D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread [Archive] - Page 8

Janine

05-14-2008, 10:04 AM

Well, now it is morning and no baby yet; but the time is close at hand, so the doctors say. I'll keep you posted. Mother and I will be going up there soon.

I could not sleep well, so I worked briefly and quickly on some of the text last night before I went to sleep.

THE NEW PART OF THE TEXT:

At the gate of a small house in a dark tree-lined street, both waited a moment. From her garden leaned an almond tree whose buds, early this year, glistened in the light of the street lamp, with theatrical effect. He broke off a twig.
"I always remember this tree," he said; "how I used to feel sorry for it when it was full out, and so lively, at midnight in the lamplight. I thought it must be tired."
Is this a metaphor of himself – this tree and the way he describes it; or even a metaphor for Winifred – the way he perceives her?
I like the line I bolded up about the almond tree…beautiful poetic writing. Is there any special significance pointing out that her house is in a dark tree-lined street?

"Will you come in?" she asked tenderly.
"I did get a room in town," he answered, following her.
I can’t remember, did he answer this question of Winifred’s before or is he just now admitting to his sleeping arrangements for the night?

She opened the door with her latch-key, showing him, as usual, into the drawing-room. Everything was just the same; cold in colouring, warm in appointment; ivory-coloured walls, blond, polished floor, with thick ivory-coloured rugs; three deep arm-chairs in pale amber, with large cushions; a big black piano, a violin-stand beside it; and the room very warm with a clear red fire, the brass shining hot. Coutts, according to his habit,

lit the piano-candles and lowered the blinds.
What exactly are piano-candles? This imagine of lighting the piano-candles and lowering the blinds sounds like he is secluding them; seeking privacy.

"I say," he said; "this is a variation from your line!"
I was thinking that in music there are ‘variations’.

He pointed to a bowl of magnificent scarlet anemones that stood on the piano.
"Why?" she asked, pausing in arranging her hair at the small mirror.
"On the piano!" he admonished.
"Only while the table was in use," she smiled, glancing at the litter of papers that covered her table.
I am curious to know why he thought they were out of place on the piano being red or so it seems to be because of the color, but is it merely because she has any flowers at all on the piano, something he has not known before to be characteristic of her?.... and he thought he knew her so well….it that why he comments in surprise about the red flowers?

"And then--red flowers!" he said.
"Oh, I thought they were such a fine piece of colour," she replied.
"I would have wagered you would buy freesias," he said.
"Why?" she smiled. He pleased her thus.
"Well--for their cream and gold and restrained, bruised purple, and their scent. I can't believe you bought scentless flowers!"
"What!" She went forward, bent over the flowers.
"I had not noticed," she said, smiling curiously, "that they were scentless."
She touched the velvet black centres.
"Would you have bought them had you noticed?" he asked.
She thought for a moment, curiously.
"I don't know . . . probably I should not."
"You would never buy scentless flowers," he averred. "Any more than you'd love a man because he was handsome."
"I did not know," she smiled. She was pleased.
What significance do the scentless flowers have; why so significant to Coutts in his usual image of Winifred; also why does he see her only buying the pastel flowers that are scented? Does the red represent a signal to Coutts of passion that he had not known of before?
Red poppies can also signify remembrance, such as of the fallen soldiers in France during the war.

The housekeeper entered with a lamp, which she set on a stand.
Ah, the fateful lamp….

Janine

05-14-2008, 10:27 AM

Thank you for the text, Janine, but I'm sorry you couldn't sleep well, though I can certainly understand why.

I guessed the birthday would be May 14th, and I'm glad it's close now. Good luck at the hospital and let us know the good news when you can.

Yelena, you are welcome about the text posting. Well, you all can play around now with the text for a few days, right? I didn't want to leave you all aimless.:lol: and floundering in here. Anyway, it was no problems - kind of relaxed me to get to sleep. I had to unwind some last night.

Probably once get to the hospital, we will be there most of the day; then stop somewhere to out to eat coming back; just my mom and I. She is really excited. Me too!:) No doubt I can let you all know tonight, later on.

Just editing this to tell you all the good news - Baby 'Brooke' is here!!! and she weights nearly 9 lbs...ouch! She is healthy and beautiful with dark curly hair. Mother and baby are doing fine. Sean just called and we are heading up the hospital very soon. Will fill you in later on details. I am finally the proud grandma.... offically!

Quark

05-15-2008, 01:00 AM

Just editing this to tell you all the good news - Baby 'Brooke' is here!!! and she weights nearly 9 lbs...ouch! She is healthy and beautiful with dark curly hair. Mother and baby are doing fine. Sean just called and we are heading up the hospital very soon. Will fill you in later on details. I am finally the proud grandma.... offically!

That's great news, Janine! It's good to know it's official now.

Janine

05-15-2008, 02:59 PM

That's great news, Janine! It's good to know it's official now.

Thanks, Quark, that is so sweet of you. They made me a Congratulations thread on the forum. Isn't that nice? I am so happy today and relieved, as well. I slept well and will see the baby tonight hopefully. I won't have my mind much on Lawrence this week, sorry. My priority lays in my grand-daughter for now. Go ahead and discuss the text I posted if you all want to. I don't mind one bit missing this part. I will catch up later or check in late at night and comment. I think we got to that part you were interested in with the red flowers.

Thanks Antiquarian, too and for your greeting in email and your other congrats in the Congratulation thread, as well as your good wishes in this thread.

Janine

05-16-2008, 09:34 PM

I am back for a little while anyway; taking a break today from going to the hospital, want to give my son and his wife and baby their privacy.

Anyway, I thought by now, you all would have discussed the text above, that I posted. I had some comments and also some questions that I thought would inspire some discussion here. Where is everyone? Dark Muse (I need you so we can have healthy opposition), Antiquarian, Virgil, and Quark...where did you all run off to? Our L thread is fading away and will slip into page two soon.

Janine

05-16-2008, 09:49 PM

I think Virgil is busier at work, Janine. DM seems to be around and so does Quark, at time. I've been busily trying to finish the rough draft of one story and revise another. It's kind of making me nuts. It's so hard to get the words exactly right, which they have to be for this instructor.

Oh, take your time then, Antiquarian. I fully understand. After reading some of Lawrence's letters, I believe he felt just like you are feeling right now at times; frustrated. Don't always think it not a struggle for some of these author genius'.
I am really tired tonight anyway. I was just trying to keep the thread going. If my last text post is lost, back a few pages, I can always re-post it. Did you see my post in 'what book are you reading'? I finally settled on two - both short Lawrence works. They seemed a good idea to fill in right now; since I can't devote full attention for long.

Antiquarian, thanks for finding this post and good luck with your editing. Sometimes true 'art' can be very difficult indeed. I can't wait to read your final draft of your story.

Dark Muse

05-16-2008, 09:58 PM

Sorry I have been busy lately with school and well yall scared me away with all the baby talk :D

But I have been meaning to comment on your last post of the story, just keep getting caught up in things when I think I am going to do so. And it has been so hot here which slows my brain cells down.

Dark Muse

05-16-2008, 10:45 PM

Is this a metaphor of himself – this tree and the way he describes it; or even a metaphor for Winifred – the way he perceives her?
I like the line I bolded up about the almond tree…beautiful poetic writing. Is there any special significance pointing out that her house is in a dark tree-lined street?

The idea of the dark tree-lined street, just gives me the image of it being somewhere kind of secluded, and sort of set off or apart from the lively festivities of the house he left to follow Winnie. It also gives me the image of almost a tunnel, when I think of photos I have seen of streets that have trees on either side of them, it is more of a private, closed in felling, and could be a sort of transitional period.

I always remember this tree," he said; "how I used to feel sorry for it when it was full out, and so lively, at midnight in the lamplight. I thought it must be tired."

This line to me seems like it is suggesting Coutts, perhaps this is how he views himself. He feel like his is getting older, and perhaps a part of him is tired of his bachelor life, and he does want to settle down, though he is still on the brink.

I can’t remember, did he answer this question of Winifred’s before or is he just now admitting to his sleeping arrangements for the night?

I do not recall him brining it up any time before this

What exactly are piano-candles? This imagine of lighting the piano-candles and lowering the blinds sounds like he is secluding them; seeking privacy.

I think they are just suppose to be candles that were placed upon the piano. I tried to research it, and could not find anything that is acutally called a "piano-candle"

I am curious to know why he thought they were out of place on the piano being red or so it seems to be because of the color, but is it merely because she has any flowers at all on the piano, something he has not known before to be characteristic of her?.... and he thought he knew her so well….it that why he comments in surprise about the red flowers?

What significance do the scentless flowers have; why so significant to Coutts in his usual image of Winifred; also why does he see her only buying the pastel flowers that are scented? Does the red represent a signal to Coutts of passion that he had not known of before?
Red poppies can also signify remembrance, such as of the fallen soldiers in France during the war.

I am still not completely sure what to make of the flowers here, I am going to have to mull this one over still for a bit.

Ah, the fateful lamp….

It is interesting how the lamp is pointed out here, while it is being brought it. Almost makes me think of a play when they are moving the props onto stage for the next scene. Perhaps this is meant to be some sort of foreshadow.

Quark

05-16-2008, 11:27 PM

What exactly are piano-candles? This imagine of lighting the piano-candles and lowering the blinds sounds like he is secluding them; seeking privacy.

DM's right. I think they're just candles on the piano, and not some special thing called "piano candles." Whatever they are, they do seclude them, and create a more intimate setting.

I am curious to know why he thought they were out of place on the piano being red or so it seems to be because of the color, but is it merely because she has any flowers at all on the piano, something he has not known before to be characteristic of her?.... and he thought he knew her so well….it that why he comments in surprise about the red flowers?

The red flowers are an indication of her new-found boldness which Coutts isn't used to seeing. That's why he reacts to the flowers, and Winifred admits that she wishes she hadn't bought them. They're both uncomfortable with her being so aggressive.

What significance do the scentless flowers have; why so significant to Coutts in his usual image of Winifred; also why does he see her only buying the pastel flowers that are scented?

The absence of scent is like the absence of real love in Winifred's passion for Coutts at this point. The color is rich and alluring, but the flower is scentless. Winifred's desire is similarly substanceless.

Janine

05-16-2008, 11:42 PM

Dark Muse, I agree with all you pointed out in your post right before this one. Hey, Dm...is that a first? We actually agree. ;) :D

DM's right. I think they're just candles on the piano, and not some special thing called "piano candles." Whatever they are, they do seclude them, and create a more intimate setting.

Dark Muse and Quark, I was actually watching this film, I own about Lawrence and one scene is his mother playing the piano, with Lawrence as a child looking on. The film features his poems and this one I believe is called "Piano".,..oddly enough and I had not even noticed this, when I viewed it before - the piano had the piano candles, he is speaking of in this story. They apparently were holders on both ends of the piano right above the keys. The holder jutted out from the body of the piano and therefore, the candles they held, illuminated the keys directly. How strange, that I had not noticed this before. I will try and locate a photo online. I never have seen them before this.

The red flowers are an indication of her new-found boldness which Coutts isn't used to seeing. That's why he reacts to the flowers, and Winifred admits that she wishes she hadn't bought them. They're both uncomfortable with her being so aggressive.

Good point. Red is such a bold color. The pastels would have indicated a more sedate way of thinking or acting on Winifred's behalf. Yes, maybe tonight it the night he notices the red, since red usually indicates passion and often true love, such as in the color of roses.

The absence of scent is like the absence of real love in Winifred's passion for Coutts at this point. The color is rich and alluring, but the flower is scentless. Winifred's desire is similarly substanceless.

Another very good point. Thanks, Quark and everyone else for posting some comments. I will check over my own post and see if we missed anything I asked specifically. At least this brought the thread up in the listings again. Same with Chekhov thread. That is good - keep them active. :) :thumbs_up

Dark Muse

05-16-2008, 11:46 PM

Dark Muse, I agree with all you pointed out in your post right before this one. Hey, Dm...is that a first? We actually agree. ;) :D

LOL that is frightening

Janine

05-16-2008, 11:55 PM

LOL that is frightening

Yes, I am still trembling with awe.

Dark Muse

05-17-2008, 12:01 PM

Perhpas Winni is suppose to be a very "preditcable" person, that typicaly does not stray from her usual routine and so he is surprised to see something out of place, and later she does sort of "defend" herself for the change:

"Only while the table was in use" she smiled, glancing at the litter of papers that covered her table.

Janine

05-17-2008, 02:11 PM

Maybe Coutts expected Winifred to have white flowers because she has not engaged in a sexual relationship with him. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I think their relationship has been strictly non-sexual. He is shocked at the presence of the red anemones and expects her to have purchased something like white freesias, instead.

Antiquarian, That may be a possibility or a sort of sign or signal in Coutts mind that she indeed would like to go further sexually with him. Red is a very desirous color. I don't think the normal flowers she would have were referred to as white but rather pastels; these would indicate a more sedate or calm nature.

What I don't understand is why he's shocked that flowers have been placed on the piano.

I think that below, Dark Muse is answering this fine. I don't know if I see any other deeper significance in them, except that they draw more attention to the piano, which can also indicate a more passionate nature, instrument of passionate expression.

Perhpas Winni is suppose to be a very "preditcable" person, that typicaly does not stray from her usual routine and so he is surprised to see something out of place, and later she does sort of "defend" herself for the change:

Hi Everyone! You won't believe this. I just picked the next story; the one we will discuss next month for this thread. The thing is I was looking online on Amazon last night and recalled I had put this audio CD in my wishlist. However, I discovered one can download the MP3 file, for only 2 dollars; it is one of the short stories, so I figured it must be a good one - the CD sells for 20 dollars. So today at breakfast, I read the story. I liked it very much and when I got to the ending, I did recall I had read it before. So, I think that would be a good one to do next time. I will definitely download the narration (MP3 file for $2) and when I post the name of the story (keeping it secret now) I will also post the audiofile link, in case any of you want to do the same. It will be a good addition to my Lawrence collection, which is growing by 'leaps and bounds' lately.

Later today, should I post more of the text to this story or do you want to discuss this part further? Whichever is fine with me.

Quark

05-17-2008, 02:18 PM

Dark Muse and Quark, I was actually watching this film, I own about Lawrence and one scene is his mother playing the piano, with Lawrence as a child looking on. The film features his poems and this one I believe is called "Piano".,..oddly enough and I had not even noticed this, when I viewed it before - the piano had the piano candles, he is speaking of in this story. They apparently were holders on both ends of the piano right above the keys. The holder jutted out from the body of the piano and therefore, the candles they held, illuminated the keys directly. How strange, that I had not noticed this before. I will try and locate a photo online. I never have seen them before this.

Oh, so there are special "piano candles." They must not be very big, or else they must get in the way of playing--or set you ablaze. I could use some monitor candles, actually. This new flat screen is really difficult to see at certain angles. Some illumination would really help.

Also, I started reading Women in Love, yesterday. It's been pretty enjoyable so far. Although, there have been many of those annoying Lawrence sentences where he uses zillions of pronouns without proper antecedents. They go something like this:

Then she looked into that of his which fell from him every time she was brought close to it. It was this thisness which she reviled, hated, loathed, found odious, and was repelled from. If only she could surpass his thisness with her thatness intact. Then it would happen.

Lawrence goes into indecipherable stretches like this, and I have no clue what he's talking about exactly.

Janine

05-17-2008, 03:09 PM

Oh, so there are special "piano candles." They must not be very big, or else they must get in the way of playing--or set you ablaze. I could use some monitor candles, actually. This new flat screen is really difficult to see at certain angles. Some illumination would really help.

Yes, there are actually things known as piano candlesticks. Look them up online. I will post one photo later, that I copied to my file, so you can get an idea of what they are like. They are at each end of the piano, not really directly over the keys, so you can't get burnt. They are a kind of sconce, I believe that attaches to the piano, instead of a wall.

Quark, Your new monitor probaby needs adjusting for color and tone and brightness; I went back to the store and asked the salesmen of help with that. Also I sat mine on a few books to elevate it. It has to be at the right angle to see it correctly. Try elevating it some. The instruction booklet should clue you in on these facts and the adjustments.

Also, I started reading Women in Love, yesterday. It's been pretty enjoyable so far. Although, there have been many of those annoying Lawrence sentences where he uses zillions of pronouns without proper antecedents. They go something like this:

Glad you are reading it. It is a good novel. Lawrence felt it was his best. Come now - is that the exact quote, Quark? If so, where is it in the novel? "Women in Love" is my favorite novel of Lawrence's. In fact, I am now relistening to it on MP3 - I just finished listening to it and started it over again, can you believe it? I must know which page that section of text was taken from, so I can look that up....curious now...try to shed some light on it for you...if I can...hahaha

Lawrence goes into indecipherable stretches like this, and I have no clue what he's talking about exactly.

Hahah - maybe I can help you with some of those. By two readings and now one listening to a narration and starting a forth time around I might know what he is talking about - I should hope so, anyway.

I will answer everyone else later. Have to make a phone call and get ready to go see my grandchild.

Well, seems I can answer more posts now - can't get through on the phone.
So on with Antiquarian's -

I also wondered what the litter of papers was, but I guess Winifred was a music teacher. Or at least a musician.

Yes, I would assume that and also wouldn't that indicate that she really was not expecting anyone? I thought seeing Coutts at Laurie's house was a surprise/shock for her.

No, the ones Coutts suggests weren't pure white, Janine. Here's the description:

"I would have wagered you would buy freesias," he said.
"Why?" she smiled. He pleased her thus.
"Well--for their cream and gold and restrained, bruised purple, and their scent. I can't believe you bought scentless flowers!"

And I would think that would make a difference. 'White' would indicate 'purity', while the other flowers, being pastel, may indicate a sort of passiveness or a kind of 'shyness or reserve'; these she would normally have displayed in her house. Where as 'red', to me, blantantly indicates or suggests a much 'bolder' aspect and perhaps reflects Winifred's new mood directly to Coutts; that is why he is in a state of astonishment. It is so unlike her usual mood.

Do you and DM see the piano as more passionate than the violin? I don't. The piano is kind of a cold instrument to me, very unemotional, but perhaps that's just me because I heartily dislike playing it. LOL Actually, one very professional pianist told me a lot of people find playing the piano unemotional because we don't actually "make" the music ourselves - we strike the keys and that causes a hammer to strike the strings. Now, with the violin, we're in direct contact with the strings as we draw the bow over them. I just thought that was interesting. I've always remembered it as possibly the source of my aversion for the piano.

Well, I'm very anxious to learn the name of the next story. :)

Well, I happen to love piano music and see it as very passionate. Beethoven without passion? He basically played the piano, didn't he? I think you have been influenced by your own dislike of the instrument and your frustration in not liking to play it. I always find the piano wonderfully emotional and passionate. Funny how some see it so differently. I like the violin and it can make me cry sometimes, but sometimes the passion of it and the high tones become too much for me. How can one listen to Debussy and to Chopin and not hear/feel real passion in their piano compositions?

Technically, that is an interesting observation, Antiquarian, but I don't agree, at all, with the idea of it not measuring up to the violin. I personally love both. Also, how can one evaluate music or sound technically? I love the movie scores I own; the ones that are basically piano. I loved the music to the film "The Piano" and to the film "The Pianist". Both rely heavily on piano orchestrations.

Antiquarian, now I made you all so curious to know the next story title; I can't tell you yet or you will all abandon these ending parts of this story.....hahah...can't slack off yet.....we are getting to the real climax of the story real soon....

Antiq, how are your revisions coming along?

Janine

05-17-2008, 05:01 PM

Oh, no. I do think the piano has passion, just not more than the violin. I think Beethoven had a lot of passion, but he's just not my favorite composer. I have a Busoni piano CD that is one of my favorites, but I have to admit, I'm very, very partial to the violin.

I don't know if even I agree with the pianist who made that observation. I know some people who connect quite wonderfully with the piano and feel very emotional when playing it. I think it's just a matter of personal preference.

Antiquarian, actually.... I am that type who connects with the piano, more than I do the violin. I like the violin, but some violin music can actually get on my nerves; whereas, piano has a range and I can process that better at times. I know it is all personal preference. It probably is due to the fact, that my father always played me piano music (on records), when I was a baby, and I loved it. He played Gershwin's 'Rapsody in Blue' continually, so I guess I grew up loving that piece, that being jazz/classical mix and not really pure classical. He did play me plenty of classical and especially Beethoven, so I acquired the ear for the piano. My mother played the piano, as well. My aunt played the violin, but I don't know just how well. I never heard her play. One of my favorites is Debussy's 'Claire de Lune' and 'La Mer' - can those be played on a violin? I don't really know much technically, but thought they were usually featured on the piano. I love 'Moonlight Sonata' and 'The 9th Symphony', plus it amazes me that Beethoven wrote that when stone deaf.

Being a reluctant pianist, (LOL) though, I do know you have to evaluate the music on a technical basis at times. It's not fun, but it must be done. Right now, my piano needs to be revoiced as well as tuned, but I'm not of a mind to have it done. I don't think listeners evaluate a piece of music from a technical standpoint, though. Even I don't when I listen and I studied piano for many years. I should play much better than I do, but my preference for the violin interferred with my piano studies, of course.

Antiquarian, yes, I think that listeners do not process the music on the level of the technical. In fact, sometimes I prefer to only hear/feel it, and not actually 'see' the instruments, that techically, the music is coming from. I guess I like the fantasy of it all and the way it all blends, each note into the other and becomes a whole. I did not know that you played the violin - that is splendid!

My revisions are slow and painstaking. I am such a painstaking writer and it's so hard to edit oneself.

Maybe you are a 'perfectionist', like me, with my artwork. Problem is when being that way, (I am way too picky) one tends to never truly finish anything. You would not believe how much artwork, I have sitting right here, waiting to be completed - we are talking years now.:( I just could not be satisified with it, so I put it asside, until I thought I could complete it correctly. Not a good thing in the end really. I just found out that Da Vinci hardly ever completed anything. I think the record is under 10 paintings, that he actually completed. Maybe I am normal for an artist, who knows?

I agree with your assessment about the red anemones. Coutts is just very surprised to see them and they indicate a change in "mood" on Winifred's part.

Yes, but now the question comes up in my mind: if she did not expect to see Coutts that night the flowers were truly a chance for her; so now when Coutts sees them there, he notes this change, from when she was with him last. Interesting thought. Like he might have wanted her to be more bold; so he departs from her life; and ironically, she becomes more bold in her mood and actions with his absense. Maybe before he would advise her never to sit them on the piano and now it is a sort act of defiance; or could be the opposite - maybe she always wanted them on the table and he on the piano.

Yes, very anxious to know the title of the new story. Not to abandon this one, but to see if I have it in one of my books.

Antiquarian, which Lawrence short story books do you now own? I asked you this before, and what other books by Cambridge (you mentioned buying some recently) but you must not have seen my question; I have been curious. I have many of the short story editions and wanted to see which ones you bought, so we could compare notes. This short story is also available from Amazon - you just download the MP3 audiofile for a mere $2.00. I thought that would be fun. The story is not that long; I read it at breakfast today. It went quickly. It does not have as much complicated symbolism, as this last story had...it is more straightforward - might be an earlier story...I will check in my reference books. I think Michael Black has some commentary on it and some in another book - the timeline book.

Janine

05-17-2008, 07:21 PM

Oh, I don't play the violin, Janine. I only wish I did. I play the piano. Not that well, but I do play. I haven't played for some time now, but I used to play daily. I do like Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" and I like "Fur Elise."

Antiquarian, Yes, very beautiful...I like "Fur Elise" too. Oh, I thought you meant you played the violin. Yes, I would love to be able to play any instrument, but unfortunately, my talent does not lie in musical instruments. I used to sing, but not a great singer. I was in my high school play and was told I sang well, but I never had much confidence. Singing takes practice, so I am sure by now, my voice is quite gone...
I own this DVD of the ballet version of "Lady of the Camilas" and the entire ballet is piano - Chopin. It is one of the most passionate ballets I have ever seen - really intense. I may watch that again tonight. I just love it. Another example of beautiful piano music.

A year ago, I watch the movie "Copying Beethoven," which was delightful. If you like Beethoven, I think you'd love it.

That is strange, I saw that movie about the same time. Ed Harris, right? I wasn't real sure about it. Ed Harris is always interesting to see and he is a very fine actor. I think I preferred his role in 'Pollack' though. I wasn't at all sure about the woman who played the role of the copier - I forget just who now; I know she was pretty, but that part did not seem quite real to me. I thought Ed Harris portrayed him a little too crude, but I know the genius was not such a nice person; he had a lot of inner anger and a nasty temper. I think I prefer the other film that I own called "Eternal Beloved", about Beethoven and his muse(s). One scene is amazing with Gary Oldman playing the piano, with his head laying on the top of the grand piano, in order to perceive the vibrations.

Yes, I'm a perfectionist with regard to writing short stories. Not other writing, necessarily, but with short stories, yes. And after lyric poetry, the short story is the most difficult thing to write.

I knew it; soon you will drive yourself crazy with too many revisions! Short stories are quite difficult to write and get correct....just so....

I did forget that Winifred didn't expect to see Coutts that night. She didn't put the red flowers there for him.

Oh good, you see my point then.

I only own two Lawrence books so far, one is "The Cambridge Companion to D.H. Lawrence," which contains critical essays on his work, and the other is "Selected Stories of D.H. Lawrence," which is published by Penguin Classics. It contains a lot of the stories you've already read, which is nice for me, as I do want to read them, even though I missed the discussion.

I looked two up on Amazon. One I could not see the table of contents; the other is this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Stories-Lawrence-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141441658/ref=sr_1_2? (is this the one you bought?) If so I looked in the table of contents and it is not in there, unfortunately. I was hopeful when I saw the book was 400 pages long. It probably is online somewhere. I will go and search for it. I will PM you if I find it or post when we get ready to read it.
Is that other book good: "The Cambridge Companion to D.H.Lawrence"? I actually think I have that in my wishlist but then thought - do I really need another commentary book - it might just repeat the ones I do own.
You can find all the stories and novels, etc on this site - full texts:

http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/lawrence.html#shortstories

Looks like I am here tonight afterall and not going out. My son said to come over to the house Monday night (my mom and I); tomorrow his wife and baby are coming home; so tonight is a bit hectic. I don't mind; not feeling real good myself anyway, probaby just tired out.
I will try and post some more text later on.

Dark Muse

05-17-2008, 07:59 PM

Do you and DM see the piano as more passionate than the violin? I don't. The piano is kind of a cold instrument to me, very unemotional, but perhaps that's just me because I heartily dislike playing it. LOL Actually, one very professional pianist told me a lot of people find playing the piano unemotional because we don't actually "make" the music ourselves - we strike the keys and that causes a hammer to strike the strings. Now, with the violin, we're in direct contact with the strings as we draw the bow over them. I just thought that was interesting. I've always remembered it as possibly the source of my aversion for the piano.

I kind of agree with both you and Janine here. It is true that piano music can be very passionate. But I also agree that the act of playing the violen is visually more passionate in appearnce than the act of playing the piano is. I think that the physcial act of playing the piano does come acorss as more cold and distant than the phycial act of playing the violen. But I also think that Pianist do have as much passion for thier music as violenist have.

Janine

05-17-2008, 09:28 PM

I agree with that, DM. I think all good musicians have passion for their music, no matter what instrument they play. I have one friend, who is a jazz guitarist, and he tells me that in order to really play well, outstandingly, one must "become the music." I think Beethoven did that with the piano, as did Mozart with the harpsichord (it was a harpsichord, wasn't it?) and I think Joshua Bell does it with the violin. I know my friend does it with the guitar.

Yes, that is well put, Antiquarian; I truly believe that is true and of all great artists. They lose themselves in their work and the work becomes a part of them. This sense of 'losing oneself' or 'giving oneself up' to the art is what makes the art great. The music/art is not just a mere extension of themselves - it is themselves expressed on paper/canvas or in sound.

That brings me back to the story. Winifred must have had a very passionate nature. She was a very good musician, who played at least the piano and the violin, perhaps more, and the way Coutts describes her when she's playing, she's very "into" her music. Perhaps she channeled all her passion into her music rather than into any man, much to Coutts' dismay.

Exactly, and I think that Coutts is well aware of Winifred's passion and her potential passion for a man; which of course, is never realised in this story. I just scanned the text because I thought I recalled one line or part of a statement whereby Coutts noticed this unrealised passion in Winifred but feels it is potentially present. There is one line that says:

After a wait, she said in a very low, passionate tones

but that is not the exact line I was looking for to expound on this idea. Maybe it is about to come up in the next section of type or closer to the end. Interesting how the words 'passionate tones' also refer us back to the idea of music with it's various elements of 'passionate tones.'

Janine

05-17-2008, 10:15 PM

Yes, there are a lot of musical allusions in this story. I like them.

Antiquarian, I see you online now; your green light is on.;) I like those allusions to musical elements, as well. There are many, don't you think?

I am so sleepy all of a sudden. Going to a concert tomorrow with my friend. It is this great local choral group, who sing classical pieces. It is always joyous and relaxing to hear them perform. It will be fun and then after we will go out to dinner somewhere nice. Concert begins at 4PM.

I don't think I will post anymore text tonight, if you all don't mind. I want to watch a movie; still can't decide - too many good ones to chose from, right? I will try and post some tomorrow night instead. I just ran out of energy now.

Quote by Dark Muse:

I kind of agree with both you and Janine here. It is true that piano music can be very passionate. But I also agree that the act of playing the violen is visually more passionate in appearnce than the act of playing the piano is. I think that the physcial act of playing the piano does come acorss as more cold and distant than the phycial act of playing the violen. But I also think that Pianist do have as much passion for thier music as violenist have.

Dark Muse, That is an interesting thought about the visual aspects of each. Yes, and the violin is held so close to the body while the piano is not, yet the fingers are so sensitive and say it all in the playing - the contact is intimate in the fingers moving along the keys. Didn't you two see the film "The Pianist" when he was only imagining playing the piano and imagining the music - that scene was my favorite. It felt quite intimate and passionate. The contacts may be physical, but the true connection is in the mind and the soul of the musican and the artist.

Janine

05-17-2008, 10:53 PM

I'd love to watch a movie tonight, too, but my husband has to go to bed early. He has a double shift at the restaurant tomorrow as well. Then he's off on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Maybe we can squeeze in some movies then. :)

Enjoy your movie, Janine. And enjoy the concert. That sounds like fun! :)

Oh sorry; fly on over, Antiquarian;:lol: I would rather watch movies with you, then go do my laundry..ugh.:( It is late, I better start watching something or it will get too late for tonight. Also, I am already falling asleep.:yawnb:

Quark

05-17-2008, 11:20 PM

I kind of agree with both you and Janine here. It is true that piano music can be very passionate. But I also agree that the act of playing the violen is visually more passionate in appearnce than the act of playing the piano is. I think that the physcial act of playing the piano does come acorss as more cold and distant than the phycial act of playing the violen. But I also think that Pianist do have as much passion for thier music as violenist have.

I agree, but why do you suppose Lawrence has the piano at her place and the violin out in public. I would think it would be the other way around, if the violin is more passionate.

Dark Muse

05-17-2008, 11:23 PM

Janine

05-17-2008, 11:38 PM

Laura was playing the piano and Winifred played a duet with her.

It's kind of hard for Winifred to carry a piano around, Quark. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: !!! :bawling: I am crying from laughter!

Quark

05-17-2008, 11:42 PM

Perhaps for the sake of the seduction of Coutts, it is when they first reunite again that she is really after him, and wants to sort of lure him away, so perhaps that is why she plays the violen in public, and in his view. But than once she had snared him and they get to her place, is when she decides to draw away from him, so perhaps that is why it is the piano that is in her place.

That makes sense. The violin is more like the alluring attitude she adopts. The piano is her true spirit which is revealed when Coutts arrives at her home.

It's kind of hard for Winifred to carry a piano around, Quark. :lol:

I'm just saying the symbolism might make more sense if she did.

Janine

05-17-2008, 11:54 PM

BUT did Lawrence really think the piano a passionless instrument? Here is one of his most well known poems:

D.H. Lawrence (1885–1930). New Poems. 1916.

Piano

SOFTLY, in the dusk, a woman is singing to me;
Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see
A child sitting under the piano, in the boom of the tingling strings
And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings.

In spite of myself, the insidious mastery of song
Betrays me back, till the heart of me weeps to belong
To the old Sunday evenings at home, with winter outside
And hymns in the cosy parlour, the tinkling piano our guide.

So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour
With the great black piano appassionato. The glamour
Of childish days is upon me, my manhood is cast
Down in the flood of remembrance, I weep like a child for the past.

Note the two words together "piano appassionato".

Pianos often occompany a violin - both can stand alone and be just as full of passion. Coutts carried Winifred's violin home for her. I think all of you are quibbling about trivals here, with the piano and the violin; also stretching the symbolism a bit. Naturally, she would have a piano available to accompany her on her violin. Who is to say she does not play both? Also, Coutts plays a few bars of a classical song with one hand - it's right there in the text. Maybe he played, as well and once accompanied her.

Virgil

05-18-2008, 08:57 AM

Yes, there are a lot of musical allusions in this story. I like them.

Yes I pointed that out earlier. Music has a charming effect, and is either part of Wini's magic or is intended to be a analogy. I think Janine is correct in bringng up that famous "Piano" poem of Lawrence's. It was probably written around this same time as the writing of this story, early years. I think the suggeston in the poem fits the charming effect in the story.

I can't believe how much conversation you guys have had. Discussion of this story must be over 30 pages at this point. This is way more discussion than any of our previous stories.

I'm not sure if you've passed this passage yet, but I thought it was a very significant one:

He ran upstairs. The sense of freedom, of intimacy, was very fascinating. As he washed, the little everyday action of twining his hands in the lather set him suddenly considering his other love. At her house he was always polite and formal; gentlemanly, in short. With Connie he felt the old, manly superiority; he was the knight, strong and tender, she was the beautiful maiden with a touch of God on her brow. He kissed her, he softened and selected his speech for her, he forbore from being the greater part of himself. She was his betrothed, his wife, his queen, whom he loved to idealise, and for whom he carefully modified himself. She should rule him later on--that part of him which was hers. But he loved her, too, with a pitying, tender love. He thought of her tears upon her pillow in the northern Rectory, and he bit his lip, held his breath under the strain of the situation. Vaguely he knew she would bore him. And Winifred fascinated him. He and she really played with fire. In her house, he was roused and keen. But she was not, and never could be, frank. So he was not frank, even to himself. Saying nothing, betraying nothing, immediately they were together they began the same game. Each shuddered, each defenceless and exposed, hated the other by turns. Yet they came together again. Coutts felt a vague fear of Winifred. She was intense and unnatural--and he became unnatural and intense, beside her.

We can see the dichotomy between the two women, at least Coutts' impression of them. Not only is Connie associated with tradition and even religion ("rectory" suggesting a religious home) but with an idolized passed. He says that Wini is unnatural, but frankly I can't help but feel that his relationship with Connie is too much of a dream. It too may be unnatural. And why is Winifred unnatural? That's a very sensitve word for Lawrence. He is always striving to capture what is natural in man. For him to call Winifred unnatural carries a lot of weight. You would think that Winifred's sexuality would be natural for Lawrence. Until you realize that she is playing with sexuality, and that for Lawrence is incredibly unnatural. The magic that Wini weaves is an unnatural element.

Another observation on this paragragh, and it has to do with style. I find it immensely interesting that he buckles the observations of the two women together here into one paragragh. If one were writing this without consciously crafting the paragragh, almost everyone I think would have separated the paragragh into two paragraghs, one for the Connie section and one for the Wini. But Lawrence buckles the two together. It's a conscious effort to show a stark line between the two, has the two women almost butting into conflict, and captures the subconscious dynamics of Coutts' mind.

Virgil

05-18-2008, 12:09 PM

:lol: Ok. I thought it unusual but perhaps you're right. :) Though it stll strikes me as an important paragragh. It's the only paragragh where we get description of his relationship with Connie. And he does have Winifred intrude into the paragragh.

Janine

05-18-2008, 12:46 PM

Virgil, I read Antiquarian's comments and then your's to her, right after her post; so, I decided to go back to your original post first. I wanted to address it directly, that seemed to me logical.

Yes I pointed that out earlier. Music has a charming effect, and is either part of Wini's magic or is intended to be a analogy. I think Janine is correct in bringng up that famous "Piano" poem of Lawrence's. It was probably written around this same time as the writing of this story, early years. I think the suggeston in the poem fits the charming effect in the story.

Even though, this poem is basically about his mother, one could not say Lawrence saw the piano without a great deal of passion, within himself. I don't think, he would have used the line "piano appasionata", if he did not see the piano as stirring his deepest emotions. I feel these emotions, when I read this poem, almost as though, I could hear and feel the piano keys, resounding with that special music so dear to Lawrence. Lawrence's 'genius' is that, he can convey these deep down feelings. He just taps into this sort of thing so naturally.

I can't believe how much conversation you guys have had. Discussion of this story must be over 30 pages at this point. This is way more discussion than any of our previous stories.

Is that riot or what? 30 pages plus! Geez.. Well, in many of the posts, you may recall, that we were arguing about whether this or that character was likable, or unlikable or even hated. Glad we finally got to discussing the actual text, because so much has been revealed from it. The written word never lies....it may be curious and ambiguous, at times, but it is always fun to try to figure out, just what the author meant by those words.

I'm not sure if you've passed this passage yet, but I thought it was a very significant one:

I was just about to get to this part. Been dying to discuss this paragraph. I will post more text tonight, since I am going out today to a concert. But yes, this paragraph is certainly 'key' to us understanding the difference between how Coutts views the two women, and his difference is very apparent here.

We can see the dichotomy between the two women, at least Coutts' impression of them. Not only is Connie associated with tradition and even religion ("rectory" suggesting a religious home) but with an idolized passed. He says that Wini is unnatural, but frankly I can't help but feel that his relationship with Connie is too much of a dream. It too may be unnatural. And why is Winifred unnatural? That's a very sensitve word for Lawrence. He is always striving to capture what is natural in man. For him to call Winifred unnatural carries a lot of weight. You would think that Winifred's sexuality would be natural for Lawrence. Until you realize that she is playing with sexuality, and that for Lawrence is incredibly unnatural. The magic that Wini weaves is an unnatural element.

Dichotomy is a great word....did we spell that right?;) :lol: Anyway, I do totally agree with you on this paragraph. Oddly enough last night I was re-listening to "Women in Love", Virgil, and I came to that scene when Rupert confronts Hermione; it is in the chapter Class-room towards the end of the chapter. I could not get over the same imagery being used; referring to 'The Lady of Shallot' and the looking glass. I will go online and try and find the text to quote because I think this whole idea relates and is so similar to the way he views Winifred. I would never have thought of Hermione as related to Winifred but in this one respect of their ideas of passion it is so similar. I think by reading this passage I became more aware now of just precisely what Lawrence is trying to get across in this short story. At one furious moment, in the text Rupert even called Hermione... "a palpable body of darkness, a demon"...and when she asks "but why should I be a demon--?"... Rupert replies "Woman waiting for her demon lover--"
Does anyone know who he is quoting there? It seems like quote from another author or writing.
I came back to add this (editing my post). I found it on this site - from chapter 3 of "Women in Love":

Hermione set hard and poisonous against this attack. Ursula stood covered with wonder and shame. It frightened her, to see how they hated each other.

`It's all that Lady of Shalott business,' he said, in his strong abstract voice. He seemed to be charging her before the unseeing air. `You've got that mirror, your own fixed will, your immortal understanding, your own tight conscious world, and there is nothing beyond it. There, in the mirror, you must have everything. But now you have come to all your conclusions, you want to go back and be like a savage, without knowledge. You want a life of pure sensation and "passion."'

He quoted the last word satirically against her. She sat convulsed with fury and violation, speechless, like a stricken pythoness of the Greek oracle.

