Don't faint now :lol:; I would agree with that. See, we usually do agree on some point eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Printable View
Don't faint now :lol:; I would agree with that. See, we usually do agree on some point eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
No...I mean those who seem to be emotionally unmoved...maybe to say 'emotionless'. This is very much different than calm, even though they both might appear the same at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
I see a trend that we keep jumping ahead. There is much in this story that is NOT about how nasty Alfred is. I don't like men like Alfred...very unpolished, maybe a self-centered brat...if that is fair to say. Would you judge someone based solely on the perception of two women who have been...or think that they have been scorned? I have always been one to quickly judge people...only to find out that I judged them based on the exception...not the rule.
It is most likely the case that Alfred is exactly how I described him above, but let us try to forget those things that we have already read in the end...(for the narrator at this point is not aware of those things)...and see the situation at this point in the story. This is not about judging Alfred, but about examining the literary work.
For me it is not judghing Alfred based on the opinion of two women, but unless one claims the letter is a lie there is no denying the fact that he was unfaituful, and that in itself is enough for me. I do not need to know more than that to know what I think of him. I do not care if outside of that incident he is the most generous man in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Plus he said he wanted to kill Joey which for me the only thing worse than being unfaithful is killing an animal in cold blood.
Yes, I agree, I just wanted to respond to what you said and I am not the sort to keep my opinions to myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
One of the things I had found interesting during this whole porcess of reading the letter to her, is the distraction of both of them. Though she had asked him to read the letter to him, it seems she already more or less knows what it is. For she does not beleive his version of the letter as he reads it but already has decided the truth of the matter beforhand, as she keeps interupting him with her commentary.
As well it is when he starts to read the letter that Joey comes up, and so she seems to be only half paying attention to him with her focus having shifting upon the bird as he reads. As if the letter is really of no importance at all.
And then there was that seemingly rather odd moment when he suddenly asked about the cows. It struck me as a bit currious when I read it as it seemed a bit out of place and without reason. But just popped out of nowhere.
In the middle of thier conversation he asks about cows, and than the go right back to discussing the letter again.Quote:
'What other reason has she for writing like that--' I went out into the road and looked at the cattle. 'Who is this driving the cows?' I said. She too came out. 'It's the boy from the next farm,' she said.
I also found the slight inconsistency to be currious. She says that she was married to Alfred for six years
But than letter she said that Joey came down from her home with her seven years ago.Quote:
We married? We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war.
So there is a year in which she had not been staying at her home, but it is not very likely back than that she was living with Alfred for a year before they married.Quote:
He came with me from my home seven years ago.
You will have to pardon me for the next couple of days. I have to go on a business trip and won't be on. I won't be on too much this evening either. I have to prepare. I'll catch up, I swear. Looks like a good discussion. :)
Dark Muse, You made some very interesting points here. I think notably the factor of the 'distraction' of each character as the letter is being read. Interesting, that she is distracted by the peacock and he by the cows at one point; both animals connected directly to the land. I think the land becomes a character in itself. I am not quite sure how to interpret it yet but I recall one part where the narrator is linking the icy cold snow on the slopes directly with death. I wonder now if that has anything to do with the war and trenches, or threat of death; but I won't jump ahead to that specific part, until we reach the actual text.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I agree. I agree, too, that she seems to know the outcome and portent of the letter already. I wonder if her main objective is actually to draw the narrator into her and her husband's scandal. I am not sure for what reasons she is doing that. Perhaps, she is being flirtious with the narrator all along. Has anyone thought of this - why she would share a personal deception like this one with a virtual stranger.Quote:
As well it is when he starts to read the letter that Joey comes up, and so she seems to be only half paying attention to him with her focus having shifting upon the bird as he reads. As if the letter is really of no importance at all.
It did indeed seem sudden and I wondered why he asked about who was driving them.Quote:
And then there was that seemingly rather odd moment when he suddenly asked about the cows. It struck me as a bit currious when I read it as it seemed a bit out of place and without reason. But just popped out of nowhere.
Perhaps he is easily distracted; many people are like that in real life; or maybe this indicates the narrator is bored or more interested in the cows than Maggie; so maybe that is why, or to indicate he feels close to his natural surroundings; connected and very aware of what goes on around him. Lawrence must have had a purpose to interject those lines. I will go back to look at those exact part of the text more carefully.Quote:
In the middle of thier conversation he asks about cows, and than the go right back to discussing the letter again.
I didn't notice this before, but I will go back to check it out in the text, as well. If there is a difference, it is a bit curious.Quote:
I also found the slight inconsistency to be currious. She says that she was married to Alfred for six years..... But than letter she said that Joey came down from her home with her seven years ago....So there is a year in which she had not been staying at her home, but it is not very likely back than that she was living with Alfred for a year before they married.
I am one of those easily distracted. I just finished writing a proposal for my work and got here. While I enjoy reading very much all your postings, my arms are up in the air at this point... I have never - never once in my life - dissected a story this much. That is why I am in math - one answer to a problem! I will keep reading all your opinions, though, enjoying it from a safe distance as before. You now have a good listener (reader).Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."
I realize that many Lawrence stories have sex all over hidden, including this one. Men know what they want while women themselves do not exactly know what they want. Maggie, in reality and in all truth, wants Alfred, but clings to Joey as if the bird can satisfy her need of affection. It is pathetic!
Excuse me here and I mean no offense to anyone. I will read on quietly from now on.
With a degree in accounting, working as an estimator, also in purchasing and Quality Control as a Project Coordinator...I deal with math all day. I don't mean to be disagreeable but the APPLICATION of math...there are far too many answers to one problem...and often...too often...far too many questions from each answer...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol:Quote:
Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."
Please...I've enjoyed your comments, and you've brought out many good points. Besides, since Virgil is going to be gone, this thread is going to start to die off a little. I'm also going to have to fall back a little myself, so please comment freely.Quote:
Excuse me here and I mean no offense to anyone. I will read on quietly from now on.
jinjang, get those arms back on the keyboard and stop getting overwhelmed; I agree with Bienvenu, we need you here and so far you have written some very fine posts with much insight. We can slow up a bit, if you wish; but ofcourse, if we do that we will be here forever dissecting. I think it might be time soon to move on from the section. We more or less dissected this last section in the posts prior to my posting it. Still take more time to read what everyone wrote and comment if need be.Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
I am an artist, not a literature major. In fact, this is my 'second life', I believe. I didn't have the time to explore literature in depth, when I was younger, so now I have taken up the pursuit. Math is cool, too. In fact, I dealt heavily with math (trig and geometry) in one job I had for several years as a structural steel detailer - don't ask; one of the many things I tried in my lifetime. I tended to branch out in many directions.
As Bien said :lol::lol::lol::lol:.....good one!:thumbs_upQuote:
Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."
True and sometimes not so hidden.:lol: I like your take on Maggie and the bird, and I would have to agree.Quote:
I realize that many Lawrence stories have sex all over hidden, including this one. Men know what they want while women themselves do not exactly know what they want. Maggie, in reality and in all truth, wants Alfred, but clings to Joey as if the bird can satisfy her need of affection. It is pathetic!
Please do post when you feel inclined to. I very much enjoyed your posts and your take on the story and you are very witty and fun to read as well. I love that last story and I love your new avy; is that the 'night owl'?Quote:
Excuse me here and I mean no offense to anyone. I will read on quietly from now on.
One of the things which interested me about this story is the title. Titles often play a key and important role in stories, and there most be a specific reason why this one is called Wintry Peacock. It seems here the peacock is made to play a more significant role than just the friendly companion of Maggie but rather there is some deeper statement in the presence of the bird to carry throughout the story and the characters.
I knew the peacock played an important role in many different cultures and so I started some research on symbolism behind the bird. Some of the things I found I think are interesting and while I am not sure what their exact meaning is, I can see who they might perhaps play into this story.
In Christianity the Peacock came to be seen as a symbol of vanity and it was said that even the beautiful peacock thinks his own feet as ugly. This was meant to be a lesson to humans that they should remember their own imperfections and faults.
In Japan the peacock was believed to have the power to devour poisonous serpents and so it came to represent the transformation of evil into good.
In some cultures it is seen as a symbol of immortality.
And best for last, most ironically, and which I find most difficult to see as a coincidence.
The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.
I thought I submitted a post but when next I look, it had disappeared and was nowhere to be found. Oh well, I guess these things happen when you haven't been on the forum for too long.
I am one of these people too. Often in a conversation I will say something or point out something completely irrelevant from the conversation at hand. I think the reason I do this is out of awkwardness. Plus I am a fidgety person with and find it difficult to concentrate too long on one thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I can understand why Maggie's character would try to distract herself with the peacock. If I were her, I'd be doing it to deaden the emotional impact of the situation I find myself in. I wouldn't want to cry or show more vulnerability, especially to an acquaintance, at what I discover in the contents of a personal love letter from someone else to my husband and patting and cooing at the peacock would sort of remove me from the scene a little.
I don't like how the narrator decides to soften the letter, not because I am adamant that the truth should be stated at all times but because I feel as if there was no reason for him to do so. I feel that Maggie's character came to him for confirmation of her husband's deceit and betrayal. She already suspects his character and is intuitively certain but she cannot justify the inclination to leave him if that suspicion is not substantiated. So the narrator does her a great injustice by lying to her. Worse, he believes it is to save her feelings but she already suspects, even already knows the content of the letter, so his action is useless and does not contribute at all to the situation. He is doing something for the sake of his idea of what is honourable and noble, stemmed from a feeling of pity for the woman, but devoid of a righteous compassion for Maggie's character. He is softening the letter because he is misplacing Maggie with the idea of her. She is only a general case to him, not a real person. The general case is the the woman would be distressed to discover such a deceitful truth, the real person is a woman who is all too knowledgeable about the actual character of her husband. Again, I am amazed at Lawrence's skill in showing this displacement very well.
That's very useful Dark Muse. Don't you just love it when understanding clicks in your head because that's what just happened to me when I read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Wasn't Lawrence's first novel called something peacock as well? Perhaps fidelity has been a theme which has always interested him.
You might be right. I think that if it were me as the narrator, I'd have to say that I could not get involved in such personal matters. I might later privately talk to Alfred about doing what's right, but on the other hand...to meddle in other's affairs (no pun intended) will often come back to burn you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
BTDT (Been there, done that!)
...and remember, from a man's perspective...women don't always want the truth, but what they want is their desired truth...ever hear the question, "Does this make me look fat?" There's not an answer than a man can give that won't get him into trouble... Or..."Do you think that she is pretty?":goof: ..uh...hmm...oo...uh..:eek2:Umm...no...noooo..not. .uh..!:confused:....uhgg....:brickwall
Emmy, good to see you back. I will answer your posts tomorrow. It's so late here; hot, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
His first novel indeed, was entitled "The White Peacock" and I have read it; yes, fidelity was a very important thing to Lawrence; the irony is that Lawrence ran off with another man's wife. Of course, the woman, Frieda Weekley, was not happily married for many years; but when she finally left her husband and eloped with Lawrence to marry him, once the divorce was final, the sad thing is she was forced to leave her children behind in England; since her husband brought all matter of custody cases against her, barring her from seeing them; she did manage to see them, but her time with them was limited, until they got older. However, once Lawrence, who never was married before, did marry, he expected fidelity; whether he got it or not is a long complicated story and highly debated. Let's just say he believed in it ardently and this runs through all his novels.
In "The White Peacock" I think the peacock is tied in with fidelity. I am not completely sure but that may be something I should investigate further. I liked the book very much, although it has some flaws; the writing is simply beautiful and fresh for a young new author. The woodland and field scenes are magnificent.
Haha that's true... there are times when women want the truth and others when they just want to be flattered... I know this because I am guilty of doing so to my own partner. I guess it can be pretty difficult for men to understand women, even super geniuses like DH Lawrence. But perhaps even he only understands in hindsight, after he's analysed a situation by writing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
haha...Bien, your post was a riot.....and...'we' were all posting same time. I am going to bed now....night all!
I've been having trouble finding 'The White Peacock' in stores; the general level of Australian bookstores is quite poor and they seem to have endless copies of Lady Chattterley's Lover and Sons and Lovers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Thanks so much, Janine, for welcoming me to this thread. I am having an absolutely wonderful time and I'm grateful for the internet and its advancements in uniting me with the handful of DH Lawrence lovers who happen to be on the other side of the world. The times before the DH Lawrence short stories thread were very lonely for me indeed.