Toward the begining I had brought up the painting and posted an image of it in the thread, and there was some discussion of it, and what it could possible reperesent, I can quote some of my thoughts on the painting after I go back and relocate them.
Printable View
Toward the begining I had brought up the painting and posted an image of it in the thread, and there was some discussion of it, and what it could possible reperesent, I can quote some of my thoughts on the painting after I go back and relocate them.
Here are my own coments in regaurds to the painting
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Oh I found DM. Thanks. Interesting. I think the title reflects more in the story than the actual painting. I was imagining a stag being b*t*hed at by a doe. :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
LOL oh you are bad
You know the other thing I noticed that I found somewhat interesting is when the husband looks to the painting, it says he stuided it with hostility.
Quote:
Then he rose and refelcted on the oil-paintings that hung on the walls of the room, giving careful but hostile attention to "The Stag at Bay."
Someone else posted this photo, back awhile ago, so this is a rerun, but that is ok - refresh our memories. Funny now that I look at it again, it looks kind of playful and not hostile at all. I really don't know what significance to place on the husband viewing it hostily. Doesn't really make sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:lol: How are we giving you a headache? :p I'm sorry I wasn't involved in the early discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh I didn't really focus on the word "hostile." Good observation. This is not Lawrence at his most skillful. It seems like a young writer pointing at his themes. But he does make up for this with the rose garden scene and the climax between husband and wife. Those scenes are excellently crafted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
The significance is that the male deer, a stag, is being curtailed. It projects into the situation of the story, the husband is being curtailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
By those cute little innocent looking playful doggies? Those could be your Brandy just wanting to have a fun time - teasing.:lol: I think they look quite harmless or do you think they are wolves? Still that stag does not look too scared to me, and there is no blood. Oh so they are just detaining him or curtailing him - ok.....as they say, all women keep a man waiting....isn't it fashionable to be late - 'fashionably late' they call it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:lol: I take them as wolves, but they don't look so fiersome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Maybe he turned away since they were not fearcesome, enough.;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
fearsome, firseome - hey, how do you spell that anyway?
Here is an interesting site I just found on the painting and others apparently dealing with the same subject. I didn't yet read it all but it might shed some light on this image in the story and it's significance.
http://www.supernaturale.com/articles.html?id=163
Though they may not look fiersome, I do not think the intent of the picture is to make it playful, I think it is suppose to be a hunting scene. The dogs/wolves I think are intended to be either wolves or they look like they might be staghounds which were bred to be hunting dogs.
Hey DM, lighten-up. I was just teasing Virgil, when I said they looked playful. Who really knows what the painting means? We would have to ask the artist, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Wow, I leave for a day and the conversation devolves into a quarrel over deer and wolves (or dogs?). I don't know about you guys sometimes. I'll have to go back over the posts, and see what got us talking about dogs (wolves?).
LOL Virigil brought up the painting we discussed at the begining, and that started the conversation about wolves/dogs
hahahah :lol: I think maybe it is almost time to wrap this one up and proceed to a new story. Yes, when the discussion has disgenerated to 'dogs and wolves' we may have a problem. I think Virgil is still determined to discuss the last part so I am not sure why we went back to that painting again. You just never know what to expect in this unpredictable thread, do you? :lol:
LOL no you don't
Keeps it exciting and everyone awake! :lol:
Oh, yeah, now I remember the painting. I think it does foreshadow the conflict that husband and wife are about to have. I didn't even notice it when I was reading. I thought his glancing at the painting was just supposed to indicate the distracted, somewhat anxious, state he's in at the beginning of the story. He's trying to read the paper but he keeps glancing up, and then he has to walk around the room. He seems a bit nervous. I imagined him looking at the painting as part of this, but when I look at the painting it's pretty clear that it's foreshadowing something specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Funny. How do you get that from "Stag at Bay?" I think the painting you're thinking of is called "Stag Trying to Watch a Football Game."Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
We still have two weeks of February left. Do you want to read another story or should we stop for a while? And, we haven't talked about the end of the story, yet, so I think we could still continue with this one if we wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, it seems to 'foreshadow' events to come and their altercation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Funny. How do you get that from "Stag at Bay?" I think the painting you're thinking of is called "Stag Trying to Watch a Football Game."
