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
Printable View
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
Yes, but I'm more interested in the arms. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
: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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
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
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:Quote:
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.
"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."
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.”Quote:
"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."
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’.
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).”Quote:
"I do," she answered plaintively. "I miss you very much. You snatch things from the Kobolds for me."
From Wikipedia:
Dictionary Definition:Quote:
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.
Quote:
1 : a gnome that in German folklore inhabits underground places
2 : an often mischievous domestic spirit of German folklore
Michael Black says about this passage:Quote:
"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!"
"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”.
Again that strong word of ‘hate’ and the fact stated that they once again “hated each other”.Quote:
"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.
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?Quote:
"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."
That should keep you all busy for awhile!
Ah yes, she's also put a spell on me. :lol: Good point from Michael Black about three times. That is a ritual number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
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’.
So we really have a lot of allusions: chivalric, classical, and now germanic.Quote:
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).”
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.Quote:
Again that strong word of ‘hate’ and the fact stated that they once again “hated each other”.
I will have to think about it. Not sure yet how to take that. I'll have to re-read it. Be back tonight.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
No, I do not think he sees her as really a goodess, but rather on the quest for goddess hood
:lol:Yes, we know about that spell... ;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
So, Virgil, three really is a ritual number? That is nteresting.
That is for sure! You should know all about that....and why are you blushing?:lol:Quote:
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.
You mean no one knows what to make of that line ..."to the point"?
Good point, Virgil.Quote:
So we really have a lot of allusions: chivalric, classical, and now germanic.
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?Quote:
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.
Ok, will wait for you to comment further, then.Quote:
I will have to think about it. Not sure yet how to take that. I'll have to re-read it. Be back tonight.
Quote by Antiquarian
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:
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.
Quote by Dark Muse
Yes, that might be one idea. Afterall, he was sort of laughing, when he said it.Quote:
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.
Quote by Antiquarian
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.Quote:
You don't think Coutts already considers her "sort of" a goddess, the way she bewitches him and all?
: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!Quote:
No, I do not think he sees her as really a goodess, but rather on the quest for goddess hood.
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.
[QUOTE=Janine;575324That 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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
Not ready yet. I was concentrating on The Aeneid this evening. But I think Anti may be right.Quote:
Ok, will wait for you to comment further, then.
So he's using Egyptian mythology too.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.
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:
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.Quote:
"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.
Now Coutts makes the remark about “civilized savages” – any other thought on that or is it merely a straightforward remark?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
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
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Thanks again for taking the time to post all of this; it is very helpful.
That is not true, in the last verse of the poem, after The Lady Shalott drifted dead into Camelot, Lancelot sees her:Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Quote:
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."