D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

While one cannot really make a case for Alfred being impotent since there is evidence to prove otherwise I do agree with Virgil that the peacock is a strong symbol for the male.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

Quote:

---

He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

---

Quote:

---

Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.

---

Quote:

---

Sometimes he stirred, but mostly he huddled still, leaning his queer crested head on one side.

---

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Even though this may be true of Lawrence, it just doesn't fit in this story. To try to apply it forces it and makes it unrealistic. I won't say that you're wrong. I can see the symbolism in the wording, but it does not fit with the story overall. What men are mentioned in the story: the narrator, Alfred, and Alfred's father. Help me to see it by answering these questions:

How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to the narrator?
How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to Alfred?
How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to Alfred's father?
What other men might I have missed that this could apply to?

On the other hand, we could very well apply this to OTHER aspects of Alfred's manhood. I don't see Alfred as being one to be able to manage the family farm. Not only is he lame, but he doesn't show the attributes of responsibility. But if we are talking about Alfred's deficiency in these areas, then it would not really be accurate describing this as a phallic symbol...(or anti-phallic as it may be).

---

I'm not sure I ever said anything about impotence. Did I? It's not so much that any male is impotent, it's that society has lost potency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While one cannot really make a case for Alfred being impotent since there is evidence to prove otherwise I do agree with Virgil that the peacock is a strong symbol for the male.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.







While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

---

I would agree with just about everything you say here. I do think that the war is very prominant in this story. While there is no war going on, its impact is felt in every event: the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

---

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Notice the description of the bird:


"snow-wet," "spent," "too spent to rise," "his eye closing and opening," "crested head," "droop," "wilt," "as if he might suddenly die." :lol:

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

---

I may have misunderstood these points mentioned to be phallus symbols of impotence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

---

Bien I agree with you that Freud is a crock. However, while Lawrence wasn't necessarily a Freudian he does essentially buy into the subconscious-dominates-a-person stuff. It was the ideas of his times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

---

While I am no fan of Frued, D.H. Lawrence can be seen as being somewhat preverse himself at times. Many of his stories do very strongly deal with sex and sexulaity and so it is valid to consider the question of sex. A lot of his prose does often tend to have very strong errotic connotations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While I am no fan of Freud, D.H. Lawrence can be seen as being somewhat perverse himself at times. Many of his stories do very strongly deal with sex and sexuality and so it is valid to consider the question of sex. A lot of his prose does often tend to have very strong erotic connotations.

---

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

But from my perspective, it doesn't seem to fit, and it seems very unnaturally forced. It doesn't add anything conducive for me to interpret the work.

If you can understand this example: I can get to New Jersey by way of New York from Pennsylvania, but it is unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

But from my perspective, it doesn't seem to fit, and it seems very unnaturally forced. It doesn't add anything conducive for me to interpret the work.

If you can understand this example: I can get to New Jersey by way of New York from Pennsylvania, but it is unnecessary.

---

I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual; I feel in this story, the sexual aspects truly are not the main focus. I still hold true that the war and the fall of man/society is prominent here. I think that, Lawrence sees the corrupt aspect of one society occupying the land of another society, thus the aspect of the child being born out of wedlock, the father abandoning that child, the wife at home being hurt (wounded) by this fact....all these aspects of the story do come about by sexual indecrecion, but the bigger picture is the war, which has brought about this situation. It becomes very clear to me in that first paragraph, describing the snowstorm, that this is the theme that Lawrence is conveying. Also, as Virgil points out, there are basic aspects throughout this story that are prominent and common in wartime - "the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg". Since this story is included in a collection, compiled by Lawrence himself, "England My England", in which every story in this collection does have a war theme within the subtext, I think that says something about the basic theme put forth by this story. I probably am the one who mentioned 'impotence', but I do feel this story says something about that on a grander scale than just sexual; it was Virgil's pointing out the specific words about the struggling peacock, that lead to to make the statement; but that same description could be that of a wounded soldier; maybe even Alfred himself - who knows what wounds he sustained on his leg, how long he went through recovery, how bad off he might have been? It could also be that in loosing a limb or wounding a leg, a man would then feel an inflated masculinity and no longer feel a man/male. I wasn't necessarily pointing to he male equipment. If you think about it, Alfred was wounded; I had the impression he was nursed back to health by this foreign woman, but I could be wrong about that fact. Perhaps since we see his wife as critical of him and suspicious, we can imagine, he sought solace elsewhere with a woman who did not see his wounds as inflating his masculinity. In this respect the war having caused his wound may have then made him more vulnerable, and open to the affair he had in Belgium. It is, as Virgil, pointed out "that society has lost potency." Yes, and one might add 'decency' and 'morality' to that, in the case of Alfred getting the young woman pregnant; and even if she pursued him, the irresponsibility of this action during this unnatural time of war would be themetic. As jinjang pointed out earlier, this is common to many countries and is still going on today, which is quite sad. This is, therefore, a universal theme/story, which is now timeless. I don't think Lawrence is blaming anyone here, but rather looking beyond that to the horrible aspect of war - quite unnatural - which spawns incidents such as this; causing further corrosion to society and it's moral fiber.

Dark Muse, I don't think this is a negation.

Quote:

---

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

---

I see, in this time period and way of thinking, that the male/man is the one to go off to war; therefore, the peacock would naturally represent the male in all his glory; perhaps even reminescent of men bedecked with glorious uniforms going off to war. But I think the bird respresents more than a sexual/phallic image. I do see that Maggie is very much rooted to the earth and the beings on earth - birds, cows, the farm in general; in this way, the peacock does represent Lawrence's idea of 'blood consciousness', as Virgil pointed out earlier. Now in reverse, Alfred has been free to leave the farm and do as he pleases in wartime. I think this 'marital separation' is one aspect of the war causing demise to society and the strength of families and marriages.


And Bien, I totally understand you and agree on many points. Some of us do have prior knowledge into certain aspects of Lawrence's thinking and writing and the background influences as well. However, fresh perspectives are a great advantage as well. Therefore, I don't see this as a draw-back on your part. I like to hear you take on the story from that new perspective. Same would apply to jinjang who is new or any other new posters in this thread. I agree with you, that they sexual elements might be there but I believe they are secondary to the main theme as I expressed above.

Great points!
Expounding on the idea of blame. There has been much discussion about blame, but I think that we dwell too much on blame. My wife and I have struggled with this (in little things). It doesn't matter WHOSE fault it is, but WHAT is the best course of action for us all in order to make the best of our lives.

You also bring up a good point about the Belgium girl nursing Alfred back to health. Alfred may not be as NO GOOD as he seems. Maybe he got caught up in am emotional affair, receiving affections and attention that he'd not received before. This by NO MEANS is excuse for what he did, that was WRONG. But what would others have done in his situation. He is now without the complete use of one leg. One question that I have: Can Alfred make something GOOD of himself if given the chance? Yes, he can. Just as well as anyone else. Jean Valjean made mistakes...and Jean Valjean changed. Why? Because of a man that the people labeled as Bienvenu.

Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual; I feel in this story, the sexual aspects truly are not the main focus. I still hold true that the war and the fall of man/society is prominent here. I think that, Lawrence sees the corrupt aspect of one society occupying the land of another society, thus the aspect of the child being born out of wedlock, the father abandoning that child, the wife at home being hurt (wounded) by this fact....all these aspects of the story do come about by sexual indecrecion, but the bigger picture is the war, which has brought about this situation. It becomes very clear to me in that first paragraph, describing the snowstorm, that this is the theme that Lawrence is conveying. Also, as Virgil points out, there are basic aspects throughout this story that are prominent and common in wartime - "the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg". Since this story is included in a collection, compiled by Lawrence himself, "England My England", in which every story in this collection does have a war theme within the subtext, I think that says something about the basic theme put forth by this story. I probably am the one who mentioned 'impotence', but I do feel this story says something about that on a grander scale than just sexual; it was Virgil's pointing out the specific words about the struggling peacock, that lead to to make the statement; but that same description could be that of a wounded soldier; maybe even Alfred himself - who knows what wounds he sustained on his leg, how long he went through recovery, how bad off he might have been? It could also be that in loosing a limb or wounding a leg, a man would then feel an inflated masculinity and no longer feel a man/male. I wasn't necessarily pointing to he male equipment. If you think about it, Alfred was wounded; I had the impression he was nursed back to health by this foreign woman, but I could be wrong about that fact. Perhaps since we see his wife as critical of him and suspicious, we can imagine, he sought solace elsewhere with a woman who did not see his wounds as inflating his masculinity. In this respect the war having caused his wound may have then made him more vulnerable, and open to the affair he had in Belgium. It is, as Virgil, pointed out "that society has lost potency." Yes, and one might add 'decency' and 'morality' to that, in the case of Alfred getting the young woman pregnant; and even if she pursued him, the irresponsibility of this action during this unnatural time of war would be themetic. As jinjang pointed out earlier, this is common to many countries and is still going on today, which is quite sad. This is, therefore, a universal theme/story, which is now timeless. I don't think Lawrence is blaming anyone here, but rather looking beyond that to the horrible aspect of war - quite unnatural - which spawns incidents such as this; causing further corrosion to society and it's moral fiber.

---

That is extremely well said Janine. :thumbs_up Perhaps I need to clarify the sexual connotations in the story. I don't mean to say that the characters are not capable of having or performing sex. I mean that the war has perverted the gender roles of the characters and that to Lawrence leads to a perversion of the normative structure of society. For Lawrence, Alfred is not acting as a proper male (and possibly even the narrator, though that may be less clear) and Maggie is not acting as the proper female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

That is extremely well said Janine. :thumbs_up Perhaps I need to clarify the sexual connotations in the story. I don't mean to say that the characters are not capable of having or performing sex. I mean that the war has perverted the gender roles of the characters and that to Lawrence leads to a perversion of the normative structure of society. For Lawrence, Alfred is not acting as a proper male (and possibly even the narrator, though that may be less clear) and Maggie is not acting as the proper female.

---

GREAT!
Didn't WWII also change the gender roles in America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

GREAT!
Didn't WWII also change the gender roles in America?

---

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

---

okay...............
...But didn't WWII change gender roles? Rosie? Women in the work force? Would you admit that men going off to war often put women into the roles that the men had to leave behind? Therefore...wouldn't DHL have been justified in his thoughts about disrupted gender roles due to war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

---

Gee wiz, Virgil, coming down a little hard on poor Bienvenu aren't you? (maybe you should keep you signature Byron quote:lol:). I didn't see where he was confusing real life with this story. I think he was just making a random statement that WWII, also caused further gender role changes. When Lawrence wrote 'Wintry Peacock' this earlier time-span, it was a time that was very significant for woman's rights - woman getting the vote, woman pushing ahead for equal right in many aspects of employment, woman authors voicing their opinions, etc. By WWII, women had the vote and they even took part in the war effort directly.

Virgil, thanks for your compliments on my post. That really meant a lot to me. Somedays, for some odd reason one can think more clearly than other days - must be from playing Shared and 3 person Haiku;)...sharpens the brain. Today I felt I had clearer insight into the whole issue you broached. Your and Bien's former posts lead to mine; they both made me think this out, looking at the bigger picture of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

Gee wiz, Virgil, coming down a little hard on poor Bienvenu aren't you? (maybe you should keep you signature Byron quote:lol:). I didn't see where he was confusing real life with this story. I think he was just making a random statement that WWII, also caused further gender role changes. When Lawrence wrote 'Wintry Peacock' this earlier time-span, it was a time that was very significant for woman's rights - woman getting the vote, woman pushing ahead for equal right in many aspects of employment, woman authors voicing their opinions, etc. By WWII, women had the vote and they even took part in the war effort directly.

---

Was I? I didn't mean to be.

Quote:

---

Virgil, thanks for your compliments on my post. That really meant a lot to me. Somedays, for some odd reason one can think more clearly than other days - must be from playing Shared and 3 person Haiku;)...sharpens the brain. Today I felt I had clearer insight into the whole issue you broached. Your and Bien's former posts lead to mine; they both made me think this out, looking at the bigger picture of the story.

---

This is a fine story Janine, with incredible subtlety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

okay...............
...But didn't WWII change gender roles? Rosie? Women in the work force? Would you admit that men going off to war often put women into the roles that the men had to leave behind? Therefore...wouldn't DHL have been justified in his thoughts about disrupted gender roles due to war?

---

Yes, absolutely. I think the gender roles in England may have been drastically changed in WWI, and in the US in WWII. And yes lawrence blamed the war for a lot of society's problems. Actually it was reciprical. He saw the modern industrial world as leading to the war (that's not in this story) and then the war having a terrible effect on society as well.

I apologize Bien if I came across as harsh. I didn't mean to be harsh. I thought your last few posts were straying from the story. But as I look back it was more my impression than so.