Gee we do, don't we? But they will go quickly, and soon there is my birthday party on Lit Net coming up....:rolleyes::lol: are you all coming? I would say carry on with this story for the time being - hey, where is Virgil to post the next part? Hopefully, he will show up in the next few days. I am in no hurry, since I am somewhat active now in "Tale of Two Cities" discussion; also trying to listen to "The Name of the Rose" audiotapes; and don't forget - we are still preparing the Chekhov thread for revival. Hey, Quark, go read some Cheky short stories and see which ones you like....hopefully ones on my list....;) In the meantime, and in my 'sparetime' (yeah right) :lol:, I will review some Lawrence tales and see what we might all find fascinating to talk about next month.Quote:
We still have two weeks of February left. Do you want to read another story or should we stop for a while? And, we haven't talked about the end of the story, yet, so I think we could still continue with this one if we wanted to.
Ok, ok, here's the last part:
The very first word here is very important. After she internally acknowledges that she never loved him, Lawrence says, "But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free." For you writers out there, arguably the most powerful word that a writer has is the word, "but." I almost always use it to start a sentence with it, and therefore capitalized. I almost never use it as a conjunction. And neither did Lawrence here. It signals a shift, a translition. Having reached a point of powerful opposition to her husband, she softens. Here's the rest of what Lawrence says:Quote:
But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free. She wanted to be free of it. It was not him so much, but it, something she had put on herself, that bound her so horribly. And having put the bond on herself, it was hardest to take it off. But now she hated everything and felt destructive. He stood with his back to the door, fixed, as if he would oppose her eternally, till she was extinguished. She looked at him. Her eyes were cold and hostile. His workman's hands spread on the panels of the door behind him.
"You know I used to live here?" she began, in a hard voice, as if wilfully to wound him. He braced himself against her, and nodded.
"Well, I was companion to Miss Birch of Torril Hall--she and the rector were friends, and Archie was the rector's son." There was a pause. He listened without knowing what was happening. He stared at his wife. She was squatted in her white dress on the bed, carefully folding and re-folding the hem of her skirt. Her voice was full of hostility.
"He was an officer--a sub-lieutenant--then he quarrelled with his colonel and came out of the army. At any rate"--she plucked at her skirt hem, her husband stood motionless, watching her movements which filled his veins with madness--"he was awfully fond of me, and I was of him--awfully."
"How old was he?" asked the husband.
"When--when I first knew him? Or when he went away?--"
"When you first knew him."
"When I first knew him, he was twenty-six--now--he's thirty-one-- nearly thirty-two--because I'm twenty-nine, and he is nearly three years older--"
She lifted her head and looked at the opposite wall.
"And what then?" said her husband.
She hardened herself, and said callously:
"We were as good as engaged for nearly a year, though nobody knew-- at least--they talked--but--it wasn't open. Then he went away--"
"He chucked you?" said the husband brutally, wanting to hurt her into contact with himself. Her heart rose wildly with rage. Then "Yes", she said, to anger him. He shifted from one foot to the other, giving a "Ph!" of rage. There was silence for a time.
"Then," she resumed, her pain giving a mocking note to her words, "he suddenly went out to fight in Africa, and almost the very day I first met you, I heard from Miss Birch he'd got sunstroke--and two months after, that he was dead--"
"That was before you took on with me?" said the husband.
There was no answer. Neither spoke for a time. He had not understood. His eyes were contracted uglily.
"So you've been looking at your old courting places!" he said. "That was what you wanted to go out by yourself for this morning."
Still she did not answer him anything. He went away from the door to the window. He stood with his hands behind him, his back to her. She looked at him. His hands seemed gross to her, the back of his head paltry.
At length, almost against his will, he turned round, asking:
"How long were you carrying on with him?"
"What do you mean?" she replied coldly.
"I mean how long were you carrying on with him?"
She lifted her head, averting her face from him. She refused to answer. Then she said:
"I don't know what you mean, by carrying on. I loved him from the first days I met him--two months after I went to stay with Miss Birch."
