we don't find out much about him... Though it appears he is quite self centred as well... hard to tell..

[Dark Muse]

The one thing I will say about that though, is it seems to me that they are supposed to be upper class, considering all the trips that she takes, and back in that time period, it would not be expected of an upper class woman to contribute to the household, and women would not have been expected to work, but were typically to be kept by their husbands.

For a woman to work, was generally looked down upon and it was something usually only down within the lower classes's, and there was not really much options available for women to work.

But the ideal typically was for women to find financial security through marriage

[islandclimber]

again I agree.. but she still annoys me.. haha.. oh well... as I said I just find her to be kind of a superfluous person... :D

[Dark Muse]

LOL you sound like me when we read The Shadow in the Rose Garden

[islandclimber]

well I will have to go back and read that maybe.. see what I think... It seems a lot of Lawrence's stories have main characters that one can completely dislike, though I guess the same can be said of most writers...

[Janine]

Janine, thank you for the great post above.. it helps put this story in context and gives one a better idea of what Lawrence was thinking about at the time... Fascinating... wonderful post:)

Thanks, islandclimber, your appreciation is well appreciated!:) It took me awhile to dig up all those facts, not to mention all my slow typing, but I really do love delving below the surface and finding out just how Lawrence might be operating and thinking, during the time he is writing these stories. Plus, in posting some facts about his later biography, you all learn more about Lawrence. He is such a fascinating author and person to study.

Quote by islandclimber

so in rereading this story, I like the husband and the wife less and less.. the husband I find behaves very generously and wonderfully with regards to his wife, if being a bit of a push over, and a trod upon man... which I fully see, though he allows it completely.. his choice I guess.. matrimonial harmony requires sacrifices, and I guess in this case it is all about allowing the wife to commit adultery in the sake of happiness.. why not get a divorce? it appears they have no reason to be together... unless they are waiting for old age and making sure they have a companion, but surely they could find someone they actually want to be with....

From the beginning, I agreed with this idea or image of the wife. I don't personally, like the way the wife is acting towards the husband and the secretary, nor her family. I do feel the wife is very spoiled woman and is accustomed to getting whatever she wants from her husband, who honestly is 'generous' towards her. That line still interests me, when the generosity is mentioned. I don't think this is said straight-forwardly. I somehow view this statement a little differently, than others have:


However, they were awfully kind. He was the soul of generosity, and held her in real tender esteem, no matter how many gallant affairs she had. Her gallant affairs were part of her modern necessity.

Consider, if the wife is saying, or thinking this to herself, and using a much more sarcastic tone..."he was the soul of generosity". I say this, because directly after these observations, the text launches into the wive's idea of turning into a pillar of salt and the husband very quickly comes back with his own biting clever retort.

I think there is another statement that also illustrates this, but I could not locate it presently, in the text. However, I did find a number of interesting parts, I would like to discuss or point out, in my next post.

I do agree with your thinking, islandclimber, the husband is indeed alowing this to happen. I don't know if we could call him a push-over but he likes the way his life is and it seems to be confortable enough for him so that he does not seem to want for anything more. He is in a bit of a rut, maybe inert and just likes the way things remain or can tolerate them. Unlike the husband, the wife is not in anyway occuppied with a career or a job or anything that would provide a feeling of self-worth; the husband is emersed in his work/his writing/his art; he finds self-satisfaction in this; perhaps this focus distracts him daily from dwelling on his wife and her affairs. This may be how he has learned to cope with the situation. I think both the wife and the husband suffer from a kind of stagnation. When the story describes the grain of irritation in the wife's eye and she returns home, she seems to become suddenly aware of her situation and her husband again. I think these new feelings confuse and unravel her and she reacts poorly, but in some ways she is now forced into being more alive/awake than he is....which could question their whole arrangement, with his inert attitude to allowing her to go off with other men. The presense now of the other woman (the secretaray) is just the spark to awaken the deeper feelings in the wife and in her only know way she then lashes out to try and protect her turf. It is sort of a territorial fight that ensues and I think that the two bluebirds fighting at the end symbolises this idea and theme, in the story. Even though the wife has gone from her own home countless times to spend time in warmer places and take lovers she still has this strong connection to her home and her husband. It is hard to explain and certainly not the ideal marriage. One does wonder why the two don't simply part. I guess this part is not explored enough in the course of this short story. We really don't know how they began or how happy they had been prior to their 12 yrs together when they could not reside in the same house for very long. It is a very strange arrangement and a weird sort of marriage, I agree with this.

Quote by islandclimber

I find the husband treats his secretary with little generosity as the wife seems to imply, but the problem is that the secretary and her family seem perfectly content with this, and the wife is thinking of how she herself would feel in the secretary's position, which is absurd, because they are two quite different creatures... still the husband could do more for them... or so I believe....

Several times in the text it does mention the husband has debts and is working 10, 12 hours a day to pay them off, so I don't think he can be any more generous with the secretary and her family and I don't think they expect it of him. Their value system is a whole lot different than the wife's value system. Their rewards are beyond the wife's conprehension.


'He', of course, had debts, and he was working to pay them off. And if he had been a fairy prince who could call the ants to help him, he would not have been more wonderful than in securing this secretary and her family. They took hardly any wages. And they seemed to perform the miracle of loaves and fishes daily.
'She', of course, was the wife who loved her husband, but helped him into debt, and she still was an expensive item.

The wife admits here to herself she was the one who helped him into that debt. No doubt this fact is true. The family seems to be trying to aid him to help him back out of debt. The wife is jealous of this fact.

In this debate between the husband and wife, they discuss this working situation, which she seems to disapprove of, and yet she does reap the benefits from his working that much. In the end it is quite the irony; she ends up agreeing with him.


"Oh, I don't know," she answered indifferently. "Perhaps it's not good for a man's work if he is too comfortable."
"I don't know about that!" he said, taking a dramatic turn round the library and drawing at his pipe. "Considering I work, actually, by the clock, for twelve hours a day, and for ten hours when it's a short day, I don't think you can say I am deteriorating from easy comfort."
"No, I suppose not," she admitted.


Quote by islandclimber

the wife though,... even if she is narrating the story, and appears in a somewhat favourable and sympathetic light at first glance.. rereading and looking deeper, does she have any redeeming qualities... no... not a single one.. she is lazy, doesn't want to help earn income, doesn't care for being around her husband, however much she claims to esteem him, I don't believe she seriously loves him, maybe in a platonic sense, as one loves someone who appears to be genuinely good and noble for the most part... but not in any other way,.. she takes his money, she sleeps with other people and then comes home and tries to play the part of the home-wrecker herself, and destroy the situation that everyone in the house is quite happy with, except herself, being the jealous woman that she is... in wanting to possess everything of her husband, yet not wanting to give anything in return..

I agree with all of this and that she is quite inept at doing anything useful to help her husband or herself. I don't know completely if I feel she truly does not love him. This part is tricky. I don't think she does at this point but she may love him without now being "in-love" any longer with him. It didn't seem that when the started out married that they were madly in-love or passionately in-love. I don't read that in the text, so who knows. I do know that after these past 12 yrs or so married their relationship has become totally distant and stagnant.

Quote by islandclimber

it seems she wants her husband to need her and pine for her while she is away, but she still believes her affairs are necessary and explains it away to being a modern woman.... it is a little ridiculous.. but the only redeeming factor is that the husband is seemingly okay with this and supports her in doing so... I just dislike her quite a bit... she is a woman, who does nothing and is given everything all the same, and shows no gratitude, instead makes up excuses and reasons to create problems in what is a happy situation with the husband and secretary and her family at home... what is sympathetic about her?

It seems that way, but I don't know if it is. She does seem to want attention and goes about trying to get it from him, all the wrong ways. It is very hard to find any sympathy for her, but now looking at the story from a little different angle I do see that she is quite a confused person and rather insecure. I don't think I find much to like or respect in him either, because, as you pointed out, he allows her to be this way. He never tries to change the situation.

I think the idea of the 'modern woman' springs from several direct influences, at this time in history. I will look some references up and post them, so you can see just what the attitude was towards a woman taking lovers outside a marriage.

[Janine]

Hahaha, been reading your little debate on the wife. I was posting and somehow you two snuck in ahead of me. That is funny, DM, because you really did not like the lady in 'Shadow in the Rose Garden'....we debated that one for too many posts! :lol:

[Quark]

Yes, us Lawrence geeks would love this stuff; but still there is so much here that points to this one story - "Two Blue Birds", I think all this is quite significant, don't you?

It did shed light on the state of mind Lawrence was in when he wrote the story and who some of this may have been aimed at. What about the "insect-like" need to divide? Do the letters give any more explanation of that than "The Two Blue Birds" does? The story just accepts it without any question, but your commentary might give us some more insight.

Oh, and what was the parallel you were drawing with Lady Chatterley's Love. I haven't read the book, so I wasn't sure where you were going with that.


Fabulous post Janine! :thumbs_up I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. :D Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all :lol:) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

A Dickens-like touch from Lawrence, isn't it? I didn't notice the word play with her name, but I did hear the dissonant, jarring sound her names makes. I remember first coming across that and thinking it was the perfect name.

[Dark Muse]

Hahaha, been reading your little debate on the wife. I was posting and somehow you two snuck in ahead of me. That is funny, DM, because you really did not like the lady in 'Shadow in the Rose Garden'....we debated that one for too many posts! :lol:

Hehe yes I know and in this story I am defending the wife.

But the way I see it, I really do not think she is truly mistreating, using, taking advantage of, or trodding all over her husband, becasue she is completely open and honest about all that she does and feels and he continues to indulge her, in full awareness of who and what she is, so in this reguard I really do not think that she is acutally doing anything wrong.

[Janine]

It did shed light on the state of mind Lawrence was in when he wrote the story and who some of this may have been aimed at. What about the "insect-like" need to divide? Do the letters give any more explanation of that than "The Two Blue Birds" does? The story just accepts it without any question, but your commentary might give us some more insight.

Quark, no, I think you are mixing up the quotes here; no one said "insect-like" need to divide, unless one of us commented, after the commentary I posted and said that. Here are the quotes again from the book:


The letter that Brett forwarded to L make him sick and his words were bitter and scathing… "make me sick in the pit of my stomach: the cold, cold insect-like ugliness of it. – I shall avoid meeting Murray.” (January 1925)

Basically, I quoted this entry, to show Lawrence's state of mind at the time, that he wrote this story. This (his) disgusted remark was directed at his friend, Middleton Murray's letters, which he had send to Brett, which Brett forwarded to Lawrence. In these letter Murray must have been criticising Lawrence and his work (this I am surmising from other accounts I have read). It was well-known that he and Murray fell out of favor; they had been close friends. Murray was married to Katherine Mansfield, who was very good friends with Lawrence. Murray wrote some very harsh public criticism about Lawrence's work, that I think would indeed give him ample reason to be sickened by it. Also, it was believed that Murray had had a 'one night stand' with Frieda, Lawrence's wife. You see where all this is going, right? Lawrence often referred to insects or insect references in his insults or negative comments. Our Lawrence was pretty creative!



Quote:
This is an excerpt from a letter to Brett a little later:

To Hon, Dorothy Brett, 11 April 1925

You are, you know, a born separator. Even without knowing that you do it, you set people against one another. It is instinctive with you. If you are friendly with one, you make that one unfriendly to the others: no matter who it is. It’s just a natural process with you. – But it usually turns everyone into an enemy, at last…………………Among three people, always two against one.

I think this part is the most significant part: "three people, always two against one". This is interesting because I can site many stories that employ this idea. One is "Lady Chatterly's Lover" - I am not just thinking of the obvious triangle of the husband, wife, lover.....there is a much more complicated one which is the relationship the husband forms with his nurse; also a non-sexual one but one in which the woman is more devoted than the wife, Connie, could ever be - not because she would not be capable of being so but because, in this particular story, the husband prefers the nurse over the wife. This seems to relate to me with the idea of the devoted secretary who gets little in return and yet is needful of being needed. I think both characters are definitely of this same personality althought the nurse in LCL is much stronger in character than the secretary is. In this way and others I think Lawrence went beyond this story and wrote a much more developed story which entails some of the elements or ideas in this short story. Whereas the husband and wife are alien to each other and there is no solution in this story at the end, in LCL Lawrence advances to a solution for the woman/wife.


Oh, and what was the parallel you were drawing with Lady Chatterley's Love. I haven't read the book, so I wasn't sure where you were going with that.

Ok, so basically, what I just wrote above is my explaination of the parellels. Sorry, you did not read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" but I don't think that will prevent you from understanding what I wrote above. I think other stories of Lawrence have these similiar parellels. "Shadow in the Rose Garden" presented a third party(person) that has entered the picture, perhaps only as a memory and a 'shadow', but this third party is what creates the alienation of the husband and wife. So, Lawrence himself is saying that, when three people are involved, there is always a problem that ensues.


A Dickens-like touch from Lawrence, isn't it? I didn't notice the word play with her name, but I did hear the dissonant, jarring sound her names makes. I remember first coming across that and thinking it was the perfect name.

Yes, it is a jarring sound, and harsh, and I do now think Lawrence chose the name purposely....maybe a little Dickens-like; all authors steal ideas, you know. Dicken's didn't have a monopoly on clever name writing. The name indeed makes the story even more cynically humorous, and definitely reflects Lawrence's own harsh, critical mood, at the time the story was written.

[Dark Muse]

"Nothing to aggravate him!" What a position for a man! Fostered by women who would let nothing 'aggravate' him. If anything would aggravate his wounded vanity, this would!

So thought the wife. But what was to be done about it? In the silence of midnight she heard his voice in the distance, dictating away, like the voice of God to Samuel, alone and monotonous, and she imagined the little figure of the secretary busily scribbling shorthand. Then in the sunny hours of morning, while he was still in bed-he never rose till noon-from another distance came the sharp insect noise of the typewriter, like some immense grasshopper chirping and rattling. It was the secretary, poor thing, typing out his notes.

I found this another interesting biblical reference, also I loved the description at the end, about the "insect noise" and the typewriting sounding like a grasshopper. I found it interesting that earlier in the story the secretary and her family were compared to ants, and now grasshoppers are used in discussion of the secretary.


It was spring! What a fool she had been to come up in spring! And she was forty! What an idiot of a woman to go and be forty!

I just love this.


She went down the garden in the warm afternoon, when birds were whistling loudly from the cover, the sky being low and warm, and she had nothing to do. The garden was full of flowers: he loved them for thier theatrical display. Lilac and snowball bushes, and laburnum and red may, tulips and anemones and colored daisies. Lots of flowers! Borders of forget-me-nots! Bachelor's buttons! What abdurd names flowers had! She would have called them blue dots and yellow blobs and white frills. Not so much sentiment after all!

I love this discription of the flowers, and I just loved the last lines:


What abdurd names flowers had! She would have called them blue dots and yellow blobs and white frills. Not so much sentiment after all!

As I have often had the same thoughts, some of the names I hear for flowers I am just like, that is a flower?


There is a certain nonsense, somethign showy and stagey about spring, with its pushing leaves and chorus-girl flowers, unless you have something corresponding inside you. Which she hadn't

I find her views upon spring to be quite interesting. As she does seem to rather dislike the season, considering how much she enjoys spending her time in the sun during the winter months.

[Janine]

I found this another interesting biblical reference, also I loved the description at the end, about the "insect noise" and the typewriting sounding like a grasshopper. I found it interesting that earlier in the story the secretary and her family were compared to ants, and now grasshoppers are used in discussion of the secretary.

Yes, as I said a few posts back, Lawrence often would use insect or references, in his insults or comments. I think it comes out here and is funny, in a more personal sense referring back to Lawrence. I can just see him typing out his stories, hating the typewriter as he did, even fuming at it, as his wife is off somewhere, without him, once again - this all adds up to a very 'creatively' cynical and critical mind, coming up with these 'insect' phrases, born of his own resentful mood. Lawrence hated the typewriter; someone had given him one. He would try and type on it, and eventually he would just abandon it. I think in this phrase, he is actually taking out his own hatred of the device. Yes, he did refer to the family as ants. That too, was a sort of extension of the wife's narrowminded views and how she felt above them all, superior. Also, if you think of it, in nature, 'ants' are very industrious and work within an order and hierarchy, ordered system, very efficently, just like this family and the secretary. The husband is like the queen bee.


I just love this.

Women would appreciate this the most, especially if they have hit that magic age.


I love this discription of the flowers, and I just loved the last lines:

Lawrence was such a master at describing flowers and natural woodlands; here it is as though he was laughing at his own self, about how each flower is so meticulously named. It is quite a funny passage, indeed. I enjoyed it when I read it, even laughed out loud.


As I have often had the same thoughts, some of the names I hear for flowers I am just like, that is a flower?

Yes, it is hard to recall them all. Someone actually did do a study in Lawrence's first novel, "The White Peacock". The study was of all the various flowers and plants L mentioned in that book. This researcher came up with an extraordinary amount - something in the thousands, I think I read recently online. Amazing! Lawrence knew his flowers well; he studied the science for several years. That is what makes this passage even more humorous to me. Says something about the mood of L, too, at the time.
DM, I see you are not a gardener or enthusiast.


I find her views upon spring to be quite interesting. As she does seem to rather dislike the season, considering how much she enjoys spending her time in the sun during the winter months.

Ironic, maybe...but if you look again at the quote:



There is a certain nonsense, something showy and stagey about spring, with its pushing leaves and chorus-girl flowers, unless you have something corresponding inside you. Which she hadn't.

That is the significant part of the quote. She is not connecting to spring and nature. She has nothing inside to connect to it so she sees it as silly.

I view her husband is an enabler. He enables his wife to be as she is and not have reponsibility of any kind and be pampered. By being as she is, actually cut-off from any sense of self-worth or deeper feelings about herself and others, she is actually a very sad person, missing out on many of life's greatest gifts/blessings. If she cannot appreciate spring, I don't know what image I would have of her, except a truly bitter one.

[Dark Muse]

That is the significant part of the quote. She is not connecting to spring and nature. She has nothing inside to connect to it so she sees it as silly.

The other thing I could not help but to think of, even though I know this was not discussed at all within the story, is the idea of fertility of spring vs. the bareness of winter. As they seem to be the only seasons mentioned within the story. She seems to be quite found of winter as such is when she goes off on her grand trips, while she is bitter about spring.

One thing I could not help but to notice, is how long they have been married and yet there is no mention, hint or suggestion of children at all. And though now they seem to be quite rigid with each other. I am sure at one time they must have had, shall we say, intimate relations with each other.

As well, that did not exzaztly have the best means of birthcontrol back than, and yet she is always off on her grand affairs, seemingly without any consequences of the biological sort.


DM, I see you are not a gardener or enthusiast.

LOL, I quite enjoy flowers and have made a few, though unsucessful attempts at growing my own gardens, but that does not change the fact that the names of some flowers are just plain silly.

[islandclimber]

I don't take exception to how she treats her husband.. not in the slightest.. I don't like him at all either.. He deserves it and asks for it... and allows it... and I feel somewhat sorry for her, in that she appears to be passionate about very little in relaity, and appears to be quite miserable underneath it all, quite confused and lost...

but I still dislike her.. she is an entirely superfluous person, I don't know if that opinion will ever change for me regarding this story... I feel sorry for her, but at the same time, find her useless and quite easy to dislike...


oohhh... I love flowers.. but mostly wildflowers... I'm not all that into the idea of gardening flowers, I think we should help them proliferate more as wildflowers... gardens can be nice though... and I love all the interesting and sometimes silly names of flowers... they add to the beauty and uniqueness of each one...

[Virgil]

Ok, I've reread the story quite carefully and I want to jump in. I want to outline the structure of the story and then focus in on the symbol of the two blue birds, because that i think is the key to the story. But I find it interesting how Lawrence builds to that and then the climax.

I see the structure of the story as dividing into five parts. The divisions may be arbitrary, but it helps me see how it progresses.

The first part is almost all exposition. From the beginning Lawrence recaps the relationship between husband and wife, how they could not live together, how she has "gallant affairs," how he works long hours dictating to his secretary, how the relationship with the secretary is platonic, and how he supports his wife. We get the impression of a very "modern," chic marriage.

The second part we have the wife disaffected and asks for the first time, "What's to be done?" Notice how this question keeps cropping up. But here she is asking about herself, and the answer is to head south for the winter to her gallant affairs. She's off like a bird and returns in the spring.

The third part she returns to find matters grown worse.

What was to be done? Matters, instead of improving, had grown worse. The little secretary had brought her mother and sister into the establishment. The mother was a sort of cook-housekeeper, the sister was a sort of upper maid--she did the fine laundry, and looked after 'his' clothes, and valeted him beautifully. It was really an excellent arrangement. The old mother was a splendid plain cook, the sister was all that could be desired as a valet de chambre, a fine laundress, an upper parlour-maid, and a table-waiter. And all economical to a degree. They knew his affairs by heart. His secretary flew to town when a creditor became dangerous, and she always smoothed over the financial crisis.
What exactly is the wife's problem? It seems that the husband is too comfortable. We get a dialogue between husband and wife over his comfort and his work:

"Don't you think the family manage very well?" he asked her tentatively.

"Awfully well! Almost romantically well!" she replied. "But I suppose you're perfectly happy?"

"I'm perfectly comfortable," he replied.

"I can see you are," she replied. "Amazingly so! I never knew such comfort! Are you sure it isn't bad for you?"

She eyed him stealthily. He looked very well, and extremely handsome, in his histrionic way. He was shockingly well-dressed and valeted. And he had that air of easy aplomb and good humour which is so becoming to a man, and which he only acquires when he is c**k of his own little walk, made much of by his own hens.
She focuses on the discrepency between beiing happy and being comfortable. Obviously her greater value rests on happiness. We get some more bird analogy of him being a c**k with hens. And the wife concludes that she must do something:

"Nothing to aggravate him!" What a position for a man! Fostered by women who would let nothing 'aggravate' him. If anything would aggravate his wounded vanity, this would!

So thought the wife. But what was to be done about it?
And she wonders about what the secretary gets out of the relationship:

"What on earth she gets out of it," thought the wife, "I don't know. She's simply worn to the bone, for a very poor salary, and he's never kissed her, and never will, if I know anything about him."

Part IV consists of what I call cognitive development, meaning we see the wife working out the issues in her mind. First she wonders what she herself wants of her husband:

What on earth did she want then? She was his wife. What on earth did she want of him?

She certainly didn't want to take him down in shorthand, and type out again all those words. And she didn't really want him to kiss her; she knew him too well. Yes, she knew him too well. If you know a man too well, you don't want him to kiss you.

