D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-09-2007, 08:58 PM
Janine

Virgil, thanks for looking all of that up. It is very interesting. Wow, that picture is pretty - such a variety of colors! Yes, seems as if the meaning is significant and it all depends on where you are from as to what meaning it has. I find this part of your research highly interesting -

"The chrysanthemum has been the focus of Oriental adulation for centuries.
In China, the chrysanthemum's association with autumn stems from its tendency to bloom in the fall. Consequently, the ancient Chinese chose the Chrysanthemum ("chu hua") as their Flower for October, a symbol of the rest and ease that followed the season's final harvest. Mums were considered one of the four Chinese "noble plants" (the others being bamboo, the plum, and the orchid), and were the official badge of the Old Chinese Army. Since chrysanthemums were considered the flower of the chinese noble class, they were prohibited in a lower-class person's garden. The Chinese believe that a chrysanthemum given to one's beloved, after its being used to wipe one's mouth after drinking wine, will ensure undying love and fidelity.
Called "kikus" in Japanese, chrysanthemums were featured on the Imperial Crest of Japan, and were so beloved by Japanese emperors that they sat upon chrysanthemum thrones. The Japanese still hold the chrysanthemum as a symbol of the sun, and they consider the orderly unfolding of the mum's petals to be a symbol of perfection.They also presume that a single chrysanthemum petal placed in the bottom of a wine glass encourages a long and healthy life."

In this story, if you think of the toil of the miner, and now that he is dead he is at his 'rest and ease' I think the flower takes on a lovely meaning. "official badge of the Old Chinese Army" - didn't the miner wear one in his lapel or on his jacket? and...could that be significant? Also, this part ties in with your idea of the fire and my idea of the sun - "chrysanthemum as a symbol of the sun, and they consider the orderly unfolding of the mum's petals to be a symbol of perfection".
Finally, the Italian meaning of a symbol of death. This too is very poignant and significant to the story. Knowing how much Lawrence liked to read of various cultures at this time in his life, I think he might have been aware of this and also he was an avid student of botany and may have found various significant meanings for the flower, while studying the various flowers and plants.
10-10-2007, 12:00 AM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Am I the only one discussing the short story? Where is everybody?

Janine, you're making me laugh. We're here. We just haven't been that forthcoming, yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

The fire is associated with domesticity, the kitchen, the hearth, sitting around the table, mother and children waiting for father. Second it provides nourshment, tea and bread are warmed by it. Nourishment is the heart of family, and they are "transfigured" by it. Now this is an early Lawrence story, so the word "transfigure" (as you can see it comes up repeatedly in Lawrence's works) does not yet carry the same religious weight that occurs in the later Lawrence stories. Nonetheless it shows the power of the hearth fire. Third, the fire is symbolic for life. From the very first quote I presented here: "All the life of the room seemed in the white, warm hearth and the steel fender reflecting the red fire." The fire is what holds life together and is also symbolic for life burning on. As those who have completed the story know, the fire of the father's life has run out. Something else too. The mother is outraged at what she perceives as her husband whittling his time away at a bar drinking:

This is a domestic crisis, the husband coming home drunk and wasting his money away in drink. But the irony that runs through here is that it will be an even greater domestic crisis than is at first perceived. A dead husband is one who cannot take care of the family. The fire in the hearth does not burn from fire wood, but from coals. As a miner, the father brings home coals to provide nourishment to the family.

The fire is a key image in the story. It's interesting, though, that the mother seems to be opposed to it. She wonders at other people's fascination with the fire, and she constantly dims the room. If the fire means domesticity or sustenance, could the mother really be opposed to it? Also, can the fire mean "life"? If we mean vitality, then maybe yes. But, if we use the word symbolically--like Mrs. Bates does at the end--we run into the same problem. The last words of the story are, "She knew she submitted to life, which was her immediate master. But from death, her ultimate master, she winced with fear and shame". So, if Mrs. Bates accepts life definitively, why would she try to muffle it symbolically. The fire could just be an image of vigor and liveliness. The flames do shoot out of the mine when the husband is still alive, and the flames fade as the story progresses. The action of fire in the story could just be an indicator of the husbands death. But, if that were true, why would the characters respond to the fire before they realized that Mr. Bates had died? I think the fire might represent something else. Rather than life, I think the fire might represent death and the truth that comes with it. Death reminds the mother that people are separated from each other by an uncrossable distance. She realizes that her husband lived his own life, and that she couldn't change that. This idea horrifies Mrs. Bates, though. She can't grasp it. The fire seems to represent this epiphany that Mrs. Bates has more than anything else. Hence, when the children express a desire or fascination for fire and light, what they signify to their mother is that they want separation. The mother refuses to accept this distance, and she keeps both them and herself in the dark.

As for Chrysanthemums, yes, they are a symbol for death and mourning--universally, not just in this story. Never give your girlfriend mums--it might send the wrong message. However, in this story, where life and death have meanings of their own, Chrysanthemums may have more implications than just death.
10-10-2007, 02:56 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Janine, you're making me laugh. We're here. We just haven't been that forthcoming, yet.

Hello Quark! Now you are making me laugh, too...so you have been here all the time, just behind the scenes reading posts, the invisible man.
I had to turn my computer off tonight, due to thunderstorms in my area; I even unplugged, after the experience I had a few months back when a surge killed my DSL modem. I did not want to chance a repeat of that. So it seemed a good time to clean - well, really there is never a good time to do so - but since I had to forgo the computer, I made myself; so what I am saying with a zillion too many words, is that I only just am checking in on the computer and this thread. Glad, anyway, to see you posting.:D

Quote:

The fire is a key image in the story. It's interesting, though, that the mother seems to be opposed to it. She wonders at other people's fascination with the fire, and she constantly dims the room. If the fire means domesticity or sustenance, could the mother really be opposed to it? Also, can the fire mean "life"? If we mean vitality, then maybe yes. But, if we use the word symbolically--like Mrs. Bates does at the end--we run into the same problem. The last words of the story are, "She knew she submitted to life, which was her immediate master. But from death, her ultimate master, she winced with fear and shame". So, if Mrs. Bates accepts life definitively, why would she try to muffle it symbolically. The fire could just be an image of vigor and liveliness. The flames do shoot out of the mine when the husband is still alive, and the flames fade as the story progresses. The action of fire in the story could just be an indicator of the husbands death. But, if that were true, why would the characters respond to the fire before they realized that Mr. Bates had died? I think the fire might represent something else. Rather than life, I think the fire might represent death and the truth that comes with it. Death reminds the mother that people are separated from each other by an uncrossable distance. She realizes that her husband lived his own life, and that she couldn't change that. This idea horrifies Mrs. Bates, though. She can't grasp it. The fire seems to represent this epiphany that Mrs. Bates has more than anything else. Hence, when the children express a desire or fascination for fire and light, what they signify to their mother is that they want separation. The mother refuses to accept this distance, and she keeps both them and herself in the dark.

Ok, good. I like reading this and want to read it over again tomorrow (when I am more wide-awake). Interesting to hear some slightly different perspectives on the aspect of fire and it's meaning/meanings. Now as I re-read the story, I will look more closely at this aspect and probably form my own ideas about it as well.

Quote:

As for Chrysanthemums, yes, they are a symbol for death and mourning--universally, not just in this story. Never give your girlfriend mums--it might send the wrong message. However, in this story, where life and death have meanings of their own, Chrysanthemums may have more implications than just death.

Yes, and if a boyfriend gives me chrysanthemums, I will definitely run the other way! haha.:lol: What other 'implications' other than death do you think they have? I would be interested in knowing, just incase:lol: . Seems in context with how they are seen in this story, there are different meanings for them throughout the story that change through time. Do you think this the case? So you think it significant?
10-10-2007, 07:30 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

The fire is a key image in the story. It's interesting, though, that the mother seems to be opposed to it. She wonders at other people's fascination with the fire, and she constantly dims the room.

Glad you're joining the discussion Quark. Hmm, I had not noticed she was constantly dimming the fire. I will have to go back and check. Is this what you are referring to?

Quote:

She went out. As she dropped piece after piece of coal on the red fire, the shadows fell on the walls, till the room was almost in total darkness.

"I canna see," grumbled the invisible John. In spite of herself, the mother laughed.

"You know the way to your mouth," she said. She set the dustpan outside the door. When she came again like a shadow on the hearth, the lad repeated, complaining sulkily:

"I canna see."

"Good gracious!" cried the mother irritably, "you're as bad as your father if it's a bit dusk!"

Nevertheless she took a paper spill from a sheaf on the mantelpiece and proceeded to light the lamp that hung from the ceiling in the middle of the room. As she reached up, her figure displayed itself just rounding with maternity.

I don't know how coals in a fire work (I've never done it), but I take that to mean that there is a delay before the coals start burning and a period of darkness occurs before they start to burn. The intent is to feed the fire. The mother does light a lamp. There is certainly a play thoughout the story between light and darkness, life and death.

Quote:

If the fire means domesticity or sustenance, could the mother really be opposed to it?

Where do you see she's opposed to it? I think you're pushing the symbolism a little too far. The hearth creates a scene of domesticity. You use the the word "means" as if this is an equation. This is not allegory.

Quote:

Also, can the fire mean "life"? If we mean vitality, then maybe yes. But, if we use the word symbolically--like Mrs. Bates does at the end--we run into the same problem. The last words of the story are, "She knew she submitted to life, which was her immediate master. But from death, her ultimate master, she winced with fear and shame". So, if Mrs. Bates accepts life definitively, why would she try to muffle it symbolically.

Where is she muffling it? She's putting coals into the fire.

