Printable View
Hi, is anybody going to read the story and post soon? Actually I am just posting, so I can get this thread on the first page and that way we won't forget about it.
Maybe by Monday, I will be able to write something to get us started, or if anyone else wants to start feel free. I read the story a week ago, but need to review it before posting.
Hi everyone! I have just finished reading the story and liked it very much! This is the first Lawrence work I have ever read and I think it was a nice beginning for many other short stories and novels written by this great author that I will read in the future. I appreciated very much the author's spring depictions, reminding me of Monet's watercolours and the sensibility which relives throughout the short story.
I'll wait till Monday, when the discussions start. I can hardly wait to participate in them and..I'll try my best!
Read it today. I found the writing style very similar to the one that in Sons and Lovers. Description of the place reminds me of the way Lawrence had described Miriam's farm and the places where Miriam used to take Paul. And the good thing is that it's not descriptive in a boring sense.
I found the emotions of the characters interesting and well-put. Especially the first encounter of Syson and Hilda's present lover was very interesting, made me want to read more.
I feel story's major theme revolves around this: :)
Quote:
I am like a plant, I can only grow in my own soil. - Hilda from Shades of Spring
Great! Pensive, you are joining in this discussion, too; I am delighted! I talked to Downing yesterday and encouraged her to go ahead and post something. I suppose by now, everyone noticed that this story got pushed up a month, since we all were too tied up with the other L posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
Pensive, Yes, right away I knew you would like this one and relate it to "Sons and Lovers". You bring up a good point about Hilda being satisfied to live where she is and Syson has a different path to follow, he mentions that nearer the end. "Did I? he asked. "And could your way never have been my way? I suppose not." Interesting, since Lawrence used "my path" or "my way" often; in his own life his wife very much followed "his path". This is the central theme, I believe, as you suggested and the story revolves around this idea. I think, also, there are some underlying things going on, as well.
In the line prior to the one I quoted, Hilda says to him "You plucked a thing and looked at it till you had found out all you wanted to know about it, then you threw it away". Pensive, didn't you mention to me in the other thread how Miriam had felt violated by Lawrence exposing her so? Interesting now to see the woman's 'come-back', or 'defense' is it not?
I agree that that first meeting of the two men spurs one on to read further. It is an interesting way to set up the story before the actual meeting of the two former lovers.
The writing style is very fluid and poetic and pastoral, I believe. It is much the style of writing of "Sons and Lovers." I also read Lawrence's first book "The White Peacock". This story is very reminescent of that writing style, especially the mention of the birds and the nests in the woodland. It is so lovely a depiction; makes one long to be there.
From studying WIL, I immediately noticed 'Willey Water - Farm' in the book. There is an interesting map in my WIL book with 'Willey Spring Wood', which sits directly by Haggs Farm. Haggs farm was home to Miriam/Jesse, as you know. I will try to scan this photo and post in the WIL, S&L thread; maybe here too. I had the same distinct feeling that Syson is somewhat a stand-in for Lawrence and his desire to revisit (if only in his mind) the places he frequented while growing up, especially his 'first love' - definitely reminescent of his writing style and descriptions in "Sons and Lovers".
In WIL, in the very significant chapter "Water-Party" most of that chapter takes place on 'Willey Water' - a pond on the estate of Gerald's parent's. It is interesting how all this ties in together. It was all generated from Lawrence's own childhood and countryside. There are many correlations to "Sons and Lovers" and to Lawrence's life in this story, if you look carefully. I noticed that Hilda mentioned that she knew the birds names, but not the plants/flowres. Syson/Lawrence did indeed study botony and loved it, and knew all the names of plants. You can notice how exquisitely he describes them. As Downing describes it it is like a Monet watercolor. I think this but even more vivid than Monet. No wonder Lawrence was great friends with Georgia O'Keefe later in life. She painted those vivid colorful flower blossoms.
Quote by Downing:
Hi Downing and everyone else,Quote:
Hi everyone! I have just finished reading the story and liked it very much! This is the first Lawrence work I have ever read and I think it was a nice beginning for many other short stories and novels written by this great author that I will read in the future. I appreciated very much the author's spring depictions, reminding me of Monet's watercolours and the sensibility which relives throughout the short story.
I'll wait till Monday, when the discussions start. I can hardly wait to participate in them and..I'll try my best!
basically, I picked this story for the newcomers to Lawrence and more to the liking of the ladies present (since the last one was dealing with 2 men/violence). So, that includes you, Pensive, and Downing and Grace, (I think) manolia.