What then? What did she want? Why had she such an extraordinary hang-over about him? Just because she was his wife? Why did she rather 'enjoy' other men--and she was relentless about enjoyment--without ever taking them seriously? And why must she take him so damn seriously, when she never really 'enjoyed' him?
Then she wonders what the secretary and her family (mother and sister) get out their adorning the husband:

She came back once more, and there she was, in her own house, a sort of super-guest, even to him. And the secretarial family devoting their lives to him.

Devoting their lives to him! But actually! Three women pouring out their lives for him day and night! And what did they get in return? Not one kiss! Very little money, because they knew all about his debts, and had made it their life business to get them paid off! No expectations! Twelve hours' work a day! Comparative isolation, for he saw nobody!
Her mind gravitates to how his work has been damaged by these adorning women:

But it was bad for him. No doubt about it. His work was getting diffuse and poor in quality--and what wonder! His whole tone was going down--becoming commoner. Of course it was bad for him.
And finally this fourth section culminates in her decision to save him:

Being his wife, she felt she ought to do something to save him. But how could she? That perfectly devoted, marvellous secretarial family, how could she make an attack on them? Yet she'd love to sweep them into oblivion. Of course they were bad for him: ruining his work, ruining his reputation as a writer, ruining his life. Ruining him with their slavish service.

Of course she ought to make an onslaught on them! But how could she? Such devotion! And what had she herself to offer in their place? Certainly not slavish devotion to him, nor to his flow of words! Certainly not!
and

Something more drastic, or perhaps more gentle. She wavered between the two. And wavering, she first did nothing, came to no decision, dragged vacantly on from day to day, waiting for sufficient energy to take her departure once more.

The fifth and final section is completely narrative, reaching the story's climax at a confrontation between wife and secretary. The wife steps outside into the spring day. Blooming flowers are described. She finds the husband outside dictating to the secretary. Two blue birds fly at the feet of the writer and secretary and engage into a bird fight. A dialogue between the three ensues, and the wife ultimately turns to the secretary to say, "Why don't you make him think about you?" This shocks everyone to silence. She asks him about his work and how it's declined. They have tea, and the women, the secretary now indignant, tries to be silent but the wife baits her into a fight. The wife has hit upon what is to be done, strike at the secretary:

"How'd the work go--all right?" asked the wife, as they drank tea, and the two women looked at each other's blue dresses.

"Oh!" he said. "As well as you can expect. It was a piece of pure flummery. But it's what they want. Awful rot, wasn't it, Miss Wrexall?"

Miss Wrexall moved uneasily on her chair.

"It interested me," she said, "though not so much as the novel."

"The novel? Which novel?" said the wife. "Is there another new one?"

Miss Wrexall looked at him. Not for words would she give away any of his literary activities.

"Oh, I was just sketching out an idea to Miss Wrexall," he said.

"Tell us about it!" said the wife. "Miss Wrexall, you tell us what it's about."

She turned on her chair, and fixed the little secretary.

"I'm afraid"--Miss Wrexall squirmed--"I haven't got it very clearly myself, yet."

"Oh, go along! Tell us what you have got then!"

Miss Wrexall sat dumb and very vexed. She felt she was being baited. She looked at the blue pleatings of her skirt.

"I'm afraid I can't," she said.

"Why are you afraid you can't? You're so very competent. I'm sure you've got it all at your finger-ends. I expect you write a good deal of Mr. Gee's books for him, really. He gives you the hint, and you fill it all in. Isn't that how you do it?" She spoke ironically, and as if she were teasing a child. And then she glanced down at the fine pleatings of her own blue skirt, very fine and expensive.

"Of course you're not speaking seriously?" said Miss Wrexall, rising on her mettle.

"Of course I am! I've suspected for a long time--at least, for some time--that you write a good deal of Mr. Gee's books for him, from his hints."

It was said in a tone of raillery, but it was cruel.
And the secretary defends herself:

It was broken by Miss Wrexall, who was nervously twisting her fingers.

"You want to spoil what there is between me and him, I can see that," she said bitterly.

"My dear, but what is there between you and him?" asked the wife.

"I was happy working with him, working for him! I was happy working for him!" cried Miss Wrexall, tears of indignant anger and chagrin in her eyes.
and

"But he gives me everything, everything!" cried Miss Wrexall. "He gives me everything!"

"What do you mean by everything?" said the wife, turning on her sternly.

Miss Wrexall pulled up short. There was a snap in the air, and a change of currents.

"I mean nothing that you need begrudge me," said the little secretary rather haughtily. "I've never made myself cheap."
And finally the climax:

There was a blank pause.

"My God!" said the wife. "You don't call that being cheap? Why, I should say you got nothing out of him at all, you only give! And if you don't call that making yourself cheap--my God!"

"You see, we see things different," said the secretary.

"I should say we do!--thank God!" rejoined the wife.

"On whose behalf are you thanking God?" he asked sarcastically.

"Everybody's, I suppose! Yours, because you get everything for nothing, and Miss Wrexall's, because she seems to like it, and mine because I'm well out of it all."

"You needn't be out of it all," cried Miss Wrexall magnanimously, "if you didn't put yourself out of it all."

"Thank you, my dear, for your offer," said the wife, rising, "but I'm afraid no man can expect two blue birds of happiness to flutter round his feet, tearing out their little feathers!"

With which she walked away.

So everything through questions running through the mind of the wife builds to the confrontation. But what's that climax all about? As I see it, the two women fighting parallel the two birds fighting, and they (both dressed in blue) are fighting over the husband. But the parallel is also a contrast. The two blue birds are male, while the fighting humans are female. It's an inversion of nature. The women are fighting over a man, while presumably the birds are fighting over a female, or fighting in their normal natures. I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values. The people are not natural, but lead a sterile life. The wife's gallant affairs (men are supposed to be polygamous, not women), the husband's not having any passion, not even writing a novel but an essay on novels, and the secretary working herself passionless to the bone for someone. The birds serve as a contrasting image, ironically being referred to as tits:

And as she was being blest, appeared another blue bird--that is, another blue-tit--and began to wrestle with the first blue-tit. A couple of blue birds of happiness, having a fight over it! Well, I'm blest!

She was more or less out of sight of the human preoccupied pair. But 'he' was disturbed by the fighting blue birds, whose little feathers began to float loose.

"Get out!" he said to them mildly, waving a dark-yellow handkerchief at them. "Fight your little fight, and settle your private affairs elsewhere, my dear little gentlemen."
The bird's gender is emphasized here, and the fighting tits are going to be the wife and the secretary. :p :lol:

[Janine]

Ok, I've reread the story quite carefully and I want to jump in. I want to outline the structure of the story and then focus in on the symbol of the two blue birds, because that i think is the key to the story. But I find it interesting how Lawrence builds to that and then the climax.

I see the structure of the story as dividing into five parts. The divisions may be arbitrary, but it helps me see how it progresses.

The first part is almost all exposition. From the beginning Lawrence recaps the relationship between husband and wife, how they could not live together, how she has "gallant affairs," how he works long hours dictating to his secretary, how the relationship with the secretary is platonic, and how he supports his wife. We get the impression of a very "modern," chic marriage.

The second part we have the wife disaffected and asks for the first time, "What's to be done?" Notice how this question keeps cropping up. But here she is asking about herself, and the answer is to head south for the winter to her gallant affairs. She's off like a bird and returns in the spring.

The third part she returns to find matters grown worse.

What exactly is the wife's problem? It seems that the husband is too comfortable. We get a dialogue between husband and wife over his comfort and his work:

She focuses on the discrepency between beiing happy and being comfortable. Obviously her greater value rests on happiness. We get some more bird analogy of him being a c**k with hens. And the wife concludes that she must do something:

And she wonders about what the secretary gets out of the relationship:


Part IV consists of what I call cognitive development, meaning we see the wife working out the issues in her mind. First she wonders what she herself wants of her husband:

Then she wonders what the secretary and her family (mother and sister) get out their adorning the husband:

Her mind gravitates to how his work has been damaged by these adorning women:

And finally this fourth section culminates in her decision to save him:

and


The fifth and final section is completely narrative, reaching the story's climax at a confrontation between wife and secretary. The wife steps outside into the spring day. Blooming flowers are described. She finds the husband outside dictating to the secretary. Two blue birds fly at the feet of the writer and secretary and engage into a bird fight. A dialogue between the three ensues, and the wife ultimately turns to the secretary to say, "Why don't you make him think about you?" This shocks everyone to silence. She asks him about his work and how it's declined. They have tea, and the women, the secretary now indignant, tries to be silent but the wife baits her into a fight. The wife has hit upon what is to be done, strike at the secretary:

And the secretary defends herself:

and

And finally the climax:


So everything through questions running through the mind of the wife builds to the confrontation. But what's that climax all about? As I see it, the two women fighting parallel the two birds fighting, and they (both dressed in blue) are fighting over the husband. But the parallel is also a contrast. The two blue birds are male, while the fighting humans are female. It's an inversion of nature. The women are fighting over a man, while presumably the birds are fighting over a female, or fighting in their normal natures. I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values. The people are not natural, but lead a sterile life. The wife's gallant affairs (men are supposed to be polygamous, not women), the husband's not having any passion, not even writing a novel but an essay on novels, and the secretary working herself passionless to the bone for someone. The birds serve as a contrasting image, ironically being referred to as tits:

The bird's gender is emphasized here, and the fighting tits are going to be the wife and the secretary. :p :lol:

Great post, Virgil - this is really excellent!:thumbs_up I knew you would be able to break it down and outline the story effectively and it would reveal much, seen finaly as a whole; you did a way better job than I could. I guess it is your organised 'engineering' mind.;)
I thought the bluebirds actually symbolised the husband and wife at odds, but you are quite right this does symbolise the cat fight between the two woman. It is interesting how the genders are reversed. I think this is true also, with the husband and wife standards. Quite right that usually it is the husband who is out having the affairs and not the wife.

I think you hit the mark when, you said "I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values." I had been thinking the very same thing, but had not gotten around to finding a way to word that idea. This is very true and I think that Lawrence would have viewed the 'modern marriage' in this way. He may have complied with Frieda's idea of sexual freedom, but from my biographical reading, I don't think he ever truly liked it or thought it 'worked' in favor of their marriage. I can imagine that when he got wind of the story from Faith Mackenzie, of she and her husband's open relationship, Lawrence just flew with it and quickly wrote this in a satiric tone.

I think the story is quite good, don't you? I felt the writing was quite and quite witty. I like the fact, that it is a little different, than others of Lawrence's, that we have read.

[Virgil]

Great post, Virgil - this is really excellent!:thumbs_up I knew you would be able to break it down and outline the story effectively and it would reveal much, seen finaly as a whole; you did a way better job than I could. I guess it is your organised 'engineering' mind.;)
I thought the bluebirds actually symbolised the husband and wife at odds, but you are quite right this does symbolise the cat fight between the two woman. It is interesting how the genders are reversed. I think this is true also, with the husband and wife standards. Quite right that usually it is the husband who is out having the affairs and not the wife.

I think you hit the mark when, you said "I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values." I had been thinking the very same thing, but had not gotten around to finding a way to word that idea. This is very true and I think that Lawrence would have viewed the 'modern marriage' in this way. He may have complied with Frieda's idea of sexual freedom, but from my biographical reading, I don't think he ever truly liked it or thought it 'worked' in favor of their marriage. I can imagine that when he got wind of the story from Faith Mackenzie, of she and her husband's open relationship, Lawrence just flew with it and quickly wrote this in a satiric tone.

I think the story is quite good, don't you? I felt the writing was quite and quite witty. I like the fact, that it is a little different, than others of Lawrence's, that we have read.

Thanks Janine. It is a good story. I wouldn't consider it a great story, but a good story.

Oh I was reading some of Lawrence's letters last night, and Dorothy Brett was working as a typist for him while in New Mexico. So there is no question on who he modeled the characters from real life. An interesting thing happened afterward when Lawrence had returned to Europe. He claimed or was under the assumption that Brett had sold his manuscripts while he was away. He wrote some nasty things about her to some of his other friends. As it turned out she didn't, but had sold ones that he had given her directly as a present.

[Janine]

Thanks Janine. It is a good story. I wouldn't consider it a great story, but a good story.

Oh I was reading some of Lawrence's letters last night, and Dorothy Brett was working as a typist for him while in New Mexico. So there is no question on who he modeled the characters from real life. An interesting thing happened afterward when Lawrence had returned to Europe. He claimed or was under the assumption that Brett had sold his manuscripts while he was away. He wrote some nasty things about her to some of his other friends. As it turned out she didn't, but had sold ones that he had given her directly as a present.

Virgil, yes, a good story, but not as deeply woven or as complex as others. It is well-written, I think in a way that normally is not characteristic of his body of work. In one book I referenced, it was mentioned that the story was a mere 'sketch' - by the author or the publisher or L, not sure now.

Glad you read some of those letters. That's right it was the Mexico years when Brett became a real problem. I knew she did his typing and I had mentioned that awhile back, in one of my posts. That did definitely make her fit the profile of the secretary character. Giving away the stories would furture make her undesirable to both Frieda and Lawrence. I don't think Frieda ever liked her tagging along with them. I can picture those two going at it like the two bluebirds!

It is so interesting to read those letters, once I get started I can hardly put the book down....but then again, I am a 'Lawrence geek' as you labeled me. In one of the general chat posts, Pensive said "she would like to meet me to see my Lawrence 'fanship'..." I thought that was really funny and creative.:D

[islandclimber]

Wow Virgil.... Epic post!!! :D and excellent post I might add! :)

I quite like where you talk of the people not being natural, sterile, somewhat lifeless...

I wonder if the idea that modern women were supposed to have affairs and sexual freedom/liberation (the so called open relationship) came out of the idea that men had been having mistresses for centuries, so with the new feminist movement, women should do so as well... It seems almost like a reactionary thing, to state that it was impossible for a modern woman not to have gallant affairs... as though after men doing it forever, now that we can, we have to also... but the funny thing is she alludes to the possibility she just might be upset if her husband was sleeping with the secretary... although at another point she almost states he should be, for all that she does for him... as well... in being a modern woman, as she calls herself, than the argument that the man should support her, and pay for her, and all her trips and affairs, well that kind of falls apart, it is feminism one way, but then strict traditional values the other way..

it is like saying, well I am a modern woman and therefore have equal rights to go and sleep around, but I should not have to work, or support myself, or contribute in any way, shape, or form... that seems somewhat hypocritical on her part... or so I find... I don't know though, whether this modern woman stuff she mentions has anything to do with the feminism of that period, but if it does, in her case it is absurd...

[Virgil]

Wow Virgil.... Epic post!!! :D and excellent post I might add! :)

I quite like where you talk of the people not being natural, sterile, somewhat lifeless...

Thanks climber.


I wonder if the idea that modern women were supposed to have affairs and sexual freedom/liberation (the so called open relationship) came out of the idea that men had been having mistresses for centuries, so with the new feminist movement, women should do so as well... It seems almost like a reactionary thing, to state that it was impossible for a modern woman not to have gallant affairs...
You may not know climber, but Lawrence was strongly anti-feminist. Lawrence's ideal state of life was that of primitive cultures, and part of primitive life is for Lawrence male domination. Lawrence felt (and he wasn't the only one after WWI) that modern life had gone wrong, and he traces it to modernity and he has the analogue of a falling from Eden. In many respects lawrence takes Romanticism to its conclusion. So any story where a woman is extremely powerful, your antenae should go up and suspect satire and cynicism.


as though after men doing it forever, now that we can, we have to also... but the funny thing is she alludes to the possibility she just might be upset if her husband was sleeping with the secretary... although at another point she almost states he should be, for all that she does for him... as well... in being a modern woman, as she calls herself, than the argument that the man should support her, and pay for her, and all her trips and affairs, well that kind of falls apart, it is feminism one way, but then strict traditional values the other way..
One other thing you shoud know. Through the late 1950s throught he 1970s and even into the early 1980s, Lawrence was the equivilent of James Joyce as the top British writer of the 20th century. They were neck and neck. But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded. They hate him. And I can see why. Story after story, whether the point is anti-feminist one or not he always seems to zing the women in the story. I don't agree with Lawrence on most ideas, and not on this, but I just think he is a great writer, and he should be the equal of Joyce.


it is like saying, well I am a modern woman and therefore have equal rights to go and sleep around, but I should not have to work, or support myself, or contribute in any way, shape, or form... that seems somewhat hypocritical on her part... or so I find... I don't know though, whether this modern woman stuff she mentions has anything to do with the feminism of that period, but if it does, in her case it is absurd...
It's hard to really understand another era fully. Even one that was less than a century ago. There may have been a sort of proto-feminism around, but I don't know how fully developed the concept of a working woman was. Perhaps if some is an expert they can correct me. And even if it was developed in intellectual circles, how much did it filter down to the general public. And then again Lawrence's wife didn't work a iota in her life. And she was a very strong woman and personality.

[islandclimber]

No, I did not know that about Lawrence.. I was kind of getting that picture from several stories I read... but that is interesting.. Thank you Virgil...

I took a class on feminism several years ago at University but I don't recall alot of it... the same goes for most of what I took in school.. :D

And I don't agree with Lawrence on his ideas regarding feminism and male domination either... but the wife in this story, is a bit ridiculous, though I assume Lawrence purposely made her so with cynicism and irony and no small trace of what appears to be sarcasm...

the idea that a modern woman has to have gallant affairs, while at the same time still relying on her husband entirely, for means to do so... well that seems absurd to me... it appears as though one side of feminism is showing up, in regards to woman having just as much of a right as men to have affairs, but nothing of the rest isn't there alongside it... she wants to bite the good part of the apple and leave the bruised parts alone... But then again I may be wrong, this is all just my opinion...

[Janine]

You may not know climber, but Lawrence was strongly anti-feminist. Lawrence's ideal state of life was that of primitive cultures, and part of primitive life is for Lawrence male domination. Lawrence felt (and he wasn't the only one after WWI) that modern life had gone wrong, and he traces it to modernity and he has the analogue of a falling from Eden. In many respects lawrence takes Romanticism to its conclusion. So any story where a woman is extremely powerful, your antenae should go up and suspect satire and cynicism.

I don't entirely agree with you on these points, Virgil, I think there is much there to be debated and Lawrence can't be called antifeminist. I have never fully agreed with you on this point. I don't think Lawrence should be labeled and I think it is true the feminist did do that to him. He did feel modern life went wrong, due to all the industrial encrouchment on the land, etc. But to my knowledge, after reading so much about him biographically, I don't believe he ever actually settled the whole idea in his head or what could be done to change the world. How did he take Romanticism to it's conclusion? I am confused on this point. Can you elaborate on that statement?

Mostly all of Lawrence's stories do present a strong woman; I know you said 'powerful' and that may be interpretted differently. This all would have to be debated, and I don't have much time tonight to get into all of that. I do see powerplays evident in his work between the sexes, but in many of his major works I see more of a sense of equality, being established between the two - male and female characters. What about Birkin and Gurdrn in "Women in Love" - what happened to the idea of the two stars in perfect balance?
In my opinion, Lawrence delved deeply into a woman's psyche and it was the very extreme feminists who condemned him unfairly, many years ago. Things and attitudes have changed some from then. I don't see Lawrence now being swept under the carpet. I see more interest in ever. If you just go onto Amazon and check the amount of Lawrence books you will see what I mean. I have actually tried to get the one published after his death and some of the earlier more rare books and the prices are extraodinary! How can this reflect a lack of interest in his work?


One other thing you shoud know. Through the late 1950s throught he 1970s and even into the early 1980s, Lawrence was the equivilent of James Joyce as the top British writer of the 20th century. They were neck and neck. But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded. They hate him. And I can see why. Story after story, whether the point is anti-feminist one or not he always seems to zing the women in the story. I don't agree with Lawrence on most ideas, and not on this, but I just think he is a great writer, and he should be the equal of Joyce.

"But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded". I think this is the wrong impression to impart to everyone; I don't think it true at all. In fact, I know more women who love Lawrence's work than men; so how do you account for that fact? These are all modern thinking open-minded women with good intelligence. As I said above, there is much interest today in Lawrence on the net. They just had an extensive online exhibit dedicated to L and his life, produced by Cambridge; they also came out with 3 new biographies, through Cambridge. I can't even afford to buy the third edition, which I would die for. This one is so popular, that it has become so expensive and is virtually impossible to find. This biography only came out a few years ago. So he is unpopular to this day? I don't think so.



It's hard to really understand another era fully. Even one that was less than a century ago. There may have been a sort of proto-feminism around, but I don't know how fully developed the concept of a working woman was. Perhaps if some is an expert they can correct me. And even if it was developed in intellectual circles, how much did it filter down to the general public. And then again Lawrence's wife didn't work a iota in her life. And she was a very strong woman and personality.

This is true about understanding another era. It is not true that Frieda never did any work in her life. If you read the biographies, she worked hard on the ranch they occuppied in New Mexico, and she aided Lawrence many times with his manuscripts, even his typing (although she was a poor typist). She did the cooking and the housekeeping; Lawrence also did these duties and cleaning, as well. It was a shared thing, with them both.
Frieda does not fit the profile of the woman (this wife) in the story. She was not pampered by Lawrence, such as this woman was, by her husband. To the contrary, that is a false impression of Frieda. She was a very able and strong-willed German woman and very independent, not just in her thinking but in her 'doing'.
To my knowledge, it was not until late in their marriage that she strayed in any consistency, and this could be contributed to the fact, that indeed Lawrence did become impotent from his chronic illness of TB, not to mention certain mood swings and ways the disease manifested itself. In someways, Frieda was justified in finding a lover, since she was only human and in need of something Lawrence could no longer provide for her, not just physical but also emotionally speaking.

[Quark]

So everything through questions running through the mind of the wife builds to the confrontation. But what's that climax all about? As I see it, the two women fighting parallel the two birds fighting, and they (both dressed in blue) are fighting over the husband. But the parallel is also a contrast. The two blue birds are male, while the fighting humans are female. It's an inversion of nature. The women are fighting over a man, while presumably the birds are fighting over a female, or fighting in their normal natures. I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values. The people are not natural, but lead a sterile life. The wife's gallant affairs (men are supposed to be polygamous, not women), the husband's not having any passion, not even writing a novel but an essay on novels, and the secretary working herself passionless to the bone for someone. The birds serve as a contrasting image, ironically being referred to as tits:

The bird's gender is emphasized here, and the fighting tits are going to be the wife and the secretary. :p :lol:


I thought the bluebirds actually symbolised the husband and wife at odds, but you are quite right this does symbolise the cat fight between the two woman. It is interesting how the genders are reversed. I think this is true also, with the husband and wife standards. Quite right that usually it is the husband who is out having the affairs and not the wife.