Quote:

The fire could just be an image of vigor and liveliness. The flames do shoot out of the mine when the husband is still alive, and the flames fade as the story progresses. The action of fire in the story could just be an indicator of the husbands death. But, if that were true, why would the characters respond to the fire before they realized that Mr. Bates had died? I think the fire might represent something else. Rather than life, I think the fire might represent death and the truth that comes with it.

Yes, I like that. Life, death, two faces on the same coin. Symbols carry multiple meanings. Be aware though that a burning substance is traditionally looked on as life. I think Janine above already mentioned a few. My favorite is from MacBeth: "And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle."

Quote:

Death reminds the mother that people are separated from each other by an uncrossable distance. She realizes that her husband lived his own life, and that she couldn't change that. This idea horrifies Mrs. Bates, though. She can't grasp it. The fire seems to represent this epiphany that Mrs. Bates has more than anything else. Hence, when the children express a desire or fascination for fire and light, what they signify to their mother is that they want separation. The mother refuses to accept this distance, and she keeps both them and herself in the dark.

That is an intersting reading. I can agree with all but the last sentence, though I'm not quite convinced that the story is about the uncrossable distance between people. The uncrossable distance between life and death, that I am in full agreement. I don't find Mrs. Bates trying to keep anyone in the dark. She is feeding the fire and then lighting a candle.

Quote:

As for Chrysanthemums, yes, they are a symbol for death and mourning--universally, not just in this story. Never give your girlfriend mums--it might send the wrong message. However, in this story, where life and death have meanings of their own, Chrysanthemums may have more implications than just death.

You've heard that too then. When i went searching on the internet for it I had expected it to be everywhere. But I found just the opposite. Overwhleming mums were said to be symbols of life, except for a rare reference. I was beginning to think i was crazy.
10-10-2007, 05:34 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Glad you're joining the discussion Quark. Hmm, I had not noticed she was constantly dimming the fire. I will have to go back and check. Is this what you are referring to?

Virgil, Yes, I second that. Glad you are here Quark. Things should get lively now, with more participants. The more the merrier...or so I hope.;)

Quote:

I don't know how coals in a fire work (I've never done it), but I take that to mean that there is a delay before the coals start burning and a period of darkness occurs before they start to burn. The intent is to feed the fire. The mother does light a lamp. There is certainly a play thoughout the story between light and darkness, life and death.

I think one would have to feed the fire to keep it burning. Of course the coal's would naturally burn down the then ignite new coals which would take time to really get burning and glowing. I don't think of a coal fire with a lot of flame but I just thought of when one uses them in a barbecue and then inigially there is flame. Perhaps some wood is also added to these fires in England. I think the important thing here is the ebbing and waning of the light that eminates from the coals and the hearth. I have just been looking up countless reference to fire and flame in Lawrence's works in my critical analyasis book and I have come up with some good stuff. I will be scanning some to post later on. I think you will find them quite interesting. Fire definitely represented to Lawrence life.

Quote:

Where do you see she's opposed to it? I think you're pushing the symbolism a little too far. The hearth creates a scene of domesticity. You use the the word "means" as if this is an equation. This is not allegory.

Also. the hearth represents 'life' in the glow of the flames. My references will clearly show this. Therefore I do agree that the mother cannot be against that. In some of the lines you quoted at the end of the story she is all for life being her master, but is in fear of death. Death would be the darkness. I agree that when the fire burns low she then lights a lamp to keep light in the room. There is a constant play in this story of light and dark and only now do I see how much it plays a major role in unfolding the story and the two people and their feelings towards each other.

Quote:

Where is she muffling it? She's putting coals into the fire.

Coals may muffle, or die down, at first, but then the flames will be rekindled or the light will brighten from the glow of the increasing light of the burning coals.

Quote:

Yes, I like that. Life, death, two faces on the same coin. Symbols carry multiple meanings. Be aware though that a burning substance is traditionally looked on as life. I think Janine above already mentioned a few. My favorite is from MacBeth: "And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle."

I agree. This is good. The story has many dualities and multiple meanings. Yes, there are countless references of fire and burning meaning life. The 'flame of life' and Lawrence must have drawn heavily from this idea from the ancients, the Indians with their fire dances, and throughout literature. Many many references exist in Shakespeare about the fire in relation to life and the sun as well, which consists of fire. Good line from MacBeth! Also lines in Othello I believe when he smothers Desdemonia in her bed. He extinquishes the candles and then proceeds to kill her in the darkness.
After he kills her, he says:

Quote:

Methinks it should be now a huge eclipse
Of sun and moon, and that the affrighted globe
Should yawn at alteration.

Therefore darkness is apparent and death reigns.

No doubt. countless other references can be found. contrasting light and dark in conjuction with life and death throughout Shakespeare and other novelists.

Quote:

That is an intersting reading. I can agree with all but the last sentence, though I'm not quite convinced that the story is about the uncrossable distance between people. The uncrossable distance between life and death, that I am in full agreement. I don't find Mrs. Bates trying to keep anyone in the dark. She is feeding the fire and then lighting a candle.

I have something on this I will post later. I have to copy or scan it from my book. I will come back to this idea.

Quote:

You've heard that too then. When i went searching on the internet for it I had expected it to be everywhere. But I found just the opposite. Overwhleming mums were said to be symbols of life, except for a rare reference. I was beginning to think i was crazy.

I have heard it before, also, but maybe it depends on when it is referenced in time. Perhaps now Chrysanthemums are a more positive symbol and also it seems that it depends on where the flowers are grown and what they represent to the people of that nation.

This story was not an very early story, as you would think. It is actually in 'Volume II' of the short stories and written after "Sons and Lovers". Michael Black says:
[QUOTE]Their (referring also to 'Daughters of the Vicar') completion takes us into the first period of his marturity, so that they represent a substantial advance on "Sons and Lovers," in his own grasp of what he wanted to say, and his ability to express it. Yet they are related to the material f that novel, as well as to the stories already considered. This story, along with 'Daughters of the Vicar', is widely accepted as among Lawrence's masterpieces.
Michael Black states:

Quote:

We are back in another cottage by the railway-side; the story is shorter, very concentrated, and 'dramatice' in that the events take place in a few hours and have the weight and inevitability of those climactic moments in which a fate is worked out. There is a sense of years being summed up and given a meaning; but no eventful 'plot', and only one central character - the miner's wife. All others are mere attendents. The anger is because she thinks he is getting drunk at the pub. But he is brought in dead, smothered by a fall of rock at the coal face. The wife and this mother lay out and wsh the body in the greatest of all Lawrence's ritual lavings: and in the course of this Elizabeth, like Louisa in 'Daughters of the Vicar', seeing the body before her, comes, too late, upon an essential truth, a revelation about the otherness of the man - what he was.

I ask you to think on this statement (new aspect of the story) by Michael Black:

Quote:

In the page or two in which the laying-out is described - like a Desposition or a Pieta by a great artist - the simple languages is again both Biblical and peculiarly Lawrentian. These paragraphs are one of the great set-pieces in the language. The passage begins:

When they arose, saw him lying in the naive dignity of death, the women stood arrested in fear and respect. For a few moments they remained still, looking down, the old mother whimpering. Elizabeth felt countermanded. She saw him, how utterly inviolable he lay in himself. She had nothing to do with him. She could not accept it. Stooping, she laid her hands on him, in claim....

The beginning lines of this reminds me so of the biblical account of the two women in Christ's tomb.

I will add more to this later tonight on what Michael Black has to add to this observance of this paragraph. Also I will post some of the references throughout Lawrence's work about fire/light/flame.
10-10-2007, 06:18 PM
Quark

Virgil, I assume you're right. Most readers conclude that the fire alludes to life. Certainly, now that I read over it again, I can see this more clearly. Mrs. Bates (I shouldn't simply refer to her as the mother since there are two mothers) does light candles and lamps. She even feels comforted by the presence of light. Really, it's the dark she's terrified of. Lawrence demonstrates during Mrs. Bates walk from her house:

Quote:

The night was very dark. In the great bay of railway lines, bulked with trucks, there was no trace of light, only away back she could see a few yellow lamps at the pit-top, and the red smear of the burning pit- bank on the night. She hurried along the edge of the track, then, crossing the converging lines, came to the stile by the white gates, whence she emerged on the road. Then the fear which had led her shrank. People were walking up to New Brinsley; she saw the lights in the houses; twenty yards further on were the broad windows of the 'Prince of Wales', very warm and bright, and the loud voices of men could be heard distinctly. What a fool she had been to imagine that anything had happened to him!

Mrs. Bates is relieved when she sees the light and imagines the warmth of the pub. Her fear is associated with the cold darkness outside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Where do you see she's opposed to it?

No, I don't think she's opposed to the fire, now. It seems she's actually allied with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I think you're pushing the symbolism a little too far. The hearth creates a scene of domesticity. You use the the word "means" as if this is an equation. This is not allegory.

This isn't allegory. But, at the same time, this isn't a realist tale about mining towns in the early twentieth century. Lawrence isn't simply trying to render the physical and mental plight of some families in northern England. The story does a poor job of that. Lawrence seems more interested in developing recurring themes in his main characters and exploring them by manipulating the plot and environment to bring his character to complete understanding of those themes. So, we do need to read much of this story symbolically. One to one relationships may be a little simplistic, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm not quite convinced that the story is about the uncrossable distance between people.

The story isn't only about the distance between people. It's also about Mrs. Bates misguided attempts to control her family. As Mrs. Bates realizes that she hadn't been fair to her husband she says, "She had denied him what he was--she saw it now. She had refused him as himself. And this had been her life, and his life. She was grateful to death, which had restored the truth". The story is also about Mrs. Bates lamenting her controlling nature. Remember that Mr. Bates dies trapped and suffocating, and that the doctor says, "seems as if it were dont o' purpose". The details of the death are given very minutely. It appears like Lawrence was intimating something. Perhaps, Mr. Bates death is an allusion to Mrs. Bates treatment of him--her rejection and chastisement of him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

The uncrossable distance between life and death, that I am in full agreement. I don't find Mrs. Bates trying to keep anyone in the dark.

It's not just in death that the married couple are separated. As Mrs. Bates concludes, "they had met in the dark and had fought in the dark, not knowing whom they met nor whom they fought. And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong. She had said he was something he was not; she had felt familiar with him. Whereas he was apart all the while, living as she never lived, feeling as she never felt". Mrs. Bates believes they were separated during their lives. Notice she says they "had" met in the dark and he was apart "all the while". These words indicate that the distance between them was always there and that she hadn't been aware of it. Death isn't another state; it's only the means through which Mrs. Bates can finally understand her husband. When Mr. Bates is dead, she can no longer silence his will to be his own person--he becomes "inviolable". The fire and heat that Mrs. Bates desires is only an illusion. In her moment of clarity at the end she asks herself, "Was this what it all meant--utter, intact, seperateness, obscured by the hear of living?". That may be an overstatement, but I think we have to agree with her somewhat.

Oh, and Janine, I will write something about the flowers. My ideas on this are still somewhat vague, and I'd prefer to wait and think it through. I wouldn't want to discredit myself this early in the discussion by posting something as wrongheaded as my first post.
10-10-2007, 07:50 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Virgil, I assume you're right. Most readers conclude that the fire alludes to life. Certainly, now that I read over it again, I can see this more clearly. Mrs. Bates (I shouldn't simply refer to her as the mother since there are two mothers) does light candles and lamps. She even feels comforted by the presence of light. Really, it's the dark she's terrified of. Lawrence demonstrates during Mrs. Bates walk from her house:

Good observation on seeing the inn and the light and warmth within. I have been reading how certain types of light were perceived with different meanings within Lawrence other works - such as cool/cold light of street lamps in London as compared to warm light of the home, hearth, etc. This is just one example. I think firelight and candlelight and light coming from a tavern would be warm glowing type light and associated with life. Also in Lawrence's later works he fully explores this notion of light and it coming from the source of all life - the sun. Many cultures worship the sun or the sun-god. It all seems to tie in with Lawrence's ideas.

Quote:

Mrs. Bates is relieved when she sees the light and imagines the warmth of the pub. Her fear is associated with the cold darkness outside.

Definitely. The darkness represents the unknown and death. If you notice the son is often described sitting in shadow. I thought that was interesting. The miners worked in dark pits. Ironically the very substance that sustains the light and the warm of the house and family kills the man in the end. The coal falling and trapping him in to suffocate. The darkness is suffocating and surely means certain death.

Quote:

No, I don't think she's opposed to the fire, now. It seems she's actually allied with it.

I believe she is. I see what you mean on a second reading about her reluctance to light the lamp - she tells the children it is just dust yet and I believe she makes mention of the husband and how he would want the light as well and be annoyed if the light of the fire was burning low. Could this represent his desire to avoid the darkness and death? Everyday he must work in close proximity to death and darkness in the pit, so on coming home he would definitely crave the light of the hearth and the 'life' of the family.

Quote:

This isn't allegory. But, at the same time, this isn't a realist tale about mining towns in the early twentieth century. Lawrence isn't simply trying to render the physical and mental plight of some families in northern England. The story does a poor job of that. Lawrence seems more interested in developing recurring themes in his main characters and exploring them by manipulating the plot and environment to bring his character to complete understanding of those themes. So, we do need to read much of this story symbolically. One to one relationships may be a little simplistic, though.

True, I found this in enotes on the web: http://www.enotes.com/short-story-cr...m/lawrence-d-h

Quote:

Most critics concur that “Odour of Chrysanthemums” marked the emergence of a second stage in the development of Lawrence's short fiction. Composed in 1911 and published in The Prussian Officer, and Other Stories (1914), this piece incorporates the heightened realism of Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and Leo Tolstoy, and like most of Lawrence's stories from the years 1909 to 1912, focuses on the familiar events and problems of twentieth-century industrial society, while displaying concern for the lives of ordinary men and women............................................. ..................................other works of the period before 1925 imply the depth and complexity of ordinary experience and retain Lawrence's sharp observation of character and place.

Quote:

The story isn't only about the distance between people. It's also about Mrs. Bates misguided attempts to control her family. As Mrs. Bates realizes that she hadn't been fair to her husband she says, "She had denied him what he was--she saw it now. She had refused him as himself. And this had been her life, and his life. She was grateful to death, which had restored the truth". The story is also about Mrs. Bates lamenting her controlling nature. Remember that Mr. Bates dies trapped and suffocating, and that the doctor says, "seems as if it were dont o' purpose". The details of the death are given very minutely. It appears like Lawrence was intimating something. Perhaps, Mr. Bates death is an allusion to Mrs. Bates treatment of him--her rejection and chastisement of him.

This interests me but I need to quote somethings and don't have time now. I think you will find them of interest. I hightlighted some passages that I think supports these or some of these ideas. I will be back later on with those quotes.

Quote:

It's not just in death that the married couple are separated. As Mrs. Bates concludes, "they had met in the dark and had fought in the dark, not knowing whom they met nor whom they fought. And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong. She had said he was something he was not; she had felt familiar with him. Whereas he was apart all the while, living as she never lived, feeling as she never felt". Mrs. Bates believes they were separated during their lives. Notice she says they "had" met in the dark and he was apart "all the while". These words indicate that the distance between them was always there and that she hadn't been aware of it. Death isn't another state; it's only the means through which Mrs. Bates can finally understand her husband. When Mr. Bates is dead, she can no longer silence his will to be his own person--he becomes "inviolable". The fire and heat that Mrs. Bates desires is only an illusion. In her moment of clarity at the end she asks herself, "Was this what it all meant--utter, intact, seperateness, obscured by the hear of living?". That may be an overstatement, but I think we have to agree with her somewhat.

Again I just dug up something interesting that has reference to this part of your post. This is good. I will come back to it later. No time presently - darn.

Quote:

Oh, and Janine, I will write something about the flowers. My ideas on this are still somewhat vague, and I'd prefer to wait and think it through. I wouldn't want to discredit myself this early in the discussion by posting something as wrongheaded as my first post.

Quark - well, I hope so...I don't want to be left out...hha:lol: Also did you think about the bathing being a Christ-like ritual...my last question?
10-10-2007, 08:53 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

I wouldn't want to discredit myself this early in the discussion by posting something as wrongheaded as my first post.

Oh that is alright Quark. You didn't discredit yourself. You weren't that far off in your reading, just in one symbol. I like much of what you say in that last post. :)
10-10-2007, 09:57 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Also did you think about the bathing being a Christ-like ritual...my last question?

I never considered that. I think you are right about that Janine.
10-10-2007, 10:32 PM
Janine

Quark's post:

Quote:

The story isn't only about the distance between people. It's also about Mrs. Bates misguided attempts to control her family. As Mrs. Bates realizes that she hadn't been fair to her husband she says, "She had denied him what he was--she saw it now. She had refused him as himself. And this had been her life, and his life. She was grateful to death, which had restored the truth". The story is also about Mrs. Bates lamenting her controlling nature. Remember that Mr. Bates dies trapped and suffocating, and that the doctor says, "seems as if it were dont o' purpose". The details of the death are given very minutely. It appears like Lawrence was intimating something. Perhaps, Mr. Bates death is an allusion to Mrs. Bates treatment of him--her rejection and chastisement of him.

Quark,This might add to your thoughts on Mrs. Bates; more commentary by Michael Black:

Quote:

"A large bony vine clutched at the house, as if to claw down the tiled roof. Round the brick yard grew a few wintry primroses. Beyond, the long garden sloped down to a bush-covered brook course. There were some twiggy apple trees, winter-crack trees, chrysanthemums, like pink cloths hung on bushes."

The hardness and bitterness of Elizabeth Bates, the central woman of the tale, is well led up to by this initial description. The story concerns the domestic situation of the Bates family and the strained and awkward relationship of the man and wife, although the husband never comes before us until he is dead, killed in a mining accident. The situation is simple enough, and the mining accident a stereotype of a thousand similar stories of mining villages, but Lawrence invests the situation with a deep and moving significance. In the first part of the tale the tension and harshness of the household is well built up as the rest of the family wait for the husband to return from work, but it is assumed that he has once more gone straight from work to the public house; in the second part the tone changes, with the tension switching to a different key as the husband's continued absence becomes more ominous. Eventually he is brought home dead, and the fact of his death throws into another perspective the lives of the man's wife and mother. The tone is perfectly caught, for the miner's death is not sentimentalised over; rather, the wife, Elizabeth, is made aware of the transitoriness of life and her own past error in allowing the ordinariness and mundaneness of her lot to stifle her feelings and demean her character. Now he is dead she realises with tragic immediacy the fact that he was different from her and different from her conception of him:
"Life with its smoky burning gone from him, had left him apart, and utterly alien to her. And she knew what a stranger he was to her. In her womb was ice of fear, because of this separate stranger with whom she had been living as one flesh. Was this what it all meant-utter, intact separateness, obscured by heat of living? In dread she turned her face away .... For as she looked at the dead man, her mind, cold and detached, said clearly: 'Who am I? What have I been doing? I have been fighting a husband who did not exist. He existed all the time. What wrong have I done...

Quark's post:

Quote:

It's not just in death that the married couple are separated. As Mrs. Bates concludes, "they had met in the dark and had fought in the dark, not knowing whom they met nor whom they fought. And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong. She had said he was something he was not; she had felt familiar with him. Whereas he was apart all the while, living as she never lived, feeling as she never felt". Mrs. Bates believes they were separated during their lives. Notice she says they "had" met in the dark and he was apart "all the while". These words indicate that the distance between them was always there and that she hadn't been aware of it. Death isn't another state; it's only the means through which Mrs. Bates can finally understand her husband. When Mr. Bates is dead, she can no longer silence his will to be his own person--he becomes "inviolable". The fire and heat that Mrs. Bates desires is only an illusion. In her moment of clarity at the end she asks herself, "Was this what it all meant--utter, intact, seperateness, obscured by the hear of living?". That may be an overstatement, but I think we have to agree with her somewhat.

Quark,more commentary by Michael Black:

Quote:

The passage below is interesting, not only in that it shows Lawrence's own awareness of the fact of death, but also in its effect in the story as a whole. The 'ice of fear' in her 'womb' (a word so annoying to some readers of Lawrence, not always without cause) here is effectually used to cast the reader's mind back to a previous scene where the contrast of life and death, and the meanness of the woman in her 'death-in-life', is well shown when, as she reaches up to light the lamp, her daughter remarks at the chrysanthemums which she had earlier placed in her apron-band. The parallel between her wearing the flowers and her pregnancy is symbolic of life:

As she reached up, her figure displayed itself just rounding with maternity.
'Oh, mother- l' exclaimed the girl.
'What?' said the woman, suspended in the act of putting the lamp-glass over the flame. The copper reflector shone handsomely on her, as she stood with uplifted arm, turning to face her daughter.
'You've got a flower in your apron!' said the child, in a little rapture at this unusual event.
'Goodness me l' exclaimed the woman, relieved. 'One would have thought the house was afire.' she replaced the glass and waited a moment before turning up the wick. A pale shadow was seen floating vaguely on the floor.
'Let me smell!' said the child, still rapturously, coming forward and putting her face to her mother's waist.
'Go along, silly l' said the mother, turning up the lamp. The light revealed their suspense so that the woman found it almost unbearable. Annie was still bending at her waist. Irritably, the mother took the flowers out from her apron-band.
'Oh, mother-don't take them out!' Annie cried, catching her hand and trying to replace the sprig.
'Such nonsense!' said the mother, turning away.

The symbolism of the scene is wonderfully suggestive of the child's delight in life and the mother's dismissal of it, and it is remarkable that the symbolism Lawrence is employing here to parallel the flowers and the woman's pregnancy is typical of the symbolism of many English folk songs, such as 'The Seeds of Love'; Lawrence may well have been writing consciously or unconsciously in a folk-convention at this point. (It is not out of place to remind ourselves that Lawrence is one of the first writers in English of truly working-class origins.) However, Lawrence is not perfect in his handling of this scene, for although it is beautifully formed as it is quoted above, its effect is slightly spoilt by the way in which one aspect of its significance is hammered home in the next few lines, in which the woman's conscious antipathy to the flowers is shown:
'It was chrysanthemums when I married him, and chrysanthemums when you were born, and the first time they ever brought him home drunk, he'd got brown chrysanthemums in his button-hole.' p. 289

As I was reading the story earlier, I highlighted some parts of the text and this 'ice' word in the text caught my eye particularly and in conjunction with the unborn child. I thought Michael Black's commentary on it was interesting.
10-10-2007, 10:35 PM
Janine

Virgil,thanks, I know I am right ;) :lol: because I read it in the commentary book....haha.:lol: I will post more on it so you can read the theory behind it all. It is quite interesting. But for now, I am exhausted. I just wrote a long post and I had better resume my domestic duties. :)
10-11-2007, 07:12 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil,thanks, I know I am right ;) :lol: because I read it in the commentary book....haha.:lol: I will post more on it so you can read the theory behind it all. It is quite interesting. But for now, I am exhausted. I just wrote a long post and I had better resume my domestic duties. :)

Well, commentary books aren't always right either. Lots of critics disagree, and then someone is right and someone has to be wrong. ;) I don't seem to recall a Michael Black when I was researching Lawrence for my thesis. What year is that book copywrited?

edit: I just looked him up and yes I did come across his book. He writes mostly on Lawrence's early works, and I did my thesis on Lawrence's later works.
10-11-2007, 01:15 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, commentary books aren't always right either. Lots of critics disagree, and then someone is right and someone has to be wrong. ;) I don't seem to recall a Michael Black when I was researching Lawrence for my thesis. What year is that book copywrited?

edit: I just looked him up and yes I did come across his book. He writes mostly on Lawrence's early works, and I did my thesis on Lawrence's later works.

;)Hi Virgil, are you being hostile to me again? :lol:
I have read quite a bit of Michael Black's book and he has displayed, in my humble opinion, some very good insight into Lawrence and his early work. I bought this book after I read "The White Peacock", since I did not know of anyone I could disguss the book with; no one I know has heard of it, let alone read it. I found the things he pointed out very helpful and gave much scope to my own thoughts on the symbolism/imagery presented in the book. The book was published by Cambridge University Press and it came out in 1986. Of course, that hardly matters to me, since it does deal with the early fiction only. The novels go from "The White Peacock" up to "Sons and Lovers", then he explores the short stories, which has been very helpful so far to me.
There are a ton of critical anyalysis books on Lawrence currently available. I try to read several authors and sources, to get a more unbiased opinion. I like Michael Black's writings very much and agree mostly with what he has pointed out about the stories, so far of what I have read.

:lol: PS: Well, Lit Net poster aren't always right either. Lots of people disagree, and then someone is right and someone has to be wrong. ;)
10-11-2007, 01:17 PM
Virgil

Noooo, I'm not being hostile. And what do you mean "again"? I don't recall being hostile to you.
10-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Noooo, I'm not being hostile. And what do you mean "again"? I don't recall being hostile to you.

I am only kidding with you! I thought you could take it. I was referring to the S&L comment; I have just been in there again, so it was on my mind. YOU were not hostile at all. I was joking with you and exaggerating to make you laugh. Usually you and I are so peaceful and agree mostly, so two posts with opposition set me off today...but seriously...I was just having some fun with you....lighten-up, will you?;)
10-11-2007, 04:14 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I am only kidding with you! I thought you could take it. I was referring to the S&L comment; I have just been in there again, so it was on my mind. YOU were not hostile at all. I was joking with you and exaggerating to make you laugh. Usually you and I are so peaceful and agree mostly, so two posts with opposition set me off today...but seriously...I was just having some fun with you....lighten-up, will you?;)

I'm sorry Janine. I didn't mean for that to sound angry. It wasn't written in anger. I guess if you don't put a smiley face the tone can seem off since you can't seem my facila expressions. I meant it as humourously sarcastic.

And I am peaceful, as long as i'm not talking about stringing boys up by ...:lol:
10-11-2007, 10:35 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm sorry Janine. I didn't mean for that to sound angry. It wasn't written in anger. I guess if you don't put a smiley face the tone can seem off since you can't seem my facila expressions. I meant it as humourously sarcastic.

I was being that way, too. Yes, next time use a smiley face so I know what you are up to 'facially.' - by the way, you spelled the word wrong - haha.:lol:

Quote:

And I am peaceful, as long as i'm not talking about stringing boys up by ...:lol:

I thought of this and I thought "well at least he can not use that one on me!";) :lol:
10-11-2007, 10:50 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I was being that way, too. Yes, next time use a smiley face so I know what you are up to 'facially.' - by the way, you spelled the word wrong - haha.:lol:

Urrgh, I can't type or proof read. I wonder if facila actually means something. ;)

Quote:

I thought of this and I thought "well at least he can not use that one on me!";) :lol:

:lol: You are too funny.
10-12-2007, 01:40 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Urrgh, I can't type or proof read. I wonder if facila actually means something. ;)

Sounds kind of Italian to me! hmm...

Quote:

:lol: You are too funny.

Thanks, I know I am!:lol:
10-12-2007, 12:28 PM
Janine

Quasimodo pointed out this Lawrence poem to me. Thought it fit the scenerio of this story somewhat with the family gathered around the hearth fire:

PAX

All that matters is to be at one with the living God
To be a creature in the house of the God of Life.

Like a cat asleep on a chair
at peace, in peace
and at one with the master of the house, with the
mistress
at home, at home in the house of the living,
sleeping on the hearth, and yawning before the fire.

Sleeping on the hearth of the living world,
yawning at home before the fire of life
feeling the presence of the living God
like a great reassurance
a deep calm in the heart
a presence
as of a master sitting at the board
in his own and greater being,
in the house of life.

-- by D.H. Lawrence

Note the line "fire of life"

Will post something later. Going out again today and won't be near a computer. Be back this evening. Sorry for all the delays.
10-12-2007, 09:37 PM
Virgil

I think finally the story rests on the relationship between Elizabeth and Walter, both before his death and after. Bringing in Walter's mother throughout the second half of the story is in counterpoint to Elizabeth, presenting a distinction between a wife's relationship with a mother's. Even before they know of his death, the mother points out that their relationship with Walter is different:

Quote:

"But he wasn't your son, Lizzie, an' it makes a difference. Whatever he was, I remember him when he was little, an' I learned to understand him and to make allowances. You've got to make allowances for them--"

This is ironic because Lawrence by the end of the story will point out that it is different because Elizabth and Walter have been joined in flesh.

We also are made aware of the two relationships between mothers and children. When they bring the body, both mothers think of their children:

Quote:

The old woman, who stood just behind Elizabeth, dropped into a chair, and folded her hands, crying: "Oh, my boy, my boy!"

"Hush!" said Elizabeth, with a sharp twitch of a frown. "Be still, mother, don't waken th' children: I wouldn't have them down for anything!"

Mother and wife go on to clean his naked body. Elizabeth strives to understand his dead body:

Quote:

Elizabeth embraced the body of her husband, with cheek and lips. She seemed to be listening, inquiring, trying to get some connection. But she could not. She was driven away. He was impregnable.

They react to his body differently, one as mother, one as wife:

Quote:

They worked thus in silence for a long time. They never forgot it was death, and the touch of the man's dead body gave them strange emotions, different in each of the women; a great dread possessed them both, the mother felt the lie was given to her womb, she was denied; the wife felt the utter isolation of the human soul, the child within her was a weight apart from her.

As mothers they have a distinct relationship with their children, but as we will see, it is not the blood relationship (although Lawrence doesn't actually say that; this story was written prior to when he formulated his blood knowledge theory, but we can see that the roots of it are here) of male and female lovers.

Quote:

Elizabeth looked up. The man's mouth was fallen back, slightly open under the cover of the moustache. The eyes, half shut, did not show glazed in the obscurity. Life with its smoky burning gone from him, had left him apart and utterly alien to her. And she knew what a stranger he was to her. In her womb was ice of fear, because of this separate stranger with whom she had been living as one flesh. Was this what it all meant--utter, intact separateness, obscured by heat of living? In dread she turned her face away. The fact was too deadly. There had been nothing between them, and yet they had come together, exchanging their nakedness repeatedly. Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now. He was no more responsible than she. The child was like ice in her womb. For as she looked at the dead man, her mind, cold and detached, said clearly: "Who am I? What have I been doing? I have been fighting a husband who did not exist. He existed all the time. What wrong have I done? What was that I have been living with? There lies the reality, this man."--And her soul died in her for fear: she knew she had never seen him, he had never seen her, they had met in the dark and had fought in the dark, not knowing whom they met nor whom they fought. And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong. She had said he was something he was not; she had felt familiar with him. Whereas he was apart all the while, living as she never lived, feeling as she never felt.

Despite an imperfect marriage, they "had exchanged their nakedness repeatedly." They had lived "by the heat of living," a reference to the hearth, and though "his smoky burning" is now gone, they had lived "as one flesh." But ultimately the marriage did not cross over into a spiritual union: "Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now." And she puts the blame on herself: " And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong." She had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection of him through her rational living. It is not that they could not have merged to a transfiguration, she with her rational mind has prevented it. He lived as "she never lived." There relationship is carnal, but not complete.

Quote:

He and she were only channels through which life had flowed to issue in the children. She was a mother--but how awful she knew it now to have been a wife. And he, dead now, how awful he must have felt it to be a husband. She felt that in the next world he would be a stranger to her. If they met there, in the beyond, they would only be ashamed of what had been before. The children had come, for some mysterious reason, out of both of them. But the children did not unite them.

This is her epiphany, that they had never connected and that their relationship, while physical, never reached a spiritual union. This is opposite of the Tom and Lydia's relationship in The Rainbow and the Birkin and Ursula's relationship in Women In Love.
10-13-2007, 12:15 AM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Definitely. The darkness represents the unknown and death. If you notice the son is often described sitting in shadow. I thought that was interesting. The miners worked in dark pits. Ironically the very substance that sustains the light and the warm of the house and family kills the man in the end. The coal falling and trapping him in to suffocate. The darkness is suffocating and surely means certain death.

Certainly, the darkness and gloom is reminiscent of death and the unknown. It foreshadows Mr. Bates' death. Also, it reminds us of Mrs. Bates "sullen struggle" with her husband. At the end Mrs. Bates tells us that she and her husband had, "met in the dark and fought in the dark". The dim surroundings in the story mirror this figurative darkness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I believe she makes mention of the husband and how he would want the light as well and be annoyed if the light of the fire was burning low. Could this represent his desire to avoid the darkness and death? Everyday he must work in close proximity to death and darkness in the pit, so on coming home he would definitely crave the light of the hearth and the 'life' of the family.

The light and fire is both comforting and deluding. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bates are consoled by warmth and light, but they are also fooled by it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Quark - well, I hope so...I don't want to be left out...hha:lol: Also did you think about the bathing being a Christ-like ritual...my last question?

Now, onto the Chrysanthemum question. They serve two functions. One, they're another foreshadowing detail. The flower's connection to death would be understood by Lawrence's audience, and they would know that something is wrong. Foreshadowing in this story is critical. There wouldn't be any suspense or tension in the first part of the story without it. The Chrysanthemums help with this. Besides being an ominous warning to the reader, the flowers reflect Mr. and Mrs. Bates' relationship. Chrysanthemums are present whenever their relationship advances, and the vase containing them is broken when their relationship is severed by the husband's death.

Is the washing of Mr. Bates a Christ-like ritual? Do you mean the washing the foot thing? Or, do you just mean that it's a selfless, altruist act in general? I thought she bathed him because she was trying to reestablish her connection with him through a physical act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I think finally the story rests on the relationship between Elizabeth and Walter, both before his death and after. Bringing in Walter's mother throughout the second half of the story is in counterpoint to Elizabeth, presenting a distinction between a wife's relationship with a mother's. Even before they know of his death, the mother points out that their relationship with Walter is different:

Yeah, the most important relationship in this story is that between the married couple. Mr. Bates' mother is an interesting foil for Mrs. Bates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Despite an imperfect marriage, they "had exchanged their nakedness repeatedly." They had lived "by the heat of living," a reference to the hearth, and though "his smoky burning" is now gone, they had lived "as one flesh." But ultimately the marriage did not cross over into a spiritual union: "Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now." And she puts the blame on herself: " And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong." She had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection of him through her rational living. It is not that they could not have merged to a transfiguration, she with her rational mind has prevented it. He lived as "she never lived." There relationship is carnal, but not complete.

This is her epiphany, that they had never connected and that their relationship, while physical, never reached a spiritual union. This is opposite of the Tom and Lydia's relationship in The Rainbow and the Birkin and Ursula's relationship in Women In Love.

It's hard to tell in what way Mrs. Bates feels separated from her husband at the end. We know that she believes he is somehow different from what she thought him to be, but any more specific details are curiously missing. Unlike in Sons and Lovers where Lawrence gives the reader a careful description of the differences between husband and wife, we can't get a clear idea of what separates the married pair. Mrs. Bates could mean that she feels spiritual alienated from her deceased husband, or she could simply mean that his personality was different from what she supposed. In either case, she thinks she may have ruined Mr. Bates' life (and possibly her own) with her misconception.
10-13-2007, 01:16 AM
Janine

Two excellent posts,Virgil and Quark. I am glad I came back on here late to read them. Both of you bring out good points about the relationship of husband and wife and it's complexity, as he lay dead. The intense and honest feelings of his wife and the thoughts of his own mother as well, as they prepare the body, is well illustrated by Lawrence and you have hit upon the key lines and the ideas behind them, their ironies and connections to each of the woman - such as the connection in flesh of the husband and wife....but I was also thinking of the flesh connection of the unborn child and also Walter's own mother's pregnancy and how, as an unborn child, Walter and his mother also had a flesh connection (blood connection).
It is late now so that I won't go into more detail than this but I hope to do so with each post tomorrow.
Again good work on these two interesting posts....a lot of interesting comments.
10-15-2007, 03:11 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I think finally the story rests on the relationship between Elizabeth and Walter, both before his death and after. Bringing in Walter's mother throughout the second half of the story is in counterpoint to Elizabeth, presenting a distinction between a wife's relationship with a mother's. Even before they know of his death, the mother points out that their relationship with Walter is different:

Virgil and Quark, Sorry it took me so long to come back here. Been busy with the S&L thread, I guess, and did not feel well and only had energy for one for now.
Virgil,
I think the point you bring up here about the difference in the relationships - mother to son and wife to son is a good one. It is worthy of note in the significance of having his mother present in the story. They both react quite differently to the death.

Quote:

This is ironic because Lawrence by the end of the story will point out that it is different because Elizabth and Walter have been joined in flesh.

Yes, I too see this irony and it is a good thing to ponder. I wonder how this relates to Lawrence's ideas/thoughts
that were present in S&L, having to do with his own mother, etc.

Quote:

We also are made aware of the two relationships between mothers and children. When they bring the body, both mothers think of their children:

Good point.

Quote:

Mother and wife go on to clean his naked body. Elizabeth strives to understand his dead body:

Yes, I thought this scene so interesting, like nothing I had ever read before. It is quite unique and internal to the thoughts of Elizabeth.

Quote:

They react to his body differently, one as mother, one as wife:

Good to quote this part and it is quite distinctly different, as it should be.

Quote:

As mothers they have a distinct relationship with their children, but as we will see, it is not the blood relationship (although Lawrence doesn't actually say that; this story was written prior to when he formulated his blood knowledge theory, but we can see that the roots of it are here) of male and female lovers.

Yes, interesting as well concerning the 'blood knowledge' theory. Was this story written before or after "Women in Love"? I guess I will have to look that up.

Quote:

Despite an imperfect marriage, they "had exchanged their nakedness repeatedly." They had lived "by the heat of living," a reference to the hearth, and though "his smoky burning" is now gone, they had lived "as one flesh." But ultimately the marriage did not cross over into a spiritual union: "Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now." And she puts the blame on herself: " And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong." She had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection of him through her rational living. It is not that they could not have merged to a transfiguration, she with her rational mind has prevented it. He lived as "she never lived." There relationship is carnal, but not complete.

Again the duality of Lawrence and his ideas. The merging of the flesh and the union spirtualisticly seem to be in opposition in the first part of this paragraph but then he writes that "she had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection through her rational living." This again is like Lawrence's own parents and Mr. and Mrs. Morel. The wife is the rational one and the husband the one of "smoky burning" - does Lawrence also mean he is the one intune with the blood? Interesting that Lawrence now uses the word 'transfiguration' in this story. He states that her "rational mind has prevented it" so he is blantantly telling us what will prevent the true marriage of this couple - the lack of this 'transfiguration'. As you said to me before, he is placing the blame now on the woman in this story. I see in Lawrence the progression from S&L to this new stage, because S&L he does not really come out and blame the woman, for the distance and strife and aloneness in her marriage, but tends to put more blame on the father, Mr. Morel; by the close of the novel there is perhaps no real blame but he seems to be favoring the mother's position and yet in his own dealings with women he is favoring the 'blood' union and not the intellectual union. This is quite interesting.

Quote:

This is her epiphany, that they had never connected and that their relationship, while physical, never reached a spiritual union. This is opposite of the Tom and Lydia's relationship in The Rainbow and the Birkin and Ursula's relationship in Women In Love.

Yes, quite opposite these two sets of characters/couples, as well.
10-15-2007, 03:28 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Yes, interesting as well concerning the 'blood knowledge' theory. Was this story written before or after "Women in Love"? I guess I will have to look that up.

I lent that book out that had the calandar of his life. ;) You will have to look that up now.

Quote:

Again the duality of Lawrence and his ideas. The merging of the flesh and the union spirtualisticly seem to be in opposition in the first part of this paragraph but then he writes that "she had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection through her rational living." This again is like Lawrence's own parents and Mr. and Mrs. Morel. The wife is the rational one and the husband the one of "smoky burning" - does Lawrence also mean he is the one intune with the blood?

I think so. I took smoky burning to be a reference to the fact that his fire of life burns out; perhaps Lawrence meant it as blood knowledge as well.

Quote:

Interesting that Lawrence now uses the word 'transfiguration' in this story. He states that her "rational mind has prevented it" so he is blantantly telling us what will prevent the true marriage of this couple - the lack of this 'transfiguration'. As you said to me before, he is placing the blame now on the woman in this story. I see in Lawrence the progression from S&L to this new stage, because S&L he does not really come out and blame the woman, for the distance and strife and aloneness in her marriage, but tends to put more blame on the father, Mr. Morel; by the close of the novel there is perhaps no real blame but he seems to be favoring the mother's position and yet in his own dealings with women he is favoring the 'blood' union and not the intellectual union. This is quite interesting.

I'm now curious to see if he wrote this before or after S&L. It was around the same time. Interesting that he blames women more and more for failed relationships as he gets older. He did get married and that is what having a wife can do to you. :p :D
10-15-2007, 03:42 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Certainly, the darkness and gloom is reminiscent of death and the unknown. It foreshadows Mr. Bates' death. Also, it reminds us of Mrs. Bates "sullen struggle" with her husband. At the end Mrs. Bates tells us that she and her husband had, "met in the dark and fought in the dark". The dim surroundings in the story mirror this figurative darkness.

Hi Quark, Yes, I thought this also. This is not a cheery story by a long shot. I think the play of light and darkness is well constructed in the story and adds the atmosphere that is needed, both at the time of dread of something bad having happened, there is a sort of forbodding in the way Lawrence presents the home, even though this is the normal everyday environment with the darkness and the family near the hearth. Still I think that Lawrence plays up this darkness in this story - such as the part where he describes the son sitting in the shadow. It is as it the shadows represent the 'shadow of death'.
I think all along when, Elizabeth is surmissing her husband is late because he is in a pub drinking she knows in her heart something terrible may have happened and she won't admit that to herself. She simply waits in anquish. I believe she has a kind of forboding which takes up much of the story. I think realistically one could relate to this feeling of waiting for someone to arrive home and not know if they were safe or not and imagining the worse at times but denying it at the same time. I know I have done this in the past. Thank God I have been wrong and the person was safe. But there have been times I have done this and the person was not so I can imagine this whole story in a very realistic way.

Quote:

The light and fire is both comforting and deluding. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bates are consoled by warmth and light, but they are also fooled by it.

I don't know if they are 'fooled by it' - because I think both light and dark and what they represent are a part of life. It is natural and something we have to accept. If they represent life and death, this too is something we all must accept eventually. Yes, the darkness could be something we all delude ourselves about - the thought of our own life entering into a darkness of death. I don't know - I may just be babbling on. The thought just came to me that the ending with the washing and laying out of the body seems to represent to me, in a broader sense and asside from the marital differences, our own experiences when someone dies and we see them layed out for burial. We seem then to come in direct contact with death, something we all try not to think about from day to day. I think this story is more universal and meaningful in this respect. A living being is now preparing a lifeless form - it makes one ponder on the whole meanin of life and death.

Quote:

Now, onto the Chrysanthemum question. They serve two functions. One, they're another foreshadowing detail. The flower's connection to death would be understood by Lawrence's audience, and they would know that something is wrong. Foreshadowing in this story is critical. There wouldn't be any suspense or tension in the first part of the story without it. The Chrysanthemums help with this. Besides being an ominous warning to the reader, the flowers reflect Mr. and Mrs. Bates' relationship. Chrysanthemums are present whenever their relationship advances, and the vase containing them is broken when their relationship is severed by the husband's death.

Yes, definitely the flower begins as a foreshadowing detail and this idea progresses with more significance and meaning...really brilliant writing on Lawrence's part. Lawrence knew flowers and plants well, since he loved botany and studied it extensively, so no doubt he got this idea when learning the meaning of the flowers and how they could be interwoven in this story. The title is perfect, too. Lawrence wrote a poem called "Violets" - in it he contrasts the scent of death and the scent of violets. It is a very poignant poem.
I forget - was there an actual 'vase' in the story?

Quote:

Is the washing of Mr. Bates a Christ-like ritual? Do you mean the washing the foot thing? Or, do you just mean that it's a selfless, altruist act in general? I thought she bathed him because she was trying to reestablish her connection with him through a physical act.

This she last part she is doing as, you say; but yes, I find the idea of the scene being 'Christ-like' an interesting one. I will look up more on the commentary concerning these thoughts.

Quote:

Yeah, the most important relationship in this story is that between the married couple. Mr. Bates' mother is an interesting foil for Mrs. Bates.

Yes, the relationship is what is being fully explored but the universal meanings I believe go even further.

Quote:

It's hard to tell in what way Mrs. Bates feels separated from her husband at the end. We know that she believes he is somehow different from what she thought him to be, but any more specific details are curiously missing. Unlike in Sons and Lovers where Lawrence gives the reader a careful description of the differences between husband and wife, we can't get a clear idea of what separates the married pair. Mrs. Bates could mean that she feels spiritual alienated from her deceased husband, or she could simply mean that his personality was different from what she supposed. In either case, she thinks she may have ruined Mr. Bates' life (and possibly her own) with her misconception.

Yes, short stories tend to be this way. We are left to fill in the blanks. I think that is ok and in this case I do think we can only go so far in understanding Mrs. Bate's feeling towards her husband and facing his dead body. Remember, too, she still has ahead of her the task of telling her beloved children. They had asked about their father often and it will be a very sad affair to know he is now gone from them.

Be sure to read my last two (long) posts, guys, but I wanted to ask these questions and forgot.

What do you think of the mention of Elizabeth's father in the beginning of the story and the fact that he is going to remarry? What part does this play in the story or what significance does it have, do you think?
10-15-2007, 04:03 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Be sure to read my last two (long) posts, guys, but I wanted to ask these questions and forgot.

What do you think of the mention of Elizabeth's father in the beginning of the story and the fact that he is going to remarry? What part does this play in the story or what significance does it have, do you think?

That is a good question. I'm not sure i understand that. I'll have to re-read it. It does create a series of generations, the protagonist's parents, the protagonists themselves (Walter & Elizabeth), and the protagonist's children.
10-15-2007, 04:55 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

That is a good question. I'm not sure i understand that. I'll have to re-read it. It does create a series of generations, the protagonist's parents, the protagonists themselves (Walter & Elizabeth), and the protagonist's children.

Virgil, Oh how funny - we posted same time in here, too. I was writing to Quark and then that final question post that followed and you beat me out again. Same in S&L - so glad I did not loose that post over there - it took a while to type out.

Yes, I think the husband represents the 'blood philosophy' ideal. I have to look that up in one of my many books - the date of the story and novel.
I laughed about him being married and that is what married life does to you. Yes, it did seem that way with Lawrence and Frieda. He did evolve to a different code of thought, especially by the time he got to "Plumed Serpent", which, by the way, I just completed last night. Thank godness!

Virgil, maybe it is just establishing the thought of generations, as you say; but I thought there might be more significance to it, actually...but not sure what it is. Elizabeth did not seem in favor of the father marrying. Could he also represent the blood philosophy and the working man - sort of salt of the earth type guy who drives the train that delivers the coal? Would he be aligned to her husband in a sense?
10-16-2007, 09:19 PM
Janine

In this story, did not the children go out to play (after dark) under a street light? Hope I am not mixing this up with S&L. Anyway, if I am correct, what did you think of that scene and it's significance to the story?
10-16-2007, 09:32 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

In this story, did not the children go out to play (after dark) under a street light? Hope I am not mixing this up with S&L. Anyway, if I am correct, what did you think of that scene and it's significance to the story?

Is that right? I can't remember that. I thought that the son was out playing in the dark and the mother brought him in.
10-16-2007, 10:37 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, maybe it is just establishing the thought of generations, as you say; but I thought there might be more significance to it, actually...but not sure what it is. Elizabeth did not seem in favor of the father marrying. Could he also represent the blood philosophy and the working man - sort of salt of the earth type guy who drives the train that delivers the coal? Would he be aligned to her husband in a sense?

Perhaps he does reflect the opposite of Elizabeth, although it's not really fleshed out. The train is associated with flames and the father has a beard (a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness) and the father is getting married. I found what he says very interesting:

Quote:

"I didn't expect you," said his daughter.

The engine-driver winced; then, reassuming his cheery, airy manner, he said:

"Oh, have you heard then? Well, and what do you think--?"

"I think it is soon enough," she replied.

At her brief censure the little man made an impatient gesture, and said coaxingly, yet with dangerous coldness:

"Well, what's a man to do? It's no sort of life for a man of my years, to sit at my own hearth like a stranger. And if I'm going to marry again it may as well be soon as late--what does it matter to anybody?"

"It's no sort of life for a man of my years, to sit at my own hearth like a stranger." Notice how he refers to hearth as a center of life.

I also did notice at the beginning how the little boy gets lost in the dark.

Quote:

She was a till woman of imperious mien, handsome, with definite black eyebrows. Her smooth black hair was parted exactly. For a few moments she stood steadily watching the miners as they passed along the railway: then she turned towards the brook course. Her face was calm and set, her mouth was closed with disillusionment. After a moment she called:

"John!" There was no answer. She waited, and then said distinctly:

"Where are you?"

"Here!" replied a child's sulky voice from among the bushes. The woman looked piercingly through the dusk.

"Are you at that brook?" she asked sternly.

For answer the child showed himself before the raspberry-canes that rose like whips. He was a small, sturdy boy of five. He stood quite still, defiantly.

It seems people are in and out of the darkness throughout the story. And this is what I think: I believe Lawrence is suggesting that we come out of the darkness as infants (remember the children and the unborn child Elizabeth is carrying and even the fact that the story is built around three generations, like The Rainbow by the way) and we go into the dark to death. The dark is a sort of mystical place from which life formulates and returns.
10-17-2007, 01:11 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Is that right? I can't remember that. I thought that the son was out playing in the dark and the mother brought him in.

Quark and Virgil, It is weird, I could have sworn I read about a scene where the kids went outside for about an hour to play and it was dark with a streetlamp glowing. Maybe it was in S&L, but I just scanned the first chapter, and seemed the children were put to bed at 7:00PM. Maybe it is later in the book, when they are older. I scanned the short story and do not see it either. Bizzare, maybe I am dreaming these scenes up while I sleep. :eek2:

Quote:

Perhaps he does reflect the opposite of Elizabeth, although it's not really fleshed out. The train is associated with flames and the father has a beard (a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness) and the father is getting married. I found what he says very interesting:....

Virgil, I am glad you see my point. I knew there had to be more significance to that scene for Lawrence to include this meeting and the idea that he is a train conductor and connected with the coal industry. Yes, good point, the train would be associated with flames. Where did you find the reference to the beard being a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness? From several of my books I understood Lawrence's own growing of the beard to be something he did during his first serious attack of his illness. He seemed to have the idea it kept him from colds because it kept his face warm and his neck as well - that is why it was so long. I just read where it was untrimmed because Lawrence had some kind of hang-up about strange barber shops and he traveled so much he just did not bother going to them. Maybe he was a germ freak. He was kind of fastitious with his cleaning and his scrubbing of floors which we discussed in S&L. From old pictures, you would not gather so, but I think the beard and his thinning physical appearance, as he got older (due primarily to his illness), make him look a little shabby and unkept. From what I have read he did not appear so to his friends. He always seemed to wear suits. I even have a photo of him baking bread and he was wearing a suit. That was the fashion back then for men. I suppose it was a sign of respectability/authority.
Well, sorry to go off on that tangent and back to what you pointed out. The comparison of the train to fire and flames is a good one and to the hearth, as well. Also this man is acting on his instinct and wants closeness and intimacy - he says why wait? He wants to be married again and connected to a woman in the flesh. I think this is the significant point in adding this to the story. Also, often grown children will feel resentment, even jealousy, when a parent wishes to remarry or even to date. The grown child can feel threatened some how - thinking they will lose the parent's affections. This scene also reveals to us that Elizabeth's mother is dead and gone from their lives. I think I read this was based, only in part on Lawrence's mother's family, and in that case the father (L's grandfather) did remarry, I believe - another fact I need to look up and confirm. I had started to read the "Cambridge Early Years" biography and I believe I read it in there. That book is very detailed about family history. I need to get my facts right and my sources quoted as they are written....sorry about that. Be patient and I can find it, maybe along with that scene with the children playing outside by the lamp-post. :lol:

Quote:

It seems people are in and out of the darkness throughout the story. And this is what I think: I believe Lawrence is suggesting that we come out of the darkness as infants (remember the children and the unborn child Elizabeth is carrying and even the fact that the story is built around three generations, like The Rainbow by the way) and we go into the dark to death. The dark is a sort of mystical place from which life formulates and returns.

I think your theory is perfectly feasible and valid. I really like it. Yes, there is so many instances in this story of light and dark playing against each other. It even brings to mind to me the chysanthemum that Elizabeth had carefully concealed in her (darkened pocket/a personal space) which lights up with the lamp and shows through to the girl child. Isn't that image highly significant? Perhaps this one single detail and gesture suggests a looking deeper into what Elizabeth is concealing about her marriage. It is just a thought, but it just came to me as an answer to the way Lawrence really highlighted that scene and named the story as he has. The lines that Elizabeth blurts out to the children, concerning chysanthemums in three stages of life and decay, is really brilliant and encompasses these three stages, perhaps those you are referring to - the three generations, in effect, but also three events in different stages of their marriage.

Quote:

"It was chrysanthemums when I married him, and chrysanthemums when you were born, and the first time they ever brought him home drunk, he'd got brown chrysanthemums in his button-hole."

Could this represent hope of marriage and love, birth of the children and then disillusionment and dispair and their separateness/alienation? The last chysanthemum is withered and 'brown', reflecting the state of their marriage at this point. Also, it is a bitter statement of disgust and criticism, that she displays/reveals to her children in the last reference. In a sense she puts the man down in front of the children repeatedly throughout the story. Elizabeth Bates is a very bitter and hard-edged woman by this stage in her life and marriage. She does not seem all that loving or connected, even to her children...what do you think?
10-17-2007, 07:41 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, I am glad you see my point. I knew there had to be more significance to that scene for Lawrence to include this meeting and the idea that he is a train conductor and connected with the coal industry. Yes, good point, the train would be associated with flames. Where did you find the reference to the beard being a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness?

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that your point is correct. The beard significance runs through many of Lawrence's works, mostly his later works The most prominant from what I remember is in the short novel St. Mawr. Don't know if you've ever read that. Also didn't Mellors in Lady Chatterly's Lover have a beard? I can't quite remember. But trust me, it's a signifier in later Lawrence work. Of course this story is an early work, so it could be a coincidence. But I think not.

Quote:

From several of my books I understood Lawrence's own growing of the beard to be something he did during his first serious attack of his illness. He seemed to have the idea it kept him from colds because it kept his face warm and his neck as well - that is why it was so long. I just read where it was untrimmed because Lawrence had some kind of hang-up about strange barber shops and he traveled so much he just did not bother going to them. Maybe he was a germ freak. He was kind of fastitious with his cleaning and his scrubbing of floors which we discussed in S&L. From old pictures, you would not gather so, but I think the beard and his thinning physical appearance, as he got older (due primarily to his illness), make him look a little shabby and unkept. From what I have read he did not appear so to his friends. He always seemed to wear suits. I even have a photo of him baking bread and he was wearing a suit. That was the fashion back then for men. I suppose it was a sign of respectability/authority.

Very interesting. Thanks for filling me in on some of the subtle biographical details.

Quote:

Well, sorry to go off on that tangent and back to what you pointed out. The comparison of the train to fire and flames is a good one and to the hearth, as well. Also this man is acting on his instinct and wants closeness and intimacy - he says why wait? He wants to be married again and connected to a woman in the flesh. I think this is the significant point in adding this to the story. Also, often grown children will feel resentment, even jealousy, when a parent wishes to remarry or even to date. The grown child can feel threatened some how - thinking they will lose the parent's affections. This scene also reveals to us that Elizabeth's mother is dead and gone from their lives.

Yes, you are definitely correct about this. I like the way Lawrence uses this natural reaction a daughter might have to isolate her into the world of reason. It works perfectly in the narrative.

Quote:

I think your theory is perfectly feasible and valid. I really like it. Yes, there is so many instances in this story of light and dark playing against each other. It even brings to mind to me the chysanthemum that Elizabeth had carefully concealed in her (darkened pocket/a personal space) which lights up with the lamp and shows through to the girl child. Isn't that image highly significant? Perhaps this one single detail and gesture suggests a looking deeper into what Elizabeth is concealing about her marriage. It is just a thought, but it just came to me as an answer to the way Lawrence really highlighted that scene and named the story as he has. The lines that Elizabeth blurts out to the children, concerning chysanthemums in three stages of life and decay, is really brilliant and encompasses these three stages, perhaps those you are referring to - the three generations, in effect, but also three events in different stages of their marriage.

and

Quote:

Could this represent hope of marriage and love, birth of the children and then disillusionment and dispair and their separateness/alienation? The last chysanthemum is withered and 'brown', reflecting the state of their marriage at this point. Also, it is a bitter statement of disgust and criticism, that she displays/reveals to her children in the last reference. In a sense she puts the man down in front of the children repeatedly throughout the story. Elizabeth Bates is a very bitter and hard-edged woman by this stage in her life and marriage. She does not seem all that loving or connected, even to her children...what do you think?

You know, given this new dimension to the story (darkness as symbolic for the mystical place of pre-life and post-life) I think the chrysanthemums take on even greater symbolic weight. They are flowers which need the short day and longer nights to stimulate bloom, and so they come from and touch this mystical unknown. And remember flowers are Lawrence's ideal for perfect life.

Wow, this story is very rich. When I first read it I thought this is just a slice of life realism. I take that back. It is not. Even in this story we see the spiritual/mystic element of Lawrence's ideas. You know I just recently read another article by a recent critic slamming Lawrence. She found him shallow. I just don't get it. She may not like his ideas; she may not agree with his ideas. But to say he's shallow is rediculous. (Who today agrees with Shakespeare on the devine rights of kings?) She does admit he's a gifted writer. The previous generation of critics perhaps over valued Lawrence. The current generation definitely undervalues him. Anyway.
10-17-2007, 04:24 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that your point is correct. The beard significance runs through many of Lawrence's works, mostly his later works The most prominant from what I remember is in the short novel St. Mawr. Don't know if you've ever read that. Also didn't Mellors in Lady Chatterly's Lover have a beard? I can't quite remember. But trust me, it's a signifier in later Lawrence work. Of course this story is an early work, so it could be a coincidence. But I think not.

:wave: (look it is manolia's waver - she uses him all the time!:lol: )
Hi Virgil,
Yes, I do believe it turned into more significance, as you say, in the later works. I think this beard thing was a very personal symbol to Lawrence, eventually. For one thing, I also read, where to protest war, one sported a long beard. Odd that his own father also had this long, never trimmed beard, going back in Lawrence's childhood. You would think Lawrence would have shunned that style as 'old-fashioned', especially if his father wore one. But then again, Lawrence did remain sort of 'old-fashioned' in some of his ways and beliefs, even stodgy at time.

Quote:

Very interesting. Thanks for filling me in on some of the subtle biographical details.

Hey, I have enough research books by now, I should be able to come up with stuff like this.;) You are very welcome!:D

Quote:

Yes, you are definitely correct about this. I like the way Lawrence uses this natural reaction a daughter might have to isolate her into the world of reason. It works perfectly in the narrative.

I was thinking about a friend, when I read this part of the book; that is why it stood out so to me. My friend's father began to date and her mother has been dead for years. When she writes to me, I can always see this feeling she has of being 'threatened' by the father's new relationship with this woman. Somedays she likes her and others the woman is definitely 'on the rack'. My friend is a very nice person herself and smart, but I think it is the natural instinct of the daughter to be protective with the father, especially if he is 'up there' in years, as hers is. I also, see this sometimes - just really a hint of it in my own son. He thinks me old, I know...;) :lol: Everyone over 40 is to him - hey wait till he gets there, right? ;) So if some man comes around or calls me he is curious and protective to know all about this person. Both came to my mind when reading this part of the book. It also does not even have to be with sibblings. I saw this happen with someone else when her brother died and then his wife began to date. The person was highly critical. Life does go on and so people should follow their hearts and inclinations, provided they are upstanding and worthwhile pursuits.

Quote:

You know, given this new dimension to the story (darkness as symbolic for the mystical place of pre-life and post-life) I think the chrysanthemums take on even greater symbolic weight. They are flowers which need the short day and longer nights to stimulate bloom, and so they come from and touch this mystical unknown. And remember flowers are Lawrence's ideal for perfect life.

I think the flowers definitely do, too. It is the title for the story so I feel it has great weight and significance. Lawrence did not choose roses or daisies or lilies, he chose chrysanthemums - as you pointed out a fall/autumn flower and one needing little light to bloom. Also they are the last hurrah in autumn and nice weather. Then winter comes on and all is darkness and cold and indiciative/representative of sleep and death. So the chrysanthemum is the perfect flower to choose for this particular story. It is highly symbolic. It signals the coming of winter and the death or sleep/domancy of many flowers and plants and trees and grasses, crops, etc.

Quote:

Wow, this story is very rich. When I first read it I thought this is just a slice of life realism. I take that back. It is not. Even in this story we see the spiritual/mystic element of Lawrence's ideas. You know I just recently read another article by a recent critic slamming Lawrence. She found him shallow. I just don't get it. She may not like his ideas; she may not agree with his ideas. But to say he's shallow is rediculous. (Who today agrees with Shakespeare on the devine rights of kings?) She does admit he's a gifted writer. The previous generation of critics perhaps over valued Lawrence. The current generation definitely undervalues him. Anyway.

Very rich indeed! I don't think there is such a thing in all of Lawrence's works that one could call pure realism or shallow - those critics really infuriate me.:rage: Have they actually read Lawrence and looked beneath the surface? Perhaps she is a hardened realist or feminist. I don't know how she could possible say this. I have a friend who read "Sons and Lovers" and gave it only 2 stars out of 5 on another site. I gave her a thrashing (in a humorous way). She does tend to be a hard marker in book ratings but I said "how could you possibly give it only 2 stars?" She laughed and so did I. I don't think she really read it or understood it. But the critics are not changing I don't think in this time. That critic must have been an isolated case. Mostly lately I have heard all positives about Lawrence's work. People are taking the time to understand it better and he is getting more recognition now in England than ever before. Cambridge put out that whole set of biographies and I can tell you they are detailed and marvelous. When I search on Amazon there are always new books on Lawrence cropping up. I don't see that his popularity is waning at all. It all depends on where you look. The Nottingham Univeristy and Cambridge both have online displays/exhibits that are totally facinating.

As far as Shakespeare is concerned - no one much believes that now - Divine Right of Kings - but now people are placing works more realistically into the social/historical time frame they were written in. This has broadened perspectives and made people more tolerant of ideas that existed in our histories. This is happening widely in the film media, since there is a great interest and popularity presently of book adaptations and period pieces. It is good because people view history in a new light - they can see the time frame and the way people lived then and why they thought/acted as they did. Often this is due to social conditions of the time. Even with Lawrence we have to know some biography and some history of the time to place his work into proper perspective. His ideas and themes may exceed that time boundry and become 'universal' in these ideas and themes, but their origins were born in the early part of the 20th century. This, in the long run, is a very significant fact.
10-17-2007, 11:53 PM
Quark

I could see how some readers might construe this story as shallow. I've read some critics who believe there is a moral to the story--that Lawrence was teaching a lesson through the thoughts of Mrs. Bates. Of course, it's complete nonsense to argue that. If any of those critics try to define what the argument of the story is, they would falter and get quiet because the words at the end of the story are so vague. Besides, it's hard to know which thoughts Mrs. Bates is actually having and which are the conclusions of the author. And, to make things more complicated, the speech is utter in such an impassioned state that we can't decide how much is really sincere and not overstatement. While it's true that Lawrence uses most of the beginning of this story to give foreshadowing and context for the end, that doesn't mean that the ending necessarily contains a moral. I would say that the story is artificial, yes, but not shallow or instructional.
10-18-2007, 07:04 AM
Virgil

Good post Quark. :thumbs_up
10-18-2007, 05:33 PM
Janine

Yes, Quark it was a good post and it made me think. In fact, I am still thinking about what you wrote. I read it now several times. It is hard to tell how much is coming from L and how much is truly the character's own thoughts.
I just read that this story has always been acclaimed as one of L's best but this is disputed by some. I still think there is much in the story that is brilliant and shows pure genius.
Are you saying in your last line "I would say that the story is artificial, yes, but not shallow or instructional." - that the story is not at all 'realistic'? Can you define the word 'artificial', as you use it in this context/statement?

Virgil here is the chronology. Odour of Chysanthemums was started in 1911 and completed (after all revisions) in 1914; "Sons and Lovers" was started in 1911 and copyrighted in 1913. This proves that the two were written in the same time frame..interesing, isn't it?
10-18-2007, 08:30 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil here is the chronology. Odour of Chysanthemums was started in 1911 and completed (after all revisions) in 1914; "Sons and Lovers" was started in 1911 and copyrighted in 1913. This proves that the two were written in the same time frame..interesing, isn't it?

Oh thank you very much. That book is very useful. ;)
10-18-2007, 10:30 PM
Janine

I found this story date in my book, by Michael Black, and then looked up the publisher's date of "Sons and Lovers" in the front of my novel, then further researched it in my book entitled:
"Sons and Lovers" ~ Casebook Series ~ D.H.Lawrence ~ A Selection of Critical Essays Edited by Gamini Salgado

This is a fine and very helpful book. I wanted to mention it, since you might be able to secure it at your library. I first found it there in mine and I liked it so much I bought it (used) from Amazon. It is probably out of print, by now, but is quite an aid to studying the book, S&L.

Virgil, Glad I could be of assistence in the dating of the two works. What do you think of it being written around the same time as S&L?
10-18-2007, 10:37 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I found this story date in my book, by Michael Black, and then looked up the publisher's date of "Sons and Lovers" in the front of my novel, then further researched it in my book entitled:
"Sons and Lovers" ~ Casebook Series ~ D.H.Lawrence ~ A Selection of Critical Essays Edited by Gamini Salgado

This is a fine and very helpful book. I wanted to mention it, since you might be able to secure it at your library. I first found it there in mine and I liked it so much I bought it (used) from Amazon. It is probably out of print, by now, but is quite an aid to studying the book, S&L.

Virgil, Glad I could be of assistence in the dating of the two works. What do you think of it being written around the same time as S&L?

Well, they are similar in style. But there are differences. Mrs. Morel in S&L defeats her husband. She comes across as the one who's justice is on her side. But in OofCh, Elizabeth in a way is defeated by her husband. It turns out that Walter has some sort of justice on his side in this relationship.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 PM.