"And do you reckon he loved you?" he jeered.
"I know he did."
"How do you know, if he'd have no more to do with you?"
There was a long silence of hate and suffering.
"And how far did it go between you?" he asked at length, in a frightened, stiff voice.
"I hate your not-straightforward questions," she cried, beside herself with his baiting. "We loved each other, and we were lovers--we were. I don't care what you think: what have you got to do with it? We were lovers before ever I knew you--"
"Lovers--lovers," he said, white with fury. "You mean you had your fling with an army man, and then came to me to marry you when you'd done--"
She sat swallowing her bitterness. There was a long pause.
"Do you mean to say you used to go--the whole hogger?" he asked, still incredulous.
"Why, what else do you think I mean?" she cried brutally.
He shrank, and became white, impersonal. There was a long, paralysed silence. He seemed to have gone small.
"You never thought to tell me all this before I married you," he said, with bitter irony, at last.
"You never asked me," she replied.
"I never thought there was any need."
"Well, then, you should think."
He stood with expressionless, almost childlike set face, revolving many thoughts, whilst his heart was mad with anguish.
Suddenly she added:
"And I saw him today," she said. "He is not dead, he's mad."
Her husband looked at her, startled.
"Mad!' he said involuntarily.
"A lunatic," she said. It almost cost her her reason to utter the word. There was a pause.
"Did he know you?" asked the husband in a small voice.
"No," she said.
He stood and looked at her. At last he had learned the width of the breach between them. She still squatted on the bed. He could not go near her. It would be violation to each of them to be brought into contact with the other. The thing must work itself out. They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other. After some minutes he left her and went out.
I think she realizes here that it's not the husband to blame, but the weight of reality, the weight of the circumstances. And then she goes on to tell him what happened.Quote:
But suddenly she lifted her head again swiftly, like a thing that tries to get free. She wanted to be free of it. It was not him so much, but it, something she had put on herself, that bound her so horribly. And having put the bond on herself, it was hardest to take it off. But now she hated everything and felt destructive. He stood with his back to the door, fixed, as if he would oppose her eternally, till she was extinguished. She looked at him. Her eyes were cold and hostile. His workman's hands spread on the panels of the door behind him.
Now here is a question. Why does she tell him? Is it to be honest? Bring it out in the open? Or to destroy him with the informaton? I'm somewhat torn here. I would think it would be to bring it out in the open, but Lawrence says she speaks with hostility and to "wilfully wound him." Perhaps Lawrence wants it to be both simultaneously, but I think if he does it doesn't quite come through.Quote:
"You know I used to live here?" she began, in a hard voice, as if wilfully to wound him. He braced himself against her, and nodded.
"Well, I was companion to Miss Birch of Torril Hall--she and the rector were friends, and Archie was the rector's son." There was a pause. He listened without knowing what was happening. He stared at his wife. She was squatted in her white dress on the bed, carefully folding and re-folding the hem of her skirt. Her voice was full of hostility.
And the husband, who has reached a saturation point in being badly treated, fights back to destroy her:
"They are trying to destroy the other with points. And he probes to find out the extent of the relationship.Quote:
He chucked you?" said the husband brutally, wanting to hurt her into contact with himself. Her heart rose wildly with rage. Then "Yes", she said, to anger him. He shifted from one foot to the other, giving a "Ph!" of rage. There was silence for a time.
:lol: I assume "the whole hogger" means sexual intercourse. I know Janine hated him for using that word. But there is good justification for a brutal word. It's bringing the raw reality, in its most gritty realistic terms, into consciousness. It dispells all the dreamy illusions that the woman was under. I think that's the actual climax of the story. Notice how things change.Quote:
"How do you know, if he'd have no more to do with you?"
There was a long silence of hate and suffering.
"And how far did it go between you?" he asked at length, in a frightened, stiff voice.
"I hate your not-straightforward questions," she cried, beside herself with his baiting. "We loved each other, and we were lovers--we were. I don't care what you think: what have you got to do with it? We were lovers before ever I knew you--"
"Lovers--lovers," he said, white with fury. "You mean you had your fling with an army man, and then came to me to marry you when you'd done--"
She sat swallowing her bitterness. There was a long pause.
"Do you mean to say you used to go--the whole hogger?" he asked, still incredulous.
He shrinks and feels small. Why? I think he too realizes the reality. He too has been in an idealized fantasy, to think that his wife didn't exist before they met and have a life before him. Notice the exchange afterward:Quote:
"Why, what else do you think I mean?" she cried brutally.
He shrank, and became white, impersonal. There was a long, paralysed silence. He seemed to have gone small.
"You never thought to tell me all this before I married you," he said, with bitter irony, at last.
"You never asked me," she replied.
"I never thought there was any need."
"Well, then, you should think."
He stood with expressionless, almost childlike set face, revolving many thoughts, whilst his heart was mad with anguish.
They have not been open from the beginning. And notice he now doesn't go beserk when she then tells him that she actually met him today. The worst has passed and now that they've finally been honest with each other they can move on.Quote:
"You never thought to tell me all this before I married you," he said, with bitter irony, at last.
"You never asked me," she replied.
"I never thought there was any need."
"Well, then, you should think."
"At last he had learned the width of the breech between them." "They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other." They have passed through this catharitic experience, and so now they can start toward a real marriage.Quote:
He stood and looked at her. At last he had learned the width of the breach between them. She still squatted on the bed. He could not go near her. It would be violation to each of them to be brought into contact with the other. The thing must work itself out. They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other. After some minutes he left her and went out.
Despite some poorly written spots, a brilliant conclusion. A fine story.
Now that we got to the last of the story, there is an idea that had occured to me earlier but had not yet got to it, when we began to break the story up in sections.
As it has been discussed in detail before, there is an imporantce placed on plysical appereances within the story, as it is pointed out that both the husband and woman are attractive, and flattering words at the begining are used in description of them, but I had noticed at the end of this story this imagery shifts, and both the man and the woman become ugly.
Perhaps it is a reflection of how they come to see each other at this point. As the descritpions now used to talk about them, are rather unflattering.
Quote:
His face was greyish pale, and set uglily
Quote:
His eyes were contracted uglily
And the thing I thought was interesting is that twice the woman is refered to as "squatting" as for me, this word does not bring very graceful or pretty imagery, but is awakard and unattractive, the word itself I think is kind of ugly.Quote:
His hands seemed gross to her, the back of his head platry
Quote:
She was squatted in her white dress on the bed
Quote:
She still squatted on the bed
Virgil, I did not requote you: everyone can read that part from your post. I agree about the word "But" and I often start sentences with it also. Must be why we feel this connection with Lawrence, eh? Yes, within this single word he turns things around or towards another direction. It is interesting what power that 'but' can have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Definitely, I had said that before. I didn't see where any blame was put on anyone. She feels it is 'it' - the thing she put upon herself that she can't get loose or free of. This 'it' is keeping her marriage from working and developing, growing. The woman is quite aware the problem lies within herself. I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him. This part very much reminds me of the Joyce short story "The Dead" in that the woman confesses her past lover to her husband and in doing so he comes to the realisation that she never loved him as passionately as she had loved her, now estranged and deceased, lover.Quote:
I think she realizes here that it's not the husband to blame, but the weight of reality, the weight of the circumstances. And then she goes on to tell him what happened.
I felt it was to be honest. But I don't think she did so consciously. I think it just comes spilling out at this point as I described above. I do not believe she is willfully wanting to wound him but this may be the result, however the more important aspect seems to be the coming clean with her story and clearing the air between the husband and wife for good.Quote:
Now here is a question. Why does she tell him? Is it to be honest? Bring it out in the open? Or to destroy him with the informaton? I'm somewhat torn here. I would think it would be to bring it out in the open, but Lawrence says she speaks with hostility and to "wilfully wound him." Perhaps Lawrence wants it to be both simultaneously, but I think if he does it doesn't quite come through.
That would be realistic between couples, wouldn't it?Quote:
And the husband, who has reached a saturation point in being badly treated, fights back to destroy her:
People do fight this way. They don't fight logically at times. Sometimes things are just blurted out and used as weapons, mental, emotional ammunition.Quote:
They are trying to destroy the other with points. And he probes to find out the extent of the relationship.
Yes, it is a pretty funny phrase, isn't it? I guess old-fashioned. I do think it means that and so he is being really blunt with her in an earthy way - referring to hog. I still get a little ruffled at his manor of asking. It is like a very good trigger word to set her off again or to wound her. You are right, however, that no matter how 'brutal' the words are they do act as the catalyst to bring out this 'raw reality' and the truth into their consciousness. I agree this defining moment is definitely the climax to the story. There is a definite shift right after this confrontation.Quote:
:lol: I assume "the whole hogger" means sexual intercourse. I know Janine hated him for using that word. But there is good justification for a brutal word. It's bringing the raw reality, in its most gritty realistic terms, into consciousness. It dispells all the dreamy illusions that the woman was under. I think that's the actual climax of the story. Notice how things change.
True - they both were living this fantasy which was idealized and hide many truths of the past. Good point - he saw her as though she did not exist before he meet her and married her.Quote:
He shrinks and feels small. Why? I think he too realizes the reality. He too has been in an idealized fantasy, to think that his wife didn't exist before they met and have a life before him. Notice the exchange afterward:
I agree with all of this. I said a while back that they could finally be honest at this moment and therefore hopefully would be able to move on and make a go at their marriage.Quote:
They have not been open from the beginning. And notice he now doesn't go beserk when she then tells him that she actually met him today. The worst has passed and now that they've finally been honest with each other they can move on.
I really particularly like the phrase "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". To me it is better to know of the truth than to sense something is there and one can't get through to what it is that is keeping them appart. As it also states "and no longer hated each other". I think that phrase is key. Exactly - the have passed through a catharitic experience - you have the right words for what happened. I did not know how to word that and did not feel it was transfiguration at this point. Do you agree?Quote:
"At last he had learned the width of the breech between them." "They were both shocked so much, they were impersonal, and no longer hated each other." They have passed through this catharitic experience, and so now they can start toward a real marriage.
Maybe so, but this is an early work. I do think this story is a fine one and better than we first thought it be - the more we discussed, the more complex the story revealed itself to be to us. That is marvelous! The conclusion is brilliant; yes. I loved the story, but then I love them all. :thumbs_up :)Quote:
Despite some poorly written spots, a brilliant conclusion. A fine story.
Great observation DM. When I refered to places poorly wrtten, "ugily" is one of them. "Ugily" as an adverb is ugly. ;) And I winced also at squatted. I couldn't quite picture that. Why would anyone squat on a bed? Ultimatly I pictured it as she pulling and holding her knees up to herself. But really that's not squatting. I don't know what to make of it. And yes they do turn ugly towards the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Janine, she's still a b*t*h. :p :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes I had a hard time trying to picture just how she would squat upon the bed as it did seem a rather awkard pose for one to take.
Haha - gee, thanks for taking the time to address the rest of my post. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh I will. It was a lot to go through. I'm getting tired. I'll do it tomorrow, I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:rolleyes: Oh.. ok, then.....I guess I am tired too and maybe was getting a little b****y! ;) :lol: we better get some rest. I think I will quit computing now and maybe finish my Lawrence book - only a few chapters more. I've been so tired all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I don't know. She knows she loves the old lover and not the current husband. Do you think she cares about the husband? Or the marriage? She changes at the end because she sees the impossibility of going to the old lover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There are certainly similarities with Joyce's "The Dead." I'm still not sure why she wants to confess her past. I still think there is an element of trying to destroying him with the information.Quote:
I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him. This part very much reminds me of the Joyce short story "The Dead" in that the woman confesses her past lover to her husband and in doing so he comes to the realisation that she never loved him as passionately as she had loved her, now estranged and deceased, lover.
Hmm. There's that too. But I tend to rest on the "hostility" word Lawrence uses.Quote:
I felt it was to be honest. But I don't think she did so consciously. I think it just comes spilling out at this point as I described above. I do not believe she is willfully wanting to wound him but this may be the result, however the more important aspect seems to be the coming clean with her story and clearing the air between the husband and wife for good.