Those are good explanations. There are a few conflicts in the story, and the warring bluebirds remind us of all of them to a certain extent. Lawrence particularly points to the wife-secretary fight in the next scene--which I thought was a little heavy-handed on his part. The women coming out in dresses and then commenting on the blue color is a pretty clear signal. Alternatively, though, the bluebirds might represent the conflict within the wife between her husband and her lovers abroad. The birds are referred to as blue birds of happiness, and could possibly portray the wife's happiness in her affairs and the happiness in marriage. She can enjoys neither of these joys, however. Whenever she contemplates life at home she becomes bored, but when she's abroad there's that unpleasant "grain in her eye" sensation. She finds that her multiple relationships creates turmoil like the blue birds fighting.

Janine, I'll have to get to your newest post--which you got in while I was typing--tomorrow. Although, I don't know how much I want to argue about Lawrence and gender.

[Dark Muse]

I found it interesting that a point was made, of declaring the bird was in fact not truly a bluebird, but rather a blue tit, which is just a bird, that happens to be blue, but is of a different breed and species then an actual bluebird. I noticed this when I first read the story.


But what did startle her was a blue bird dashing near the feet of the absorbed shorthand-scribbling little secretary. At least it was a blue-tit, blue with gray and some yellow. But to the wife if seemed blue, that juicy spring day.

Than it points it out again:


And as she was being blest, appeared another blue bird-that is, another blue-tit-and began the wrestle with the first blue-tit.

It seems almost as if this is showing that their own happiness is really only just a facade and not a true real happiness. As the two birds appear, they are not genuine bluebirds of happiness that "bless" them, as the woman puts it.

But they merely have the appearance of being blue birds. So in a sense they are false bluebirds of happiness.

I did not get a chance to read everyone's posts yet, as I was working on this one earlier, but I had to go before it was finished, and I just got home.

[Virgil]

... but the wife in this story, is a bit ridiculous, though I assume Lawrence purposely made her so with cynicism and irony and no small trace of what appears to be sarcasm...

the idea that a modern woman has to have gallant affairs, while at the same time still relying on her husband entirely, for means to do so... well that seems absurd to me...
Well, that does show Lawrence's view on the feminism. He does tend to put women in the worst possible light.


I found it interesting that a point was made, of declaring the bird was in fact not truly a bluebird, but rather a blue tit, which is just a bird, that happens to be blue, but is of a different breed and species then an actual bluebird. I noticed this when I first read the story.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a bluebird and a blue-tit. Is blue-tit a slang or an actual term? If there is a distinction between the two then Lawrence may be suggesting something as you point out D-M.


It seems almost as if this is showing that their own happiness is really only just a facade and not a true real happiness. As the two birds appear, they are not genuine bluebirds of happiness that "bless" them, as the woman puts it.

But they merely have the appearance of being blue birds. So in a sense they are false bluebirds of happiness.

I did not get a chance to read everyone's posts yet, as I was working on this one earlier, but I had to go before it was finished, and I just got home.
I didn't know what to make of the "bluebird of happiness" phrase that is actually repeated. Is there irony there? Actually there may be double irony there. Is the wife using it ironically, which is only on one level, but is Lawrence using it ironically also, which is on another level? (Am I making myself clear?) It may be complex and i'm not sure i understand it entirely.

[Virgil]

I don't entirely agree with you on these points, Virgil, I think there is much there to be debated and Lawrence can't be called antifeminist. I have never fully agreed with you on this point. I don't think Lawrence should be labeled and I think it is true the feminist did do that to him. He did feel modern life went wrong, due to all the industrial encrouchment on the land, etc. But to my knowledge, after reading so much about him biographically, I don't believe he ever actually settled the whole idea in his head or what could be done to change the world.
I know we disagree. I think it's mostly a function of you having concentrated your reading his earlier works, where he's more inclined to liberate women, and I've concentrated my reading on his later works, where he's not only inhibitng women, but making bold statements against feminism and women holding power. All you have to do is read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Connie's marriage to Clifford, where Clifford is paralyzed from the war is associated with modern sterility, and her affair with Mellors, a sort of backwoodsman is associated with happiness. Her relationship to Mellors is one of submission, not only just to him, but specifically to his penis. :p


How did he take Romanticism to it's conclusion? I am confused on this point. Can you elaborate on that statement?
Oh jeez, that is such a huge subject, I couldn't possibly answer it. If I had gone on to do my PhD I may have taken that up, if it has not already been done extensively. I'll get with you privately on that some time.


Mostly all of Lawrence's stories do present a strong woman; I know you said 'powerful' and that may be interpretted differently. This all would have to be debated, and I don't have much time tonight to get into all of that. I do see powerplays evident in his work between the sexes, but in many of his major works I see more of a sense of equality, being established between the two - male and female characters. What about Birkin and Gurdrn in "Women in Love" - what happened to the idea of the two stars in perfect balance?
The general view is that his earlier works advocate women's liberation (like in Sons and Lovers), his middle works advacate this balance concept (as you say in Women In Love), and his later works advocate female submission (The Plumed Serpent, Lady Chatterly). I'm not sure I agree with this general view any longer. Yes he settles on the balance symbolism in WIL but the overwhelming philosophy seems to come from Birkin, with Ursula occaisionally throwing in an idea. Even in his earlier works there is an undermining of female independence. Look at The Horse Dealer's Daughter and The Odor of the Chrysanthemums. Women's satisfaction rests not with their independence but as linked to men. Some of his ealier works reflect Lawrence's admiration and emulation of Thomas Hardy, who truely was a feminist. But I think Lawrence intellectually does not agree with Hardy, and while maybe starting with Hardy's ideas, moves beyond and away from them. I don't condem the feminists for pointing out Lawrence's ideas. I tend to agree, he is anti-feminist. I condem them for refusing to see the great writer despite his disagreement with them. Are they literary scholars first and feminists second, or are they feminists first and scholars second?


In my opinion, Lawrence delved deeply into a woman's psyche and it was the very extreme feminists who condemned him unfairly, many years ago. Things and attitudes have changed some from then. I don't see Lawrence now being swept under the carpet. I see more interest in ever. If you just go onto Amazon and check the amount of Lawrence books you will see what I mean. I have actually tried to get the one published after his death and some of the earlier more rare books and the prices are extraodinary! How can this reflect a lack of interest in his work?
Perhaps he's making a come back. I'm no longer in college so i don't know. These things go in cycles and I believe his writing in time will win out. He may never be the equivilent of Joyce any longer, but who knows? While I like and enjoy Joyce, i prefer Lawrence's work more. Even though my ideas may actually be closer to Joyce. Perhaps not. I disagree with Joyce on a lot of things too. ;)


"But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded". I think this is the wrong impression to impart to everyone; I don't think it true at all. In fact, I know more women who love Lawrence's work than men; so how do you account for that fact? These are all modern thinking open-minded women with good intelligence. As I said above, there is much interest today in Lawrence on the net. They just had an extensive online exhibit dedicated to L and his life, produced by Cambridge; they also came out with 3 new biographies, through Cambridge. I can't even afford to buy the third edition, which I would die for. This one is so popular, that it has become so expensive and is virtually impossible to find. This biography only came out a few years ago. So he is unpopular to this day? I don't think so.
Maybe those women agree with Lawrence and agree they should be submissive to men. :p You know it's strange how Lawrence aleways had lots of women disciples. He does have this uncanny ability to get into a woman's psyche. Perhaps that's what really drives the feminists wild. He hits a nerve. :D But that just shows how great a writer he was. Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, and most of the other male writers all had real problems creating believable female characters. Lawrence just does it. He's just a great writer. Unpopular might be too strong a word. But if you go into a good college library you'll see tons of scholarly books written in the 1960s and 70s on L. It just died after that. The DH Lawrence Review, a great scholarly magazine, used to be published quarterly for many years. Then it went to annual, and now an occaisional edition comes out. Do a google search of DHL Review and you'll see some of the issues.


This is true about understanding another era. It is not true that Frieda never did any work in her life. If you read the biographies, she worked hard on the ranch they occuppied in New Mexico, and she aided Lawrence many times with his manuscripts, even his typing (although she was a poor typist). She did the cooking and the housekeeping; Lawrence also did these duties and cleaning, as well. It was a shared thing, with them both.
Frieda does not fit the profile of the woman (this wife) in the story. She was not pampered by Lawrence, such as this woman was, by her husband. To the contrary, that is a false impression of Frieda. She was a very able and strong-willed German woman and very independent, not just in her thinking but in her 'doing'.
To my knowledge, it was not until late in their marriage that she strayed in any consistency, and this could be contributed to the fact, that indeed Lawrence did become impotent from his chronic illness of TB, not to mention certain mood swings and ways the disease manifested itself. In someways, Frieda was justified in finding a lover, since she was only human and in need of something Lawrence could no longer provide for her, not just physical but also emotionally speaking.
You know the biography better than I do. I got the impression she was a little pampered. She was upper class, no? I know she was strong willed.

[Dark Muse]

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a bluebird and a blue-tit. Is blue-tit a slang or an actual term? If there is a distinction between the two then Lawrence may be suggesting something as you point out D-M.

A blue-tit is an acutal specicis of bird in the tit family

This is a blue-tit

http://i.pbase.com/g3/71/36871/3/54151593.04_Bluetit.jpg

While a bluebird, is a speicis of bird in the thrush family.

This is a bluebird

http://sdakotabirds.com/species/photos/eastern_bluebird.JPG

[Janine]

Dark Muse, thanks for providing the photos. The second bird if really pretty and so blue. I can't view the first on of the blue tit. I will try and look that up in my bird books today. I did find some photos online, but the problem is there are many different kinds of bluebirds, tits around the globe. The color seems to be related as to the location. I could not specifically find an English version of the blue bird or blue tit. I will try a search again.

Quotes by Dark Muse

I found it interesting that a point was made, of declaring the bird was in fact not truly a bluebird, but rather a blue tit, which is just a bird, that happens to be blue, but is of a different breed and species then an actual bluebird. I noticed this when I first read the story.

Quote:
But what did startle her was a blue bird dashing near the feet of the absorbed shorthand-scribbling little secretary. At least it was a blue-tit, blue with gray and some yellow. But to the wife if seemed blue, that juicy spring day.

Quote:
And as she was being blest, appeared another blue bird-that is, another blue-tit-and began the wrestle with the first blue-tit.


It seems almost as if this is showing that their own happiness is really only just a facade and not a true real happiness. As the two birds appear, they are not genuine bluebirds of happiness that "bless" them, as the woman puts it.



But they merely have the appearance of being blue birds. So in a sense they are false bluebirds of happiness.

Good points you brought up here and something for all of us to consider. I did think their marriage and happiness was a false one - this would be reflected perhaps in the bluebirds. This marriage definitely is not one of 'two bluebirds of happiness,' so I think, both from the wife's point of view and Lawrence's this is a duel obeservation or conclusion, as Virgil suggests specifically below. Here you suggest the idea of the happiness being false and I think that is truly reflected in the bluebirds symbolism.

Quote by Virgil

I know we disagree. I think it's mostly a function of you having concentrated your reading his earlier works, where he's more inclined to liberate women, and I've concentrated my reading on his later works, where he's not only inhibitng women, but making bold statements against feminism and women holding power. All you have to do is read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Connie's marriage to Clifford, where Clifford is paralyzed from the war is associated with modern sterility, and her affair with Mellors, a sort of backwoodsman is associated with happiness. Her relationship to Mellors is one of submission, not only just to him, but specifically to his penis. :p

Well, I have read some of the later work and I still do not totally get that impression. I can see why the feminists got offended. But most of them are extreme in their thinking. I don't think they considered many things. I don't necessary agree with you about "Sons and Lovers", either. I think the feminists would find much fault in that novel. I think Lawrence, even as a young man believed the man should be lord and master. If you read the very first novel "The White Peacock" you would be shocked at the one character - Anabelle and his attitudes toward women. The seeds of this idea of man being supperior to woman goes waaaay back. I think as time passed actually Lawrence modified some of these more extreme ideas, but I could be wrong. I have read nearly all his books but some I don't recall as well now. He is only just presenting and working out his idea of the two lovers being two perfectly balanced stars in harmony. I think later he speaks more extensively about this concept in "The Plumed Serpent". I don't know if the ending of that novel really accomplishes that or if the woman, Kate, truely becomes subservient to her new husband. In "Kangaroo" you see Lawrence stuggling with his 10 yr old marriage - a kind of war of the wills goes on and finally he ends with a kind of realisation that he can't really have it his way. It is all a big question in my mind. What I took offensively in your last post was you surety that #1 Lawrence was an anti-feminist and #2. his popularity was not diminished. I just don't buy either as complete truths. I think that Lawrence was much more complex than that and one can not apply a label his work or to the man. I believe for years Lawrence's work was greatly overlooked and it was misunderstood. I will try to find critical references to these exact statements and post them. :bawling: I was just trying to defend my poor Lawrence, who I have spend countless hours to understand, and feel that in his own time was grossly misunderstood and mistreated.



Oh jeez, that is such a huge subject, I couldn't possibly answer it. If I had gone on to do my PhD I may have taken that up, if it has not already been done extensively. I'll get with you privately on that some time.

Fair enough. Yes, that might take a long time to explain to me. Again though I felt you were labeling and generalizing.


The general view is that his earlier works advocate women's liberation (like in Sons and Lovers), his middle works advacate this balance concept (as you say in Women In Love), and his later works advocate female submission (The Plumed Serpent, Lady Chatterly). I'm not sure I agree with this general view any longer.

What sources do you have for this way of splitting his work and categorizing it. I don't truly agree with this at all. One just cannot make these cut and dry divisions in his work. They all overlap. It is not a black and white issue but one more of subtle shades of gray. If you know the source material let me know it. I have never read this in the books I researched.


Yes he settles on the balance symbolism in WIL but the overwhelming philosophy seems to come from Birkin, with Ursula occaisionally throwing in an idea. Even in his earlier works there is an undermining of female independence. Look at The Horse Dealer's Daughter and The Odor of the Chrysanthemums. Women's satisfaction rests not with their independence but as linked to men.

Oh boy, Virgil, now you are asking for it! hahaha;) ....hope you are laughing, too. First off, in THDD, it did not seem to me that the woman was submitting anything to the man in the story. If anything the man seemed to be the meek one and rather shy; actually they both were. Also they seem to meet on equal ground here, but at first he saves her from her own suicide (drowning)....how is this story about submission, an undermining of female independence? Yes, true in that time in life and history, the woman has few options, without the support of men (financial), at first her brothers....this same thing applies to the woman in 'Odour of Chrsanthemums.' Both point back to Hardy's work in that this was usually the case for woman. I don't think Lawrence is saying it is good for the woman to be put down or trapped in loveless marriages or bad situations financially. If anything I see him identifying more with the woman and sympathising with her plight of being trapped in a situation, which offers no realistic alternatives and little hope. The woman in OOC has two children to think of...she is especially trapped. Yes, she feels sworn to her husband...but I think she realises just how it truly was and how they were not happy, as she dresses his dead body for his funneral. I just saw Lawrence's play on DVD "The Widowing of Mrs. Holroyd" and in this play is presented a young man she very much likes and is consoled in, who offers to take her away from her rotten life and situation. The play is very much like the story OOC. The concentration is on the wife and how sad/tragic it is for her and how she is trapped, even when she might find an option to escape her brutish drunken husband. I don't see anti-feminism in this play, more the plight of women and how Lawrence totally sympathised with them.



Some of his ealier works reflect Lawrence's admiration and emulation of Thomas Hardy, who truely was a feminist. But I think Lawrence intellectually does not agree with Hardy, and while maybe starting with Hardy's ideas, moves beyond and away from them. I don't condem the feminists for pointing out Lawrence's ideas. I tend to agree, he is anti-feminist. I condem them for refusing to see the great writer despite his disagreement with them. Are they literary scholars first and feminists second, or are they feminists first and scholars second?


SPOILER if you have not read "Jude the Obscure" or "Lady Chatterly's Lover".

This is a curious thing, what you say about Hardy. I read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and L' biggest problem with the story of "Jude, the Obscure" was that Sue ultimately returns to her husband and becomes subjected to his will, even though she has lived with Jude in a common law marriage. I can't figure out how Hardy was so unfeminist when in Jude his last novel he accepts this as a truth. Or is it that, by showing this tragedy, Hardy is actually being feminist. If you think of Jude the outcome is nearly opposite to LCL in concept. I don't think either that Connie is subjecting herself to Mellors. I think she was subjecting herself to her husband, who became impotent after his injury in the war and rejected her emotionally and physically. I see Mellors and Connie meeting more in the vain of the two balanced stars. I don't see subjection there, unless in the very begining of the story, but then it is Connie who seeks out Mellors and not Mellors who goes after Connie. The awakining that Connie experiences with the gamekeeper is more liberating in the end for her. The old life she leaves is the restricting one.





Perhaps he's making a come back. I'm no longer in college so i don't know. These things go in cycles and I believe his writing in time will win out. He may never be the equivilent of Joyce any longer, but who knows? While I like and enjoy Joyce, i prefer Lawrence's work more. Even though my ideas may actually be closer to Joyce. Perhaps not. I disagree with Joyce on a lot of things too. ;)

He is on Lit Net!!! :lol: Of course I am here and pushing it; but look - we have some more advocates now. I have Litnetters bugging me as to when we read the next L novel. There is that online group dedicated to L, and that Cambridge biography series and online display. I think if you ran an L search today on Amazon for books you would be pleasantly surprised at all the fans out there. Read some of the commentary. We are not alone, by far knowing what a genius Lawrence was. His work very much still lives on.



Maybe those women agree with Lawrence and agree they should be submissive to men. :p
The ones I speak of are not that type at all. In fact that type of submissive woman does not seem to like Lawrence's work at all. That is strange or curious, don't you think? I think you are seeing this all from a man's point of view and missing the big picture. Most woman who I have found interested in Lawrence read some and adore the man; they can overlook some of his worst faults. Afterall he was just a man! ;) :lol: We woman become tough and tollerant!



You know it's strange how Lawrence aleways had lots of women disciples. He does have this uncanny ability to get into a woman's psyche. Perhaps that's what really drives the feminists wild. He hits a nerve. :D

That could be it. Yes, he does hit a nerve and he gets right inside a woman's head. I think the feminists would feel he invaded their privacy. In some ways, they feel he undermines their sense of security perhaps. My secure and independent friends see Lawrence differently. They don't feel threatened by him.



But that just shows how great a writer he was. Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, and most of the other male writers all had real problems creating believable female characters. Lawrence just does it. He's just a great writer. Unpopular might be too strong a word. But if you go into a good college library you'll see tons of scholarly books written in the 1960s and 70s on L. It just died after that. The DH Lawrence Review, a great scholarly magazine, used to be published quarterly for many years. Then it went to annual, and now an occaisional edition comes out. Do a google search of DHL Review and you'll see some of the issues.

I far prefer Lawrence's work over Joyce. I just can't get into some of Joyce's work that requires tons of time to figure out. I like a simplier approach. Joyce is too complex for my feeble little brain. Lawrence is complex but understandable. I can better relate to his work than to Joyce's. I do feel Lawrence was and still living on in his words, is a great author.
The 60's and 70's??? That is now ancient history, Virgil! The whole sexual revolution was going on. 'Times, they are a 'changin'. It is now 2008 and I think that people are finally discovering and appreciating, what Lawrence wrote, way back before the 1970's and 80's, and that it means something important today. There usually is a shift for all authors; which is a good thing.
You know the biography better than I do. I got the impression she was a little pampered. She was upper class, no? I know she was strong willed.[/QUOTE]

[Dark Muse]

Here is another picture of a Blue-tit that I found that I really like which hopefully will show up for anyone whom cannot view the first photo

http://www.segfl.org.uk/birdbox/library/1115730978/bluetit02.jpg

[Janine]

Thanks, Dark Muse....good photo...really clear.
I also looked them up and found a few really cool photos of them with wings extended...I was thinking, if they were fighting, they might look like that and they look even bluer with wings out or fluttering. I will try and post those photos later on. The one you posted is a very good one.
I researched them also, and seems male and female birds look alike or so they seemed to me to. Usually the males are brighter in the bird species, so I thought that strange. I think they are cute little birds, don't you?

[Dark Muse]

Yes I read that there was not much difference between the sexes in the birds. I also find that they are quite cute.

So I wonder if the birds in the story really are ment to be the wife and secretary or wife and husband.

Though the two women in the end appear together both wearing blue, we have already discussed the fact that the wife meerely uses the seceratary as a way to attack her husband, and that the secertary herself is not really the issue.

As well there is the ambiguity in the sexes of the birds, that it could likely be either one.

[Virgil]

Here is another picture of a Blue-tit that I found that I really like which hopefully will show up for anyone whom cannot view the first photo

http://www.segfl.org.uk/birdbox/library/1115730978/bluetit02.jpg

Yes thank you for the pictures Dark Muse. I think you make a good point about the tits (I love writing that:p :D ) not being real blue birds. It certainly fits. :)

Janine, I'll respond to your fine defense either later tonight or tomorrow. We'l see what timeallows. :)

[Quark]

Yes thank you for the pictures Dark Muse. I think you make a good point about the tits (I love writing that:p :D ) not being real blue birds. It certainly fits. :)

Yeah, I was going to compliment Dark Muse on her tits, but I didn't think that sounded right.

[Dark Muse]

LOL, *grins* well I am flattered

[Janine]

Yeah, I was going to compliment Dark Muse on her tits, but I didn't think that sounded right.

You guys are really sick! Always anatomy on the brain, never zoology!:brow:

[Janine]

or it aviology or birdology - what the heck is the name of the study of birds? ...and you guys are all twits! :lol:

[Virgil]

Yeah, I was going to compliment Dark Muse on her tits, but I didn't think that sounded right.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh Quark. How could you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Quark]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh Quark. How could you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well I said I was "going" to say that. If I had, I'm sure it would have been pretty awkward--good thing I caught myself.

Janine, the study of birds in Ornithology. I'm not clear on why it's not aviology. That would make more sense, since avis is latin for bird. I don't know in what language people go around calling them orniths.

I'll comment on the Lawrence-feminism argument later.

[Dark Muse]

The word ornithology comes from the Greek words ornithikos meaning bird and logia meaning study.

[Janine]

Well I said I was "going" to say that. If I had, I'm sure it would have been pretty awkward--good thing I caught myself.

Janine, the study of birds in Ornithology. I'm not clear on why it's not aviology. That would make more sense, since avis is latin for bird. I don't know in what language people go around calling them orniths.

