D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Hi there Quark :) Glad you have the time again to give your ideas to this story - lets join minds :D

---

Seems to be working well so far. I like the idea of joining our minds. :)

Quote:

---

@the word Nesh
Thank you for clarifying that Dark Muse :) Do you by any chance also know what "being northeast" means? I tried to google it, but can not really find any meaning to it in relation to human emotion.

I like Janine's idea on aligning Lawrence with the bird, and the women in his life with the women in the story. I think it is a bit far fetched though. I would rather think of Joey as a soldier wounded in battle (WWI), getting into a conflict which is not really his fight (Albert and Maggie their relationship).

---

Saphire, only answering a small part of your post for now. When I heard you all discussiong her as being 'Northeast' it seems to have set off a bell in my head and I thought of something that Hamlet said when talking to Polonius in double meanings or it may have been R & G, is former classmates. I tried to find it just now, but haven't located it. Something about being 'north by northeast,' although the expression may be northwest. He was trying to convince them he as mad and he is definitely melancholy. I wondered therefore, if the father-in-law didn't mean that Maggie was either 'cold' or 'distant' or 'melancholy' the last day or so. It may just be a local expression or English expression on the mood of a person.

Good work, Dark Muse, on finding the definition of 'Nesh.' That works a lot better; fits the story's meaning.

I still think there is an alignment with the narrator and Joey. Both felt helpless and were saved and therefore it would have been an incentive for the narrator to risk his own life to save the bird. It also definitely is reminescent of a fallen soldier; I had said that before. It is two fold in meaning.

I did read all your posts; I still have a somewhat sore arm but don't worry; I am keeping up with everyone's ideas and posts. It's typing which is a little difficult right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I would agree! A wife deserves to know that a husband IS cheating on her. But I am not so sure that it is beneficial that a spouse knows every little thing that the other as ever done.

---

Are you playing semantics here?

So it is pefectly ok for someone to have an affair as long as they don't get caught in the act, and after the fact the spouce does not need to know anything about it. And as long as the said affair is no longer in process than it is perfectly ok to have has many flings as you want and there is no obligation of need for the spouse to know about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Are you playing semantics here?

So it is pefectly ok for someone to have an affair as long as they don't get caught in the act, and after the fact the spouce does not need to know anything about it. And as long as the said affair is no longer in process than it is perfectly ok to have has many flings as you want and there is no obligation of need for the spouse to know about it.

---

Don't put words into my mouth!! It is NOT okay to commit fornication EVER!!! It's not about getting caught or not. It is wrong. I ONLY said that it is not always beneficial for one to know everything that a spouse has done in the past.

Considering the child had just been born recently I would not call it "the past" it was a fairly recent event. I do not see how a spouse could not possibly have a right to know that thier husband fathered a child with another woman while they were married. It is not like something he did 20 years ago.

I left you a happy child. Why are you returning a crying one? Of course, the thread is not mine. It belongs to Virgil and Janine and I am just a guest here.

Dark Muse, I like you, girl. You can be so carefree and pleasant and gifted, too, but sometimes you can be so exasperating. I think you know that. Others can have different opinions. I may be inclined to agreeing with your version of the story in the end because of your well-put interpretation below in the quote which nullifies my version:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I can only presume that it must somehow mean, unwell, or ill, or something of that nature becasue it says that she "got her color back" and the weather was heavy.

And prior to that he walks about how she has not been very "bright" since Alfred returend and Joey left, so I presume that to be "north-east" is to allude to ailing in someway.

or pehraps it means to be pale, or "down" or depressed. Something along those lines.

---

BienvenuJDC is not saying the narrator did the right thing to hide the truth. I think he is saying that it may be good for some people who cannot digest the whole truth and who may simply get a nervous breakdown, which may be irrelevant to the story.

I could give you an anecdote, though irrelevant to the story: My husband, a boyfriend back then, had a good friend who was a little weird. I privately and casually expressed my opinion of him to my boyfriend. As French as he was, he told his friend how I thought of him. He lost that friend soon after because the friend was very sensitive. If he did not tell him my feeling then, I could have in time gotten used to him and they would have remained friends.

What do Britains get from northeast? They just get cold wind and so I definitely agree with Dark Muse's interpretation of "northeast."

Ok, trying to catch up. I suppose I will not be able to respond to everything. But here's my best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire

I just found THIS on youtube (no sound). I know we are reading the Wintry and not the White Peacock, but just look at that bird! Wonderful :D

---

Fantastic! And thanks for yours too Janine. Now is that a phallic looking creature or what? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinjang

I thought "a bit of to-do" means there was a big fight between Maggie and Alfred, especially after "''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam" (She has not been very bright since Alfred came home.)

---

I took it as a sexual innuendo. The very next sentence Lawrence says: "He [the father] twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who flushed, brilliant and handsome." I do think it was a sexual reference.

Quote:

---

This shows simply that men - not referring to you though, should I?-lose their heads too much to think straight over sex, ruining their marriages and their lives sometimes like Alfred on the expense of happiness of others.

---

Referring to me? :lol: No I have not ruined my marriage if that's what you meant. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

That's a tall order, Janine. Let me just say that the narrator's lack of identity is odd, and then I'll wait and catch up to everyone else in the conversation.

---

This is a form of narrative of a first person narrator observer. This is a common form, especially in short stories, where one sees a story from one relatively removed from the central narrative. That's not unusual. I also don't think the narrator is all together removed, he does participate, though he is not part of the central core of the story. Why does Lawrence choose this form for this story? If he choose third person, he would feel obligated to give us Alfred's and Maggie's thoughts and that would have taken a lot of the mystery out. He could have picked first person from a central character, Maggie or Alfred, but then that would have been a different story and would have been obligated to give their perspective and the sympathies would have changed. I think Lawrence chose the best option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinjang

Virgil triumphantly-excuse my impression-thought that the men had their dominance back at home, even though Virgil disliked Alfred and his behavior, while fearing there is still a female power over men.

---

I'm not sure I said that. I don't see any dominance by the men in the story. The war has essentially castrated them. There is a male clique where the narrator and Alfred understand each other, and possibly even the father. Maggie's love for a peacock seems to be a manifestation of warped sexual relationships, all caused by the ramifications of the war.

In one of my last posts, I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I took it as a sexual innuendo. The very next sentence Lawrence says: "He [the father] twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who flushed, brilliant and handsome." I do think it was a sexual reference.

---

Do you really think so? I can't picture an English father-in-law blatantly referencing sex to a daughter-in-law no matter how close they feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Referring to me? No I have not ruined my marriage if that's what you meant.

---

I mean you may be thinking too much of sex to possibly misinterpreting the story.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm not sure I said that. I don't see any dominance by the men in the story.

---

Excuse me if I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you mentioned something about the reversed dominance between men and women after the war and how men lost their ruling roles in their households. When Maggie has the letter, she had the upper end of the fight. Now the narrator turned around the situation and gave Alfred the excuse to fight back hence regaining the dominance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

---

Yes, I wanted to ask you if Wintry peacock, Joey, means the manhood, why Alfred is trying to kill him. I lingered on the statement: Maggie is making too much of the bird. That is when I concluded Joey was in the way between Maggie and Alfred. I also called it Joey interfering innocently. What does it symbolize? I have no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinjang

I left you a happy child. Why are you returning a crying one? Of course, the thread is not mine. It belongs to Virgil and Janine and I am just a guest here.

---

I think leaving me with any child is considered child endagerment ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinjang

BienvenuJDC is not saying the narrator did the right thing to hide the truth. I think he is saying that it may be good for some people who cannot digest the whole truth and who may simply get a nervous breakdown, which may be irrelevant to the story.

---

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

---

Now I agree with you because it did not do any good to Maggie since she has been heavy weather since Wednesday after the letter was read to her.

This idea of yours belongs to our modern society: breaking up a marriage by infidelities. But does it fit to that time period? Many women endured with unfaithful husbands in the past because the life of divorced women was a lot worse. They were outcasts in many societies as you well know.

Maggie definitely knows the truth or at least has the strong suspicion. It may be better for her to know it all at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

If he choose third person, he would feel obligated to give us Alfred's and Maggie's thoughts and that would have taken a lot of the mystery out. He could have picked first person from a central character, Maggie or Alfred, but then that would have been a different story and would have been obligated to give their perspective and the sympathies would have changed. I think Lawrence chose the best option.

---

That is an excellent point! Here is a proof of an expert in Lawrence or short stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinjang

This idea of yours belongs to our modern society: breaking up a marriage by infidelities. But does it fit to that time period? Many women endured with unfaithful husbands in the past because the life of divorced women was a lot worse. They were outcasts in many societies as you well know.

---

I did not spicify divorce or breaking up the marraige, I simply said she should be able to make up her own mind on how she wanted to handle the situation, that does not per sae mean explcitiy getting a divorce. But there were women whom even at this period of time did choose divorce over unhappy marraiges even knowing the difficulties that could come from such. So it would not be completely out of the question for Maggie. But I had not acutally directly suggested it. But at any rate Maggie should be alloud to decide for herself with the full truth what she thinks would be within her own personaly best interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know.

---

If that is the case, then the narrator should say absolutely nothing at all. And I myself would lean toward this. My advice to Maggie would be that she should ask Alfred about his OWN letter.

Quote:

---

And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouses

---

I do not think that there should be secrets between spouses either. But let's put the emphasis where it belongs...between spouses

I am just curious... what is the marital status of each in this thread? If you want to share...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I think leaving me with any child is considered child endagerment ;)

---

haha..Dark Muse, I think she means she left you (the child) as a happy one. She might have said 'a happy camper' instead. And jinjang, this thread does not belong to anyone. It's just that Virgil and I collaborated (ages ago) to start this thread and we do our darnest each month to keep it running. It helps to have a little structure in these discussions or they tend to get out of hand. We learned that from the past; and infact, these discussions seem to be getting better all the time. No one else that I know, really wants the responsibility of posting text, so that seems to have fallen on my shoulders; and I really don't mind. I love Lawrence's work so I love writing up the introduction or researching a background - it's a pure labor of love. I guess I have read the most Lawrence short stories so far or anyone. In fact, recently, I have been attempting to read all the ones, I have not yet read; so I can say I completed the entire three volume set. I am nearing my goal.

Quote:

---

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

---

I just realised something Dark Muse; you are an 'idealist'. The problem with that is we are reading a story where idealism does not dominate and we are not here to judge the characters by our own standards. Our world is not always an idealistic world either. I think Lawrence is going for reality here and not idealism or moral perfection. I would personally agree with you on the moral issues and very much not approve of a husband sneaking around behind my back or getting another woman pregnant, or even just fooling around, being secretive. I don't think, however, married couples have to tell each other everything about their lives - people need some space. I also think there is a thing called 'forgiveness'; that is not an easy road to travel and not always possible; but one has to consider the possibilty. I doubt I would be too forgiving in the instance of a filandering husband, but this was a different century for one thing; therefore, I am not sure this woman has a lot of options left to her. Apparently, she cannot even return to her former home. The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I think that Virgil's post above is very good and his rendition of why this story was told in first person narrative is excellent. It would have been an entirely different story, as he says, if it had not been first person or had it been told from either Alfred or Maggie's perspective. Much of the mystery would have been lost or unbalanced. Being a first person narrative, also we must consider the perspective of the narrator. I agree with Virgil that Lawrence chose the right option in using the first person narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I am just curious... what is the marital status of each in this thread? If you want to share...

---

I think I have abundantly cleared on this one: I am married with two children and I am the dominating wife or at least my husband allows me to think so so far as it does not interfere with his dominance or his couch. We met as good friends and we are married as good friends. He tells me almost everything honestly and so do I to him. I even told him on which friends or people I had crush. We have incessant topics to talk about over a dinner or on our walk. We fight, too, sometimes.

I know you were not asking me this question.

Single; no secret there; it's in my profile information. I am divorced with one son. The divorce was eons ago, when I was quite young and foolish; I think that was one of my first lives. In fact, you might now refer to me as a widow, since my ex passed away a few years back. We were on casual speaking terms, since he was the father of my son; also he had been married two more times since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I did not spicify divorce or breaking up the marraige, I simply said she should be able to make up her own mind on how she wanted to handle the situation, that does not per sae mean explcitiy getting a divorce.

---

That is Maggie's dilemma. I would suggest her not to sleep with Alfred for a long time to punish him, but then he may repeat the offense again. Excuse me if I take it so lightly.

Quote:

---

But there were women whom even at this period of time did choose divorce over unhappy marraiges even knowing the difficulties that could come from such. So it would not be completely out of the question for Maggie. But I had not acutally directly suggested it. But at any rate Maggie should be alloud to decide for herself with the full truth what she thinks would be within her own personaly best interests.

---

One compensation for women is, as we men and women get older, we need men less and men need women more in their emotional need. I am past 30.
I was needy when I was 20's and happily not anymore.