Quote:
People do fight this way. They don't fight logically at times. Sometimes things are just blurted out and used as weapons, mental, emotional ammunition.
I think we can agree on those points.Quote:
Yes, it is a pretty funny phrase, isn't it? I guess old-fashioned. I do think it means that and so he is being really blunt with her in an earthy way - referring to hog. I still get a little ruffled at his manor of asking. It is like a very good trigger word to set her off again or to wound her. You are right, however, that no matter how 'brutal' the words are they do act as the catalyst to bring out this 'raw reality' and the truth into their consciousness. I agree this defining moment is definitely the climax to the story. There is a definite shift right after this confrontation.
Yes I agree, there is no transfiguration. I too loved that sentenece, "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". It's almost like a thesis sentence that explains the story.Quote:
I really particularly like the phrase "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". To me it is better to know of the truth than to sense something is there and one can't get through to what it is that is keeping them appart. As it also states "and no longer hated each other". I think that phrase is key. Exactly - the have passed through a catharitic experience - you have the right words for what happened. I did not know how to word that and did not feel it was transfiguration at this point. Do you agree?
Great. I still think we should take a break and perhpas by mid to end of March we can do another story. I'm tied up with other reading. What do people think?Quote:
Maybe so, but this is an early work. I do think this story is a fine one and better than we first thought it be - the more we discussed, the more complex the story revealed itself to be to us. That is marvelous! The conclusion is brilliant; yes. I loved the story, but then I love them all. :thumbs_up :)
Well, now there is 'the question' - of whether she does truly still love the old lover. You see, in my opinion, she loved the idea of him and the memory, but not truly the man. She seemed to show no true sorrow towards him, when she found him as he was. Yes, she certainly did feel shock, but she might also have felt shock in finding him with his mind in-tack. I don't think she ever intended on meeting up with him. He was suppose to be dead! I think when he appears, it is like seeing a ghost and truly more poignant is, that actually, he is a ghost or a shadow, of the man she once knew. I have thought on this whole idea so often. What if I meet up with an exlover - would I feel the same way - and usually I come up with this thought that, realistically speaking, I doubt very much I would feel any real love for that person anymore. Only living back in the memory of the good times, do I perceive love with him and not projected into the now or the future. Do you see what I am trying to say? For instance, if Lawrence later meet up with his first love, Jessie, and she had been persumed dead, would he have left his wife to go to her? If it did not work out the first time, then what makes you think they could just pick up from where they were now? No, I feel the old lover, for this woman, is totally rooted in the past and can't pass over into the now. That doorway into the courtyard is very significant. I see this shadow of the past, this man - the lover - who is also a shadow, of what he had been and what had been between them - not being able, in anyway, to pass into her outside world. The garden embodies her past and his and now she must leave that superficial garden of 'dream and memory' to enter back, and live daily in her new found world with the husband. Probably from the beginning of their marriage, she has been chained to this past and it, being a deep dark secret (as in a shadow herself), which has kept her from truly loving her husband. If the shadow now is torn from her perhaps they can now view each other realistically and actually see themselves as the are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Just like Gabriel and his wife, he questioned her until she caved in and told him the story. When she came home she did not just blurt it out to her husband and try to destroy him with the information. I don't agree with you here at all. Neither mate is trying to destroy the other. They are simply having a marital fight and it gets nasty and yet when it gets to a certain point there is where hope begins. The marriage perhaps must burn down to embers (like the Phoenix bird) and then new life can spring from it.Quote:
There are certainly similarities with Joyce's "The Dead." I'm still not sure why she wants to confess her past. I still think there is an element of trying to destroying him with the information.
I think with Joyce's story I don't see as much hope between husband and wife - the story ends on a sad note and doesn't give the reader true hope. The husband and wife do not argue and do not air out any differences. They stay contained and she falls off to sleep; he is unable to console her and sits at the window looking out and ruminating silently on his position in the marriage. I feel in Lawrence's story there is this tiny shred of hope for this couple that they might begin again and find happiness someday.