I'll comment on the Lawrence-feminism argument later.

Thanks to you, Virgil and Dark Muse, for clearing that up. I never had Latin or Greek. It did seem to me that 'aviology' had a certain ring to it. I must innately know Latin and not realise it...my ancient ancestry resurfaceing.;) Lawrence would like that - the return of the old gods.

Putting all discussion on tits (bird ones) asside, I am glad you will try to address my long post tomorrow, Virgil. Good luck! It is kind of refreshing disagreeing with you....:lol:...but I won't take on your 'Mad, Bad, and Dangerous' personal.

[Virgil]

Putting all discussion on tits (bird ones) asside,

Oh darn. One of my favorite subjects. ;) Actually I was thinking that some little pervert was going to be very disappointed one day when he googles tits and finds these posts. :lol:

[yassir elamrani]

hello guys.
I have read Lawrance's "tickets ,please"short story,but ,unfortunatly,I still have some ambiguity about it.This ambiguity is that I cannot fish the plot out and analysis it very well,so that I would be so happy to help me ..
thank you

[Virgil]

Well, I have read some of the later work and I still do not totally get that impression. I can see why the feminists got offended. But most of them are extreme in their thinking.
Well, I agree they are extreme in their thinking. But you don't think they have a legitament arguement with Lawrence?


I don't think they considered many things. I don't necessary agree with you about "Sons and Lovers", either. I think the feminists would find much fault in that novel. I think Lawrence, even as a young man believed the man should be lord and master. If you read the very first novel "The White Peacock" you would be shocked at the one character - Anabelle and his attitudes toward women. The seeds of this idea of man being supperior to woman goes waaaay back.
Yes, I'm seeing that myself. That's why I said it was the conventional wisdom and why I moved away from that line of thinking. So you say it was that strong even as a young man. That is interesting.


I think as time passed actually Lawrence modified some of these more extreme ideas, but I could be wrong. I have read nearly all his books but some I don't recall as well now. He is only just presenting and working out his idea of the two lovers being two perfectly balanced stars in harmony. I think later he speaks more extensively about this concept in "The Plumed Serpent". I don't know if the ending of that novel really accomplishes that or if the woman, Kate, truely becomes subservient to her new husband.
Actually she breaks away, doesn't she. I can't quite remember the ending but while she marries Cipriano she does decide to leave Mexico, right?


In "Kangaroo" you see Lawrence stuggling with his 10 yr old marriage - a kind of war of the wills goes on and finally he ends with a kind of realisation that he can't really have it his way. It is all a big question in my mind.
I can't remember much from that novel at all. There is a battle of wills between Sommers (is that the L character?) and his wife.


What I took offensively in your last post was you surety that #1 Lawrence was an anti-feminist
One of these days we need to read a story called "The Woman Who Rode Away."


and #2. his popularity was not diminished.
He may still be popular, but at one time Lawrence was considered the most important English writer of the 20th century. I'm not sure that's true any more.


I just don't buy either as complete truths. I think that Lawrence was much more complex than that and one can not apply a label his work or to the man. I believe for years Lawrence's work was greatly overlooked and it was misunderstood. I will try to find critical references to these exact statements and post them. :bawling: I was just trying to defend my poor Lawrence, who I have spend countless hours to understand, and feel that in his own time was grossly misunderstood and mistreated.
He was misunderstood. He is complex. He has a very original and defined philosophy, which is really a theosophy.


What sources do you have for this way of splitting his work and categorizing it.
If you look at my thesis I site several who have divided his work into sections, I think one of his biographers. I also go on and divide it to my thinking. I think it's in the first three or four pages of my thesis.


I don't truly agree with this at all. One just cannot make these cut and dry divisions in his work. They all overlap. It is not a black and white issue but one more of subtle shades of gray. If you know the source material let me know it. I have never read this in the books I researched.
Of course, but it's helpful to understand his evolution.


Oh boy, Virgil, now you are asking for it! hahaha;) ....hope you are laughing, too. First off, in THDD, it did not seem to me that the woman was submitting anything to the man in the story. If anything the man seemed to be the meek one and rather shy; actually they both were. Also they seem to meet on equal ground here, but at first he saves her from her own suicide (drowning)....how is this story about submission, an undermining of female independence?
Oh she was destitute to be a maid to someone, but she finds her savior in the doctor.


Yes, true in that time in life and history, the woman has few options, without the support of men (financial), at first her brothers....this same thing applies to the woman in 'Odour of Chrsanthemums.' Both point back to Hardy's work in that this was usually the case for woman. I don't think Lawrence is saying it is good for the woman to be put down or trapped in loveless marriages or bad situations financially. If anything I see him identifying more with the woman and sympathising with her plight of being trapped in a situation, which offers no realistic alternatives and little hope.
No I don't think he's saying that. He seems to be saying that a good relationship is beneficial to both men and women, but within the relationship women have to submit to the man's will rather than exert her own. And he projects a unhealthy modern world to the fact that women have now exerted their wills in their relationships.


The woman in OOC has two children to think of...she is especially trapped. Yes, she feels sworn to her husband...but I think she realises just how it truly was and how they were not happy, as she dresses his dead body for his funneral. I just saw Lawrence's play on DVD "The Widowing of Mrs. Holroyd" and in this play is presented a young man she very much likes and is consoled in, who offers to take her away from her rotten life and situation. The play is very much like the story OOC. The concentration is on the wife and how sad/tragic it is for her and how she is trapped, even when she might find an option to escape her brutish drunken husband. I don't see anti-feminism in this play, more the plight of women and how Lawrence totally sympathised with them.
I have to read that someday.


This is a curious thing, what you say about Hardy. I read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and L' biggest problem with the story of "Jude, the Obscure" was that Sue ultimately returns to her husband and becomes subjected to his will, even though she has lived with Jude in a common law marriage. I can't figure out how Hardy was so unfeminist when in Jude his last novel he accepts this as a truth. Or is it that, by showing this tragedy, Hardy is actually being feminist.
I don't quite remember that in Jude. (The problem with having read so much is that you can't remember it ;) ) But Hardy is definitely feminist in Tess. Very strongly feminist, dont you think?


If you think of Jude the outcome is nearly opposite to LCL in concept. I don't think either that Connie is subjecting herself to Mellors. I think she was subjecting herself to her husband, who became impotent after his injury in the war and rejected her emotionally and physically. I see Mellors and Connie meeting more in the vain of the two balanced stars. I don't see subjection there, unless in the very begining of the story, but then it is Connie who seeks out Mellors and not Mellors who goes after Connie. The awakining that Connie experiences with the gamekeeper is more liberating in the end for her. The old life she leaves is the restricting one.
Well, we'll have to read that together. I don't see two balance stars there. Connie is awakened as you say, so in that respects Lawrence is liberating her, but she is awakened by by her submission to Mellors.


He is on Lit Net!!! :lol: Of course I am here and pushing it;
And you've done a great job. Even i would probably not have been looking at Lawrence anywhere this much without you. You're the glue that holds this together. :)


but look - we have some more advocates now. I have Litnetters bugging me as to when we read the next L novel. There is that online group dedicated to L, and that Cambridge biography series and online display. I think if you ran an L search today on Amazon for books you would be pleasantly surprised at all the fans out there. Read some of the commentary. We are not alone, by far knowing what a genius Lawrence was. His work very much still lives on.
I beleive that in time the greatness of Lawrence's writing will win out. I also think that the quirkiness of his ideas will prevent him from recapturing the greatest English writer of the 20th century. Intellectuals are increasingly secular and Lawrence's ideas rest on a spirituality, a belief that nature holds theological truths (that'sa one of the main reasons why I think Lawrence pushed Romanticism to its conclusion). On one hand it runs counter to both taday's atheists and to established major religions. So neither group of intellectuals embrace it. On the other hand aboriginal religions do still exists, and Lawrence has much in common with them. And there will always be a sense of the occult, which I think can be in sympathy with Lawrence.


The ones I speak of are not that type at all. In fact that type of submissive woman does not seem to like Lawrence's work at all. That is strange or curious, don't you think? I think you are seeing this all from a man's point of view and missing the big picture. Most woman who I have found interested in Lawrence read some and adore the man; they can overlook some of his worst faults. Afterall he was just a man! ;) :lol: We woman become tough and tollerant!
:lol: Yes, I agree. I'm not saying I see misogyny (sp?) in Lawrence, but he is very male oriented.


That could be it. Yes, he does hit a nerve and he gets right inside a woman's head. I think the feminists would feel he invaded their privacy. In some ways, they feel he undermines their sense of security perhaps. My secure and independent friends see Lawrence differently. They don't feel threatened by him.
:lol:


I far prefer Lawrence's work over Joyce. I just can't get into some of Joyce's work that requires tons of time to figure out. I like a simplier approach. Joyce is too complex for my feeble little brain. Lawrence is complex but understandable. I can better relate to his work than to Joyce's. I do feel Lawrence was and still living on in his words, is a great author.
Joyce can be cold. Lawrence's work beats with life.

[Dark Muse]

I fear I do not feel as if I have enough background information to weigh in on the Lawrence issue, but based upon what I have read. I would have to say that I somewhat agree with both of you. I do not agree will of the ideas that Lawrence personally had, from what little I do know and understand, regarding women. But I will say within his stories he often seems to portray very strong and independent women, and deals often with the issues of women's quest for equality, and the issue of the male driven world. Though he might not personally agree with these ideas, within his writing he seems to understand the struggle of women to try and find some way within the world, separate from the need for dependency upon men, and their struggle to find their own path.

Anyway, I just had to pose these passages, because I absolutely loved this depiction of the woman within the story.


She went quietly along the hedge, somewhat wolf-like in her prowl, a broad strong woman in an expensive mustard-colored jersey and cream-colorued pleated skirt. Her legs were long and shapely, her shoes were expansive.

With a curious wolf-like stealth she turned the hedge and looked across the small shaded lawn where the daises grew impertinently, 'He' was reclining in a coloured hammock under the pink-flowering horse-chestnut tree, dressed in white serge with a fine yellow-coloured linen shirt. His elegant hand dropped over the side of the hammock and beat a sort of vague rhythm to his words. At a little wicker table the little secretary, in a green knitted frock, bent her dark head over her note-book, and diligently made those awful shorthand marks. He was not difficult to take down, as he dictated slowly, and kept a sort of rhythm, beating time with his dangling hand.

I also found it interesting the attention to the clothing which was given, and the use of color. I found it interesting how the secretary was given green, almost as if to make her "blend in" with the garden surroundings. While the husband and the wife are made to stand out in stark contrast to the garden with him in yellow, and her in mustard and cream.


"No!" said the little secretary, gazing brightly round, her eyes half-blinded with work. But she saw the queer, powerful, elegant, wolf-like figure of the wife, behind her, and terror came into her eyes.

"I did!" said the wife, stepping forward with those curious, shapely she-wolf legs of hers under the very short skirt.

"Aren't they extraordinarily vicious little beasts?" said he

"Extraordinarily!" she re-echoed stooping and picking up a little breast-feather. "Extraordinarily! See how the feathers fly!"

And she got the feather on the tip of her finger, and looked at it. Then she looked at the secretary, then she looked at him. She had a queer, were-wolf expression between her brows.

I loved this scene. And I found it interesting how things progressed from being wolf-like, to a she-wolf, and finally, a werewolf.

[Janine]

Virgil, I will have to answer your long post tomorrow. I don't have time today or tonight. I did however do some online research on Lawrence and feminism. I think if you run the same search you find some great articles and there is one site that lists so many of the great woman feminists who were influenced by Lawrence. I also found this incredible study and article from Assiut University which was a PDF but which I could print out. It is a long article but I noticed when printing it it does mention some of the short stories we recently discussed. I can't wait to read this study. It is quite long but worth printing out. Here is the link if you want to check it out, too:

http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/Articles51/Article510647.pdf

It begins:

This is a theoretical investigation of feminist Realism in the modern fiction of Virginia Woolf and D.H.Lawrence. My intention is to draw some innovative textual conclusions out of the context of their novels to prove their radical feminist implications. What distinquishes these two writers and their novels is a particular kind of fidelity to reality which is not different from their feminist visions. Thus, feminist realism is extensively studied and elaborated though the works of those two writers. The patriarchal realism (social realism) and the female reality is scrutinized to explain the difference between the world as men have constructed and the reality that is lived, imagined and expressed by women.

This article should be quite interesting and revealing, as well. I really excited to find it. Dark Muse, this will probably interest you, also (thinking of your class), and any others who will find the time to read it.

[Quark]

I agree with Virgil that Lawrence was profoundly anti-feminist, but at the same time I agree with Janine that his works can be enjoyed by women--and not just for their superb language. While being fervently against women's rights, he was still an honest observer. His desire for realism often outweighed his inclination toward polemic. Sons and Lovers, while containing the harsh invective against radical feminists like Clara, gives voice to the plight of women who are trapped in degrading circumstances--like Miriam. Lawrence even lets her argue against her situation herself in a speech about the limited possibilities for women compared to men. It's important to remember that his anti-feminist views were more prescriptive than descriptive. Most of his arguments on women are about what they could become and not what they actually were. A feminist can get through a novel by Lawrence because it's his record of what "is" that's printed on the page, and that analysis is often quite sapient.

None of this, though, should obscure Lawrence's real opinion of the female personality. In this story it comes into the fore, and I think we should be clear on what's being attacked. I was reading an article in the South Atlantic Review this morning which was very appropriate for this story--even though it's talking about another. It quoted a section of Katherine Anne Porter's essay "A Wreath for the Gamekeeper" which goes like this,


[Lawrence] has expressed it ferociously over and over. Women must be kept apart, for they contaminate each other. They are to be redeemed one by through the sexual offices of a man, who seems to have no other function in her life, nor she in his. One of the greatest enlightenments of Lady Chatterley after her experience of the sentimental obscenities of her gamekeeper is to see other women clearly, women sexually less lucky than she, and to realize that they are all horrible. She can't get away fast enough, and back to the embraces of her fancy man.

Okay, maybe that's an overstatement, but the point is a good one. In Lawrence's stories women are redeemed (fulfilled may be the better word) through sexual relationships, and they are at odds with one another. Realizing this is an important part of understanding Lawrence's satire. Virgil already brought up the possibility that the satire is directed at the inversion of natural gender roles in modern marriage. I think this fits with what we know about the story and L's views. The woman is not being redeemed through sex with her husband. Instead, she denies that she even wants to kiss him. Meanwhile she loathes the secretary for reasons she can't understand, and the husband is cold and ironic. From what we know about Lawrence on women and Lawrence on "blood consciousness", it's easy to see where husband and wife deviate from the right course.


Dark Muse, I hope people don't overlook your last post. You made some good points. I'll try and respond later.

[Janine]

I agree with Virgil that Lawrence was profoundly anti-feminist, but at the same time I agree with Janine that his works can be enjoyed by women--and not just for their superb language. While being fervently against women's rights, he was still an honest observer. His desire for realism often outweighed his inclination toward polemic. Sons and Lovers, while containing the harsh invective against radical feminists like Clara, gives voice to the plight of women who are trapped in degrading circumstances--like Miriam. Lawrence even lets her argue against her situation herself in a speech about the limited possibilities for women compared to men. It's important to remember that his anti-feminist views were more prescriptive than descriptive. Most of his arguments on women are about what they could become and not what they actually were. A feminist can get through a novel by Lawrence because it's his record of what "is" that's printed on the page, and that analysis is often quite sapient.

Don't agree at all - "Lawrence was profoundly anti-feminist" - this is a false statement, based on no real evidence to back it up. If you show me grounds (facts) and not just interpretation of Lawrence's work, I might consider it true. I don't think consistenly, Lawrence was anything of the sort. Read the article I posted above. I have been reading it. First off, this person doing this critical study, talks about "Sons and Lovers" and points out that Lawrence's female characters, who want feminism, are not wholely committed to it and therefore, they fail. Clara returns to her husband; Miriam is trapped in her situtation. "his anti-feminist views were more prescriptive than descriptive". what do you mean by this?


None of this, though, should obscure Lawrence's real opinion of the female personality. In this story it comes into the fore, and I think we should be clear on what's being attacked. I was reading an article in the South Atlantic Review this morning which was very appropriate for this story--even though it's talking about another. It quoted a section of Katherine Anne Porter's essay "A Wreath for the Gamekeeper" which goes like this,

The article excerpt - horrid and based on nothing! What a mean scathing remark to make. Who was this woman?


Okay, maybe that's an overstatement, but the point is a good one. In Lawrence's stories women are redeemed (fulfilled may be the better word) through sexual relationships, and they are at odds with one another. Realizing this is an important part of understanding Lawrence's satire. Virgil already brought up the possibility that the satire is directed at the inversion of natural gender roles in modern marriage. I think this fits with what we know about the story and L's views. The woman is not being redeemed through sex with her husband. Instead, she denies that she even wants to kiss him. Meanwhile she loathes the secretary for reasons she can't understand, and the husband is cold and ironic. From what we know about Lawrence on women and Lawrence on "blood consciousness", it's easy to see where husband and wife deviate from the right course.

Slightly?..just slightly an overstatement, indeed! I am seeing :flare: at this woman's remarks. How is her point a good one? How many of Lawrence's short stories have you read, Quark? I don't agree with you on this generalisation at all and using this current story is hardly the example to hold up. This story is a satire; it might even be a quick sketch that Lawrence wrote off the cuff one day to amuse himself. I don't know since I have not confered with Lawrence himself. I don't see two woman fighting in a story as making a man an anti-feminist. Yikes, there are tons of authors who explore similar situtations and triangles between the sexes. Why does everyone target Lawrence? How does "blood consciousness" and his ideas on this make Lawrence anti-feminist? You have really lost me here. "blood consciousness" involves both sexes and the union of them and not male dominance as I see it.
In my final remarks, I want to say that this whole feminist, anti-feminist question is a very complicated business and we all need to do more research on it before we can make sound judgements about Lawrence in relationship to the movement. I read one commentator who said he began the movement or greatly advanced it. Many feminists authors felt Lawrence's work influenced them. How do you account for that fact? That includes you, Virgil, as well.

Quark, after reviewing your post I think I misunderstood some of the things you were saying; you did not seem to be totally refuting what I had said. Sorry about that; I didn't mean to out and out, attack you on this issue. I just feel so strongly that 'some' feminists, hardly 'all' feminists, back in Lawrence's day labeled Lawrence an 'anti-feminist' and this became a real yoke around his neck and damaged his reputation greatly. One could have done the same to other authors, who show a strong male image and a weaker woman one, being dominated by males. I just think this whole idea of Lawrence being a truly anti-feminist and saying it in this day and age, turns many people off to his literature and that is such a pity. I really think Lawrence got a bad rap on this one. I don't see any of the characters in Lawrence's work without weaknesses and vulnerabilities and so I count them all equal, men and woman, and as human beings struggling within different and unique situations, so they all are different.


I fear I do not feel as if I have enough background information to weigh in on the Lawrence issue, but based upon what I have read. I would have to say that I somewhat agree with both of you. I do not agree will of the ideas that Lawrence personally had, from what little I do know and understand, regarding women. But I will say within his stories he often seems to portray very strong and independent women, and deals often with the issues of women's quest for equality, and the issue of the male driven world. Though he might not personally agree with these ideas, within his writing he seems to understand the struggle of women to try and find some way within the world, separate from the need for dependency upon men, and their struggle to find their own path.

Dark Muse, I appreciate your neutral stance in this issue and the fact you admit to not knowing enough to make a true assessment. I know much about Lawrence and yet this still led me to go and research more on the specific question of feminism or anti-feminism. I found quite a number of article and references on the net and this surprised me greatly - most of what I found were in defense of Lawrence actually being a feminist. He certainly influenced a great number of feminist women authors and he had many many feminists friends who great admired him. So it never figures to me exactly who labeled him an anti-feminist. If you have a change check out the article online. You don't have to read all to get the gist of what the researcher is getting at. It even talks about Bertie in "The Blind Man" and gives some good insight into that story.


Anyway, I just had to pose these passages, because I absolutely loved this depiction of the woman within the story.


I too, love passages like this one where woman in Lawrence's writing are shown as being very strong individuals. We can site many throughout his large body of work, which further supports my ideas of his actually being very much for woman's rights and equality, and sympathetic to the plight of the woman. Many of his novels revolve around the woman characters. I can see where some of his writings would offend the stauch feminists, but is Lawrence showing situations where woman are being put down by men and saying it is the correct way to live or behave? This I am totally doubtful of. I think we are missing the whole point, if we simply categorize Lawrence's work as 'anti-feminist'.

[Virgil]

I fear I do not feel as if I have enough background information to weigh in on the Lawrence issue, but based upon what I have read. I would have to say that I somewhat agree with both of you. I do not agree will of the ideas that Lawrence personally had, from what little I do know and understand, regarding women. But I will say within his stories he often seems to portray very strong and independent women, and deals often with the issues of women's quest for equality, and the issue of the male driven world. Though he might not personally agree with these ideas, within his writing he seems to understand the struggle of women to try and find some way within the world, separate from the need for dependency upon men, and their struggle to find their own path.

Anyway, I just had to pose these passages, because I absolutely loved this depiction of the woman within the story.



I also found it interesting the attention to the clothing which was given, and the use of color. I found it interesting how the secretary was given green, almost as if to make her "blend in" with the garden surroundings. While the husband and the wife are made to stand out in stark contrast to the garden with him in yellow, and her in mustard and cream.



I loved this scene. And I found it interesting how things progressed from being wolf-like, to a she-wolf, and finally, a werewolf.
I haven't over looked it. It is a fine post Muse. I had not paid attention to the color and I think the significance you point out is what Lawrence intended, not just accidental.



Virgil, I will have to answer your long post tomorrow. I don't have time today or tonight. I did however do some online research on Lawrence and feminism. I think if you run the same search you find some great articles and there is one site that lists so many of the great woman feminists who were influenced by Lawrence. I also found this incredible study and article from Assiut University which was a PDF but which I could print out. It is a long article but I noticed when printing it it does mention some of the short stories we recently discussed. I can't wait to read this study. It is quite long but worth printing out. Here is the link if you want to check it out, too:

http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/Articles51/Article510647.pdf

It begins:


This article should be quite interesting and revealing, as well. I really excited to find it. Dark Muse, this will probably interest you, also (thinking of your class), and any others who will find the time to read it.

I will have to print that out. It's 25 pages. I haven't read a scholarly article in years. ;) Poor Janine, you're being ganged up on. ;)

[Janine]

I haven't over looked it. It is a fine post Muse. I had not paid attention to the color and I think the significance you point out is what Lawrence intended, not just accidental.