`But your passion is a lie,' he went on violently. `It isn't passion at all, it is your will. It's your bullying will. You want to clutch things and have them in your power. You want to have things in your power. And why? Because you haven't got any real body, any dark sensual body of life. You have no sensuality. You have only your will and your conceit of consciousness, and your lust for power, to know.'

He looked at her in mingled hate and contempt, also in pain because she suffered, and in shame because he knew he tortured her. He had an impulse to kneel and plead for forgiveness. But a bitterer red anger burned up to fury in him. He became unconscious of her, he was only a passionate voice speaking.

`Spontaneous!' he cried. `You and spontaneity! You, the most deliberate thing that ever walked or crawled! You'd be verily deliberately spontaneous -- that's you. Because you want to have everything in your own volition, your deliberate voluntary consciousness. You want it all in that loathsome little skull of yours, that ought to be cracked like a nut. For you'll be the same till it is cracked, like an insect in its skin. If one cracked your skull perhaps one might get a spontaneous, passionate woman out of you, with real sensuality. As it is, what you want is pornography -- looking at yourself in mirrors, watching your naked animal actions in mirrors, so that you can have it all in your consciousness, make it all mental.'

There was a sense of violation in the air, as if too much was said, the unforgivable. Yet Ursula was concerned now only with solving her own problems, in the light of his words. She was pale and abstracted.

`But do you really want sensuality?' she asked, puzzled.

Birkin looked at her, and became intent in his explanation.

`Yes,' he said, `that and nothing else, at this point. It is a fulfilment -- the great dark knowledge you can't have in your head -- the dark involuntary being. It is death to one's self -- but it is the coming into being of another.'

`But how? How can you have knowledge not in your head?' she asked, quite unable to interpret his phrases.

`In the blood,' he answered; `when the mind and the known world is drowned in darkness everything must go -- there must be the deluge. Then you find yourself a palpable body of darkness, a demon --'

`But why should I be a demon --?' she asked.

`"Woman wailing for her demon lover" --' he quoted -- `why, I don't know.'

Hermione roused herself as from a death -- annihilation.

I think this section, not only is similar to what soon is said,between Coutts and Winifred (the mirror idea),but expounds on that more and makes Lawrence's blood philosophy a bit clearer. Also,to note:when I was listening to this part last night several times it mentioned that Rupert Birkin and Hermione had a love/hate relationship. I thought that was interesting,since Coutts and Winifred seem to have the same type relationship. Of course,Birkin and Hermoine had been lovers and I don't surmise that Coutts and Winifred had been sexual with each other.
Also note Birkin's insistence on the idea of 'will' which I know Virgil has brought up in other stories and I brought up earlier in this story.

Another observation on this paragragh, and it has to do with style. I find it immensely interesting that he buckles the observations of the two women together here into one paragragh. If one were writing this without consciously crafting the paragragh, almost everyone I think would have separated the paragragh into two paragraghs, one for the Connie section and one for the Wini. But Lawrence buckles the two together. It's a conscious effort to show a stark line between the two, has the two women almost butting into conflict, and captures the subconscious dynamics of Coutts' mind.

Well, Antiquarian, you don't think it is genius and Virgil does. Hey, Antiquarian, maybe you are more of a genius than you think you are. You know Lawrence hated being called 'genius'..in fact he told Frieda he was called that but he thought he was a good writer and would maybe become a great writer. He said writing takes practice. No doubt by the time Lawrence wrote this story he had had a great deal of practice.
I personally do think it brilliant the way he incorporated the two women in the paragraph at a key moment in the story. His timing was always so good. He places this paragraph in the text just when it is needed to explain and reveal to us more about his relationship with his betrothed.
Then as Virgil, points out he does have the two woman almost aligned in a sort of conflict or combat. The conflict/combat, is within Coutts himself; as Virgil so aptly put it, it 'captures the subconscious dynamics of Coutt's mind.'
The two women are sort of intertwined in this one paragraph, as the snake image of the train involves an intertwining in the previous text we discussed. Perhaps the gold-and-black snake represents this struggle within Coutt's subconcious mind and the struggle is that involving the two women. The dark side could represent Winifred and the ligth side Connie. It is just a thought.

Virgil

05-18-2008, 03:06 PM

That is an interesting passage from Women In Love. Do you think Winifred is similar to Hermione? Quite possible, although Wnifred is half way likable. "Woman wailing for her demon lover" is from Colridge's "Kubla Khan." Here's the entire poem:

Kubla Khan
OR, A VISION IN A DREAM.
A FRAGMENT.
by Samual Taylor Coleridge

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree :
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man

Down to a sunless sea.

So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round :
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree ;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.
But oh ! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover !
A savage place ! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover !
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced :
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail :
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean :
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war !

The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves ;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.

It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice !
A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw :
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,

That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware ! Beware !
His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Janine

05-18-2008, 10:32 PM

That is an interesting passage from Women In Love. Do you think Winifred is similar to Hermione? Quite possible, although Wnifred is half way likable. "Woman wailing for her demon lover" is from Colridge's "Kubla Khan." Here's the entire poem:

I don't think the two women, Winifred and Hermoine, are alike in personality. However I do think they are similar in the way in which Lawrence conceived their characters and then perceived them; I think that they both have the same problem when it comes with relationships; true ones. They cannot connect physically (in the deep blood sense) to a man, as Lawrence is explaining to both women, throught his male characters. They can view passion in themselves, but they cannot really experience passion or connect on that level with a man, in the deeper sense - which is devoid of 'self-consciousness'.

It is curious that Lawrence would use the same symbolism, reference to "Lady Shallot" and the looking glass in both stories; and at the same time, I think that makes it even more significant. He explains this idea much clearer in this passage, from 'Women in Love", and this confrontation between Rupert and Hermione. He expands this whole idea/concept in the novel; whereas, in the short story, one is left thinking and surmising, just what Lawrence means - in relationship to Winifred and these symbols and her degree of passionate release. I hope that is clear. It is hard to explain actually and I am a little tired out right now. Guess it was my big dinner; I feel sleepy.

Anyway, Virgil, thanks for looking up the poem - how did you find it? or were you familiar with this poem and that line? A few key lines really stand out to me. This part from which Lawrence extracted that line in the story, is quite interesting:

A savage place ! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover !

That sounds like images used continually in the story, in the symbol of the 'waning moon', images of 'holy and enchanted', 'savage', and 'haunted'; and finally, in Lawrence's direct mention of a 'woman wailing for her demon-lover'.

I am not sure I fully understand this poem, but the imagery is similar to what Lawrence employs in this short story(ies). I like this part of the poem:

It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice !
A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw :
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,

That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !

"A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!" - interesting duality here - the sun and the ice - two frequent ideas that Lawrence often employs symbolically in this stories and novels. Also, note the liberal use of words relating to music, throughtout the poem and often in conjuction with pleasure. This poem is really lovely and mysterious.

This part is great -
"Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,.."

The whole poem actually is very musical, and very mystical, mysterious. I will read it over again and maybe print it out to muse on the deeper meanings behind the words. Thanks again Virgil for finiding it and posting it.

Virgil

05-18-2008, 10:56 PM

I don't think the two women, Winifred and Hermoine, are alike in personality. However I do think they are similar in the way in which Lawrence conceived their characters and then perceived them; I think that they both have the same problem when it comes with relationships; true ones. They cannot connect physically (in the deep blood sense) to a man, as Lawrence is explaining to both women, throught his male characters. They can view passion in themselves, but they cannot really experience passion or connect on that level with a man, in the deeper sense - which is devoid of 'self-consciousness'.

Good thoughts Janine. I pretty much agree.

It is curious that Lawrence would use the same symbolism, reference to "Lady Shallot" and the looking glass in both stories; and at the same time, I think that makes it even more significant. He explains this idea much clearer in this passage, from 'Women in Love", and this confrontation between Rupert and Hermione. He expands this whole idea/concept in the novel; whereas, in the short story, one is left thinking and surmising, just what Lawrence means - in relationship to Winifred and these symbols and her degree of passionate release. I hope that is clear. It is hard to explain actually and I am a little tired out right now. Guess it was my big dinner; I feel sleepy.
Well, that is one of the differences between a short story and a novel. It's not correct to conceive of a short story as a short version of a novel. They are two different art forms.

Anyway, Virgil, thanks for looking up the poem - how did you find it? or were you familiar with this poem and that line?
I knew it. I pretty much know most of the classic Romantic poems off the cuff. ;)

That sounds like images used continually in the story, in the symbol of the 'waning moon', images of 'holy and enchanted', 'savage', and 'haunted'; and finally, in Lawrence's direct mention of a 'woman wailing for her demon-lover'.

I am not sure I fully understand this poem, but the imagery is similar to what Lawrence employs in this short story(ies).
The poem does have a lot of musical elements to it. And it is about being charmed too.

"A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!" - interesting duality here - the sun and the ice - two frequent ideas that Lawrence often employs symbolically in this stories and novels. Also, note the liberal use of words relating to music, throughtout the poem and often in conjuction with pleasure. This poem is really lovely and mysterious.

This part is great -
"Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,.."

The whole poem actually is very musical, and very mystical, mysterious. I will read it over again and maybe print it out to muse on the deeper meanings behind the words. Thanks again Virgil for finiding it and posting it.
This is one of those poems one should know. If you wish we could discuss it off line.

Virgil

05-18-2008, 11:09 PM

We certainly agree 100% there. The novel often has more than one viewpoint character, while the short story usually, not always, has only one.

Short stories with more than three main characters are usually very confusing.

The short story is all about unity, where the novel has room to "spread out" and develop subplots.

I've always said that the short story is the art of telling a story or tale whle the novel is the art of capturing life in writing. Now there is overlap, but I think their primary core focus is somewhat different. Perhaps one day we should discuss it. Down the road I hope. Too many things going on these days. ;)

Virgil, you are lucky to remember poems like that. Lucky or skilled. Probably both. ;) I can't do it.
Oh thanks. Hey I'm old. I've read the core classic poems many times over. Not sure how old you are. Plus I'm not sure I've seen you in the poetry discussions, so perhaps you don't have the same interest in poetry as stories. One can read a poem many times over, and usually does. ;)

Virgil

05-18-2008, 11:28 PM

My writing instructor has always taught that the main difference is that the short story has a very narrow focus and everything in it should contribute to that focus. The short story demonstrates a more harmonious relationship of all its aspects than any other literary art form except lyric poetry.
Oh I absolutely agree with that. But those are characteristics of craft.

This unity is what distinguishes it from the novel.
Yes, I think that's what I was suggesting when I distinguished them by art forms. The short story requires a unified story while a novel is multifaceted and strives to capture life. Take Melville's Moby Dick for instance. Melville could have written a couple of thirty page stories from the story part of his material. But when he expanded it to include the whaling life and skill metaphorically tied into his themes, then he expanded his art beyond a story. It's no longer just a tale, but a representation of a particular vision of life.

Janine

05-18-2008, 11:29 PM

We certainly agree 100% there. The novel often has more than one viewpoint character, while the short story usually, not always, has only one.

Short stories with more than three main characters are usually very confusing.

The short story is all about unity, where the novel has room to "spread out" and develop subplots.

Virgil, you are lucky to remember poems like that. Lucky or skilled. Probably both. ;) I can't do it.

Virgil and Antiquarian, I certainly agree, also. I just posted that section of "Women in Love" because as I was listening to it last night and got to that part about "The Lady of Shallot" and the looking glass, the whole concept struck me and it cleared up the idea for me of the short story's meaning, concerning those specific images. I agree about all the things you pointed out in conjuction with short stories, Antiquarian.

Secondly, I quoted that part of the novel, because I think it showed how Lawrence felt specifically about passion, sensuality and relationships. This section expresses aspects of Lawrence's 'blood conscienceness'; therefore, I felt it related to our story text in some ways.

I can remember certain lines (if I hear them) and recall what poems they were quoted from; but not the Greek classics, as Virgil is familiar with. I am not familiar enough with those, I regret to say.

Janine

05-18-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote by Antiquarian:

I think the short story captures life, too, but only a moment in one life. It has a pinpoint focus that the novel doesn't have. The novel is panoramic, or at least it can be.

Some novels do that also - capture a moment in life....but in a series of many moments in life. I feel that Lawrence does this often. His novels all seem this way to me. It seems each scene and chapter, especially in "Women in Love" are merely moments connecting to each other, intertwining in a sort of intricate pattern. I don't know if that could be called 'panoramic'. I see Lawrence's work more 'microscopic'. He is one author who delves far below the surface, of his characters and their intimate moments in relation to time/place. In Lawrence's novels, I still percieve a kind of 'pinpoint' focus that you say only exists in short stories, Antiquarian.
So, I am not sure I entirely agree with you. I guess that could be a debate in itself, as to what the exact formula is for a short story and that for a novel. I might not know enough about it myself. I was looking beyond the formula, when I posted that section from Lawrence's novel. I was looking for the concepts behind the symbolism and the ideas. I may have been viewing it too microscopically, but I feel it was one of those moments in Lawrence's writing that reveals much of how Lawrence thought and that it did relate to this short story, in concept and symbolism.

Yes, Coutts seemed to want a sexual relationship with Winifred and he seemed to find her beautiful, and the symbol of fire is integrated into the story well, equating with sexual passion.

I was wondering if this meant he did not find Connie beautiful.

Reading about his personal life, my goodness, I felt he treated Jessie Chambers badly and with much insensitivity. I have to admit, so far, reading about his personal life, I do not like Freida at all. Not one bit. I also do not like Lawrence's mother.

Where are you reading about his personal life, Antiquarian...just curious? There are so many biographers out there and some sources are not so accurate. Is this from one of the Cambridge books?

Do you mean Coutts doesn't find Connie beautiful? I thought he had said she was. The woman who Connie corresponds to in Lawrence's real life was quite lovely, I think.

Here again, one can't judge Lawrence's life with a 'black and white' verdict, nor the women in his life. It is way more complex and complicated than that. After reading "Sons and Lovers", I felt I really did not hate anyone...I can honestly say that. I felt so after reading two full length biographies, as well. I felt all the people in Lawrence's life had their flaws and they all were human and made poor decisions, at times. Lawrence may have treated Jessie unkindly, but I don't think he would have been right for her or she for him; not in the long run. Their relationship was a very intense, but conflicted one. There is no doubt that his break with her was heartbreaking. yes, he hurt her but he also was quite conflicted about women at that time. If you read the book you will see just how complicated it all is. Jessie Chambers did write her own biography of Lawrence, but I have never read it. I read that it is quite biased but still I do find I have a curiosity to read her side of the story. It is nearly impossible to come by. I have it in my Amazon 'wishlist', but it is still too expensive for used copy.

Janine

05-19-2008, 12:17 AM

Lawrence certainly captures moments and he was very adept and skilled at stringing those moments together, but he couldn't write about his relationship with Miriam and then with Clara in a short story. That would be two short stories. Add in his mother and there might be three short stories.

Gee, you are fast posting tonight, Antiquarian. Yes, I can see what you mean. I can agree with that....it would take three short stories, at least.

Susan Minot's "Evening" captures a moment in life, in a way. It captures the moment of the mother's dying, but there are the subplots of the two sisters/daughters, the married one and the unmarried one and the relationship of the mother in her younger years with the boy who dies. This couldn't be done effectively or correctly in a short story. The unity would be lost.

I saw that film and posted about it in the movie thread - do you recall, Antiquarian? Did you read the book?

In "The Witch a la Mode" everything focuses on Coutts relationship to Winifred and his ambivalent feeling for her. That's one of the reasons we don't hear much about his relationship with Connie. It would harm the unity of the story. Lawrence was a very superior short story writer. Many beginning writers find it difficult not to ramble in a short story, but they have to learn if they're to have any success at all.

They say he was more direct in his short story writing and did not 'beat around the bush' like he did often in his novels. Sometimes he was working out what he needed to say in the novels and many think he becomes redundant in a preachy sort of way, at times.

Sometime back, Virgil, posted and said that Lawrence indeed was an excellent, if not one of the best short story authors. I know therefore, he would totally agree with you about your saying he was 'superior'. I am appreciating his short stories more and more all the time. I admit that short stories have not particularly been my favorites in the past, but now, with the two active threads, I am liking them more and more all the time. I too think he was superior and genius at his writing of these stories.

I was reading about his personal life in his letters to various people.

If you read some to Murray or from Murray, I can tell you that he is quite biased at times. He and Lawrence were friends and then had a major falling out between them in which Lawrence felt very betrayed by Murray. That too, is so very complicated. Did you read all the letters to and from Jessie? The letters still leave a lot of gaps, that I felt the novel and a good biography reveals about just how they interacted together. I have a number of the books of letters here but I have hardly scratched the surface myself. Lawrence was no saint, but I can very much see his side of it. I can't condemn him either. There are too many conflicting reports and opinions.

Janine

05-19-2008, 01:15 AM

Yes, I read Evening as well as watching the film. I like Susan Minot's writing, though some think her style choppy.

I was reading letters Lawrence wrote to many different people.
Antiquarian, That is good, that it is a mix; but there are just so many available nowdays. I think it would take me till I died, to read them all. I think there are 8 full volumes of Lawrence's letters - can you imagine? How did he find time to write all he did and all these letters and essays, plays, short stories, novels, poetry, etc, etc? I think this is what truly fascintes me about Lawrence. All this and the fact, that he did not live a long life. Sad to have such talent and die so young; but many did back then, before cures for TB and other terminal illnesses. Also, I don't know how he achieved so much when he really never was a very healthy man, as far back as his youth. I have great respect, for that kind of drive; probably because I lack it myself.

Yes, I would definitely agree with Virgil, in that Lawrence is one of the best short story writers ever. Truly a shame his stories aren't more widely read or collected into less expensive volumes, but at least they're online. I do think some people don't like his heavy use of symbolism, though I find it adds quite a bit of depth to his stories. I like it very much.

I would agree, also. It is a shame, but I think they are in some demand now; well I know the novels and the various biographies are abundant online and years back it was not so. Maybe, I am just going by what is listed on Amazon, but there seems to be a lot offered these days. Did I ever send you the link for the Cambridge online exhibit of Lawrence? It is quite fascinating and I like to look at the photos and various other things on there, such as his original manuscripts.

Yes, I also find the symbolism is quite fascinating; probably before when I read these stories, I did not pick up on all of that, or fully understand the stories; now I feel a broader view is making me appreciate them in their truer aspect. I am glad of that. This thread has done much for my own appreciation. I love discussing them with all of you. Everyone adds a new idea/perspective to the discussions; we all learn more that way and see more in the story and the symbolism.

I find I don't dislike Lawrence, though I can't agree with all his beliefs, but that's not really important. I have much sympathy for him. But I can't as yet like his mother or Frieda, though as I said, I felt sorry for his mother in many ways.

Yes, Virgil and I have discussed this many times. We love Lawrence and his work, but we don't agree completely with all his ideas, but that is ok. We can still highly respect and appreciate the author and what he achieved. I feel sympathy or maybe empathy, for the situtations he found himself in growing up. I felt badly that he had a difficult time publishing these fine works. It was a different world back then, now he would have no problem getting his work published.

His mother did have her reasons to be as she was; his father was quite brutal to her at times, although Lawrence admitted later that he was too unfair in his portrayal of his father in the novel "Sons and Lovers". I still feel they were so totally mismatched. Lawrence's mother doted on her children, most prominently the boys. She did act superior in ways, but she did have a hard life, so one has to feel for her, too. When she married Lawrence's father, she did not bargain for all she got, either. I know what it is like, growing up with parents who are at odds, with each other on a daily basis. This also might be why I connect with this part of Lawrence's childhood and adolescense and the effect it had later on his life.

I can't say I hate or dislike Frieda. I just think she had her own code of thinking and she was very much a modern thinking woman. I might be basing my notion of her on some film portrayals of her and they were favorable. She did leave her children behind to go and live with Lawrence. I am not sure how a mother can do that. I don't think she had a good marriage at all. She married quite young and basically innocent. Of course, by the time she meet up with Lawrence, she was far from innocent. Something about her made him fall in love with her; I guess something just connected. I do think he loved her intensely. Who is to say why they hit it off and married. All the strife they went through, they must have loved each other. I don't doubt that one bit, although I don't think it was a marriage that always ran along smoothly. In "Women in Love' the characters of Ursula and Birkin are suppose to have been representative of the two of them. The novel speaks volumes about how Lawrence viewed their love affair/marriage; but this does not include the facts of a former marriage or children for the Ursula character (Frieda).

Virgil

05-19-2008, 08:16 AM

I read an essay of Lawrence's today called "Sex Versus Loveliness." In it, Lawrence says:

While ever it lives, the fire of sex, which is the source of beauty and anger, burns in us beyond our understanding....Sex and beauty are one thing, like flame and fire. If you hate sex, you hate beauty.

To me, this seemed very applicable to this story.
It's probably applicable to many Lawrence works. Some have described Lawrence's philosophy as a religion of sex. Not the free love sex of the 1960's, lawrence would be appalled by that (some have even said he was really a prude), but a natural sexuality that stands in opposition to social constraints. He would probably argue that that free love sex is just as much as unnatural as overly Victorian constraints. If I can summarize it his philosophy, which really is a sort of theology, is a combination of naturalism linked to a spiritualism through his notion of blood consciousness. Most naturalists (like Hardy for instance) are actually atheists, or semi atheists, but Lawrence isn't. Sex - what he consders natural sex - is a blossoming of that spirituality, the fullfilment of blood consciousness. I hope that makes sense.

Oh, I don't hate his mother. Hate is far too strong a word and emotion. I just don't like her, though I feel somewhat sorry for her. And I don't hate Frieda, but I can't like her, either, or feel sympathy for her. Not at this point.
I never cared for his mother either, but I can be ambivalent over her, but I really do not like Frieda at all.

Sometime back, Virgil, posted and said that Lawrence indeed was an excellent, if not one of the best short story authors. I know therefore, he would totally agree with you about your saying he was 'superior'. I am appreciating his short stories more and more all the time. I admit that short stories have not particularly been my favorites in the past, but now, with the two active threads, I am liking them more and more all the time. I too think he was superior and genius at his writing of these stories.

I really love Lawrence's short stories. Of the English (not American) short story writers I feel he's the best. And I include Joyce in the English.

If you read some to Murray or from Murray, I can tell you that he is quite biased at times. He and Lawrence were friends and then had a major falling out between them in which Lawrence felt very betrayed by Murray. That too, is so very complicated. Did you read all the letters to and from Jessie? The letters still leave a lot of gaps, that I felt the novel and a good biography reveals about just how they interacted together. I have a number of the books of letters here but I have hardly scratched the surface myself. Lawrence was no saint, but I can very much see his side of it. I can't condemn him either. There are too many conflicting reports and opinions.
I would never trust anything Lawrence says about himself or others. He could be quite viscious and he always seemed to have an agenda. Well, always is too strong, but frequently. I happen to like Jessie, and though she would not have traveled around the world with him I think she would have been a better wife than Frieda.

Yes, I would definitely agree with Virgil, in that Lawrence is one of the best short story writers ever. Truly a shame his stories aren't more widely read or collected into less expensive volumes, but at least they're online. I do think some people don't like his heavy use of symbolism, though I find it adds quite a bit of depth to his stories. I like it very much.
His use of symbolism is on top of an already finely crafted story.

I think I read somewhere that Lawrence wrote at least 5,500 letters. That's astounding.

Actually his letters, onl;y the ones he wrote, not the ones he received back, amount to eight volumes. And he wrote about a dozen novels (some of which he re-wrote from scratch a couple of times), three volumes of short stories, and his collected poems is a volume about four inches thick; plus he wrote several non-fiction books, lots of essays (collected into two volumes), and three or four travel books. And he died at the age of 44!! Can you imagine? Where did he find the time? He didn't edit his work much. He was just one of those people who naturally can write perfectly off the cuff. Occaisionally I find a sentence that I think could have been edited, but not very often.

Well, it's hard to say if Lawrence would have had an easy or a difficult time publishing his stories now. The market for short stories is a limited one and Lawrence's style, though gorgeous, is not in favor at the moment among publishers, sad to say.
Oh I think if he had llived now his style would have been a little different. The use of symbolism was fairly popular at the early part of the 20th century. I think he still would have been a great writer. He was just natural.

They're usually looking for things more surreal. Many, many wonderful novel and short story mss. go unpublished every year. Publishing houses are always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, so they tend to go with "big name authors" and that usually mean inferior writing, the genre writing, like romance, romantic suspense, mysteries, etc. Very sad, the state of publishing today. Certainly Lawrence's stories would deserve to be published, but it's impossible to second guess how hard a time he would have
Oh I don't think he would have been good at surreal.

I suppose I'll never forgive Frieda for abandoning her children. I usually give people a rather wide berth, but not on this issue. To me, one doesn't abandon children to run off with a man no matter how deep or intense the love.
Oh I absolutely agree too on this. But i detest Frieda even outside this issue. She was snobby, uppity, and cold.

Virgil

05-19-2008, 10:20 AM

I feel Joyce was better at the novel than Lawrence,
Personally I think Lawrence's Sons and Lovers is a better bildingsroman than Joyce's Portrait of the Artist. And while Ulyssess is a great great novel, it does seem at times to lack flesh and blood. Lawrence's great novels The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly seem so much more down to earth, though perhaps not as ambitious as Ullysses.

But I do agree, Lawrence was at his best in the short story form. you should try some of his novelas too. I forgot to mention those above. He's got at least five or six.

as was Hardy,
Hmm, while I enjoy a Hardy novel, for some reason i never felt he was that skillful.

Dark Muse

05-19-2008, 11:11 AM

I do like Lawrence's short stories better than Joyce's, though, or Hardy's. I think the only authors I like as much, as far as the short story is concerned are Faulkner, Flannery O'Conner (and they're totally different in style, being Southern gothic, so there's really no comparison), William Trevor, and Virginia Woolf.

I prefer Joyce's short stories over his novels. I enjoyed the stories I read in The Dubliners, but I loathed Portrait. But still all around I think Lawrence is the better writer and I much prefer him.

Dark Muse

05-19-2008, 12:26 PM

From what I have read so far, I prefer Lawrence's novels.

I was not really moved by Stephen at all either to like or dislike. One of the reasons I really did not care for the book, I was not in the least drawn into the character, so I really did not care what happened to him through the book.

Lawrence draws me into his characters a good deal more, even if I do not always like or agree with them, they are at least interesting to me.

Janine

05-19-2008, 01:56 PM

Wow, so many posts on here today....will I ever catch up....?

I am starting with Antiquarian's longer post:

I think I read somewhere that Lawrence wrote at least 5,500 letters. That's astounding.

Yes, absolutely astonishing, isn’t it?

No, you didn't send me the link, but no hurry. I know you're very busy right now.

Antiquarian, go with this link for now; this is not really the one I saw before, unless they have altered the site. I don’t see as many photos here of family and friends, as before, but I do see the statue in front of the library; if you click on the various listings on the left side of the main page, it will take you to a lot of interesting things.

Well, it's hard to say if Lawrence would have had an easy or a difficult time publishing his stories now. The market for short stories is a limited one and Lawrence's style, though gorgeous, is not in favor at the moment among publishers, sad to say. They're usually looking for things more surreal. Many, many wonderful novel and short story mss. go unpublished every year. Publishing houses are always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, so they tend to go with "big name authors" and that usually mean inferior writing, the genre writing, like romance, romantic suspense, mysteries, etc. Very sad, the state of publishing today. Certainly Lawrence's stories would deserve to be published, but it's impossible to second guess how hard a time he would have.

Yes, I understand entirely and they may be out of fashion as to what people buy popularly today. What I actually was getting at was the idea of censorship being so stringent in his day; same with what James Joyce ran up against trying to publish his work. Both of their works would easily pass the censorship test. Back then they were not rejected because of their quality but because of the fact they were considered dirty or obscene. Lawrence went through a whole obscenity trial with “Lady Chatterly’s Lovers.” He finally had to publish it on his own. It was sad how that was rejected and today it would have been mild compared to what kind of literature gets published.
I also was referring more to his novels than to his short stories.

I suppose I'll never forgive Frieda for abandoning her children. I usually give people a rather wide berth, but not on this issue. To me, one doesn't abandon children to run off with a man no matter how deep or intense the love. I read a partially fictionalized account of the life of Frank LLoyd Wright (Loving Frank) and Mamah Borthwick Cheney (also a woman ahead of her time - a feminist), and she, too, abandoned two small children (and a husband) to run off to Europe with Wright. I find that simply unforgivable. I couldn't even have sympathy for her when she was brutally murdered, along with her children, at Taliesin. I felt for the children and for her abandoned husband, who was, understandably, devastated. He lost everything. I could not like or respect her or Wright. To leave a husband would be forgivable, but to leave children, for me, is not. In that, I don't give people any leeway at all. So, I suppose I will always dislike Frieda.

Well, I might have used the word “abandon” first on here but that is not quite fair to say. She left and would have liked them with her or have been able to see them. Divorces in that day were brutal and laws in England were cruel that way. If you were the one to break with the husband and leave him you were crucified for it and the children were used as pawns in this situation. It is sad to say; but I am very sure it all was totally unfair. The both went to court for more visitation rights but were denied. When the children got older they did visit them and stayed with them often. I know Barbara was close to them and even liked Lawrence very much. The children started out liking Lawrence emensely while the father was rather cold and calculating with them. Yes, the children suffered but Lawrence felt, after his own horrid childhood, that children should be told the truth and not lied to. I can’t condemn either of them for the fact they left England eventually. Basically many things happened that drove them out. That too is quite complicated. Up until then they tried to see the children. I think one has to live through a similar situation when married and divorced with children or a child to see just how hard it is to handle this kind of situation. My own ex very much used my son in the same way, as a pawn, mostly to try and get me back. To this day, my son knows that truth and will opening admit it. I think, in the long-run it has made him a better person. He grew up with the truth and not the lie. I could have stayed on only for him; but something told me to leave for him and for me. We had some rough years but it all worked out in the end. No one lives a perfect life and we all must adjust to our circumstances and what life deals us. I don’t therefore condemn Frieda one bit. I feel very badly for her and for her as a mother who was very much torn between true deeply felt love and her children. Ernest Weekly and she lived a dead existence together – Lawrence described it as a sleeping marriage; he was a very stern man; she as very young when she married him; he was older. In the end it was better to break with him and find happiness with the man she truly loved. I have to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don’t think she was a truly bad mother, but she did what she felt she must. Was I a bad mother to leave my husband and subject my son, to being torn between two holdholds? I did what I felt I had to do at the time, therefore I can’t judge this woman having not know here at all; only reading hearsay and second hand accounts of her. If Weekly was holding the children back from her that was hardly her fault and I can’t call it abandonment by her own choice.

I have to go back now and read all the other comments and get my bearings.

Antiquarian, I did read that you completed "Sons and Lovers' and did not particularly like it, or not as well as Joyce. I am the opposite; but I do have to say, 'Sons and Lovers" I merely recommended to you to start your reading Lawrence, to better understand his family and background...as a sort of foundation for the coming works. Lawrence, himself, said he would not write another book like it again. This book contained his early life, which contained a lot of confusion and unresolved issues; this is why I suggested it to you. Personally, my favorite is still "Women in Love" - is more developed in ideas and also it contains way more symbolism and classical references. The stories of the two couples parallel each other, and they are fascinating in their differences. I like 'relationship' books and this one truly explores these intricate relationships, between the two couples. Now, Virgil's favorite Lawrence novel is "The Rainbow". My first reading of it, gave me the impression of being too long and uncentered; but that might just have been the time I read it; I hope to read it again soon and I think then, I will see a whole new book emerge; perhaps because, it is more epic and encompasses several generations of the Brangwen family, of whom the 2 sisters are then featured (after TTRB) in the novel "Women in Love".

After reading everyone's posts, it looks like it boils down to this: for once I agree with Dark Muse;:lol: (don't faint DM!) I think Lawrence the better writer in short stories; if DM also said novels; I have to agree with that, as well. I just could not connect to Joyce for some reason. I liked "Portrait" but I admit I did not always get a clear picture of just what was going on. I don't like long run on sentences - I just can't process them - so it might be a personal thing. I can easily get myself into the flow of Lawrence's prose and so often feel it is actually written as pure poetry. Loving poetry as I do I think that is one reason I key into Lawrence. I feel 'right' reading his work and also I feel he delves further into the pyche of the individual.

I for one enjoy Hardy; I read nearly all he has written; but I do feel that Lawrence took his books way further than Hardy ever did. For one thing I think their whole theology is quite different as Virgil pointed out above. Hardy believed in 'fate' ruling our lives, whereas Lawrence knew it was our free-will, even though it was effected by our pasts and pychological factors.

And bottomline - I don't hate anyone! I guess maybe I am not as 'Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to know' as Antiquarian and Virgil are...even all of you, at times.. I don't have stronge opinions on anyone in Lawrence's life, not even Murray. I try to listen to all their stories and not truly make a judgement. How can I? I was not in their skins at the time; therefore, I don't truly know what they went through. I am more tolerant of people, I suppose. People can judge others, but if they never walked in their shoes, how can they really know. I have not read 'everything' written about Lawrence, Jessie, his family and her family, and Frieda, etc., so how can I truly pass judgement on them, any of them. If there is a shadow of a doubt, I just can't see them as all bad, nor all good.

Quotes by Virgil

Personally I think Lawrence's Sons and Lovers is a better bildingsroman than Joyce's Portrait of the Artist. And while Ulyssess is a great great novel, it does seem at times to lack flesh and blood. Lawrence's great novels The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly seem so much more down to earth, though perhaps not as ambitious as Ullysses.

I agree, Virgil, with you. I think he wrote some of the finest novels in the English language.

But I do agree, Lawrence was at his best in the short story form. you should try some of his novelas too. I forgot to mention those above. He's got at least five or six.

Oh, I love his novella; I just re-read "Love Among the Haystacks" and loved it and now I am reading "The Virgin and the Gypsy". I am enjoying that very much but only to chapter 3 so far. The book is only 120 pages. I love the story "The Fox". "The Man Who Died" is well crafted and marvelous.

Janine

05-19-2008, 03:32 PM

LOL Virgil may be "Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know," but please don't put in that mix, Janine. That's Virgil's motto, not mine. :lol: I'm totally harmless, though I still won't forgive Frieda for leaving her children for Lawrence, no matter what her marriage was like.

Well never take me seriously, Antiquarian; I was just joking with you about MBD!;)
I just don't know much about Frieda, only what I have read in the travel books and some about her in 'Kangaroo'...she was his model for Harriet and he for Sommers. I do think she loved Lawrence and he loved her, and I don't think she truly loved her husband. I don't understand many of you who feel one should stay for the children's sake. In my mother's day this was true and believe me, the children were never spared, living in a home with strife and unhappiness. I had a pyschologist talk to me about this once and he said ' kids who were sheltered, from what their parents or their problems, were ultimately way worse off, then if they knew the truth. I think it speaks volumes, that Frieda's own children, never blamed her, for breaking off with their father. I will research that better, but I don't believe they did blame her. And as I said, she did try to get them and to see them, whenever she could...she was quite broken hearted. Her rich husband had the resources to fight that legally and he did. How could she have done otherwise? Well, aside from all this, I think we had better discuss this privately, since it gets into a lot of personal things for both of us, especially me, having had a child to consider during a very bad divorce.

I did say I greatly preferred Lawrence's short stories, and I do. Generally, though, I don't care for works based on real life, so that may have been part of my problem with Sons and Lovers, but I did like Part Two quite a lot, much more than Part One. It seemed to be more in the style of Lawrence's short stories.

How different we are in this repect; I love true life accounts or novels based on true lives or events. Well, glad you enjoyed the second half. I think most people do so. Then you really get into the 'relationship' intricacies of the novel. That is why I think you would greatly enjoy "Women in Love". I don't think you can fully make an assessment about Lawrence's work until you read that and also "The Rainbow" - those are his masterpieces.

Oh, I see now what you meant when you said his novels would be easy to publish today - the censorship he faced during his own lifetime. You're right, that wouldn't exist today, but it's still hard to predict what gets published and what doesn't. Sometimes the choices they make seem to make no sense at all, and often they're based on strictly financial gain for the publishing house. As beautifully as Lawrence wrote, he still could have a problem today - not because of censorship or lack of quality, but because of the quirkiness of publishers. Some publishers just was "topical" things, too, and don't care if the writing is good. That's how very badly written books like The Kite Runner get published. The prose in that was some of the most dreadful I've ever read, but it was topical. I know you watched the movie. I trust they cleaned it up a bit for the film version.

Well, this is the age old thing about quality/true/fine art - even visual art. The general concensis, on what is really good is appalling. So, I don't know what to say, except the modern market is that way and I don't know how we can change the world's opinions on bad art and bad writing. There is much bad writing out there and people gobble it right up; books sell like mad, bad books.
I did not notice anything in the film "The Kite Runner" that was foul or needed to be cleaned up. It was good, but I don't have a burning desire to read the book.
Yes, basically, I was speaking in terms of censorship.

I've read "Love Among the Haystacks" and "The Virgin and the Gipsy." I think both are marvelous. "Love Among the Haystacks" is in the book of stories I have and I bought "The Virgin and the Gipsy" with my most recent Amazon order, a few weeks ago.

Wasn't it enjoyable - the first? I liked that story very much. I am still reading the second one; although, I did read it years back. I am also re-listening to "Women in Love" - everytime I hear it, it only gets better.

Virgil

05-19-2008, 04:13 PM

Just one word on Frieda. She was not in an abusive marriage. She may not have loved her husband any longer and he may have been very distracted with his work, but he loved her, and they had the kids. Her husband may not have been the passiante young and handsome Lawrence, but you don't leave a family like that. Plus, she wasn't exactly faithful to Lawrence either.

Janine

05-19-2008, 04:23 PM

"Love Among the Haystacks" and "The Virgin and the Gipsy" are wonderful novellas (or long short stories). The writing is very sensitive and beautiful.

Yes, truly sensitive and beautiful. I loved the character Geoffrey in 'Haystacks'; he was so sweet and so sensitive; and the ending was so lovely.

The Kite Runner was just a very overly melodramatic book, very poorly written, but that wouldn't have come through in the movie. It was the prose, itself that was so bad, which you wouldn't have heard in the movie.

Oh, just bad writing? Sometimes that can be truly laughable!

I think Frieda's children should have known the truth, I totally agree about that, I just don't see how any mother can walk away from her children, no matter what the condition of her marriage is. Not for another man. I could never walk away from my brothers and sister, let alone a child. Now, deciding to separate, with no other man or woman involved, yes, I can understand that. And if one becomes involved with someone else after the separation, well, then I can understand that, too. I think it was her leaving for Lawrence, not deciding with her husband to separate and the two of them talking things over with the children. That I could understand. I would have absolutely no objection to any woman leaving a man who treats her badly. I think it wasn't the leaving per se, it was staying with a well-to-do husband until Lawrence came along.

Well, what should a woman do then if unhappy? In those days there just were no options for a woman who left her husband. If Lawrence had not come along and she wanted to leave her husband, how could she have done so; could she have taken the three children with her? I can't see how she could have done so financially or legally. Had she left alone without the children and gone anyway, she would have ended up on the streets or worse yet a prostitude in London; that happened to many women who had no money. Even in the 50's, my mother told me she would have left my father, but gone where, with three small children? I don't think any of us can totally understand the dire situation these women could find themselves in.
I was lucky my parents let me come home, otherwise what could I have done? I didn't have a job and I had a toddler to care for.
In the early 1900's there were not many options for women, especially those with children. In "Angela's Ashes" she is stuck in a bad situation, with more children always coming along, and an abusive husband, a drunkard. She really had no way out. It was a very sad situation and I could only feel for her. I feel also, for Frieda as a mother, who was suppose to have truly loved her children. Some parents leave and don't fight the custody thing, for the sake of the children; they don't want them torn between two households. My grandfather did that and it broke his heart. It is more of a sacrifice on the part of the parent who leaves. I never condemned my grandfather for his actions because later I had revealed to me the full story by other relatives. Who was I to judge him?
Don't get the impression Frieda and Lawrence immediately left England abandoning those children; they were there for years. They stayed for a time in hopes of seeing them and the courts barred them from it; they had continuous court battles over them. I think once Frieda was allowed a visit, that was supervised; but the husband had all the control and he was not so nice about it all. I have read all this in snatches here and there in the letters and various other books I read about their life together.

Just one word on Frieda. She was not in an abusive marriage. She may not have loved her husband any longer and he may have been very distracted with his work, but he loved her, and they had the kids. Her husband may not have been the passiante young and handsome Lawrence, but you don't leave a family like that. Plus, she wasn't exactly faithful to Lawrence either.

Gosh, you people are all puritans on here. Let you be in the situation and see if the tables would be turned. Who said her husband truly loved her? That is your perception of the situtation, Virgil. She had a title, he had money. Many times marriages were merely arrangements. I got the impression this was true with them in the beginning. He was quite a bit older than her when they meet. She was a mere girl - very innocent looking. I have these photos in my books; they say a great deal.
I never said he was abusive to her. I just think he was preoccuppied with his work at the university and he was distant, cold.

The unfaithful part was only after Lawrence became impotent and very difficult to live with; and besides that it is all conjecture. I don't even blame her for that, if it is true. She was in need of more than he could give her towards the end. The man was really ill; no doubt the illness was also affecting his disposition. Lawrence pretty much knew about any affairs and he allowed it, also. She was right with him at his bedside as he lay dying and held him at the moment of death. The one who most opposed their marriage was Murray and then it is said that he tried to have an affair with Frieda. Sounds like a soap opera, doen't it? ;) :lol:

Dark Muse

05-19-2008, 06:25 PM

Gosh, you people are all puritans on here. Let you be in the situation and see if the tables would be turned. Who said her husband truly loved her? That is your perception of the situtation, Virgil. She had a title, he had money. Many times marriages were merely arrangements. I got the impression this was true with them in the beginning. He was quite a bit older than her when they meet. She was a mere girl - very innocent looking. I have these photos in my books; they say a great deal.
I never said he was abusive to her. I just think he was preoccuppied with his work at the university and he was distant, cold.

Though I do not know much about this situation in particular, I can see Virgil's point. For I do belive in personal responseablity, and I do not think life is only about following your personal whims and making yourself happy at the expense of anyone and everyone else around you.

And if one has childern than they have an obligation to thier childern regaurdless of wheather or not they decide they do not love thier husband anymore.

Life is not always about taking the course that is esaist or most appealing to you, particuarly when you are in a posistion where other people rely upon you.

Janine

05-19-2008, 08:54 PM

In the end, what we approve of and don't approve of is going to be shaped by so many diverse things, we are bound to disagree. I think that's okay. I'm not going to lie and say I approved of Frieda and what she did. I don't. Yes, it is harder sometimes on the parent who leaves, but that parent is usually one who sits down and discusses the situation with his or her spouse and reaches a mutual decision, not one who runs off with a handsome, passionate, younger man.

Well, yes and you said that above in your other post. The thing about sitting down peacably with a reasonable spouse and discussing a breakup and the children sounds ideal, but most of the time it does not happen that way, nor is it feasible. Nice when it is, but I know in my own case, that would have been possible - out of the question.
Then too, I am being sensitive about the word 'adultery'. If you separate from your husband, as I did; then still are awaiting for the divorce to be finalized, does that make you an adulterous, if you date and happen to take it to the sexual level of intimacy? You know people do get lonely. I don't think it is sex they are seeking, as much as solace and comforting and human contact.

I therefore thought, if Frieda was no longer sleeping with her husband, and they might not have been; then in a sense they were separated and distant, and when L came along and she did elope with him, how different is that?

Does everyone consider Clara in "Sons and Lovers" an adulterous woman? She had been separated from her husband for years, but they were not officially divorced. It seemed even Lawrence's mother did not condemn her for her separation and Lawrence's involvement with her.

I never said I condoned blantant adultery; I don't. I just think there are some fine lines in some instances, and just where does one draw the line?

Antiquarian, wasn't Connie then committing adultery with Mellors in "Lady Chatterly's Lover"? You must have hated both of them. Connie's husband was impotent, among other things; disabled; but she might have stayed on with him as a support.

Maybe we should stick to the stories. At least on here. We disagree enough on those, let alone bringing in Lawrence's very complicated personal life. LOL

That is the thing. That is what has been annoying me, because we only have part of the facts here....and it all is very complicated.

It would be a shame if anyone felt bad because someone didn't agree with him or her.

That is true and I agree, Antiquarian. I was writing an answer to this post and bumped something on my keyboard; it all disappeared; I had to begin again. Yes, it would be a shame, if we all got angry or felt bad about this difference in opinion concerning morals. In fact, I do feel kind of bad. I always do when people are judged; even if they are not dead people. I am just like that, I guess. I have been through things myself, that I could have been judged badly for, and maybe I was (who knows?) so I can't understand the phrase that 'one could never forgive'. I am a very forgiving person. I know people who are not and they have wounded me greatly in the past. One was a person right here on Lit Net and I took it hard, even though I never even meet the person. I guess I am overly sensitive. I just don't like being misunderstood and I feel I am being so. I feel that Lawrence and Frieda are on trial here, which is silly really.

I just want to say one last thing, in response to this line, that Dark Muse wrote:

And if one has childern than they have an obligation to thier childern regaurdless of wheather or not they decide they do not love thier husband anymore.

I actually got to the point in my early adult years where I wished my own parents had separated; my two sisters are in agreement. My mother instead sacrificed her life happiness for us and she never truly found happiness I believe, not with a man. I think that is a shame. And she did not spare us at all. If anything we all suffered the fallout from their bad marriage. Therefore I don't agree that parents should stay together for the children and I don't think it selfish at all if they separate.

Quote by Dark Muse

Life is not always about taking the course that is esaist or most appealing to you, particuarly when you are in a posistion where other people rely upon you.

Easiest? This might be true for some, but if anything Frieda went to a more difficult existence. Living with Weekley she was used to a life of luxury and a maid and governess for her children. She left this comfy life to go off with a basically penniless man and they moved about constantly. Contrary to what Virgil once wrote about his impression of her being lazy and doing no housework, from what I have read, that is totally false. She worked very hard and they worked together. Not only that, the road to this new freedom, had a huge price tag and she gave up much from her former life; the transition was difficult and the constant court battles, to get to see her children, took it's toll on her, on Lawrence, too. It was far from the easy route for either of them.

I guess we should move on now, to the next part of the text. I can't go out tonight; plans got changed so I am doing laundry and can work on next section of this short story - remember, we were discussing the short story before we went off on biographical/morality tangents? I can post that fairly soon, if I go work on it offline. So expect me back then with a chunk of the text to discuss.

Virgil

05-19-2008, 09:19 PM

Wow, we did get side tracked. :lol: But one last word from me on this. I agree with D-M below.

Though I do not know much about this situation in particular, I can see Virgil's point. For I do belive in personal responseablity, and I do not think life is only about following your personal whims and making yourself happy at the expense of anyone and everyone else around you.

And if one has childern than they have an obligation to thier childern regaurdless of wheather or not they decide they do not love thier husband anymore.

Life is not always about taking the course that is esaist or most appealing to you, particuarly when you are in a posistion where other people rely upon you.

Once children enter the picture one's personal hapiness is secondary, as long as abuse is not going on. If she were unhappy she should seek her hapiness in her children. I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine how anyone cannot be happy with the love from three children.

Quark

05-19-2008, 09:25 PM

Okay, you guys lost me like two pages back. What are we talking about exactly?

Janine

05-19-2008, 10:12 PM

Okay, you guys lost me like two pages back. What are we talking about exactly?

No problem, Quark, I am trying to move on past this current contraversy. I just worked on this part of the text (offline) so everyone can review it and add to it; hopefully answer my questions:

Next Part of Text

The housekeeper entered with a lamp, which she set on a stand.
"You will illuminate me?" he said to Winifred. It was her habit to talk to him by candle-light.
"I have thought about you--now I will look at you," she said quietly, smiling.
"I see--To confirm your conclusions?" he asked.
Her eyes lifted quickly in acknowledgment of his guess.
"That is so," she replied.
So what is the underlining theme in this part of the story – what exactly are they saying to each other. Interesting to note are the references to words we have encountered throughout the story ‘lamp’, ‘illuminate’ ‘candle-light’….so many references in this story to ‘light’.

"Then," he said, "I'll wash my hands."
He ran upstairs. The sense of freedom, of intimacy, was very fascinating. As he washed, the little everyday action of twining his hands in the lather set him suddenly considering his other love.
This private washing up reminds me of Maurice in ‘The Blind Man’ – how he also stood contemplating his wife and their life together.
So now he thinks about ‘his other love’ – Connie:

At her house he was always polite and formal; gentlemanly, in short. With Connie he felt the old, manly superiority; he was the knight,...strong and tender, she was the beautiful maiden with a touch of God on her brow. He kissed her, he softened and selected his speech for her, he forbore from being the greater part of himself.
So here one can see how he idolizes her completely. She is not a woman to him but a goddess. He is her knight in shining armour. Not too realistic. This is an idealized view of his up and coming marriage and his soon to be spouse.

She was his betrothed, his wife, his queen, whom he loved to idealise, and for whom he carefully modified himself. She should rule him later on—that part of him which was hers.

Here again,she seems like a Greek goddess and someone who will actually rule him eventually and yet he will always be her devotee, worshipper to her as his ‘idyll’. Connie embodies the image he has of an idyll; curious,Lawrence cherished this same image in a painting by Griffenhagen of ‘Idyll’ which he continually copied and painted, giving several of those away. He adored this painting.

In the first statement here,I can now see how Quark confused the idea of Connie being his wife – it does say that even thought they are not yet married, only betrothed/engaged. Sorry, Quark, for chiding you on that fact before.

But he loved her, too, with a pitying, tender love. He thought of her tears upon her pillow in the northern Rectory, and he bit his lip, held his breath under the strain of the situation.

Vaguely he knew she would bore him. And Winifred fascinated him. He and she really played with fire.[b] In her house, he was [b]roused and keen. But she was not, and never could be, frank. So he was not frank, even to himself. Saying nothing, betraying nothing, immediately they were together they began the same game.

Right here at this point,the two woman are facing each other in comparison – the way Coutts directly feels about them; in repect to Connie – bored; in respect to Winifred fascinated.
Now he admits that Winifred would never be frank, never had been and so it made him the same with himself. He could not admit all this directly to himself consciously.Therefore, they were open to this state of saying nothing, betraying nothing – yet it was all a game played over and over again.

Each shuddered, each defenceless and exposed, hated the other by turns. Yet they came together again. Coutts felt a vague fear of Winifred. She was intense and unnatural--and he became unnatural and intense, beside her.

So because they are defenseless and exposed to each other in this way is this why they feel this hatred of each other? Also, if you notice Coutts feels a vague fear of her? He also states she was intense and unnatural and made him feel the same when he was with her. From what is this fear born, does everyone thing? Is it born out of his temptation or something other. Is it born out of the fact that he knows inwardly that Winifred would like to hold her will over him, control him?

When he came downstairs she was fingering the piano from the score of "Walküre".

I wondered what significance that had. Is he a pianist? Also is that not a German score?

"First wash in England," he announced, looking at his hands. She laughed swiftly. Impatient herself of the slightest soil, his indifference to temporary grubbiness amused her.

I noticed this before – now it seems this action is something out of the ordinary for Coutts to do.

He was a tall, bony man, with small hands and feet. His features were rough and rather ugly, but his smile was taking. She was always fascinated by the changes in him. His eyes, particularly, seemed quite different at times; sometimes hard, insolent, blue; sometimes dark, full of warmth and tenderness; sometimes flaring like an animal's.

His physical description is interesting when it gets to the line about ‘her fascination with changes in him’. Then the last part, about the eyes, is so typically Lawrence – he often makes references to eyes and the different ways they can look, at various times, even completely changing hue or color.

He sank wearily into a chair.
"My chair," he said, as if to himself.

This is her house, but he feels he is a part of it, by this one remark; like he fits perfectly well into this house that is familiar to him. ‘My chair’ is all Lawrence has to have Coutts say, to get this idea across and it works brilliantly. We get a sense that he belongs here or thinks he does, at least for this moment in time.

About Frieda's relationship with Lawrence. Some of us like Frieda and some don't.

Antiquarian, I hate to keep quibbling about this, but I never said I liked her; I just don't hate the woman. I don't hate anyone for that matter; I seriously don't. I am really very easy to get along with and I am quite a respectable person myself. I would be dreadful on a jury, I would give everyone the benefit of the doubt.:lol:

Dark Muse

05-19-2008, 10:45 PM

At her house he was always polite and formal; gentlemanly, in short. With Connie he felt the old, manly superiority; he was the knight,...strong and tender, she was the beautiful maiden with a touch of God on her brow. He kissed her, he softened and selected his speech for her, he forbore from being the greater part of himself. She was his betrothed, his wife, his queen, whom he loved to idealise, and for whom he carefully modified himself. She should rule him later on—that part of him which was hers.

But he loved her, too, with a pitying, tender love. He thought of her tears upon her pillow in the northern Rectory, and he bit his lip, held his breath under the strain of the situation.

Vaguely he knew she would bore him. And Winifred fascinated him. He and she really played with fire. In her house, he was roused and keen. But she was not, and never could be, frank. So he was not frank, even to himself. Saying nothing, betraying nothing, immediately they were together they began the same game.

Ok, there were a couple of things I wanted to say regarding this passage. It was one of the most interesting I thought in the story.

First of all, the very first time I read the story, to me this seemed very Arthurian. I could not help but to have this imager of Connie as being akin to Queen Guinevere here. Particularly sense earlier she is linked to the rectory, being that Guinevere was the Christian queen.

While Winne seems to be very Morgan, the seductress, who is still connected to the pagan roots. And Coutts relationship to the two different women are very similar to Arthur's own feelings about Guinevere and Morgan. Arthur was never very passionate about his wife but because he was bewitched and seduced by Morgan, he was always filled with regret about the relations he once shared with her, as he was "tricked" into it.

Then when we were discussing the statues, and the symbolism of the pedestal, and the idea of how that relates to the way Coutts does seem to put Conni on a pedestal, this passage, particularly with the words "Queen" and "Knight" used, made me think of this story, as reminiscent as the old ideals of courtly love.

In courtly love, the woman that one would marry, was seen as if she were upon a pedestal, her beauty was worshipped, but from a distance, she was seen as pure, and innocent, and admired in much the same way a statue would be admired, and so the men would not bring themselves to disgrace the "holiness" and "chasteness" of such women, the woman that a man loved, was not the same women that a man lusted after.

The physical passions of men in the courtly love system were unleashed upon women that were viewed as already being "fallen"

And Connie and Winnie sort of represent these two different aspects of women. Though Winnie perhaps actually has not been sexually intimate before, she is an unmarried woman acting as seductress to a man who is engaged, and by Coutts she is viewed in a passionate and physical way. While his relationship with Connie is much more chaste in the way he thinks of her.

Janine

05-19-2008, 10:59 PM

Dark Muse, now you are thinking! Excellent post indeed! :thumbs_up
I agree with all your ideas and have thought some portion of this myself, but you put it into the most precise words and expressed it all very clearly. I had not thought of Coutts in terms of Arthur, now that is quite interesting and adding Morgan into the mix - that makes perfect sense to me now. Yes, I fully agree with this idea and glad we finally got to this portion of the text, that I know you were dying to post about earlier.

Really fine post, DM.... and I don't think you had one spelling error either; you must have used 'spell check' or edited this one!;)

Dark Muse

05-19-2008, 11:01 PM

Hehe thank you, and yes I did spell check this one

Janine

05-19-2008, 11:07 PM

Hehe thank you, and yes I did spell check this one

heheh yourself - the extra effort showed. Your post was concise, easy to understand and very well written. I commend you on this one! I hope the others take the time to read it, since now we flipped over a page - I hate when that happens, don't you? The other posts disappear from view...:(

Dark Muse

05-20-2008, 01:59 AM

Now that I have the time, I thought I would address some of the other things you brought up.

So what is the underlining theme in this part of the story – what exactly are they saying to each other. Interesting to note are the references to words we have encountered throughout the story ‘lamp’, ‘illuminate’ ‘candle-light’….so many references in this story to ‘light’.

To me it seems here as if Coutts is saying that only Winne can truly "see" him or understand him, perhaps she even knows him better than he knows himself.

This private washing up reminds me of Maurice in ‘The Blind Man’ – how he also stood contemplating his wife and their life together..

That is interesting, the two simillar scenes in the different stories. I did not really notice that the first time.
So now he thinks about ‘his other love’ – Connie:

So because they are defenseless and exposed to each other in this way is this why they feel this hatred of each other? Also, if you notice Coutts feels a vague fear of her? He also states she was intense and unnatural and made him feel the same when he was with her. From what is this fear born, does everyone thing? Is it born out of his temptation or something other. Is it born out of the fact that he knows inwardly that Winifred would like to hold her will over him, control him?

I do not get the impression that they hate each other becasue they are defenceless and exposed, but rather I think more, that becasue of thier love/hate relationship with each other, that leaves them feeling defensless and exposed.

I think perhaps Coutt's fear of her comes from the fact that she does have such a hold over him, and the fact that he cannot seem to resisit her. He is afraid of her, and perhaps that is part of the hate they have, becasue he cannot control his emotions towrds her.

It might also be that the fear comes from the fact that they know each other so well.

I wondered what significance that had. Is he a pianist? Also is that not a German score?

Yes it is German, "Walküre" is German for Valkrie, and the "Waulkure score, is from the Wagnere Ride of the Valkries opera

Janine

05-20-2008, 02:50 AM

I didn't say you did like her. I don't know your feelings for her, except that you keep defending her actions, even the bad ones, but I still don't know your feelings for her and would never presume to know. You keep saying I hate her and I keep telling you I don't hate her. You even said I must have hated Connie and Mellors and I've repeatedly stressed that hate is such a strong word and I almost never use it because I almost never feel it. I'll be frank and say that bothers me (it doesn't make me mad, but it makes me unhappy) because I feel it's an affront to my deceased mother, who was a lovely person and who taught me not to use the word "hate." I am a respectable person as well. I honestly did not think that not liking Frieda made me disrespectable in anyone's eyes.

No, Antiquarian, it was not you at all; don't feel that way, I was not singling you out nor do I think you are wrong..you simply have your own opinion on this and I have a different one. I didn't say that you said you hated her; did I? If I did I don't know why I would. I don't know if anyone did for that matter, so let me apologize for all of what was said to you and to everyone else, too. I didn't mean to upset you. It truly must be my fault. I took it all too personal and reacted in a bad way. I am not sure why I was defending Frieda now; only that I never see any of Lawrence's characters all right or all wrong; nor people in real life...we all have our weaknesses right? I just try and understand their actions and their motives in the stories and in the real people who are represented here in the stories. If it would make things any better, I will just go back and delete my posts about all this contraversy.

I don't like confrontation either; I don't like it that this thread has of late lost a sort of harmony, that it once had...that is not to say we can't debate the issues in the stories or what the author meant the stories to mean. I don't particularly care for departing from the stories all the time to debate some issue on morality; I guess that was what was bugging me to begin with. I was bothered by the idea of another debate and it was not even about the short story.

I feel often I post things that are not even read. Quark pointed that out to me and I know it is true; but I did not make a big thing of it. I know everyone is busy and so have I been preoccuppied, lately. Things just get lost on pages we pass by; like tonight Dark Muse wrote a really great insightful post; now we have advanced to the next page. I hope everyone will go back and read it. It took me a good hour or so to write comments and format the section of text that I posted also. I was hoping someone would address the questions I was asking in that post about those particular lines in the story.

Maybe I should drop out of the discussion. All I did was say I could not stand (not hate) Frieda and did not see how she could have done what she did and it provoked a furor. I'm sorry, but I cannot lie and say I like her or approve of her walking out on a husband and three children for a younger man. Even an older one. I don't. I never will. It seems like I'm the one not entitled to my genuine feelings here. There was nothing at all wrong when Virgil or DarkMuse disapproved highly of her, but there's an uproar when I disapprove of a woman who I think acted terribly. Only when I disapprove. And I'm the one who's been in a far, far, far worse situation in real life. I can't understand why I've been singled out when three people have expressed extreme distaste for her.

I seriously would cry if you dropped out, Antiquarian. You know I value your presense here; I value it highly. I know now I am at fault. I really wish this had never happened and we could just drop all this and forget about it; I wish I had not responded to those post when the three of you were discussing her. It started because I felt reading excerpts or certain letters might have given you half the information and then you formed a false opinion. But it really doesn't matter to me what opinion you have on her and you have your code of values; I respect that. I was never pointing a finger directly at you; if you took it that way, you got the wrong impression, I assure you. I thought everyone was agreeing on her scrupples except me. I thought if anything I was the odd man out. I was the opposition. I thought you all must have thought me the terrible person standing up for her. I wasn't even standing up for the woman, I was just stating why she might have good reasons to leave and that truly, to say she abandoned her children, is not completely accurate. She never left, thinking she was abandoning those children or to never see them again till they were grown up. She hoped to see them, but the husband barred her from seeing them legally; which was a tragedy for both.

I can't stand discord. I made a simple statement - I thought I would like Lawrence, but not his mother, though I felt very sorry for her, and I couldn't stand Frieda, and it's provoked so much discord all day long. I never once said I hated the woman, but one would think I'd said she should be stoned. I have to admit, I can't understand it. "Can't stand" does not equal something as strong as hate.

I can't either so we should just drop all of this and get back to discussing the story like we were. As I said before this is my mistake and I am sorry if you took it this way.

I should drop out. I feel now that I can't express an honest opinion on anything. I'm afraid of people getting upset because I hold a view that's different.

Don't do that...please. You are one of the people on here we value so much; you always express yourself so well and you pick up on things in the story intuitively. Yes, you can express you honest opinion, anytime do. I guess I just like a little backup for anyone's opinions. I have to admit I post a story and then when people say they don't like this or that about it, it makes me feel kind of bad and then I do feel a little annoyed. If they said I don't like her/him because...it would be different. When we start a story, I don't find it beneficial to find out which characters people like or dislike. I would rather look into the characters and come up with opinions later on, after the story is discussed. To me it seems unfair to form an opinion before we fully understand the story.

I don't think that Dark Muse is upset and neither is Virgil. I know Dark Muse went on to post her best post ever; Virgil never takes these confrontations seriously; in fact, he kind of thrives on them, right Virg?;) Afterall, he is Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to know.:lol: When I posted over there in Chekhov tonight, I was just kidding with you and drawing the parellel to your 'Miss Emily' thread that also went off in all different directions, than you had planned. I did this because, to be honest with you, I wanted things to lighten up and get back to normal over here. I was feeling a little down, but it was nothing that would not pass. I just thought maybe, I would go read some parts of my biography and see what it said about Frieda and the children. I only want to do that for my own benefit and not to post anymore about it. In here I would just prefer to drop the subject.

I do not hate Frieda. I do not like her. I do not approve of her. But I never once said I hated her. No one can find one post where I said I hated her.

Ok, no problem. You opinions on her were strong and I must have misinterpretted them. I am sorry, truly I am.

Virgil does not like Frieda. DM said she did not approve of Frieda. But it's my not approving of Frieda and her actions that has provoked the trouble and discord (I do not understand that), so I should leave the discussion and leave everyone in peace, but I do want to stress to anyone who reads this I've always been a very respectable person as well.

No way did you provoke this discussion. I saw everyone, but me, in agreement. I guess I just thought that none of you have studied Lawrence's life as much as I had, and I felt the opinions being expressed were not quite accurate, according to what I have read and my research on Lawrence and Frieda. Even Virgil admits I have read more Lawrence; so I don't mean to be conceited about this. I am just stating a fact and I could be direly wrong, as well...I don't have the best memory of what I have read all the time.

Antiquarian, You don't have to stress your respectability; I never once doubted it...never. I was the one, who others might doubt about my respectability; that is why I said that, I was referring only to me and not at all to you. I am no angel and I will outwardly admit that to anyone. I have had days of making bad decisions and there are things I regret doing in my life in the past. I am over all that now. I feel I am beyond that and I try to live a respectable life and always try to be honest.

I'm simply at a loss. Enjoy the discussion and the next story, and I mean that sincerely.

Please do not drop out. If I caused this, I highly regret it, and apologize to you specifically. This really grieves me; please don't drop out.

Dark Muse

05-20-2008, 03:29 AM

LOL Janine can tell you that you did not break the harmony here. You should have seen the way we went back and forth when dicussing The Shadow in the Rose Garden.

Janine

05-20-2008, 03:43 AM

You don't owe me an apology. You're certainly entitled to your feelings about Frieda and anyone else and entitled to have those feelings and opinions respected, and I do respect them. I don't mind who defends Frieda at all. The only thing I didn't like was the word "hate" being applied to what I said. That's all.

I just feel that if harmony has been lost in this thread, it was lost when I joined the discussion. You're all friends here, and I'm the "odd person." I never meant to intrude on the peace of the thread.

I think you're a fine, respectable, intelligent person. I don't want to debate anything, that's all. I really regret even bringing Frieda up. I only did because I was reading Lawrence's letters, and the story discussion seemed to be waning, but now I really regret it. I thought it would just go as a remark in passing and nothing more. I do think the stories should be discussed, not the morality of Lawrence's life. I can understand you being upset at that, but I never thought an offhand remark by me that I didn't like Frieda would cause such a problem. Had I had any idea, I never would have made it and deeply regret that I did.

Well, you are actually making me cry and I am not watching Wilson the volleyball floating away. I just can't believe this all happened, and I am still feeling miffed. Like Dark Muse said you should have seen her and I going at it in "The Rose Garden" thread. It was basically the same deal; she said she did not like the wife and so I defended her. Odd how I tend to do that. Like I said I would be terrible on a jury. I would find everyone not guilty.

Well, for what it is worth, I emailed you just now and I totally apologize, if I did upset you. I know you innocently made that remark, but then everyone chimed in and then the ball got rolling and before we knew it, we were heavy into another heated debate, unfortunately. I guess we all have to try and avoid those type of debates in this thread. If they apply to the story directly, that is different, but I know we were on 'down-time' and so we just got carried away. Still I do need to apologize to you, Antiquarian. I never meant to come off as combatant. I am not that way at all.

Scheherazade

05-20-2008, 04:55 AM

Please do not personalise your arguments.

It is almost impossible not to draw from our personal experiences while reading/discussing works of literature but also try to keep in mind that it is the stories/characters we discuss, not each other.

Virgil

05-20-2008, 07:14 AM

I just feel that if harmony has been lost in this thread, it was lost when I joined the discussion. You're all friends here, and I'm the "odd person." I never meant to intrude on the peace of the thread.

You have not intruded. Anti, I think we all enjoyed your thoughts and presence here. Please don't leave. I can't believe it went this far. I can't believe how you women are all mad, bad, and dangerous to be around. :p That last sentence was me just making light of the situation. I certainly did not think or even remotely sense any harmony being lost when you joined in. I thought you were a natural fit. And we are not excluding anyone at all in the entire forum. I do not consider this a clique. I would love to have even more people join the discussion. And Anti your knowledge of the short story is valuable. I would hate to see you drop out. We all have opinions. Sometimes we get testy over difrferences. But the camaraderie and friendship should go beyond the differences. If you read my latest blog entry you could see how big a difference there are between myself and certain friends I met up with over the weekend. The differences are way bigger than whether we like or approve of Frieda. And yet I'm still friends with them. So this difference over Frieda, which the majority here shares with you, is no biggie. And least it shouldn't be. Now I've been saddened. :(

Janine

05-20-2008, 01:41 PM

Antiquarian,
Virgil is so right - you are highly valued here and we all need and want you to stay. You are a good friend to this thread and to us as well. We can all get past this silly argument and more on; forget it ever happened; it is so unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

Now,Virgil, you have me intrigued; I must read your blog entry tonight. hahaha - were you M,B, and D in person to these people?:lol:

I will be out today - so go ahead and post without me. I am going to see my beautiful little granddaugher so I am quite happy and excited. When I hold her in my arms I know that is all that matters now - this precious new life. I am truly blessed.

I like your new post, Antiquarian and will address it in detail later. I too found that line such a perfect piece of forshadowing "they really played with fire".

Virgil, I just read "Love Among the Haystacks" again and now I am re-reading "The Virgin and the Gypsy" and liking it very much. I hardly remembered either from years back. L's work is good enough to repeat read. I would like to have the film version of "The Virgin and the Gypsy" - I am looking into that.

Virgil, did you read Dark Muse's long post on the previous page; I thought it was quite good and brought up some new interesting ideas relating to the Arthur legend.

I will try and post some more new text tomorrow so we can keep rolling along towards the ending of this story.

Virgil

05-20-2008, 02:24 PM

Janine, I'll comment on Muse's post when I get home and can look through my written text at the passage. I haven't been avoiding this. ;)

Janine

05-20-2008, 10:24 PM

DM's post was so good, I really don't have anything else to add. I'll have to wait until the rest of the text is posted (no hurry) or find something to criticize in Virgil's. :lol: Only joking, Virgil. I look forward to your post whenever you can get to it.

Enjoy your evening with your granddaughter, Janine. Have fun and relax. :)

I'm sorry, I am making everyone wait again. I just ran out of energy tonight. Gee, being a grandmother sure makes me tired - guess it is the excitement. I will work on the next section of text to post tomorrow. It got late here all of sudden, and I want to relax and watch a movie. It is the 20th already, so we do still have a few days to finish up this story - nearly to the ending anyway; then I will announce the next story, so we can all prepare.

Hope you had a nice time for your hubby's birthday, Antiquarian.

Virgil

05-20-2008, 10:32 PM

Ok, there were a couple of things I wanted to say regarding this passage. It was one of the most interesting I thought in the story.

First of all, the very first time I read the story, to me this seemed very Arthurian. I could not help but to have this imager of Connie as being akin to Queen Guinevere here. Particularly sense earlier she is linked to the rectory, being that Guinevere was the Christian queen.

While Winne seems to be very Morgan, the seductress, who is still connected to the pagan roots. And Coutts relationship to the two different women are very similar to Arthur's own feelings about Guinevere and Morgan. Arthur was never very passionate about his wife but because he was bewitched and seduced by Morgan, he was always filled with regret about the relations he once shared with her, as he was "tricked" into it.

Then when we were discussing the statues, and the symbolism of the pedestal, and the idea of how that relates to the way Coutts does seem to put Conni on a pedestal, this passage, particularly with the words "Queen" and "Knight" used, made me think of this story, as reminiscent as the old ideals of courtly love.

In courtly love, the woman that one would marry, was seen as if she were upon a pedestal, her beauty was worshipped, but from a distance, she was seen as pure, and innocent, and admired in much the same way a statue would be admired, and so the men would not bring themselves to disgrace the "holiness" and "chasteness" of such women, the woman that a man loved, was not the same women that a man lusted after.

The physical passions of men in the courtly love system were unleashed upon women that were viewed as already being "fallen"

And Connie and Winnie sort of represent these two different aspects of women. Though Winnie perhaps actually has not been sexually intimate before, she is an unmarried woman acting as seductress to a man who is engaged, and by Coutts she is viewed in a passionate and physical way. While his relationship with Connie is much more chaste in the way he thinks of her.

Very good analysis. I think I was suggesting similar earlier on the two different women, but I think Dark Muse adds more with the notion of the fallen woman. Though that implies male power over female, but I happen to think that Lawrence is after dramatizing a female power over men in this story.

Janine

05-20-2008, 11:57 PM

I think having a husband, at least my husband is sort of like being a grandmother, Janine - tiring! LOL But in the end, he did have a nice birthday celebration at a restaurant.

:lol: most are; they either need a mother, a grandmother or a maid; some all three rolled into one!

Glad you got out to dinner and had fun. My mom and I went to dinner also, and it was nice; then to get ice-cream - yummy!

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 01:19 AM

Very good analysis. I think I was suggesting similar earlier on the two different women, but I think Dark Muse adds more with the notion of the fallen woman. Though that implies male power over female, but I happen to think that Lawrence is after dramatizing a female power over men in this story.

It is true in the courtly love example there is more of an aspect of male power and male domimence, but than he says that is how he feels about Connie, that he feels his manly power with her.

But looking at it the Arthrurian way, in that story Morgan does have power over Arthur in her sedcution over him. Much like Winne, she is the one that really controls and contrives that situation.

Virgil

05-21-2008, 07:05 AM

:lol: most are; they either need a mother, a grandmother or a maid; some all three rolled into one!

:lol: :lol: You and my wife have obviously been talking. :blush:

It is true in the courtly love example there is more of an aspect of male power and male domimence, but than he says that is how he feels about Connie, that he feels his manly power with her.

But looking at it the Arthrurian way, in that story Morgan does have power over Arthur in her sedcution over him. Much like Winne, she is the one that really controls and contrives that situation.

You know Dark Muse, your analogy may hold. I've been somewhat reluctant only because Arthurian legend is not something Lawrence normally taps into. He's certainly taps into Biblical, and certainly classical (as we see even in this story), and he certainly in later years taps into aboriginal legends and myths, but I can't recall he's ever tapped into chivalric (sp?) lore. But it does seem like here you may be right. Coutts is a sort of knight errant traveling through. Can anyone think of another work where Lawrence alludes to chivalric romance?

Scheherazade

05-21-2008, 09:57 AM

But in the end, he did have a nice birthday celebration at a restaurant.Busman's holiday? ;)

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 11:05 AM

:lol: :lol: You and my wife have obviously been talking. :blush:

You know Dark Muse, your analogy may hold. I've been somewhat reluctant only because Arthurian legend is not something Lawrence normally taps into. He's certainly taps into Biblical, and certainly classical (as we see even in this story), and he certainly in later years taps into aboriginal legends and myths, but I can't recall he's ever tapped into chivalric (sp?) lore. But it does seem like here you may be right. Coutts is a sort of knight errant traveling through. Can anyone think of another work where Lawrence alludes to chivalric romance?

I do not know any other story with chivalric lore, as I have not read that many yet. But in The Man Who Loves Islands, he does use a little Celtic Mythology and Arturian legend is tied into the Celtic Culture.

Virgil

05-21-2008, 11:12 AM

Yes, he does use Celtic and Germanic lore. I was thinking of that after I posted. While you're right that Arthurian evolved from Celtic, there is a significant gap between them. The Arthurian allusion in this story is very chivalric, and Celtic lore doesn't really use chivalry.

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 11:18 AM

Virgil

05-21-2008, 11:27 AM

Yes that is true, but, in a way, with the symbolism used throughout the story, and with Winnie on one side and Connie on the other side, I almost so this story as being like that sort of tug-a-war, between the Pagan, and the Christian, which also plays into Arthurian lore

Haha, no I am agreeing with you. And interesting he is mixing up his allusions. This is early Lawrence and i guess he didn't mind the disconguety (sp?) between them, unless the contrast is striving to make a point. Not sure what that would be.

Anti, "The Man Who Loved Islands" is an excellent story. I had not remembered it being that good when I read it years ago. But when we discussed it a few months ago, it turned out to be top notch. I would include it among his best.

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 11:43 AM

I know Janine had some other points she wanted to make, and I had responded to the other parts of the text she posted, but it got burried under everything, so I just thought I would repost my reponses to the rest of the text so Janine does not think that the rest of her post is being ignored and to bring attention back to some of the other things she wanted to discuss.

Now that I have the time, I thought I would address some of the other things you brought up.

So what is the underlining theme in this part of the story – what exactly are they saying to each other. Interesting to note are the references to words we have encountered throughout the story ‘lamp’, ‘illuminate’ ‘candle-light’….so many references in this story to ‘light’.

To me it seems here as if Coutts is saying that only Winne can truly "see" him or understand him, perhaps she even knows him better than he knows himself.

This private washing up reminds me of Maurice in ‘The Blind Man’ – how he also stood contemplating his wife and their life together..

That is interesting, the two similar scenes in the different stories. I did not really notice that the first time.

So because they are defenseless and exposed to each other in this way is this why they feel this hatred of each other? Also, if you notice Coutts feels a vague fear of her? He also states she was intense and unnatural and made him feel the same when he was with her. From what is this fear born, does everyone thing? Is it born out of his temptation or something other. Is it born out of the fact that he knows inwardly that Winifred would like to hold her will over him, control him?

I do not get the impression that they hate each other because they are defenseless and exposed, but rather I think more, that because of their love/hate relationship with each other, that leaves them feeling defenseless and exposed.

I think perhaps Coutt's fear of her comes from the fact that she does have such a hold over him, and the fact that he cannot seem to resist her. He is afraid of her, and perhaps that is part of the hate they have, because he cannot control his emotions towards her.

It might also be that the fear comes from the fact that they know each other so well.

I wondered what significance that had. Is he a pianist? Also is that not a German score?

Yes it is German, "Walküre" is German for Valkyrie, and the "Waulkure score, is from the Wagner Ride of the Valkyries opera

Janine

05-21-2008, 02:05 PM

My husband usually does the cooking here and the laundry and a lot of the housework. But he can't even go buy a card for his mother without calling me to ask which one! LOL

Maybe there are too many choices these days. I find the card aisle overwhelms me. At least be glad he does all the rest; few men would. That must be a riot - him calling you and reading you all the card verses. I do that if my mother asks me to pick one up for her; she and I don't have the same taste at all.

Virgil's post didn't contain anything I could pick on! LOL I agree with him! ;)

Agreement is a good thing. ;) :lol: I think we are all back in harmony today.

Originally Posted by Virgil and answered by Dark Muse
"Very good analysis. I think I was suggesting similar earlier on the two different women, but I think Dark Muse adds more with the notion of the fallen woman. Though that implies male power over female, but I happen to think that Lawrence is after dramatizing a female power over men in this story."

It is true in the courtly love example there is more of an aspect of male power and male domimence, but than he says that is how he feels about Connie, that he feels his manly power with her.

It seems to me with Connie he is the stronger will although she too keeps him sexually at bay, until they are married; so in some respect she hold power over him. He is her respectable noble knight and she is goddess or maiden. He does not care to tarnish her - he sees her on that pedestal and to bring her down to earthy contact with him would tarnish her in his mind. She could no longer resume her post on the pedestal. Ok, but with Winifred, again woman holds power over Coutts although the feels he has a better change of mastering her. Of course he does not. He wants physical contact now but with Connie he must wait. He is probably one very frustrated guy. No doubt he may still be virginal in this story. At anyrate we all know that neither woman will be right for him, nor will they work out in the long term scheme of his life. As Dark Muse pointed out he sees Connie as a dream or illusion. She is not quite real to him being untarnishable. He sees Winifred as someone who possesses the passion he craves presently. He thinks she will satisfy his passion and that there is some passionate potenial there. With Connie how would he know there would ever be passion? In both cases, if he did end up with either woman, I think these woman would dominate him in an offhand way.

But looking at it the Arthrurian way, in that story Morgan does have power over Arthur in her sedcution over him. Much like Winne, she is the one that really controls and contrives that situation.

She does and so does Merlin right? Doesn't Merlin cast magic around Arthur and therefore aids Morgan, or do I need to go back and read the tale again? I forget, Morgan was a witch right? Merlin a magician.

I do think Lawrence, in his younger days read Sir Walter Scott, and other tales of chivalry. The 'Witch a al Mode' was begun early, before Lawrence wrote even 1/3 of "Paul Morel", which became "Sons and Lovers".
Also, in this story he blantantely draws attention to this image of "The Lady of Shallot", which is so signifcant when he is speaking to Winifred. This symbolism also would indicate the direct reference to tales of chivalry.

I will look up these references: King Arthur, Merlin, Morgan, Sir Walter Scott, chivalry, and Lady of Shalot to Lawrence around this time period or his youth, in my indexes (various books)...see what I can come up with.

Originally Posted by Virgil

You and my wife have obviously been talking. ;) :lol: I think so!:lol:

You know Dark Muse, your analogy may hold. I've been somewhat reluctant only because Arthurian legend is not something Lawrence normally taps into. He's certainly taps into Biblical, and certainly classical (as we see even in this story), and he certainly in later years taps into aboriginal legends and myths, but I can't recall he's ever tapped into chivalric (sp?) lore. But it does seem like here you may be right. Coutts is a sort of knight errant traveling through. Can anyone think of another work where Lawrence alludes to chivalric romance?

I don't know; I think I have perceived him using references to Authurian legend before this, maybe it was in "The White Peacock" or other short stories I read. Did he employ any of the chivalous images in "Women in Love"? He seemed to mix all kinds of symbolism of the ancients, Greek mythology, German lore, the British Isles in that book. It was quite a potpourri.

I do not know any other story with chivalric lore, as I have not read that many yet. But in The Man Who Loves Islands, he does use a little Celtic Mythology and Arturian legend is tied into the Celtic Culture.

Yes, that certainly would be one. A good example and a good story. You should read it, Antiquarian. We had a great discussion on that one. Virgil, I think he would have been more inclined to tape into the Celtic images, Arthurian legend, in his early writings, don't you? Making me curious enough now to go research it. I do, however, recall a passage in "The Winged Serpent" where he mades reference to Kate thinking of the dark mysterious celtic culture and peoples in Ireland. I don't think these ideas were ever far from Lawrence's mind.

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 02:19 PM

She does and so does Merlin right? Doesn't Merlin cast magic around Arthur and therefore aids Morgan, or do I need to go back and read the tale again? I forget, Morgan was a witch right? Merlin a magician.

It is true that Merlin does use some power reguarding Arthur, and in some ways helped to lead and dictate his fate, but Morgan and Merlin were enimies, Merlin ultimately was trying to help Arthur in his own way while Morgan was envious of Arthur and wanted his power. And she tries at one point to kill Merlin

Janine

05-21-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote by Antiquarian

Trouble is, Coutts really does not want to be a knight, does he? He doesn't want to play the "rescurer" to Connie's "damsel in distress." At least I don't think so. I think it might make him feel good for awhile to do so, but he knows the responsibility would weigh him down.

I agree with you Antiquarian, deep down he really does not want this. He doesn't know truly what he wants. That seems to be his problem. I think he is more in love with the idea of marriage in this case. He feels he should like to marry but he has not fully or realistically worked out in his own mind just what that means to him. I don't think being tied down would work for Coutts; as we saw in the short story 'The Shades or Spring' which does represent a Lawrence type figure going back to visit his former sweetheart they both saw marriage in a much different light. The woman felt she must be rooted to the earth and was a part of it, whereas the ex-lover felt marriage should be free in the sense that a couple should not be routed but free to travel, etc. In Lawrence's own case that was how he did live his life. He never even owned a house. He made Frieda hold the title to the ranch that was given to him. He felt no man owned the earth. In this case in this story, Connie would be routed to her community and church. I don't see that Coutts felt that to really be the life for him in the furture. He was casual about it. He acted to Winifred like it would not matter - that he would not care about anything falling into this scheme of conventional living. However he would care a great deal. This oviously was not a realistic plan for him in the long run. It was not his path, it would have been his wife, Connie's plan. He would have simply had to go along with it. This was the problem with Jessie as well. Lawrence was not a rooted man; he wanted to travel and see the world. His vistas were much broader than Eastwood or even London. Yes, the restraint and the responsibility would definitely weigh him down and drag him down, destroy his true self. He said he could not be his true self with Connie. I think thoughout the course of this story he is looking and craving for his true self but he is going about it all wrong. He is way off-track, grasping at straws, so to speak.

Quote by Dark Muse

Yes that is true, but, in a way, with the symbolism used throughout the story, and with Winnie on one side and Connie on the other side, I almost so this story as being like that sort of tug-a-war, between the Pagan, and the Christian, which also plays into Arthurian lore

Dark Muse, That sound about right to me. That is another underlining theme perhaps.

Quotes by Virgil

Haha, no I am agreeing with you. And interesting he is mixing up his allusions. This is early Lawrence and i guess he didn't mind the disconguety (sp?) between them, unless the contrast is striving to make a point. Not sure what that would be.

Virgil , did you mean discongruity? I think the word might be 'discontinuity'...it is the only one I can find close to it in my dictionary. 'discongruity seems not to be a real word either.
This is early Lawrence so I can well image these images being part of his resources to draw on at this time.

Anti, "The Man Who Loved Islands" is an excellent story. I had not remembered it being that good when I read it years ago. But when we discussed it a few months ago, it turned out to be top notch. I would include it among his best.

I loved that story - yes, it was best after we discussed it and saw/perceived all the symbolism in it. It was quite amazing to me then. I think it was one of his best, also. I was trying to think which I would vote on as my favorite the other night and I found that all we have discussed I liked. I don't think I could truly choose just one.

It's gets a lot worse than that, Janine. He'll call me almost daily and say "Where should I wait outside the gym for you to pick me up?" The only answer I can give him is, "Outside the gym." LOL Then he stays on the phone until I actually get there.

We are teaching him to drive. Being European, he always took public transportation, a car can be a liability there as there's no place to park. It gets kind of scary at times. I'm terrified the first time he'll drive alone after he gets his license.

Maybe, he is just an indecisive person. I am like that sometimes. Yes, driving can be scary, especially with all the traffic these days. I can understand your concerns. I had a son and taught him and then recall those days he started to drive on his own (a mother's nightmare!) and I know; first time out alone, you have your heart racing the whole time they are gone and sigh a breath of relief when they are home safely again.

Enjoy 'The Man Who Loved Islands' - lots of symbolism there, Antiquarian, and you appreciate that aspect of Lawrence's writing. When you complete it, you should go back and read our discussion. It was quite good and we delved into it, extensively. Everyone liked that story very much. It was fascinating. You will love the ending.

Quote by Dark Muse

It is true that Merlin does use some power reguarding Arthur, and in some ways helped to lead and dictate his fate, but Morgan and Merlin were enimies, Merlin ultimately was trying to help Arthur in his own way while Morgan was envious of Arthur and wanted his power. And she tries at one point to kill Merlin

Dark Muse, thanks for updating me on that - my memory on the story eluded me today. Yes, I did think them enemies but was not sure. Wasn't someone Arthur's half sister - was that Morgan? I guess I really do need to go refresh my memory and read the legend again. I am sure Wikipedia would fill me in on the tale.

DM, only thing I missed here is your longer entry when you answered some of my questions from the other post. I will get to that later tonight. I have to put it on-hold for now; hope you don't mind. Mostly, I agree with all you said there anyway. Thanks for re-posting that....it did get lost a few pages back.

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 02:48 PM

It is quite alright, you can take your time, no rush

Janine

05-21-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote by Dark Muse

It is quite alright, you can take your time, no rush

You are all so reasonable - thanks for your patience with me. I guess this week baby had to come first. I held her yesterday for hours; she is so precious.

My husband can be very indecisive at times, Janine, but other times he's so stubborn and opinionated. LOL But he is easygoing and easy to live with.

Sounds like my last boyfriend. They sure can be a mixed bag!

I'll look for the discussion on "The Man Who Loved Islands" after I read the story. You're right. I do love symbolism. I try to use it in my own stories. I'm also a fan of Lawrence's prose. Just the prose, itself, is quite lovely to read.

I love the prose as well - that is what really stands out to me - I just seem to be easily drawn into it and feel it flows so poetically. I found these two passages in "The White Peacock" that I must type out for you. They are so touching and so well written, about this tiny birdnest that is found in the hoof-print of a cow in the muddy field. I just found the second part, which comes up later in the book, when he finds this nest again and the eggs have hatched. It is so beautiful it makes me cry.

Janine

05-21-2008, 03:52 PM

I love the tiny details like that in his prose. They just make it a joy to read.

Antiquarian, I am a very detailed minded person, so that is probably what draws me to his writing - like that little bird's nest - a world all unto itself - he zeros in on natural things like that so exquisitely, and with such a delicate, yet enhanced sensitivity.

I think Amazon has that book for sale now in a not expensive paperback edition. I really should get it while I can since you said it's difficult to find.

Just looked it up. They have it. It's $26 for a paperback. That's a little steep, but I might get it. Strangely, the reviewers didn't seem to like it. Oh, there's only one review. And that person said there was too much descriptive detail. I love Lawrence's descriptive detail.

Yes, most people do criticize it extensively. Actually, Michael Black sees it's value. As a complete novel, it is some under-developed, but it has it's fine areas. I would not spend that much for the book; that is way too much for a paperback. I think it is rare but can be located from time to time cheaper on Amazon. I would recommend you read "Women in Love" or even "The Rainbow" instead next. My favorite still is "Women in Love" - you would love the symbolism in that book, and the complex interaction of the two couples. Meanwhile my advice would be, to put "The White Peacock" in your 'wishlist' and keep watching it. You might find someone lists it cheaper, one of these days. I did that and got lucky one day, myself. Really $26 is way too steep...is it a used paperback or new? Add shipping to that and it is really high. It is not that long a novel. I will keep an eye out for you, also. Together we can locate it cheaper I think.

editing this - just went to look up the book on Amazon and found these:

I think this is the general listings of that book – there are many of them available from various publishers and sellers.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0019BCFUM/ref=dp_olp_2?

This is the one I think I own – it is by Penquin Classics

http://www.amazon.com/White-Peacock-D-H-Lawrence/dp/B0019BCFUM/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211399871&sr=1-18

Below is a seller of a used one which is way cheaper – you can check them out. Click on their feedback rating to see if they are reliable. Also, you would have to check the shipping cost – shipped from the UK....see if it is worth the difference.

http://www.amazon.com/WHITE-PEACOCK-D-H-LAWRENCE/dp/B0000CHPT4/ref=sr_1_17?

There are a lot of sellers on there you could check out for a decent copy.

Virgil

05-21-2008, 04:08 PM

Virgil , did you mean discongruity? I think the word might be 'discontinuity'...it is the only one I can find close to it in my dictionary. 'discongruity seems not to be a real word either.
This is early Lawrence so I can well image these images being part of his resources to draw on at this time.

Eek. I meant incongruous. For some reason the word didn't come to me before. ;)

Janine

05-21-2008, 04:12 PM

Eek. I meant incongruous. For some reason the word didn't come to me before. ;)

hahah - that must have been it then. You just have overload of the brain! Common on this site.

Virgil

05-21-2008, 07:47 PM

Anti, you can probably find an inexpensive copy of The White Peacock at a good used book store. But weren't we reading The Rainbow here on lit net in the summer? You may want to wait for that read for a Lawrence novel.

Janine

05-21-2008, 08:05 PM

Thanks, Janine. I'll find it somewhere, sometime. I'm not in a big hurry. I have so much to read. I agree, $26 is too much for a paperback.

Oh, I hope that helps you, Antiquarian. I did see a few for about 5 - 15 dollars. Of course you always have to add that darn shipping and it is high on books I think, even used ones, paperbacks. Yes, $26 is too much. If I can asess my full file of what I bought on Amazon last couple years I can see how much I spend for mine. I think it was used but not sure; was in good condition; now it definitely is used (by me).

Quote by Virgil

Anti, you can probably find an inexpensive copy of The White Peacock at a good used book store. But weren't we reading The Rainbow here on lit net in the summer? You may want to wait for that read for a Lawrence novel.

Virgil, can you really find one at a used bookstore, do you think? Where - somewhere in NYC perhaps? You should keep your eye out for a copy for Antiq; you are good at finding these rare books.

Yes, actually we are planning a reading of "The Rainbow" soon - come summer. So far we have discussed "Sons and Lovers", and "Women in Love". The participants of those discussions, have expressed the desire to do another Lawrence full-length novel. I have just been fiddling around for now with shorter works until we get to "The Rainbow". I wanted things to get a little more settled (in my personal life) and then we can approach that new book discussion.

Dark Muse, I went back to read your long post and I agree with everything you posted there. Thanks for this information: "Yes it is German, "Walküre" is German for Valkyrie, and the "Waulkure score, is from the Wagner Ride of the Valkyries opera"...I think I have some illustrations from this opera or book.

Janine

05-21-2008, 09:26 PM

Ok, I had a chance to work on the next part of the text so here it is. Go ahead and discuss it; I did add some of my own comments again and some things I am questioning.

Next Part of the Text:

She bowed her head. Of compact physique, uncorseted, her figure bowed richly to the piano. He watched the shallow concave between her shoulders, marvelling at its rich solidity. She let one arm fall loose, he looked at the shadows in the dimples of her elbow. Slowly smiling a look of brooding affection, of acknowledgment upon him for a forgetful moment, she said:
A good description of Winifred and how Coutts perceives her. I take it her uncorseted figure makes her appear more casual and sexy to him. This part does seem to suggest to me that she does indeed play the piano along with the violin. I found that last line of particular interest. Again this does reveal how familiar the two are to each other.

"And what have you done lately?"
"Simply nothing," he replied quietly. "For all that these months have been so full of variety, I think they will sink out of my life; they will evaporate and leave no result; I shall forget them."
Exactly what does he mean by this statement?

Her blue eyes were dark and heavy upon him, watching. She did not answer. He smiled faintly at her.
"And you?" he said, at length.
"With me it is different," she said quietly.
"You sit with your crystal," he laughed.
"While you tilt . . ." She hung on her ending.
I like this first line in this section with her blue eyes dark and heavy upon him, watching…
Here is where he first brings up the idea of the crystal and she says he tilts – does that mean he is faltering, or tilting towards her, or what exactly does this mean?

He laughed, sighed, and they were quiet awhile.
"I've got such a skinful of heavy visions, they come sweating through my dreams," he said.
I also very much liked that passage and it made me wonder about his use of the word ‘visions’ and then of ‘dreams’. What exactly does Coutts mean to imply by this. Is it Winifred he is dreaming of or is it Connie?
Prompted by his remark, Winifred goes on to ask him:

"Whom have you read?" She smiled.
"Meredith. Very healthy," he laughed.
She laughed quickly at being caught.
"Now, have you found out all you want?" he asked.
"Oh, no," she cried with full throat.
"Well, finish, at any rate. I'm not diseased. How are you?"
"But . . . but . . ." she stumbled on doggedly. "What do you intend to do?"
He hardened the line of his mouth and eyes, only to retort with immediate lightness:
"Just go on."
I am not well read enough, to know who Meredith is, in reference to passage. Does anyone know? Obviously he is being sarcastic when he says “very healthy”; can someone confirm that or correct me.
Then why does she say she is caught. Is Meredith a mystical or magical author?
Why does he say “I’m not diseased” – does he mean he is not distressed over her questioning?

This was their battlefield: she could not understand how he could marry: it seemed almost monstrous to her; she fought against his marriage. She looked up at him, witch-like, from under bent brows. Her eyes were dark blue and heavy. He shivered, shrank with pain. She was so cruel to that other, common, everyday part of him.
This paragraph seemed key. Now the truth comes out how she does feel about him marrying. Is she opposed to him marrying Connie or any woman for that matter? That last line is truly a key statement and explains so much.

"I wonder you dare go on like it," she said.
"Why dare?" he replied. "What's the odds?"
"I don't know," she answered, in deep, bitter displeasure.
"And I don't care," he said.
"But . . ." she continued, slowly, gravely pressing the point: "You know what you intend to do."
"Marry--settle--be a good husband, good father, partner in the business; get fat, be an amiable gentleman--Q.E.F."
"Very good," she said, deep and final.
"Thank you."
"I did not congratulate you," she said.
"Ah!" His voice tailed off into sadness and self-mistrust. Meanwhile she watched him heavily. He did not mind being scrutinised: it flattered him.
So now they do finally confront the real issue of the marriage. She is obviously bitter with displeasure and the prospects of him marrying. She pressed the point and he replies:
"Marry--settle--be a good husband, good father, partner in the business; get fat, be an amiable gentleman--Q.E.F."
Just curious what does Q.E.F. stand for? I know I am lame. Does anyone else think or perceive that his tone here is cynical? Or is it just being resigned to the situation of being married, being acceptable and respectable, to society as well?

"Yes, it is, or may be, very good," she began; "but why all this?--why?"
"And why not? And why?--Because I want to."
He could not leave it thus flippantly.
"You know, Winifred, we should only drive each other into insanity, you and I: become abnormal."
"Well," she said, "and even so, why the other?"
"My marriage?--I don't know. Instinct."
"One has so many instincts," she laughed bitterly.
That was a new idea to him.
I think we did discuss the fact that he forsees what would happen if it were Winifred and not Connie he would stay with, married or as a lover. He knows they would become ‘abnormal.’ Those last few statements are interesting – he remarks he is marrying due to instinct; and yet it seems to me it is the opposite - He is marrying and ignoring his true self and instincts.
When Winifred says to him “One had so many instincts” he then sees it as a new idea. To me that is curious. What does everyone thing of these two statements?

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 09:33 PM

Dark Muse, I went back to read your long post and I agree with everything you posted there. Thanks for this information: "Yes it is German, "Walküre" is German for Valkyrie, and the "Waulkure score, is from the Wagner Ride of the Valkyries opera"...I think I have some illustrations from this opera or book.

We are starting to agree way too much now LOL

Virgil

05-21-2008, 10:39 PM

She bowed her head. Of compact physique, uncorseted, her figure bowed richly to the piano. He watched the shallow concave between her shoulders, marvelling at its rich solidity. She let one arm fall loose, he looked at the shadows in the dimples of her elbow.
This is around the second or third time Lawrence mentions she is uncorseted. It is certainly sexually stimulating to Coutts, but I wonder if it carried any cultural connotation in that time? Is it the equivalent of a tramp (say someone walking around braless and with six inch heels) in today's society or is just an option that a respectable lady might choose?

Also notice how many times Lawrence mentions arms or parts of Wini's arms. Here it's elbows, but it occurs frequently. In fact at the climax of the story when Coutts is completely bewitched, doesn't Wini do some magical motion with her arms? It seems to be a running motif. In fact even at the beginning she is playing the violin, an arm specific instrument. Her arms are very sensual.

Virgil

05-21-2008, 10:44 PM

I think Coutts is referring to a Victorian novelist named George Meredth. Here: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/meredith/biograph.html.

Dark Muse

05-21-2008, 11:20 PM

Exactly what does he mean by this statement?

To me this seems almost as if he is talking about his apprehensions about his soon to be married life. He seems to be talking about how the life he once lived will be no more, and he is expressing his fears of being stagnent in marraige.

I am not well read enough, to know who Meredith is, in reference to passage. Does anyone know? Obviously he is being sarcastic when he says “very healthy”; can someone confirm that or correct me.
Then why does she say she is caught. Is Meredith a mystical or magical author?

I am not personally famialir with Meredith, but I did some research, and there was an English Novelst/Poet George Meredith though I am not familair with his work to say how it could be relevent here. But here is some information I found about him:

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/meredith/biograph.html

So now they do finally confront the real issue of the marriage. She is obviously bitter with displeasure and the prospects of him marrying. She pressed the point and he replies:
"Marry--settle--be a good husband, good father, partner in the business; get fat, be an amiable gentleman--Q.E.F."
Just curious what does Q.E.F. stand for? I know I am lame. Does anyone else think or perceive that his tone here is cynical? Or is it just being resigned to the situation of being married, being acceptable and respectable, to society as well?

Yes I think it might by cynical in nature, considering it seems that he is not completely sure he wants to be married, and particulary not to a woman like Connie.

The way it is used here, I think by Q.E.F. He means the Latin Quod Erat Faciendum which means Which Was to be Done

I think we did discuss the fact that he forsees what would happen if it were Winifred and not Connie he would stay with, married or as a lover. He knows they would become ‘abnormal.’ Those last few statements are interesting – he remarks he is marrying due to instinct; and yet it seems to me it is the opposite - He is marrying and ignoring his true self and instincts.
When Winifred says to him “One had so many instincts” he then sees it as a new idea. To me that is curious. What does everyone thing of these two statements?

When I first read it, I thought she was implying sexual desire, and passion, when she speaks of there being so many instincts, as a retort to his own words about getting married on an instinct.

Janine

05-22-2008, 12:30 AM

"Whom have you read?" She smiled.
"Meredith. Very healthy," he laughed.
She laughed quickly at being caught.

After reading a little about the author Meredith, I think I understand the connotation or suggestions here. I can't really put it into words now, except to say his work was very psychological and dealt with complex relationships apparently. If you go and read about Meredith you will find it quite interesting about his life; his work seemed to be ahead of it's time, one piece was rejected or banned. Also, the man's wife and he both had strong 'wills' and the marriage did not work out. They finally split up, when she eloped with another man. I found his biography curious and it seemed that Lawrence chose this author purposely for this story, to mean something symbolic; especially since Winifred "laughed at being caught". It is like they both know the full meaning of Coutt's reference to this author's work. Remeber they have been talking in a sort of code to each other all along - not very straighforward.

I think women who did not wear corsets in those days were rebelling against that constraint; much like women in the 60's burned their bras. It did not necessarily mean the woman was a loose woman. It would just indicate that she is a more progressive, modern thinking woman. It would represent the throwing off of the Victorian invention and constraint of being harnessed in an uncomforable corset all day - those corsets could be brutal. When I watch period films, often the actress will mention the fact, that they are so uncomfortable and stiff and actually pinch a person. I read one time that woman actually developed internal organ problems from wearing those horrid things. I don't blame women from that time to simply rebell and do away with them. I think in this story, it would further point out the difference in the two women, Connie being very proper and conventenial and Winifred being more like an artist, freer and a modern type woman who throws off the old traditions, conventions. Of course, the effect would be more appealing to a man or to some men; very proper men might find it offensive. Obviously, Coutts was more modern thinking, and probably liked this look for a woman. Women in corsetts appeared stiff and stand-offish; whereas a woman with a loose fitting bodice would look feminine and desirable. Again, I don't think this indicates a loose woman without morals. I just think that it shows a freer nature. I believe in "Women in Love" this is mentioned many times throughout the novel. It might be in regard to Gudrun who was the more progressive of the two sisters in her thinking. This certainly did not mean that Gundrun threw herself around with men. She just was a much freer spirit being an artist and modern type woman.

I will have to review the rest of the posts tomorrow. I am so awfully tired now and need some sleep. I know I missed things and will try to answer all tomorrow. Sorry I missed answering your remarks, Antiquarian. I am half awake so I can't think too clearly now to post anymore. Tomorrow I will do so.

Yes, Dark Muse, we certainly are agreeing a lot lately - downright scary! :lol:

Good job on all the posts everyone; glad you all saw the new portion of text I posted tonight.

Thanks for posting links to sites about Meredith, Virgil and DM. I found those interesting and one said he influenced the writing of Thomas Hardy. I will have to read some of his poetry.

I can't hardly stay awake now. I was watching another play on a DVD and my eyes kept closing. Last night I watched the same one and actually fell asleep sitting up on the sofa; I never do that so it was strange for me. I almost fell asleep again finishing it up. Says much for the play, doesn't it? No just kidding, it is me; I feel extremely tired out tonight.

Virgil

05-22-2008, 07:18 AM

The way it is used here, I think by Q.E.F. He means the Latin Quod Erat Faciendum which means Which Was to be Done

Thanks D-M. I was wondering. Not sure how it fits in, other than just banter by intelligent people of the time.

When I first read it, I thought she was implying sexual desire, and passion, when she speaks of there being so many instincts, as a retort to his own words about getting married on an instinct.
Instinct is a charged word for Lawrence. He believes on relying on instinct which is associated with blood knowledge and apart from mental knowledge.

After reading a little about the author Meredith, I think I understand the connotation or suggestions here. I can't really put it into words now, except to say his work was very psychological and dealt with complex relationships apparently. If you go and read about Meredith you will find it quite interesting about his life; his work seemed to be ahead of it's time, one piece was rejected or banned. Also, the man's wife and he both had strong 'wills' and the marriage did not work out. They finally split up, when she eloped with another man. I found his biography curious and it seemed that Lawrence chose this author purposely for this story, to mean something symbolic; especially since Winifred "laughed at being caught". It is like they both know the full meaning of Coutt's reference to this author's work. Remeber they have been talking in a sort of code to each other all along - not very straighforward.

Thanks for that janine. I didn't have time to read up on him. I have never read him, but i can see how it would relate to lawrence. Surprising Meredith is never mentioned as a possible Lawrence influence. At least I've never come across it. Perhaps it might be interesting to read something by Meredith, but i won't have the time i'm afraid. There are more important reads to spend my time on.;)

I think women who did not wear corsets in those days were rebelling against that constraint; much like women in the 60's burned their bras. It did not necessarily mean the woman was a loose woman. It would just indicate that she is a more progressive, modern thinking woman. It would represent the throwing off of the Victorian invention and constraint of being harnessed in an uncomforable corset all day - those corsets could be brutal. When I watch period films, often the actress will mention the fact, that they are so uncomfortable and stiff and actually pinch a person. I read one time that woman actually developed internal organ problems from wearing those horrid things. I don't blame women from that time to simply rebell and do away with them. I think in this story, it would further point out the difference in the two women, Connie being very proper and conventenial and Winifred being more like an artist, freer and a modern type woman who throws off the old traditions, conventions. Of course, the effect would be more appealing to a man or to some men; very proper men might find it offensive. Obviously, Coutts was more modern thinking, and probably liked this look for a woman. Women in corsetts appeared stiff and stand-offish; whereas a woman with a loose fitting bodice would look feminine and desirable. Again, I don't think this indicates a loose woman without morals. I just think that it shows a freer nature. I believe in "Women in Love" this is mentioned many times throughout the novel. It might be in regard to Gudrun who was the more progressive of the two sisters in her thinking. This certainly did not mean that Gundrun threw herself around with men. She just was a much freer spirit being an artist and modern type woman.
That is great perception Janine, and I think I whole heartedly agree with it. I do not think Wini is a tramp, but a modern woman of her day. (Or is that synonymous with tramp? :p :p Only kidding, by the way before I'm bombarded with tomatoes :lol: ) I guess this was written when Lawrence was more sympathetic to modern women (the story is titled "a la mode") but we can already see the ambivilance toward them. Is Wini a postive character or a negative character?

Interesting this story seems to have another Jesse/modern woman split. Interesting how Lawrence ultimately chose Frieda, who I think would fit the modern woman figure. Janine, would you associate Connie in this story with Jesse?

Dark Muse

05-22-2008, 10:56 AM

Thanks D-M. I was wondering. Not sure how it fits in, other than just banter by intelligent people of the time.

I thought the way he was talking about marraige, he was just saying in an off handed way, that marraige was just the thing to do. Every young bachelor is exepcted to settle down eventually.

Janine

05-22-2008, 03:32 PM

Everyone skipped my input! :bawling: LOL

Well, I didn't!!! In my post #2022 I wrote this Antiquarian:

I will have to review the rest of the posts tomorrow. I am so awfully tired now and need some sleep. I know I missed things and will try to answer all tomorrow. Sorry I missed answering your remarks, Antiquarian. I am half awake, so I can't think too clearly now to post anymore. Tomorrow I will do so.

I would have addressed it last night and answered any questions, too, etc.; but I seriously could not keep my eyes open and I felt dreadul with my painful stomach.

Now I am going back to read it and review. Sometimes when this happens to me, I ask them everyone, anyone to go back and read my specific post; I post the exact number, so they can find it.

Sorry, don't feel slighted, Antiq. This happens to me all the time. With 4 or 5 of us discussing we seem to move along so quickly that things do get lost in the shuffle. But I will dig up that post and answer it now.

Virgil

05-22-2008, 03:58 PM

Everyone skipped my input! :bawling: LOL

Which post number Anti? I'll go back to it.

Janine

05-22-2008, 04:01 PM

I'm just teasing, Janine. That's why I had the LOL.

Don't feel under any pressure. I don't feel slighted at all. I was just trying to be humorous. I know you said you'd have to get to mine later as you weren't feeling well. I hope you're feeling better today.

Really, no hurry.

Actually, I am working on it right now offline, Antiquarian. I am being quite thorough, so prepare yourself to read it. ;) :lol: Anyway, I know you were joking, but seriously I do know my own posts, some that take me literally an hour to write, sometimes get left behind. I hate when that happens; then it feels like I am talking to the air. I know it is not skipped intentionally; as I said we just move along so quickly sometimes.

Antiquaian, I am only feeling a tad better, but thanks. I still may try and go out this evening. I am sick of being stuck at home. I am quite disgusted with this stomach problem, that can't seem to get resolved. I guess I ate something the other night just did not agree with me, might have been salad. Well, hope you are feeling better too. Rainy and damp here again today.:bawling:

Be back real soon with that post I am working on.:D

Janine

05-22-2008, 04:31 PM

Oh, as I told Janine, I was joking, Virgil! LOL In fact, you did mention something about it - about Meredith. I was just surprised no one agreed that Winifred thinks Coutts is "tilting at windmills" like Don Quixote in his love or desire or whatever for Connie. LOL But I was only joking.

Actually, I do think that Dark Muse mentioned this way back to me, when I asked anyone what he meant by that. I didn't read DQ, but I should have known it I guess.

I never did tell a joke well at alll. (I don't usually "get" them, either. Not jokes or sarcasm. Both can just go right over my head. Makes me feel very stupid. Not joking about that. LOL I am ashamed to admit it, but when I first read "The Open Window" in high school, I thought the returning hunters really were ghosts. I think I was the only person in the class who didn't "get" it. I think I've improved a little now. ;)

That is funny, I can't tell jokes either; I always foul up the punch line. That reminds me of the short story in the Chekhov thread - I will be interested to know what you all thought of the mirage of the monk appearing in the night or field. I read that late and I think I got to chapter 3. I like it so much so far. It is very poetic this time.

I'm sorry to read you're not feeling back to yourself today, Janine. It's so hard when these things go on and on. Take your time. Don't stress over us or the thread. We'll get along for awhile until you get back to yourself, though of course we need you here! :)

Thanks, just par for the course. I have been plagued with chronic problems for years. I just have to work around them.

Don't worry so much, Antiquarian, I just finished your post (and you all better read it or I will cry!:bawling:;) :lol: ). This should have me almost caught up with everyone. Here is my response:

From #2017, Quotes by Antiquarian

When Winifred says Coutts "tilts" I think she's referreing to Don Quixote, who titled at windmills. I think she's being sarcastic and referring to Coutts' engagement to Connie as "tilting at windmills" or being futile.

Thanks; I probably should have realized that. I think that awhile back, even Dark Muse mentioned that. I just forgot. You both are right – that must be the reference here.

I don't think Meredith is anyone famous, probably just a mutual friend of Winifred and Coutts. I got the impression that they were talking about telling fortunes with crystals (witch like again) and Coutts "read" Meredith and found him "very healthy."

Actually, we did find out, from Virgil’s great job of research, that Meridith was getting his start way back, starting in the early 1800’s and then later in the century, he seemed to have commanded some noteworthy attention. I did read the biography (from the link that Virgil provided) and it revealed a number of interesting things about the author, in relation to things that would interest Lawrence. Makes me want to find his poetry, at least the poetry to read; I don't have time for his novels now either, Virg. He apparently also influenced or actually helped Thomas Hardy with his writing. Hardy would mention him at times.
I have a friend who is very learned about Hardy and his biography, so I will have to ask him if he knows the connection. He might be able to shed more light on this and the fact that this author would be mentioned, in a Lawrence work. My friend also likes Lawrence, and is interested that I have such an avid interest now, myself. In fact, he recommended to me the first biography I read of Lawrence, one they used at his university; which was very good. “ "D.H.Lawrence - The Intelligent Heart” by Harry T. Moore. Moore is often quoted in other sources (I have used frequently) even to this day. He was a leading authority on Lawrence’s biography. Of course, now others, such as Worthen have written finer and more detailed biographies of L for Cambridge. But even Worthen will sometime quote Moore.

Personally, I think Winifred is opposed to Coutts marrying anyone as she'd previously said he loved "the wild-goose chase." And he agreed.

This is rather funny and others have also said this before. Last night while looking closer at the text, when I realized that it was not Winifred who said this about the “wild-goose chase” but it was Coutts, unless she said it earlier. Do you know if she or he mentioned this earlier in the story? See quote below:

Text quote:

"What point?" he answered; then, smiling: "You know you only like a wild-goose chase."

Quotes by Antiquarian

I don't know what Q.E.F. means and I couldn't find it online, but I think it refers to something to do with the Queen. Some title men in law or business would have or earn. The letters are capitalized with a period after them, so I think it's a title.

Now we have some light shed on what that possibly stands for. I too am not sure of the way this is being used or it’s meaning in context of this statement:

“"Marry--settle--be a good husband, good father, partner in the business; get fat, be an amiable gentleman--Q.E.F."

Q.E.F. if he means it to stand for the Latin ‘Quod Erat Faciendum’ meaning ‘Which Was to be Done’ – maybe he means after he becomes a husband he will then do whatever needs or should be done (?) – something along those lines. As a husband he then accepts all that responsibility that goes along with it, whatever that may be as it comes along.

I think a part of Coutts wants to be married and settled and another part wants to be wild and free like Winifred. I get the idea that he's a little afraid of being wild and free and is denying that those instincts (Winifred is very comfortable with them, she even goes around without her corset, she wasn't even wearing it at Laura's) exist in him with his engagement to Connie. I think bewitching women like Winifred scare Coutts as much as they attract him. They force him to take a good look at who he really is and realize that he isn't the type to marry and that scares him.

I think most women of that time wouldn't be caught dead in public without their corset on, but I'm not sure, and Laura and her father didn't seem to find it odd that Winifred was sans corset. I think it's first mentioned when she's playing the violin, but I'm not sure. Lawrence does keep coming back to the subject of her lack of attire.

I would pretty much agree with all of this. I don’t think her lack of a corset makes her truly bewitching (although it might in Coutt’s mind), but it does make her alluring, even sensual to him, in that she is different than the ‘old-fashioned’ stiff proper type of girl, who would project a type of inhibition. As I wrote earlier, in my post Winifred is more the image of a modern woman. This is the time of woman’s rights and suffrage and feminism, feminist authors; it is a totally transitional period for woman. If I look at photos of my own grandmother at this time, or even my great-grandmother, I don’t believe they wore stiff corsets; and believe me, neither of them were wild women. Maybe Americans were ahead of the times in this idea of rejecting corsets. I think this definitely shows us the distinct difference in the two woman in Coutt’s life. Winifred shows a much freer spirit and much more uninhibited; most likely Coutt’s finance is an inhibited type of woman. I think that Virgil and I agree that Connie (Louie) corresponds somewhat to Miriam (Jessie). I don’t think the two woman identical in any way but I think they both were restricted by their upbringing and the attitudes that their parents projected on them. Louie’s parents did not even approve of Lawrence, they were extremely strict and religious in their thoughts and this obviously is part of the story in the idea of the church shadow and various other references to the rectory and to religion in connection with Connie.

I was just ready to post all this, and my computer keyboard froze-up - it just refused to type anything...horrors! I thought I was going to lose this entire post, but quickly I could copy it to an offline program. Now periodically, when I hit a key my computer beeps; anybody know what that is all about? Also, I can't seem to get the light off that says "scroll lock" - anyone know what that is or why it won't go off - I hit the key that says the same and it does nothing at all? I am really dumb sometimes about certain aspects of the computer. I feel like this one is going to crash anytime now. If so, you all will know why I don't show up one day; but if that were to happen I would head for my library to use theirs soon as I could. I need a new computer badly!

Virgil

05-22-2008, 08:41 PM

I would pretty much agree with all of this. I don’t think her lack of a corset makes her truly bewitching (although it might in Coutt’s mind), but it does make her alluring,
Well, he notices it a few times, which means he's checking her out. :p which means he's turned on ;) which means he's bewitched. :D

Quark

05-22-2008, 10:53 PM

I think this definitely shows us the distinct difference in the two woman in Coutt’s life. Winifred shows a much freer spirit and much more uninhibited; most likely Coutt’s finance is an inhibited type of woman.

This may be true, but I think we need to separate what the women mean to Coutts and what they mean to the reader. For Coutts, his fiancee (got it right that time) means a very controlled and repressed life, but that doesn't mean that his wife (fiancee, I mean) is a controlled and repressed woman. No, it's just Coutts' perspective which makes it appear that way. Similarly, Winifred appears to him free and uninhibited, but only because she represents an escape to a more sensual life. Of course, that doesn't mean that Winifred is a sensual woman. Far from it, she's very controlled herself, and that's part of what Coutts picks up on as the story moves forward. So, when Coutts sees the uncorseted body of Winifred he may be thinking "Wow, what an uninhibited woman!" But, that doesn't mean that she is.

Virgil

05-22-2008, 11:00 PM

Ah, the male point of view! LOL Where would we be without it? ;)

(You know I'm joking, right?)

:D Yes of course.

Janine

05-22-2008, 11:41 PM

This may be true, but I think we need to separate what the women mean to Coutts and what they mean to the reader. For Coutts, his fiancee (got it right that time) means a very controlled and repressed life, but that doesn't mean that his wife (fiancee, I mean) is a controlled and repressed woman. No, it's just Coutts' perspective which makes it appear that way. Similarly, Winifred appears to him free and uninhibited, but only because she represents an escape to a more sensual life. Of course, that doesn't mean that Winifred is a sensual woman. Far from it, she's very controlled herself, and that's part of what Coutts picks up on as the story moves forward. So, when Coutts sees the uncorseted body of Winifred he may be thinking "Wow, what an uninhibited woman!" But, that doesn't mean that she is.

Yes, Quark, well that is what the story is all about, isn't it? Coutt's perception and Coutt's temptation so I would agree with this for the most part. Yes, as it turns out Winifred is as constrained as Connie is. I think this is the whole gist of the story. We are lead along through the temptation and his following after it step by step and then the crucial moment arrives and she pulls away from him or turns her head and stops his kisses, thus showing her true self and not the one being projected to Coutts as he is being lead on.

Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Ah, the male point of view! LOL Where would we be without it?

(You know I'm joking, right?)

:lol: , Virgil you are a funny guy!.... and you do tend always to express so well the typical male response.:brow: Exactly, Antiquarian, where would we be without that male point of view? ;) :lol:

Quark

05-22-2008, 11:53 PM

Yes, Quark, well that is what the story is all about, isn't it?

I guess I was pointing out the obvious, but I thought someone needed to say it.

:lol: , Virgil you are a funny guy!.... and you do tend always to express so well the typical male response.:brow:

Virgil's been particularly on during this story--spotting the phallic imagery, checking out the un-corseted women. This story must have overstimulated him.

Janine

05-22-2008, 11:59 PM

I guess I was pointing out the obvious, but I thought someone needed to say it.

No, Quark, glad you did point that out. It made it a lot clearer actually. You sort of summed it up nicely.

Virgil's been particularly on during this story--spotting the phallic imagery, checking out the un-corseted women. This story must have overstimulated him.

:lol: I guess it does not take much for Virgil to get into that state....:lol: Why do you think he likes Lawrence's work so much?;) But then again, you were the one who first made mention of a yellow marker while reading "Sons and Lovers"!:lol:

Virgil

05-23-2008, 09:38 AM

Virgil's been particularly on during this story--spotting the phallic imagery, checking out the un-corseted women. This story must have overstimulated him.

:lol: I guess it does not take much for Virgil to get into that state....:lol: Why do you think he likes Lawrence's work so much?;) :lol:

:lol: :lol: Yeah, well, there are a few places. Wini's arms do come across as pretty sensual to me. :brow: I think I beginning to understand Coutts better. :D

And here I thought Virgil just loved Lawrence's genius with a pen!

(I have the DVD of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" but I haven't had the courage to watch it yet. ;))

You should ask Janine about some of her porno flicks. :lol: :lol:

Janine

05-23-2008, 02:31 PM

You two are a riot! I will get to that part in a minute. First about this:

(I have the DVD of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" but I haven't had the courage to watch it yet. )

Antiquarian, Which one do you have - the miniseries with Sean Bean and Joely Richardson? That is the best one, so they say. It is directed by Ken Russell. I did see another version I liked, years back with a friend, but that is racier...hahhahah:lol: Didn't matter - we were in the mood for 'racy' then.:brow: Good lead into the next part of this post.......

Quote by Virgil

Yeah, well, there are a few places. Wini's arms do come across as pretty sensual to me. I think I beginning to understand Coutts better.

:lol: :brow: I did not know that arms turned you on so; but then I certainly should not know, and don't want to know either.:blush: I think for Lawrence he did like the arms and the neck areas. They seem to be emphasised in many of his writing; oh and don't let me forget those intriguing 'thighs' so prominent in Lawrence's works! You know the man was not called a 'sensual author' for nothing. Back then, to show a wrist or an arm was something, even an ankle; so no wonder, they banned his books! He goes as far as to keep empaphasising the bare body parts.

Quote by Antiquarian

And here I thought Virgil just loved Lawrence's genius with a pen!

Antiq, like I said before, 'why do you think Virgil loves Lawrence's writing so much?' Also, I have to admit, I see sensuality in most all of Lawrence's work. Sorry, Quark, but I don't feel that much in Chekhov's, but then times were different, too....maybe too I have not read his sensual works yet....(?)

Quote by Virgil

You should ask Janine about some of her porno flicks.
:lol: hahaha - and they are period pieces as well. Yes, the earlier film by Ken Russell of "Women in Love" has a lot of nudity in it, probably more than his later rendition of LCL. However, WIL is not a pornographic film; where you been Virgil? ....living secluded under a rock; never see naked men before? :lol: hahah. It is really a beautiful film, just departs some from the plot of the novel somewhat, but in itself, it is a fine film and a good period piece; a little dated now though, but still worth owning. At the time it came out it, was quite acclaimed. Now a few others you are alluding to, Virgil, are a little risque, but James Joyces was no angel, you know...so the film "Nora" is a little bit blantant and ourspoken, but still I thought a very good film. That stars Ewan McGregor, who has no hangups at all, believe me; if you think so see his film "Young Adam"; good film though in my opinion; he plays opposite Tilda Swinson, who apparently has not hang-ups either. He plays a fine James Joyce in "Nora" - very convincing, I thought....good acting and he even sings/plays his guitar in parts.

Ha - you should see my real risque film collection? hahaha - I even have "8 1/2weeks"...hmmm... and the film "Original Sin" with Antonio Bandaros/Angelina Jolie - that one is something else. And the film version of "Wide Sargasso Sea" is pretty racy, too. I will have to reorganise and recategorize my film collection, I guess!

Quote by Antiquarian,

Janine's been holding back on me! LOL She never mentioned those. Only told me she liked the foreign and art house period pieces, like I do.

I'll have to ask her about this "secret collection" as soon as she logs on. ;)

Yes, you must ask me. haha - funny, most of the the risque ones, actually are the period pieces/art house films!

I also have the new period film by a different director - adaptation of "Sons and Lovers"; stars Sarah Lancaster as Lawrence's mother. It is a 2 DVD set, directed by Stephen Whittaker. I thought it a little bit of a departure from the novel, but it was good, anyway. I try to enjoy these films as separate unities and not exact copies of the novels.

I am hoping to buy the older film version of 'The Lady and the Gypsy" next; I keep it in my 'wishlist' in Amazon, to check the prices daily. I actually have a nice collection of Lawrence adaptation films by now.

Antiquarian, why are you afraid to watch LCL? If it is the film I own it is quite good and nothing to fear - not all that risque. I thought it a very sensual film, but actually I felt the "Women in Love" film that I own the most sensual of all three. I think that held up well overtime. I just have a few complaints about it, now that I know the novel so much better; and of course, I understand that it could not convey all of Lawrence's ideas, but it did present some to the general audience, at the time. I think most people who went to see it, had already read the novel and were Lawrence fans - that was back in the 70's I think or maybe early 80's.

You guys certainly like to go off track, when I'm not around - oh and talk about me behind my back....;) :lol: I wasn't here and missed out on all this fun!:bawling:

Oh, and if Quark is not on here for awhile, it is because he is now out feverishly looking for those films I mentioned. :lol:

Janine

05-23-2008, 03:24 PM

You know, Janine, I've heard of "leg men" and "derierre men" and men who like other parts of a woman's anatomy, but Lawrence and Virgil are the only two "arm men" I've encountered. LOL

I own the version of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" you mentioned. The one with Sean Bean and Joely Richardson. I don't think it's even been opened. Both my oldest brother and even my husband have some hang ups about screen nudity. LOL

Antiquarian, well, that is a good one! Here I thought all along that women were the ones with the hang-ups. How funny - I went to art school and we had live nude models - after awhile that did not mean a thing to me. I was busy drawing for anatomy class. I told Virgil and I thought he would have a fit. I laughed and laughed. I can't believe your hubby would be that way, being French. Some of those films are really racy, even for me!
Anyway, can't you watch the film while he is at work? It is set up into episodes I believe since it was probably shown first on BBC TV. I thought the film was finely done. If you already read the book you will enjoy it. It also stars James Wilby - he plays the complex Clifford. I really did like this film very much. Now you have me wanting to see it again and I have watched it many times before. It has some stunning scenes of nature in the woods and the estate is lovely.
The film adaptation I really wish to buy but can't find it "The Rainbow" - you can watch trailers on Youtube and it looks to be a fine production. Imelda Stubbs plays Ursula. She is a fine Bristish actress.

"The Sheltering Sky" with John Malkovich and Debra Winger was a lovely film, but it had some "racy" parts. My poor husband covered his eyes. LOL

No way, did he he really??? :lol: Is he the type of guy who turns the lights off first?

I don't think Quark will look for the films, though. He reads Chekhov and there's nothing racy in Chekhov. ;)

No, actually I never encountered the least trace of sensuality in Chekhov's work.
I don't know about Quark not looking for the L films - he used his yellow highlighter in the racy parts of "Sons and Lovers" quite liberally or so he told me on here, one night late. It was a scream - that conversation we were having (we were both overly tired and silly) when no one else was around. Ask Quark about his yellow highlighters.;) :lol: He never read "Lady Chatterly's Lover" so I advised him to invest in a whole box of markers for that read!:lol:

Janine

05-23-2008, 04:05 PM

You know, Janine, European men do a lot of talking, but it's just that - talk. I've been married to two Europeans now and they are very uptight, though my husband is the sweetest person in the world. Wouldn't trade him for anything.

No, I never knew that at all, Antiquarian. I thought French men, especially, were much more uninhibited and free thinking and acting about such things. How funny to find this out, after all these years. You mean then, American men are worse? How about other countries besides France? Italy or Greece, even England today, for instance?

I bought the DVD mainly for the nature scenes and the cinematography. I know no one but you will believe that, but it's true. LOL

I believe it entirely; but really it is a good film and very 'psychological', like all Lawrence's films are. Try to see it someway. Your husband might enjoy it. It is much more than nudity, believe me. I can only think of one very blantant nude scene, when Connie goes into her husband's bedroom unclothed - but that was all there was to it. Maybe there were a few nude scenes, when they run in around in the rain later in the film, but they are not long and not a major part of the film. Gee, I must refresh my memory and watch this film tonight.
Remind me to tell you a very funny art school story; this involves a good friend's daughter who is attending art classes now. The story is hilarious.

I can't watch while he's at work because then my oldest brother will be hovering about and that's far, far worse than my husband. My husband would just say, "Oh!"

Wow, you are in some dilema. That is why I have my own TV upstairs now. If I wanted to watch anything subversive or even deep, meaningful downstairs they would hang around and keep commenting about it and ask what I saw in it. I hate that; really ruins the film for me. I have actually watched a few films with sex in them with my mother, but they were tastefully done - she usually will comment like this 'oh wow' - I think she actually enjoys those parts. :lol: She is still pretty lively at 86 and she can still dream, you know.:D

I've read Lady Chatterley's Lover and yes, Quark better get a box of yellow highlighters for that one. LOL

yeah.....:lol: he better!:lol:

If he wants to drift into stranger territory, he could read The Story of O. I've read that one, too. I heard of that book, but what is that about? Can you say on here or is this one he needs a few boxes of those markers for? :lol:

Dark Muse

05-23-2008, 04:10 PM

No, I never knew that at all, Antiquarian. I thought French men, especially, were much more uninhibited and free thinking and acting about such things. How funny to find this out, after all these years. You mean then, American men are worse? How about other countries besides France? Italy or Greece, even England today, for instance?

Well I can tell you in Italy they are pretty flittacious. When we were there, one night, there was a group of men hagning outside in front of the window of our hotel and kept trying to call up to us.

Janine

05-23-2008, 04:32 PM

Well I can tell you in Italy they are pretty flittacious. When we were there, one night, there was a group of men hagning outside in front of the window of our hotel and kept trying to call up to us.

:lol: I kind of pictured it that way - those hot Italians! ;) :lol: Just look at our own Virgil; he gets excited about naked arms! ;) :lol:

If I don't post the rest of the text to the story in here soon, our thread might be censored for obscenity. Either that or the mod, probably Scher is laughing her head off right now! :lol:

I just looked that word up - 'flittacious' and I don't think that is a word; did you mean 'flirtatious', Dark Muse? You need a copy of this book I own called "Webster's New World 33,000 Word Book - most used words spelled and syllabified" - I keep this by my computer always - it is fast and easy to look up just the spelling.

Virgil

05-23-2008, 06:17 PM

You know, Janine, I've heard of "leg men" and "derierre men" and men who like other parts of a woman's anatomy, but Lawrence and Virgil are the only two "arm men" I've encountered. LOL

You forgot breast men. :brow:

Well I can tell you in Italy they are pretty flittacious. When we were there, one night, there was a group of men hagning outside in front of the window of our hotel and kept trying to call up to us.
Yeah let's hear it for Italian men. ;) Flittacious? Is there such a word?

:lol: I kind of pictured it that way - those hot Italians! ;) :lol: Just look at our own Virgil; he gets excited about naked arms! ;) :lol:

:lol: I'm rolling in laughter. I can't stop. :lol:

Dark Muse

05-23-2008, 06:50 PM

"Flittacious" men just flit from one woman to another. :idea:

LOL, like Coutts *evil grin*

Janine

05-23-2008, 08:20 PM

LOL, like Coutts *evil grin*

So it is a word - sorry Dark Muse for doubting you or mistaking the word. Yes, but I think this word would apply to more than just 2 women. There is probably another equally obscure word for flitting between two women.

Virgil, glad I made you laugh so much! I forgot to mention the fact you are always interested also, in the phallic symbolism of church steeples in L's works. :confused: :lol: :D

Dark Muse

05-23-2008, 08:26 PM

Hehe yes, it it is true what Antiquarian says. I had meant "flirtatious" but than when I saw what she said, I was just messing back with her and could not aviod that little coment

Virgil

05-23-2008, 08:37 PM

Virgil, glad I made you laugh so much! I forgot to mention the fact you are always interested also, in the phallic symbolism of church steeples in L's works. :confused: :lol: :D

Yes, but I'm more interested in the arms. ;)

Janine

05-23-2008, 09:10 PM

Yes, but I'm more interested in the arms. ;)

:confused: what???.....oh, now I get it...thought you said 'I'm not interested in the arms....mis-read the word 'more' for being 'not'. I need my glasses!

Hahah - then there is no word like that one, Dark Muse. I was going to look it up in my regular dictionary but only looked in the 33,000 word book and could not find it. I was going to say, I am the worst when typing and spelling - I edit continually and I use this little book all the time. Otherwise, no one would understand my posts.

So maybe with the word 'flittitious' or whatever it was, you have actually made up a new usable word. Shakespeare made up thousands and no one doubted him. I believed you, Antiquarian when you gave us that good definition.

Janine

05-24-2008, 03:16 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, Janine. I was just being silly about the word. I didn't mean to make you look it up.

I wasn't on here much last night, Antiquarian. I sort of felt tired or something and I was doing household things, too...that is why I did not answer this till now.
Anyway, you don't have to be a bit sorry; I think it was funny, how we all perceived the Dark Muse's word. The day I get mad over such a trivial thing will be the day - then you should all ban me from this thread. I think by now we all know each others rhythms and teasing. Don't worry about it, I always look words up. I have been keeping this little book by the computer and making myself use it (normally I am lazy to look things up); it am hoping it improves my vocabulary and spelling, who knows?

Also, last night I was working on this to post today:

The Next Part of the Text

She raised her arms, stretched them above her head, in a weary gesture. They were fine, strong arms. They reminded Coutts of Euripides' "Bacchae": white, round arms, long arms. The lifting of her arms lifted her breasts. She dropped suddenly as if inert, lolling her arms against the cushions.

So here is the part about the arms. I know all have been waiting for this. According to Michael Black here Winifred shows herself as though she is an enchantress with these arm movements. Here is what he says:
"He has now used the word: she is a witch. And in the last few pages of the story, the climax, she uses her strange power over him in a final effort to win him over to her, and he breaks the spell. Three times she raises her arms to him, in a variation of the Lawrentian ritual gesture."

"I really don't see why you should be," she said drearily, though always with a touch of a sneer, "why we should always--be fighting."
"Oh, yes, you do," he replied. It was a deadlock which he could not sustain.
"Besides," he laughed, "it's your fault."
"Am I so bad?" she sneered.
"Worse," he said.
"But"--she moved irritably--"is this to the point?"
"What point?" he answered; then, smiling: "You know you only like a wild-goose chase."

Notice this statement “It was a deadlock which he could not sustain.” I find that interesting. Then he suddenly says it is her fault and she pretty much agrees by saying “Am I so bad?” sneering; then he says “Worse.”

So what does she now mean exactly, when she asks Coutts “is this the point?” He acts as if he does not know the answer, is that correct? Then that key line about the wild-goose chase…I keep thinking, the one he has just been lead into, even though it is her game; she is the one who loves a wild goose-chase. Coutts, on the other hand, does not love a wild goose-chase at all, not really. He desires her, not just for the sake of ‘the chase’.

"I do," she answered plaintively. "I miss you very much. You snatch things from the Kobolds for me."

In another of Lawrence’s stories, 2 women characters say something similar; Quoting Michael Black, he goes on to say “he made things wonderful for them, made things come magically alive. He is able to bring treasure from the fairy world. (Kobolds are sprites from the world of German folktale).”

From Wikipedia:

The kobold is a sprite of German folklore. Although usually invisible, a kobold can materialise in the form of an animal, fire, a human being, and a mundane object.

Dictionary Definition:

1 : a gnome that in German folklore inhabits underground places
2 : an often mischievous domestic spirit of German folklore

"Exactly," he said in a biting tone. "Exactly! That's what you want me for. I am to be your crystal, your 'genius'. My length of blood and bone you don't care a rap for. Ah, yes, you like me for a crystal-glass, to see things in: to hold up to the light. I'm a blessed Lady-of-Shalott looking-glass for you."
"You talk to me," she said, dashing his fervour, "of my fog of symbols!"

Michael Black says about this passage:
"The apt retort does not conceal the fact that he is confirming his earlier insight – a knowledge of her that will bring freedom from the spell. Nonetheless she attempts to exert her power over him, and her third ritual gesture brings the climax."

He refers here (third ritual gesture) to a passage that will come up later, which states this idea: her hands being lifted towards him “like small white orchids”.

"Ah, well, if so, 'tis your own asking."
"I did not know it." She looked at him coldly. She was angry.
"No," he said.
Again, they hated each other.

Again that strong word of ‘hate’ and the fact stated that they once again “hated each other”.

"The old ancients," he laughed, "gave the gods the suet and intestines: at least, I believe so. They ate the rest. You shouldn't be a goddess."

What does everyone think of this statement by Coutts? I find especially curious and interesting, the last line stating the fact that she “shouldn’t be a goddess.” Any ideas on this entire paragraph?

That should keep you all busy for awhile!

Virgil

05-24-2008, 03:43 PM

So here is the part about the arms. I know all have been waiting for this. According to Michael Black here Winifred shows herself as though she is an enchantress with these arm movements. Here is what he says:
"He has now used the word: she is a witch. And in the last few pages of the story, the climax, she uses her strange power over him in a final effort to win him over to her, and he breaks the spell. Three times she raises her arms to him, in a variation of the Lawrentian ritual gesture."

Ah yes, she's also put a spell on me. :lol: Good point from Michael Black about three times. That is a ritual number.

Notice this statement “It was a deadlock which he could not sustain.” I find that interesting. Then he suddenly says it is her fault and she pretty much agrees by saying “Am I so bad?” sneering; then he says “Worse.”

So what does she now mean exactly, when she asks Coutts “is this the point?” He acts as if he does not know the answer, is that correct? Then that key line about the wild-goose chase…I keep thinking, the one he has just been lead into, even though it is her game; she is the one who loves a wild goose-chase. Coutts, on the other hand, does not love a wild goose-chase at all, not really. He desires her, not just for the sake of ‘the chase’.
No man under that kind of spell wants the wild goose chase. :p He wants something immediate. :blush: I really don't know what to make of "to the point." Seems out of joint.

In another of Lawrence’s stories, 2 women characters say something similar; Quoting Michael Black, he goes on to say “he made things wonderful for them, made things come magically alive. He is able to bring treasure from the fairy world. (Kobolds are sprites from the world of German folktale).”So we really have a lot of allusions: chivalric, classical, and now germanic.

Again that strong word of ‘hate’ and the fact stated that they once again “hated each other”.
Hate is a strong word. Many times Lawrence uses words like that to mean the momentary emotion, not a long term feeling. He hates her at that moment, but a few moments later he still desires her.

That should keeWhat does everyone think of this statement by Coutts? I find especially curious and interesting, the last line stating the fact that she “shouldn’t be a goddess.” Any ideas on this entire paragraph?p you all busy for awhile!
I will have to think about it. Not sure yet how to take that. I'll have to re-read it. Be back tonight.

Dark Muse

05-24-2008, 07:20 PM

What does everyone think of this statement by Coutts? I find especially curious and interesting, the last line stating the fact that she “shouldn’t be a goddess.” Any ideas on this entire paragraph?

I think in a way Coutts is sort of mocking Winni here. I think he perceives her as wanting to be a goddess in the way in which she acts, as well as the way in which she wishes to control and use Coutts. And so I think her brought up the suet and intestines as a way of just sort of jabbing at her, what would be in store for her if she really were a goddess.

Dark Muse

05-24-2008, 07:38 PM

No, I do not think he sees her as really a goodess, but rather on the quest for goddess hood

Janine

05-24-2008, 10:04 PM

Ah yes, she's also put a spell on me. :lol: Good point from Michael Black about three times. That is a ritual number.

:lol:Yes, we know about that spell... ;) :lol:

So, Virgil, three really is a ritual number? That is nteresting.

No man under that kind of spell wants the wild goose chase. :p He wants something immediate. :blush: I really don't know what to make of "to the point." Seems out of joint.

That is for sure! You should know all about that....and why are you blushing?:lol:

You mean no one knows what to make of that line ..."to the point"?

So we really have a lot of allusions: chivalric, classical, and now germanic.
Good point, Virgil.

Hate is a strong word. Many times Lawrence uses words like that to mean the momentary emotion, not a long term feeling. He hates her at that moment, but a few moments later he still desires her.

That is true. I would agree with that idea. Yes, this hate reference is momentary; so if we can say that, then is the 'love' reference momentary, also?

I will have to think about it. Not sure yet how to take that. I'll have to re-read it. Be back tonight.

Ok, will wait for you to comment further, then.

Quote by Antiquarian

He's laughing when he utters that last line. Perhaps "you shouldn't be a goddess" is just a reference to the suet and intestines. Yuk. I wouldn't want to be one if that's what I had to eat. Not that I am one, I meant I'd never choose to be one given the choice if I was going to be fed suet and intestines.

Wasn't it the ancient Egyptians who removed those parts before burial? I guess here thought he is refering to animals and that the goddess was serve up these delicacies first. I say yuk, too, Antiquarian. I am still not quite sure what to make of this reference, as to it's relationship to our story.

Quote by Dark Muse

I think in a way Coutts is sort of mocking Winni here. I think he perceives her as wanting to be a goddess in the way in which she acts, as well as the way in which she wishes to control and use Coutts. And so I think her brought up the suet and intestines as a way of just sort of jabbing at her, what would be in store for her if she really were a goddess.

Yes, that might be one idea. Afterall, he was sort of laughing, when he said it.

Quote by Antiquarian

You don't think Coutts already considers her "sort of" a goddess, the way she bewitches him and all?

Antiquarian,I was a bit confused by this, because I kept seeing Connie more like a goddess that Coutts would worship, not Winifred. So I was rather surprised at the line about the 'goddess'. I guess though, that some goddess' can bewitch. I think more of witches/sorcerers doing so than goddess' and I think Coutts already did use the term 'witch' to describe Winifred.

No, I do not think he sees her as really a goodess, but rather on the quest for goddess hood.

:lol: sorry, Dark Muse, but your last two words really make me laugh.:lol: I think I know what you mean, but that 'goddess hood' part really is funny; I think you just made up another new word!
I too don't think he sees her truly as a goddess. I think he sees Connie more in that role, as I already stated. I think that Winifred would like to compete for Coutt's affections against Connie and therefore would like to become a goddess to Coutts; but she is far from the goddess image, as he would see it. Therefore, she is fails at her quest to aspire to becoming a goddess.

Remember all our talk about Arthur? Well, I noticed in the Michael Black commentary book he, tends to mention Coutts, more in relation to the character of Lancelot, than of that of Arthur. I do think that Lancelot goes along with Lady or Shallot. I am going now to look up that legend.

Virgil

05-24-2008, 10:51 PM

Not sure. He doesn't use it in this story. I think a synonym for the way Lawrence uses hate is repellant or repulsed. I'm not sure there is a similar way to use love. Not sure if that made sense.

[QUOTE]Ok, will wait for you to comment further, then.
Not ready yet. I was concentrating on The Aeneid this evening. But I think Anti may be right.

Wasn't it the ancient Egyptians who removed those parts before burial? I guess here thought he is refering to animals and that the goddess was serve up these delicacies first. I say yuk, too, Antiquarian. I am still not quite sure what to make of this reference, as to it's relationship to our story.
So he's using Egyptian mythology too.

Remember all our talk about Arthur? Well, I noticed in the Michael Black commentary book he, tends to mention Coutts, more in relation to the character of Lancelot, than of that of Arthur. I do think that Lancelot goes along with Lady or Shallot. I am going now to look up that legend.
I said that Coutts reminded me of a knight errant. I think it fits. Lady of Shalott was a Tennyson poem; I don't think it figures much in most chivalric lore and I don't see how it connects here. But lancelot was the one knight who fell to temptation and loved (physically as well as emotionally) Guenivere. I don't recall he being bewitched by anyone, but he may have been. I'll try looking it up.

Dark Muse

05-24-2008, 10:58 PM

Wasn't it the ancient Egyptians who removed those parts before burial? I guess here thought he is refering to animals and that the goddess was serve up these delicacies first. I say yuk, too, Antiquarian. I am still not quite sure what to make of this reference, as to it's relationship to our story.

I do not really get the feeling that he is refering to the mumification process with those lines. As the ancient Egypts did remove all internal organs, from the bodies of the dead, but the way Coutts used it particuarly with the talk of crystal balls made me think more in line with Greek mythology. Where it was rather common to use intestines for the purpose of divination.

Remember all our talk about Arthur? Well, I noticed in the Michael Black commentary book he, tends to mention Coutts, more in relation to the character of Lancelot, than of that of Arthur. I do think that Lancelot goes along with Lady or Shallot. I am going now to look up that legend.

Yes in the poem Lady of Shallot it is ultimately for Lancelot that she kills herself. She sees him coming down the down so she runs from the tower to meet him, and than at the end he finds her dead floating in the water.

Janine

05-25-2008, 12:03 AM

I probably agree with what you said above Dark Muse, for the most part. Gee, we are 'agreeing' entirely too much lately, aren't we, DM? :lol:

Thanks for that information about "Lady of Shallot". I got side-tracked and never did get a chance to look that up. I was thinking of a song, I have on an album based on that poem; I thought I recalled mention of Lancelot in that song/poem. That is right, Virgil, it is a Tennyson poem; Loreena McKennitt set it to music; the piece is quite stunning; now I will have to go listen to that song, I guess.

Virgil, tomorrow I will answer your whole post, but for now I want to post this part of the story - it should have been included with the last section of text.

Next Part of Text:

"I wonder, among your rectory acquaintances, you haven't learned better manners," she answered in cold contempt. He closed his eyes, lying back in his chair, his legs sprawled towards her.
"I suppose we're civilised savages," he said sadly.

Adding this part onto our current discussion, may be advantageous. It follows directly in their conversation. So now, Winifred sort of scolds Coutts for being so crude, with that last remark, about the “suet and intestines.” She does so by bringing up his engagement, in an off-hand manor, by mentioning “rectory acquaintances”; I would take that to mean Connie and her family. It says she answered in “cold contempt”. Then he closes his eyes, but also closes her off to him, momentarily. He acts like he does not pay attention to this remark and sprawls his legs towards her, lying back casually/carelessly in his chair. One can deduct a lot from body language, as we have already seen in the loose/casual way, that Winifred portrayed her own attitude, while leaning over the piano.
Now Coutts makes the remark about “civilized savages” – any other thought on that or is it merely a straightforward remark?

Dark Muse

05-25-2008, 11:46 AM

I think what he means by that remark is that even though, most the world is considered to be "civilized" by that point, with new technology, and the spread of Christianly and society and so forth, deep down people really are not any better than when they were thought to live like "savages" They might wear nicer clothes, and live in better houses, and so froth, but in the end, who they are as human begins, their human nature, and instincts and how they behave really is not all that different.

Janine

05-25-2008, 01:05 PM

I got the idea Coutts and Winifred both considered Connie more a "damsel in distress" than a goddess, and himself the "knight errant" as you said, Janine. There is the "tilting at windmills" line and Coutts never seems at all bewitched by Connie. Now, Winifred, on the hand, definitely has him under her spell. Coutts either considers her a goddess or a goddess-in-the-making. I don't think he's being nasty to her with the remark, but more playful.

Antiquarian, Yes, I agree; I don't think Coutts is mocking Winifred in a mean way; he is being playful with her; sort of poking fun at her antics/motives. Then when he further remarks about them both being "civilized savages" he is drawing himself into this, as well. As they say, "it takes two to tango." There can't be a seduction without a person who is seduced. Lawrence feels this way about violent acts, such as murder; we can get into his idea in more depth later on, when we encounter it in a story involving murder or violence. It goes something like 'there can't be a murderer without a murderee.' This involved the subconscious of course and will have to be explained at a later date. I think we did encounter it when we discussed "The Prussian Officer". That was awhile back.

I think you have it right, Antiquarian; 'damsel in distress' sounds more like it, rather than a true goddess, even thought Coutts does actually bring up the word/idea of goddess. I think he is doing so, in that same joking manor, so that he is elevating her to that status and then poking some fun at the thought. I see Coutts more as the 'knight errant', as in the "Lady of Shallot" poem; and in Don Quixote. I still need to review that L of S poem; I forgot about it last night, after shutting down my computer.

Quote by Dark Muse

I think what he means by that remark is that even though, most the world is considered to be "civilized" by that point, with new technology, and the spread of Christianly and society and so forth, deep down people really are not any better than when they were thought to live like "savages" They might wear nicer clothes, and live in better houses, and so froth, but in the end, who they are as human begins, their human nature, and instincts and how they behave really is not all that different.

Yes, Dark Muse, I think I agree with this and it may further set Coutts and Winifred appart from Connie. Perhaps Connie and her family more so represent the civilized people and he and Winifred are more in touch with the darker side of life and the more savage instincts. I think this would definitely go along with Lawrence's 'blood philosophy' ideas.

Janine

05-25-2008, 02:01 PM

"The Lady of Shalott" is one of the poems I studied extensively in school.....

Thanks, Antiquarian, that was great and truly enlightening. Now we can definitely see how it fits in with this story. I liked that last part you wrote connecting the characters. Did you write all of that? You outlined that perfectly if you did. I will copy it to my offline file so that from now on a better understand the poem. It certainly speaks to me personally, being an artist; I fully understanding this isolation idea. It is so true and when really involved and dedicated to ones art, one in lost within a world unto themselves, which can sometimes be so isolate and lonely.

Thanks again for taking the time to post all of this; it is very helpful.

Dark Muse

05-25-2008, 02:34 PM

Lancelot doesn't even notice Elaine in "The Lady of Shalott,"

That is not true, in the last verse of the poem, after The Lady Shalott drifted dead into Camelot, Lancelot sees her:

Who is this? and what is here?
And in the lighted palace near
died the sound of royal cheer;
and they cross'd themselves for fear,
all the the knights at Camelot:
But Lancelot mused a little space;
He said: "She had a lovely face;
God in his mercy lend her grace.
The Lady of Shalott."

Janine

05-25-2008, 03:04 PM

Antiquarian, that certainly would cause a stir, seeing dead lady floating into town!

Thanks Dark Muse, the end of that poem is really beautiful. I still do feel this has relevance to our story, in that Winifred might see Coutts more clearly, but he does not truly see Winifred, as she would want him to percieve her. Well, that is just a thought off the top of my head.

I have been working on this offline today:

Next Part of Text

All was silent. At last, opening his eyes again, he said: "I shall have to be going directly, Winifred; it is past eleven . . ." Then the appeal in his voice changed to laughter. "Though I know I shall be winding through all the Addios in 'Traviata' before you can set me travelling." He smiled gently at her, then closed his eyes once more, conscious of deep, but vague, suffering. She lay in her chair, her face averted, rosily, towards the fire. Without glancing at her he was aware of the white approach of her throat towards her breast. He seemed to perceive her with another, unknown sense that acted all over his body. She lay perfectly still and warm in the fire-glow.[b] He was [b]dimly aware that he suffered.
"Yes," she said at length; "if we were linked together we should only destroy each other."

Now Coutts tries to leave but knows she will detain him with her music. Note his voice changes to one of laughter as he acknowledges this fact; but right after his true feelings are of suffering deep down and he is conscious of this pain. Later in the passage it again speaks of suffering but now he is dimly aware of it after sitting quietly and observing physically Winifred. With this line “..he was aware of the approach of her throat towards her breast.” – guess our man, Lawrence was also a throat, breast man afterall :lol:. It seems as she is sitting there gazing into the fire, reflecting the fire and warmth he is ultimately charmed by her and actually now neither of them are speaking but quite – says “she is perfectly still and warm in the fire-glow.” This seems to be also a ‘foreshadowing’ device, for what will soon occur with the lamp/fire, deciding the fate of this situation for good. Her last line admitting they would “destroy each other”, if linked together begins to break this magical spell I think.

He started, hearing her admit, for the first time, this point of which he was so sure.

This further enforces that point; this time it is said admitted by Coutts, and stating ‘he was so sure’. I think this is the first time in the story Coutts is actually ‘sure’ of something.

"You should never marry anyone," he said.
"And you," she asked in irony, "must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?"
"There's the makings of quite a good, respectable trotter in me," he laughed. "Don't you see it's what I want to be?"
"I'm not sure," she laughed in return.
"I think so."

This small part reminds me of the passage in the very beginning of “Women in Love” when Ursula and Gudrun (the two sisters) are debating the merits of getting married. Of course this discourse is only brief but now she seems to think if he marries why shouldn’t she. Is this to strike back at him and to hurt him? He is acting very sure of himself that he indeed does want to be harnessed and bridled and driven – thus his concept of marriage. He does not fight her having made this comment, so rather but admits he would make a “good, repectable trotter” (husband, as he sees it, at this point in his young life). She expresses the fact she is “not so sure” of that and he says once again that he does “think so”. Again first time he has felt sure of it – why now?

They were silent for a time. The white lamp burned steadily as moonlight, the red fire like sunset; there was no stir or flicker.

Now that it is “silent”, I find these two images and perhaps contrast(?) of light interesting in this one single statement – “the white lamp…as moonlight”…then “red fire like sunset”…the sunset image takes us right back to Coutts alightening from the train and observing the sunset – the new moon going down and the evening star; both seemingly, so symbolic, at the time for Coutts. Now I see the two images as of Winifred’s once white moon-like face and the warm light of the fireplace upon it, transforming it. Motionless as well as silent, with “no stir or flicker”. This is sort of like ‘the calm before the storm’ to me.

"And what of you?" he asked.
She crooned a faint, tired laugh.
"If you are jetsam, as you say you are," she answered, "I am flotsam. I shall lie stranded."
"Nay," he pleaded. "When were you wrecked?"

Ok, another interesting passage with the use of words/images of “jetsam” and “flotsam”….flotsam left lying stranded and representing Winifred, if Coutt’s marries. So she is saying he will be like the wreckage of a ship floating on the surface and she will have been the cargo that was thrown overboard, to lighten the ship's load (in hopes of saving it) before it is ultimately destroyed by storm or whatever, altogether. So he replies with the last line. “Nay, when were you wrecked?” I think that line "I shall lie stranded" plays in nicely with that 'Lady of Shallot' image.

She laughed quickly, with a sound like a tinkle of tears.

I just love this line “a tinkle of tears”….good alliteration, poetic and also poignant…at this point I do feel a sympathy for Winifred. That “tingle of tears” makes me think of rain for some reason. Somehow it fits in with the idea of a ship wreck and a storm.

"Oh, dear Winifred!" he cried despairingly.
She lifted her arms towards him, hiding her face between them, looking up through the white closure with dark, uncanny eyes, like an invocation. His breast lifted towards her uptilted arms. He shuddered, shut his eyes, held himself rigid. He heard her drop her arms heavily.

Now she has drawn his attention by her breakdown with the tears and he feels for her. Here s the “invocation” with her arm moments and her look between them of her fact which had been hidden and now revealed “dark, uncanny eyes”….witch-like eyes? His breast lifts up her uptilted arms, so now they are quite close and yet he holds “himself rigid”. Now again the arms move – they drop heavily but it only says he hears them do so. I take that as a sign of despair on her part.

"I must go," he said in a dull voice.
The rapidly-chasing quivers that ran in tremors down the front of his body and limbs made him stretch himself, stretch hard.

Even thought he does try and break away, and leave her, this puts him into quite a state, which is so well described/expressed in this last line. It is taking all is will-power, to pull away from her now, and to resist her spell.

"Yes," she assented gravely; "you must go."
He turned to her. Again looking up darkly, from under her lowered brows, she lifted her hands like small white orchids towards him.

Now that final gesture that Michael Black points out in his book, as being a ritual, and part of the charm, the spell. But then it says:

Without knowing, he gripped her wrists with a grasp that circled his blood-red nails with white rims.

Without knowing; is this like subconsciously? Also, it seems he is actually hurting her with that grasp if the pressure is as described. The grasp seems to be full of anger, but I think more towards himself than actually towards Winifred.

Janine

05-25-2008, 07:08 PM

Thanks for posting that, Antiquarian, I read the poem and I like it very much; quite interesting. If you go to Wikipedia, you will find that the original legend goes back further than the poem. I think it relates even better to our story. Here is the entry:

Elaine of Astolat is a figure in Arthurian legend who dies of her unrequited love for Lancelot. Also referred to as Elaine the White and Elaine the Fair, she is the daughter of Bernard of Astolat. Versions of her story appear in Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur and Alfred Tennyson's Idylls of the King. Elaine's story is also the inspiration for Tennyson's poem "The Lady of Shalott".

Legend:

Elaine arrives at Camelot. A version of the story appeared in the early 13th century Mort Artu, in which the Demoiselle d’Escalot dies of unrequited love for Lancelot and drifts down a river to Camelot in a boat. Another version is told in the 13th century Italian novella La Donna di Scallota, which served as the source material for Tennyson's The Lady of Shalott.

In Malory's 15th century Le Morte d'Arthur, Elaine's story begins when her father Bernard of Astolat organizes a jousting tournament, attended by King Arthur and his knights. While Lancelot was not originally planning to attend, he is convinced otherwise and visits Bernard and his two sons before the tournament.

While Lancelot is in her family's household, Elaine becomes enamoured of him and begs him to wear her token at the coming tournament. Explaining that Guinevere would be at the tournament, he consents to wear the token but says that he will have to fight in disguise so as not to be recognised. He then asks Bernard if he can leave his recognizable shield with him and borrow another. Bernard agrees and lends him the plain-white shield of Torre, Elaine's brother.

Lancelot goes on to win the jousting tournament, still in disguise, fighting against King Arthur's party and beating forty of them in the tournament. He does, however, receive an injury to his side from Bors's lance, and is carried off the field by Lavaine to the hermit Sir Baudwin's (an ex-Round Table knight) cave. Elaine then urges her father to let her bring the wounded Lancelot to her chambers, where she nurses him. When Lancelot is well, he makes ready to leave, and offers to pay Elaine for her services; insulted, Elaine brings him his shield, which she had been guarding, and a wary Lancelot leaves the castle, never to return but now aware of her feelings for him.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Lancelot and ElaineTen days later, Elaine dies of heartbreak. Per her instructions, her body is placed in a small boat, clutching a lily in one hand, and her final letter in the other. She then floats down the Thames to Camelot, where she is discovered by King Arthur's court. Lancelot is summoned and hears the contents of the letter, after which he explains what had happened. Lancelot proceeds to pay for a rich funeral and Elaine's mass-penny, at her request.

Janine

05-25-2008, 07:45 PM

I don't see how it relates to the story, but I'm not concentrating tonight. I don't doubt that it does. It's just my concentration. It's me, not the story. LOL

hahaha...I am not sure myself now - just the sense that is it a case of 'unrequitted love' and also the fact he (Lancelot) will be doing something to honor the other woman (Elaine) in disquise and therefore, behind the back or knowledge of the other woman (Guinevere). So therefore, I was seeing Coutts as a sort of Lancelot playing this disguise game with Elaine (Winifred), even involving her family, hidden from the knowlege of his true love, Guinevere (Connie). The end, when Lancelot is wounded while in disquise and carrying the token of Elaine and not Guinevere, he is carried to Elaine's house to be nursed. It is kind of ironic, that at the end Coutts, is indeed wounded at Winifred's house while 'playing with fire'; as Lancelot was also 'playing with fire' in deceiving Guinevere.

:lol:Did you get all that down, Antiquarian? Well, it is just a thought and seemed to fit the scenerio, but then again I do have an overactive imagination, or did Lawrence???:D

Janine

05-25-2008, 08:16 PM

LOL I think I see what you're getting at now. Thanks. Lawrence did fill his stories with symbolism, didn't he?

Today is just not my day to think too deeply. ;)

Well, today I am awful - too intense, overly sensitive and so tired out now. I think I need a nap....sorry if your day is blah, too. Maybe a nap would help you or watch a good movie. I may do either. Tomorrow will be a better day, right? We should give up on here, for the night. I posted that new part of the story, and will post more after we all discuss that section first. There is only the conclusion to post after that; then we can get on with the 'fascinating' new Lawrence story. :lol: At least, I hope you all like it and find it fascinating. ;)

Janine

05-25-2008, 11:30 PM

I'm sure we'll all like it, Janine. Tomorrow will be a better day, I'm sure. :)

Yeah, that is true; thanks, Antiquarian, I know it will better; I am sure it was just me, over-reacting to things. I was being overly sensitive about everything. Lots of 'ups and downs' lately, emotionally, that's all. I should go to bed. I think I need rest and sleep. I have been over-extending myself, too.

Virgil

05-25-2008, 11:33 PM

Dark Muse

05-25-2008, 11:35 PM

Yes at times it is possible for one to start over-anylyizing things and looking for meaning where perhaps there really is not intended to be one

Janine

05-25-2008, 11:42 PM

You guys are on a wild goose chase. Lady of Shalott does not relate to this story. I think we're trying to make to much out of these allusions. I think Lawrence just wants the association, not an actual allegorical drama.

Well, Virgil, see what happens when you depart the thread for any length of time - we just get restless and conjure up our own new spells or symbolism. Well, what were you doing with all that arm and corset talk, eh? That surely went off on it's own tangent. It was slow and we just got carried away a little. I did post the new portion of the text a page back, so if you (or anyone else) could address that post of mine and that particular text, we could move onto the big dramatic ending.

Virgil

05-25-2008, 11:45 PM

Well, Virgil, see what happens when you depart the thread for any length of time - we just get restless and conjure up our own new spells or symbolism. Well, what were you doing with all that arm and corset talk, eh? That surely went off on it's own tangent. It was slow and we just got carried away a little. I did post the new portion of the text a page back, so if you (or anyone else) could address that post of mine and that particular text, we could move onto the big dramatic ending.

OK, I will. We went to see a movie tis evening and wanted to post something in your movie thread. I'll keep you guessing as to what we saw. :D

Janine

05-26-2008, 12:02 AM

OK, I will. We went to see a movie tis evening and wanted to post something in your movie thread. I'll keep you guessing as to what we saw. :D

Virgil, you sure talk funny - "tis evening" ;) is that biblical language - the "tis" or old English?:lol:

You are so mysterious, V!

Virgil

05-26-2008, 01:11 AM

Now Coutts tries to leave but knows she will detain him with her music. Note his voice changes to one of laughter as he acknowledges this fact; but right after his true feelings are of suffering deep down and he is conscious of this pain. Later in the passage it again speaks of suffering but now he is dimly aware of it after sitting quietly and observing physically Winifred. With this line “..he was aware of the approach of her throat towards her breast.” – guess our man, Lawrence was also a throat, breast man afterall :lol:. It seems as she is sitting there gazing into the fire, reflecting the fire and warmth he is ultimately charmed by her and actually now neither of them are speaking but quite – says “she is perfectly still and warm in the fire-glow.” This seems to be also a ‘foreshadowing’ device, for what will soon occur with the lamp/fire, deciding the fate of this situation for good. Her last line admitting they would “destroy each other”, if linked together begins to break this magical spell I think.

Good analysis janine. One thing that sticks out at me in that passage is "He seemed to perceive her with another, unknown sense that acted all over his body." That unknown sense I take it to be some sort of subconscious phenomena. Or one can see it as witchcraft. I think actually it's the intersection of psychology and witchcraft.

This small part reminds me of the passage in the very beginning of “Women in Love” when Ursula and Gudrun (the two sisters) are debating the merits of getting married. Of course this discourse is only brief but now she seems to think if he marries why shouldn’t she.
Yes! Great connection.

Is this to strike back at him and to hurt him? He is acting very sure of himself that he indeed does want to be harnessed and bridled and driven – thus his concept of marriage. He does not fight her having made this comment, so rather but admits he would make a “good, repectable trotter” (husband, as he sees it, at this point in his young life). She expresses the fact she is “not so sure” of that and he says once again that he does “think so”. Again first time he has felt sure of it – why now?
Well, actually he insults her first with telling her she should never marry anyone. But actually given the laughing nature of the banter, I think their just being facetious with each other.

Now that it is “silent”, I find these two images and perhaps contrast(?) of light interesting in this one single statement – “the white lamp…as moonlight”…then “red fire like sunset”…the sunset image takes us right back to Coutts alightening from the train and observing the sunset – the new moon going down and the evening star; both seemingly, so symbolic, at the time for Coutts. Now I see the two images as of Winifred’s once white moon-like face and the warm light of the fireplace upon it, transforming it.
Excellent! I had not picked up on it. Yes, the moon as a source of female power.

Quote:
She laughed quickly, with a sound like a tinkle of tears.

I just love this line “a tinkle of tears”….good alliteration, poetic and also poignant…at this point I do feel a sympathy for Winifred. That “tingle of tears” makes me think of rain for some reason. Somehow it fits in with the idea of a ship wreck and a storm.
I found that a odd simile. In a way it strikes me as awkward. I don't know what a tinkle of tears sounds like. Certainly poetic, but this is not a poem. Can anyone tell me the signiicance of it. I'm baffled.

Quote:
"Oh, dear Winifred!" he cried despairingly.
She lifted her arms towards him, hiding her face between them, looking up through the white closure with dark, uncanny eyes, like an invocation. His breast lifted towards her uptilted arms. He shuddered, shut his eyes, held himself rigid. He heard her drop her arms heavily.
The final spell. I loved this.

Now she has drawn his attention by her breakdown with the tears and he feels for her. Here s the “invocation” with her arm moments and her look between them of her fact which had been hidden and now revealed “dark, uncanny eyes”….witch-like eyes? His breast lifts up her uptilted arms, so now they are quite close and yet he holds “himself rigid”. Now again the arms move – they drop heavily but it only says he hears them do so. I take that as a sign of despair on her part.
Rigid? :brow: What do you think he's alluding to. :D

Even thought he does try and break away, and leave her, this puts him into quite a state, which is so well described/expressed in this last line. It is taking all is will-power, to pull away from her now, and to resist her spell.
Yes, he's rigid. :D Soryy, I couldn't help that. ;)

Now that final gesture that Michael Black points out in his book, as being a ritual, and part of the charm, the spell. But then it says:

Quote:
Without knowing, he gripped her wrists with a grasp that circled his blood-red nails with white rims.

Without knowing; is this like subconsciously? Also, it seems he is actually hurting her with that grasp if the pressure is as described. The grasp seems to be full of anger, but I think more towards himself than actually towards Winifred.
Yes that was startling. I just think it shows how out of control he's become.

Janine

05-26-2008, 01:53 AM

Good analysis janine. One thing that sticks out at me in that passage is "He seemed to perceive her with another, unknown sense that acted all over his body." That unknown sense I take it to be some sort of subconscious phenomena. Or one can see it as witchcraft. I think actually it's the intersection of psychology and witchcraft.

Oh, thanks, Virgil, your remark/compliment makes all my efforts worthwhile.

Yes! Great connection. Thanks again, I thought it was kind of brilliant myself...hahaha just kidding. It just popped into my head really.

Well, actually he insults her first with telling her she should never marry anyone. But actually given the laughing nature of the banter, I think their just being facetious with each other.

Good point; he does do that. I think they are both bantering and you can't take what they say as total truisms. They simply want to hurt each other as well and so this constant banter back and forth is really like a dual of words, but not a so harsh or deadly, just throwing offhand comments to each other like light insults....'facetious' is a good word for it.

Excellent! I had not picked up on it. Yes, the moon as a source of female power.

Oh, thanks again. Definitely, I found that a fascinating imagery all in one sentence - Lawrence's genius writing again.

I found that a odd simile. In a way it strikes me as awkward. I don't know what a tinkle of tears sounds like. Certainly poetic, but this is not a poem. Can anyone tell me the signiicance of it. I'm baffled.

I was thinking that tinkle would sound musical and even like the tinkle of the keys of a piano - the higher notes. I like that simile very much. It brings to mind music to me, and that would fit here. Winifred is passionate and sensitive with her music, and now there is this breakdown within her, and this 'tinkle of tears.' Also, it is quiet and not so invasive, but subtle. It is like falling rain, gentle and yet poingant. It is like a whisper can be more effective than a shout. This image of the tears falling is so delicate and yet so powerful.

The final spell. I loved this.

I did too. I typed what you quote wrong several places - I mean her 'face' not 'fact' and earlier I made another odd typo, too late now to correct it - oh I know it was 'quiet' but I typed in 'quite'....my dyslexia again....

Rigid? :brow: What do you think he's alluding to. :D
Yeah rigid - maybe like another one of your fond phallic symbols? ;)
I could not resist that!:lol:

Yes, he's rigid. :D Soryy, I couldn't help that. ;)

Like 'unbending, stubborn, holding ones ground' - the 'test of the two wills' - that sort of meaning of the word 'rigid'. Still many double meanings here; that is true also.

Yes that was startling. I just think it shows how out of control he's become.

It was wasn't it? But the timing was perfect and I think it was meant to startle the reader at that point. Leads up to that ending so well.

Virgil

05-26-2008, 10:44 AM

I was thinking that tinkle would sound musical and even like the tinkle of the keys of a piano - the higher notes. I like that simile very much. It brings to mind music to me, and that would fit here. Winifred is passionate and sensitive with her music, and now there is this breakdown within her, and this 'tinkle of tears.' Also, it is quiet and not so invasive, but subtle. It is like falling rain, gentle and yet poingant. It is like a whisper can be more effective than a shout. This image of the tears falling is so delicate and yet so powerful.

Good point, it does connect to the music motif that's running throughout. But I think it's still forced for me. You found it effective. I wonder what the others think?

Yeah rigid - maybe like another one of your fond phallic symbols? ;)
I could not resist that!:lol:

Like 'unbending, stubborn, holding ones ground' - the 'test of the two wills' - that sort of meaning of the word 'rigid'. Still many double meanings here; that is true also.
Actually I do mean in the phallic sense.

The lamp being tied to the moon as a source of female power is strange to me because ultimately, it's the lamp that breaks the spell and causes Coutts to run away. But maybe he's under her spell until that lamp is broken. Maybe it's only the breaking of the lamp, and the release of the spell, that causes him to flee. Of course, I don't ever see Winifred as casting a real spell. She's not really a witch. She really has no powers. Her power is Coutts' weakness where she's concerned.

All these images are interweaved. i don't know if we should take them allegorically, as you'r trying to do there, or just appreciate how they all contribute. My preference when reading modern fiction is not to try to find an allegorical thread, but to watch the motifs play together. That doesn't mean Lawrence wasn't trying to organize this allegorically, and you may be correct in trying to explicate it in that fashion.

It was wasn't it? But the timing was perfect and I think it was meant to startle the reader at that point. Leads up to that ending so well.

The blood-red nails reminded me of a vampire. LOL
I put those comments together since they are both addressing the same image. Up to this point the story has been delicate, low key, methodical, a sort of comedy of manners. But then we're hit with this, and I think, while over statling, Lawrence is correct to change the tone. I think he wants to end the story with a bang, a quick powerful ending, and he needs to elevate the tone, almost like a composer jumping into a new key. The passion that has pushed Coutts to a breaking point needs to be reflected with a changed tone and the spell that culmnates and then quickly extinguishes contrats with the key the story has been in the whole while. The story has taken on a dangerous element, something that Lawrence feels should not be played with. And we see that too with the drama of the burning lamp and fire. I think this was a finely crafted story.

Virgil

05-26-2008, 11:18 AM

Personally, I didn't like the phrase "tinkle of tears." Tears don't "tinkle." They don't make any noise as they fall. It sounded silly to me in an otherwise beautiful, and beautifully written, story.

I would think that point would be the point at which he would lose his rigidity. LOL Come to his senses, so to speak. But maybe not until the fire. I can't find the text now.

I don't think I'm taking the story as an allegory, really, I just think it's necessary to remember Winifred is not a witch. Coutts is just bewitched by her. There's been so much talk of witchcraft and witch symbols, too much, I think, because Winifred is not a witch. She's just a woman Coutts finds very attractive in many ways.

:lol: You're right, she's not a literal witch. Shall we break the news to Dark Muse? ;) Only kidding D-M. I'm glad you agree with me on the "tinkle of tears" line.

Dark Muse

05-26-2008, 12:31 PM

The lamp being tied to the moon as a source of female power is strange to me because ultimately, it's the lamp that breaks the spell and causes Coutts to run away. But maybe he's under her spell until that lamp is broken. Maybe it's only the breaking of the lamp, and the release of the spell, that causes him to flee. Of course, I don't ever see Winifred as casting a real spell. She's not really a witch. She really has no powers. Her power is Coutts' weakness where she's concerned.

Symbolically speaking, fire is seen as a sort of purification. The breaking of the lamp causes the fire, and it is the fire that breaks the "spell" the reason witches and heretics use to be burned, because it was thought the fire was the only thing that could "save their souls" so in this regard fire is almost an exorcising force.

No she is not a literal witch, but you cannot ignore the fact, that Lawrence made a point of casing her in the role of a "witch" and I think the story is heavily symbolic, and it is a bit hard to talk about the story without dicussing the importance of the witchcraft allusions made, as they were put there for a reason.

Virgil

05-26-2008, 02:16 PM

Symbolically speaking, fire is seen as a sort of purification. The breaking of the lamp causes the fire, and it is the fire that breaks the "spell" the reason witches and heretics use to be burned, because it was thought the fire was the only thing that could "save their souls" so in this regard fire is almost an exorcising force.

Actually I see it differently. I don't see purification fitting into this story. Purification of what? I see the fire as a spilling over of his passion and the damage it does.

No she is not a literal witch, but you cannot ignore the fact, that Lawrence made a point of casing her in the role of a "witch" and I think the story is heavily symbolic, and it is a bit hard to talk about the story without dicussing the importance of the witchcraft allusions made, as they were put there for a reason.Hehe, fair point. There is an attempt by Lawrence trying to get her as close to wichcraft as possible while keeping the story in the mode of realism.

Janine

05-26-2008, 02:36 PM

Hi Everybody, Happy Memorial Day!
I see your lights lite up so guess you are on now. Hey, Antiquarian, you have not lost your spunk, have you? If you disagree, do post freely what you think. Actually, I agree about the witchcraft and the circle of fire idea. I will get to that when we I post that part of the story next.
I don't think we will get into anymore wrangles on here; we learned our lesson on that note; we just got restless that day. :lol:
Now to my post:

I will have to look at my Michael Black book to see if he mentions this 'tingle of tears'. I still stand by my original thought on the line but I think it advantageous to see it in context with the preceeding text and the the entire statement that contains 'tingle of tears'. This is what I posted formerly:

Text quote:

"And what of you?" he asked.
She crooned a faint, tired laugh.
"If you are jetsam, as you say you are," she answered, "I am flotsam. I shall lie stranded."
"Nay," he pleaded. "When were you wrecked?"

Ok, another interesting passage with the use of words/images of “jetsam” and “flotsam”….flotsam left lying stranded and representing Winifred, if Coutt’s marries. So she is saying he will be like the wreckage of a ship floating on the surface and she will have been the cargo that was thrown overboard, to lighten the ship's load (in hopes of saving it) before it is ultimately destroyed by storm or whatever, altogether. So he replies with the last line. “Nay, when were you wrecked?” I think that line "I shall lie stranded" plays in nicely with that 'Lady of Shallot' image.

Text quote:

She laughed quickly, with a sound like a tinkle of tears.

Two things; first, no one has discussed the top paragraph about 'jetsam' and 'flotsam' or why Lawrence would chose such images, which would conjure up the idea of a storm and a shipwreck; is this also a way of 'foreshadowning' what will come at the end between them, and another way to begin to reverse the tone of the story, before truly making the tonal shift (Coutt's gripping fingers on Winifred's arms) that leads up to the stark and rapid conclusion of the story?

Now to the 'tinkle of tears'. I still stand by my original idea that the line is very intentional and effective. My dictionary defines 'tinkle' as:
1. to make a series of small sounds as of a small bell.

At first, I was thinking the text read that Winifred shed some tears, but now I see that she actually laughed and within this sound Coutts percieved this "sound like a tinkle of tears". All along there has been reference to small sounds within Winifred's throat, which I have noticed. Now it seems, within her laugh (which is actually deeply sad), Coutts can detect this sound of sorrow or this tiny tinkle (like a small bell), which contain her unshed tears - the ones she is holding back. If I think of 'tinkle', I am reminded of a bell sound and that seems to me prominent in the fairyland, mystical, spiritual sense - but only a small tiny sound, if described as a tinkle. I wondered if this barely audible sound, would correspond/contrast to the sound mentioned not long after, of the 'click' in the lamp. Here is the line:
"minute click of a spark within the lamp."
This also is a tiny sound or vibration, like the tinkle of tears - barely there, but perceived by a very sensitive perception.

I can't imagine this being a mistake on Lawrence's part; not when he revised and rewrote all of his short stories 2 and even 3, or 4 times, before they were published; but I could be wrong.

Janine

05-26-2008, 04:05 PM

Janine, I think it's "tinkle," not "tingle." I know it's just a typo, and goodness knows I make tons of them, I type so fast (almost all my posts are edited for spelling LOL), but some people might be getting confused, especially if they're just reading what we discuss and not contributing yet. ;)

:lol: OMG - did I really spell it that way? I know how to spell it and I even was looking it up in my dictionary. Thanks, Antiq, for pointing that out to me. Going right now to correct it; otherwise it looks pretty dumb. I wrote this post twice actually; I lost it the first time around. I may have spelled the word correctly in that lost post, who knows. ;) :lol:

I just revised it and hope I caught all those 'tinkles'!

I just thought of something - maybe years past, when someone was typing Lawrence's manuscript, they typed 'tinkle' as a typo, and it really was suppose to say a 'trickle of tears'. :lol: Probably was that darn wife of his; he complained about her typing mistakes.

Dark Muse

05-26-2008, 05:59 PM

Actually I see it differently. I don't see purification fitting into this story. Purification of what? I see the fire as a spilling over of his passion and the damage it does.

In a way I see it as an act of pufication the way the fire banishes the spell between them.

Janine

05-26-2008, 06:30 PM

In a way I see it as an act of pufication the way the fire banishes the spell between them.

Dark Muse, I don't know if it is true purification, because I am not sure who we could say in this story, becomes purified by it - Coutts?. Rather, I believe the flames and fire do break the spell, so they represent this idea of a spell being broken by a ritualistic action; fire being the element, which does correspond to witchcraft and pagan rituals.

When we actually get to that part of the text, which I will post next and this will complete the story, I will also point out what Michael Black had to say about this being a 'spell breaking' action.

Dark Muse

05-26-2008, 06:36 PM

I was not trying to suggest that Winni or Coutts were acutally being "purified" but I think the breaking of the spell can be seen as a form of purification, it is Winnies enchaments over Coutts that has become purified by the fire, her "magic" is burned away by the fire.

Janine

05-26-2008, 08:08 PM

That all sounds about right to me. Putting your heads together, you came up with how 'purification' was used in this context. I think now we all agree on the idea.

Probably, the guys will come in and disagree. :lol:

At last - the ending:

Final Section of Text:

"Good-bye," he said, looking down at her. She made a small, moaning noise in her throat, lifting her face so that it came open and near to him like a suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk. She seemed to extend, to fill the world, to become atmosphere and all. He did not know what he was doing. He was bending forward, his mouth on hers, her arms round his neck, and his own hands, still fastened on to her wrists, almost bursting the blood under his nails with the intensity of their grip. They remained for a few moments thus, rigid. Then, weary of the strain, she relaxed. She turned her face, offered him her throat, white, hard, and rich, below the ear. Stooping still lower, so that he quivered in every fibre at the strain, he laid his mouth to the kiss. In the intense silence, he heard the deep, dull pulsing of her blood, and a minute click of a spark within the lamp.

Once again Winifred is making another throat sound, this time ‘a small, moaning noise.' I find the statement “her face…. came open” interesting, because it relates to the flower image – a flower opening to Lawrence was a wonderful thing and embodied the full knowledge of a woman, in relation to a man. Here her face is compared to a “suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk.” Combining this imagery, with the idea of the first true kiss she ever gave him, seems to indicate that Winifred is extending herself, in order to take Coutts over, in her final effort to hold him; she has him, at this very point, very much under her spell. When the text states that “He did not know what he was doing” – he is like a man in a trance or under a spell. Again, there is mention of the 'bursting blood under his nails' from the pressure layed on her arms. The two people seem to be in a very rigid and tight clasp, with her arms about his neck, and ‘this intensity’ of his hand’s grip on her wrists. They are almost like wrestlers at this minute, holding each other securely, desperately…but then the 'stain is wearisome' and she relaxes first. The next part and image of her turning her throat to him, is nearly identical to a painting that Lawrence adored and often copied, entitled “Idyll” by Maurice Griffenhagen. This was pointed out, in my Michael Black book, and now this final pose or the one preceeding, it with the arms dropped at her side limply does seem to fit this image. I will try to post a photo of the painting or it can easily be found online. It is on the cover of my novel “The White Peacock”.

Then the fateful moment of the kiss and the 'minute click of a spark within the lamp'. I love the line “quivered in every fibre at the strain, he laid his mouth to the kiss.” It sounds so poetic or musical. Then I like this part “In the intense silence, he heard the deep, dull pulsing of her blood…again musical, trance-like and poetically beautiful. Then when you add on this part….. “and a minute click of a spark within the lamp”…that seems to wake us up to reality, brings the reader back from this trace. That one little click seems to me so important as a signal of what will happen ultimately. It is reminisent of the scene we studied in "The Prussian Officer"; Virgil will recall that scene, but everyone else was not here during that discussion. Michael Black points this out and it made sense to me, but will mean nothing to most of you, so I did not quote it.

Then he drew her from the chair up to him. She came, arms always round his neck, till at last she lay along his breast as he stood, feet planted wide, clasping her tight, his mouth on her neck. She turned suddenly to meet his full, red mouth in a kiss. He felt his moustache prick back into his lips. It was the first kiss she had genuinely given.

Here is the mention of the “first kiss genuinely given”….short lived, I may add…

Dazed, he was conscious of the throb of one great pulse, as if his whole body were a heart that contracted in throbs. He felt, with an intolerable ache, as if he, the heart, were setting the pulse in her, in the very night, so that everything beat from the throb of his overstrained, bursting body.

That is marvelous; just the way that is written, I find it so expressive and so brilliant. Coutts is quite overtaken by that last kiss. The scene is very passionate at this point and yet the pain of it is so evident and this fact brings Coutts “out of the reeling stage to distinct consciousness”….revealed in the next line of text to follow:

The hurt became so great it brought him out of the reeling stage to distinct consciousness. She clipped her lips, drew them away, leaving him her throat. Already she had had enough. He opened his eyes as he bent with his mouth on her neck, and was startled; there stood the objects of the room, stark; there, close below his eyes, were the half-sunk lashes of the woman, swooning on her unnatural ebb of passion. He saw her thus, knew that she wanted no more of him than that kiss. And the heavy form of this woman hung upon him. His whole body ached like a swollen vein, with heavy intensity, while his heart grew dead with misery and despair. This woman gave him anguish and a cutting-short like death; to the other woman he was false. As he shivered with suffering, he opened his eyes again, and caught sight of the pure ivory of the lamp. His heart flashed with rage.

“Already she had had enough” – such a key line and the absolute ending of the seduction. Reality is coming back to Coutts. He is returning – words like ‘stark’ to describe his perception of objects in the room. Before this the objects had a certain mystical charm for Coutts, a certain familiarity, now they are merely 'stark' objects of no importance to him. Suddenly he sees Winifred in a whole new light as well, as soon as she stops the seduction at the point of that kiss…the only real thing she desired of him and that he now realizes completely - that kiss. Suddenly her form has become as a burden, ‘heavy’ and he feels her hanging upon him. The rest is his own suffering and final flash of ‘rage’. The pure ivory lamp signals the end. I wonder if the fact, that it is pure and ivory, also relates to the idea of the moon image or the white marble statues? Now both of these images would be negative to Coutts and not as he had earlier perceived them.

A sudden involuntary blow of his foot, and he sent the lamp-stand spinning. The lamp leaped off, fell with a smash on the fair, polished floor. Instantly a bluish hedge of flame quivered, leaped up before them. She had lightened her hold round his neck, and buried her face against his throat. The flame veered at her, blue, with a yellow tongue that licked her dress and her arm. Convulsive, she clutched him, almost strangled him, though she made no sound.

So once again, encountering the involuntary blow of his foot and the upset lamp-stand with the fire as the result of his inner anger. I don’t think this was intentional but it may have been subconscious. I still am not completely sure which I believe to be the total true. Rationally I don’t think Coutts would ever mean to harm Winifred or burn down her house. I feel consciously his anger did cause the accident but it was not intentional.

He gathered her up and bore her heavily out of the room. Slipping from her clasp, he brought his arms down her form, crushing the starting blaze of her dress. His face was singed. Staring at her, he could scarcely see her.

Does this mean he did sustain pretty severe injuries not only to his hands, but to his face and his eyes? This last line combined with the last line of the story seem to indicate he has lost his sight, probably temporarily, but either way he runs blindly from the house.

"I am not hurt," she cried. "But you?"

The housekeeper was coming; the flames were sinking and waving up in the drawing-room. He broke away from Winifred, threw one of the great woollen rugs on to the flame, then stood a moment looking at the darkness.
Is he looking at the actual darkness or can he no longer really see?

Winifred caught at him as he passed her.
"No, no," he answered, as he fumbled for the latch. "I'm not hurt. Clumsy fool I am--clumsy fool!"

Any thoughts on what Coutts blurts out in this line; it is that he knows he was clumsy, even going foolishly to her house to begin with, or is it just momentarily an admission of his own action (guilt?) in starting the fire accidently? I still find this line sort of curious.

In another instant he was gone, running with burning-red hands held out blindly, down the street.

Again this word “blind”. I keep wondering if he truly is blinded. Maybe I am being too literal with this.

Janine

05-26-2008, 10:11 PM

The throat, the neck, the pulsing still remind me of vampire images, though this isn't a story about vampires.

Actually, it does not sound too crazy to me; afterall the whole story involves references to witchcraft and the supernatural, so why not vampires, too? It is night and the scene is set in an isolated house with a lot of neck kissing. Actually, I thought I did read a reference in the Michael Black commentary where he does mention the idea of a vampire in the kissing scenes and now I cannot find that to quote. I wish I marked these things or took notes, because I am curious now, to see what he did say about it. I will try and find it later tonight.

I don't think he was truly blind, I think it's metaphorical.

Yes, I believe you are right about that. I was taking it too literal noticing all the blind references. Geez, maybe Coutts becomes Maurice in "The Blind Man" story....just kidding.;)

I think, when he refers to himself as a "clumsy fool" he means all of it. Stopping in the village, going to Winifred's house, getting involved, all of it.

Yes, I think I was tending to think that way too. I felt this line embodied the whole folly, not just the final action and minutes of the story. It is just now he has come to the full realisation of just what a 'clumsy fool' he has been.

Dark Muse

05-26-2008, 10:16 PM

So once again, encountering the involuntary blow of his foot and the upset lamp-stand with the fire as the result of his inner anger. I don’t think this was intentional but it may have been subconscious. I still am not completely sure which I believe to be the total true. Rationally I don’t think Coutts would ever mean to harm Winifred or burn down her house. I feel consciously his anger did cause the accident but it was not intentional.

I think he did, at the very least, on a sub-conscious level, intentionally kick over the lamp, I do not think that was a complete and total innocent accident, but a direct result of his anger, but I do not think he had actually intended to start a fire in his doing so. I think the lamp was just the nearest object to unleash his frustration upon, and the first thing he laid eyes on when he did grow angry.

Does this mean he did sustain pretty severe injuries not only to his hands, but to his face and his eyes? This last line combined with the last line of the story seem to indicate he has lost his sight, probably temporarily, but either way he runs blindly from the house.

"I am not hurt," she cried. "But you?"

The housekeeper was coming; the flames were sinking and waving up in the drawing-room. He broke away from Winifred, threw one of the great woollen rugs on to the flame, then stood a moment looking at the darkness.
Is he looking at the actual darkness or can he no longer really see?

When I read it, I took it that he truly was made blind by the fire, though it might be symbolic as well, I think he really was injured by the accident, at the least perhaps he is just temporally blinded by the sudden bright light of the fire.

Any thoughts on what Coutts blurts out in this line; it is that he knows he was clumsy, even going foolishly to her house to begin with, or is it just momentarily an admission of his own action (guilt?) in starting the fire accidently? I still find this line sort of curious.

When I first read the story, I felt that he had said it in a sort of disingenuous way, that he had blurted it out just as an excuse because he knew it was his anger that caused him to strike the lamp but I think it also just refers to the fact that he was a fool to think that Winnie would actually want from him everything that he wanted from her, and maybe he feels it was "clumsy" in his attempts and love and passion toward Winnie

Virgil

05-26-2008, 10:21 PM

Two things; first, no one has discussed the top paragraph about 'jetsam' and 'flotsam' or why Lawrence would chose such images, which would conjure up the idea of a storm and a shipwreck; is this also a way of 'foreshadowning' what will come at the end between them, and another way to begin to reverse the tone of the story, before truly making the tonal shift (Coutt's gripping fingers on Winifred's arms) that leads up to the stark and rapid conclusion of the story?

Yes, I can agree with that.

Now to the 'tinkle of tears'. I still stand by my original idea that the line is very intentional and effective. My dictionary defines 'tinkle' as:
1. to make a series of small sounds as of a small bell.

At first, I was thinking the text read that Winifred shed some tears, but now I see that she actually laughed and within this sound Coutts percieved this "sound like a tinkle of tears". All along there has been reference to small sounds within Winifred's throat, which I have noticed. Now it seems, within her laugh (which is actually deeply sad), Coutts can detect this sound of sorrow or this tiny tinkle (like a small bell), which contain her unshed tears - the ones she is holding back. If I think of 'tinkle', I am reminded of a bell sound and that seems to me prominent in the fairyland, mystical, spiritual sense - but only a small tiny sound, if described as a tinkle. I wondered if this barely audible sound, would correspond/contrast to the sound mentioned not long after, of the 'click' in the lamp. Here is the line:
"minute click of a spark within the lamp."
This also is a tiny sound or vibration, like the tinkle of tears - barely there, but perceived by a very sensitive perception.
But tears don't make any sound, not even a tinkle. :lol: I can't be convinced on this one. I think Lawrence just stretched too far this time.

I was not trying to suggest that Winni or Coutts were acutally being "purified" but I think the breaking of the spell can be seen as a form of purification, it is Winnies enchaments over Coutts that has become purified by the fire, her "magic" is burned away by the fire.
I guess i see what you mean, but i associate purify with the relieving of sin or guilt. Here i think you're referring to disenchant or break a spell or change a mood or something to that effect.

I'll comment on that last section tomorrow probably.

Janine

05-26-2008, 11:07 PM

Yes, I can agree with that.

Oh good, Virgil and good to see you again! So you can see the significance of the terms, too?

But tears don't make any sound, not even a tinkle. :lol: I can't be convinced on this one. I think Lawrence just stretched too far this time.

But you are taking it too literally. I think that is what he perceived and not what was actually heard. It is more of a metaphor. I think putting the words together is unique and I do feel that rain has a tinkling sound, but like I said it can also be like a bell or even the piano. If rain or tears are falling onto something metallic they can be percieved as tinkling. I don't know. I just did not find it that strange.

tinkle (from my larger College dictionary): 1 to give forth or make a succession of short, light, ringing sounds, as a small bell. 2. to run one's fingers lightly over a keyboard instrument.

Maybe this applies more to the second definition; reminiscent of a keyboard sound, not quite music. Maybe he percieves tears as having a sound, like sorrowful music; this being metaphorical, not literal.

Maybe, I am the 'odd one' in thinking this way. It is not that important really, if we agree or disagree on this point, but it still does interest me.

I guess i see what you mean, but i associate purify with the relieving of sin or guilt. Here i think you're referring to disenchant or break a spell or change a mood or something to that effect.

I'll comment on that last section tomorrow probably.

Oh good. I posted that last part of text - look for it; it might get bumped a page back by tomorrow. I want to move onto the new story soon; maybe take a short break until. I really need to clean my house!

Oddly enough I came back in here, Virgil, to show you this poem in which I found Lawrence uses this imagery of the piano tinkling and also talks of sadness and tears or weeping. I know you will recognise this poem. It is one of his most noted ones:

Piano

Softly, in the dusk, a woman is singing to me;
Taking me back down the vista of years, till I see
A child sitting under the piano, in the boom of the tingling strings
And pressing the small, poised feet of a mother who smiles as she sings.

In spite of myself, the insidious mastery of song
Betrays me back, till the heart of me weeps to belong
To the old Sunday evenings at home, with winter outside
And hymns in the cosy parlour, the tinkling piano our guide.

So now it is vain for the singer to burst into clamour
With the great black piano appassionato. The glamour
Of childish days is upon me, my manhood is cast
Down in the flood of remembrance, I weep like a child for the past.

D. H. Lawrence

Lawrence must have had 'tinkle and weeping (tears) on the brain! :lol:

Also note: hearts can't weep, so maybe tears can't really tinkle, as we know it.
Also note: I highlighted 'tingling' strings also because the sound is similiar although the meaning is slightly different. This time it is spelled right, Antiquarian. I copied from online and also looked it up in my book.

Quark

05-26-2008, 11:57 PM

Oh good. I posted that last part of text - look for it; it might get bumped a page back by tomorrow. I want to move onto the new story soon; maybe take a short break until. I really need to clean my house!

Yes, we're close to exhausting "The Witch A La Mode." There's already been 40 pages of posts on this one! Have you decided on the next story, yet?

The only question I'm still unsure about in this story is what the flames represent. They're destructive, so they might be tied to Coutts anger at the end. The flames could be, as you said, burning away Winifred's spell over Coutts. The only problem with this interpretation is that the flames and the lamp seem to correspond with Winifred as much as they do with Coutts. Maybe the flames show the destructiveness of their relationship? I'm not sure.

Janine

05-27-2008, 12:12 AM

Yes, we're close to exhausting "The Witch A La Mode." There's already been 40 pages of posts on this one! Have you decided on the next story, yet?

Maybe we should recite an incantation and hope this story goes away or set a nice bonfire! ...break the spell.....

The only question I'm still unsure about in this story is what the flames represent. They're destructive, so they might be tied to Coutts anger at the end. The flames could be, as you said, burning away Winifred's spell over Coutts. The only problem with this interpretation is that the flames and the lamp seem to correspond with Winifred as much as they do with Coutts. Maybe the flames show the destructiveness of their relationship? I'm not sure.

Glad to see you stopped in at last, Quark. Nice to see you again and I just read your new post in the Chekhov and wanted to respond but I may be too tired out now. Is it really 200 degrees in your upstairs rooms? I am upstairs too with a flat roof and it has been very warm but not 200 degrees - oh come on. You would be soup by now!

Well, everyone keeps pointing out the 40 some odd pages we have filled up in here on this one story. #1 - we have more participants #2 if you remove all our chit-chat, our little insignificant tiffs/disagreements, and whatever else we found to amuse ourselves with, between my posting of the actual text, then we probably could cut those 40 pages in half, for actual discussion time. Hey, Quark, we are a friendly group in here and who is counting? However, no one has noted, that we once again went past another 1000 posts - we are at 2000 something. Remember when you made that other congratulatory announcement when we hit 1000? That was just great!

Ok, if you read back, a few pages, you will get a better sense of the meaning or our interpretation of the fire and the flames and just what it signifies. I think it definitely does several things - it breaks the spell and it breaks off the whole connection between Winifred and Coutts, for good. Only through the flames, can they be set free from any attachment, they formerly had, or thought was still possible for them. Perhaps, the flames do show the destructiveness of their relationship and now the end of that. I think one can interpret the flames in various ways. In terms of the 'witch' theme, of this story, the flames/fire fit the idea of the pagan ritual of breaking the spell and the breaking forever the attachment between these two people; the device ends the story dramatically and very effectively. All along flame and light have lead up to this story. This story was very well crafted and written; no wonder it is considered one of his finest short stories.

I have picked out the next story, but will not announce it, until we are done discussing this one entirely. So, we fill up another page of two. I need a small break between to clean my house; even though I am sweltering, too. I can tell you the next story is not quite as complex and symbolic as this story. I liked it though and you can acquire the audio MP3 file, from Amazon for a download of only $1.98. I hope to do so. Also, the story is available online. It is in the first volume of Lawrence's collected short stories. I promise to announce it soon. It is not a long story; 14 pages in my small paperback. They read quickly.

Virgil

05-27-2008, 12:13 AM

Maybe, I am the 'odd one' in thinking this way. It is not that important really, if we agree or disagree on this point, but it still does interest me.

Oh of course it doesn't matter. We can move on.

Oddly enough I came back in here, Virgil, to show you this poem in which I found Lawrence uses this imagery of the piano tinkling and also talks of sadness and tears or weeping. I know you will recognise this poem. It is one of his most noted ones:

Lawrence must have had 'tinkle and weeping (tears) on the brain! :lol:

Also note: hearts can't weep, so maybe tears can't really tinkle, as we know it.
Also note: I highlighted 'tingling' strings also because the sound is similiar although the meaning is slightly different. This time it is spelled right, Antiquarian. I copied from online and also looked it up in my book.
I guess the only saving grace for the phrase is that it connects to the music motif. But I find it awkward.

Janine

05-27-2008, 03:45 PM

So, what is the general vote here; shall we move onto the next story? Or does anyone want to make any closing remarks on this current one?

I don't think we will ever forget 'The Witch A La Mode' discussion, do you? :lol:

Give me the word, Everyone, when you are ready and I will post the next story, ASAP.

Quark

05-27-2008, 05:55 PM

Is it really 200 degrees in your upstairs rooms? I am upstairs too with a flat roof and it has been very warm but not 200 degrees - oh come on. You would be soup by now!

Well it definitely felt like I was melting into soup yesterday. I had to shut off my computer for most of the day. Thankfully, today is pleasantly cool.

However, no one has noted, that we once again went past another 1000 posts - we are at 2000 something. Remember when you made that other congratulatory announcement when we hit 1000? That was just great!

I thought 1,000 was a milestone. I'm not sure if 2,000 is really special. I think you have to wait until 10,000, Janine. Although, perhaps 5000 is also important. I'll let you know when we cross another big threshold. We're going to have a 1,000 post party on the Chekhov thread soon.

Ok, if you read back, a few pages, you will get a better sense of the meaning or our interpretation of the fire and the flames and just what it signifies. I think it definitely does several things - it breaks the spell and it breaks off the whole connection between Winifred and Coutts, for good. Only through the flames, can they be set free from any attachment, they formerly had, or thought was still possible for them. Perhaps, the flames do show the destructiveness of their relationship and now the end of that. I think one can interpret the flames in various ways. In terms of the 'witch' theme, of this story, the flames/fire fit the idea of the pagan ritual of breaking the spell and the breaking forever the attachment between these two people; the device ends the story dramatically and very effectively. All along flame and light have lead up to this story. This story was very well crafted and written; no wonder it is considered one of his finest short stories.

That all makes sense. Do you think the lamp is significant as light also, though? We've talked about lighting a lot, and the lamp might also fit into that discussion as well.

Give me the word, Everyone, when you are ready and I will post the next story, ASAP.

I'll be ready for another discussion once I catch up in the poetry and Aeneid thread. Give me a day or two, and I should be up for it. Do you have the story already picked out?

Janine

05-27-2008, 06:13 PM

Well it definitely felt like I was melting into soup yesterday. I had to shut off my computer for most of the day. Thankfully, today is pleasantly cool.

Hi Quark! Tell me about it; I think that weather of yours has come East...*ugh*sigh*moan*...I am now sitting here sweating to death; I am beginning to feel like soup. I was thinking that, this computer, no doubt, is making more heat. I may have to turn mine off for a time also, because it is sweltering here and the humidity must be really high, as well. I need my AC put into the window! Hope it gets cooler tomorrow.

I thought 1,000 was a milestone. I'm not sure if 2,000 is really special. I think you have to wait until 10,000, Janine. Although, perhaps 5000 is also important. I'll let you know when we cross another big threshold. We're going to have a 1,000 post party on the Chekhov thread soon.

*moan*sigh* oh gee, you mean we have to get all the way to 10,000 for another anouncement? I can't wait that long. If we could have a small party at the 5,000 mark that might be nice. Do we even have enough L short stories to go to 10,000 posts?

That all makes sense. Do you think the lamp is significant as light also, though? We've talked about lighting a lot, and the lamp might also fit into that discussion as well.

Oh good; yes, definitely I was referring to any light source and there were many mentioned throughout the story text - the gas street lamps, definitely the oil lamp in the house, even the lights from the train. I think all of the light was significant set against the blackness of night.

I'll be ready for another discussion once I catch up in the poetry and Aeneid thread. Give me a day or two, and I should be up for it. Do you have the story already picked out?

I could use a few days off myself; I might actually catch up on stuff other than computer (around the house) or make a dent in my cleaning and laundry.

:) YES, I do have the new story chosen and it is available online as well, also available in MP3 file download from Amazon ($1.98 I believe). I will provide the links, when I post the story. I also have a picture picked out and waiting to be posted, in Photobucket, unless I change my mind about the picture. It was easy actually - you will see why.

I am re-reading it now. It is not as complicated a story as this past one we have been discussing. It is more straightforward; I think it's an early one. It is in Volume 1 of the "Complete Short Stories" and not too long either. :D

Virgil

05-27-2008, 06:20 PM

I haven't commented on the last section Janine. How about we start the next story in a week or so.

Janine

05-27-2008, 06:25 PM

I haven't commented on the last section Janine. How about we start the next story in a week or so.

Hi Virgil, That would be fine with me; I really need a break. We can just chill out this week. Like I said I am very hot; the weather is so humid and I need to clean up my room, so I can have the AC installed soon, so I don't melt; I have to make a clear path to the window. It is now Tues, so lets say, I post the next story announcement/introductory page on Monday, next week; would that work for you?

In the meantime, please do comment on that last part and ending of the story; I am always anxious to hear what you have to say about these stories. It is the climax and the important scene, isn't it? We really should not pass by it so quickly, or neglect it.

Janine

05-27-2008, 09:42 PM

The weather is going to cool down significantly. LOL I'll take the hot and humid any day. Every day! :)

I'm ready to move on when everyone else is.

Ok, good to know, Antiquarian. Well, Virgil seems to want to comment a little more on the ending and he requests a short break; Quark also needs one and I am tired out myself and could use this week to clean; I know...ugh. Only one, DM, left to hear from and she will probably go along with whatever we all decide. I would say it is reasonable to expect the new story posted on Monday. How does that sound?

I would take the heat also, but the thing is, it is so totally humid here today, I am literally soaking wet right now and I only have access to 3 back windows to open. Also this humidity makes me ache.

I have to get offline - bad thunder!

Janine

05-28-2008, 11:23 AM

Horrors! We got bumped to the second page of my search - so I don't want Virgil to forget about us if he does not see the thread.

Hey, Virgil, what did you want to say about the ending of the story? We need this story put to it's final resting place!

Virgil

05-28-2008, 11:59 AM

Yes i have a couple of points to make about the ending. Please be patient. Perhaps tonight. I re-read those last two pages and frankly they are magnificent. I wanted to point out a few things.

Janine

05-28-2008, 04:36 PM

Ditto!!!

Janine

05-28-2008, 09:08 PM

Well, you never know when a fourth might appear, Antiq. :lol:

Janine

05-28-2008, 10:25 PM

I don't know much of anything at all today, Janine. LOL Except it's been a perfectly beautiful day. Sunny and warm (could have been warmer, though, but beautiful). I took a book and went to a lake to read, but just stared at the water and the trees, instead.

You know, Antiquarian - actually that sounds wonderful to me; it feels just like what I have been craving to do for days. I live right by a lake, so why am I hanging out here, starring into a white screen? Now that is artificial! If I am not on here, I feel guilty, like I should be cleaning or doing laundry, so I still don't go out and enjoy the spring. Then I am totally mad at myself.

It is absolutely best, to just 'let go' sometimes and do 'nothing'. I love to get away and go this park by the river and just stare into the water and the trees. That is life!

We were riding home and I glanced out the window and there was a patch of sweet clover; believe it or not, I wanted to open the car door, jump out and just smell that clover. I thought of Lawrence and this scene in "Women in Love" when Birkin sheds his clothing and runs out into a wheat field; very spiritually cleansing. Of course, I would not shed my cloths on this busy local road. :lol: The point is, why don't I take the time to do such small, but significant things? Kind of crazy, huh? I must have 'spring-fever' badly today!

Virgil

05-28-2008, 10:35 PM

He turned to her. Again looking up darkly, from under her lowered brows, she lifted her hands like small white orchids towards him. Without knowing, he gripped her wrists with a grasp that circled his blood-red nails with white rims.

"Good-bye," he said, looking down at her. She made a small, moaning noise in her throat, lifting her face so that it came open and near to him like a suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk. She seemed to extend, to fill the world, to become atmosphere and all. He did not know what he was doing. He was bending forward, his mouth on hers, her arms round his neck, and his own hands, still fastened on to her wrists, almost bursting the blood under his nails with the intensity of their grip. They remained for a few moments thus, rigid. Then, weary of the strain, she relaxed. She turned her face, offered him her throat, white, hard, and rich, below the ear. Stooping still lower, so that he quivered in every fibre at the strain, he laid his mouth to the kiss. In the intense silence, he heard the deep, dull pulsing of her blood, and a minute click of a spark within the lamp.

Then he drew her from the chair up to him. She came, arms always round his neck, till at last she lay along his breast as he stood, feet planted wide, clasping her tight, his mouth on her neck. She turned suddenly to meet his full, red mouth in a kiss. He felt his moustache prick back into his lips. It was the first kiss she had genuinely given. Dazed, he was conscious of the throb of one great pulse, as if his whole body were a heart that contracted in throbs. He felt, with an intolerable ache, as if he, the heart, were setting the pulse in her, in the very night, so that everything beat from the throb of his overstrained, bursting body.

The hurt became so great it brought him out of the reeling stage to distinct consciousness. She clipped her lips, drew them away, leaving him her throat. Already she had had enough. He opened his eyes as he bent with his mouth on her neck, and was startled; there stood the objects of the room, stark; there, close below his eyes, were the half-sunk lashes of the woman, swooning on her unnatural ebb of passion. He saw her thus, knew that she wanted no more of him than that kiss. And the heavy form of this woman hung upon him. His whole body ached like a swollen vein, with heavy intensity, while his heart grew dead with misery and despair. This woman gave him anguish and a cutting-short like death; to the other woman he was false. As he shivered with suffering, he opened his eyes again, and caught sight of the pure ivory of the lamp. His heart flashed with rage.

I just wanted to review these four paragraphs. I find them so well written. But before I get to the writing, let me point out some motifs and themes we haven’t discussed so far.

Notice this: “She made a small, moaning noise in her throat, lifting her face so that it came open and near to him like a suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk.” Now that moaning noise relates to the musical motif that has been running through, but I also think it stands in contrast. Certainly it’s an audible sound, but a moan is unmusical, a conflation of pitch. It suggests a deeper, more primitive motif. All the “fog” of allusions (chivalric, classical, etc.), all the learned, cultural banter dissolves into raw passion. Also, notice the “suddenly-risen flower” simile. We’ve seen the flower analogy before, and it’s Lawrence’s ideal state. No need to point out the blood imagery. But this sentence stands out: “Dazed, he was conscious of the throb of one great pulse, as if his whole body were a heart that contracted in throbs.” Both characters have moved out of mental consciousness (all that intellectual, learned banter) into pure blood consciousness. “Dazed” suggests a loss of mental capability. Also in that last paragraph I quoted, notice how many times he refers to “the woman” or “this woman.” Not only has the music conflated to a guttural moan, their identities conflate to a primitive sexual identity. There are no names mentioned in any of these paragraphs. Just, he, she, woman. So put it together we see the traditional Lawrence themes, blood consciousness as an ideal state of life, which is analogous to the nature of flowers, something that is below the surface of societal constructs. Hope that made sense.

Now let me say something about the writing. Read those paragraphs out loud and listen to their rhythmic beauty. Take that second paragraph. Look at how Lawrence creates the rhythm. “She made a small, moaning noise in her throat, lifting her face so that it came open and near to him like a suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk.” Notice how he extends the sentence with a sequence of phrases (I think they’re noun participle phrases, but I could be wrong; my grammar escapes me). Then he extends the next sentence that with a series of infinitive phrases (“She seemed to extend, to fill the world, to become atmosphere and all.”). Then a short staccato sentence (“He did not know what he was doing.”). And then another extended sentence of a series of noun particple phrases again (“He was bending forward, his mouth on hers, her arms round his neck, and his own hands, still fastened on to her wrists, almost bursting the blood under his nails with the intensity of their grip.”). And we see this pattern through out, sentences that are extended through some form of series interspersed with a short staccato sentence. It’s pure movement and action. Notice the wonderful choreography between the two characters, emphasized by the rhythmic sentences. Notice also how Lawrence alternates with sentences starting with he and she. He/she, he/she. This too provides lovely rhythm. Hard to believe Lawrence is 25 when he wrote this. Such a gifted writer.

Virgil

05-28-2008, 11:05 PM

Virgil, I noticed that Lawrence used the long, more complex sentences in describing Coutts emotions, and Coutts is the most conflicted at this point (well, all the way through, of course) and the shorter, staccato ones in describing Winifred. Faulkner would do the same thing.

And yes, it is hard to believe that he wrote this when only twenty-five. While I'm a passable writer now, I wasn't much at twenty-five. Of course, I'm not a genius the way Lawrence was. One can learn so much from him.

You know I always felt that Lawrence and Faulkner in places both wrote similarly. Well, perhaps one needs to qualufy that significantly and I'm not going to do it here. :lol: But both had this incredible rhythm to their prose. Interesting, I never paid attention to the content of complex and simple sentences. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Oh if Janine wants to move on, I'm done with this story.

Dark Muse

05-28-2008, 11:07 PM

*bounces up and down waiting for the next story*

Janine

05-28-2008, 11:17 PM

I just wanted to review these four paragraphs. I find them so well written. But before I get to the writing, let me point out some motifs and themes we haven’t discussed so far.

Virgil, finally....and it was worth waiting for!:thumbs_up

Notice this: “She made a small, moaning noise in her throat, lifting her face so that it came open and near to him like a suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk.” Now that moaning noise relates to the musical motif that has been running through, but I also think it stands in contrast. Certainly it’s an audible sound, but a moan is unmusical, a conflation of pitch. It suggests a deeper, more primitive motif. All the “fog” of allusions (chivalric, classical, etc.), all the learned, cultural banter dissolves into raw passion. Also, notice the “suddenly-risen flower” simile. We’ve seen the flower analogy before, and it’s Lawrence’s ideal state. No need to point out the blood imagery. But this sentence stands out: “Dazed, he was conscious of the throb of one great pulse, as if his whole body were a heart that contracted in throbs.” Both characters have moved out of mental consciousness (all that intellectual, learned banter) into pure blood consciousness. “Dazed” suggests a loss of mental capability. Also in that last paragraph I quoted, notice how many times he refers to “the woman” or “this woman.” Not only has the music conflated to a guttural moan, their identities conflate to a primitive sexual identity. There are no names mentioned in any of these paragraphs. Just, he, she, woman. So put it together we see the traditional Lawrence themes, blood consciousness as an ideal state of life, which is analogous to the nature of flowers, something that is below the surface of societal constructs. Hope that made sense.

Those are wonderful observations. A page or more back, I tried to explain the flower ideal and the blood consicousness connected to this passage, but I could not get it straight in my own mind, nor express it clearly, as you do here. This is marvelous! I totally agree with what you have written. It does all make complete sense, from the flower significance and the blood references and the lose of conscious self - only using the words: he, she, woman, man being used. I too thought these passages entirely beautiful and filled with the deepest sense of passion; and such brillant perceptive writing on Lawrence's part. Well, Virgil, you expressed it all so perfectly here; much better than I could attempt ever to do.

Now let me say something about the writing. Read those paragraphs out loud and listen to their rhythmic beauty. Take that second paragraph. Look at how Lawrence creates the rhythm. “She made a small, moaning noise in her throat, lifting her face so that it came open and near to him like a suddenly-risen flower, borne on a strong white stalk.” That sentence Notice how he extends the sentence with a sequence of phrases (I think they’re noun participle phrases, but I could be wrong; my grammar escapes me). Then he extends the next sentence that with a series of infinitive phrases (“She seemed to extend, to fill the world, to become atmosphere and all.”). Then a short staccato sentence (“He did not know what he was doing.”). And then another extended sentence of a series of noun particple phrases again (“He was bending forward, his mouth on hers, her arms round his neck, and his own hands, still fastened on to her wrists, almost bursting the blood under his nails with the intensity of their grip.”). And we see this pattern through out, sentences that are extended through some form of series interspersed with a short staccato sentence. It’s pure movement and action. Notice the wonderful choreography between the two characters, emphasized by the rhythmic sentences. Notice also how Lawrence alternates with sentences starting with he and she. He/she, he/she. This too provides lovely rhythm. Hard to believe Lawrence is 25 when he wrote this. Such a gifted writer.

It is funny, that is just how I read Lawrence, in a flow, as when I read poetry. I didn't always do so, but as I have read him more and more, I now know his rhythms and can feel the beat and the rhyme, instinctively. It is like reading Shakespeare, for me. I love the way you actually took this appart and explained the poetry and the perfect timing. Do you think Lawrence was aware he was doing this, as he wrote; or do you think it sprung out of that 'deep well of blood' he spoke of; do you think it came naturally to him, instinctively? To me, it seems so and not contrived in one word or line.

It totally amazes me, that he was only 25 when he wrote this; it is a sophisticated work with much complexity to the entire story structure/symbolism/thematic elements. I don't know when it was published, or how many rewrites it had. I need to look that up, in the timeline
book.

Virgil, thanks for taking the time to post this and glad I peeked back in here, to find this great post. Great post!

Now I am going to go watch my movie! See you tomorrow, Anti. I will answer your last one then.

Quark

05-28-2008, 11:26 PM

So put it together we see the traditional Lawrence themes, blood consciousness as an ideal state of life, which is analogous to the nature of flowers, something that is below the surface of societal constructs.

I would agree with that, but that sentence about all her wanting is the kiss sticks in my mind. It doesn't seem to fit. In Women in Love Birkin draws a distinction between the Blood consciousness you're talking about and the pornographic ideal. Coutts and Winifred appear like they're playing out the pornographic ideal more than expressing their natural Blood consciousness. At least, the line about the kiss does--and all the stuff about Winifred's nervousness. Although, you are right about the imagery. The flower is a particularly important symbol, and we see it connected with Winifred. It's difficult to say what's going on in the last passage exactly.

*bounces up and down waiting for the next story*

Oh, as am I. This last one was an amazing story. It'll be hard for her to top it.

Virgil

05-28-2008, 11:54 PM

Those are wonderful observations. A page or more back, I tried to explain the flower ideal and the blood consicousness connected to this passage, but I could not get it straight in my own mind, nor express it clearly, as you do here. This is marvelous! I totally agree with what you have written. It does all make complete sense, from the flower significance and the blood references and the lose of conscious self - only using the words: he, she, woman, man being used. I too thought these passages entirely beautiful and filled with the deepest sense of passion; and such brillant perceptive writing on Lawrence's part. Well, Virgil, you expressed it all so perfectly here; much better than I could attempt ever to do.

Oh did you make a similar point? I must have passed over it. I think we went a little long with this story and we (or at least I did) lost focus.

It is funny, that is just how I read Lawrence, in a flow, as when I read poetry. I didn't always do so, but as I have read him more and more, I now know his rhythms and can feel the beat and the rhyme, instinctively. It is like reading Shakespeare, for me. I love the way you actually took this appart and explained the poetry and the perfect timing. Do you think Lawrence was aware he was doing this, as he wrote; or do you think it sprung out of that 'deep well of blood' he spoke of; do you think it came naturally to him, instinctively? To me, it seems so and not contrived in one word or line.
Good question. I'm not sure. I've always said he was a natural, so you would think it just flowed out of him. But still one is conscious and crafts what flows out of you. Probably a little of both Janine.

It totally amazes me, that he was only 25 when he wrote this; it is a sophisticated work with much complexity to the entire story structure/symbolism/thematic elements. I don't know when it was published, or how many rewrites it had. I need to look that up, in the timeline
book.
Actually I think this was never published in his lifetime. It's got a published date of 1934, which is four years after he died. You might want to check the Calandar of His Days book.

Virgil, thanks for taking the time to post this and glad I peeked back in here, to find this great post. Great post!
Oh my pleasure. Reading passages like this is what makes literature a passion for me. ;)

I would agree with that, but that sentence about all her wanting is the kiss sticks in my mind. It doesn't seem to fit. In Women in Love Birkin draws a distinction between the Blood consciousness you're talking about and the pornographic ideal. Coutts and Winifred appear like they're playing out the pornographic ideal more than expressing their natural Blood consciousness. At least, the line about the kiss does--and all the stuff about Winifred's nervousness. Although, you are right about the imagery. The flower is a particularly important symbol, and we see it connected with Winifred. It's difficult to say what's going on in the last passage exactly.

Actually you may be right Quark. This was an "unnatural" passion. I don't know if pornographic is the right term, but Wini's manipulation is a sort of mental consciousness. Lawrence would refer to this as "sex in the head." ;)

Dark Muse

05-29-2008, 12:07 AM

It is almost impossible not to have controvery when I am in the room I fear ;) I do try to be good, but fail misserably

Virgil

05-29-2008, 12:10 AM

It is almost impossible not to have controvery when I am in the room I fear ;) I do try to be good, but fail misserably

Dark Muse, are you Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know too? :lol:

By the way, for those that don't know, that phrase is how the poet Byron was described by someone in his lifetime. I've been using it since I get in trouble here so often. ;)

Dark Muse

05-29-2008, 12:12 AM

LOL, yes I fear that I am, we will just have to stick together, even if we don't always agree either

Virgil

05-29-2008, 12:41 AM

I think we all just have to remember we're discussing a story and fictional characters, not each other and not take the world of fiction too seriously. This should be fun and enlightening for us. We can learn about literature from our disagreements, too. I think it would be boring if we all just said, "Yes, yes, I agree."

Quite right Anti. Perhaps if we can limit a disagreement to a post each and not carry on for pages. I have to admit it got wearisome going over the same points over and over.

Janine

05-29-2008, 02:38 AM

Quite right Anti. Perhaps if we can limit a disagreement to a post each and not carry on for pages. I have to admit it got wearisome going over the same points over and over.

Virgil, you did not repeat what I had said and if you did on some points, you said it so much clearer and made it more understandable. I still do see the passage as you saw it, even though any blood consciousness was short lived for Coutts and Winifred, as well. Still that passage was masterly written and it did contain a great deal of passionate intensity. Lawrence abhored the idea of 'pornography'; therefore Quark, I think he would be appalled by that idea; I don't think that is what he is saying here, we can't go that far. I think that Coutts indeed does want this 'blood consiciousness' with a woman, but he just has not found the right woman to meet him on this level and become the consumation of this ideal.

Exactly my point, Virgil; it gets wearisome when it goes on, post after post and even several pages; then it becomes more like quibbling and not mere opinion. I seriously get a headache and it no longer becomes enjoyable to me; instead it wears me out. I personally don't have the time to waste on these contraversies. Antiquarian, of course that does not mean we can't disagree on things relating directly to the story and the text; that is different - that is critical analysis. When this constant friction occurs and becomes excessive it tends to make me, not even want to come back here and post or continue; I have to be honest about that. I would hate to abandon this thread; I have put a lot of time into it. I have been here from the beginning; I didn't miss one story. I don't recall the first 5 or so stories being like this. I don't recall ever mentioning liking or disliking a character. We simply went ahead and discussed them in connection with the text.

The next story hopefully, won't be contraversial (or I am hoping as much) if we all don't give opinions right away about the characters, or pass moral judgements on them; there are basically 3 characters, with one minor character. The story is more simplistic, or so I believe, a little more straight-forward without containing the degree of complexity we found in this story. "Witch a la Mode" had so many intricacies in the text: references to L's own biography, symbolism, themes, complex interactions between characters, etc.

I just hope, after this great story, no one will be disappointed in the next one. 'Witch' was was a hard act to follow. I picked an easier one next, so we could get a bit of a break, lighten up a little; it might be a little quieter in tone. Of course none of L's stories are truly without some complexity, right?

Dark Muse

05-29-2008, 02:44 AM

I don't recall ever mentioning liking or disliking a character. We simply went ahead and discussed them in connection with the text.

I belive I am the one who started that

Quark

05-29-2008, 04:54 PM

The next story hopefully, won't be contraversial (or I am hoping as much) if we all don't give opinions right away about the characters, or pass moral judgements on them; there are basically 3 characters, with one minor character. The story is more simplistic, or so I believe, a little more straight-forward without containing the degree of complexity we found in this story. "Witch a la Mode" had so many intricacies in the text: references to L's own biography, symbolism, themes, complex interactions between characters, etc.

When do you plan on starting the next one? There's no hurry obviously. I'm just curious.

Janine

05-29-2008, 05:45 PM

When do you plan on starting the next one? There's no hurry obviously. I'm just curious.

Quark, thanks. I am bit stressed out right now, and then tomorrow night I am going up to see my new granddaughter, so that is all I can think of now. I can't wait. I have only seen her three times so far, and those were short visits.

If all could be a little patient; I said I will post the name of the story on Monday and some information about it and a photo. Hey, everybody, you restless ones, go outside and take a nice spring stroll. We all could use a little fresh air, don't you think? Enjoy the nice weather and spring! :)

Dark Muse

05-29-2008, 05:57 PM

It is a tad on the warm side for my taste

Janine

05-29-2008, 05:59 PM

wear something light and breathe some fresh air....hear some birds singing...or sit by a nice cool lake...can be very uplifting...

Janine

05-29-2008, 11:24 PM

Hi Everybody, for between stories, I thought I would post some photos. I believe these to be of interest.

The first photo is of a painting by Maurice Greiffenhagen, that Lawrence felt particularly attracted to and admired greatly; this he copied often, and gave a few of the copies away to lady friends. Michael Black drew reference to this fact, when commenting on the passionate scene in this last story. Oddly enough, I just noticed the red poppies which became such a source of conjecture and discussion. I think now I know the significance of those flowers, at least to Lawrence, and why he linked them to this story.

Idyll by Maurice Greiffenhagen:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/greiffenhagen1.jpg

Last three photos are of piano candleholders. (I promised these awhile back for Quark's benefit). They look very much like regular wall sconces, I know. They were listed online, specifically as 'piano candleholders.' These attach to both ends of the piano and usually do come in pairs.

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

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/candle01.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/candle02.jpg

If I find any more photos of interest, related to this last story, I will add to this post.

Virgil

05-30-2008, 12:05 AM

Janine

05-30-2008, 01:38 AM

Virgil, he was a youth when he first discovered it. Remember in "The Shades of Spring", when Syson mentions giving his old girlfriend a painting. I believe a copy of this, is what it is referring to. This painting is mentioned often, in commentary, and in the letters of Lawrence, himself. I will have to look up one of those letters - he directly makes mention of this painting and his copying it. This painting is on the cover of my addition of "The White Peacock", paperback edition. It does fit that book very well, since the picture is very pastoral looking.

You can find this painting online and all about Greiffenhagen or it may be spelled Grieffenhagen online and in Wikipedia. It mentions Lawrence in the Wiki article I believe. You can find L's copy online too but not sure where it is now. I will look for it for you.

Interesting about the poppies, isn't it?

NOTE: I came in here to edit and add this information I just found online:

Watercolour copy by D.H. Lawrence of the painting 'An Idyll' by M. Greiffenhagen; 1911

Signed 'D.H.L.'.

Greiffenhagen's 'The Idyll' was first exhibited in the Royal Academy 1891, then housed in the Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool; Lawrence made 4 copies of the painting, this copy was executed for and presented to Agnes Holt on her marriage to Walter Blanchard, 5 Aug. 1911; other copies were given to Louie Burrows, Ada Lawrence and William McLeod.

The author DH Lawrence refers to this painting in his novel 'The White Peacock'. Lawrence was a writer whose relationship with the visual arts was particularly strong. In 1929 he admitted
"all my life I have gone back to painting, because it gave me a form of delight that words can never give."
To Lawrence, 'An Idyll' visualised the word passion. Blanche Jennings, a suffragette post clerk in Liverpool with whom Lawrence corresponded, had sent him a reproduction of this popular painting. Lawrence was fascinated by the picture, confessing in a 1908 letter to Blanche Jennings:
"the painting moved me almost as much as if I had fallen in love myself."
Lawrence made three copies of 'An Idyll', one of which he started drawing the night his mother died in 1910.
Signed and dated: MAURICE GREIFFENHAGEN 1891(bottom right).
Purchased by the Walker Art Gallery from the Liverpool Autumn Exhibition in 1891.

Funny, online I keep finding the artist's name spelled both ways. On the back of my book cover, it is spelled wrong, leaving out the one 'e' completely. I think the above spelling is the correct one - GREIFFENHAGEN

Quark

05-31-2008, 10:51 PM

Janine

06-01-2008, 12:34 AM

Nice pictures, Janine. I see now the piano candles wouldn't be as much of a fire hazard as I anticipated. I still don't see how they could illuminate your music, though.

The painting is also interesting. It's very Lawrencian with it's pre-Raphaelite sensuality.

Thanks for looking, Quark and posting a comment. I am glad I recalled, that I had told you I would post those candleholders. I don't think much was illuminated by candles back then; I guess people just got used to dim light. I guess the flames threw some light on the keys and you played more by touch.

Yes, indeed the painting is very Lawrencian; right again - the artist is a pre-Raphaelite painter; I love that school of painting myself. I know another artist Lawrence liked greatly was Beardsley; of course, one can figure out just why. He mentions him in several writings and he may have mentioned him in "The White Peacock" or was it "Sons and Lovers"? I am not sure now. Of course, Beardsley is quite an erotic illustrator.

Janine

06-02-2008, 04:22 PM

So who is ready for the next story?.....I'll post it soon....

Dark Muse

06-02-2008, 04:24 PM

::raises hand::

Janine

06-02-2008, 04:50 PM

:lol: anymore hands of approval?

Janine

06-02-2008, 07:07 PM

Ok, good. I was working on the introduction and will post that this evening. I have various links together, just need to write up something about, when this story was written, a little background information, etc. I am going out for a little while to do some errands, and when I get back I will post the new story, etc; so then you can all get started on your reading.

Virgil

06-02-2008, 08:18 PM

And what about asking me if I'm ready. ;) What am I chopped liver? :bawling: :p

Janine

06-02-2008, 09:30 PM

And what about asking me if I'm ready. ;) What am I chopped liver? :bawling: :p

:lol: Hi Virgil! :brow:... Well???

PS: did you notice all our emoticons got scrambled from yesterday's mess on here; I can't even find the laugh one...even in "more"

Virgil

06-02-2008, 09:57 PM

:lol: Hi Virgil! :brow:... Well???

PS: did you notice all our emoticons got scrambled from yesterday's mess on here; I can't even find the laugh one...even in "more"

Yes, and apparently a lot of people couldn't get on to lit net over the weekend. That's why it was so dead. You can find the rest of the smilies by clicking "more".

Janine

06-02-2008, 10:45 PM

Yes, and apparently a lot of people couldn't get on to lit net over the weekend. That's why it was so dead. You can find the rest of the smilies by clicking "more".

Oh, then were you able to get on Lit Net? Was it just some people who could not get assess to the site? I thought it was totally 'down' on Sunday (yesterday). I think I was on on Saturday with, no problems. I've been working on the introduction and will post it in a few minutes. I looked for the laughing one under "more" but I did not see it; maybe I just missed it. I know the code by now anyway.

Virgil

06-02-2008, 10:51 PM

Oh, then were you able to get on Lit Net? Was it just some people who could not get assess to the site? I thought it was totally 'down' on Sunday (yesterday). I think I was on on Saturday with, no problems. I've been working on the introduction and will post it in a few minutes. I looked for the laughing one under "more" but I did not see it; maybe I just missed it. I know the code by now anyway.

Maybe you don't have the "more" and I do. Yes I had no problem getting on. But I ony tried in the morning and evening.

Dark Muse

06-02-2008, 11:00 PM

I cannot remember if I came onto the site Sunday or not. But I think I might have.

Virgil

06-02-2008, 11:11 PM

When I finally logged on with my other IP, there were some people on here, but I can't remember who. I didn't post anything, I just logged off. Sprinks and I thought we'd been banned. LOL

:lol: You got to be Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to get banned. I cn't see you or Sprinks getting banned. :p

Janine

06-02-2008, 11:26 PM

I could see me, but not sprinks, she's so sweet. I try to stay out of trouble, but even though I'm not quite mad, bad, and dangerous to know, trouble sometimes seems to find me.

Like Virgil said - you would have to be Bad, Mad and Dangerous to get banned on here. Now Virgil might know something about that:lol:. You would never get banned, Antiquarian, you are too nice and polite, for that kind of thing; anyway they would give you plenty of warnings first.

I can't believe, I could not get on at all and all of you could somewhat. I could not even attempt to log on. The same page kept coming up, saying the connection was unavailable; this went on all day and into the wee hours of this morning. I was kind of worried - like zap - everything we wrote on here just went up in smoke.

Thank God it all came back. They must have all this backed up, right? Someone told me these sites have two hard-drives they back up everything on them. Can you imagine, if we lost all of our valuable posts? I always desire to copy out all the ones in this thread for posterity and information and then burn them onto a disk. Of course, it will take some work to do all that; I have been procrastinating it. Maybe I could do it story by story and edit out somethings; still would take considerable time.

My next post will be the story announcement....coming very sooooon.....

Dark Muse

06-02-2008, 11:28 PM

LOL I am probably the most likely canditate from being banned form anywhere

Janine

06-02-2008, 11:38 PM

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p70/sealace/dhlawrenceTheOldAdamCD2.jpg

Our new story is:
The Old Adam

You can find the full-online text to story here:
Collected Short Stories (A Project Gutenberg of Australia compliation)

http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/lawrence.html

This story can be found in the first volume of the
“Collected Short Stories of D.H.Lawrence”

One can purchase the audio CD or Download:

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Adam-D-H-Lawrence/dp/B000Y91ZDS
For download, look here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Old-Adam/dp/B0019BBD0U/ref=dmusic_cd_album

Note: download costs only $1.98 from Amazon;
you can sample the narration before buying.

Here is some information and background on the story:

This story was begun in 1911 and yet the publication date is 1934, four years after Lawrence’s death. Note: ‘Witch a la Mode’ was also published that year, but written (conceived of) during this same (earlier) period.

In 1911 these events were documented in Lawrence’s life. Italics are Lawrence own words in his diary entries or letters to friends, family, associates, etc.

From: D.H.Lawrence, A calender of his works, by Sagar

SUMMARY …and, in the sick year after [the death of his mother], the collapse of me of Miriam [Jessie Chambers], of Helen [Corke], and of the other woman, the woman of ‘Kisses in the Train” and ‘Hands of the Betrothed’ Louie Burrows]. Then, in that year, for me, everything collapsed, save the mystery of death, and the haunting of death in life. I was twenty-five, and from the death of my mother, the world began to dissolve around me, beautiful, iridescent, but passing away substanceless. Till I almost dissolved away myself, and was very ill.

Lawrence continued to work on Paul Moral. He wrote the first versions of the stories, ultimately known as ‘The Witch a la Mode’, ‘The Old Adam’, ‘Daughters of the Vicar’, ‘Second Best’, ‘Shades of Spring’ and rewrote most of his earlier stories.

Interesting to note, is the fact that we have discussed two of these stories, soon to be a third. I also am considering the remaining two, for later dates. I know that ‘Daughters of the Vicar’ is a very noteworthy Lawrence story, but it is much longer than we have encountered, so far. However, when we all have the time, I think that fine story would be well worth discussing.

Another interesting thing I noticed when browsing through the timeline book, is that at this time, Lawrence was doing a lot of painting. I found this direct reference to the painting I posted above, ‘Idyll’, by Greiffenhagen:

27 MARCH To Ada Clarke: I’ve painted you a little Idyll, about 14 by 7. Do you remember? I began to draw it the night mother died, and I said I should never finish it. Now I’ve done a big one for Louie, and a little one for you.

29 MARCH I began a new sketch, but have spoiled it through not being in the painting humour. Strange, when I can write I can’t paint, and vice versa.

14 JUNE I’ve worked quite hard: begun a picture, long promised, for Mac., and written a short story, 32 pages long, in two nights. Smart work, eh? …By the way, I’ve got a ‘Swan’ number of the Studio. Rather a nice tiger.
Lawrence saw Louie Burrows at Whiteuntide and apparently showed her his story ‘The Old Adam’ (Why mustn’t I write Old Adams?). But the only surviving holograph MS of the ‘The Old Adam’ is only 27 pp. Possibly the 32 –pp. MS was the first draft of ‘Two Marriages’.

1 SEPT: In the account for this day, apparently, Lawrence’s publisher Harrison accepted one of two stories Lawrence send to him – ‘Second Best’ and he returned ‘The Old Adam’. Then Lawrence forwarded the story to his other publisher, Garnett, “describing it as ‘wicked’ but ‘clever’. It was assumed he was referring to ‘ The Old Adam’.

Now oddly enough, this story must have gone through several re-writes or revisions and wasn’t published, until after Lawrence’s death in 1934; Lawrence died in March of 1930 at the age of 44.

Michael Black briefly comments on the story here:

Readers of the earlier stories also become aware of this tendency to be attracted towards a rival, who is threadening because he also wants, or has won, the chosen girl, and yet is somehow very winning as a male: indeed he is seen as through a girl’s eyes. An extreme variant of the motif is seen in ‘The Old Adam’, where the hero, Edward Severn, is like Lawrence living in Croydon with the Jones family, who gave him lodging. Severn is briefly attracted by the landlady – there is a moment of wordless magnetism activated by a thunderstorm.

That is all I am going to say about the story for now; I thought this would be enough to pique all of your interest. So have fun reading it; or listening to the audiofile, if you have the inclination to download it. I am hoping to myself. I think this story is interesting, in that the setting and the atmosphere it evokes is a bit different, taking place during a lightening and thunderstorm.

Have fun reading or listening to the audiofile!

Janine

06-03-2008, 12:49 AM

Thank you, Janine. It sounds interesting.

DarkMuse, I don't think you're a candidate for being banned from anywhere. :)

Antiquarian, thanks and so glad I got that accomplished tonight; it took me awhile; sorry didn't get to you PM or V's. I ran out of energy and now I am watching something on DVD to relax.

Dark Muse, Nah, I don't think you could ever be banned; you haven't done anything against the rules. I don't think disagreeing goes against the rules. I think we are a good group and none of us have to worry about being banned, or even warned. Just don't throw rotten tomatoes at me, if you don't like this story; if anyone complains, they get to pick the next one! :lol: I will get you back on way or the other.

Maybe, we could refrain this time from hating characters, until we read the story a few times and discuss it in depth. Then we can evaluate all the characters, if need be, at the end. This story is not quite as complex as the last one, and yet I don't think there is one Lawrence character that exists that does not contain some complexity. I think this story has a bit of humor to it, also. At least, I found some of parts and passages amusing.

Dark Muse

06-03-2008, 01:17 AM

Maybe, we could refrain this time from hating characters, until we read the story a few times and discuss it in depth.

I cannot make any promoises about that. I am a person who is given to make strong intitial reactions, and those are rarely changed.

Virgil

06-03-2008, 07:26 AM

Janine

06-03-2008, 02:33 PM

Well, for a change I read the story early, this morning in fact, and let me say i really enjoyed. I need to read it at least another time before i make any comments. And I would also want to get that audio version. Obviously I had read the story many years ago, since my text had some scribbled notes in it, but I didn't remember the story at all. Good choice Janine.

Oh, Virgil, you made my day; thanks so much for saying it was a good choice and so glad you read it already. You are real pal! It didn't take me long to read the story either - it goes along quickly. I will probably read through it again or listen to the audiofile. Can't wait to download that. Should be interesting.

You know it is funny, I am reading Lawrence's " The Virgin and the Gypsy" and I know I read this book years back, but (like you) I can't recall a thing about it; re-reading it is like a whole fresh experience. I am kind of glad of that fact. I also, just read "Love Among the Haystacks" two weeks ago; I loved that novella years back; again, I could hardly recall it.

Thanks again and this should be a good discussion.

Dark Muse

06-03-2008, 06:34 PM

I just read the story today, and I enjoyed it. In someways I found it a bit amusing.

Quark

06-03-2008, 07:04 PM

I'll take a look at the story tomorrow. When do we start the discussion?

Janine

06-03-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote by Dark Muse

I just read the story today, and I enjoyed it. In someways I found it a bit amusing.

Dark Muse, Glad to hear you liked it. Hey, you trying to make me weak in the knees in liking something?;) I liked the story, too and also I found it amusing, in several parts. One was the slippers and the other was the thought in Syson's mind at what the Mrs had to say. We can discuss both when we get to them. I also thought Lawrence wrote this in a way to be amusing at times. Lawrence was a very funny and witty man himself, not always dead serious. His friends got a real kick out his antics - he was suppose to be the best at Charades and even imitated some famous people and had them all rolling on the floor with laughter.

I'll take a look at the story tomorrow. When do we start the discussion?

Quark, I don't know if Antiquarian has read the story yet; I figured after I had posted this story with the introduction, that I would give it a few days to begin the discussion. This would allow everyone to do their reading. I think that possibly, Pensive will be joining in on this one, since I spoke to her today IM. Now that it is summer, many of the students have the time to come back to this thread and other discussions on the forum. I would say we could start the real discussion, about Thurs or even tomorrow, if all have all read it by then; it is not a very long story and goes along quickly. I hate to rush anyone.

Dark Muse

06-04-2008, 01:34 AM

LOL it is usually characters I do not like not stories. I can like a story even if I dislike certain characters, but as far as that goes, I will just say this time I did not truly hate anyone, might have liked some a little less than others, but I am not out to crucify anyone this time around.

Janine

06-04-2008, 02:12 AM

I, too, found the story amusing and not nearly as complex as the other Lawrence stories I've read.

I would place it in the middle of stories I like. I wasn't wild about it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I thought the little domestic scene to be very amusing. Sad, in some ways, but also amusing.

I liked the relationship between Severn and Thomas. And I liked both men. Now, Mrs. Thomas, I wasn't so fond of, but I certainly didn't hate her.

I feel this is a lesser story of Lawrence's (for example, Kate seemed just a prop to advance the plot), not as great as "The Witch a la Mode" or "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter," but it should be a fun story to discuss and after the last one, I think we need something a little lighter.

Antiquarian, I would agree with all this; after the last story, that was a real 'mind expander', I thought our brains could use a simplier story and a little break this month. This story is much more straightforward, so we can all relax and enjoy being amused by it. I found the story likable, and in someways it turned out a bit ironic. I liked the way in which Lawrence wrote it; it felt humorous in the manor in which he phrased certain lines. We can take a closer look at that, when we get started on looking directly at the story text. I also thought the lightening storm made for an interesting backdrop to the little drama and friction that takes place. 'Less' can sometimes be just as worthy as 'more'; there are times it is fun just to read for enjoyments sake and I think this story was quite natural at the time for Lawrence to write. This time we won't have to strain our minds too much, to come up with all that complicated symbolism. Presently, we have our task layed out for us in the Chekhov thread, with that heavier discussion of black monks appearing out of thin air; so if this is a lighter discussion, that will be ok with me.

Quote by Dark Muse

LOL it is usually characters I do not like not stories. I can like a story even if I dislike certain characters, but as far as that goes, I will just say this time I did not truly hate anyone, might have liked some a little less than others, but I am not out to crucify anyone this time around.

Good to hear it, DM. This discussion should be a light fun one. I look forward to it.

Virgil

06-04-2008, 07:08 AM

Antiquarian, I would agree with all this; after the last story, that was a real 'mind expander', I thought our brains could use a simplier story and a little break this month. This story is much more straightforward, so we can all relax and enjoy being amused by it.
I'm not so sure that this story is as simple as the surface implies. Perhaps it is, but there are some interesting elements to the story that if they connect thematically (and I haven't in my first reading completely comprehended it all) could make this a complex work. For instance, why does Lawrence include the detail of Kate being Jewish, and why is a point made that the Thomas's are protestant and Severn is a lapsed Cathloic? Why is the story titled "The Old Adam"? Why is the little girl, and especially the two scenes, one where he's racing after her and the other where he undresses her for bed, included? What is is going on with the sexual tension between Severn and Mrs. Thomas? Is there is sexual tension between him and Kate, and even perhpas between him and the little girl? If so why? And why do Severn and Mr. Thomas make up at the end so easily? I haven't figured all of this out, but i think those are some of the key questions that will allow us to untangle this story.

Dark Muse

06-04-2008, 11:39 AM

I thought at the very begining, when Kate opens the door for him, there might have been some sexual tension between the two of them.

I really do not think anything "unatural" was between him and the girl.

I thought his statement of "She was getting to old for a young man to undress" was a rather natural one to make, I do not think it was sexual, but rather showed instead his more "paternal" feelings toward the girl, becasue he is aware that it is getting to the point where it will no longer be appropraite.

I felt this his sexual tension with Mrs. Thomas was natural considering his situation. A young man that has never "been" with a woman before, every day alone in ths house with her, while she is cearly discontented with her husband, and the story remarks that she was attractive. I think almost anyone in that circumstance would begin to develop certain feelings/desires.

Virgil

06-04-2008, 11:53 AM

I did not like the fact that he pointed out Kate was Jewish and that made her "look" different. I'm Jewish and I look just like other people. Jewish people are Middle Eastern, African, Western European, Eastern European - we have many, many looks. Not all of us are dark. That's a stereotype. Some Jewish people are naturally blonde and very fair. I just wanted to point that out. I do have very, very dark hair now - naturally, it's lighter than in my photos - but it was blonde as a child. My mother was a strawberry blonde, my father my dark.

Yes I understand. Much early part of the 20th century had these racial notions. It even amounted to shaping o fheads of different races and the supposed implications. You can see references in a lot of early 20th century fiction, maybe even late 19th century fiction. Lawrence was not immune to the ignorant racial theories of his day. (As a side note, hitler's racial theories did not come in a vacuum; they were out there in the general public and not just in Germany but across Europe and even America.) I don't think that's the significance of Kate's Jewishness. He goes out of his way to mention the Protestant and the Cathlolic religons too.

I think Severn's reaction to the little girl was a very normal one for a man of twenty-seven and one who's had no sexual experience. Perhaps it's included to show Severn is a very modest man and one who is very polite.

Severn is young enough, I think, to be sexually attracted to anyone who's good looking.
OK, I thought it was a little more than natural, but when can look into it when we get to the text.

I thought at the very begining, when Kate opens the door for him, there might have been some sexual tension between the two of them.

I really do not think anything "unatural" was between him and the girl.

I thought his statement of "She was getting to old for a young man to undress" was a rather natural one to make, I do not think it was sexual, but rather showed instead his more "paternal" feelings toward the girl, becasue he is aware that it is getting to the point where it will no longer be appropraite.

I felt this his sexual tension with Mrs. Thomas was natural considering his situation. A young man that has never "been" with a woman before, every day alone in ths house with her, while she is cearly discontented with her husband, and the story remarks that she was attractive. I think almost anyone in that circumstance would begin to develop certain feelings/desires.

But what's the significance of it? In a story about a character who gets into a fist fight with his landlord, why are the questions I brought up suggested in the text. Do you think Lawrence just included those scenes and details to pad the story or do they tie in?

Dark Muse

06-04-2008, 12:00 PM

I think the attraction between Severn and Mrs. Thomas ties into the fight. I felt in someways it was a very primal/male dominance type of fight. As I think in the story it makes a reference that Severn and Mr. Thomas were the best of friends when Mrs. Thomas was not there, but when she was in the room they were hostile to each other.

They were two stags fighting for the rights over the female

Virgil

06-04-2008, 03:21 PM

Myself, I don't see any deep meaning in this story or any significance to the religions unless it has to do with the time period in which it was written. I don't rule out the fact that it could have been padding, though I highly doubt it. Lawrence was an extremely good writer, but he wasn't perfect. No one is.

Why do you think it's titled, "The Old Adam"? Who is Adam? Adam from Genisis? Which would give this a Biblical connection and therefore provide significance to the religions he mentions.

Janine

06-04-2008, 03:42 PM

Wowy! I go away to sleep and come back to find all this. I guess the discussion has begun. Quark wanted to know when. I think it is well underway. Glad of it, because this is a very good start.

Quote by Virgil

I'm not so sure that this story is as simple as the surface implies. Perhaps it is, but there are some interesting elements to the story that if they connect thematically (and I haven't in my first reading completely comprehended it all) could make this a complex work. For instance, why does Lawrence include the detail of Kate being Jewish, and why is a point made that the Thomas's are protestant and Severn is a lapsed Cathloic? Why is the story titled "The Old Adam"? Why is the little girl, and especially the two scenes, one where he's racing after her and the other where he undresses her for bed, included? What is is going on with the sexual tension between Severn and Mrs. Thomas? Is there is sexual tension between him and Kate, and even perhpas between him and the little girl? If so why? And why do Severn and Mr. Thomas make up at the end so easily? I haven't figured all of this out, but I think those are some of the key questions that will allow us to untangle this story.

This is really good Virgil. I often think we should present questions like this at the beginning of a discussion. This really stimulates us to think about various elements. I also wondered about the title “Old Adam’, and Lawrence’s remark to Louie Burrows – ‘why mustn’t I write Old Adams? You are absolutely right – this is not a simplistic story – hey, are there any of L’s that truly are. I am sure we will find out there is more to it than perceived on our first reading. I hope to re-read the complete story again soon and note various things you have pointed out. Also, I will be posting text to review. I that is always very revealing, even looking at what lies between the lines.
I would add to your questions this: what would be the significance of the story taking place during the thunderstorm? Lightening is filled with tension and with light. Light is often such a huge theme with L. What would he be saying here with light emanating from lightening, electric. I just found the background setting so interesting and something different than what we have encountered so far in setting. We have had night, we have had day, but now we another totally different atmosphere presented early on in this story.

Quote by Antiquarian

I did not like the fact that he pointed out Kate was Jewish and that made her "look" different.………it was blonde as a child. My mother was a strawberry blonde, my father my dark.

Quote by Virgil in answer to Antiquarian

Yes I understand. Much early part of the 20th century had these racial notions. It even amounted to shaping o fheads of different races and the supposed implications. You can see references in a lot of early 20th century fiction, maybe even late 19th century fiction. Lawrence was not immune to the ignorant racial theories of his day. (As a side note, hitler's racial theories did not come in a vacuum; they were out there in the general public and not just in Germany but across Europe and even America.) I don't think that's the significance of Kate's Jewishness. He goes out of his way to mention the Protestant and the Cathlolic religons too.

I agree with Virgil here; it was the times and I don’t think you can take Lawrence’s remark personally nor in a negative light. When he said it I did not see it as anything at all negative. I agree that Lawrence also points out the other religions. If anything I think Lawrence would have sided with the Jews. He took his utopian community ideal/dream from a Jewish word and a song or poem I believe. Virgil knows more about that than I do.

Anti, just for the record, I was blond as a child too, so was my son and neither of us are blond now; in fact my son has very dark hair. It is funny, both and his father have been taken as Jewish decent and his father was Irish. How many think that Irish people all have red hair; we all know now that is nonsence.

Quote by Dark Muse

I think the attraction between Severn and Mrs. Thomas ties into the fight. I felt in someways it was a very primal/male dominance type of fight. As I think in the story it makes a reference that Severn and Mr. Thomas were the best of friends when Mrs. Thomas was not there, but when she was in the room they were hostile to each other.

They were two stags fighting for the rights over the female

Dark Muse, This reminded me of what Lawrence once pointed out about 3 people being a problem and causing friction – recall ‘Two Blue Birds’; also, in my Michael Black Early Fiction book he points out something about this scenario which has been seen in other Lawrence works. Remember, too the bonding that took place at the end of ‘The Blind Man’? When we get to this part in the text (really the end scenes) I will point out in more detail what Michael Black suggests about this bonding between two men in Lawrence’s works.

Your last statement, DM, made me laugh; I recall that painting in one of the stories; however, I think that was a stag and another animal.

Quote by Antiquarian

I think Severn's reaction to the little girl was a very normal one for a man of twenty-seven and one who's had no sexual experience. Perhaps it's included to show Severn is a very modest man and one who is very polite.
Quote by Virgil in answer to Antiquarian

OK, I thought it was a little more than natural, but when can look into it when we get to the text.

Virgil, I agree with Antiquarian, and yet I will also be anxious to see what the text says when we look at it closer. I didn’t feel anything was unnatural though. I felt, as in ‘Sun’ Lawrence was looking at the child in a very ‘natural’ light and took nothing offensive from that passage. Hey, Virg, you trying to make our L into a pedefile? Read “Lolita” instead! :lol:

Quote by Antiquarian

Severn is young enough, I think, to be sexually attracted to anyone who's good looking.

I agree with that whole-heartedly. Many young men that age will flirt and feel attraction. I had a son and he had guy friends and I know how that age group thinks. Sometimes they would really make me laugh.

Quote by Dark Muse

…. when Kate opens the door for him, there might have been some sexual tension between the two of them.

I really do not think anything "unnatural" was between him and the girl.

....do not think it was sexual, but rather showed instead his more "paternal" feelings ……getting to the point where it will no longer be appropriate.

I felt this his sexual tension with Mrs. Thomas was natural considering his situation. A young man that has never "been" with a woman before, every day alone in ths house with her, while she is clearly discontented with her husband, and the story remarks that she was attractive. I think almost anyone in that circumstance would begin to develop certain feelings/desires.

I pretty much agree with all you said here, Dark Muse….now that is a first. :lol: I think there was also sexual tension or playfulness between Kate and Severn at the beginning.

Quote by Virgil

But what's the significance of it? In a story about a character who gets into a fist fight with his landlord, why are the questions I brought up suggested in the text. Do you think Lawrence just included those scenes and details to pad the story or do they tie in?

I do think there is more significance to all this, as you point out here, Virgil. As you said before this is not really a ‘simple’ story; sometimes we have thought that at the beginning of these discussion and most times we have been proven wrong by our closer look at the text, themes, and symbolism, etc. In this case I am sure more will emerge as we do so and even re-read the actual text. Lawrence really never did write a story without significance; maybe this was seen as a lesser work but Lawrence apparently saw it differently, in that he even remarked how much he liked this story; that in itself seems significant for me and the remark about writing about Old Adams. Exactly what does he mean by that?

I see there is a new post since I was working on this in my offline program. Looks like it is going to be hard to catch up. After I post this I will read yours, Antiquarian, and try to answer that, too.

Edit Note: I had to come in, and edit because I see there is about 5 new posts instead of just one and they are some problems. I will try to look into that and address those privately. I am not meaning to ignore those post or anyone.

Poor Quark, is being left in the dust again; although when I post the first part of the story text, I think then he can catch up with no problem; Pensive, too, if she decides to join-in.

You guys are too hyperactive! :lol:

Dark Muse

06-04-2008, 03:57 PM

So Mrs. Severn was not a tolerant person and not tolerant of other religions, though it seems the Jews displeased her most. She tolerates Severn despite his being Catholic even though she considers being Catholic being an "unbeliever." Being Jewish, she does not tolerate at all.

I did not interpret it that she thought Catholics were not believer, but that Severn was no longer a practicing Catholic, be she says he is an unbeliever who "had" been Catholic.

It is true, that Mrs. Thomas did pit the men against each other. It said she had intentionally taken the side of her husband in the argument, becasue she knew if she sided with Severn he would be gentle with Mr. Thomas.

But I still feel after my second reading of the story, that it is in someways about "primal" man.

As a Jew, I found the story offensive and a horrible reminder of what the Jewish people have been through collectively, and the stereotyping to which we're still subjected, but I guess that can't be helped. I am a Jew and proud of that fact and Lawrence does say Kate was cast out from among her "betters."

I personally did not feel as if this story was intended to be negative to Jews. And the way in which he had put "betters" in quotations within the story, I interpreted that as if it were meant to be sarcastic in a way. That Mr. and Mrs. Thomas might have thought they were better, but I did not feel he was agreeing with or confirming to this fact.

I also felt that the reason she was being expelled from the house was becasue of the jealoussy of Mrs. Thomas, as she is being kicked out right at the time that she is starting to be noticed as a woman and coming into sexual maturity.

Virgil

06-04-2008, 04:05 PM

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any malicious anti-semitism. I see some outdated notions of racial features. It doesn't strike me as going to the heart of her person. She is not a villain, as in say Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. In fact I thought she was rather sympatheiticaly drawn. I thought this paragraph that closes the opening scene very sympathetic to Kate's predicament:

The maid stood for a few moments clenching her young fists, clenching her very breast in revolt. Then she closed the door.

Dark Muse

06-04-2008, 04:08 PM

Yes I agree with you Virgil. Her being Jewish was used as a physical description of her, now it might be stereotypical in that way, but other than that I did not think it was anti-Semitic.

Also the other thing to consider, which I did not think of before when responding to Anti. Do not forget she was thier maid, so no matter her race, the people that hired her would think they were her "betters" I think that was more a statement of class not race

Janine

06-04-2008, 05:10 PM

I am sorry, Antiquarian,that you feel this way; I truly was hoping to start this new story without contraversy and I don't see a thing Anti-semitic about this story. I must be missing something, as Virgil said, if it is there, anywhere. I just looked at the first part of the text; if anything I thought the narrator (Lawrence) was complimenting the womanliness of Kate, her new maturity and her beauty. In fact, he felt she had some Jewish blood that only made her such a beauty and he seemed in remarking about it to admire Jewish people, even more so. I also think he admired her (and the Jewish) fortitude, in the way he wrote some of the lines of observation; and finally I don't think Severn even thought it fair that she was expelled from the house; if anything Lawrence did frown on that fact here in this story, and also the difference in her class distinction (not due to her being Jewish, just poor) I can't see how that is offensive in the least; but if you truly feel offended by this story, then just don't continue with this discussion and maybe Lawrence is not even for you, who knows? I would do the same in any of the threads; I did not feel comfortable with the story or subject matter; we all have free choice here. No one will be offended, if you decide not to participate. Many have left the thread, and some have come back, after a time. It is all up to you.

Here is the beginning passage:

The maid who opened the door was just developing into a handsome womanhood. Therefore she seemed to have the insolent pride of one newly come to an inheritance. She would be a splendid woman to look at, having just enough of Jewish blood to enrich her comeliness into beauty. At nineteen her fine grey eyes looked challenge, and her warm complexion, her black hair looped up slack, enforced the sensuous folding of her mouth.

She wore no cap nor apron, but a well-looking sleeved overall such as even very ladies don.

I think the 'inheritance' he is referring to here is her 'developing into a handsome womanhood'; he is complimenting her.

"She would be a splendid woman to look at, having just enough of Jewish blood to enrich her comeliness into beauty." another direct compliment. This is like saying English people have such beautiful blue eyes, or Chinese such lovely creamy skin; all this refers to is physical features. I don't see how this is a put-down about the Jewish element in her makeup.

As DM says:
"Her being Jewish was used as a physical description of her, now it might be stereotypical in that way, but other than that I did not think it was anti-Semitic."
I agree with that distinction and I also took it as a direct compliment to Kate's appearance.

Also the other thing to consider, which I did not think of before when responding to Anti. Do not forget she was thier maid, so no matter her race, the people that hired her would think they were her "betters" I think that was more a statement of class not race

Yes, from my reading of Lawrence and considering this story was conceived early on, I think that he would be far more interested in class-distinction and prejudice, than expressing any attitude of Anti-semitism. Lawrence was not like that. You may as well say he was prejudiced against gypsies, for heaven sakes, he wrote one of his famous novels entitled "The Virgin and the Gypsy". I happen to be reading that novel currently. Some reading that book might call him anti-gypsy.

I think the last statement shows she is a lady, in Severn's eyes, not a mere maid; class plays into this more than anything.

Pensive

06-04-2008, 05:29 PM

Sorry for emerging later than I should have. Wow, so many posts in one day. I thought the thread might go on a slower pace and didn't sign in on lit-net even though I had read it last night. Still, no harm done. :)

Interesting discussion so far. I can understand, Antiquarian, about how anti-Jewish stuff would annoy you. Personally it aggravates me too, discrimination such as this. But I will back up all those who say there doesn't seem to be anti-Semeticism as such in this particular story. I have just skimmed through the story once again a few minutes back and can't find any specific sentence referring to any kind of hostility towards Jewish people (any offensive thing I mean). Maybe I have missed something?

For instance, why does Lawrence include the detail of Kate being Jewish, and why is a point made that the Thomas's are protestant and Severn is a lapsed Cathloic? Why is the story titled "The Old Adam"? Why is the little girl, and especially the two scenes, one where he's racing after her and the other where he undresses her for bed, included? What is is going on with the sexual tension between Severn and Mrs. Thomas?

Interesting questions, Virgil. I don't consider it as a very light read either though yes there were some amusing parts such as the fight between the two guys.

Hmmm don't think the scenes concerning the little girl are there to provide some greater meaning to the story. As for the sexual tension between Severn and Mrs. Thomas - interesting. I am pretty confused about it myself. Did anybody find that part where there was thunder and how it made Mrs. Thomas cry to be of any particular importance BTW?

Oh and the title of the story - I have been wondering about it myself too. Antiquarian's idea about it explains a lot but I wonder why the addition of 'Old' in 'The Adam'? What significance does 'Old' in 'The Old Adam' hold?

Scheherazade

06-04-2008, 05:45 PM

Antiquarian,

Please feel free to sit any stories you do not feel like discussing in this thread or any others on the Forum. As you can appreciate, we cannot ask other members not to discuss stories or books which are not agreeable to us as it would make it almost impossible to find one that is agreed upon by all and have any discussions.

However, this is your earlier post, in which you state that you find the story amusing:
I, too, found the story amusing and not nearly as complex as the other Lawrence stories I've read.

I would place it in the middle of stories I like. I wasn't wild about it, but I didn't dislike it, either. I thought the little domestic scene to be very amusing. Sad, in some ways, but also amusing.

I liked the relationship between Severn and Thomas. And I liked both men. Now, Mrs. Thomas, I wasn't so fond of, but I certainly didn't hate her.

I feel this is a lesser story of Lawrence's (for example, Kate seemed just a prop to advance the plot), not as great as "The Witch a la Mode" or "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter," but it should be a fun story to discuss and after the last one, I think we need something a little lighter.I am just wondering what has brought about the sudden change.

Janine

06-04-2008, 05:56 PM

Scheherazade

06-04-2008, 06:55 PM

Thanks Scher for intervening. Let me make it clear that I didn't contact you or ask you to make this statement; but for once, I am glad you put a stop to this contravery. It was beginning to get me down. I too, would like to know the answer to that last question of yours. I am totally miffed.I would also like to make it clear that I am not in the habit of "intervening" or "making statements" simply because one member or another asks me to.

All moderators, including myself, try to do their very best to be impartial and fair while also trying to keep on top of all the posts every day. We "intervene" only because discussions sometimes do go awry and a gentle reminder is all it takes to put it back on track.

I hope now this thread will resume its earlier harmonious flow and we will all move on.

Please try to resolve your personal differences via PMs.

Any off-topic posts will be deleted.

Quark

06-04-2008, 07:06 PM

I just read the story this afternoon, and I think it should be good for discussion. Surprise: another good pick from Janine. The plot is a little simplistic and the end is somewhat obvious, but Lawrence tells the story well and weaves in many interesting subtexts. I printed out the story, so I'm ready to discuss whenever Janine posts the first section.

Janine

06-04-2008, 09:29 PM

I would also like to make it clear that I am not in the habit of "intervening" or "making statements" simply because one member or another asks me to.

All moderators, including myself, try to do their very best to be impartial and fair while also trying to keep on top of all the posts every day. We "intervene" only because discussions sometimes do go awry and a gentle reminder is all it takes to put it back on track.

I hope now this thread will resume its earlier harmonious flow and we will all move on.

Please try to resolve your personal differences via PMs.

Any off-topic posts will be deleted.

Scheherazade, I do appreciate you attentiveness; yes, sometimes just a gentle reminder is enough to keep things moving along. It can't be easy to read so many posts in a day. I have always commended the mods for their fine way of running this site.

I just read the story this afternoon, and I think it should be good for discussion. Surprise: another good pick from Janine. The plot is a little simplistic and the end is somewhat obvious, but Lawrence tells the story well and weaves in many interesting subtexts. I printed out the story, so I'm ready to discuss whenever Janine posts the first section.

Quark, you have not missed much in the actual discussion of the text. I did post a paragraph or so of the beginning text, but I intend to re-post that tomorrow; start fresh.

Quark, I am so glad you enjoyed the story; as you point out it is very well-written. I try hard to choose one you all will like or find interesting to discuss; I sometimes read as many as 4 or 5, before I make up my mind. Did you see my intro page? I provided a few links and one is a download to the MP3 file (audio). I want to download that myself, but first I have to clear out various things from my HD. I actually got my PM box down to nothing today; that's a first!

Glad to see Pensive joining us this month, too. She always has good perceptions and observations. It should be a good discussion.

Will post that text soon - tomorrow; a bit tired out for today.:yawnb:

Janine

06-05-2008, 04:32 PM

Quark, I agree with you that the plot is a little simplistic (that's not necessarily a bad thing) and the ending obvious, and I do agree there's a lot of subtext in this story. In fact, I think this story's strength lies in its subtext. Not symbolism or metaphor, etc., but subtext.

Quark and Antiquarian, I was aware that the plot of the story was a little simplistic when I chose this one. I didn't want to do a super complicated story like "Witch" because I felt we did need a little breather this time. Of course, the ending was somewhat predictable but then again I felt it would be so with many of L's stories in the past. One could read the signs leading up to what would happen eventually; he lays out a lot of forshadowing devices of text, I believe. I will be also interested in discussing the subtext in this particular story. I thought we had our share of symbolism and metaphor in the last story - our poor over-taxed brains! I think there may be some when we look at the story text closer. If you recall when we read the last story initial comments on the story changed drastically from the beginning pages of the discussion to the end pages. I think often that is the case. I do think this story is not particularly driven by plot or by deep symbolism but as you say, subtext and I would say, atmosphere and human interactions.

Naturally, I think most of it lies in the scenes and the set piece with Severn and Mrs. Thomas and in the set piece of the trip, literally, down the stairs and the fight.

I would agree with you on this idea and I liked those two scenes very much, and the 'set pieces', as you term them; the last being my favorite.

It should be fun to discuss that subtext. Subtext is something I love.

Yes, you will have to teach us all a little more about that. I'm not that familar with the term, 'subtext'. You were the Lit major and Virgil did his thesis on L; so I am sure he knows; I was only an art major with very minor classes in Lit, in college. Also, my memory fails me; that was so long ago.

I didn't find this story quite as well written as some of Lawrence's other stories ("The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" is my favorite), but I do think those two set pieces are great. And fun.

'The Horse-Dealer's Daughter' is a major work - very acclaimed. It is a lot longer, also. 'The Daughters of the Vicar' is acclaimed as well, but I have held off doing it - it is quite long for one month - I am sure it is very well-written and a good story.

'Old Adam' is an earlier work. Lawrence's short story 'polish' evolved over time; practice does make perfect. I still feel, that for a 'young work', this story is quite commendable. I think I posted something saying how long it took him to write it; pretty amazing; of course, I am sure he re-wrote it over time, or revised it. It was not published until after his death.

I found it interesting that of all the stories they did find it valuable enough to produce a audiofile to buy online. I could not find another short story that had one...curious, isn't it? I wish I could find more of them on audio. I love listening to them, when I am in the mood.

To Everyone:
I will post the beginning part of the text tonight, too busy currently. Hold up and I will come through later with it.

Janine

06-05-2008, 11:12 PM

I think it's good to have something a little lighter to discuss, Janine, and something not too laden with symbolism. The previous story was so complex. Very good and very well crafted, but so complex. I love the symbolism, but with the warm weather, I think more people will be outside and the lighter story you've chosen will be very good.

Thanks, Antiquarian, glad you understand that. I really did think we needed to lighten up this month. I know I need a break and to get outside and enjoy the weather. I don't have a laptop so I can't take it with me. This story's bit of humor and amusing scenes I thought would be appealing after the last very serious story; you said it - it was very complex.

I think Virgil might be our only English major, I was a Creative Writing major. I wish now it had been English, but that is that. I'm not sure about DM, Quark and Pensive. Subtext is just the meaning beneath the spoken words, the things the characters mean but don't say. Unless one writes or wants to read like a writer, there's no reason to remember the term, itself. It's one of those things that you know when you see it. I'm sure you saw it even if you did forget the term. Now me, I never could draw even a decent stick figure.

Is he? I thought his major in college was Engineering; maybe it was English. What is the difference in the two majors, English and Creative Writing major?
Thanks for the definition of 'subtext'; this is funny, I actually looked it up in my dictionary and could not find it; it is probably in my larger college dictionary. I thought that is what it meant - sort of like 'reading between the lines', right?
:lol: I can't draw stick people either - who would want to? Maybe I will be drawing them someday for my granddaughter.

Yes, practice does improve one's work, even if it doesn't make it perfect as is the case with so many minor writers. Lawrence, of course, was a major writer and left behind so many wonderful, polished stories for us to enjoy.

That is so true. I know he was young, when he wrote this story. I think he did have natural talent. I read his first novel and it is not a polished work and yet I did so enjoy it; it had plenty of flaws but it thrilled me at how fresh it felt and the woodland/farm/field scenes were so lovely. No one can describe snowdrops quite like Lawrence did in that book. Lawrence has been called a major writer now, but once he really did get a bum rape. I read online, it was mostly because people misinterpreted his work. Also, revised or original versions have resurfaced in recent years and these are the ones L would have had published, if he could have; he had many a struggle with publishers. I just read this online today, but forget where.

I can see where "The Old Adam" would be good on audiofile, though I have to admit I haven't listened to it. Parts of it are almost like a play and the two scenes are very comedic, especially the second one. I think that one would be fun to watch. It did remind me a bit of Evelyn Waugh, and I mean that in a very good way. It seems Lawrence could write in any area - comedy, tragedy, love stories, stories of families, etc.

Will you download it? I want to, but I think I have to clear out some more things from my HD; I'm a little overloaded right now. It does remind me of a play as well. In fact, there is some similarity to Lawrence's play, "The Widowing of Mrs. Holryod" - again, bascially a three person play, with the addition of a fourth character, near the end. Also, that play it is like a cross between this story idea and "Odour of Chrysanthemums." Lets say, they all have similar components and characters, and in two of them, there is a rival male to the husband. It is hard to explain, unless you have read all three. One scene in the play, the rival male actually washes the face of the man he just hit; the husband is drunk though so that is mainly why he is out cold; but he does it very lovingly even though they are rivals. The outcome of the play and the other short story is much different, in that this short story does not end tragically.

Sorry Everyone it took me so long to post this. It is so humid here and I have to force myself to do anything today and plus I got tied up with household duties, real fun stuff. Not!

The Beginning Text:

The maid who opened the door was just developing into a handsome womanhood. Therefore she seemed to have the insolent pride of one newly come to an inheritance. She would be a splendid woman to look at, having just enough of Jewish blood to enrich her comeliness into beauty. At nineteen her fine grey eyes looked challenge, and her warm complexion, her black hair looped up slack, enforced the sensuous folding of her mouth.

She wore no cap nor apron, but a well-looking sleeved overall such as even very ladies don.

The story begins with our first brief, impression of Kate, the maid. I think from this brief description, we see she is a person of pride in herself, and is developing into a splendid woman, a beauty with a ‘sensuous folding of her mouth’. She doesn’t wear an apron or cap, which would no doubt be ‘conventional’ for a maid, but rather wears “what even very ladies don”. I think that she seems to be youthful like Severn, and he seems to treat her on equal footing; afterall, he is but a lowly border/tenent in this house. As he is at the landlord's mercy, so is she. He's physically described in the next paragraph:

The man she opened to was tall and thin, but graceful in his energy. He wore white flannels, carried a tennis-racket. With a light bow to the maid he stepped beside her on the threshold. He was one of those who attract by their movement, whose movement is watched unconsciously, as we watch the flight of a sea-bird waving its wing leisurely. Instead of entering the house, the young man stood beside the maid-servant and looked back into the blackish evening. When in repose, he had the diffident, ironic bearing so remarkable in the educated youth of to-day, the very reverse of that traditional aggressiveness of youth.

I notice he bows to her, as if she were a lady, so I think he treats her respectfully. I think the mention of the tennis-racket and his white clothes, his graceful energy, already gives us this youthful 'vibrant' impression of Severn. I liked the statement in reference to ‘a sea-bird waving it’s wing leisurely,’ in describing how one would perceive him (unconsciously), his attraction in his movement. That seems to conjure up a certain image; kind of free and easy, natural. The last statement is interesting; seems to set up the idea that he is not as the youth of the day, ‘traditionally aggressive’. Ironic that the story begins with that statement, since later he does indeed become very aggressive, when provoked/attacked.

"It is going to thunder, Kate," he said.
"Yes, I think it is," she replied, on an even footing.
The young man stood a moment looking at the trees across the road, and on the oppressive twilight.
"Look," he said, "there's not a trace of colour in the atmosphere, though it's sunset; all a dark, lustrous grey; and those oaks kindle green like a low fire--see!"

Thunder, oppressive twilight, colourless atmosphere, dark, lustrous gray, oaks kindling “green like a low fire”; although it is sunset; all key words that anticipate something ominous to come, foreshadowing, seems to sets up the atmosphere from the beginning.

Another thing that stands out is the words to describe Kate’s manor towards Severn, she replied“on an even footing.”

"Yes," said Kate, rather awkwardly.
"A troublesome sort of evening; must be, because it's your last with us."
"Yes," said the girl, flushing and hardening.
There was another pause; then:
"Sorry you're going?" he asked, with a faint tang of irony.
"In some ways," she replied, rather haughtily.
He laughed, as if he understood what was not said, then, with an "Ah well!" he passed along the hall.

The maid stood for a few moments clenching her young fists, clenching her very breast in revolt. Then she closed the door.

In this short discussion concerning her leaving, I do get the impression Severn is sorry to see her go; because first, he links the event with the coming thunderstorm/gloom of this evening, when he used the word 'troublesome'. Little does he know at this point how truly 'troublesome 'this evening will prove to be. I think the ‘faint tang of irony’ in his voice, when he asks her “Sorry you’re going?” seems to suggest he knows that she was not treated that nicely at the house or is there something I am not detecting. Antiquarian, would you call that subtext? What do you think of the line? Right after that it does say that “He laughed, as if he understood what was not said”….

We can discuss all this; please feel free to give any additional impressions/observations on this much of the text; I certainly don't know all. This part is a good beginning to the story and presents two of the characters to us; one, the main character and the other, a minor character, who does fit into the scheme of the story; remember who's trunk needs to be moved and who breaks up the fight? It also sets a mood, I think.
After this, we can go onto the part with the child and Severn in the garden. I liked that scene.

I think I will read quickly through the story again tonight; although I am reading another short Lawrence work; a novella and wanted to try and finish that soon; I guess I can put that on-hold one night, although I an captivated at this point.

How in the word did it get so late? I am so tired out.:eek:

Dark Muse

06-06-2008, 01:30 AM

The last statement is interesting; seems to set up the idea that he is not as the youth of the day, ‘traditionally aggressive’. Ironic that the story begins with that statement, since later he does indeed become very aggressive, when provoked/attacked.

I think that statement is meant to set up the fact that his fight with the landlord was out of character for Severn. Not something we should expect from him, or the kind of thing he has done before, but unique to the occasion.

Thunder, oppressive twilight, colourless atmosphere, dark, lustrous gray, oaks kindling “green like a low fire”; although it is sunset; all key words that anticipate something ominous to come, foreshadowing, seems to sets up the atmosphere from the beginning.

I loved the way the thunder was descirbed in this story because I love storms. I felt the pressence of the storm, as well as the way they speak of it:

"It is going to thunder, Kate," he said.
"Yes, I think it is," she replied, on an even footing.
The young man stood a moment looking at the trees across the road, and on the oppressive twilight.
"Look," he said, "there's not a trace of colour in the atmosphere, though it's sunset; all a dark, lustrous grey; and those oaks kindle green like a low fire--see!"
"Yes," said Kate, rather awkwardly.
"A troublesome sort of evening; must be, because it's your last with us."

Are indeed foreshadow, and a reflection upon what is to come. It is almost as if they already sense something is in the air, and this this night will not be like others.

I thought the words "A troublesome sort of evening; must be, because it's your last with us"

Were interesting, almost as if somehow her leaving is releated to the encounter with the landlord later, and it did start over the moving of her trunk. Not that was the reason why it happend, but how it came to happen.

In this short discussion concerning her leaving, I do get the impression Severn is sorry to see her go; because first, he links the event with the coming thunderstorm/gloom of this evening, when he used the word 'troublesome'. Little does he know at this point how truly 'troublesome 'this evening will prove to be. I think the ‘faint tang of irony’ in his voice, when he asks her “Sorry you’re going?” seems to suggest he knows that she was not treated that nicely at the house or is there something I am not detecting. Antiquarian, would you call that subtext? What do you think of the line? Right after that it does say that “He laughed, as if he understood what was not said”…

Yes I agree that he was sad to see her leave, and did not agree with the way she was being treated, or the reasons she is being asked to leave.

Janine

06-06-2008, 03:41 PM

I think that statement is meant to set up the fact that his fight with the landlord was out of character for Severn. Not something we should expect from him, or the kind of thing he has done before, but unique to the occasion.

Dark Muse, I will answer your post first and then go onto Antiquarian's. I saw yours here last night, DM, but was too tired to post; it was quite late.

I agree with your statement above. The fight later does seem out of character with this impression we are first given. I believe thought that Lawrence felt that anyone was capable of a violent act if they were provoked or abused enough; I don't know if you were here when we read "The Pussian Officer". This was the case in the story. There are some slight similarities here. I am sure that Virgil will bring up that idea later; he liked that story and there is a similar scene in it, but much more tragic.

I loved the way the thunder was descirbed in this story because I love storms. I felt the pressence of the storm, as well as the way they speak of it:

I did, too. I like thunderstorms but not when they is really heavy thunder and lightening; not since last year when a surge went through to my computer and it nearly whipped out my HD. Now I have to unplug too often to like it. However, a thunderstorm does set up the right kind of tension in this story from the start and I don't recall any other stories with thunderstorms do you, unless there was on in "The Man Who Loved Islands". I know there were storms and then a snowstorm but not sure of a thunderstorm. The flashing of light later on with the lightening makes this story interesting and even more tension filled.

Are indeed foreshadow, and a reflection upon what is to come. It is almost as if they already sense something is in the air, and this this night will not be like others.

Exactly!

I thought the words "A troublesome sort of evening; must be, because it's your last with us" were interesting, almost as if somehow her leaving is releated to the encounter with the landlord later, and it did start over the moving of her trunk. Not that was the reason why it happend, but how it came to happen.

Could be; at anyrate the word is a good form of foreshadowing. I think also Severn at that point is saying her leaving is troublesome, at least to some, probably not to Mrs. Thomas. Maybe she is the only one wanting her expelled from the house. Doesn't Severn later on say it is a shame she has to leave. I think he does but don't have time not to look up specific statements; we will get to that part eventually anyway. I failed to read the story last night - got too late after my movie....sorry.

Yes I agree that he was sad to see her leave, and did not agree with the way she was being treated, or the reasons she is being asked to leave.

I took it that way. I felt he portrayed a feeling of futility, even helplessness in her being asked to leave. He really had no say in the matter, and that may have made him feel badly.

Dark Muse

06-06-2008, 03:56 PM

[ Doesn't Severn later on say it is a shame she has to leave. I think he does but don't have time not to look up specific statements; we will get to that part eventually anyway. I failed to read the story last night - got too late after my movie....sorry

First he is kind of mocking Kate with Mrs. Thomas, but than later when he is moving the trunk with Mr. Thomas, he thinks to himself:

"Poor Kate" Severn thought. "It's a shame to kicke her out into the world, and all for nothing." He felt an impulse of hate towards womankind.

Janine

06-06-2008, 04:06 PM

Yes, I do call that subtext. I'm not sure if Kate was sad or happy to be going. We don't really know where she's going, but we do know it was not her choice to go. I think Severn thinks it's unfair that she's being sent away.

Antiquarian,I think she seemed resigned in her manor, but angry about it. I don't think she clenched her fists at Severn's question, but at the entire affair, that she has been told to leave. She can see that he is in no position to stick up for her either, how could he? He is only a tenent. I think that she feels double frustrated, that she is alone in all this; she has no defense for them keeping her on, so that has to be frustrating and causing her inner anger, which she subtly expresses and yet keeps contained. God knows where she is headed. I feel greatly for this young girl. I think Lawrence, through the narrator and Severn, does also. He is writing in sympathy for her lower class statis; he would know about his having been born the son of a collier. The Thomas' seem to think they are 'important' having a tenent and a maid and the husband working in public office. I think Severn would feel more aligned to Kate, than to the Thomas', even though he sees they are not happily married people and he has some attraction to Mrs. Thomas.

I don't particularly like storms myself, not unless they get themselves over quickly, but I like the way the thunderstorm foreshadows the wild events still to come that evening. I think the atmosphere of the storm is the perfect setting.

It does foreshadow it well; I addressed this in DM's post. It does seem the "perfect setting" for this particular story.

I found this to be a piece for foreshadowing, too:

"When in repose, he had the diffident, ironic bearing so remarkable in the educated youth of today, the very reverse of that traditional aggressiveness of youth."

We know he's going to become quite aggressive later. Well, maybe not aggressive, I don't think he started the fight, but he was certainly involved and he certainly held his own.

Antiquarian, I think we think somewhat alike. This is from my earier post:
Quote by Janine

The last statement is interesting; seems to set up the idea that he is not as the youth of the day, ‘traditionally aggressive’. Ironic that the story begins with that statement, since later he does indeed become very aggressive, when provoked/attacked.

Quote by Antiquarian

I also found it interesting that Severn said, "...there's not a trace of color in the atmosphere."

One would think, with a storm brewing, it would be dark, but I suppose that's what Lawrence means, that the sunset is not at all colorful.[/QUOTE]

I think that is what he is saying. He is aluding to the fact that normally they would be enjoying a lovely colorful sunset but not this night - the night that seems to be ominious in many ways, first with Kate departing; he is really unaware at this moment of what will follow and develop this night. So I think basically he is saying her leaving is a colorless affair, sad.

I'm not sure if Severn is sorry to see Kate go or not. He's ironic in tone and Kate clenches her fists at his remark. She didn't seem to like it. I didn't get the impression that Severn wanted her to go, but I sort of got the impression that he didn't care that much and that Kate resented the whole thing, as would be natural for her to do.

If you read the whole text together - the conversation - I think you can see that line differently. At least, I see it as a question to Kate and it all depends on how he would say it, I suppose; the tone. I did feel he mean 'ironic' to the fact she was being tossed out of the household, outside of her own wishes, but also it could mean that she was not that liked and therefore she might not be that sorry to move on; all except the fact it is stated she has nowhere to go from here. She is 'between a rock and a hard place', as they say. She can't win either way - if she stayed she might not be too happy and resented, if she goes her future is unsure. It reminds me of Maddy in Ethan Frome; ever read the book? She is told to leave after aiding the sick wife and she has no where to go. If she stays she is abused verbally, is she goes she is destitude.

"Yes," said Kate, rather awkwardly.
"A troublesome sort of evening; must be, because it's your last with us."
"Yes," said the girl, flushing and hardening.
There was another pause; then:
"Sorry you're going?" he asked, with a faint tang of irony.
"In some ways," she replied, rather haughtily.
He laughed, as if he understood what was not said, then, with an "Ah well!" he passed along the hall.

Kate clenches her fists and holds her breast tight because she is angry about the whole affair of being expelled not of Severn's remarks. I felt she liked Severn.