Grace emailed me today asking about the thread and if we were still doing this story. She is going to read it in the next few days. This will be a great discussion this time. 'The more the merrier', so they say! Also, know that Virgil will join in and maybe Asa, although I have not heard from him for a time. I hope others also join in. Gee, I feel like the coordinator!:lol:
Yes, I think this particular story is a good introduction to Lawrence's work; also relates to his other novels we have been studying.:)
Hi Pensive! I'm glad to see you around and I hope you will remain in this thread throughout the discussions, help us decoding the message of Lawrence's short story.
You pointed out well one of the story's themes; but I think that we could decode more. Certainly we've got to find a single major theme and other secondary themes. You said that the major theme descends from Hilda's memorable reply
I would permit to contradict you and say that, in my humble oppinion, the major theme aims at the relationship between a man and a woman, refering in this case at blind love: I think there is no possibility of happiness in a couple if the two persons are different. Hilda points out:Quote:
I am like a plant, I can only grow in my own soil.
.Quote:
"We are very different,"
I believe that the next part I selected from Hilda's and Syson's dialogue would be edifying in the search of the major theme:
I think that Lawrence's idea is that if a man and a woman are suitable, they do actually follow the same way- I would insist on this word which occurs many times in the character's dialogue.Quote:
"Did I?" he asked. "And could your way never have been my way? I suppose not."
"Why should it?" she said. "I am a separate being."
"But surely two people sometimes go the same way," he said.
From this dialogue I understand that the two charcaters are really different; Hilda believed that she needn't have followed the same ''path'' as her former lover, because she claims that she is a separate being. By giving this reply, I understand that Hilda doesn't have any love for Syson,because, if you love someone, you certainly have to follow in life the same path as the person you love,don't you think? And it occured to me an old greek legend that I once heard: the greeks believed that when we are born, we are given half of heart and we are obliged to find out the person from this world who's got the other half. Only in this way we can reach happiness;
Hilda and Syson could have never been happy because they have different views about love and life. Applying the greek legend to the characters' fates, I would afirm that Syson hasn't found yet the other ''half of heart''. Hilda could have possibly find it at the keeper. And in this consists the hero's drama. He loved a woman who wasn't alike him. I think and I am sorry for repeating myself, that this is the fact which Lawrence wanted to insist on: the importance of choosing the suitable ''half'', constituting in the same time, the major theme of the short story.
I think that the theme you found, Pensive-very good, of course- would fit as a secondary theme, refering to Hilda's views about life and love; but of course, I might be wrong. Nobody's perfect, is it?
I invite the other participants in the discussion to say their own oppinions about the major and secondary themes of the short story. Perhaps they've got other ideas and we'll be happy to listen to them :)
Edit: Sorry Janine, I posted after you but haven't seen your post; I guess you posted while I was writing. I will refer to your post in a next reply.
Yes, I am glad to join this discussion myself. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
On this very spot, I had to stop reading. This terribly reminded me of the exposure of both Miriam and Paul to each other, but Paul was the one to reject her. Here also, the man seems to be the one had rejected Hilda in the past, in other words, had threw her away.Quote:
Pensive, Yes, right away I knew you would like this one and relate it to "Sons and Lovers". You bring up a good point about Hilda being satisfied to live where she is and Syson has a different path to follow, he mentions that nearer the end. "Did I? he asked. "And could your way never have been my way? I suppose not." Interesting, since Lawrence used "my path" or "my way" often; in his own life his wife very much followed "his path". This is the central theme, I believe, as you suggested and the story revolves around this idea. I think, also, there are some underlying things going on, as well.
In the line prior to the one I quoted, Hilda says to him "You plucked a thing and looked at it till you had found out all you wanted to know about it, then you threw it away". Pensive, didn't you mention to me in the other thread how Miriam had felt violated by Lawrence exposing her so? Interesting now to see the woman's 'come-back', or 'defense' is it not?
It's very much interesting. This might not seem very philosophical or something like that, but it was my favourite part of the story. The expressions of the two men and their talk is enough to make the other curious what it's all about and to proceed on.Quote:
I agree that that first meeting of the two men spurs one on to read further. It is an interesting way to set up the story before the actual meeting of the two former lovers.
Heh yes. Beautiful description. In Sons and Lovers and reading this story as well, I had actually started to feel jealous of the characters who were living in such a beautiful place. :pQuote:
The writing style is very fluid and poetic and pastoral, I believe. It is much the style of writing of "Sons and Lovers." I also read Lawrence's first book "The White Peacock". This story is very reminescent of that writing style, especially the mention of the birds and the nests in the woodland. It is so lovely a depiction; makes one long to be there.
Interesting insight, Janine. :thumbs_up For a moment, I got this feeling Syson was Paul and Helda was Miriam...but we can't be too sure though I personally lean towards this idea because Hilda here has astonishingly reminded me of Miriam.Quote:
From studying WIL, I immediately noticed 'Willey Water - Farm' in the book. There is an interesting map in my WIL book with 'Willey Spring Wood', which sits directly by Haggs Farm. Haggs farm was home to Miriam/Jesse, as you know. I will try to scan this photo and post in the WIL, S&L thread; maybe here too. I had the same distinct feeling that Syson is somewhat a stand-in for Lawrence and his desire to revisit (if only in his mind) the places he frequented while growing up, especially his 'first love' - definitely reminescent of his writing style and descriptions in "Sons and Lovers".
:thumbs_up Wow, out of all, I didn't realise that. Another interesting point which gives strength to this theory that Lawrence wrote this story because he had wanted to visit the place of his younger days again.Quote:
In WIL, in the very significant chapter "Water-Party" most of that chapter takes place on 'Willey Water' - a pond on the estate of Gerald's parent's. It is interesting how all this ties in together. It was all generated from Lawrence's own childhood and countryside. There are many correlations to "Sons and Lovers" and to Lawrence's life in this story, if you look carefully. I noticed that Hilda mentioned that she knew the birds names, but not the plants/flowres. Syson/Lawrence did indeed study botony and loved it, and knew all the names of plants. You can notice how exquisitely he describes them. As Downing describes it it is like a Monet watercolor. I think this but even more vivid than Monet. No wonder Lawrence was great friends with Georgia O'Keefe later in life. She painted those vivid colorful flower blossoms.
This seems good. I hope you all get the time to read it and give your thoughts about it. :DQuote:
Hi Downing and everyone else,
basically, I picked this story for the newcomers to Lawrence and more to the liking of the ladies present (since the last one was dealing with 2 men/violence). So, that includes you, Pensive, and Downing and Grace, (I think) manolia.
Grace emailed me today asking about the thread and if we were still doing this story. She is going to read it in the next few days. This will be a great discussion this time. 'The more the merrier', so they say! Also, know that Virgil will join in and maybe Asa, although I have not heard from him for a time. I hope others also join in. Gee, I feel like the coordinator!:lol:
Yes, I think this particular story is a good introduction to Lawrence's work; also relates to his other novels we have been studying.:)
Hi downing! It's very nice to see you as well! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by downing
Actually what I meant to say was that the story seemed to be based on the quarrel on this statement. Was Hilda right in saying she was like a plant? Or should she have realised she was a human-being not a plant who had the ability to compromise and adjust herself in a different environment? The way her lover would have wanted to see her? This also includes in itself the question whether she was suitable for him like you put it. Forgive me if I have been a source of some kind of misunderstanding.
I find interesting what you have said here, but I think I half agree with you. I agree Hilda believed that she had not needed to follow the same path as her former lover because she had different priorities. But where I disagree with you is the point where you say we have to follow in our life the person we love/like the person we love. I also believe it's good to sort out the differences we have with the one we want to marry/live with all our life. And being obstinate is not a good thing. Sometimes you have to yield, you can't always expect your lover to yield in everything. But I think you can't always do as your lover says. You ought to have a personal freedom.Quote:
From this dialogue I understand that the two charcaters are really different; Hilda believed that she needn't have follow the same ''path'' as her former lover, because she claims that she is a separate being. By giving this reply, I understand that Hilda doesn't have any love for Syson,because, if you love someone, you certainly have to follow in life like the person you love,don't you think?
There is not one person in this world whom you love and who deserve your love. There are many. That's another thing you have different sort of relations with your family and friends but that doesn't mean you don't love them or they don't love you. You have to think about all of them. You can't follow one's lead everywhere. If you disagree on something with your romantic lover, this doesn't mean you doesn't love him. If you tell him you want to stay at the place your parents live, and he can't do that, despite of the fact you love him you might have to leave him for that. I don't think it lessens your love for him. I believe love is not always about 'getting' and 'meeting each other finally'.
I personally think it's quite difficult to judge whether Hilda's view on one's individuality and how she applies it is the right thing, I am myself a bit unsure, but I think the ending was fine. The thing that happened was right. What would have been the use if they would have lived together and wouldn't have agreed with each others' ways. Their life would hardly have been any better it seems to me. I would have been glad if they would have solved out their differences, but when they couldn't, the right thing was to separate I think. It's a pity Syson and Hilda couldn't dissolve differences but perhaps the tomorrow might be better for him. :)
Pensive, you don't have why to ask for forgiveness. You did nothing to be forgiven :). I understand now what you wanted to say in your first post about Hilda's statement and I agree with you. Indeed, her words are rather silly, if I can say so- they make me think: if she hadn't lived with the keeper in that environment, she would have stopped loving him? I can't even imagine this, but her statement makes me think so.Quote:
Actually what I meant to say was that the story seemed to be based on the quarrel on this statement. Was Hilda right in saying she was like a plant? Or should she have realised she was a human-being not a plant who had the ability to compromise and adjust herself in a different environment? The way her lover would have wanted to see her? This also includes in itself the question whether she was suitable for him like you put it. Forgive me if I have been a source of some kind of misunderstanding.
You are very right saying all these things. I also agree that we are alike the persons we love-and here I refer to our romantic lovers- only untill a point, because, starting from one point people become different. How dull this world would have been if we were all alike, don't you think so?Quote:
I find interesting what you have said here, but I think I half agree with you. I agree Hilda believed that she had not needed to follow the same path as her former lover because she had different priorities. But where I disagree with you is the point where you say we have to follow in our life the person we love/like the person we love. I also believe it's good to sort out the differences we have with the one we want to marry/live with all our life. And being obstinate is not a good thing. Sometimes you have to yield, you can't always expect your lover to yield in everything. But I think you can't always do as your lover says. You ought to have a personal freedom.
There is not one person in this world whom you love and who deserve your love. There are many. That's another thing you have different sort of relations with your family and friends but that doesn't mean you don't love them or they don't love you. You have to think about all of them. You can't follow one's lead everywhere. If you disagree on something with your romantic lover, this doesn't mean you doesn't love him. If you tell him you want to stay at the place your parents live, and he can't do that, despite of the fact you love him you might have to leave him for that. I don't think it lessens your love for him. I believe love is not always about 'getting' and 'meeting each other finally'.
I believe that in this hard world we've got the duty(as the greek legend I refered to says) to find the other ''half''. Only in this was we could be happy; of course, misfortunes are everywhere and probably there doesn't exist any perfect couple, who never had a misunderstanding.
What I wanted to say when I stated that we have to follow our lover's path through life if we love him was the fact that the duty of a couple is to stay united and pass so over all the misfortunes which they may meet along life's road. I totally agree, you can follow your love interest only till a point, till the bounds of rationality, I might say, and personal freedom. It's your duty to advise the person you love when you think he needs it and take care of him/her.
I also agree that the end was a good one; they had nothing to do then to separate because they didn't have anything in common except books,probably. Like you also do, I hope Syson later found mutual love and common priorities. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. But we don't have where to know this, we can just make suppositions and dream...dream as much as we can of Lawrance's landscapes...Monet landscapes...Quote:
I personally think it's quite difficult to judge whether Hilda's view on one's individuality and how she applies it is the right thing, I am myself a bit unsure, but I think the ending was fine. The thing that happened was right. What would have been the use if they would have lived together and wouldn't have agreed with each others' ways. Their life would hardly have been any better it seems to me. I would have been glad if they would have solved out their differences, but when they couldn't, the right thing was to separate I think. It's a pity Syson and Hilda couldn't dissolve differences but perhaps the tomorrow might be better for him. :)
Downing and Pensive, It does seem to be kind of ridiculous on Hilda's part to make that statement and I recall, doesn't she makes it half-heartedly when talking to Syson? Afterall, it seems she still has some deep feeling (maybe even love) for Syson and he went away and she remained, so that love did not disappear or dissolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by downing
In life most people who get together and marry or become lovers long term do change and modify over time. We can never expect to find a carbon copy of ourselves in another person. We are all individuals afterall. We all often tend to have a 'fairytale' notion of love, not a realistic one. We tend to maintain a belief that there is a perfect lover somewhere 'out there' in the world just waiting for us; 'perfect' for us and waiting to be discovered. This notion is not always realistic and mostly is suggested by romantic novels, media and films. Many people exist feeling they are not completely whole or complete because of what we have been told. As Pensive stated there is not just one person 'out there' suitable or complementary/compatible for another person; there are many! I believe this, otherwise why would spouses or lovers, after their loved ones have either passed away, or separated from them, be capable of loving another person? How could they then be very happy in the second relationship or marriage?Quote:
You are very right saying all these things. I also agree that we are alike the persons we love-and here I refer to our romantic lovers- only untill a point, because, starting from one point people become different. How dull this world would have been if we were all alike, don't you think so?
Downing, I don't agree with this idea of the "half" and the two halves making up the whole, because I don't agree with your statement "Only in this way we could be happy." or in the word "duty". If we are incapable of finding a true match to our own being how could we be held to a duty to do so? I know that 'halves of a whole' is common belief, but I feel it does exclude individuality to some extend. If you think you can't exist without the other half or complementary person, for instance, what would be your alternative if you don't find that person? I think the concept is flawed. You said the idea came from the ancient Greeks. I think it may also be in the bible, but not sure if it is worded quite that way. I know it is often used in wedding ceremonies, but actually I have seen it modified to include 3 candles as symbolism to show the separateness and the merging held in harmony. I know from my other reading, that Lawrence did not agree with this 'two halfs of a whole' concept. He felt he found a better way, a new concept.Quote:
I believe that in this hard world we've got the duty(as the greek legend I refered to says) to find the other ''half''. Only in this was we could be happy; of course, misfortunes are everywhere and probably there doesn't exist any perfect couple, who never had a misunderstanding.
This was taken from "Women in Love"....manolia quoted it from the WIL text. This is Birkin speaking; he is the stand-in for Lawrence; his words and concepts throughout the book.
In this idea Hilda and Syson would most definitely have separate modes of thinking. Lawrence believed in shedding the old ways or modes of living and seeking new ones....therefore the last line of this quote is his ideal.Quote:
The hot narrow intimacy between man and wife was abhorrent. The way they shut their doors, these married people, and shut themselves in to their own exclusive alliance with each other, even in love, disgusted him. It was a whole community of mistrustful couples insulated in private houses or private rooms, always in couples, and no further life, no further immediate, no disinterested relationship admitted: a kaleidoscope of couples, disjoined, separatist, meaningless entities of married couples. True, he hated promiscuity even worse than marriage, and a liaison was only another kind of coupling, reactionary from the legal marriage. Reaction was a greater bore than action..
It was intolerable, this possession at the hands of woman. Always a man must be considered as the broken off fragment of a woman, and the sex was the still aching scar of the laceration. Man must be added on to a woman, before he had any real place or wholeness....
And why? Why should we consider ourselves, men and women, as broken fragments of one whole? It is not true. We are not broken fragments of one whole. Rather we are the singling away into purity and clear being, of things that were mixed. Rather the sex is that which remains in us of the mixed, the unresolved. And passion is the further separating of this mixture, that which is manly being taken into the being of the man, that which is womanly passing to the woman, till the two are clear and whole as angels, the admixture of sex in the highest sense surpassed, leaving two single beings constellated together like two stars...
There are other parts of WIL that voice Lawrence's idea of 'freedom' which is opposed here by Hilda's idea of being 'planted in the ground' where she lives. Syson to me represents that 'freedom' that Hilda would never be able to achieve, in order, for the two to be happy together.
This may be true of some couples who marry or remain dedicated to each other, but from the start of the courtship and the love affair it suggested in this story and is apparent that this particular couple, Syson and Hilda, would not be able to come to terms with that idea, the idea of the man leading the way. They both wanted their own ways and their own paths. Therefore their relationship could have never worked out. I would probably turn your last statement into 'support and give care and love' to the person you truly love if you are committed to them, such as marriage, etc. - long term commitment.Quote:
What I wanted to say when I stated that we have to follow our lover's path through life if we love him was the fact that the duty of a couple is to stay united and pass so over all the misfortunes which they may meet along life's road. I totally agree, you can follow your love interest only till a point, till the bounds of rationality, I might say, and personal freedom. It's your duty to advise the person you love when you think he needs it and take care of him/her.
Downing, I agree with you - the end was a good one. It says much, don't you think? I liked it very much. It was quite appropriate to the story. But Hilda not wanting yet to marry her new man, or to stop the correspondence with Syson, it leaves a bit of uneasiness and wondering for us. I think Syson can see the fact they are not meant for each other, better than Hilda can. She still seems to be hanging on to her romantic vision of Syson, like how the stars look different to her when viewing them with Syson, which actually I found to be a lovely thought - I think I know how she feels. It does bring up the quesion of whether one love can replace another? I am sure both men possess certain qualities that are right for Hilda, but perhaps not all she needs in one man, unfortunately. It seems that with Syson, she has had the books in common as you say, but Syson and Hilda could not cross the line from best friend to lover and be happy.Quote:
I also agree that the end was a good one; they had nothing to do then to separate because they didn't have anything in common except books,probably. Like you also do, I hope Syson later found mutual love and common priorities. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't. But we don't have where to know this, we can just make suppositions and dream...dream as much as we can of Lawrance's landscapes...Monet landscapes...
Yes, lets all...."and dream...dream as much as we can of Lawrance's landscapes...Monet landscapes.." as you say....I want to go there, don't you? I was to see and experience all those beautiful flowers and birdnests in the spring.
Didn't Syson say he was married now? I thought later Hilda said that she had consumated her physical relationship with the keeper the day Syson married. Are we assuming that Syson is unhappily married? Also, are we assuming he comes to the area to revitalize his relationship with Hilda? Is he truly jealous of the Keeper? or just longing for a life he felt was idyllic and perfect....a mere vision?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I think we are jumping ahead to the ending and many questions will be answered eventually by studying the text closer. To me, this stories main theme seems to be the revisiting of the place from ones past; including the revisiting of the woman who was a big part of a man's former life, within this setting. Can one ever truly enter back into the world of their past? I think that Hilda and the land are as 'one' to Syson. I would like to post the beginnings of the story to review, I think we can extract much from the text-clues, and as Downing put it 'decode' Lawrence within this story and find it's deeper meanings. We have a whole month to discuss this story; so please bear with me, I would like to go back to the beginning and review just how Syson feels entering back into this world of his past.
I found it interesting to refer to Syson as 'the trespasser'. Often Lawrence uses key words in his text, that later he repeats in order to emphasis an idea. I am thinking that indeed, as we read the story, Syson is 'a trespasser' to the past and to Hilda's new life.Quote:
Chapter I
It was a mile nearer through the wood. Mechanically, Syson turned up by the forge and lifted the field-gate. The blacksmith and his mate stood still, watching the trespasser. But Syson looked too much a gentleman to be accosted.
Also, note that Syson looked too much a 'gentleman' - this sets him appart from his former environment, alienating him from the start.
This paragraph seems idyllic in that he feels nothing has changed, he envisions himself as though he had never left. The last line and the word 'eternal' is particularly interesting. It makes me think that he is idealising the world around him into being an 'eternal' vision that suggests to me the idea of it being an idyllic/paradise/heavenly realm he has now entered back into from the past. We do tend to idealize the past and make it perfect and flawless. I feel that prior to entering this past world he sees it that way in his mind. There is a great longing, in other words, of returning to this world of ones youth, of innocense and happiness.Quote:
They let him go in silence across the small field to the wood.
There was not the least difference between this morning and those of the bright springs, six or eight years back. White and sandy-gold fowls still scratched round the gate, littering the earth and the field with feathers and scratched-up rubbish. Between the two thick holly bushes in the wood-hedge was the hidden gap, whose fence one climbed to get into the wood; the bars were scored just the same by the keeper's boots. He was back in the eternal.
This further stresses the point. It also lets us know that he is an 'uneasy spirit' in returning to this idyllic/heavenly world. That seems to sets up a duality/conflict within the character of Syson. Maybe a hint of what will come?Quote:
Syson was extraordinarily glad. Like an uneasy spirit he had returned to the country of his past, and he found it waiting for him, unaltered. The hazel still spread glad little hands downwards, the bluebells here were still wan and few, among the lush grass and in shade of the bushes.
Interesting that after all this time the fallen trees still lay across the track; another indication of his perception of a unchanged world. I like the phrase 'a great window in the wood'. It seems that through this window he now perceives the idea of industry strewing the land and note the word 'forsaken'. Industry/coal mines encrouching on the land is a persistent theme in Lawrence's work. The beauty of the world is suddenly interrupted by the reality of the outside industrial world. In other words he still has a glimpse of the real world through the 'window' in the wood.Quote:
The path through the wood, on the very brow of a slope, ran winding easily for a time. All around were twiggy oaks, just issuing their gold, and floor spaces diapered with woodruff, with patches of dog-mercury and tufts of hyacinth.
Two fallen trees still lay across the track. Syson jolted down a steep, rough slope, and came again upon the open land, this time looking north as through a great window in the wood. He stayed to gaze over the level fields of the hill-top, at the village which strewed the bare upland as if it had tumbled off the passing waggons of industry, and been forsaken. There was a stiff, modern, grey little church, and blocks and rows of red dwellings lying at random; at the back, the twinkling headstocks of the pit, and the looming pit-hill. All was naked and out-of-doors, not a tree! It was quite unaltered.
[Quote].He is feeling 'cusiously elated' and again note the words 'enduring vision' - his perception is a feeling that nothing has changed (therefore leading him onward to seek out his former life and love). The last two statements stop him dead in his tracks and now ensues the conversation with the keeper and reality will start to creep in.Quote:
Syson turned, satisfied, to follow the path that sheered downhill into the wood. He was curiously elated, feeling himself back in an enduring vision. He started. A keeper was standing a few yards in front, barring the way.
Please give me some thoughts/feedback on what I have observed so far in the introduction of the story and the themes.
Some ideas have been thrown out that about theme already.
I feel that this story has a broader meaning and is very much about going back to revisit ones past, which we tend to immortalize in our hearts and thoughts. But this vision is unrealistically viewed in the mind over time, the good outweighing the bad or flaws. In returning from a distance after many years have lapsed, and going back into what one thinks is the perfect idyllic world, there exists in actuality an altered illusion of ones memory. Time alters the memory, making these past visions immortal to us. One can never truly go back to the place they were years before and pick up from that point. We can only come to the conclusion that we and other people have changed and progressed. Therefore, although the landscape may be basically unaltered, the lives and people are not.
Also, one underlying theme I feel would be that Syson and Hilda still felt the friction that once drove them appart. Like the landscape, Syson has idealised his memory and vision of Hilda, but his longing and attraction back to the past is not realistic in an ongoing sense.
Very interesting commentary and insight, Janine!
Quote:
Orginally in the short story: Syson was extraordinarily glad. Like an uneasy spirit he had returned to the country of his past, and he found it waiting for him, unaltered. The hazel still spread glad little hands downwards, the bluebells here were still wan and few, among the lush grass and in shade of the bushes.
I rather think this passage points to this that Syson was uneasy living away from the country-side of his past. He had returned back there because of this unease.Quote:
Janine's comment on it: This further stresses the point. It also lets us know that he is an 'uneasy spirit' in returning to this idyllic/heavenly world. That seems to sets up a duality/conflict within the character of Syson. Maybe a hint of what will come?
There seems to be something interesting lying there in this line to me:
he found it waiting for him, unaltered.
Syson seemed to be considering things unchanged. Perhaps at this moment he was expecting everything to be like it was when he was there. Perhaps that's why he found it surprising that Hilda was dating someone other than him.
He seemed to be living in his 'past' at this moment.
Hi Pensive, thanks you. I knew I included much in this post, but I tried to separate the bottom half, starting with the posting of the beginning of the actual text of the story. I know with the last story we discussed this seemed to be an effective way of looking at the development of the plot/story and the themes. With short stories, we have the time to do this in a month or so; we don't have a set time for these to end, actually. It makes sense to go slowly, since within Lawrence's writing there always seems to be a progression and he writes in such a poetic/prose style, giving small hints as he develops the story, as to what will follow. I thought it beneficial to look at how we preceive Syson at the beginning of the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
Yes, and the whole line reads: "Like an uneasy spirit he had returned to the country of his past, and he found it waiting for him, unaltered." Two key words exist in that line - "uneasy" and "unaltered".Quote:
I rather think this passage points to this that Syson was uneasy living away from the country-side of his past. He had returned back there because of this unease.
I think this "uneasy" word is quite subtle, but significant enough to relay to us the feeling that Syson is not at ease in his life. But my other thought would have been is he temporarily "uneasy", while entering back into world o his past? That can't be an easy thing to do. Perhaps to revisit ones childhood area would not cause great unease, but not the actual meeting again of a former lover, which he anticipates. It says "spirit" so I feel it does indicate "uneasy" in a broader sense of the word, as you also have percieved
I think, as I said in my last post, Syson does feel, in the very beginning of the story, as he begins to percieve his old world coming back into focus, that indeed all is as he had hoped it would be - unchanged and "unaltered". Of course, we all know, realistically, this cannot possibly be true, or that his initial impression cannot last. I will post the next part of the story later today when he first meets the keeper, since that is when reality begins to creep into the story, and the tone begins to change into one of reality. It happened fairly early on that this illusion he has maintained of all being unaltered in this world is a fabricated one, living only in Syson's mind and imagination. He himself is 'altered' with the suggestion of his attire: "But Syson looked too much a gentleman to be accosted."Quote:
Now to "unaltered"....
There seems to be something interesting lying there in this line to me:
he found it waiting for him, unaltered.
Syson seemed to be considering things unchanged. Perhaps at this moment he was expecting everything to be like it was when he was there. Perhaps that's why he found it surprising that Hilda was dating someone other than him.
So far in the story, Syson is definitely living in his 'past', as you have so aptly put it.Quote:
He seemed to be living in his 'past' at this moment.
Also, the words "curiously elated" in this statement: "He was curiously elated, feeling himself back in an enduring vision." are interesting. Why is he "curiously elated" in entering this old world? Why 'curiously' and not merely 'elated'? Do you think it sets up a feeling of 'not quite certain' or 'oddly enough' he is elated...being putting 'curiously' first. Not sure I relayed my idea correctly. Let me know.
"Vision" is also a key word - we think often of visions as being false or imaginary. "enduring vision" is an interesting combination of the words - quite poetic. It also lets us think that Syson feels his vision is 'enduring, everlasting, eternal; and perhaps his mind/memory vision, is indeed.
You are very much welcome! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I agree, this is a better way to discuss the story. :)Quote:
I knew I included much in this post, but I tried to separate the bottom half, starting with the posting of the beginning of the actual text of the story. I know with the last story we discussed this seemed to be an effective way of looking at the development of the plot/story and the themes. With short stories, we have the time to do this in a month or so; we don't have a set time for these to end, actually. It makes sense to go slowly, since within Lawrence's writing there always seems to be a progression and he writes in such a poetic/prose style, giving small hints as he develops the story, as to what will follow. I thought it beneficial to look at how we preceive Syson at the beginning of the story.