Dark Muse, I agree - that was a really good observation and color meant a lot to Lawrence. I wondered at those colors, at the time I read them in the story, but then I forgot about them and didn't think of the deeper sympolism lurking there. That is good - green like the grass and spring. It did seem to me the wife's outfit was classy, but harsh in color; am I right?


I will have to print that out. It's 25 pages. I haven't read a scholarly article in years. ;)[/QUOTE]

Virgil, I have been trying to read it quickly. There is a part on "The Blind Man" that is quite interesting. I did print it and it was about that many pages. I don't care - soon I need a new ink cartridge anyway. To save ink you can print with Options and use rough draft and black cartridge only - ever do that? I do it all the time to conserve.
Tonight I hope to read the whole document. Hey, it reminds me of a thesis. I don't know where this guy is from or where that university is located, do you. If you run a general search and just enter Lawrence feminism - you will come up with many sites. There is one book sounds extremely interesting and I put it into my 'watching' on Amazon. Of course - don't I have enough Lawrence books by now?:lol:

I just responded to Quarks post and then went back in (after I ate some dinner and can think clearer) and added some comments at the bottom. You might want to check that out. Hey, Virgil, you don't have to go to another thread ;) to find a good contraversy going on...stay right here...you started it this time.....:lol:

Poor Janine, you're being ganged up on.
:lol: it is ok, I am not scared at all. I am a strong female figure - one of Lawrence's best! :lol:

[Virgil]

Virgil, I have been trying to read it quickly. There is a part on "The Blind Man" that is quite interesting. I did print it and it was about that many pages. I don't care - soon I need a new ink cartridge anyway. To save ink you can print with Options and use rough draft and black cartridge only - ever do that? I do it all the time to conserve.

Yes, I do that all the time. But it seems to be the same quality so I've wondered if it really does anything.


Tonight I hope to read the whole document. Hey, it reminds me of a thesis. I don't know where this guy is from or where that university is located, do you. If you run a general search and just enter Lawrence feminism - you will come up with many sites. There is one book sounds extremely interesting and I put it into my 'watching' on Amazon. Of course - don't I have enough Lawrence books by now?:lol:
I looked up the university and it's from Egypt. I'm curious to see what he has to say. It does look like a thesis. Yes, you got plenty on Lawrence. ;) But whatever makes you happy. :)


I just responded to Quarks post and then went back in (after I ate some dinner and can think clearer) and added some comments at the bottom. You might want to check that out. Hey, Virgil, you don't have to go to another thread ;) to find a good contraversy going on...stay right here...you started it this time.....:lol:
:lol: Yes, I've never seen you so. I'm actually a little scared. :p


:lol: it is ok, I am not scared at all. I am a strong female figure - one of Lawrence's best! :lol:
I wonder if you would have been one of those women that would have followed Lawrence around, one of his disciples. :lol: He probably would have grown sick of you like Dorothy Brett. :p :D

[Quark]

I want to say that this whole feminist, anti-feminist question is a very complicated business and we all need to do more research on it before we can make sound judgements about Lawrence in relationship to the movement.

You're right that Lawrence's view on feminism is a poor topic. It's probably best to stick to the story. I'll look at that article you suggested, too. The introduction sounded interesting.


I also found it interesting the attention to the clothing which was given, and the use of color. I found it interesting how the secretary was given green, almost as if to make her "blend in" with the garden surroundings. While the husband and the wife are made to stand out in stark contrast to the garden with him in yellow, and her in mustard and cream.

I loved this scene. And I found it interesting how things progressed from being wolf-like, to a she-wolf, and finally, a werewolf.

Good eye for detail, Dark Muse. I didn't notice the colors in that scene. Just before that passage, Lawrence comments about how the wife is out of tune with spring, and the contrast in color brings that out. I wonder why the secretary blends in, though. Is that a indication of her unimportance? Maybe the camouflage refers to her modest, unimposing nature. He could be saying that secretary is the one who's in tune with spring because of her youth. This is the scene where the wife discovers she's forty, and the green clothes of the secretary could be one more signal to the reader of the age discrepancy between the two women.

The wolf epithets are easier to follow. This is just after the wife hatches her malignant plan to separate the husband from his servants. Here the narrator is not-so-subtly ratcheting up the rhetoric against the wife to show how destructive she's being.

[Janine]

Yes, I do that all the time. But it seems to be the same quality so I've wondered if it really does anything.

Mine is way different quality when I do that. You must be doing something wrong or not applying it at the bottom. First you have to hit 'apply' and then 'ok' or 'print' or whatever it says. I will check it out and write up the instructions for you. I sure saves on ink.



I looked up the university and it's from Egypt. I'm curious to see what he has to say. It does look like a thesis. Yes, you got plenty on Lawrence. ;) But whatever makes you happy. :)

Wow, thanks for finding that out. Egypt - that is really quite interesting. It must be in a book or published, because it is in a PDF file. Usually, you can't print those out, so I was shocked I could this time. I am glad of it. I love reading any commentary, or anything fairly new in ideas on Lawrence and his work. It all makes me happy!:D It doesn't take much to make me happy.:)

Of course, I don't know about my adoration of Lawrence, if up close and personal; the guy did look a bit ragged later in life and I don't like men quite that thin and he got so his hair looked quite messy and I heard he had a scraggly red beard....hummm, I think I have better taste in men than that!:lol:



:lol: Yes, I've never seen you so. I'm actually a little scared. :p

Must be the sudden change in temperature, the heat. :( I did get a bit worked up; did you see me actually turn 'red' with anger above - see my rebutal to Quark's post and that dumb woman's remarks. I think he is mad at me now. I am sorry, Quark....:bawling: Yikes, I might have the capacity to be M,B and Dangerous like you, V!:(


I wonder if you would have been one of those women that would have followed Lawrence around, one of his disciples. He probably would have grown sick of you like Dorothy Brett.

:lol: Yeah, but I'm a lot cutier! ;) :lol:

[Janine]

You're right that Lawrence's view on feminism is a poor topic. It's probably best to stick to the story. I'll look at that article you suggested, too. The introduction sounded interesting.

What, Quark, too hot in the kitchen for you? It is not a poor topic, just one that I agree, we need to discuss, other than here, since we are disrupting the story discussion. But I just wanted to leave it, that it is questionable and complicated and so we should not make judgements as to label L anything specific concerning feminism/anti-feminism. If you have the time read the article. It may throw some new light on the whole topic. Thanks, Q!


Good eye for detail, Dark Muse. I didn't notice the colors in that scene. Just before that passage, Lawrence comments about how the wife is out of tune with spring, and the contrast in color brings that out. I wonder why the secretary blends in, though. Is that a indication of her unimportance? Maybe the camouflage refers to her modest, unimposing nature. He could be saying that secretary is the one who's in tune with spring because of her youth. This is the scene where the wife discovers she's forty, and the green clothes of the secretary could be one more signal to the reader of the age discrepancy between the two women.

Yes, I agree; good eye for detail, DM and I was also wondering something about the two blue dresses - the wife's being expensive and the secretary changing into her blue dress which was not the quality of the wife's dress and she seems to see it as an inferiority image. I wondered just why the secretary would go and change into a similar dress and the same exact color. That seemed so strange to me. Usually women are mortified if they go somewhere and another woman is wearing a similar dress or the identical color. In this instance the secretary must know well enough her dress will be inferior to the wife's and this would draw more attention to her lowlier state. It did not quite figure with me, so I wanted to see what other opinions there are concerning these two blue dresses.



The wolf epithets are easier to follow. This is just after the wife hatches her malignant plan to separate the husband from his servants. Here the narrator is not-so-subtly ratcheting up the rhetoric against the wife to show how destructive she's being.

Quark, can you quote some of those passages to look at specifically?

[Quark]

I think he is mad at me now. I am sorry, Quark....:bawling:

Ha, no I'm not mad (no:flare:over here). I just thought we were getting needlessly sidetracked on a question that we weren't going to solve quickly.


I wondered just why the secretary would go and change into a similar dress and the same exact color. That seemed so strange to me. Usually women are mortified if they go somewhere and another woman is wearing a similar dress or the identical color. In this instance the secretary must know well enough her dress will be inferior to the wife's and this would draw more attention to her lowlier state. It did not quite figure with me, so I wanted to see what other opinions there are concerning these two blue dresses.

Lawrence is trying to draw the connection between the blue birds and the women here. The scene with the dresses is right after the scene with the birds. Plus, the dresses are the same color as the birds. They're even the same shade of blue. Fighting blue birds in one scene are mirrored by fighting women in another.


Quark, can you quote some of those passages to look at specifically?

I can post more on that tomorrow. Before I do that, though, I should probably write something for the Chekhov thread. We're coming to an important part in "About Love", and it seems like the conversation is starting to flag for some reason.

[Janine]

Ha, no I'm not mad (no:flare:over here). I just thought we were getting needlessly sidetracked on a question that we weren't going to solve quickly.




Lawrence is trying to draw the connection between the blue birds and the women here. The scene with the dresses is right after the scene with the birds. Plus, the dresses are the same color as the birds. They're even the same shade of blue. Fighting blue birds in one scene are mirrored by fighting women in another.

I knew that! I just mean 'logically', why would the secretary pick the same color dress, knowing hers will appear to be inferior to the wife's expensive one? Is it the only nice dress she owns? I wondered about whether Lawrence just ignored realism here and contrived to have them mimic the two bluebirds; it seems unlike Lawrence to ignore the obvious, in whether realistically, the secretary would put herself in the position of being inferior, or maybe that was the point - she wished to look less impressive, than the wife, more down to earth and ordinary. It still seems strange to me.


I can post more on that tomorrow. Before I do that, though, I should probably write something for the Chekhov thread. We're coming to an important part in "About Love", and it seems like the conversation is starting to flag for some reason.

Well you better;), where have you been in the Chekhov thread, anyway....off with the new "Thus Spoke Z" thread? eh, Quark? .... and in Chekhov, we are not falling behind?!? It only just turned April 11th, from where I am sitting and geez, that leaves nearly 20 more days in this month. Nor is the conversation starting to flag, whatever that means. If you had gone in there today, you might have noticed that I posted a fairly long post.....I will give you a flag! :smash: I wish to post more tomorrow, and even some questions that popped up, while I was reading the story for the FOURTH time last night....YES, the 4th!...I am not kidding.:D

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, I agree - that was a really good observation and color meant a lot to Lawrence. I wondered at those colors, at the time I read them in the story, but then I forgot about them and didn't think of the deeper sympolism lurking there. That is good - green like the grass and spring. It did seem to me the wife's outfit was classy, but harsh in color; am I right?

Yes I would agree. The color of mustard does seem to really leap out at you, and well it also does not bring to my mind a very pleasant color either.

The other thing I noticed as that it seemed the wife was wearing, bolder versions of the colors her husband were in.

As he was in yellow and white, and she was in mustard and cream.

I see there being some relation between yellow and mustard, but yellow is a more mellow color while mustard really stand out a lot more.

As well cream to me, is just a sort of off-white color.


You're right that Lawrence's view on feminism is a poor topic. It's probably best to stick to the story. I'll look at that article you suggested, too. The introduction sounded interesting.



Good eye for detail, Dark Muse. I didn't notice the colors in that scene. Just before that passage, Lawrence comments about how the wife is out of tune with spring, and the contrast in color brings that out. I wonder why the secretary blends in, though. Is that a indication of her unimportance? Maybe the camouflage refers to her modest, unimposing nature. He could be saying that secretary is the one who's in tune with spring because of her youth. This is the scene where the wife discovers she's forty, and the green clothes of the secretary could be one more signal to the reader of the age discrepancy between the two women.

I think the reason the secretary is made to appear to sort of blend in more, is because, as has been talked before, she is not really the focus of the problem. And she is more humble and does just sort of fit into the background. While the husband and the wife are more overbearing personalities, and the secretary is just sort of caught between the two of them.


The wolf epithets are easier to follow. This is just after the wife hatches her malignant plan to separate the husband from his servants. Here the narrator is not-so-subtly ratcheting up the rhetoric against the wife to show how destructive she's being.

Yes, it does seem to be sort of showing the transformation, for lack of a better word, that the wife progresses through, within the story. I did find the werewolf analogy to be quite interesting though.


Yes, I agree; good eye for detail, DM and I was also wondering something about the two blue dresses - the wife's being expensive and the secretary changing into her blue dress which was not the quality of the wife's dress and she seems to see it as an inferiority image. I wondered just why the secretary would go and change into a similar dress and the same exact color. That seemed so strange to me. Usually women are mortified if they go somewhere and another woman is wearing a similar dress or the identical color. In this instance the secretary must know well enough her dress will be inferior to the wife's and this would draw more attention to her lowlier state. It did not quite figure with me, so I wanted to see what other opinions there are concerning these two blue dresses.

That was an odd moment, it could almost be seen as an act of defiance on part of the secretary, as sort of passive aggression against the wife. Perhaps she had meant to irritate the woman, or play upon her "jealousy" on purpose.

[Virgil]

I'm not sure what to make of all the colors and clothing coordination. I had only picked up on the blue dresses mirroring the two blue birds. It struck me as a little contrived. But no doubt Lawrence is trying to suggest something with all this, but I'm not sure I've figured it out altogether.

[Janine]

I'm not sure what to make of all the colors and clothing coordination. I had only picked up on the blue dresses mirroring the two blue birds. It struck me as a little contrived. But no doubt Lawrence is trying to suggest something with all this, but I'm not sure I've figured it out altogether.

Me either, Virgil :confused:
Remember the colored stockings in "Women in Love" ?
Hey, maybe our Lawrence was a 'cross-dresser'; he sure was interested in woman's clothes! :lol:

[Virgil]

Virgil, I will have to answer your long post tomorrow. I don't have I also found this incredible study and article from Assiut University which was a PDF but which I could print out. It is a long article but I noticed when printing it it does mention some of the short stories we recently discussed. I can't wait to read this study. It is quite long but worth printing out. Here is the link if you want to check it out, too:

http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/Articles51/Article510647.pdf

It begins:


This article should be quite interesting and revealing, as well. I really excited to find it. Dark Muse, this will probably interest you, also (thinking of your class), and any others who will find the time to read it.

I skimmed through this essay. The author is a "Dr" so I assume he's a PhD. But it's not that good really. Perhaps "good" is the wrong criteria. It's simple and not at a PhD level. It strikes me as undergraduate level. However, I bet most master's thesis are on this level. I don't want to brag, but my master's thesis was way better. Save your ink and paper Janine. Just skim through and jump to the Lawrence section.

[Janine]

I skimmed through this essay. The author is a "Dr" so I assume he's a PhD. But it's not that good really. Perhaps "good" is the wrong criteria. It's simple and not at a PhD level. It strikes me as undergraduate level. However, I bet most master's thesis are on this level. I don't want to brag, but my master's thesis was way better. Save your ink and paper Janine. Just skim through and jump to the Lawrence section.

Yeah Yeah, I know....I was reading it last night and truthfully I didn't understand a lot of it. I would have to look a lot of the terms he is using up and then I was still not sure what his conclusions were on Woolf or Lawrence, were you.

Hey, Virgil, I thought you would address my last post and laugh your head off :lol:....you know - 'Lawrence, the cross-dresser'...you are really slipping here. I don't have the nerve to post my other idea. :blush: but he may have had to wear dresses for comfort, you know.;) I can't believe I am writing all this. I must be getting like you. :blush:

[Virgil]

Yeah Yeah, I know....I was reading it last night and truthfully I didn't understand a lot of it. I would have to look a lot of the terms he is using up and then I was still not sure what his conclusions were on Woolf or Lawrence, were you.

Hey, Virgil, I thought you would address my last post and laugh your head off :lol:....you know - 'Lawrence, the cross-dresser'...you are really slipping here. I don't have the nerve to post my other idea. :blush: but he may have had to wear dresses for comfort, you know.;) I can't believe I am writing all this. I must be getting like you. :blush:

Yes your other idea was bad. :p Well there are rumors he was gay, so why not start a cross dressing rumor. :D

[Quark]

I knew that! I just mean 'logically', why would the secretary pick the same color dress, knowing hers will appear to be inferior to the wife's expensive one? Is it the only nice dress she owns? I wondered about whether Lawrence just ignored realism here and contrived to have them mimic the two bluebirds;

I don't know if there's any hidden meaning behind that. I think you're right when you say that it's just contrived. L was probably just looking for a quick way to make the parallel clearer, and he stumbled into this idea for the two dresses.


where have you been in the Chekhov thread, anyway....off with the new "Thus Spoke Z" thread? eh,

Oh, please. It's not like I've said anything substantial in the Nietzsche thread. I try to stop in and prod people with some questions, but I'm not really a part of the conversation. I'm not even sure whether there is a conversation going in there yet. I just try to support these threads that really get into a book or author.


Nor is the conversation starting to flag, whatever that means.

You've never heard flag used as a verb? When something is losing strength or vigor it's referred to as flagging.


If you had gone in there today, you might have noticed that I posted a fairly long post.....

You must have posted that when I was at the book store or something because I didn't see your post until you mentioned it. I can't respond to everything that was in it yet because I've promised to post and talk about the next section of the story first.


I was reading the story for the FOURTH time last night....YES, the 4th!...I am not kidding.:D

I think I may have matched you this month on story rereads. I've read up-and-down, back-and-forth every part of "Two Blue Birds."

[Janine]

Yes your other idea was bad. :p Well there are rumors he was gay, so why not start a cross dressing rumor. :D

You know 'cross-dressers' usually are straight.:lol: he might have been misunderstood. He sure liked those bright colored stockings in WIL and he loved for Frieda to wear them - they were thick and truly ugly, but something about them really turned him on....strange.

[Quark]

He sure liked those bright colored stockings in WIL and he loved for Frieda to wear them - they were thick and truly ugly, but something about them really turned him on....strange.

Can we get a picture? I mean of the ugly stockings, not Lawrence turned on.

[Janine]

Can we get a picture? I mean of the ugly stockings,...

I will see what I can come up with. I have seen photos in my books, of Frieda wearing those lovely 'attractive' stockings, but of course, the photos are not in color, so you will have to use your imagination, for that one. However, in the film adaptation, Gudrun and Ursula did indeed wear those stockings and especially Ursula's stood out as being garish colors. Maybe I can find a film still; I don't think hers were quite as thick though.



I don't know if there's any hidden meaning behind that. I think you're right when you say that it's just contrived. L was probably just looking for a quick way to make the parallel clearer, and he stumbled into this idea for the two dresses.

I don't know. That does not sound like L's intentions. He usually was so detailed and wrote things like that on purpose; he would not just let it slip by or add it, as a contrived image. I will re-read that part again and see if it yields any clues. I will let you know after, what I think.



Oh, please. It's not like I've said anything substantial in the Nietzsche thread. I try to stop in and prod people with some questions, but I'm not really a part of the conversation. I'm not even sure whether there is a conversation going in there yet. I just try to support these threads that really get into a book or author.

You've said more than I. Actually, I have never read much on Nietzsche, only what I know of L's readings of his work. I need to read a full work of his, but I don't have time right now. It is on my 'to read list'...the endless one.....



You've never heard flag used as a verb? When something is losing strength or vigor it's referred to as flagging.

Gee, I thought if we got the flag that meant 'go!' Yeah, I guess sometime or the other I heard the word used the other way. I guess it is more a sports term, isn't it? Well, I have lost strength and vigor in the past few years, so I guess I'm 'flagged'. ;) :lol:


You must have posted that when I was at the book store or something because I didn't see your post until you mentioned it. I can't respond to everything that was in it yet because I've promised to post and talk about the next section of the story first.

Oh, back to the old bookstore, eh....B & N again? Spill any coffee this time, Quark? They actually allowed you back in, humm? ;) Oh, yes, my last brilliant post; I forgot about that one. That is ok, answer it eventually and I will still keep talking to you. ;)


I think I may have matched you this month on story rereads. I've read up-and-down, back-and-forth every part of "Two Blue Birds."

Hahaa...so why did you? Still trying to figure this one out? I guess the story was not that bad, afterall....especially if we are still discussing it.

Last night, I was reading the other story, Virgil, said was a good one, "The Princess" It is quite a bit longer than this one, but so far, it has me captivated. I don't think this story was about Brett, but rather their other mutal friend, who is pictured in the photo that Virgil posted earlier, this being Mabel Luhan, who lived with, then later married an Native American Indian; she played prominently in Lawrence's life, at this time. During this time or about, Lawrence also wrote "The Woman Who Rode Away", which I know Virgil has mentioned several times in this thread. Mabel was also the model for this story, I just read the references to it in my research books, and they are quite specific. [opps! I may have found some conflicting information about who was the model for each story; I guess I have to do more intense research; so don't quote me on any of this (my musings outloud)]
These two stories may be good posibilities for the coming months, even though these are more advanced and later stories of L's. However, actually, in my book Volume 2, one preceeds 'Two Blue Birds', and the other follows it (The Princess).

[Virgil]

Or we can do a really early story, if you wish Janine. As you wish. The Princess might be a good one now.

[Janine]

Or we can do a really early story, if you wish Janine. As you wish. The Princess might be a good one now.

Well, if we finish this one soon, maybe...because it is long; that way we could devote more than a month to it, and take it slowly.
I have some family concerns right now, as you know, and the big event that is soon to come up in ours lives - my grandbaby! So, I was unsure as to whether I can devote the time to this thread next month. I don't want to miss out on anything and "The Princess" does seem like a good one. I will get back to you on this - ok?
I will read the second half tonight or tomorrow night.

:lol:Janine, the Princess will decide soon.... :lol:

[Quark]

I don't know. That does not sound like L's intentions. He usually was so detailed and wrote things like that on purpose; he would not just let it slip by or add it, as a contrived image. I will re-read that part again and see if it yields any clues. I will let you know after, what I think.

Well I don't think there's much more to it than that. I suppose you could argue that it's a gesture on the part of secretary. She sees the wife in a blue dress and decides to challenge her by wearing similar clothing. The secretary could be competing with the wife.


Gee, I thought if we got the flag that meant 'go!' Yeah, I guess sometime or the other I heard the word used the other way. I guess it is more a sports term, isn't it? Well, I have lost strength and vigor in the past few years, so I guess I'm 'flagged'. ;) :lol:

I believe the term comes from the droopiness of flags in general.


Oh, back to the old bookstore, eh....B & N again? Spill any coffee this time, Quark? They actually allowed you back in, humm? ;) Oh, yes, my last brilliant post; I forgot about that one. That is ok, answer it eventually and I will still keep talking to you. ;)

My town is a little too small for a Barnes and Noble. We have a locally owned, non-chain store here that is actually pretty good. They keep expanding, too, so they must be doing something right. Or, maybe they're just pouring money into a finical sinkhole. I don't know. I would assume they're making some money, but I don't know where it would come from. The locals around here are not exactly the literary type.