You don't think hostility can be blurted out unconsicously? I think couples arguing can become very hostile at times. I don't know how literal Lawrence meant the word to be. He certainly did not mean harm would be inflicted on either physically. The weapons here are definitely physcological and emotional weapons.Quote:
Hmm. There's that too. But I tend to rest on the "hostility" word Lawrence uses.
Yeah!!!;) cause I was getting a little b... ichy :lol: last night.Quote:
I think we can agree on those points.
Yes, that is good - a 'thesis' - good word!Quote:
Yes I agree, there is no transfiguration. I too loved that sentenece, "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". It's almost like a thesis sentence that explains the story.
I am not sure of this idea. I am not so tied up as you. How many books are you discussing? I saw you again in Aeneid - is that still going on and "TNOTR" seems like an equally complicated read. I won't do next months monthly read; two novels this month is killing me. I want to do some other reading on my own, anyway. I only then have the Chekhov short story thread, so maybe a short short story again in here I could handle. We can talk further about this in a PM. I hate to postpone again, since we have people interested now. I will ask the others, too and if they all want a break we can take one month off and start up again in April. Hey, others - what do you think?Quote:
Great. I still think we should take a break and perhpas by mid to end of March we can do another story. I'm tied up with other reading. What do people think?
This may be a very forgiving reading of the wife's behavior at the end. For whatever reason, she's still concealing her true feelings. She admits to loving the madman in the garden, but not for clarity. Lawrence tells us that she is feeling, "destructive", and her statements seem designed to be the most wounding. She senses the husband trying to establish a connection with her and she says what is most "destructive" to him. I don't know if we can blame the wife for doing this, though. She really doesn't love the husband that's trying to force himself on her. After she's just experienced real happiness in the garden it would be hard to return to the husband and not feel some resentment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I like the comparison with "The Dead". I think it does fit.
Yeah, I don't think their fight is far-fetched in any way. Almost all heated arguments get nonsensical at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Painful realizations make up quite of few of these climaxes, don't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This story seems so well contained that I really don't think about what's going to happen after. Maybe it's only because I'm not sure what I want to happen, or maybe it has to do with linear--all present tense--way of storytelling. Some stories do lend themselves to that kind of speculation. In "The Lady with the Dog" discussion many of our posts were focused on exactly that. It seemed like we had to define Gurov's past relationships, and decide whether he would be happy at the end in order. For some reason I don't really wonder about those things in this story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
[/QUOTE]
Lawrence's language at the end is weird and almost jarring. It could be a reflection of what's going on in the story, or it could be just poor writing. I'd have to go back and see if the story is written "ugily" all throughout or just at the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Lawrence tells us flat out that she doesn't love the husband. If you do try to prove that she has affection for him, I think you have a tall mountain to climb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
So you think the woman is unsympathetic (I won't use the B-word ;) ) too. I don't know why Janine cuts her a break. It must be because she's associating something biographical with Lawrence and his wife in the story. But if you take the story in itself, without bringing in outside life or even connecting it to other works, one has to consider the woman as mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I think that sums it up. But I do think the story projects a better future.Quote:
Lawrence tells us flat out that she doesn't love the husband. If you do try to prove that she has affection for him, I think you have a tall mountain to climb.
I do have some sympathy for the wife. She's trapped with a husband she doesn't care for. I just think that at the end she doesn't handle it in the best way--nor does the husband, really. Ultimately, though, both characters are made to draw our sympathy. The relationship makes neither of them happy, and each has a real grievance with the other. Earlier, I was just pointing out that I thought Lawrence did a better job forming the wife's complaints than he did the husband's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh good, lets wrap up this one. I am sick of discussing it, aren't you? I think now we are beating the story to death. Gee and I thought this was one of his less complicated SHORT stories! Ha!....
So do we have a vote for next month - skip the month or do another short one?
You know what is funny - we are divided on this thing about the woman and sympathy or hatred for her, but you would think it males against females - instead it is 'even Steven' - 2 against 2 and both sexes disagreeing. I think we would all disagree until doomsday! haha....guess we should just hang it up now and move onward....
One final note about what you said - I think that is because basically the story centers around the wife and is about her profound experience in the rose garden confronting her past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Whatever works best for everyone else can work for me, I am fine either waiting, or starting a new one up
Dark Muse, if I pick a story for next month, I promise I will try very hard to choose one with a very nice, congenial (not mean) woman character.;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
My vote probably would be to do a story, since I don't have too much going on next month. I may join in the book discussion, if "Dubliners" is chosen; but those are short stories also, so I could just jump in for the ones I truly liked, in the collection. How about you, DM, do you plan on joining in that discussion, also? I see you have been over in "TNOTR"...since I am only listening to the audiobooks, which at this point I am totally lost and confused about the plot, I might try to read the novel next month at my leisure.
Well right now I am reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and well that is enough Joyce at one time for me. I looking forward to just getting that one over with so I can start something else.
Oh I think Dubliners will be chosen. OK, perhaps I'll try to squeeze in a Lawrence story. :)
Virgil, if we do a story and you can't fit it in this month, that is no big deal really. We will understand. You will be missed, but we will understand that you can take a break. Do so, whenever you need one. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You read "Dubliners" before didn't you? I thought I would just discuss the stories, that interested me most from the collection, or just read the comments to learn more about those stories I might not have comprehended fully.
OK, but then I feel guilty about not having read one. I'd hate to miss out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Several of the stories I've read a few times. I think I've read them all at least once. I can't imagine doing the stories in the detail we do here. There are at least a dozen and we have the month. Here we do a story a month. It should be intersting, even though i voted for something else.Quote:
You read "Dubliners" before didn't you? I thought I would just discuss the stories, that interested me most from the collection, or just read the comments to learn more about those stories I might not have comprehended fully.
I knew you would say that. I would probably feel the same way. Maybe you could let me know the stories that you have read, ones that we have not as yet. I will PM you about them today. I had some ideas and I will pass them by you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, really....I think if they do pick "Dubliners" (and it looks that way) they don't know what they are in for. Each story really needs about a month. Awhile back, everyone voted to do all the Oscar Wilde fairytales. Guess what happened? A few of us read them; I read about 5 online, which I don't relish doing. I know Pensive read some. So come time to talk about them - no one shows up, I checked on it for weeks and if they did show up, it must have been in the last days of the thread.Quote:
Several of the stories I've read a few times. I think I've read them all at least once. I can't imagine doing the stories in the detail we do here. There are at least a dozen and we have the month. Here we do a story a month. It should be intersting, even though i voted for something else.
Ok, now we are suppose to be discussing for this month "Tale of Two Cities" -it is already the 19th of the month and only two people are basically discussing the book - myself and manolia, occasionally Pensive has commented. It is going very, very slowly....but that is ok, as long as we keep discussing it even after the month is up. I can't really see how we can possibly discuss the whole book come March 1. I am beginning to wonder about these time limits to monthly books, but the one saving grace in this ATOTC thread, is that manolia says she will discuss the book with me privately/or in the thread, even when the month is up. She wrote me a sweet PM today to let me know she read my last two posts, and will answer them in a day or so. It is just that I am wondering where are the other people who voted on this book? So this is my pet-peeve. Actually, I think this book was designated as the 'Valentine's Day' read.
Ok, so with "Dubliners", in my opinion, the book needs a thread of it's own, like this thread. It needs for the entire book at least a year's attention for - one or two stories per month. Joyce, like Lawrence and Chehkov, is a very complex author. As with Chekhov and Lawrence, we have needed whole thread that is ongoing, without any limited time set. With Joyce's novel, I can't imagine what kind of structure the discussion will take on a book of short stories. Will they start with the first one and go from there? I need to post these question directly to the Dubliners thread when it is started in March, I suppose.
Well, I just had to speak my mind here and vent a little. I know I have done a lot of work preparing for the various discussions on some books, that have totally flopped in discussion lately. I was enthused about one recently and two people dominated the discussion with political opinions (no names mentioned). It got to be really annoying, so I admit, I finally just dropped out; and I know other people did the same. I kept wondering when they would actually discuss the book and the characters. By the time I was done wondering, the next month was upon us.
Virgil, maybe I am just being crabby!;) :lol: