1000 Posts!!!
Sorry, couldn't help it
Printable View
1000 Posts!!!
Sorry, couldn't help it
"Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
She watched his hands with fine strong fingers. They had always inclined to tremble slightly. It had surprsied her, long ago, in such a healthy man. Now they moved inaccurately, and the tabacco hung raggedly out of the pipe."
Oh , thanks - this makes it seem that he had always been the nervous type, with his 'hands slightly trembling'. She said also he had 'fine strong fingers'. Also that he had been 'healthy'. This paragraph says much about the man but still makes one wonder and wish for more information on him, doesn't it? Seems by using the word 'Now' it points out he difference in his character - that he has undergone this degeneration into a more careless man, with his wits being diseased.
I don't get it? who has 1000 posts???Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I think it was this forum that had 1000 posts, it says in the corner the number of each thread posted
:thumbs_up Oh Quark meant this thread only. Now I see what you mean. He posted on the 1000th in Lawrence Short Stories - how cool! Wow, we have been busy in here haven't we?:D That deserves a dancing :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
That is incredible. Fantastic! I don't think any other serious thread has this many. I could be wrong. I should ask the moderators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:banana: Yes, we should have a party!!! yeah! Do you realise we started this short story thread one year ago? Actually, the 1000th post came in just under a year. Quite an achievement I believe, since we post long posts too, so it really is an accomplishment. We all deserve a pat on the back! :thumbs_up Thanks everyone for all the interest!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
We're only 800 posts behind the "What are you eating/drinking right now?" thread.
Yes and that is only usually a one or two line answer response, isn't it? How funny....you make me laugh, Quark! You are just jealous, cause your Chekhov does not have as many. We have to get working on that one soon.;) Anyway, Quark, thanks for pointing this out to us dumbies. Speaking for myself it would have passed me right by without my noticing.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I just checked back to some novel discussions and found "Women in Love" - that got a mere 98; I recalled we did have long posts in there and it is only one story, unlike in here. I checked out some others and "To the Lighthouse" was under 100 posts. Gee, will the mods give us a special award, do you think???
I am. This is a really good thread. The last two stories have been particularly good, too. For me, they were unexpectedly good--considering I hadn't heard of them until a month ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
bumpQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I will probably restart it in March. I was thinking about doing either "Gooseberries" or "A Doctor's Visit". Do you have either of these by any chance? We've read a couple of the more sentimental ones, so I thought we might do one of the darker stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
What? No way. I think Virgil and I argued about Mrs. Ramsay's centrality for longer than 100 posts. Was it really less than 100 posts? That discussion went on for months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quark, glad you've been enjoying the stories. I thought it turned out to be a good couple months discussions, also. I have enjoyed it. I am so happy at the success of this thread, but truly, it takes much work to keep it going. There is still hope for the Chekhov.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
hummm...no chance, huh?Quote:
bump
*groan* *groan* What, I thought the last two were depressing and dark. Doesn't Chekhov write anything but depressing? Everybody does "Gooseberries" don't they? I recall that from college days.Quote:
I will probably restart it in March. I was thinking about doing either "Gooseberries" or "A Doctor's Visit". Do you have either of these by any chance? We've read a couple of the more sentimental ones, so I thought we might do one of the darker stories.
Well, ugh... these two are not on my audiobook list.
Here is what is on the set, the costly one I bought from Amazon recently...;)
(I want you to know you are making me type right now)
Oh! The Public, The Choris Girl, The Trousseau, A Story Without a Title, Children, Misery, Fat and Thin, The Begger, Hush!, The Orator, An Actor's End. Now that is 12 when you include the title one I mentioned - In the Ravine. Surely there are some good ones out of those, aren't there?
Go try and locate the thread. I just did and can't relocate it. Mostly, it was just you and Virgil. Yes, I recall some bit of 'arguing' - did you have to remind me?:( Posts were super long, so maybe it did not add up to more than 100. I thought it said something like 96. Anyway, do you know what month we read that last year? Good luck trying to locate it!Quote:
What? No way. I think Virgil and I argued about Mrs. Ramsay's centrality for longer than 100 posts. Was it really less than 100 posts? That discussion went on for months.
:thumbs_up Congrats guys :) I don't know if this is the longest 'serious' thread, there are some noted ones in Gen Lit that are around 300+, and 200+ in the Orwell forum, no magic way to find this stat out other than browsing the forums themselves and looking at # of replies.
Thanks, Logos! That was really nice that you noticed. I think we are all proud of the count and probably that is enough reward. At least, it keeps rolling along and I think we all have learned so much. Speaking for myself, I have enjoyed it emensely. Many of the participants who can't be here now, due to their concentration on their schooling, have expressed to me that they miss this thread and can't wait to get back to it. I will have to tell them, how we hit 1000, since they were a big part of that count. Thanks again. Janine
Thank you Logos. And in the entire 1000 posts i don't recall getting snooty with anyone. :lol: Must be a rarity. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Hehe actually in this entire thread, I do not think at least as long as I have been here, anyone has gotten snooty with anybody and that is truly a first for me.
I just realized the final section is rather long. So let's break it up in two parts. Here's what i consider the first part, reaching a climax with the woman closing herself off.
It's an interesting little dance that the two perform here. She snubs him, irritated with his presence, and he with every turn gets angrier and angrier. Here again:Quote:
After a time she heard the hard tread of her husband on the floor below, and, without herself changing, she registered his movement. She heard his rather disconsolate footsteps go out again, then his voice speaking, answering, growing cheery, and his solid tread drawing near.
He entered, ruddy, rather pleased, an air of complacency about his alert figure. She moved stiffly. He faltered in his approach.
"What's the matter?" he asked a tinge of impatience in his voice. "Aren't you feeling well?"
This was torture to her.
"Quite," she replied.
His brown eyes became puzzled and angry.
"What is the matter?" he said.
"Nothing."
He took a few strides, and stood obstinately, looking out of the window.
"Have you run up against anybody?" he asked.
"Nobody who knows me," she said.
His hands began to twitch. It exasperated him, that she was no more sensible of him than if he did not exist. Turning on her at length, driven, he asked:
"Something has upset you hasn't it?"
"No, why?" she said neutral. He did not exist for her, except as an irritant.
His anger rose, filling the veins in his throat.
"It seems like it," he said, making an effort not to show his anger, because there seemed no reason for it. He went away downstairs. She sat still on the bed, and with the residue of feeling left to her, she disliked him because he tormented her. The time went by. She could smell the dinner being served, the smoke of her husband's pipe from the garden. But she could not move. She had no being. There was a tinkle of the bell. She heard him come indoors. And then he mounted the stairs again. At every step her heart grew tight in her. He opened the door.
"Dinner is on the table," he said.
It was difficult for her to endure his presence, for he would interfere with her. She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own. He tried to go on as if nothing were the matter. But at last he became silent with fury. As soon as it was possible, she went upstairs again, and locked the bedroom door. She must be alone. He went with his pipe into the garden. All his suppressed anger against her who held herself superior to him filled and blackened his heart. Though he had not know it, yet he had never really won her, she had never loved him. She had taken him on sufference. This had foiled him. He was only a labouring electrician in the mine, she was superior to him. He had always given way to her. But all the while, the injury and ignominy had been working in his soul because she did not hold him seriously. And now all his rage came up against her.
He turned and went indoors. The third time, she heard him mounting the stairs. Her heart stood still. He turned the catch and pushed the door--it was locked. He tried it again, harder. Her heart was standing still.
"Have you fastened the door?" he asked quietly, because of the landlady.
"Yes. Wait a minute."
She rose and turned the lock, afraid he would burst it. She felt hatred towards him, because he did not leave her free. He entered, his pipe between his teeth, and she returned to her old position on the bed. He closed the door and stood with his back to it.
"What's the matter?" he asked determinedly.
She was sick with him. She could not look at him.
"Can't you leave me alone?" she replied, averting her face from him.
He looked at her quickly, fully, wincing with ignominy. Then he seemed to consider for a moment.
"There's something up with you, isn't there?" he asked definitely.
"Yes," she said, "but that's no reason why you should torment me."
"I don't torment you. What's the matter?"
"Why should you know?" she cried, in hate and desperation.
Something snapped. He started and caught his pipe as it fell from his mouth. Then he pushed forward the bitten-off mouth-piece with his tongue, took it from off his lips, and looked at it. Then he put out his pipe, and brushed the ash from his waistcoat. After which he raised his head.
"I want to know," he said. His face was greyish pale, and set uglily.
Neither looked at the other. She knew he was fired now. His heart was pounding heavily. She hated him, but she could not withstand him. Suddenly she lifted her head and turned on him.
"What right have you to know?" she asked.
He looked at her. She felt a pang of surprise for his tortured eyes and his fixed face. But her heart hardened swiftly. She had never loved him. She did not love him now.
Interesting about the hands. Similar to her old lover. She really does treat him like dirt. The husband then goes off to prepare dinner and returns to let her know it's ready.Quote:
His hands began to twitch. It exasperated him, that she was no more sensible of him than if he did not exist. Turning on her at length, driven, he asked:
"Something has upset you hasn't it?"
"No, why?" she said neutral. He did not exist for her, except as an irritant.
His anger rose, filling the veins in his throat.
Her self, her ego, is in a state of chaos. She has no being. She has been shaken to the core. But her husband gets in the way:Quote:
The time went by. She could smell the dinner being served, the smoke of her husband's pipe from the garden. But she could not move. She had no being.
The schism between the two is impossible to breech. They are very separate beings. It would be an understatement to say that they don't have a true marriage. Interesting how Lawrence constructs this paragraph. The first half is from the point of view of the woman. Without starting a new paragraph, the point of view shifts to the man. Here's the second half of the paragraph:Quote:
"Dinner is on the table," he said.
It was difficult for her to endure his presence, for he would interfere with her. She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own. He tried to go on as if nothing were the matter. But at last he became silent with fury. As soon as it was possible, she went upstairs again, and locked the bedroom door. She must be alone.
Here the class issue really comes out. Although I think this story is too short to fully elaborate on this theme (he does in The Rainbow) but I think the significance of the class differences is that it emphasizes a mental/cultural chasm between the two, something that a healthy marriage ultimately works out, so that over time the couple will share in mental outlook. This couple can't or at least haven't yet accomplished that. One suspects that they may not. After going away and coming back, he probes to see what the matter is:Quote:
He went with his pipe into the garden. All his suppressed anger against her who held herself superior to him filled and blackened his heart. Though he had not know it, yet he had never really won her, she had never loved him. She had taken him on sufference. This had foiled him. He was only a labouring electrician in the mine, she was superior to him. He had always given way to her. But all the while, the injury and ignominy had been working in his soul because she did not hold him seriously. And now all his rage came up against her.
"Why should you know?" she asks. She does not want to come together as husband and wife, but stay in her individual self. Her will is powerful and crystalizes her ego. After having lost her ego above (when she lacks being) she finds her ego through opposition to her husband. He blows up and she hardens even further:Quote:
"What's the matter?" he asked determinedly.
She was sick with him. She could not look at him.
"Can't you leave me alone?" she replied, averting her face from him.
He looked at her quickly, fully, wincing with ignominy. Then he seemed to consider for a moment.
"There's something up with you, isn't there?" he asked definitely.
"Yes," she said, "but that's no reason why you should torment me."
"I don't torment you. What's the matter?"
"Why should you know?" she cried, in hate and desperation.
Despite his pain, she hardens further, closes herself off in her ego, and acknowledges to herself that she never loved him.Quote:
"What right have you to know?" she asked.
He looked at her. She felt a pang of surprise for his tortured eyes and his fixed face. But her heart hardened swiftly. She had never loved him. She did not love him now.
She's a b***h I agree with DM, she's not a sympathetic character.
:lol: Yes, that is a 'rarity' Virgil! :lol: It's 'cause I am here and keep you in-line.;) :lol:Quote:
Thank you Logos. And in the entire 1000 posts i don't recall getting snooty with anyone. Must be a rarity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Dark Muse, :lol: Yeah, truly...and if they do get 'snooty' or 'snotty' they can just pack their bags and move on, don't you think? We run a nice respectable, peaceful thread here. I hope we can keep it that way. :) One thing I always try to keep in mind, is to pay attention to all the posts and all the posters. Everyone has something important to add, I believe. If I ever neglect anyone, please let me know. That can quickly be remedied.:p
Virgil you made some really great points here and pointed out some good ideas, nicely done, I really like your observations. Particuarly good job on pointing out the role of the class issue between the two of them. I had not in my first reading of the story really grasped that idea, other than the fact it did mention him as being a laboror and seemed to suggest she was better off than he.
Hehe yes so true, not to name names but there is one discussion board on the Lit. forum, that it seems wheenver I try to post there, I just get my head snapped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oops sorry, Virgil, I didn't see you there. We must have been posting same time. I will have to read your post again. I am a little tired right now to answer it. Maybe later or maybe tomorrow. Good idea on splitting up the section into two parts since it is long. Yes, it is a like a dance of the wills I believe between the two or a tug of war. Lawrence and his wife experinced this sort of thing often themselves. I don't think there was this much of a breech ever but there certainly was their share of friction and issues to deal with.
I do think the woman is in a total state of chaos and she is acting out irrationally towards her husband. She can't seem to cope at all with any form of contact at the present with him.
I have to think more about what you wrote. Like I said I am kind of tired out right now. I need some down-time tonight. I second what Dark Muse said - you did a fine job posting here and expressing all of this. We have been discussing some of this but now it makes it even more clear.
Clearly, we sense the husband's will in this scene. We know he wants to "win" his wife in a way he's never been able to do. He's been irked repeatedly in this story by his distant wife, and now he finally confronts her about it. I don't think we see the same kind of strength and will from the wife, though:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quote:
She sat perfectly still, without any being. She only felt she might be sick, and it might be blood that was loose in her torn entrails. She sat perfectly still and passive.
Quote:
But she could not move. She had no being.
The only thing she wants is him to leave. There isn't the same kind of latent, hungry desire to conquer that seems to be fueling the husband. I don't think the revulsion she feels for her husband really constitutes an act of will; it's more of a feeling or impulse.Quote:
She could not recover her life. She rose stiffly and went down. She could neither eat nor talk during the meal. She sat absent, torn, without any being of her own.
That's a good observation. He does shift the focus in that part, and he shifts the tragic element towards the husband too. The last part we read was about a trapped wife, but Lawrence shifts the focus toward the jilted husband. Suddenly, he becomes the character we sympathize with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The class difference certainly makes the husband appear the victim. He becomes the lowly "laboring electrician" who gives generously only to be shunned by a haughty wife. For me, though, this didn't have much effect. This sympathetic husband was just too incongruous with the self-absorbed one we got in the opening. It's hard to imagine him being the dotting husband that we're told he is here. I understand that Lawrence is trying to make the story tragic for both lovers, but I think he does a much better job forming the wife than he does the husband.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
A bit harsh, maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Hehe I don't think so. Virgil is right. She totally is
I don't know. I was just objecting to the name-calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Even if she was a real person, she hardly seems like the type that would get her feelings hurt. Even so, her own actions would have brought it on.
I think I'm going to let Janine and Virgil jump in here.
Quark, good post. I agree with most you have written here. Oh no, we might have a war here - 2 against 2 - two wife haters and two husband haters!:lol: Truly though, I don't hate anyone. Let us not forget this is the most peaceful thread on Lit Net.;) Anyway, what you wrote here above soooo reminds me of Lawrence and his own wife. He often was wanting more attention from her. It is very clear when you read books, like his intimate travel novels, or the one I am reading now "Kangaroo", based, biographically, on Lawrence and Frieda's brief residence in Australia. It is interesting to me now to read this sort of 'tug of war' between the male and female in this story' because this is something quite prominent in the novel' I am now reading. I really do think Lawrence struggled with this. He wanted to be "Lord of the manor" - he said so himself, blantantly and his wife certainly fought tooth and nail against it; it was a battle of 'wills'. It is truly complicated, but I know exactly where Lawrence is coming from in this story. The woman needs her 'space' - I said that before and the man doesn't want to give her an inch, really. In the beginning, he is fretting about the time and that she is not there at his calling. It was like this with Lawrence at times (not all the time, mind you) and he struggled with this. I wonder if this was not born of the abnormally close relationship he had to his mother. There always seems to be this need and this pull towards the woman, as though she were his mother or substitute, and yet he had this fear the woman would overcome him...it is a strange position to be in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
She does - this is why I say 'space'....everyone deserves their space at times. Too much togetherness can be smothering.Quote:
The only thing she wants is him to leave. There isn't the same kind of latent, hungry desire to conquer that seems to be fueling the husband. I don't think the revulsion she feels for her husband really constitutes an act of will; it's more of a feeling or impulse.
Interesting to think about.Quote:
That's a good observation. He does shift the focus in that part, and he shifts the tragic element towards the husband too. The last part we read was about a trapped wife, but Lawrence shifts the focus toward the jilted husband. Suddenly, he becomes the character we sympathize with.
I agree with this...and...Quote:
The class difference certainly makes the husband appear the victim. He becomes the lowly "laboring electrician" who gives generously only to be shunned by a haughty wife. For me, though, this didn't have much effect. This sympathetic husband was just too incongruous with the self-absorbed one we got in the opening. It's hard to imagine him being the dotting husband that we're told he is here. I understand that Lawrence is trying to make the story tragic for both lovers, but I think he does a much better job forming the wife than he does the husband.
this, too... I also. don't like labeling or name calling. such as this. Sorry, Virgil, but really I don't. I think the woman has more dimension, than just being called a b*****? What point does that serve. Gee, maybe we spoke too soon and we will all duke it out now on this issue.;)Quote:
A bit harsh, maybe?
I really don't see any harm in calling a fictional char names. Hehe you two talk as if she were a real person
Dark Muse, I don't think that is the point. The point is by using words like that one tends to generalise or type a person. I don't think Lawrence would have intended any of this characters to be type-cast. I can't think of one from his novels that is all good or all bad - they are just humans with flaws and strenths, struggles, etc. Lawrence very much identified with the human condition. This is all I was saying - to boil them down to one word I feel is totally unfair, even if they are just characters; they represent people or the idea of a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
:blush: Yes, you're the mommy figure. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Which thread is that DM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
The Jane Eyre forum. I swear those people take things too seriously and they are very millitant about thier views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Hmm interesting. Maybe it's because she's conquored him throughout the whole marriage. But I disagree that her will isn't strong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
You and Janine seem to feel Lawrence is generating sympathy for the woman in the story. I don't really see it. She acts superior to her husband from beginning to end, and in the middle she's a day dream idealist at best. In what respect are we supposed to sympathize with her? Because her old love fell apart and now he's insane and so they can't get back together? What's so sympathetic about that? Why is she married now if she never loved her husband and wants to go back to her old love? On what grounds can any sympathy be felt for her? I think Lawrence is consciously making the woman out to be detestable. Even biographically the husband character is Lawrence.Quote:
Suddenly, he becomes the character we sympathize with.
Was he self absorbed in the beginning? I just re-read that. Interesting, his looking at himself in the mirror is similar to his wife day dreaming in the garden. But I don't see why that would make it incongruous. it was a moment in the mirror, not a fantasy of an old love.Quote:
The class difference certainly makes the husband appear the victim. He becomes the lowly "laboring electrician" who gives generously only to be shunned by a haughty wife. For me, though, this didn't have much effect. This sympathetic husband was just too incongruous with the self-absorbed one we got in the opening.
Well, he maks her dinner, attends her needs, and worries she is ill. Do you think he's acting? It seems sincere.Quote:
It's hard to imagine him being the dotting husband that we're told he is here. I understand that Lawrence is trying to make the story tragic for both lovers, but I think he does a much better job forming the wife than he does the husband.
Hehe, Lawrence did not care for uppity women. I think the word fits. :DQuote:
A bit harsh, maybe?
Yes, it is the great mystery how she ended up with her husband, as it was not out of personal desire, or finicial need as it seems she would be perefectly able to support herself without him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
As I suggested before, I think she just wanted someone she could boss around, she intentionaly chose a man whom geniuenly cared for her, that she would have all the power over.
Yes, that is what I have said twoard the beginning, I do not think the fact that she is obcessed with her past makes her sympahtic, but rather instead it makes her immature.
:lol: Lawrence had a bit of woman hating in him. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think you've pointed out perfectly the biographical identifications in the story. And Lawrence did believe the man should be lord of the manor as you put it. The woman of the story is the type of woman Lawrenced blames for problems of the world. I know that's a big jump, and you don't get it in this story. But Lawrence believes that the psychological make up of people causes actions and events in the world and the psychology of the strong willed woman is what he blames for the world being screwed up. That's simplistic, but when you find a strong willed woman in a Lawrence short story, you ought to be suspicious.Quote:
Truly though, I don't hate anyone. Let us not forget this is the most peaceful thread on Lit Net.;) Anyway, what you wrote here above soooo reminds me of Lawrence and his own wife. He often was wanting more attention from her. It is very clear when you read books, like his intimate travel novels, or the one I am reading now "Kangaroo", based, biographically, on Lawrence and Frieda's brief residence in Australia. It is interesting to me now to read this sort of 'tug of war' between the male and female in this story' because this is something quite prominent in the novel' I am now reading. I really do think Lawrence struggled with this. He wanted to be "Lord of the manor" - he said so himself, blantantly and his wife certainly fought tooth and nail against it; it was a battle of 'wills'. It is truly complicated, but I know exactly where Lawrence is coming from in this story.
But the husband gives her her space. He lets her go off on her own all day, presumably not knowing that she was going to cheat on him (what would have happened if the old lover was not insane?), he lets her be in the bedroom while he makes dinner, and at every turn she sticks a stick in his side. She redicules him and acts so superior.Quote:
The woman needs her 'space' - I said that before and the man doesn't want to give her an inch, really. In the beginning, he is fretting about the time and that she is not there at his calling. It was like this with Lawrence at times (not all the time, mind you) and he struggled with this. I wonder if this was not born of the abnormally close relationship he had to his mother. There always seems to be this need and this pull towards the woman, as though she were his mother or substitute, and yet he had this fear the woman would overcome him...it is a strange position to be in.
I'm afraid I don't really see this. There isn't that much togetherness. Where is the husband being sufficating? He comes home and makes dinner. One would expect to sit at a table and have dinner together. Actually all she had to say is, not tonight, I don't feel well. But she doesn't. She Lords over him like a queen, something we can assume happens repeatedly.Quote:
She does - this is why I say 'space'....everyone deserves their space at times. Too much togetherness can be smothering.
Well, I am Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know. :p :DQuote:
this, too... I also. don't like labeling or name calling. such as this. Sorry, Virgil, but really I don't. I think the woman has more dimension, than just being called a b*****? What point does that serve. Gee, maybe we spoke too soon and we will all duke it out now on this issue.;)
I don't know if immature is the right word, but certainly a b****. ;) We have nothing else to go by as to why she maried him, so i would have to assume you're right. She wants to feel powerful and she picked a physically small man in a social class below her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
LOL that is exzactly what I said, at one point I brought up the question, what if she met her lover to find him both physicaly and mentally well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Becasue I do not think she would have hesitated
Well I won't repate myself, I talked about this at length tword the beginning of the thread, but at several points I thought the woman seemed child-like in her mentality and behavhor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
This is really simplifying Lawrence's idea of women...seriously. I see what you are getting at but inside my own head I don't really truly believe this after reading all I have about Lawrence. I think it was like the old adage with him: "You can't live with them and you can't live without". Even women say that. I know I do! Lawrence was screwed up from his mother - I have heard him say it himself, in autobiographical texts. He knew the score. I was just reading some of his letters and he knew he had this flaw. I believe this inner 'torment' followed him his whole life, and manifested itself in many of his stories and novels, but there usually is this pull either way. As we said before, in the beginning, he is making us sympathise with the woman, and then more so towards the man, at the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I would be angry also, if someone asked me "You mean the whole hogger?" - somehow that phrase would make me angry, too - because it sounds so insensitive and crude. When she answers him, do you think she is truly being honest, or is it a way to lash back at him? I think this complicated interchange of words and even expressions between them is just that - complicated and cannot be boiled down into a few words or ideas. It never is easy to explain a fight or altercation between the sexes - such as husband and wife, or even two lovers. These altercations, no doubt, in Lawrence books and stories have been debated for ages. We can never come up with a definitive answer on this idea of Lawrence hating women. I don't think he did. In his own mother's case, there is so much to debate. One thing is certain - feelings were strong both ways - he adored his mother and at the same time feared her control over his life. This can't be simplified and so it remains one of the basic fascinating factors of Lawrence.
Thanks, but truly it is not a 'simple' thing to analysis with Lawrence. He loved his wife dearly, but they often had to be appart and they both simmered at times. Frieda was very strong willed. I don't think that is correct at all; I don't believe he ever blamed the world for being screwed up by a strong willed woman. Let's fact it Lawrence was 'strong willed' himself! He had mixed feelings about women, even his close woman friends and he had tons of those. Read the letters! There is something about Lawrence that totally sympathises with women and taps into their inner psyches. It is never one way or the other, in his novels, that I can see. Nothing is black and white. I might want to post some excerpts about marriage from Kangaroo. I just read a whole section where the husband and wife - Richard (representing Lawrence) and Harriet (representing Frieda) were having much friction between them, and this was taken more from Richard's point of view on being married. You could read that and let me know what you think of his ideas. To me he is torn and in a turmoil about marriage, and yet it comes through loud and clear the two do love each other intensely. I might scan it, so give me some time.Quote:
I think you've pointed out perfectly the biographical identifications in the story. And Lawrence did believe the man should be lord of the manor as you put it. The woman of the story is the type of woman Lawrenced blames for problems of the world. I know that's a big jump, and you don't get it in this story. But Lawrence believes that the psychological make up of people causes actions and events in the world and the psychology of the strong willed woman is what he blames for the world being screwed up. That's simplistic, but when you find a strong willed woman in a Lawrence short story, you ought to be suspicious.
Quote:
But the husband gives her her space. He lets her go off on her own all day, presumably not knowing that she was going to cheat on him (what would have happened if the old lover was not insane?), he lets her be in the bedroom while he makes dinner, and at every turn she sticks a stick in his side. She redicules him and acts so superior.
In the beginning he is being so when he is persuming she will stick around with just him the whole day. I don't know what the rest of their marriage is like, or everyday how things are with them. He seems to want her attention and is annoyed when she is alone, even getting dressed or ready for the day. My god, women do need some time alone or to think without the husband wanting total togetherness. I know a couple just like this and the husband always demands the wife follow his time schedule and to be honest with you this marriage has a lot of strife and tension from this. The man does lord himself over the woman and she resents it. I can't help but see this is what is happening here.Quote:
I'm afraid I don't really see this. There isn't that much togetherness. Where is the husband being sufficating? He comes home and makes dinner. One would expect to sit at a table and have dinner together. Actually all she had to say is, not tonight, I don't feel well. But she doesn't. She Lords over him like a queen, something we can assume happens repeatedly.
Maybe later she is just demanding his letting her be alone - maybe she is saying it in a way makes you think she is a b*****. I don't really see this and like I said I think we should let this whole difference in opinion lay and forget it. We all seem to view the relationship different ways, maybe due to our own experiences which are playing into it.
Don't I know it!;) With all my pacifist pep-talks. :lol: What was that you said awhile back that you and I never had a fight on here; also that this was one thread you never had a fight on? ;) :lol: We better keep it that way - "Peaceful".Quote:
Well, I am Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know. :p :D
Yes I agree with that, I think this thread is starting to turn more into a debate of is the woman a b*****, or not, and moving away from acutal anylisis of the story itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
By this point everyone knows how we all feel about the woman, and no one is going to change anyone's mind from that I don't think.
Exactly! Well put, DM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Besides this whole debate is starting to give me a headache.;) :lol:
Soon we will move onto another story - thank heaven for that!
For now let us all proceed, 'peacably'.....:)
This isn't really fighting, come on. We do seem to disagree on what Lawrence wants us to think of this woman. And yes, I don't think we're going to change our minds. But I'm not finished with this story yet. There's still the final part. I'll comment on that tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
But what do you make of this in the openning paragraph:
"The Stag at Bay" suggests to me a male-female schism, and one not favorable to the male. I do think this was intended to project the conflict of the story.Quote:
Then he rose and reflected on the oil-paintings that hung on the walls of the room, giving careful but hostile attention to "The Stag at Bay".
:lol: We are not giving up on the story yet, silly. But we did discuss that quite extensively when you were absent. If you review the pages of posts, on this one story, you will see there are quite a few. Anyway, by your posting segments of the story, now we can look at different things or you might point out some brilliant ideas of your own. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Awhile back, we discussed that, but now I can't recall what we all said about the painting. I will have to review later on tonight. I am going out for now.Quote:
But what do you make of this in the openning paragraph:
"The Stag at Bay" suggests to me a male-female schism, and one not favorable to the male. I do think this was intended to project the conflict of the story.
:lol: Stop giving me a headache! :lol: :D