This line seems to be suggesting ambiguity. I wonder if Lawrence did it on purpose! But I feel more inclined towards the first thought that he was not at ease in his life.Quote:
Yes, and the whole line reads: "Like an uneasy spirit he had returned to the country of his past, and he found it waiting for him, unaltered." Two key words exist in that line - "uneasy" and "unaltered".
I think this "uneasy" word is quite subtle, but significant enough to relay to us the feeling that Syson is not at ease in his life. But my other thought would have been is he temporarily "uneasy", while entering back into world o his past? That can't be an easy thing to do. Perhaps to revisit ones childhood area would not cause great unease, but not the actual meeting again of a former lover, which he anticipates. It says "spirit" so I feel it does indicate "uneasy" in a broader sense of the word, as you also have percieved
To tell you the truth, I am finding it difficult what to perceive by these two words: curiously elated. If that refers to the 'eager to learn' curious one then it makes more sense. But I think it's referring here to his odd feeling yet an elated one, that also makes sense. I think when we enter the place of our older-days after a lot of time, perhaps it's bound to happen that we feel strange? Happy, but a kind of strange on seeing the same world after a lot of time?Quote:
So far in the story, Syson is definitely living in his 'past', as you have so aptly put it.
Also, the words "curiously elated" in this statement: "He was curiously elated, feeling himself back in an enduring vision." are interesting. Why is he "curiously elated" in entering this old world? Why 'curiously' and not merely 'elated'? Do you think it sets up a feeling of 'not quite certain' or 'oddly enough' he is elated...being putting 'curiously' first. Not sure I relayed my idea correctly. Let me know.
"Vision" is also a key word - we think often of visions as being false or imaginary. "enduring vision" is an interesting combination of the words - quite poetic. It also lets us think that Syson feels his vision is 'enduring, everlasting, eternal; and perhaps his mind/memory vision, is indeed.
Pensive, Glad you agree. I did not want to sound like a 'know-it-all', but this way when we discuss the story there will be better structure to the discussion, otherwise the discussion flies all over the place. I suppose I like to be 'systematic' about this. We will miss a lot just sticking to discussing the themes or proceeding randomly. As with the last two stories we did, we posted portions of the story's text and then we were able to pick out 'key words' and many other significant factors. It will work out well, you will see and be amazed at all the fine layering in the story.Quote:
I agree, this is a better way to discuss the story. :)
Ah - 'ambiguity' is a great word. I like that. Yes, I think perhaps L was trying to make us wonder a bit. He never liked things set or all the loose ends tied up even at the end of his stories. I suppose one can decide for themselves just what that does mean.Quote:
This line seems to be suggesting ambiguity. I wonder if Lawrence did it on purpose! But I feel more inclined towards the first thought that he was not at ease in his life.
Pensive, I think you are totally accurate on this one. I would agree on all you said. I would definitely feel uneasy and strange, wouldn't you?Quote:
To tell you the truth, I am finding it difficult what to perceive by these two words: curiously elated. If that refers to the 'eager to learn' curious one then it makes more sense. But I think it's referring here to his odd feeling yet an elated one, that also makes sense. I think when we enter the place of our older-days after a lot of time, perhaps it's bound to happen that we feel strange? Happy, but a kind of strange on seeing the same world after a lot of time?
Good work on this post, Pensive! Can't wait to progress with this story.
But has to wait till tomorrow. Tomorrow I will post some more of the story. I am too tired out and burned out now. My brain is aching...been writing some long posts today....going to relax now....
Tomorrow came and went and now it is early morning next day. I went out last evening. Sorry I did not get to the posting. Too tired and too late now. I will post some more of the story tomorrow. for certain. Putting it at the top of my list. Til then bye.....
Hi,Pensive and Janine!
Sorry for missing a few days from here- I was engaged in some trips in the other county where I visited many places and had fun. Saw some great landscapes, too!
I'll wait for Janine to go on with the story and I'll try my best while debating.
I read with curiosity what you wrote above and I agree with you.
As about the line, I think it refers to the mood in which Syson was when he came again to the place of his memories, but it could also refer to the fact that he had an ''uneasy'' marriage. Do you think he would have come back if he had been completely happy? No, I don't think so.Quote:
Like an uneasy spirit he had returned to the country of his past, and he found it waiting for him, unaltered.
Just wanted to let you all know I have started reading the story. The weekend got a little hectic with the pros and cons of life occurences, but so far I am enjoying the story.
Janine you mentioned something in the WIL thread about how vibrantly Lawrence describes nature. Wow so far that is what I am continuing to notice.
I could have sworn we heard of Willey Water in WIL though. I will finish tonight and add my comments later on.