As for your post--which was brilliant--it's still tabled because now we're into this whole other discussion about Anna and Alekhin. Once I turn the conversation to the husband, I'll respond to your post.


Hahaa...so why did you? Still trying to figure this one out? I guess the story was not that bad, afterall....especially if we are still discussing it.

Who said it was a bad story?


"The Princess" It is quite a bit longer than this one, but so far, it has me captivated.

Obviously I don't relish having to do lengthy reading. Yet, if it's the better story, go with that one.

[Virgil]

Well, if we finish this one soon, maybe...because it is long; that way we could devote more than a month to it, and take it slowly.
I have some family concerns right now, as you know, and the big event that is soon to come up in ours lives - my grandbaby! So, I was unsure as to whether I can devote the time to this thread next month. I don't want to miss out on anything and "The Princess" does seem like a good one. I will get back to you on this - ok?
I will read the second half tonight or tomorrow night.

:lol:Janine, the Princess will decide soon.... :lol:

Janine, if you got a busy month, you might want to do something simpler than The Princess. It's a complicated story and will bring much discussion I think.

[Janine]

Janine, if you got a busy month, you might want to do something simpler than The Princess. It's a complicated story and will bring much discussion I think.

Virgil,I finished reading it last night...Wow! - it was something and so unexpectable. I could not stop reading, but I especially liked the descriptive writing, just brilliant, as they climb further and further up to the summit of the mountains and on horse-back. It was lovely decriptive writing, some of L's best I think. The plot or storyline are complicated, though. I will see how things develop and let you know. Maybe for now, I will choose a shorter one, but we must do this one eventually. It was a good story; really captivated my interest.

I have to go out a short while for now, so Quark, will post something in answer to yours, tonight or tomorrow; same applies to DM. Sorry for delays.

[Janine]

Well I don't think there's much more to it than that. I suppose you could argue that it's a gesture on the part of secretary. She sees the wife in a blue dress and decides to challenge her by wearing similar clothing. The secretary could be competing with the wife.




I believe the term comes from the droopiness of flags in general. That is a good one! :lol: I think I feel droopy a lot lately so I must be flagged! ;)



My town is a little too small for a Barnes and Noble. We have a locally owned, non-chain store here that is actually pretty good. They keep expanding, too, so they must be doing something right. Or, maybe they're just pouring money into a finical sinkhole. I don't know. I would assume they're making some money, but I don't know where it would come from. The locals around here are not exactly the literary type.

Well, my B&N is about 20 minutes from here, near the mall; but that is ok, because you know how women love any excuse to go to the mall or near the mall - lots of good stores around it, too. But actually, I only normally browse in B&N and then buy it cheaper off Amazon, or try to....but of course some days I do cave in and find a bargain at B&N. Locals here are not that literary either; like I am amazed at the sheer junk, that people check out of my library. I go to hunt for a classic and normally the book is old or falling into ruin. They usually end up giving away the best old books, so I have gotten lucky occasionally. They also got wise and sold some on Amazon - darn!



As for your post--which was brilliant--it's still tabled because now we're into this whole other discussion about Anna and Alekhin. Once I turn the conversation to the husband, I'll respond to your post.

My post was brilliant? Well, hello... then, Quark, am I still 'tabled'? Is our Chekhov thread fading into oblivion? huh, huh......hello, anyone there??? Also, I wondered if this one was also fading away.......:(


Who said it was a bad story? Well, Virgil, said it was not one of his best. I thought it was quite good myself and the dialogue was written brilliantly. Lawrence very rarely disappoints me.



Obviously I don't relish having to do lengthy reading. Yet, if it's the better story, go with that one.

Well, I might hold off on 'The Princess' for now. I have many more that are candidates to choose from. We can do a simplier one for now since the next two months for me will be truly busy ones. I have to think of my new grandchild first. :)

[Quark]

My post was brilliant? Well, hello... then, Quark, am I still 'tabled'? Is our Chekhov thread fading into oblivion? huh, huh......hello, anyone there??? Also, I wondered if this one was also fading away.......:(

Well I paused for your response to my post, but instead you took a mini-vacation. Perhaps it was a well-deserved break, but meanwhile the threads went silent. I don't think we were in any threat of oblivion, though. Was that comic overstatement?


Well, Virgil, said it was not one of his best. I thought it was quite good myself and the dialogue was written brilliantly. Lawrence very rarely disappoints me.

I enjoyed the dialogue, too. I also liked how the thoughts of the wife were written and how Lawrence developed the sense of distance between husband and wife. Other parts of the story disappointed me, though. The characters weren't as nuanced as some of the other characters we've seen, and the story-telling was a little clumsy at times--like Lawrence using the blue dresses to draw a parallel. I'm sure this will provoke more ire from you, but there were some problems with the story. Not everything in a Lawrence story is perfect. Overall, it was still pretty good. Like Virgil hinted, it wasn't the best story we've read, but it certainly wasn't the worst. Somewhere in the middle is where it falls in my estimation.


Well, I might hold off on 'The Princess' for now. I have many more that are candidates to choose from. We can do a simplier one for now since the next two months for me will be truly busy ones. I have to think of my new grandchild first. :)

Recently I got the list of Lawrence anthologies that my book story can order. I'll have to email the list of what they have so you can help me make a decision.

[Virgil]

Well, Virgil, said it was not one of his best. I thought it was quite good myself and the dialogue was written brilliantly. Lawrence very rarely disappoints me.


Well, I didn't say it was bad or disappointing. It was a good story.

[Janine]

Quote by Virgil,

Well, I didn't say it was bad or disappointing. It was a good story.

Sorry, Virg, didn't mean to misquote you. I thought it was a 'good' story, too.

Quote by Quark

Well I paused for your response to my post, but instead you took a mini-vacation. Perhaps it was a well-deserved break, but meanwhile the threads went silent. I don't think we were in any threat of oblivion, though. Was that comic overstatement?

Yep, Quark, you are right; at least I was trying to sneak in a mini-vacation. I have still been on this computer nearly everyday, but last night, I came home from eating out and wanted to watch a DVD and so I did not even turn the computer on....that is a first for me! I should just make myself turn it off every night at a certain time; I have been getting ridiculous lately, staying up much too late. Actually, don't worry, Quark, the part about 'falling into oblivion' was just a joke, but this way I did get all your attention and the thread back onto the first page again. Hahaha - the incest thread is still leading at the top - actually kind of pathetic, I think.:(



I enjoyed the dialogue, too. I also liked how the thoughts of the wife were written and how Lawrence developed the sense of distance between husband and wife. Other parts of the story disappointed me, though. The characters weren't as nuanced as some of the other characters we've seen, and the story-telling was a little clumsy at times--like Lawrence using the blue dresses to draw a parallel. I'm sure this will provoke more ire from you, but there were some problems with the story. Not everything in a Lawrence story is perfect. Overall, it was still pretty good. Like Virgil hinted, it wasn't the best story we've read, but it certainly wasn't the worst. Somewhere in the middle is where it falls in my estimation.

I read the story a number of times and everytime I read it I actually enjoyed it more so. I thought it was sort of a fun story - kind of black humor! Of course, at the time it was written, this humor was at the expense of others. Yes, I still do think the two blue dresses were significant and especially that L mentions the difference in the quality. I did not think this was clumsy writing. The more I read excerpts from this timeline book I have about L and thinks he mentions about the short stories, I realise just how meticulous he was about them and would often rewrite the story or parts, especially the endings, several times over. This is what makes me think it was not mistake of contriving to make the two dresses blue and contrasting. My only thought was why the secretary chose that particular dress and yet maybe she did not have others that were suited for the occasion. I will have to beam myself up to Lawrence and see if he can answer that for me today.;)


Recently I got the list of Lawrence anthologies that my book story can order. I'll have to email the list of what they have so you can help me make a decision.

Well, two anthologies I know of are "The Prussian Officer and Other Short Stories', "England My England and Other Short Stories" - I own the second one, which I am looking at now. We discussed two of the stories in that one, and some others are strong possibilites. I read a few recently, I would consider discussing. There is only 10 stories in that edition. I counted all the stories in the "Complete Short Stories" (Vol 1,2,3) last night and came up with about 43. This does not include the longer shorts stories such as Love Among the Haystacks/St. Mawr/The Man Who Died. I read about 17 stories this year, a few others when younger. I seriously think I own the other edition I mentioned first (in this post), but I can't seem to locate it right now. I think it is online, or on this site. Some of the stories may be repeated in that book, too and many we already read. I will check the listing.
Ok, bottomline - best thing is to PM me and send me the anthology list from your bookstore. If you have my regular email address send there, because my box is filling up, at too fast a pace; it hit 100% the past two days and I had to go and delete quickly.

Something to add now - just checked "The Prussian Officer and Other Stories" on here and there are 12 short stories and we have discussed 5 of those in this thread. The others are possibilities, but that only leaves 7, although some are longer ones like 'The Daughters of the Vicar' which we probably will eventually discuss, since it is one of his major and most popular stories. I have read some commentary on that one, but it is quite a bit longer, and I can't see doing that one, for awhile now. I'm too busy.
I compared the two collections, to see if any stories were repeated, and they were not, but that would only be half of the Lawrence short stories - 22 of the 43 or so he wrote. This is just why I ended up buying all three volumes of the "Complete Short Stories", which I had to buy used. Maybe your bookstore can order them now. They may have come back in print.

[Dark Muse]

I read the story a number of times and everytime I read it I actually enjoyed it more so. I thought it was sort of a fun story - kind of black humor! Of course, at the time it was written, this humor was at the expense of others. Yes, I still do think the two blue dresses were significant and especially that L mentions the difference in the quality. I did not think this was clumsy writing. The more I read excerpts from this timeline book I have about L and thinks he mentions about the short stories, I realise just how meticulous he was about them and would often rewrite the story or parts, especially the endings, several times over. This is what makes me think it was not mistake of contriving to make the two dresses blue and contrasting. My only thought was why the secretary chose that particular dress and yet maybe she did not have others that were suited for the occasion. I will have to beam myself up to Lawrence and see if he can answer that for me today.;)

I have to agree with Janine on this one. Me acutally agreeing with someone? Shocking I know. If I am not careful I am going to get the reptuation as being the trouble marker. But anyway, I quite enjoyed the story myself, and personaly I do not find anything really sloppy about it. Though I do not know if I would go quite so far as to say it was "black" humur per sae, but I did find it to be quite amusing.

And yes, I am still alive. I know I have not been around in a while.

[Quark]

the incest thread is still leading at the top - actually kind of pathetic, I think.:(

I don't think we're going to win against that thread. How do you compete with a provocative topic that requires no reading? Even I've peaked in to see what's going on. Of course that was only to check out what islandclimber posted since we haven't seen that guy in a while. He wrote something like a dissertation on the topic which incensed Virgil.


Maybe your bookstore can order them now. They may have come back in print.

Actually, I decided to Amazon it. The prices on the list my bookstore gave me are quite excessive--think over $30 a book.


I have to agree with Janine on this one. Me acutally agreeing with someone? Shocking I know.

Careful, you don't want to lose your edge.

[Dark Muse]

*Grins* I do not think there is much real fear in that. I will likely remain The Devil's Advocate so to speak of the group

[Virgil]

I have to agree with Janine on this one. Me acutally agreeing with someone? Shocking I know.

Why D-M? We tend to agree often I think.

[Dark Muse]

Hehe yes, I suppose it is usually Janine whom I find myself in disagrement with. Nothing personally of course, we just have a different persepctive on things.

[Janine]

I don't think we're going to win against that thread. How do you compete with a provocative topic that requires no reading? Even I've peaked in to see what's going on. Of course that was only to check out what islandclimber posted since we haven't seen that guy in a while. He wrote something like a dissertation on the topic which incensed Virgil.


Yeah, really...when you get a thread requiring no reading, did you notice how quickly people flock to it? A contraversy pulls them right in!;) Oh, what did you say "incensed Virgil?" hahaha - wouldn't be the first time...he says he is "mad, bad and dangerous to know". :lol: Oh well, this is why I am against these wild topics in this forum. Are they really necessary? I thought we all congregated here, because we wanted to share our enthusisam for literature, even extending to film, movies, music, etc. I can't see where the 'incest' topic was related at all, but maybe I am missing something.



Actually, I decided to Amazon it. The prices on the list my bookstore gave me are quite excessive--think over $30 a book.

Wow, that is way too expensive and you probably would not get all the stories, anyway. PM me and I will tell you the right books to look for on Amazon. I saw them listed pretty reasonably not long ago. I looked them up for you. I checked out the sellers and they seemed like good ones. No, of course that all changed be I will check again. It will have to be a used set but I know you can find them and probably under 20 for all three, maybe even under 10 for all three. Don't PM me today. I have to go out and I need to clear out the box later, when I come home. Someone told me they could not get through on my PM box - really it is only at 98% full so it should have gone through - but anyway - just wait, maybe till tomorrow. We will find you the books you need.:D



Careful, you don't want to lose your edge.

:lol: Don't worry, Quark, Dark Muse only agrees with me on occasion - she won't lose her edge, will you, DM? I count on you being my contraversial member of the group. It keeps things lively in here! Otherwise everyone might fall asleep.


Does everyone think I should look for another story to start soon? I admit I have been reading/reviewing a few; two, so far interested me and they both were rather weird ones, but possibilities for the future, just not sure for right now. One is very long and will be great for later on...maybe the summer. It will require a lot of discussion. So, if you give me the 'go ahead' I will try to pick another shorter story - say by Monday. What do you all think?

[Dark Muse]

Hehe no I will not. I am little Miss. Controversial

I definately am in favor of a shorter story. I have 12 books to read now between two classess, and usually have to read one entier novel and several short stories (some not so short) a week.

[Janine]

Hehe no I will not. I am little Miss. Controversial

At first I thought you wrote little 'Miss Congeniality":lol: and I really laughed. Now I agree - yes this fits you much better! ;) :D



I definately am in favor of a shorter story. I have 12 books to read now between two classess, and usually have to read one entier novel and several short stories (some not so short) a week.

Dark Muse, yes, I agree - too much going on in my life this coming month to be too involved on this forum. It is just temporary, but necessary.

Wow, that much reading is quite demanding. I hated that about school. Why do they assume everyone reads at the same pace? I was a super slow reader and not too quick to this day. I felt like I was penalized for it. Wouldn't it be better, in the long run, to read less and read it well and understand it fully, than cram and read a dozen things? I can't see why teachers can't see this idea and this concept clearly. Even Lawrence said, it was far better to read one book several times, than 100's just once - well, not his exact words but I do agree with the concept. Once, Grace, on this forum told me in a PM that she had to read about 6 Shakespeare plays in a couple of months. What, are these professors crazy? I said it was too much to absorb - they were the really intricate plays, too - one was "Hamlet" - that would take 2 months to discuss.

Anyway, are any of the short stories Lawrence ones? Maybe we could discuss one of your required stories.

[Dark Muse]

Yeah, the one thing that always annoys me, is that sometimes the teachers act as if thier class is the only one you are taking, or the only one that really matters. Though part of the problem for me now is that I am taking night classess, it was the onle time that these classes were held, and night classess only meet once a week, so the classes are longer but they have to cover more mattieral in shorter time compared to classes that meet 2 or 3 times a week as the day classess typicaly do.

Hehe, I wish, the only Lawrence we read was Sons and Lovers at the very begining. Right now we for that class we are doing The Dubliners by Joyce.

And my other class is American Fiction.

[Janine]

Yeah, the one thing that always annoys me, is that sometimes the teachers act as if thier class is the only one you are taking, or the only one that really matters. Though part of the problem for me now is that I am taking night classess, it was the onle time that these classes were held, and night classess only meet once a week, so the classes are longer but they have to cover more mattieral in shorter time compared to classes that meet 2 or 3 times a week as the day classess typicaly do.

I do hate cramming! I can see why now - the night classes would suit me well. I am a night person entirely...can't really think clearly until about 6 o'clock. :D


Hehe, I wish, the only Lawrence we read was Sons and Lovers at the very begining. Right now we for that class we are doing The Dubliners by Joyce.

Sad about Lawrence. If you had read the short stories you would be ahead of the game. I read "Dubliners" and we just had that discussion thread on it last month. I don't think it was that active a thread, though; but, you could check it to see if you could gather some information on the stories, especially as a group.



And my other class is American Fiction.

[Dark Muse]

Sad about Lawrence. If you had read the short stories you would be ahead of the game. I read "Dubliners" and we just had that discussion thread on it last month. I don't think it was that active a thread, though; but, you could check it to see if you could gather some information on the stories, especially as a group.

Hehe yeah, but her calss is mostly novels, exepct of the Dubliners, and my other class is mostly short stories.

But my teacher HATES Lawrence, OMG. And I think most the class did not really care for Sons and Lovers either.

So far The Dubliners is at least better then Portrait of the Artist. I hated reading that the second time, even more thant the first time I read it. It just seemed like pointless dribble.

[Dark Muse]

We had done Sons and Lovers by Lawerence

[Virgil]

No one seems to like Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. I adore it. But I have to admit, I like Dubliners more.

Which Lawrence story are you reading/discussing?

I like Portrait. We had it as a book forum read one month and you can read my thoughts on it here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17101.

But I think Sons and Lovers is the greater work.

I think we're in between stories right now. Waiting on janine to select the next one.

[Janine]

We had done Sons and Lovers by Lawerence

Dark Muse, what are you saying? Wake-up, DM, :eek: This is the "Lawrence Short Story" thread! You must be overworked in school.

Antiquarian, we did discuss "Sons and Lovers", a few months back, but in it's own thread.

And Currently (this month), we have been discussing 'Two Blue-Birds' in this thread and before that 'Sun' and 'The Man Who Loved Islands', and many, many more. See first page of thread up until today.
If you want to read this story, A, it is a short one (it goes along quickly with much dialogue) and you could add your intuitive thoughts to it; OR, if you prefer wait until I pick the next story, which may be posted this monday, or next; depends on if I have the time to read some stories and settle on one, for the next that we will discuss. We could start early, because this story has been pretty well discussed by now, considering all the commentary we have posted.
If you do read "Two Blue Birds', now keep in-mind, this story is not so typical of Lawrence's other stories we discussed; we talked about that fact, in the first few posts of this story discussion; you might want to review. It is much more witty, but quite sardonic.

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, what are you saying? Wake-up, DM, :eek: This is the "Lawrence Short Story" thread! You must be overworked in school.

Sorry I guess I just misunderstood Antiquarian sense we were talking about how I read Portriat in my class, I was saying that we read Sons and Lovers from Lawerence in my class

[Janine]

I like Portrait. We had it as a book forum read one month and you can read my thoughts on it here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17101.

But I think Sons and Lovers is the greater work.

I think we're in between stories right now. Waiting on janine to select the next one.

Virgil, How did you beat me out when I was revising my post to clear that up for A? haha

Antiquarian, be sure and see my post to set you right on all this confusion.

That is ok, DM; I can see how you did that and like I said you are overworked right now. It is just that I did not want A to run away from this thread. You know how I love recruiting new people. :lol:

[Janine]

Thanks, everyone. I need to wake up, too. I know this is the Lawrence Short Story thread and I know Sons and Lovers is a novel. I'll put it down to the rain. LOL

Don't worry about it. We are all a little bit asleep in this thread right now.:yawnb: I am afraid they are all waiting for me to pick the next short story.*sigh sigh*.... I am working on it....honestly I am. I read several the other day, but now I think I might consider some of the ones I read, about a month ago. They are shorter and less complicated. I will PM you, Virgil, to discuss some of the possibilites. I want to see, if you have read any of those. You were so helpful, when I was trying to decide on 'The Blind Man'. Oh, I forgot to mention that story to you, Antiquarian, - that was the one we did just prior to his one; it is a great story, if you have a chance to read it. We all liked it very much. We also loved 'Sun' and 'The Man Who Loved Islands'.

[Janine]

Thanks, Janine. I'll look them up. :)

It would be nice to sit outside and read them this time of year...well, as long as it is not raining.;) Enjoy your reading, Antiquarian. :)

[Virgil]

Virgil, How did you beat me out when I was revising my post to clear that up for A? haha

Janine, I'm really really sneaky. :p


Thanks, Janine. I'll look them up. :)

Anti, on page 85 of this thread between Janine and I we listed the stories that we covered in this thread so far. Plus now "Two Blue Birds." If you wish to read and discuss any of the past stories, I'm open to it. I'm sure if you look through the over 100 pages of this thread you can find our discussion for the story.

[Quark]

We also loved 'Sun' and 'The Man Who Loved Islands'.

I think I missed out on the "Sun" discussion. How did that go? Who was here then?

[Janine]

Janine, I'm really really sneaky. :p

Don't I know it!:lol:


Anti, on page 85 of this thread between Janine and I we listed the stories that we covered in this thread so far. Plus now "Two Blue Birds." If you wish to read and discuss any of the past stories, I'm open to it. I'm sure if you look through the over 100 pages of this thread you can find our discussion for the story.

Gee wiz....don't overwhelm poor Antiquarian, or anything, Virgil .....100 pages and how many posts, is that now??? yikes!

Quark, did you read 'Sun' by any chance? That was a good story. I think it was a few back. Maybe you weren't here then...lady bathing naked on island beach...does this ring a bell? ;) :lol:

I have been meaning to ask you this Quark? Did you say once that you read "The White Peacock" - I read that novel recently; it is rare to find the book and I just wondered how you came across it, and what you thought L's very first published novel? I may have you confused with someone else; let me know.

[Janine]

One hundred pages????? That will take me some time! :) But thank you for being open to a discussion. :)


Antiquarian, you had better stick to the current story or even wait until I announce the next one. A little bit unrealistic, I know, reviewing 100 pages of posts. Haven't we been busy in here??? I think it was our 1000th post when Quark announced it to everyone in 4 inch letters. At first I was trying to figure out what he meant, duh:rolleyes: ....then I realised the 1000th post had flew right by me. I told you this was a very active dedicated group, or I thought I did. We all considered that a pretty good achievement in close to one year's time.

Don't worry, I won't make it a difficult story for our next one, since we all seem rather busy this month, spring and gardening, etc. and someone is going to be a grandmother is maybe 3 short weeks. I have a few ideas and will read some more of the stories Sunday night. I may review one I read tonight that is a good possibiliy.

It is always so good to see my faces in here so welcome again, Antiquarian. You will enjoy this thread very much.

So everyone, just wait patiently and soon the new story will be announced.

[Dark Muse]

I cannot wait to see what it is

[Janine]

I am quoting myself here from an earlier post:


Yes, trying to chose one; so many stories so little time....*sigh, sigh*...hummm.... I know, now that there are more anticipative and anxious people here, I feel that I am being squeezed by pressure 'to pick a good one'. Well, I think they all are good, but I keep trying to pick one that will please all of you. The thing is I don't think I can quess, just how you each will respond, to any of the stories. Therefore, this is a nearly impossible task for my feeble mind. I will eventually, just pick one and you can all decide if you like it or not; if you hate it, you all can beat me up!

haha:lol: I thought you all might beat me up on this last one, especially you, DM!:lol: BUT, guess how many posts we accomplished on this little story? I count 11 pages, since I posted the introduction on the 31 of last month - see my post #1296. That post introduction might also be good for you to read, Antiquarian, should you read the story 'Two Blue Birds'.

Remember, DM, how we discussed that the blue bird was not a true bluebird but a twit. I realised that Lawrence's title kind of indicates that by the two words 'Blue' and 'Bird' being separated. I thought that was interesting enough to add as a final comment.

Also, I really liked the story, but then I like them all. It was somewhat of a departure from Lawrence's other stories so I found it quite interesting.

[Pensive]

Are we going to read 'Two Blue Birds'? Sounds interesting to me...

[Virgil]

One hundred pages????? That will take me some time! :) But thank you for being open to a discussion. :)

Well I didn't mean for you to read the whol hundred pages of this thread. I meant if you liked a story that we've already covered, you could read the discussion on that one story. Each story probably has less than eight pages of this thread.

[Virgil]

I know, Virgil. I'm just teasing you a bit. :) Actually, all the stories sound interesting.

Try "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." That's my favorite. :)

[Janine]

Hi Everybody! It is me, late posting as usual....you know...I needed my beauty sleep...:lol: I stayed up reading/reviewing Lawrence stories.



Try "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." That's my favorite. :)

It is funny, Virgil, that one is your favorite and I think that one is my least favorite now, looking back over the list. Crazy, huh? We usually agree....well, not on the novels either... really...your fav is "The Rainbow" and mine is still "Women in Love"...and I am still listening to the audio MP3 file and loving it; I stopped temporarily and the player does mark the spot, but the little player once again ran out of power, so I need to charge it. Anyway, I got hung up on other things. Of course, I did read WIL three times by now!

One story - the first we posted is "Things" and I recall that we did not have our momentum then and we hardly discussed it. This actually is one of my favoritie Lawrence stories. Antiquarian, if you have the chance today, read that one, too. It is not that long. Do you have a book of L's short stories,A?


Antiquarian, thanks for listing all the stories discussed; in a minute I am going over my list and see if any are missed. I think there are maybe one or two more. We should post the this list from time to time, as a sort of 'announcement' that these are the ones in this thread, that have been discussed....for the benefit of newcomers to the thread. That way if they care to read them, they know the commentary is here, for their use.



Sorry, Pensive, we just read and discussed "Two Blue Birds". In fact, Virgil, I counted and we filled up 11 pages on this one!
Amazing, isnt' it?

I will be back in a minute. I am checking my book.....

[Janine]

Antiquarian, you win the prize! You did list them all, great! Your list threw me off, because they were in a different order than we discussed them, but I believe they are all there. Good job and this is very helpful to us all. So we are up to 11 discussed. That is pretty decent, I think. We all made a great effort in this thread. Thanks everyone!

I just checked the book and I see I have now read about 6 others, but I am still undecided. I will make a choice tonight and post it tomorrow. I know you all want to keep moving along, and so do I.

Quote by Antiquarian

Looking forward to whatever story you choose, Janine.


Antiquarian, thanks for your vote of confidence. I always worry I will pick a story everyone will hate, but so far that has never happened...thank heaven.

I have to go out today and do more errands...hummm....I wonder if I could strap the book to my steering wheel; I guess if cell phones are illegal, 'reading' would definitely be, too. *sigh*eeeekkkk*....what a dumb notion...one can only 'multitask' to an extent. I wish I had the stories on audio CD's; then I could listen in the car. I could read them into my MP3 player but that would hardly save me anytime.

Oh, a thought just came to me, maybe I can fit in a trip to Barnes and Noble today! Yeah...

[Quark]

I have been meaning to ask you this Quark? Did you say once that you read "The White Peacock" - I read that novel recently; it is rare to find the book and I just wondered how you came across it, and what you thought L's very first published novel? I may have you confused with someone else; let me know.

I didn't read all of it, but I did skim through part of it one day I was in my university library. My school had a copy of it on shelf, and I was curious. I brought it up before because it has much to do with society's infringement on private experience, and I was making some point or other along those lines.

[Janine]

I didn't read all of it, but I did skim through part of it one day I was in my university library. My school had a copy of it on shelf, and I was curious. I brought it up before because it has much to do with society's infringement on private experience, and I was making some point or other along those lines.

Ah ha...then it was you, Quark, ....interesting. You probably mentioned it when we discussed "Sons and Lovers". There are some stunningly beautiful passages in "The White Peacock" - descriptions of nature and the woodlands, that just take your breath away. I am always meaning to post some of them on the forum somewhere. I wish I could find someone who read the whole book to discuss it with. It is an early work of L's. I think he was only in his early 20's, when he wrote it...still I think it has merit, although flawed and I would even read it again. Not as polished and complete as his other works, but it shows the young thoughts in L's head that would later take root in other significant works, which is highly interesting to me, at least. I did not regret buying it for my L collection. I have over 20 plus books now; can you believe it?

[Virgil]

No, Janine, I don't have a volume of Lawrence's short stories, but I'd like to get one on Monday. Can you suggest one? Thanks! :) And thank you for the other suggestion. I'll look for it online and print it out until I get a book.

Anti, Lawrence's Complete short stories come in paperback, three volumes I'm afraid. I think Penguin publishes them. If you find the paperbacks it's not too expensive.


Virgil, I printed out "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" and I loved the story.

I liked the fact that it wasn't a romantic story in any sense. Not really.
No it's not romantic in the usual sense. It's really a good introduction to Lawrence's themes. If you read pages 2 through 6 or 7 of this thread you'll see our discussion on this story.


I did notice that Lawrence used "horsy terms" to describe Mabel's three brothers. A touch of humor, perhaps? Joe is described as "...broad and handsome in a hot, flushed way" and having "...a sensual way of uncovering his teeth when he laughed." Fred Henry was "...erect, clean -limbed, alert" and "...carried himself with a well-tempered air of mastery." A very different kind of horse from Joe, but still, a horse. Later, Joe even "...straddled his knees with a downward jerk, to get them free, in horsy fashion, and went to the fire." And he "...stood with his knees stuck out, in real horsy fashion."
:lol: Yes, actually you found more than I ever noticed. ;)


I think a turning point in the story comes when Mabel visits her mother's grave. Lawrence writes: "Mindless and persistent, she seemed in a sort of ecstasy to be coming nearer to her fulfillment, her own glorification, aproaching her dead mother, who was glorified." This, of course, seems to foreshadow Mabel's suicide attempt. As well as this: "For the life she followed here in the world was far less real than the world of death she inherited from her mother." This line also tells me Mabel isn't quite emotionally healthy.
That graveyard scene really holds the key to the story.


I really don't understand Dr. Fergusson's change of heart. He admits he had absolutely no feelings of love for Mabel prior to her suicide attempt and his rescue of her, yet watching her tend her mother's grave, prior to her suicide attempt, he thinks, "It seemd to mesmerize him. There was a heavy power in her eyes which laid hold of his whole being, as if he had drunk some powerful drug. He had been feeling weak and done before. Now the life came back into him, he felt delivered from his own fretted, daily self."
I see Dr. Ferguson as having a similar internal crises as Mabel, but his activity in the world masks or holds off the a sterility that makes life worthless.


After Dr. Fergusson pulls Mabel from the pond, fire and warmth seem to be a symbol of rebirth, for both of them. Rebirth or life or perhaps awakening. Fergusson thinks: "But there was another desire in him. And she seemed to hold him. His will seemed to have gone to sleep, and left him, standing there slack before her. But he felt warm inside himself. He did not shudder at all, though his clothes were sodden on him."
I agree.


Later: "It was as if she had the life of his body in her hands, and he could not extricate himself. Or perhaps he did not want to." "His soul seemed to melt." "He had never thought of loving her. He had never wanted to love her. And yet - and yet - he had not the power to break away." "In view of the delicate flame which seemed to come from her face like a light, he was powerless." "A flame seemed to burn the hand that grasped her soft shoulder." And there are more references to heat and flame and fire.

Later: "Only now it had become indispensable to him to have her face pressed close to him; he could never let her go again. He could never let her head go away from the close clutch of his arm. He wanted to remain like that forever."
That is beautiful. :)


I liked the story very, very much, but remember, I have not read Lawrence, so have no frame of reference.

I felt bad for Mabel, primarily because of her mother's death and Mabel's extraordinary closeness to her, but I couldn't like Mabel. There was something so strange in Fergusson as well. One does not "fall in love" that quickly and that easily. Or perhaps I just don't have enough of the romantic in me. I don't for one second believe in "love at first sight." I believe love grows, with careful tending and care, over a long period of time. This didn't seem to be lust, either. Perhaps Fergusson felt responsible for Mabel because he saved her life? I know people sometimes form an inordinate attachment to someone they've saved from death.
Lawrence would not go for love at first sight type of love either. I think the key to the characters is the dead world in which they live and the rebirth of finding someone who can piece back the fragments.


All in all, I really enjoyed the story and am looking forward to whatever Janine chooses. I'm sure I'll love it.
Well, welcome to our Lawrence group. :)

[Janine]

This post only refers to the first story you read, Antiquarian...I did not see you sneak in there with the second one. Both of your posts were excellent and very intuitive. Going back to read the older posts, would give you much insight into "Odour of Chrysanthamums" - that is a very early Lawrence story and it has biographical significance as well. It was all brought up in the posts. We discussed that one quite a bit. It is just so sad you did not discover this thread earlier. Hey, better late than never. We did do some great stories so far. If you adored 'Odour of Chryanthamums' you will love "Sons and Lovers". I will post more comments on your second story reading soon, that is unless Virgil beats me to it. It definitely does contain much symbolism (and you have very intuitively picked much of it out, good job, A). I believe the use of the color 'red' refers to Lawrence's 'blood philosophy', which can't be explained easily to you right now...it is complicated, complex. If you read those old posts you will get a better sense of all of this -symbolism, transfiguration, symbolism, Christ references, etc....these are very much part of the whole Lawrencian way of thinking.

Antiquarian, I was going to suggest the same thing that you go and read the posts, because if you do, you will understand Lawrence's way of thinking better in conjunction with this story. It has much to do with his idea of 'transfiguration', isn't that right, Virgil? This is something Virgil introduced to me, awhile back, in Lawrence's work; this being due to his well researched thesis on the subject in L's later works. 'The Horse-Dealer's Daughter' is in Volume 3 of the "Complete Short Stories" of D.H.Lawrence, so therefore it falls somewhere in-between Lawrence's full development of the idea.

Now that you have been talking about the story and refreshing my mind, I don't think I want to stand by my earlier statement that "it was my least favorite" - but it was still not my favorite; probably because of the reasons you pointed out about believing the validity of the love at the end. I do think the end leaves one with a sense of wondering, though, if it will indeed work out for the two. I think it is slightly open-ended or so I debated this way back in those discussion pages, if my memory serves me right.

Antiquarian, I agree with Virgil, I like how you pointed out the horse references in regard to Mabel's brothers - that was quite interesting and YES, Lawrence certainly did have a good 'sense of humor', from the accounts I have read in his biographies.

A, I am so glad you liked the story and enjoyed reading it. Lawrence's work is descriptively beautiful and always full of imagery and many times lovely references to nature. I know the more you read of him, the more you will like his style and work. He is not sentimental or romantic but in many ways to me, at least I feel more 'romantic' reading his work, than blantantly romantic novelists. I think it is all in the way one defines romance. Same applies to love. As in the Chekhov thread I think Lawrence would agree that 'love is a great mystery'.

Antiquarian, About 'The Complete Short Stories" - this has always been the difficulty. I know they are published by Penquin and also by Viking, but I am not too sure this complete set is still in print. Quark tried to order some L books from B&N and found each book cost about $30. I was lucky to own Volume 3 (paperback) for some time; last year I filled in the set and ordered a used copy of Volume 1 and the seller threw in free Volume 2 - needless to say Volume 2 is falling appart....oh well, I can't complain - that one was free and it is still readable. Seriously, I didn't lose out, I bought them from an independent Amazon seller in the "new and used' section and they have served my purposes just fine. I looked recently for Quarkin those listings and saw a number of sellers offering them and they were pretty reasonable; way more reasonable than the $30 fee at B&N. I would buy them used from a good Amazon seller with 98% plus feedback rating. You might be able to find one seller selling all three and get combined shipping, who knows...but it is worth a try.

[Virgil]

I don't have much time left tonight, but here Anti, amazon and the complete short stories:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-0327124-0813441?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=complete+short+stories+Lawrence

[Quark]

I did not understand the significance of the color red, which is mentioned so many times in the story. Walter is not injured, at least not visibly. He's not cut. He did not bleed during his dying. Maybe you, or someone else, can shed some light on the significance of all the uses of the color red. All the mention of it. (I can go back and find your discussion as well.) Perhaps it signifies passion? I don't know, I just know I was struck by the many times red is mentioned.

Wasn't red linked to life or vitality? I think both red and fire were used this way in the story. I remember fire symbolizing life very clearly, but I'm not so sure about the color red. What was the color used to describe?

[Janine]

I don't have much time left tonight, but here Anti, amazon and the complete short stories:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-0327124-0813441?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=complete+short+stories+Lawrence

Virgil and Antiquarian, I just looked at that Amazon list, but I am not sure about that first one - it really does not state what it contains - here is the direct link - http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Short-Stories-D-H-Lawrence/dp/0965445674/ref=sr_1_1?

This is a publisher I have not heard of and it says it has 800 plus pages. One seller has it for $8.88 new, but beware he only has 95% pos feedback. The others are in the various volumes 1, 2, 3. If this first one is complete then it would be a good buy, I guess, and there are other sellers, all that are reasonable are used. Some have creased on the front cover.

Quark, that is true what you said about the fire, but I think the red does symbolise blood and L's blood philosophy. Virgil can explain this far better than I can.

[Janine]

:lol:
Thank you Janine, Virgil, and Quark. I just read your discussion posts. Very, very interesting and enlightening.

Oh, good; then you found those helpful? Glad we could be of service.:)


Quark, the color red was used to describe many things in the story, but mostly the fire, I think. At one point, even the chrysanthemums were said to be "reddish-brown" before they were described a "pink." I found it significant that one of the men broke the vase of chrysanthemums when carrying Walter's body into the parlour.

Yes, the vase breaking was very significant and symbolic. I forget now just what we said about that; I am sure we covered it way back then. I should review those posts myself.
Antiquarian, I just bought an early Lawrence play on DVD (adaptation) and it is called "The Widowing of Mrs. Holryod" and as I was viewing it I realised it is almost identical to the short story. It was a very good play and interesting to see it played out with real people and characters - especially the washing of the body, as you pointed out so much like the washing of Christ's body.



Virgil, thank you for the link.

Janine, I have Sons and Lovers on my shelf. :) I'll have to read it soon, as I did love "Odour of Chrysanthemums."


Antiquarian, how funny, 4 of us are online now, we all have green lights, did you notice? Hey, where is Dark Muse? We can hardly keep up with each other! I know you will love "Sons and Lovers" - one can't easily forget that novel ever.

[Quark]

I don't have much time left tonight, but here Anti, amazon and the complete short stories:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-0327124-0813441?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=complete+short+stories+Lawrence

Thanks for the link, Virgil. Amazon always has a good selection, and you can't beat the prices. One of the books on that page is listed as $0.01 and up. The penny Lawrence is probably in bad shape; but, as long as all the pages are there, I don't care if it was run over by a tank. All I need are the stories.


Quark, the color red was used to describe many things in the story, but mostly the fire, I think. At one point, even the chrysanthemums were said to be "reddish-brown" before they were described a "pink." I found it significant that one of the men broke the vase of chrysanthemums when carrying Walter's body into the parlour.

Oh, then I think I'm right about the connection between red and life. What did you make of the flowers, though?

[Janine]

Thanks for the link, Virgil. Amazon always has a good selection, and you can't beat the prices. One of the books on that page is listed as $0.01 and up. The penny Lawrence is probably in bad shape; but, as long as all the pages are there, I don't care if it was run over by a tank. All I need are the stories.

Quark, you are a riot! Can the book have splatterings of coffee on it, too? ;) Oh my goodness - you will buy a wreck of a book and pay $3.95 shipping for a 1 cent book. You might find you have to glue the whole thing back together again.:lol: I have to go and check that list out again. By the way, Q, when do I get my Chekhov addition you so generously offered me? I am still working on your CD's. My burner is acting up and can't burn the last one yet. They are in the making though.


Oh, then I think I'm right about the connection between red and life. What did you make of the flowers, though?

I think we all need to go back and read our former posts. We don't seem to recall just what we said about the red or the fire.

[Quark]

Can the book have splatterings of coffee on it, too? ;) Oh my goodness - you will buy a wreck of a book and pay $3.95 shipping for a 1 cent book. You might find you have to glue the whole thing back together again.:lol:

They would charge some egregious amount for shipping, wouldn't they? $3.96 is still not bad, though. It's definitely better than the $35 estimate I got at my bookstore.


I have to go and check that list out again. By the way, Q, when do I get my Chekhov addition you so generously offered me? I am still working on your CD's. My burner is acting up and can't burn the last one yet. They are in the making though.

Well you never gave me your address. I can't just write "Jersey" on the envelope and expect it to go anywhere. Plus, I'm not sure if I should be surrendering my book before I get the CD's. Where are they? If you don't hurry, I might grow attached to my book and call the deal off.


I think we all need to go back and read our former posts. We don't seem to recall just what we said about the red or the fire.

Did I just contradict myself, or something? We did discuss it, and I think I'm reciting our conclusion--if we did reach one.

[Dark Muse]

Well if you live anywhere near any mom and pop type of bookstores, that deal in buying and selling of old/used books, I have a few stores like that around here where I get most all my books for. And the most exepsnivie I pay for a book there is 6$ on average they are usually around 3 and 4. And if you have any old books you don't want anymore you can trade them in for store credit.

[islandclimber]

Ah ha...then it was you, Quark, ....interesting. You probably mentioned it when we discussed "Sons and Lovers". There are some stunningly beautiful passages in "The White Peacock" - descriptions of nature and the woodlands, that just take your breath away. I am always meaning to post some of them on the forum somewhere. I wish I could find someone who read the whole book to discuss it with. It is an early work of L's. I think he was only in his early 20's, when he wrote it...still I think it has merit, although flawed and I would even read it again. Not as polished and complete as his other works, but it shows the young thoughts in L's head that would later take root in other significant works, which is highly interesting to me, at least. I did not regret buying it for my L collection. I have over 20 plus books now; can you believe it?

well... this is quite funny... I read this book several years ago, and until you mentioned it here I would not for the life of me have recalled that it was by Lawrence... I really loved his descriptions of nature and the woodlands too.. and the book on the whole I loved.. I like books sometimes that are flawed to a greater degree, are a bit rough around the edges, touched by some youthful sentiments and ideas.. polished isn't always the best in my opinion... someday I would discuss it with you if you wanted, though for now, time is at a premium for me....

speaking of nature, when I was rock climbing this evening just before dark, I had a bat fly right of the crack I was climbing... I had my hand buried in the crack and a bat flew almost right into my fast, a couple inches over my head, it almost made me fall... and at 80 ft up the cliff it was a good thing I was climbing with a rope:D

well, this brief return is drawing to an end... work beckons with dark and dismal fingers, and I have not the power to say no... oh well... I will be back someday...

[Janine]

The play sounds very interesting, Janine. If I ever see it, I will pick it up, providing it's not too expensive. I am anxious to read Sons and Lovers now. I read novels and short stories at the same time, so I'll probably read it as soon as I finish with the novel I'm working my way through.

Antiquarian, I bought the play from Amazon recently, but of course, it is not for everyone; I buy all that I can afford of L's work if it interests me. In fact, today I got something new in the mail, really a 'used' book from and an Amazon seller: Lawrence's "Phoenix - The Posthumus Papers", which I have been tracking down now for a good year. It came in used but fairly good condition, so I am thrilled. One more book to add to my extensive L collection. Do you think I will ever get around to reading all of these? I will try.

"The Widowing of Mrs. Holyroyd" is an older play, that was shown on public and network television. The play stars Geraldine Fizgerald, Joyce Ebert, Rex Robbins and Frank Converse. On the back of the DVD it states, this was originally staged for the theatre by The Long Wharf Theatre.

I felt the acting was very fine and intense. It differs from the short story, in that it also includes a third party, a young man who is friends of the family and the wife, especially. This added element complicates the situation, as you can imagine; I suppose Lawrence took the story one step further in the play, although I think the short story brings out more of the symbolism, and the inner dialogue of the woman, which is not as apparent in the play.

I found the complete text of the play online and I will send you the link, so you can read it first. I did not read it yet, but I plan to and then watch the play again. The play DVD was produced by Kultur and if you go to their website; www.Kultur.com Don't buy it yet; I will email you with more information; a hair's breath away from finishing you email, last night, but had to quit and go to bed, was super late. We might be able to work something out.

Oh, you will love it, Antiquarian. I recently directed islandclimber to the site and he said he loved it and would buy some of the things he saw there, but probably by tracking them down from Amazon. You can find them much cheaper on A. The site produces DVD's of noted Operas, Ballets, Orchestras, Plays, etc....the arts.

Hi Everyone I seriously am working on posting the next story. I am still a little undecided and want to review a few more before I post. I got held up last night and did not review all that I hoped to. I did reread one but still I am not sure about that one, although I may pick it, even though it seems to be a simpler story to me. All that I read I enjoyed and thought they were quite good. I will try to post later tonight and if I don't make that deadline I will post it tomorrow. Sorry for this short delay.

In the meantime, and during my researching for a new story, I happened to look in the back of my Michael Black commentary book in the notes and found this, which may directly correspond to the idea of the color 'red' in the story "Odour of Chrysanthemums" and other stories where 'blood' and 'red' is mentioned throughout Lawrence texts. This is a footnote:

From "D.H.LAWRENCE The Early Fiction" by Michael Black:


Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and deperately wicked: who can know it?

Cruden defined the Biblical heart: 'The word heart is used in Scriptures as the seat of life or strength; hence it means mind, soul, spirit, or one's entire emotional nature and understanding. It is also used as the centre or inner part of a 'thing'. This is an important instance of the consonance of Lawrence's way of using words like heart or blood, and the Biblical network of meanings.

Quote in a Lawrence letter:

"My great religion is a belief in the blood, the flesh, as being wiser than the intellect. We can go wrong in our minds. But what our blood feels and believes and says, is always true. The intellect is only a bit and a bridle. What do I care about knowledge. All I want is to answer to my blood, direct, without fribbling intervention of mind, or moral, or what not."

This is a letter, we remember; written swiftly as an expression of the moment's mood, and not on oath. So, it is free and emphatic and without afterthought. We, reading now, may have our own afterthoughts before we start taking this as a rule of life. For the moment however, it is worth saying that direct access to the association process, and the fictions in their larger aspect, give us a sense of what is meant by the 'blood'.
Then Black goes on to show some stories as examples; then he proceeds:

...;we reflect that the artist speaks in the letter, and has told us not to trust him, but to 'trust the tale'. The artist, however, continues in his vein of central utterance, and veers into ofn of this great metaphors:
"I conceive a man's body as a kind of flame, like a candle flame forever upright and yet flowing: and the intellect is just the light that is shed onbto the things around. And I am not so much concerned with the things around; --which is really mind: --but with the mystery of the flame forever flowing, coming God knows how from our of practically nowhere, and being itself, whateve there is around it, that it lights up. We have got so ridiculously mindful, that we never know that we ourselves are anything -- we think there are only the objects we shine upon. And thre the poor flame goes burning ignored, to produce this light. And instead of chasing the mystery in the fugitive, hald lighted things outside us, we ought to look at ourselves, and say 'My God, I am myself!"

I shall show that the candle-flame, golden and warm, associated with the sweetness of honey and the warmth of the sun, is a cardinal point to which Lawrence's compass naturally sets. It is opposed in Lawrence's associative world to the fierce white light of the pressure lamp, to the coldness of moonlight, and the corrosive power of salt glittering in the light like the pillar which once was Lot's wife. The cold white light is indentified with mind, and the warm gold one with being.

This commentary with excerpts from Lawrence's early letters says so much and I think it can apply to a number of the stories we read so far. I am thinking of not only 'Odour of Chysanthemums' but also, 'The Prussian Officer', 'Sun' and 'The Man Who Loved Islands'....also to note is the reference of the pillar of salt in relation to the story 'Two Blue Birds.

In relation to 'O of C', I would say, that this pretty well describes the difference in the warm 'red' color and the cold 'white' color of the flowers/the light. Now, Antiquarian, you can see the significance. Didn't you say there were two colors of flowers? I will have to look that up in the story. I know the lantern light is a start contrast to the impending darkness, and used to contrast and represent the deeper elements in the story. Now I see the significance of the stark light and the breaking of the lamp - wasn't the lamp globe broken, as well as the vase? It has been awhile since I read that story, so please forgive my poor memory. In the play, the lamp globe and the vase both are broken.

Hope all of this helps your greater understanding of Lawrence and how he wrote and thought. This is only a short introduction and Lawrence, of course is much more complex than this and than can be put down in only one post.

[Janine]

well... this is quite funny... I read this book several years ago, and until you mentioned it here I would not for the life of me have recalled that it was by Lawrence... I really loved his descriptions of nature and the woodlands too.. and the book on the whole I loved.. I like books sometimes that are flawed to a greater degree, are a bit rough around the edges, touched by some youthful sentiments and ideas.. polished isn't always the best in my opinion... someday I would discuss it with you if you wanted, though for now, time is at a premium for me....

speaking of nature, when I was rock climbing this evening just before dark, I had a bat fly right of the crack I was climbing... I had my hand buried in the crack and a bat flew almost right into my fast, a couple inches over my head, it almost made me fall... and at 80 ft up the cliff it was a good thing I was climbing with a rope:D

well, this brief return is drawing to an end... work beckons with dark and dismal fingers, and I have not the power to say no... oh well... I will be back someday...

Quark, islandclimber and Dark Muse, sorry I did not see you post; I was busy with my long post and typing out all that stuff from my reference book; I hope you all can take the time to read it. I think this will shed some light on many things we have discussed lately and before in each story.

Dark Muse, I love to puruse used-book stores and even thrift-stores for books; you never know what you will find. It is such an adventure.


Quark, I will send you my address, so you don't change your mind. But seriously, if you really want to keep that book, that is fine with me. I can order a used one from Amazon, if you just tell me which one to get. I am working on the CD's; didn't you read my post? I said my burner program is not working correctly right now, so I have to work on my computer, reducing hard-drive space to clear up the problem. I have 2 of the Chekhov set burned for both you and for Virgil, so far. I told islandclimber I would send him a set too, and that is when the burner started to not burn. I have had this problem before, and feel sure I can solve it, given a little time. It is some problem in the program - some quirk. I can send you the first two CD's I have burned, if you want. Most of the stories are on those - 'In the Ravine' only, I believe, is on Disc three.

islandclimber, glad to see you back. Wow, that is some story - truly scary. You had better be careful. Bats and climbing together could be dangerous. I would hate to see you get hurt or worse. Here I thought you ran off for good; or you might have fallen off - heaven forbid it! We miss you here. I hope you can find time to stop back soon. How interesting that you read "The White Peacock" - how did you manage to find the book? I simply loved it, even knowing it to be imperfect. I thought the woodland and field passages were just breath-taking. I loved especially the part about the bird's nest in the hollow of the cow's hoof prints in the mud, out in the field; I adored the passage with the snowdrops, as well. Someone did a study of how many flowers and fauna Lawrence mentions in that novel and it was phenomenal! Lawrence was a avid student of botany. He just loved flowers and plants so passionately and it shows in his descriptions. This probably early on sprung, from his mother's passion for her beloved rose garden; he would help her gardening and he loved roses. I read this very touching passage, he wrote in a letter, when he was quite young, and he mentions that he is outside their house, sitting under the liliac bush. I actually got goosebumps reading it, because the description was so vivid and personal that one felt one knew him on an intimate level; also because of the fact, that liliacs are my favorite flowers. :) To me that novel has some of the loveliest passages Lawrence ever wrote and to think he was so young when he composed it. He was such a natural talent and genius.

[Janine]

Quark could write "Janine, Jersey" on the address label if he was into taking chances. :lol: Who knows? Things have made it to their destination with less. But I'm just being silly.

Oh, that is a good one - like there is only one Janine in all of tiny New Jersey! :lol: hey, or he could write 'Jersey Janine' on the envelop - it has a nice ring to it. I should use that for a user name on some site.

Antiquarian, I just saw this as I was writing another post. I can't keep up with everyone. No wonder I am lagging behind in picking a story.


Hi Janine,

Thanks for the link and I am very interested in the play, considering how much I love "Odour of Chrysanthemums." (Why can't I write like that? LOL) And I do like Geraldine Fitzgerald.

Hi Antiquarian! Glad you liked the link. You will enjoy that site. It will give you tons of idea of great productions to look for on Amazon. I want to get more myself. There are many plays and I like some of the Operas I have seen before on tape only and hope to own someday. I do own a number of the Kultur DVD's and like them very much: Madame Butterfly, Tosca, some of the ballets, etc. Yeah, really...why can't any of us write like that? I guess the answer is we are not pure genius like L was. It was natural, I am sure, for him from a very early age. Read "Sons and Lovers", A, and you will get a window into his early life. The story is mostly biographical with some differences of course. We can discuss the parellels when you do read it. I know the biographies well by now and what is the fiction and what is based on truth. The story will take you in. You will love it.


Oh, take your time on the email. Email is not fun if it's not relaxed.

I know, but I had some much and I was falling behind I was determined to finish up a few, yours was longer than I though, A.;) not complaining since I write novels to people - poor recipricants!:lol:


Thanks for the commentary from Black. It helps a lot toward understanding the stories more fully.

I just love that Michael Black book. It is well worth buying if you really are into Lawrence's work. I get so much out of that book and his commentaries. I wish he had written one on the later work, also. I am glad that bit helped you to understand; but seriously, that is only the tip of the iceberg.


I think the lamp globe was broken, Janine, as well as the vase. The chrysanthemums were described as "reddish-brown" and as "pink."

Yes, I am not quite sure what to make of the two colors - 'reddish-brown' and 'pink'. I think someone said in our discussion that 'reddish-brown' is the color of dried blood; so that could be significant. I think 'pink' might indicate life and the dried blood indicate death. I am only conjecturing. The broken vase might symbolise the man's broken body. I think the decay of the flowers is important and indicates death like ashes and the burning away for new life to blossom - perhaps the 'pink'....one new life and one dying old life.



I like Lawrence more and more and more. Oh my gosh, I can see it now; you will become addicted just like me! ;) :D

[Quark]

Well if you live anywhere near any mom and pop type of bookstores, that deal in buying and selling of old/used books, I have a few stores like that around here where I get most all my books for.

Mom and pop do everything in my town besides sell books. There are mom and pop grocery stores, restaurants, car dealerships, craft shops, funeral homes, but no used book stores. I've been to stores like the one you describe--and I felt like Marco Polo making bargains in the Orient--but I've never actually lived close to one.


Quark could write "Janine, Jersey" on the address label if he was into taking chances. :lol: Who knows? Things have made it to their destination with less. But I'm just being silly.

That would be silly. I don't think the mailman would get the joke, though, and we're already on hostile terms after I hounded him for two months when my letters from grad schools were arriving.


Yes, I am not quite sure what to make of the two colors - 'reddish-brown' and 'pink'. I think someone said in our discussion that 'reddish-brown' is the color of dried blood; so that could be significant. I think 'pink' might indicate life and the dried blood indicate death. I am only conjecturing. The broken vase might symbolise the man's broken body. I think the decay of the flowers is important and indicates death like ashes and the burning away for new life to blossom - perhaps the 'pink'....one new life and one dying old life.

The pink or brownish-red flowers are puzzling, but the vase crashing is easier to understand. It breaks when they're carrying in the husband's body, so it's connected with his death and everything that represents: the end of their relationship, the end of his life, the end of her illusions about their marriage. All these things are brought to mind by the shattering vase.

[Janine]

Mom and pop do everything in my town besides sell books. There are mom and pop grocery stores, restaurants, car dealerships, craft shops, funeral homes, but no used book stores. I've been to stores like the one you describe--and I felt like Marco Polo making bargains in the Orient--but I've never actually lived close to one.

Oh poor poor Quark .....:bawling:



That would be silly. I don't think the mailman would get the joke, though, and we're already on hostile terms after I hounded him for two months when my letters from grad schools were arriving.

Somehow I can picture that.:lol:


The pink or brownish-red flowers are puzzling, but the vase crashing is easier to understand. It breaks when they're carrying in the husband's body, so it's connected with his death and everything that represents: the end of their relationship, the end of his life, the end of her illusions about their marriage. All these things are brought to mind by the shattering vase.

Quark, my post #1499 may have faded into obscurity....it is on the page, prior to this one. Go back and read the parts I quoted from the Michael Black book, if you have not already done so. This might cast some light on the significance of the color 'warm' red, like blood (life) and the 'cold' white, the light (death).
Yes, I agree - the broken vase is pretty obvious in it's meaning.

[Janine]

The chrysanthemums were "reddish-brown" in the beginning, I think, Janine, then they were referred to as "pink." Perhaps this signifies a move from life to death, or maybe we're reading too much into this? I sometimes wonder if authors consciously write all the symbols into their fiction that we extricate or if some of it is done on a subconscious level. I know when I write, some of the symbolism is written subconsciously, but then, I'm not a terrific writer. LOL

Antiquarian, yes, that could be true of some authors and their critics (I have even thought as much myself), but I do not think it is true of Lawrence's work. His work is filled with tons of symbolism; I believe and so do most scholars that this was quite intentional and not subconscious, on the part of Lawrence. I think the mere fact he named this story 'Odour of Chrysantemums' indicates just how important the flowers are to the ideas in the story - those of death and rebirth. Why did he choose a chrysantemum which is a perennial and not an annual, which when dead would have remained dead? It seems to me the 'chrysantemum' symbolises the whole idea of autumn and the idea of eternal rest for the miner; but of course, I could be wrong. I might even be contadicting myself, not sure now. I have more inmind the idea of death not being the 'end all', but the beginning of rebirth beyond an earthly body....there is biblical references in the story, as you so efficently pointed out to us. I think all the symbols in this story give us hints - such as the two women washing the body like the body of Christ.

Ok, then this change in color might symbolise the idea of the dying down or dying out and then the rebirth. That was a constant Lawrence theme. His symbol was the phoenix bird, who dies and burns down to ash; then rises from the ashes to be reborn. I believe also the mother of the dead miner refers to his skin as still pink as a baby's. At least I recall that from the play I saw.

[Janine]

Hi Everyone, It is me again with an announcement.

Please forgive me; I still have not settled on a story and I will have to delay until Wednesday, because I am not feeling that well tonight. I think it is just seasonal allergies that is getting me down, and I am excessively tired out and my sinus' are bothing me greatly. I want to take the time tonight and tomorrow night to review, what I read in the short stories and I want to read one more for consideration. Then on Wednesday I promise to post the new story and write something briefly to introduce it.

I talked to Virgil and he does not mind the delay at all; in fact, he felt we should take the whole month off; but I did not want to do that, since everyone is now excited and enthused and ready for the next story....so am I, as well.

[Janine]

I don't like to disagree with Virgil, Janine, but I don't really want to take a whole month off. Now, a week wouldn't bother me. I have "catching up reading" to do and then looking up the posts anyway. But take your time and I hope you feel better soon. Just for myself, I can print out the stories you've already read and read them myself in the interim. And I still have to get a Lawrence short story book.

Antiquarian, I did not agree with Virgil about that either. I want to continue. We have a momentum here I would not want to lose and taking off even one month would lose it and the thread would fall into obscurity that quickly. It took too much work to build this thread up and make it a success. At least I feel it is a great success so far. I would rather delay till Wed. and better review the stories so I pick one that please you all of you or at least attempts to. I also need to prepare my little introduction to the story. I have read a number of L's short stories lately but now they have become a muddle and I need to sort all this out. A few were too long and involved for right now but they will be great possibilities for later on.



I did not think chrysanthemums had any odor at all. The ones I've had didn't, or it was very, very slight. I don't think they're known for having an odor.

We did discuss that fact awhile back in the posts. I can't now recall just what we came up with for the significance of them being a flower with no odour. I believe there was something I found that was documented on the reason L picked those. I am sorry my memory does not serve me to remember why he would pick an odourless flower and then call it the title he did. Perhaps that was a kind of irony. Maybe Virgil, Quark or Dark Muse will remember why?


Thank you for the information regarding Lawrence and symbolism. I love symbolism in novels and short stories.

Well, I only know this much about the symbolism, etc, because I have read tons of commentary on Lawrence offline in books and online as well. You probably could run a search on 'Odour of Chyrsantemums' and find some online, too. I just joined a site called "Blackwell Synergy" and you have assess to tons of good commentary on authors and all kinds of things. I have been wanting to sign-up, since I always run into this site when researching Lawrence and Chekhov, too. It is free to join. I hope it proves helpful, for all of us.
Glad all the extras, I have written, have given you more insight into Lawrence, A. I hope I can continue to help. I always so happy to share Lawrence information. I dig up a lot and love to share it with others.

Tried to get to the last part of your email and then just could not finish it again. There is always tomorrow - right?

[Dark Muse]

We did discuss that fact awhile back in the posts. I can't now recall just what we came up with for the significance of them being a flower with no odour. I believe there was something I found that was documented on the reason L picked those. I am sorry my memory does not serve me to remember why he would pick an odourless flower and then call it the title he did. Perhaps that was a kind of irony. Maybe Virgil, Quark or Dark Muse will remember why?

LOL you keep forgetting, I was not here when you dicussed that story.

[Quark]

Quark, my post #1499 may have faded into obscurity....it is on the page, prior to this one. Go back and read the parts I quoted from the Michael Black book, if you have not already done so. This might cast some light on the significance of the color 'warm' red, like blood (life) and the 'cold' white, the light (death).

Yes, but I thought the colors were reddish-brown and pink, not red and white.


I am sorry my memory does not serve me to remember why he would pick an odourless flower and then call it the title he did. Perhaps that was a kind of irony. Maybe Virgil, Quark or Dark Muse will remember why?

We mentioned it before in conversation, but I don't think we were any less baffled by it than we are now.

[Virgil]

Antiquarian, I did not agree with Virgil about that either. I want to continue.
Oh everyone always disagrees with me. :lol: It's common practice. You should tell everyone about the debate we had on Hamlet a lontg time ago and how you and that other woman who's no longer here both ganged up on me. :D I'm always the outsider. :p


We did discuss that fact awhile back in the posts. I can't now recall just what we came up with for the significance of them being a flower with no odour. I believe there was something I found that was documented on the reason L picked those. I am sorry my memory does not serve me to remember why he would pick an odourless flower and then call it the title he did. Perhaps that was a kind of irony. Maybe Virgil, Quark or Dark Muse will remember why?
I don't think we came to any conclusion about the smell. But we did discuss this story between pages 31 through 36 or 37 of this thread. That's not too much to read, and Quark was part of that discussion.


Well, I only know this much about the symbolism, etc, because I have read tons of commentary on Lawrence offline in books and online as well. You probably could run a search on 'Odour of Chyrsantemums' and find some online, too. I just joined a site called "Blackwell Synergy" and you have assess to tons of good commentary on authors and all kinds of things. I have been wanting to sign-up, since I always run into this site when researching Lawrence and Chekhov, too. It is free to join. I hope it proves helpful, for all of us.
Interesting. What exactly is that?

[Janine]

Oh everyone always disagrees with me. :lol: It's common practice. You should tell everyone about the debate we had on Hamlet a lontg time ago and how you and that other woman who's no longer here both ganged up on me. :D I'm always the outsider. :p

:lol: Awww...poor, poor Virgil....well, actually part of me wants to agree with you, because I could use a month's break, and part of me rejects the idea, because I also want to discuss the story, with this great group we have going. Ok, this second part of myself won out. And... I don't always disagree with you at all, Virgie....but I do when you get mean and irrate;) :lol: (B,M & D to know!) Then I just simply tell you to 'cool it!'.:D

I don't recall that debate on Hamlet, at all. What was it about? See, it really must have been vitally important, when I can't even remember it!



I don't think we came to any conclusion about the smell. But we did discuss this story between pages 31 through 36 or 37 of this thread. That's not too much to read, and Quark was part of that discussion.

We didn't? I would have to go back and read those pages, too. I am always meaning to copy this whole thread and all the posts onto a disc to keep for posterity, but I say, 'who ever finds the time?' One day, we could all come onto Lit Net and poof! - everything would be whiped out and it would be like a clean slate, again. Wouldn't that be a horror??? We would have to start all over again, because none of us seems to recall ,just what we did write months ago.
Anyway, I thought we did come up with some reason those were the flowers with no scent. But now that I think of it, I may be thinking of a book I just read "Lady of the Camilias" since, they mentioned that they had no scent either and that is why they were the flower the girl with TB choose - seems scented ones would make her feel ill.
I thought the 'odour' in the case of Lawrence's story might be significant since he wrote a poem called "Violets", which is about the 'smell of violets' and the 'smell of death'. Maybe here, the chrysantemums are also dying and smell like death.
I guess we will have to have a seance and summon Lawrence's spirit to this thread, to tell us just what he had in-mind when he titled the story O of C, OR I could look into my Michael Black book and do research online, maybe at that new site, to see anyone mentions this fact of 'odourless' chrysantemums.



Interesting. What exactly is that?

I haven't tried the site yet; but it looks interesting; it became too late last night to look things up. Time will tell. It says it has thousands of articles and commentaries for review. I don't know if they can be copied but I will find out soon enough. To sign up you only needed to provide scanty information so I felt it was totally safe. Of course they probably will send me tons of email, which is just great; this I don't need. I get a ton of junk mail. daily as it is. Doesn't Blackwell produce DVD's or books or something related to literature?

Dark Muse, I know I always assume you were here during that discussion and even earlier ones. It seems you have been here for a long time now. Which story did you start with? I totally forget now; please forgive me.

Yes, the flowers were reddish-brown and pink, Quark.
Reddish-brown is the color of fall - 'rust'... and pink could signify the color of spring. I don't know for sure, but that makes sense. One is the season of dying away and one is the season of rebirth.

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse, I know I always assume you were here during that discussion and even earlier ones. It seems you have been here for a long time now. Which story did you start with? I totally forget now; please forgive me.

LOL it is quite alright, I am around so much, it seems like I have been here forever.

My first story here was Sun.

[Janine]

LOL it is quite alright, I am around so much, it seems like I have been here forever.

My first story here was Sun.

Aha, yes, you are around a lot and often on here - you are pretty quick posting, in the evening hours. You must be a night owl like me.:D
So how many have we done since 'Sun'? I did recall, now that you missed some of the good ones from before. Dark Muse, you should try and read them sometime. They are all such good stories. In fact, it is hard to choose a new one now. I keep thinking those that we already discussed, are such a hard act to follow.

[Dark Muse]

When I get the chance I do wish to read some of the ones already discussed.

So far the ones I have read with you guys are:

Sun
The Man Who Loved Islands
The Shadow in the Rose Garden
Two Blue Birds.

[Dark Muse]

You can get the stories here:

http://www.literature.org/authors/lawrence-david-herbert

[Janine]

I really want to read "The Man Who Loved Islands" and "Two Blue Birds." I'll find them online somewhere and download them and print them out.

'The Man Who Loved Islands' is particularly good; I am still musing on that one. 'Sun' is another great one. 'Two Blue Birds' is really sarcastic/sardonic but I liked it. It is quite different that Lawrence's usually stories. The writing is quite and very witty. I can tell you, I think all the ones we discussed so far are really good ones. I like 'Things', also. You might not know this but Lawrence refused to actually own any property and he made his wife hold the deed to their ranch which was given to them by Mabel Dodge in New Mexico. 'Things' is very continental and I feel shows the irony of owning too many things. It has always been one of my favorites, oddly enough since I am a great horder of things.;) :lol: Funny, isn't it?

Well, once again I am off to see the rest of my movie! Good night, Antiquarian and Dark Muse - the late birds!

DM, so you did 4 of the stories so far. You should gradually read all of the ones we discussed, as you suggested you would. I would be curious to see how many of the women characters you end up hating in those stories -;) :lol: I am just joking with you. :D

Night girls! :)