Printable View
I'm sorry Janine. I didn't mean for that to sound angry. It wasn't written in anger. I guess if you don't put a smiley face the tone can seem off since you can't seem my facila expressions. I meant it as humourously sarcastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
And I am peaceful, as long as i'm not talking about stringing boys up by ...:lol:
I was being that way, too. Yes, next time use a smiley face so I know what you are up to 'facially.' - by the way, you spelled the word wrong - haha.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I thought of this and I thought "well at least he can not use that one on me!";) :lol:Quote:
And I am peaceful, as long as i'm not talking about stringing boys up by ...:lol:
Urrgh, I can't type or proof read. I wonder if facila actually means something. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:lol: You are too funny.Quote:
I thought of this and I thought "well at least he can not use that one on me!";) :lol:
Sounds kind of Italian to me! hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Thanks, I know I am!:lol:Quote:
:lol: You are too funny.
Quasimodo pointed out this Lawrence poem to me. Thought it fit the scenerio of this story somewhat with the family gathered around the hearth fire:
PAX
All that matters is to be at one with the living God
To be a creature in the house of the God of Life.
Like a cat asleep on a chair
at peace, in peace
and at one with the master of the house, with the
mistress
at home, at home in the house of the living,
sleeping on the hearth, and yawning before the fire.
Sleeping on the hearth of the living world,
yawning at home before the fire of life
feeling the presence of the living God
like a great reassurance
a deep calm in the heart
a presence
as of a master sitting at the board
in his own and greater being,
in the house of life.
-- by D.H. Lawrence
Note the line "fire of life"
Will post something later. Going out again today and won't be near a computer. Be back this evening. Sorry for all the delays.
I think finally the story rests on the relationship between Elizabeth and Walter, both before his death and after. Bringing in Walter's mother throughout the second half of the story is in counterpoint to Elizabeth, presenting a distinction between a wife's relationship with a mother's. Even before they know of his death, the mother points out that their relationship with Walter is different:
This is ironic because Lawrence by the end of the story will point out that it is different because Elizabth and Walter have been joined in flesh.Quote:
"But he wasn't your son, Lizzie, an' it makes a difference. Whatever he was, I remember him when he was little, an' I learned to understand him and to make allowances. You've got to make allowances for them--"
We also are made aware of the two relationships between mothers and children. When they bring the body, both mothers think of their children:
Mother and wife go on to clean his naked body. Elizabeth strives to understand his dead body:Quote:
The old woman, who stood just behind Elizabeth, dropped into a chair, and folded her hands, crying: "Oh, my boy, my boy!"
"Hush!" said Elizabeth, with a sharp twitch of a frown. "Be still, mother, don't waken th' children: I wouldn't have them down for anything!"
They react to his body differently, one as mother, one as wife:Quote:
Elizabeth embraced the body of her husband, with cheek and lips. She seemed to be listening, inquiring, trying to get some connection. But she could not. She was driven away. He was impregnable.
As mothers they have a distinct relationship with their children, but as we will see, it is not the blood relationship (although Lawrence doesn't actually say that; this story was written prior to when he formulated his blood knowledge theory, but we can see that the roots of it are here) of male and female lovers.Quote:
They worked thus in silence for a long time. They never forgot it was death, and the touch of the man's dead body gave them strange emotions, different in each of the women; a great dread possessed them both, the mother felt the lie was given to her womb, she was denied; the wife felt the utter isolation of the human soul, the child within her was a weight apart from her.
Despite an imperfect marriage, they "had exchanged their nakedness repeatedly." They had lived "by the heat of living," a reference to the hearth, and though "his smoky burning" is now gone, they had lived "as one flesh." But ultimately the marriage did not cross over into a spiritual union: "Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now." And she puts the blame on herself: " And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong." She had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection of him through her rational living. It is not that they could not have merged to a transfiguration, she with her rational mind has prevented it. He lived as "she never lived." There relationship is carnal, but not complete.Quote:
Elizabeth looked up. The man's mouth was fallen back, slightly open under the cover of the moustache. The eyes, half shut, did not show glazed in the obscurity. Life with its smoky burning gone from him, had left him apart and utterly alien to her. And she knew what a stranger he was to her. In her womb was ice of fear, because of this separate stranger with whom she had been living as one flesh. Was this what it all meant--utter, intact separateness, obscured by heat of living? In dread she turned her face away. The fact was too deadly. There had been nothing between them, and yet they had come together, exchanging their nakedness repeatedly. Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now. He was no more responsible than she. The child was like ice in her womb. For as she looked at the dead man, her mind, cold and detached, said clearly: "Who am I? What have I been doing? I have been fighting a husband who did not exist. He existed all the time. What wrong have I done? What was that I have been living with? There lies the reality, this man."--And her soul died in her for fear: she knew she had never seen him, he had never seen her, they had met in the dark and had fought in the dark, not knowing whom they met nor whom they fought. And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong. She had said he was something he was not; she had felt familiar with him. Whereas he was apart all the while, living as she never lived, feeling as she never felt.
This is her epiphany, that they had never connected and that their relationship, while physical, never reached a spiritual union. This is opposite of the Tom and Lydia's relationship in The Rainbow and the Birkin and Ursula's relationship in Women In Love.Quote:
He and she were only channels through which life had flowed to issue in the children. She was a mother--but how awful she knew it now to have been a wife. And he, dead now, how awful he must have felt it to be a husband. She felt that in the next world he would be a stranger to her. If they met there, in the beyond, they would only be ashamed of what had been before. The children had come, for some mysterious reason, out of both of them. But the children did not unite them.
Certainly, the darkness and gloom is reminiscent of death and the unknown. It foreshadows Mr. Bates' death. Also, it reminds us of Mrs. Bates "sullen struggle" with her husband. At the end Mrs. Bates tells us that she and her husband had, "met in the dark and fought in the dark". The dim surroundings in the story mirror this figurative darkness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The light and fire is both comforting and deluding. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bates are consoled by warmth and light, but they are also fooled by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Now, onto the Chrysanthemum question. They serve two functions. One, they're another foreshadowing detail. The flower's connection to death would be understood by Lawrence's audience, and they would know that something is wrong. Foreshadowing in this story is critical. There wouldn't be any suspense or tension in the first part of the story without it. The Chrysanthemums help with this. Besides being an ominous warning to the reader, the flowers reflect Mr. and Mrs. Bates' relationship. Chrysanthemums are present whenever their relationship advances, and the vase containing them is broken when their relationship is severed by the husband's death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Is the washing of Mr. Bates a Christ-like ritual? Do you mean the washing the foot thing? Or, do you just mean that it's a selfless, altruist act in general? I thought she bathed him because she was trying to reestablish her connection with him through a physical act.
Yeah, the most important relationship in this story is that between the married couple. Mr. Bates' mother is an interesting foil for Mrs. Bates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It's hard to tell in what way Mrs. Bates feels separated from her husband at the end. We know that she believes he is somehow different from what she thought him to be, but any more specific details are curiously missing. Unlike in Sons and Lovers where Lawrence gives the reader a careful description of the differences between husband and wife, we can't get a clear idea of what separates the married pair. Mrs. Bates could mean that she feels spiritual alienated from her deceased husband, or she could simply mean that his personality was different from what she supposed. In either case, she thinks she may have ruined Mr. Bates' life (and possibly her own) with her misconception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Two excellent posts,Virgil and Quark. I am glad I came back on here late to read them. Both of you bring out good points about the relationship of husband and wife and it's complexity, as he lay dead. The intense and honest feelings of his wife and the thoughts of his own mother as well, as they prepare the body, is well illustrated by Lawrence and you have hit upon the key lines and the ideas behind them, their ironies and connections to each of the woman - such as the connection in flesh of the husband and wife....but I was also thinking of the flesh connection of the unborn child and also Walter's own mother's pregnancy and how, as an unborn child, Walter and his mother also had a flesh connection (blood connection).
It is late now so that I won't go into more detail than this but I hope to do so with each post tomorrow.
Again good work on these two interesting posts....a lot of interesting comments.
Virgil and Quark, Sorry it took me so long to come back here. Been busy with the S&L thread, I guess, and did not feel well and only had energy for one for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Virgil,
I think the point you bring up here about the difference in the relationships - mother to son and wife to son is a good one. It is worthy of note in the significance of having his mother present in the story. They both react quite differently to the death.
Yes, I too see this irony and it is a good thing to ponder. I wonder how this relates to Lawrence's ideas/thoughtsQuote:
This is ironic because Lawrence by the end of the story will point out that it is different because Elizabth and Walter have been joined in flesh.
that were present in S&L, having to do with his own mother, etc.
Good point.Quote:
We also are made aware of the two relationships between mothers and children. When they bring the body, both mothers think of their children:
Yes, I thought this scene so interesting, like nothing I had ever read before. It is quite unique and internal to the thoughts of Elizabeth.Quote:
Mother and wife go on to clean his naked body. Elizabeth strives to understand his dead body:
Good to quote this part and it is quite distinctly different, as it should be.Quote:
They react to his body differently, one as mother, one as wife:
Yes, interesting as well concerning the 'blood knowledge' theory. Was this story written before or after "Women in Love"? I guess I will have to look that up.Quote:
As mothers they have a distinct relationship with their children, but as we will see, it is not the blood relationship (although Lawrence doesn't actually say that; this story was written prior to when he formulated his blood knowledge theory, but we can see that the roots of it are here) of male and female lovers.
Again the duality of Lawrence and his ideas. The merging of the flesh and the union spirtualisticly seem to be in opposition in the first part of this paragraph but then he writes that "she had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection through her rational living." This again is like Lawrence's own parents and Mr. and Mrs. Morel. The wife is the rational one and the husband the one of "smoky burning" - does Lawrence also mean he is the one intune with the blood? Interesting that Lawrence now uses the word 'transfiguration' in this story. He states that her "rational mind has prevented it" so he is blantantly telling us what will prevent the true marriage of this couple - the lack of this 'transfiguration'. As you said to me before, he is placing the blame now on the woman in this story. I see in Lawrence the progression from S&L to this new stage, because S&L he does not really come out and blame the woman, for the distance and strife and aloneness in her marriage, but tends to put more blame on the father, Mr. Morel; by the close of the novel there is perhaps no real blame but he seems to be favoring the mother's position and yet in his own dealings with women he is favoring the 'blood' union and not the intellectual union. This is quite interesting.Quote:
Despite an imperfect marriage, they "had exchanged their nakedness repeatedly." They had lived "by the heat of living," a reference to the hearth, and though "his smoky burning" is now gone, they had lived "as one flesh." But ultimately the marriage did not cross over into a spiritual union: "Each time he had taken her, they had been two isolated beings, far apart as now." And she puts the blame on herself: " And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong." She had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection of him through her rational living. It is not that they could not have merged to a transfiguration, she with her rational mind has prevented it. He lived as "she never lived." There relationship is carnal, but not complete.
Yes, quite opposite these two sets of characters/couples, as well.Quote:
This is her epiphany, that they had never connected and that their relationship, while physical, never reached a spiritual union. This is opposite of the Tom and Lydia's relationship in The Rainbow and the Birkin and Ursula's relationship in Women In Love.
I lent that book out that had the calandar of his life. ;) You will have to look that up now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think so. I took smoky burning to be a reference to the fact that his fire of life burns out; perhaps Lawrence meant it as blood knowledge as well.Quote:
Again the duality of Lawrence and his ideas. The merging of the flesh and the union spirtualisticly seem to be in opposition in the first part of this paragraph but then he writes that "she had not realized the blood living within him, the rejection through her rational living." This again is like Lawrence's own parents and Mr. and Mrs. Morel. The wife is the rational one and the husband the one of "smoky burning" - does Lawrence also mean he is the one intune with the blood?
I'm now curious to see if he wrote this before or after S&L. It was around the same time. Interesting that he blames women more and more for failed relationships as he gets older. He did get married and that is what having a wife can do to you. :p :DQuote:
Interesting that Lawrence now uses the word 'transfiguration' in this story. He states that her "rational mind has prevented it" so he is blantantly telling us what will prevent the true marriage of this couple - the lack of this 'transfiguration'. As you said to me before, he is placing the blame now on the woman in this story. I see in Lawrence the progression from S&L to this new stage, because S&L he does not really come out and blame the woman, for the distance and strife and aloneness in her marriage, but tends to put more blame on the father, Mr. Morel; by the close of the novel there is perhaps no real blame but he seems to be favoring the mother's position and yet in his own dealings with women he is favoring the 'blood' union and not the intellectual union. This is quite interesting.
Hi Quark, Yes, I thought this also. This is not a cheery story by a long shot. I think the play of light and darkness is well constructed in the story and adds the atmosphere that is needed, both at the time of dread of something bad having happened, there is a sort of forbodding in the way Lawrence presents the home, even though this is the normal everyday environment with the darkness and the family near the hearth. Still I think that Lawrence plays up this darkness in this story - such as the part where he describes the son sitting in the shadow. It is as it the shadows represent the 'shadow of death'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I think all along when, Elizabeth is surmissing her husband is late because he is in a pub drinking she knows in her heart something terrible may have happened and she won't admit that to herself. She simply waits in anquish. I believe she has a kind of forboding which takes up much of the story. I think realistically one could relate to this feeling of waiting for someone to arrive home and not know if they were safe or not and imagining the worse at times but denying it at the same time. I know I have done this in the past. Thank God I have been wrong and the person was safe. But there have been times I have done this and the person was not so I can imagine this whole story in a very realistic way.
I don't know if they are 'fooled by it' - because I think both light and dark and what they represent are a part of life. It is natural and something we have to accept. If they represent life and death, this too is something we all must accept eventually. Yes, the darkness could be something we all delude ourselves about - the thought of our own life entering into a darkness of death. I don't know - I may just be babbling on. The thought just came to me that the ending with the washing and laying out of the body seems to represent to me, in a broader sense and asside from the marital differences, our own experiences when someone dies and we see them layed out for burial. We seem then to come in direct contact with death, something we all try not to think about from day to day. I think this story is more universal and meaningful in this respect. A living being is now preparing a lifeless form - it makes one ponder on the whole meanin of life and death.Quote:
The light and fire is both comforting and deluding. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bates are consoled by warmth and light, but they are also fooled by it.
Yes, definitely the flower begins as a foreshadowing detail and this idea progresses with more significance and meaning...really brilliant writing on Lawrence's part. Lawrence knew flowers and plants well, since he loved botany and studied it extensively, so no doubt he got this idea when learning the meaning of the flowers and how they could be interwoven in this story. The title is perfect, too. Lawrence wrote a poem called "Violets" - in it he contrasts the scent of death and the scent of violets. It is a very poignant poem.Quote:
Now, onto the Chrysanthemum question. They serve two functions. One, they're another foreshadowing detail. The flower's connection to death would be understood by Lawrence's audience, and they would know that something is wrong. Foreshadowing in this story is critical. There wouldn't be any suspense or tension in the first part of the story without it. The Chrysanthemums help with this. Besides being an ominous warning to the reader, the flowers reflect Mr. and Mrs. Bates' relationship. Chrysanthemums are present whenever their relationship advances, and the vase containing them is broken when their relationship is severed by the husband's death.
I forget - was there an actual 'vase' in the story?
This she last part she is doing as, you say; but yes, I find the idea of the scene being 'Christ-like' an interesting one. I will look up more on the commentary concerning these thoughts.Quote:
Is the washing of Mr. Bates a Christ-like ritual? Do you mean the washing the foot thing? Or, do you just mean that it's a selfless, altruist act in general? I thought she bathed him because she was trying to reestablish her connection with him through a physical act.
Yes, the relationship is what is being fully explored but the universal meanings I believe go even further.Quote:
Yeah, the most important relationship in this story is that between the married couple. Mr. Bates' mother is an interesting foil for Mrs. Bates.
Yes, short stories tend to be this way. We are left to fill in the blanks. I think that is ok and in this case I do think we can only go so far in understanding Mrs. Bate's feeling towards her husband and facing his dead body. Remember, too, she still has ahead of her the task of telling her beloved children. They had asked about their father often and it will be a very sad affair to know he is now gone from them.Quote:
It's hard to tell in what way Mrs. Bates feels separated from her husband at the end. We know that she believes he is somehow different from what she thought him to be, but any more specific details are curiously missing. Unlike in Sons and Lovers where Lawrence gives the reader a careful description of the differences between husband and wife, we can't get a clear idea of what separates the married pair. Mrs. Bates could mean that she feels spiritual alienated from her deceased husband, or she could simply mean that his personality was different from what she supposed. In either case, she thinks she may have ruined Mr. Bates' life (and possibly her own) with her misconception.
Be sure to read my last two (long) posts, guys, but I wanted to ask these questions and forgot.
What do you think of the mention of Elizabeth's father in the beginning of the story and the fact that he is going to remarry? What part does this play in the story or what significance does it have, do you think?
That is a good question. I'm not sure i understand that. I'll have to re-read it. It does create a series of generations, the protagonist's parents, the protagonists themselves (Walter & Elizabeth), and the protagonist's children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil, Oh how funny - we posted same time in here, too. I was writing to Quark and then that final question post that followed and you beat me out again. Same in S&L - so glad I did not loose that post over there - it took a while to type out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I think the husband represents the 'blood philosophy' ideal. I have to look that up in one of my many books - the date of the story and novel.
I laughed about him being married and that is what married life does to you. Yes, it did seem that way with Lawrence and Frieda. He did evolve to a different code of thought, especially by the time he got to "Plumed Serpent", which, by the way, I just completed last night. Thank godness!
Virgil, maybe it is just establishing the thought of generations, as you say; but I thought there might be more significance to it, actually...but not sure what it is. Elizabeth did not seem in favor of the father marrying. Could he also represent the blood philosophy and the working man - sort of salt of the earth type guy who drives the train that delivers the coal? Would he be aligned to her husband in a sense?
In this story, did not the children go out to play (after dark) under a street light? Hope I am not mixing this up with S&L. Anyway, if I am correct, what did you think of that scene and it's significance to the story?
Is that right? I can't remember that. I thought that the son was out playing in the dark and the mother brought him in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine