D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Printable View

04-26-2008, 03:59 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

And well it did get to be a but annoying and redundant with all the laughing. After every single line of dialogue just about, someone laughed. It seemed a bit poor writing for Lawrence in that regard.

Was there really that much laughing? Only the beginning has laughter, and it's just a couple of giggly characters doing it all. What was funny is that when I first read your post I thought you meant that Lawrence was writing out every "ha." That would be extremely irritating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

And, to be different, and so not to disappoint :D I really did not like the man in this story.

Mr. Coutts was just so irritatingly full of himself.

Though I must say, Laura did annoy me a bit, even though she only played a brief role at the beginning of the story

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I can't say there was anything specifically dislikable about her, DM, but I didn't find anything particularly likable, either. I guess I felt rather neutral about all the characters, even Laura. I felt sorry for Connie, though, even though she did not appear in the story. At least not directly, only by reference.

As for the characters, I agree with Antiquarian. I'm neutral toward them. Obviously, they have their flaws, but they pay for them themselves. Coutts is too fickle-minded and weak-willed to be really likable, but I empathize with his problems--so it evens out. I wouldn't call him selfish. The story is absorbed in his problems and relationships, therefore I don't fault him for also being absorbed in them. If you considered him as separate from the story, then you might see him as more selfish.

The only character that I'm not neutral about is Laura who, as Dark Muse aptly labels her, is annoying. Her reserve and politeness is almost grating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I would have to direly disagree with Dark Muse, that this is a poorly written work. I think a lot of critics would just cringe, if they heard that. This story was one of Lawrence's most popular and acclaimed ones, I believe

I myself found the story enjoyable. Winnifred and Coutts' encounter on the dark hill was one of the best parts I've read in these short stories. The setting was perfect for Winnifred's attempted seduction; the dialogue was witty; the scene had such tension, too.
04-26-2008, 04:23 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Was there really that much laughing? Only the beginning has laughter, and it's just a couple of giggly characters doing it all. What was funny is that when I first read your post I thought you meant that Lawrence was writing out every "ha." That would be extremely irritating.

Hehe it felt like a lot to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

As for the characters, I agree with Antiquarian. I'm neutral toward them. Obviously, they have their flaws, but they pay for them themselves. Coutts is too fickle-minded and weak-willed to be really likable, but I empathize with his problems--so it evens out. I wouldn't call him selfish. The story is absorbed in his problems and relationships, therefore I don't fault him for also being absorbed in them. If you considered him as separate from the story, then you might see him as more selfish.

He just really rubbed me the wrong way. And there was this one passage in which I just found him really completely obnoxious, and it made me just roll my eyes at him, but I do not want to give it away now, becasue it comes later in the story, and I have a few other things I want to say about it.

I really could not emphazise with his problems. Though we never acutally meet his fiancee, he seems to be completely inconsiderate of her and he does not really care even when he knows he might be causing her pain, he does it anyway and tries to justify it to himself.
04-26-2008, 04:33 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Hehe it felt like a lot to me.

Well you gave me the idea that it was like one of those irritating laugh tracks on bad sitcoms. I didn't find it anywhere near so annoying. The laughs were used only to indicate how uncomfortable Laura is, and I thought they were well-placed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I really could not emphazise with his problems. Though we never acutally meet his fiancee, he seems to be completely inconsiderate of her and he does not really care even when he knows he might be causing her pain, he does it anyway and tries to justify it to himself.

But his wife is such a bore and the life he leads with her is artificial and disingenuous.
04-26-2008, 04:36 PM
Dark Muse

But that is not her fault, the only thing we know of her is what he tells us, and so he is a bit biased on the subject, particuarly sense he is trying to justify himself for his actions.

He should have thought of that before getting engaged, but he has made his choice. So he needs to the right thing and either be faithful to her, or tell her that he made a mistake and they cannot get married. Not go behind her back.
04-26-2008, 04:41 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

But that is not her fault, the only thing we know of her is what he tells us, and so he is a bit biased on the subject, particuarly sense he is trying to justify himself for his actions.

Everything is told from his perspective; however, unlike Chekhov's "About Love", there isn't any irony that makes you doubt his story. And, all he tells us about the relationship is how it makes him feel. It's hard to see how he could be biased about his own subjective state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

He should have thought of that before getting engaged, but he has made his choice. So he needs to the right thing and either be faithful to her, or tell her that he made a mistake and they cannot get married. Not go behind her back.

It's not so black and white as that. Some part of him does want to play the chivalrous husband, but other parts of him are not satisfied in this arrangement. Both marriage and non-marriage are poor choices for him.
04-26-2008, 04:44 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Was there really that much laughing? Only the beginning has laughter, and it's just a couple of giggly characters doing it all. What was funny is that when I first read your post I thought you meant that Lawrence was writing out every "ha." That would be extremely irritating.

Quark, good to see you here with some preliminary comments. I am glad you liked the story. I liked it very much too and liking it more and more all the time now. I read some very enlightening commentary which gave me fresh ideas on the symbolism and the story's meanings and also the relationship to Lawrence's life at the time. I hope you read my earlier post that explains that Coutts did indeed represent the 'confused' Lawrence at the time this was written, and Winifred represents Helen, who Lawrence had a passionate affair with. Ok, now Connie would probably represent Lawrence real life finance for a time, Louie Burrows. She was very pretty and a proper type girl. That would fit the profile.
Personally, I don't remember any giggling or laughing in the story at all. I will have to go back and read that part. Was it before the little music recital? I did not feel there was excessive laughter in this story throughout. When Dark Muse wrote that I was not sure what she was referring to and meant to re-check the text. I will today and probably re-read the story tonight.
:lol: At least Lawrence did not use these - :lol:

Quote:

As for the characters, I agree with Antiquarian. I'm neutral toward them. Obviously, they have their flaws, but they pay for them themselves. Coutts is too fickle-minded and weak-willed to be really likable, but I empathize with his problems--so it evens out. I wouldn't call him selfish. The story is absorbed in his problems and relationships, therefore I don't fault him for also being absorbed in them. If you considered him as separate from the story, then you might see him as more selfish.

You know, I don't recall being neutral to any of Lawrence's characters - isn't it funny that you all feel that way and I feel more strongly about them? I empathise with Coutts because, I think he is going through a transitional and confusing time in a young man's life. I don't think I liked Winifred that much, but I certainly did not dislike her either. I was just trying to understand the interaction between them, which in my book states they are talking to each other in a sort of symbolic, or code type of manner. This is partly, where the 'witchcraft' idea begins, to come into play in the story. Coutts feels drawn back to Winifred, and therefore sees her, as putting him back under her 'spell' of control and sucking the life-blood from him. She is not a 'giver of life' but a 'taker of life', as Coutts sees her.
In some of the lines, it states that they are right back in the 'love/hate' cycle of relating to each other, as before. It does not take long for this to happen, because truly, this relationship would be a destructive one for Coutts; Winifred as well, no doubt.

Quote:

The only character that I'm not neutral about is Laura who, as Dark Muse aptly labels her, is annoying. Her reserve and politeness is almost grating.

Humm, but isn't Laura a secondary character? Why such strong feelings about her? I hardly thought about her actually. I did find her questioning a little annoying at times.

Quote:

I myself found the story enjoyable. Winnifred and Coutts' encounter on the dark hill was one of the best parts I've read in these short stories. The setting was perfect for Winnifred's attempted seduction; the dialogue was witty; the scene had such tension, too.

I agree entirely. I think it is a good story and well structured with lots of interesting symbolism, that hopefully we will understand by the end of this discussion. We have plenty of time.
Later I will try and post some beginning passages, underlining some key words and phrase, to discuss. Several images stand out in the scene you mention on the hill, Quark. I though the image of the train winding through the dark night - the 'golden-and-black snake' just incredible. Often Lawrence uses snake images and golden. The crystal ball and mirror, the new moon, the evening star, red anemones, fire and a circle of fire, etc. are all images worthy of exploring for their full meaning to the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

But that is not her fault, the only thing we know of her is what he tells us, and so he is a bit biased on the subject, particuarly sense he is trying to justify himself for his actions.

He should have thought of that before getting engaged, but he has made his choice. So he needs to the right thing and either be faithful to her, or tell her that he made a mistake and they cannot get married. Not go behind her back.

;) :lol: Miss Puritanical...DM, I did not take you as being that conservative in your thinking. Did you ever hear of temptation? I think this story is about being tempted to reach back into the past before, he (Coutts/Lawrence) does tie the knot with his finance, which is a very serious and permanent thing. He is not taking marriage lightly at all. It says he feels guilty about his encounter several times in the text. By the way, they are not yet married, Quark. The man is basically still 'free' and has some 'free-will' of his own, you know. Engagements are broken all the time. Maybe he needed to be sure, that he was marrying the right girl. Personally, I don't think he is and in the end the engagement will be broken off entirely. This is what happened to Lawrence in real life, so if you want to hate or be repelled by Coutts, basically you are dismissing Lawrence's own feelings and the temptation to go and seek out his old girlfriend and see if anything between them has changed in the 10 month interval. In the beginning of the story it seems clear to me that Coutts is still very unsure of himself, and even still feels this attachment to Winifred, and he is unsure of his relationship with his finance - that seems to me to be on somewhat unsure and shaky ground. Why is everyone assuming that is such a set thing and he must stick to it? What happened to the idea of free will? The word was even mentioned by the old man in the very begining of the story. I don't think broken engagements, in that time period, were that uncommon, so it still would be an option for Coutts. I think the story is about following one's instinct and setting things straight, before proceeding to the big step of matrimony. Remember that Coutts is young and who do you know at that age who is totally ready for total commitment or marriage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Everything is told from his perspective; however, unlike Chekhov's "About Love", there isn't any irony that makes you doubt his story. And, all he tells us about the relationship is how it makes him feel. It's hard to see how he could be biased about his own subjective state.

I totally agree with this. His story is a honest one and straightforward, therefore I can empathise with the character of Coutts. He is confused and exploring his past to make sure he does not make a dire mistake in his future.

Quote:

It's not so black and white as that. Some part of him does want to play the chivalrous husband, but other parts of him are not satisfied in this arrangement. Both marriage and non-marriage are poor choices for him.

I agree with this also. You snuck in this post when I was working on my long posts. As I said I don't think either relationship will work out for him. He is not the chivalrous husband because he is not yet married to Connie, only engaged. He has some 'free will' at this time. And the issues are hardly black and white ones - definitely more complext than that.
04-26-2008, 05:41 PM
Virgil

I cant believe you guys are up to over five pages of discussion on this already. Is this real discussion or just chit chat? Should I go and read these five pages? I just read the story for the first time. I want to read it again before I jump in.
04-26-2008, 05:49 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I cant believe you guys are up to over five pages of discussion on this already. Is this real discussion or just chit chat? Should I go and read these five pages? I just read the story for the first time. I want to read it again before I jump in.

Virgil, glad you finally arrived; glad you read the story also. Well, the five pages of post (can't believe that really) is a mix, so it is worth going back to read some of the pages; can you? It would really be helpful, because we all seem to have some differing ideas on this story, and the characters. I did read some good commentary on it early today and will reread it tonight, about the witch and other symbolism/significance and I know you will pick up on some typical Lawrence images and just what they meant to L and this particular story. I will check in later tonight to see if you posted anything else.
04-26-2008, 06:13 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Whose wife? Coutts? He's not married.

Antiquarian, I said that, too and I pointed that out to Quark a few posts back. This is an important factor, since Coutts really does have free 'will to' go and see whomever he wants to, even an old girlfriend. He does indeed express a feeling of betraying his finance - several times in the text the word 'guilty' is used, did you notice that? But he has not tied the knot yet.
04-26-2008, 06:21 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I've come to see Coutts pulled in two directions. On the one hand, he wants a very proper life with a very proper wife like Connie. In that case, his lustful attraction to Winifred would make her a definite "taker of life." (Though, really, Coutts has to take responsibility for his own actions.)

On the other hand, I think Coutts finds a passion and intensity with Winifred that he can't share with Connie. So, in that sense, she's a "giver of life."

Coutts needs to make up his mind which is the more important to him and which he really needs in his life.

I rather liked Coutts. I was a little angry with him for letting his passion for Winifred make Connie upset, though, for his lack of self-control, but I could understand him, especially in light of the fact that Lawrence wrote this story when very, very young.

Antiquarian, that is exactly right, in my own opinion. I think the 'taker/giver of life' idea is a kind of prominent idea of 'duality' in Lawrence and his writing. Yes, definitely Coutts/Lawrence is struggling to find his own path and which road he should follow - marry a respectable girl and settle down or go with the old passionate flame of desire and physical love. I don't see that either will be right for Coutts in the end, as it was the actual case with Lawrence, in reality. Both women, in this story, are at opposite ends of the poles. He needs a woman who will encompass both and he has not found her yet, not in this story, nor his real life. Had he found her, he would not have strayed to go to pursue his old girlfriend.
04-26-2008, 06:52 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Whose wife? Coutts? He's not married.

Yes, I know. I referred to her as the wife because I forgot her name, but I figured everyone would know who I was talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Antiquarian, I said that, too and I pointed that out to Quark a few posts back. This is an important factor, since Coutts really does have free 'will to' go and see whomever he wants to, even an old girlfriend. He does indeed express a feeling of betraying his finance - several times in the text the word 'guilty' is used, did you notice that? But he has not tied the knot yet.

Coutts would have free will even after marriage. There's only a slender difference between seeing another woman when engaged and when married. Both are affairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

He needs a woman who will encompass both and he has not found her yet, not in this story, nor his real life. Had he found her, he would not have strayed to go to pursue his old girlfriend.

You're right that neither woman is really "right" for him. They each appeal to different sides of him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Still, the person I have the most sympathy for is Connie, however.

I do feel bad for Connie, and so does Coutts. Lawrence draws our attention to her through both Coutts feelings and similar situations. One situation that reminds us of Coutts' neglected wife is the scene where Miss Syfurt gets on the car.

Quote:

It was not later than ten o'clock when Winifred and Miss Syfurt rose to go, the former to Croydon, the latter to Ewell.

"We can go by car together to West Croydon," said the German lady, gleefully, as if she were a child. She was a frail, excitable little woman of forty, naïve and innocent. She gazed with bright brown eyes of admiration on Coutts.

"Yes, I am glad," he answered.

He took up Winifred's violin, and the three proceeded downhill to the tram-terminus. There a car was on the point of departure. They hurried forward. Miss Syfurt mounted the step. Coutts waited for Winifred. The conductor called:

"Come along, please, if you're going."

"No," said Winifred. "I prefer to walk this stage."

"We can walk from West Croydon," said Coutts.

The conductor rang the bell.

"Aren't you coming?" cried the frail, excitable little lady, from the footboard. "Aren't you coming?--Oh!"

"I walk from West Croydon every day; I prefer to walk here, in the quiet," said Winifred.

"Aw! aren't you coming with me?" cried the little lady, quite frightened. She stepped back, in supplication, towards the footboard. The conductor impatiently buzzed the bell. The car started forward, Miss Syfurt staggered, was caught by the conductor.

"Aw!" she cried, holding her hand out to the two who stood on the road, and breaking almost into tears of disappointment. As the tram darted forward she clutched at her hat. In a moment she was out of sight.

Coutts stood wounded to the quick by this pain given to the frail, child-like lady.

It's another situation in which Coutts promises a woman to join her, but then breaks away.
04-26-2008, 08:36 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

;) :lol: Miss Puritanical...DM, I did not take you as being that conservative in your thinking. Did you ever hear of temptation? I think this story is about being tempted to reach back into the past before, he (Coutts/Lawrence) does tie the knot with his finance, which is a very serious and permanent thing. He is not taking marriage lightly at all. It says he feels guilty about his encounter several times in the text. By the way, they are not yet married, Quark. The man is basically still 'free' and has some 'free-will' of his own, you know. Engagements are broken all the time. Maybe he needed to be sure, that he was marrying the right girl. Personally, I don't think he is and in the end the engagement will be broken off entirely. This is what happened to Lawrence in real life, so if you want to hate or be repelled by Coutts, basically you are dismissing Lawrence's own feelings and the temptation to go and seek out his old girlfriend and see if anything between them has changed in the 10 month interval. In the beginning of the story it seems clear to me that Coutts is still very unsure of himself, and even still feels this attachment to Winifred, and he is unsure of his relationship with his finance - that seems to me to be on somewhat unsure and shaky ground. Why is everyone assuming that is such a set thing and he must stick to it? What happened to the idea of free will? The word was even mentioned by the old man in the very begining of the story. I don't think broken engagements, in that time period, were that uncommon, so it still would be an option for Coutts. I think the story is about following one's instinct and setting things straight, before proceeding to the big step of matrimony. Remember that Coutts is young and who do you know at that age who is totally ready for total commitment or marriage?

What can I say, for me betrayal and infidelity is the one unforgivable sin.

And the way I see it, the engagement period is not the period of deciding if you are or are not with the right person, that is what dating is for, presumably once you propose you have decided you want to be with that person.

And I did not say his engagement had to be a binding contract. I said he should either be faithful to her, or tell her that he made a mistake and that he cannot marry her. Just not go sneaking around behind her back.

I really do not think that is unreasonable.

Quarksaid:

Quote:

Everything is told from his perspective; however, unlike Chekhov's "About Love", there isn't any irony that makes you doubt his story. And, all he tells us about the relationship is how it makes him feel. It's hard to see how he could be biased about his own subjective state

I think he is being biased in the fact that he is presenting an argument to himself in a way that will make him feel less guilty about what he is doing.

He has something to gain from making his relationship with Connie seem like a dull one, because that will make him less responsible for causing her pain if he feels his actions are justified.

I have to go now, but I will read the rest of the posts and respond when I am able.
04-26-2008, 08:59 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Yes, I did notice, Janine. He feels so guilty about causing Connie pain by not continuing on to Yorkshire that night, but then later he seems to blame Winifred for his own feelings of passion when he thinks how much he hates her.

When he said:

Quote:

"I believe she is very well--unless my delay has upset her," said Coutts, his tounge between his teeth. It hurt him to give pain to his fiancee and yet he did it willfully.

I felt this was rather callous, and not a sign of true remorse. He is saying, well I know I am causing her pain, but I am just going to keep doing it anyway.

If he was in true guilt he would have got his butt home.
04-26-2008, 09:05 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Exactly, Janine. Exactly. And as Coutts was a very young man, Lawrence, too, I've come to have sympathy for his dilemma. Still, the person I have the most sympathy for is Connie, however.

Winifred must have been Lawrence's "moon," while Connie was his, what? Sun? Flame? I'm not familiar enough with his symbolism to know.

Antiquarian, I could agree with that, but I am sketchy about deciding about Connie. We actually are not given enough information in this story about her, to determine what she is really like, nor what she and Coutt's relationship is like; therefore, I can't feel truly sorry for her; this is odd coming from me, because if I was the finance, I surely would be the first one to be outragged and hurt. I just don't think that one is totally bound, until those marriage vowels are said. I don't see the line between being engaged and being married a thin line, necessarily. It can, instead be quite a giant leap. I guess I am thinking of myself and my own life, because had I pulled back last minute and called my wedding off, I would have lived through a lot less grief than I did. I think that people can remain engaged, even if they feel inclined to break it off, because there are factors such as, disappointing people and especially breaking the heart of the spouse to be that play into making decisions of the heart. Therefore, I feel that Coutts can be forgiven for his feelings of guilt and I don't think these feelings are black and white, either. I think when he takes the iniatial steps to go see the family of Winifred he is doing so with some bit of innocense but hoping underneath he will indeed encounter her again. These feeling he has are complicated and spur of the moment he follows through with them. It might be that he feels he has not truly broken the ties he has with Winifred, and in going back, actually 'subconsiously' he knows he will break those ties once and for all. The ending is very reminincent of an 'exercising' or freeing of a spell of a witch. This idea I read in several commentaries and it make perfect sense to me now.
Antiquarian, what do you think of these last ideas?
04-26-2008, 09:10 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

You made me laugh, DM, but I'm not laughing at you or your opinion at all. It's just that the way you phrased it is funny, in a very good way. He should have ridden right by Croydon and gone to Yorkshire.

Hehe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

That's true, if people always did what was right, but they don't, and in truth, they often do feel guilty about it. Sometimes people are tempted to do the wrong thing, the thing they know they shouldn't do, and that temptation is stronger than their moral fiber. I do think Coutts showed some signs of guilt, I'll give him that. Still, the person I felt for through the entire story was Connie.

But I do not think that just becasue a person is weak, so of thier own free will they make the choice to do the wrong thing, simply becasue it is easier to do so, reguardless or what guilt they may or may not feel, should make it excusable.

When it comes done to it. He could have at any point walked away from Winni. There was nothing stopping him from doing so, than his own choice to go with her.

I do not think we should take personale responsablity away and just excuse a wrong action by saying, well they could not help what they did becaue they are human.