D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I think Winifred is all about control over men. To me, she wanted to be seen as a temptress, but she didn't want to fulfill the tempted. LOL I see her as one of those women who want to be very attractive to men, to be able to lure any man she wants to her, but then not give in. For Winifred, the thrill is in the hunt, not the capture. That's partly why I don't think she's the marrying type, Virgil. Once she catches a man, the thrill is gone for her and she has to move on to someone new.

I've seen actual women like this. They want the "thrill" of luring a man away from his wife or girlfriend, but when they do, they don't want the man. They discard him and move on to their next prey. Maybe Winifred didn't even want Coutts after she saw she could, indeed have him for the taking. He wisely doesn't stick around long enough to find out.

---

Antiquarian, I might assume this to be true and Winifred to be this type or woman, if they had not previously had a relationship together. I don't think either, Winifred or Coutts, know exactly why they parted to begin with, but it may have been because Winifred would not accept Coutts in a fully sexual way that he desired and a struggle ensued between them; this I would easily imagine to be the case. This does not mean she is not about controling him. But who is to say, what might have happened, if they had come together sexually, when they were together the first time? Yes, now I see that Winifred is luring him on and playing this game with Coutts, but did she always do this? Afterall, she now wants him back or thinks she does. She still does have feelings for him, I believe. I don't think Winifred can be 'type-cast' in the role you described above. She is not a shallow seeming woman - she plays beautifully and deeply feels a passion on her violin and she does have her good points. I think that, in this story, she is seen as the witch that Coutts is percieving her as, because she is charming him, loring him onward to his temptation of cheating on Connie. He wants to break with her at the end but does she truly wish it? I don't think that she does. Even though I feel she is leading him on, I do feel she has some lingering feelings for the man and is not just out to get him away from Connie or anyone for that matter. I honestly think she is picking up signals from Coutts all the time about how restless and unsure he is about his engagement. I think she sees this as an 'in' to lore him back to her. Remember that they were once a couple and most likely very close, just not sexually intimate apparently. Even Laura, in the beginning of the story when talking with Coutts, passes the remark that she does not understand the two of them, or why they parted ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I think Winifred is all about control over men. To me, she wanted to be seen as a temptress, but she didn't want to fulfill the tempted. LOL I see her as one of those women who want to be very attractive to men, to be able to lure any man she wants to her, but then not give in. For Winifred, the thrill is in the hunt, not the capture. That's partly why I don't think she's the marrying type, Virgil. Once she catches a man, the thrill is gone for her and she has to move on to someone new.

I've seen actual women like this. They want the "thrill" of luring a man away from his wife or girlfriend, but when they do, they don't want the man. They discard him and move on to their next prey. Maybe Winifred didn't even want Coutts after she saw she could, indeed have him for the taking. He wisely doesn't stick around long enough to find out.

---

I would agree with this. Coutts does say to Winni:

Quote:

---

You know you only like a wild-goose chase

---

and Winnise says:

Quote:

---

I do

---

To me this suggests, somethign that is unattainable, and something that would be the oppoiste of something constant and steady like marriage. For once you are married it is no longer a goose chase

But we have the feeling from the wording in the begining of the story that Coutts and Winnie have not seen each other in a while, but it is suddnely when he is engaged she seems to take interest in him once more. Coutts is her wild-goose chase.

For as soon as she snares him, and she manages to wrap him around her finger, is when she than wants to draw back from him, and decide she really does not want to go any further with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I would agree with this. Coutts does say to Winni:
"You know you only like a wild-goose chase"

and Winnise says: "I do"

---

Dark Muse, I knew you would promptly be back with your rebutal. Sometimes, I think we are waging a debate thread here. Anyway, it does keep things interesting. You are making me laugh though - who is Winnise? ;) :lol: I think that might be like Virgil's 'ooked', which I kidded him about unmercilessly. Now I am attacking you, but it is all 'just in fun', I hope you know that, DM.

Anyway, that is true. He says she only "likes a wild-goose chase" and that is Coutts perception but she does affirm it with her "I do". How sincere are they actually? I think both of them are hiding a lot beneath their exterior selves. I guess from prior readings of Lawrence work and thinking back to "Sons and Lovers" I feel one cannot fully know the complexity in the characters. This is one thing that always intrigues me about Lawrence. His characters are never black and white. Therefore, I admit I am affected by this fact, and prior knowledge, of how Lawrence treats relationships in his works; therefore it is hard for me to see it in a simplistic light. I can't just say that she is this or that type woman. I think she is complex, as complex as Coutts is and therefore she is difficult to explain away with a few phrases. I feel she is definitely a confused woman and he is a confused young man. I actually like the open-endedness of the the conclusion of the story because he keeps one wondering 'what if' or 'what will happen now'.

Quote:

---

To me this suggests, somethign that is unattainable, and something that would be the oppoiste of something constant and steady like marriage. For once you are married it is no longer a goose chase

---

This is true and often woman and men, I would imagine go for the object of their affections because they are safe being unattainable. It also seems to be a great aphrodisiac to drive people on in a passionate sense. The 'unattainable' is always a challenge. I don't know about the last line of yours. We read another short story, in which the woman did lead the man on a sort of 'goose-chase' and she was very much married to him "The White Stocking". I don't think that legally being married necessarily means one is totally secure either. The woman or the man in a marriage can still play these games of attraction/rejection with the married partner; they can still exert their wills over each other. Lawrence's own parents had a sort of test of wills all the time.

Quote:

---

But we have the feeling from the wording in the begining of the story that Coutts and Winnie have not seen each other in a while, but it is suddnely when he is engaged she seems to take interest in him once more. Coutts is her wild-goose chase.

---

True but do we know how long they were actually together as a couple? I don't know if it is 'suddenly' - he is the one who showed up at her door and piqued her interest again. Maybe his mere presense encouraged her to initiate this flirting game and the whole 'goose chase' begins all over again, between them. No doubt, they have played this game before, if he mentions this to her, the fact that she only "likes a wild-goose chase".

Quote:

---

For as soon as she snares him, and she manages to wrap him around her finger, is when she than wants to draw back from him, and decide she really does not want to go any further with him.

---

I know what you mean but I don't quite see it that way; I think she recoils for the same reason, she has in the past most likely. She simply gets to this point and cannot go further with him. Should she? It is true that this time she lead him on and she may have wanted to exert her own power over him at this point; he knows she has done as she did in the past, stop his advances any further towards intimacy. The way she was coming onto him, he probably thought 'this time may be different, she really desires me, she will give into me'. I think it is difficult to say just what went through Winifred's mind, as she recoiled from him. I think she wants more of him, than mere sex, even though she pulls away from his physical advances. Those might only lead to sex and to no more; so she removes herself from his advances. It might be different, if he said he really felt something for her, such as love, or was honest and said he doubted his engagement and truly wanted to be with Winifred. The outcome might lead them back to each other; but I would surmise that would be bad for both of them in the long-run. I don't think she would lose interest, but I think this test of wills would continue in a relationship and that would be the fatal factor. I still stand by the idea that neither woman is right for Coutts. They both would smother him in different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Dark Muse, I knew you would promptly back with your rebutal. Sometimes I think we are waging a debate thread here. Anyway, it does keep things interesting. You are making me laugh though - who is Winnise? ;) :lol: I think that might be like Virgil's 'ooked' which I kidded him about unmercilessly. Now I am attacking you, but it is all 'just in fun', I hope you know that, DM

---

LOL I have that affect, anywhere I go turns into a debate, I know I am just so awfully disagreable :D

Hehe, I know, usually after I type my posts I copy them into an e-mail just to use the spell check there, than paste the corrected version back here, but somtimes I just get lazy

and I can be terribile at acutally proof-reading

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

LOL I have that affect, anywhere I go turns into a debate, I know I am just so awfully disagreable :D

---

;) I kind of though so; see I never took it personally anyway...just figured it was your norm....:lol:

Quote:

---

Hehe, I know, usually after I type my posts I copy them into an e-mail just to use the spell check there, than paste the corrected version back here, but somtimes I just get lazy

---

Doesn't your Microsoft Word program correct type for you? I just type and sometimes it even capitalized words - really freaky! If the word is spelled wrong or suspect, it gets a wiggly underlining, and then you can pull up a menu by placing the cursor over the line; then you see words they suggest. I can't spell well at all; I often look things up in a pocket dictionary, I have by the computer. I really want one of those spelling calculators, but then I decided I wanted a dictionary one instead, and they are more money, so I put off buying one. My pocket dictionary is so worn now the cover recently fell off and a few pages as well...it is a wreck from over-use. I hate looking up words but I do many times.

Quote:

---

and I can be terribile at acutally proof-reading

---

Yes, I guess you do fail to proof-read - you even spelled 'actually' wrong - it is backwards. You may be dyslexic; I think I am also, at times - may brain reverses things automatically - it is so weird when it does that. My son also has it, but he compensates now.

Yes I am a bit dyslexic also sometimes I think my brain thinks faster than my fingers.

my problem is, I usually just type my posts directly into here, I do not type them on word first and than copy and paste. So when I think of it, I will type my post in the forum and than before sending it, copy and past into my e-mail just to spell check, and than past the corrected version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Yes I am a bit dyslexic also sometimes I think my brain thinks faster than my fingers.

---

Yes, I think I am a bit, also, and when I am really tired I get even worse. Oh, I do that sometimes, too - although I am not what you would call a fast typist.

Quote:

---

my problem is, I usually just type my posts directly into here, I do not type them on word first and than copy and paste. So when I think of it, I will type my post in the forum and than before sending it, copy and past into my e-mail just to spell check, and than past the corrected version.

---

Many of my posts I type directly in here, but I preview them first and proof-read them, also - we really need spell check; someone asked Logos about it not long ago. Was it in this thread or another? Anyway, I would think it harder to copy out into email, than into your offline Word program; first make a short cut to your desktop. You can minimize that, to the bottom of the screen and pull up the page at will and not shut this page down. Try it sometime and see if it is any easier or faster. I like the way it underlines the 'suspect' words and it does the capitalizing automatically. If you ever notice with my posts, I am always editing them; I am kind of a 'chronic editor', I guess.;) :lol:

Well if I place it in an e-mail I do not have to put it into Word, becasue my e-mail has is own autamatic spell check that works just like word, so I just paste the post in e-mail, and than from the email spell check it and post it in here. So I do not acutally send the e-mail I just post it in as if I were writing an e-mail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I think Winifred is all about control over men. To me, she wanted to be seen as a temptress, but she didn't want to fulfill the tempted. LOL I see her as one of those women who want to be very attractive to men, to be able to lure any man she wants to her, but then not give in. For Winifred, the thrill is in the hunt, not the capture. That's partly why I don't think she's the marrying type, Virgil. Once she catches a man, the thrill is gone for her and she has to move on to someone new.

I've seen actual women like this. They want the "thrill" of luring a man away from his wife or girlfriend, but when they do, they don't want the man. They discard him and move on to their next prey. Maybe Winifred didn't even want Coutts after she saw she could, indeed have him for the taking. He wisely doesn't stick around long enough to find out.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I would agree with this. Coutts does say to Winni:



and Winnise says:



To me this suggests, somethign that is unattainable, and something that would be the oppoiste of something constant and steady like marriage. For once you are married it is no longer a goose chase

But we have the feeling from the wording in the begining of the story that Coutts and Winnie have not seen each other in a while, but it is suddnely when he is engaged she seems to take interest in him once more. Coutts is her wild-goose chase.

For as soon as she snares him, and she manages to wrap him around her finger, is when she than wants to draw back from him, and decide she really does not want to go any further with him.

---

Perhaps you two are right. I did refer to Wini as Artemis, the goddess of hunt. She was a virginal goddess. She didn't lure men but men were lured to her. Perhaps this is what Lawrence meant by "a la mode." This is the woman of the new times, not the virginal Mary (Connie) but the virginal huntress (Wini). It's probably a good time to re-read the entire story through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Perhaps you two are right. I did refer to Wini as Artemis, the goddess of hunt. She was a virginal goddess. She didn't lure men but men were lured to her. Perhaps this is what Lawrence meant by "a la mode." This is the woman of the new times, not the virginal Mary (Connie) but the virginal huntress (Wini). It's probably a good time to re-read the entire story through.

---

Read it through again? I read it now about 3 times. How did you get the goddess Artemis from the symbolism? Is Artemis the same as the god Diana? I know she was considered the goddess of the hunt. I have a bisque statue of her.

Hey, Virgil, how was the show at the Lincoln Center? It looked to be fabulous when I checked out the links you posted.

I am having trouble on this site again; my post are going through super-slowly. Anyone else with that complaint?

Yes Artemis is the same as Diana. She was also the twin of Apollo who was brought up at some point in this thread, so that is where the Artemis connection could come in. And though she was not a moon goddess persae, she was connected to the moon, and moon symbolism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Read it through again? I read it now about 3 times. How did you get the goddess Artemis from the symbolism? Is Artemis the same as the god Diana? I know she was considered the goddess of the hunt. I have a bisque statue of her.

---

Yes. Dark Muse answered it well above.

Quote:

---

Hey, Virgil, how was the show at the Lincoln Center? It looked to be fabulous when I checked out the links you posted.

---

It was good, though not overwelming. Whoever played Lancelot (Nathan Gunn) was excellent. Gabriel Byrne never sold me as King Arthur. He didn't have much of a singing voice. The rest were adequate.

Quote:

---

I am having trouble on this site again; my post are going through super-slowly. Anyone else with that complaint?

---

It's ok now in the morning. A little slow but not that slow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Now, of course, that could very well mean that it was the first kiss she had given in a genuine manner. But I don't think Winifred and Coutts were ever lovers. Another place says a kiss is all she ever wanted. And then there's the part about her only liking a wild goose chase. I still see her as a temptress, with no desire for a relationship or marriage.

---

Yes, personally I tend to agree with this.

Quote:

---

The site is working very, very slowly for me.

---

I thought so; I have never seen it this slow; I was thinking it was my computer again because it was slow yesterday on Amazon as well, but not as badly as on here. Maybe systems are all jammed up this weekend.

Quote:

---

One of the reasons I think Winifred is just a temptress and that their previous relationship had not been sexual is this:

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.

Now, of course, that could very well mean that it was the first kiss she had given in a genuine manner. But I don't think Winifred and Coutts were ever lovers. Another place says a kiss is all she ever wanted. And then there's the part about her only liking a wild goose chase. I still see her as a temptress, with no desire for a relationship or marriage.

---

I agree with you on this point, Antiquarian. I recalled it saying that about the 'first genuine kiss'. I guess what is playing into this for me, is Lawrence's characters in other novels, such as "Sons and Lovers" and even "Women in Love' - especially WIL for some reason. Maybe, because I finished listening to the audiofile of that novel the other night and I could see how intricate the relationship was between two people, who also had a love/hate thing going on. They too, don't openingly confront each other, but tend to skirt around the issues, or talk in a sort of code, and there is a definite power-play between them.
Perhaps it is that Winifred will not allow herself to truly love, yet she does pull Coutts to her, and then at the vital moment, rejects him. For Coutts, this is a very frustrating game, especially when she plants that passionate and genuine kiss upon his mouth. This to me would indicate that prior in their relationship, he may have been the one always initiating the kissing and now she goes to him with that kiss. She gives a little of herself to him in the kiss, and he thinks it is a signal that she wants more. I think that underneath it all, Winifred likes power more than she does love. This is not to say she would not wish for love, but she cannot make the step into the realm of love; she cannot give up herself to a man, at least not to Coutts. If she could with Coutts, who is to say what might happen, but she probably would have to give up her 'will' entirely to him, the man. She is not willing to do this. Something within her will not alow it. She therefore, does tempt him up until that crucial moment of the kiss and then withdraws from him.
I don't think now, that they ever were sexual lovers (in the past); I can say that I know Lawrence was not big on mouth kissing, this might be due to his having TB; so easily he could have had sex with her without mouth kissing or her giving back to him totally; but in this case I now don't believe they were that intimate. In "Sons and Lovers" Jessie is the same; never truly giving back to Paul, and yet there is no doubt in my mind she loved him intensely. This is why I can't rule out the notion of love altogether with Winifred. I don't know what exactly is going on in her head or how she feels about Coutts. She may be covering up a lot with her language of symbols and her 'candles in the fog'. People do cover up their true feelings. She may have missed him terribly over the months of separation and she may have been torn appart about his proposal. She certainly tries for an instant to get him back with that genuine kiss at that key moment. She has been working hard, throughout the walk home, to lure him back to her. I think that although they were not sexual lovers, they were lovers of sorts. They probably felt passion in the past, but stopped at the moment it would go too far. I imagine that Winifred wants that feeling back badly. I don't know if that is just infatuation or love on her part. It is hard for me to fathom she did not love him in a certain way or certain degree. One could say all her nonscense and code language got in the way of true intimacy between them. As he said earlier, he preferred his 'candles blown out'. Apparently, Winifred has played these mind games with Coutts for a long time. She loves the 'drawing him near and pushing him away' game...she gives him just enough line to allow him to approach her again and again. This time the line is broken (the spell she casts) when the fire burns it completely out, breaking the spell she has so intricately woven about Coutts.

I will post more text tomorrow - taking off (my duties in this thread) today for Mother's Day! :lol:



Virgil, I read that about Gabriel Bryne on the site you provided; I read he could not sing and was not in time with the orchestra; I wouldn't have thought he would fit the role anyway. The role of Arthur apparently never did call for a great singer, but still he should have stayed in time with the music. I don't think he is used to singing in stage roles. That is ashame. I read that the actor playing Lancelot was amazing, his voice. He is an opera singer, I believe. Now the woman who played Guenevere did not look the part to me, but who knows. Sorry that it was not that spectacular. Oh well, it is a night out on the town, right? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, I read that about Gabriel Bryne on the site you provided; I read he could not sing and was not in time with the orchestra; I wouldn't have thought he would fit the role anyway. The role of Arthur apparently never did call for a great singer, but still he should have stayed in time with the music. I don't think he is used to singing in stage roles. That is ashame. I read that the actor playing Lancelot was amazing, his voice. He is an opera singer, I believe. Now the woman who played Guenevere did not look the part to me, but who knows. Sorry that it was not that spectacular. Oh well, it is a night out on the town, right? :D

---

Yes, night on the town. ;) I always enjoy that. Got to eat at a Mexican restaurant, which for some reason we don't have on Staten Island. Had a big margarita. :D :D And then we stopped at this Barnes and Noble that is a block or so away from the Philharmonic. It's got four floors of books. Actually I stopped at the magazine section, something I hardly ever do, and they had a huge collection of literary magazines. I hadn't even heard of many of them. I didn't buy any but it was cool to go flip through them. At least I know where to go to explore magazines for literary submissions, if I ever get so bold.

As to the story, are we up to the section where they go inside Wini's apartment?