LOL, *grins* well I am flattered
Printable View
LOL, *grins* well I am flattered
You guys are really sick! Always anatomy on the brain, never zoology!:brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
or it aviology or birdology - what the heck is the name of the study of birds? ...and you guys are all twits! :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh Quark. How could you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Well I said I was "going" to say that. If I had, I'm sure it would have been pretty awkward--good thing I caught myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Janine, the study of birds in Ornithology. I'm not clear on why it's not aviology. That would make more sense, since avis is latin for bird. I don't know in what language people go around calling them orniths.
I'll comment on the Lawrence-feminism argument later.
The word ornithology comes from the Greek words ornithikos meaning bird and logia meaning study.
Thanks to you, Virgil and Dark Muse, for clearing that up. I never had Latin or Greek. It did seem to me that 'aviology' had a certain ring to it. I must innately know Latin and not realise it...my ancient ancestry resurfaceing.;) Lawrence would like that - the return of the old gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Putting all discussion on tits (bird ones) asside, I am glad you will try to address my long post tomorrow, Virgil. Good luck! It is kind of refreshing disagreeing with you....:lol:...but I won't take on your 'Mad, Bad, and Dangerous' personal.
Oh darn. One of my favorite subjects. ;) Actually I was thinking that some little pervert was going to be very disappointed one day when he googles tits and finds these posts. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
hello guys.
I have read Lawrance's "tickets ,please"short story,but ,unfortunatly,I still have some ambiguity about it.This ambiguity is that I cannot fish the plot out and analysis it very well,so that I would be so happy to help me ..
thank you
Well, I agree they are extreme in their thinking. But you don't think they have a legitament arguement with Lawrence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, I'm seeing that myself. That's why I said it was the conventional wisdom and why I moved away from that line of thinking. So you say it was that strong even as a young man. That is interesting.Quote:
I don't think they considered many things. I don't necessary agree with you about "Sons and Lovers", either. I think the feminists would find much fault in that novel. I think Lawrence, even as a young man believed the man should be lord and master. If you read the very first novel "The White Peacock" you would be shocked at the one character - Anabelle and his attitudes toward women. The seeds of this idea of man being supperior to woman goes waaaay back.
Actually she breaks away, doesn't she. I can't quite remember the ending but while she marries Cipriano she does decide to leave Mexico, right?Quote:
I think as time passed actually Lawrence modified some of these more extreme ideas, but I could be wrong. I have read nearly all his books but some I don't recall as well now. He is only just presenting and working out his idea of the two lovers being two perfectly balanced stars in harmony. I think later he speaks more extensively about this concept in "The Plumed Serpent". I don't know if the ending of that novel really accomplishes that or if the woman, Kate, truely becomes subservient to her new husband.
I can't remember much from that novel at all. There is a battle of wills between Sommers (is that the L character?) and his wife.Quote:
In "Kangaroo" you see Lawrence stuggling with his 10 yr old marriage - a kind of war of the wills goes on and finally he ends with a kind of realisation that he can't really have it his way. It is all a big question in my mind.
One of these days we need to read a story called "The Woman Who Rode Away."Quote:
What I took offensively in your last post was you surety that #1 Lawrence was an anti-feminist
He may still be popular, but at one time Lawrence was considered the most important English writer of the 20th century. I'm not sure that's true any more.Quote:
and #2. his popularity was not diminished.
He was misunderstood. He is complex. He has a very original and defined philosophy, which is really a theosophy.Quote:
I just don't buy either as complete truths. I think that Lawrence was much more complex than that and one can not apply a label his work or to the man. I believe for years Lawrence's work was greatly overlooked and it was misunderstood. I will try to find critical references to these exact statements and post them. :bawling: I was just trying to defend my poor Lawrence, who I have spend countless hours to understand, and feel that in his own time was grossly misunderstood and mistreated.
If you look at my thesis I site several who have divided his work into sections, I think one of his biographers. I also go on and divide it to my thinking. I think it's in the first three or four pages of my thesis.Quote:
What sources do you have for this way of splitting his work and categorizing it.
Of course, but it's helpful to understand his evolution.Quote:
I don't truly agree with this at all. One just cannot make these cut and dry divisions in his work. They all overlap. It is not a black and white issue but one more of subtle shades of gray. If you know the source material let me know it. I have never read this in the books I researched.
Oh she was destitute to be a maid to someone, but she finds her savior in the doctor.Quote:
Oh boy, Virgil, now you are asking for it! hahaha;) ....hope you are laughing, too. First off, in THDD, it did not seem to me that the woman was submitting anything to the man in the story. If anything the man seemed to be the meek one and rather shy; actually they both were. Also they seem to meet on equal ground here, but at first he saves her from her own suicide (drowning)....how is this story about submission, an undermining of female independence?
No I don't think he's saying that. He seems to be saying that a good relationship is beneficial to both men and women, but within the relationship women have to submit to the man's will rather than exert her own. And he projects a unhealthy modern world to the fact that women have now exerted their wills in their relationships.Quote:
Yes, true in that time in life and history, the woman has few options, without the support of men (financial), at first her brothers....this same thing applies to the woman in 'Odour of Chrsanthemums.' Both point back to Hardy's work in that this was usually the case for woman. I don't think Lawrence is saying it is good for the woman to be put down or trapped in loveless marriages or bad situations financially. If anything I see him identifying more with the woman and sympathising with her plight of being trapped in a situation, which offers no realistic alternatives and little hope.
I have to read that someday.Quote:
The woman in OOC has two children to think of...she is especially trapped. Yes, she feels sworn to her husband...but I think she realises just how it truly was and how they were not happy, as she dresses his dead body for his funneral. I just saw Lawrence's play on DVD "The Widowing of Mrs. Holroyd" and in this play is presented a young man she very much likes and is consoled in, who offers to take her away from her rotten life and situation. The play is very much like the story OOC. The concentration is on the wife and how sad/tragic it is for her and how she is trapped, even when she might find an option to escape her brutish drunken husband. I don't see anti-feminism in this play, more the plight of women and how Lawrence totally sympathised with them.
I don't quite remember that in Jude. (The problem with having read so much is that you can't remember it ;) ) But Hardy is definitely feminist in Tess. Very strongly feminist, dont you think?Quote:
This is a curious thing, what you say about Hardy. I read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and L' biggest problem with the story of "Jude, the Obscure" was that Sue ultimately returns to her husband and becomes subjected to his will, even though she has lived with Jude in a common law marriage. I can't figure out how Hardy was so unfeminist when in Jude his last novel he accepts this as a truth. Or is it that, by showing this tragedy, Hardy is actually being feminist.
Well, we'll have to read that together. I don't see two balance stars there. Connie is awakened as you say, so in that respects Lawrence is liberating her, but she is awakened by by her submission to Mellors.Quote:
If you think of Jude the outcome is nearly opposite to LCL in concept. I don't think either that Connie is subjecting herself to Mellors. I think she was subjecting herself to her husband, who became impotent after his injury in the war and rejected her emotionally and physically. I see Mellors and Connie meeting more in the vain of the two balanced stars. I don't see subjection there, unless in the very begining of the story, but then it is Connie who seeks out Mellors and not Mellors who goes after Connie. The awakining that Connie experiences with the gamekeeper is more liberating in the end for her. The old life she leaves is the restricting one.
And you've done a great job. Even i would probably not have been looking at Lawrence anywhere this much without you. You're the glue that holds this together. :)Quote:
He is on Lit Net!!! :lol: Of course I am here and pushing it;
I beleive that in time the greatness of Lawrence's writing will win out. I also think that the quirkiness of his ideas will prevent him from recapturing the greatest English writer of the 20th century. Intellectuals are increasingly secular and Lawrence's ideas rest on a spirituality, a belief that nature holds theological truths (that'sa one of the main reasons why I think Lawrence pushed Romanticism to its conclusion). On one hand it runs counter to both taday's atheists and to established major religions. So neither group of intellectuals embrace it. On the other hand aboriginal religions do still exists, and Lawrence has much in common with them. And there will always be a sense of the occult, which I think can be in sympathy with Lawrence.Quote:
but look - we have some more advocates now. I have Litnetters bugging me as to when we read the next L novel. There is that online group dedicated to L, and that Cambridge biography series and online display. I think if you ran an L search today on Amazon for books you would be pleasantly surprised at all the fans out there. Read some of the commentary. We are not alone, by far knowing what a genius Lawrence was. His work very much still lives on.
:lol: Yes, I agree. I'm not saying I see misogyny (sp?) in Lawrence, but he is very male oriented.Quote:
The ones I speak of are not that type at all. In fact that type of submissive woman does not seem to like Lawrence's work at all. That is strange or curious, don't you think? I think you are seeing this all from a man's point of view and missing the big picture. Most woman who I have found interested in Lawrence read some and adore the man; they can overlook some of his worst faults. Afterall he was just a man! ;) :lol: We woman become tough and tollerant!
:lol:Quote:
That could be it. Yes, he does hit a nerve and he gets right inside a woman's head. I think the feminists would feel he invaded their privacy. In some ways, they feel he undermines their sense of security perhaps. My secure and independent friends see Lawrence differently. They don't feel threatened by him.
Joyce can be cold. Lawrence's work beats with life.Quote:
I far prefer Lawrence's work over Joyce. I just can't get into some of Joyce's work that requires tons of time to figure out. I like a simplier approach. Joyce is too complex for my feeble little brain. Lawrence is complex but understandable. I can better relate to his work than to Joyce's. I do feel Lawrence was and still living on in his words, is a great author.
I fear I do not feel as if I have enough background information to weigh in on the Lawrence issue, but based upon what I have read. I would have to say that I somewhat agree with both of you. I do not agree will of the ideas that Lawrence personally had, from what little I do know and understand, regarding women. But I will say within his stories he often seems to portray very strong and independent women, and deals often with the issues of women's quest for equality, and the issue of the male driven world. Though he might not personally agree with these ideas, within his writing he seems to understand the struggle of women to try and find some way within the world, separate from the need for dependency upon men, and their struggle to find their own path.
Anyway, I just had to pose these passages, because I absolutely loved this depiction of the woman within the story.
I also found it interesting the attention to the clothing which was given, and the use of color. I found it interesting how the secretary was given green, almost as if to make her "blend in" with the garden surroundings. While the husband and the wife are made to stand out in stark contrast to the garden with him in yellow, and her in mustard and cream.Quote:
She went quietly along the hedge, somewhat wolf-like in her prowl, a broad strong woman in an expensive mustard-colored jersey and cream-colorued pleated skirt. Her legs were long and shapely, her shoes were expansive.
With a curious wolf-like stealth she turned the hedge and looked across the small shaded lawn where the daises grew impertinently, 'He' was reclining in a coloured hammock under the pink-flowering horse-chestnut tree, dressed in white serge with a fine yellow-coloured linen shirt. His elegant hand dropped over the side of the hammock and beat a sort of vague rhythm to his words. At a little wicker table the little secretary, in a green knitted frock, bent her dark head over her note-book, and diligently made those awful shorthand marks. He was not difficult to take down, as he dictated slowly, and kept a sort of rhythm, beating time with his dangling hand.
I loved this scene. And I found it interesting how things progressed from being wolf-like, to a she-wolf, and finally, a werewolf.Quote:
"No!" said the little secretary, gazing brightly round, her eyes half-blinded with work. But she saw the queer, powerful, elegant, wolf-like figure of the wife, behind her, and terror came into her eyes.
"I did!" said the wife, stepping forward with those curious, shapely she-wolf legs of hers under the very short skirt.
"Aren't they extraordinarily vicious little beasts?" said he
"Extraordinarily!" she re-echoed stooping and picking up a little breast-feather. "Extraordinarily! See how the feathers fly!"
And she got the feather on the tip of her finger, and looked at it. Then she looked at the secretary, then she looked at him. She had a queer, were-wolf expression between her brows.
Virgil, I will have to answer your long post tomorrow. I don't have time today or tonight. I did however do some online research on Lawrence and feminism. I think if you run the same search you find some great articles and there is one site that lists so many of the great woman feminists who were influenced by Lawrence. I also found this incredible study and article from Assiut University which was a PDF but which I could print out. It is a long article but I noticed when printing it it does mention some of the short stories we recently discussed. I can't wait to read this study. It is quite long but worth printing out. Here is the link if you want to check it out, too:
http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/Articles51/Article510647.pdf
It begins:
This article should be quite interesting and revealing, as well. I really excited to find it. Dark Muse, this will probably interest you, also (thinking of your class), and any others who will find the time to read it.Quote:
This is a theoretical investigation of feminist Realism in the modern fiction of Virginia Woolf and D.H.Lawrence. My intention is to draw some innovative textual conclusions out of the context of their novels to prove their radical feminist implications. What distinquishes these two writers and their novels is a particular kind of fidelity to reality which is not different from their feminist visions. Thus, feminist realism is extensively studied and elaborated though the works of those two writers. The patriarchal realism (social realism) and the female reality is scrutinized to explain the difference between the world as men have constructed and the reality that is lived, imagined and expressed by women.
I agree with Virgil that Lawrence was profoundly anti-feminist, but at the same time I agree with Janine that his works can be enjoyed by women--and not just for their superb language. While being fervently against women's rights, he was still an honest observer. His desire for realism often outweighed his inclination toward polemic. Sons and Lovers, while containing the harsh invective against radical feminists like Clara, gives voice to the plight of women who are trapped in degrading circumstances--like Miriam. Lawrence even lets her argue against her situation herself in a speech about the limited possibilities for women compared to men. It's important to remember that his anti-feminist views were more prescriptive than descriptive. Most of his arguments on women are about what they could become and not what they actually were. A feminist can get through a novel by Lawrence because it's his record of what "is" that's printed on the page, and that analysis is often quite sapient.
None of this, though, should obscure Lawrence's real opinion of the female personality. In this story it comes into the fore, and I think we should be clear on what's being attacked. I was reading an article in the South Atlantic Review this morning which was very appropriate for this story--even though it's talking about another. It quoted a section of Katherine Anne Porter's essay "A Wreath for the Gamekeeper" which goes like this,
Okay, maybe that's an overstatement, but the point is a good one. In Lawrence's stories women are redeemed (fulfilled may be the better word) through sexual relationships, and they are at odds with one another. Realizing this is an important part of understanding Lawrence's satire. Virgil already brought up the possibility that the satire is directed at the inversion of natural gender roles in modern marriage. I think this fits with what we know about the story and L's views. The woman is not being redeemed through sex with her husband. Instead, she denies that she even wants to kiss him. Meanwhile she loathes the secretary for reasons she can't understand, and the husband is cold and ironic. From what we know about Lawrence on women and Lawrence on "blood consciousness", it's easy to see where husband and wife deviate from the right course.Quote:
[Lawrence] has expressed it ferociously over and over. Women must be kept apart, for they contaminate each other. They are to be redeemed one by through the sexual offices of a man, who seems to have no other function in her life, nor she in his. One of the greatest enlightenments of Lady Chatterley after her experience of the sentimental obscenities of her gamekeeper is to see other women clearly, women sexually less lucky than she, and to realize that they are all horrible. She can't get away fast enough, and back to the embraces of her fancy man.
Dark Muse, I hope people don't overlook your last post. You made some good points. I'll try and respond later.
Don't agree at all - "Lawrence was profoundly anti-feminist" - this is a false statement, based on no real evidence to back it up. If you show me grounds (facts) and not just interpretation of Lawrence's work, I might consider it true. I don't think consistenly, Lawrence was anything of the sort. Read the article I posted above. I have been reading it. First off, this person doing this critical study, talks about "Sons and Lovers" and points out that Lawrence's female characters, who want feminism, are not wholely committed to it and therefore, they fail. Clara returns to her husband; Miriam is trapped in her situtation. "his anti-feminist views were more prescriptive than descriptive". what do you mean by this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
The article excerpt - horrid and based on nothing! What a mean scathing remark to make. Who was this woman?Quote:
None of this, though, should obscure Lawrence's real opinion of the female personality. In this story it comes into the fore, and I think we should be clear on what's being attacked. I was reading an article in the South Atlantic Review this morning which was very appropriate for this story--even though it's talking about another. It quoted a section of Katherine Anne Porter's essay "A Wreath for the Gamekeeper" which goes like this,
Slightly?..just slightly an overstatement, indeed! I am seeing :flare: at this woman's remarks. How is her point a good one? How many of Lawrence's short stories have you read, Quark? I don't agree with you on this generalisation at all and using this current story is hardly the example to hold up. This story is a satire; it might even be a quick sketch that Lawrence wrote off the cuff one day to amuse himself. I don't know since I have not confered with Lawrence himself. I don't see two woman fighting in a story as making a man an anti-feminist. Yikes, there are tons of authors who explore similar situtations and triangles between the sexes. Why does everyone target Lawrence? How does "blood consciousness" and his ideas on this make Lawrence anti-feminist? You have really lost me here. "blood consciousness" involves both sexes and the union of them and not male dominance as I see it.Quote:
Okay, maybe that's an overstatement, but the point is a good one. In Lawrence's stories women are redeemed (fulfilled may be the better word) through sexual relationships, and they are at odds with one another. Realizing this is an important part of understanding Lawrence's satire. Virgil already brought up the possibility that the satire is directed at the inversion of natural gender roles in modern marriage. I think this fits with what we know about the story and L's views. The woman is not being redeemed through sex with her husband. Instead, she denies that she even wants to kiss him. Meanwhile she loathes the secretary for reasons she can't understand, and the husband is cold and ironic. From what we know about Lawrence on women and Lawrence on "blood consciousness", it's easy to see where husband and wife deviate from the right course.
In my final remarks, I want to say that this whole feminist, anti-feminist question is a very complicated business and we all need to do more research on it before we can make sound judgements about Lawrence in relationship to the movement. I read one commentator who said he began the movement or greatly advanced it. Many feminists authors felt Lawrence's work influenced them. How do you account for that fact? That includes you, Virgil, as well.
Quark, after reviewing your post I think I misunderstood some of the things you were saying; you did not seem to be totally refuting what I had said. Sorry about that; I didn't mean to out and out, attack you on this issue. I just feel so strongly that 'some' feminists, hardly 'all' feminists, back in Lawrence's day labeled Lawrence an 'anti-feminist' and this became a real yoke around his neck and damaged his reputation greatly. One could have done the same to other authors, who show a strong male image and a weaker woman one, being dominated by males. I just think this whole idea of Lawrence being a truly anti-feminist and saying it in this day and age, turns many people off to his literature and that is such a pity. I really think Lawrence got a bad rap on this one. I don't see any of the characters in Lawrence's work without weaknesses and vulnerabilities and so I count them all equal, men and woman, and as human beings struggling within different and unique situations, so they all are different.
Dark Muse, I appreciate your neutral stance in this issue and the fact you admit to not knowing enough to make a true assessment. I know much about Lawrence and yet this still led me to go and research more on the specific question of feminism or anti-feminism. I found quite a number of article and references on the net and this surprised me greatly - most of what I found were in defense of Lawrence actually being a feminist. He certainly influenced a great number of feminist women authors and he had many many feminists friends who great admired him. So it never figures to me exactly who labeled him an anti-feminist. If you have a change check out the article online. You don't have to read all to get the gist of what the researcher is getting at. It even talks about Bertie in "The Blind Man" and gives some good insight into that story.Quote:
I fear I do not feel as if I have enough background information to weigh in on the Lawrence issue, but based upon what I have read. I would have to say that I somewhat agree with both of you. I do not agree will of the ideas that Lawrence personally had, from what little I do know and understand, regarding women. But I will say within his stories he often seems to portray very strong and independent women, and deals often with the issues of women's quest for equality, and the issue of the male driven world. Though he might not personally agree with these ideas, within his writing he seems to understand the struggle of women to try and find some way within the world, separate from the need for dependency upon men, and their struggle to find their own path.
Quote:
Anyway, I just had to pose these passages, because I absolutely loved this depiction of the woman within the story.
I too, love passages like this one where woman in Lawrence's writing are shown as being very strong individuals. We can site many throughout his large body of work, which further supports my ideas of his actually being very much for woman's rights and equality, and sympathetic to the plight of the woman. Many of his novels revolve around the woman characters. I can see where some of his writings would offend the stauch feminists, but is Lawrence showing situations where woman are being put down by men and saying it is the correct way to live or behave? This I am totally doubtful of. I think we are missing the whole point, if we simply categorize Lawrence's work as 'anti-feminist'.
I haven't over looked it. It is a fine post Muse. I had not paid attention to the color and I think the significance you point out is what Lawrence intended, not just accidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
I will have to print that out. It's 25 pages. I haven't read a scholarly article in years. ;) Poor Janine, you're being ganged up on. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Dark Muse, I agree - that was a really good observation and color meant a lot to Lawrence. I wondered at those colors, at the time I read them in the story, but then I forgot about them and didn't think of the deeper sympolism lurking there. That is good - green like the grass and spring. It did seem to me the wife's outfit was classy, but harsh in color; am I right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I will have to print that out. It's 25 pages. I haven't read a scholarly article in years. ;)[/QUOTE]
Virgil, I have been trying to read it quickly. There is a part on "The Blind Man" that is quite interesting. I did print it and it was about that many pages. I don't care - soon I need a new ink cartridge anyway. To save ink you can print with Options and use rough draft and black cartridge only - ever do that? I do it all the time to conserve.
Tonight I hope to read the whole document. Hey, it reminds me of a thesis. I don't know where this guy is from or where that university is located, do you. If you run a general search and just enter Lawrence feminism - you will come up with many sites. There is one book sounds extremely interesting and I put it into my 'watching' on Amazon. Of course - don't I have enough Lawrence books by now?:lol:
I just responded to Quarks post and then went back in (after I ate some dinner and can think clearer) and added some comments at the bottom. You might want to check that out. Hey, Virgil, you don't have to go to another thread ;) to find a good contraversy going on...stay right here...you started it this time.....:lol:
:lol: it is ok, I am not scared at all. I am a strong female figure - one of Lawrence's best! :lol:Quote:
Poor Janine, you're being ganged up on.
Yes, I do that all the time. But it seems to be the same quality so I've wondered if it really does anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I looked up the university and it's from Egypt. I'm curious to see what he has to say. It does look like a thesis. Yes, you got plenty on Lawrence. ;) But whatever makes you happy. :)Quote:
Tonight I hope to read the whole document. Hey, it reminds me of a thesis. I don't know where this guy is from or where that university is located, do you. If you run a general search and just enter Lawrence feminism - you will come up with many sites. There is one book sounds extremely interesting and I put it into my 'watching' on Amazon. Of course - don't I have enough Lawrence books by now?:lol:
:lol: Yes, I've never seen you so. I'm actually a little scared. :pQuote:
I just responded to Quarks post and then went back in (after I ate some dinner and can think clearer) and added some comments at the bottom. You might want to check that out. Hey, Virgil, you don't have to go to another thread ;) to find a good contraversy going on...stay right here...you started it this time.....:lol:
I wonder if you would have been one of those women that would have followed Lawrence around, one of his disciples. :lol: He probably would have grown sick of you like Dorothy Brett. :p :DQuote:
:lol: it is ok, I am not scared at all. I am a strong female figure - one of Lawrence's best! :lol:
You're right that Lawrence's view on feminism is a poor topic. It's probably best to stick to the story. I'll look at that article you suggested, too. The introduction sounded interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Good eye for detail, Dark Muse. I didn't notice the colors in that scene. Just before that passage, Lawrence comments about how the wife is out of tune with spring, and the contrast in color brings that out. I wonder why the secretary blends in, though. Is that a indication of her unimportance? Maybe the camouflage refers to her modest, unimposing nature. He could be saying that secretary is the one who's in tune with spring because of her youth. This is the scene where the wife discovers she's forty, and the green clothes of the secretary could be one more signal to the reader of the age discrepancy between the two women.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
The wolf epithets are easier to follow. This is just after the wife hatches her malignant plan to separate the husband from his servants. Here the narrator is not-so-subtly ratcheting up the rhetoric against the wife to show how destructive she's being.
Mine is way different quality when I do that. You must be doing something wrong or not applying it at the bottom. First you have to hit 'apply' and then 'ok' or 'print' or whatever it says. I will check it out and write up the instructions for you. I sure saves on ink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Wow, thanks for finding that out. Egypt - that is really quite interesting. It must be in a book or published, because it is in a PDF file. Usually, you can't print those out, so I was shocked I could this time. I am glad of it. I love reading any commentary, or anything fairly new in ideas on Lawrence and his work. It all makes me happy!:D It doesn't take much to make me happy.:)Quote:
I looked up the university and it's from Egypt. I'm curious to see what he has to say. It does look like a thesis. Yes, you got plenty on Lawrence. ;) But whatever makes you happy. :)
Of course, I don't know about my adoration of Lawrence, if up close and personal; the guy did look a bit ragged later in life and I don't like men quite that thin and he got so his hair looked quite messy and I heard he had a scraggly red beard....hummm, I think I have better taste in men than that!:lol:
Must be the sudden change in temperature, the heat. :( I did get a bit worked up; did you see me actually turn 'red' with anger above - see my rebutal to Quark's post and that dumb woman's remarks. I think he is mad at me now. I am sorry, Quark....:bawling: Yikes, I might have the capacity to be M,B and Dangerous like you, V!:(Quote:
:lol: Yes, I've never seen you so. I'm actually a little scared. :p
:lol: Yeah, but I'm a lot cutier! ;) :lol:Quote:
I wonder if you would have been one of those women that would have followed Lawrence around, one of his disciples. He probably would have grown sick of you like Dorothy Brett.
What, Quark, too hot in the kitchen for you? It is not a poor topic, just one that I agree, we need to discuss, other than here, since we are disrupting the story discussion. But I just wanted to leave it, that it is questionable and complicated and so we should not make judgements as to label L anything specific concerning feminism/anti-feminism. If you have the time read the article. It may throw some new light on the whole topic. Thanks, Q!Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Yes, I agree; good eye for detail, DM and I was also wondering something about the two blue dresses - the wife's being expensive and the secretary changing into her blue dress which was not the quality of the wife's dress and she seems to see it as an inferiority image. I wondered just why the secretary would go and change into a similar dress and the same exact color. That seemed so strange to me. Usually women are mortified if they go somewhere and another woman is wearing a similar dress or the identical color. In this instance the secretary must know well enough her dress will be inferior to the wife's and this would draw more attention to her lowlier state. It did not quite figure with me, so I wanted to see what other opinions there are concerning these two blue dresses.Quote:
Good eye for detail, Dark Muse. I didn't notice the colors in that scene. Just before that passage, Lawrence comments about how the wife is out of tune with spring, and the contrast in color brings that out. I wonder why the secretary blends in, though. Is that a indication of her unimportance? Maybe the camouflage refers to her modest, unimposing nature. He could be saying that secretary is the one who's in tune with spring because of her youth. This is the scene where the wife discovers she's forty, and the green clothes of the secretary could be one more signal to the reader of the age discrepancy between the two women.
Quark, can you quote some of those passages to look at specifically?Quote:
The wolf epithets are easier to follow. This is just after the wife hatches her malignant plan to separate the husband from his servants. Here the narrator is not-so-subtly ratcheting up the rhetoric against the wife to show how destructive she's being.
Ha, no I'm not mad (no:flare:over here). I just thought we were getting needlessly sidetracked on a question that we weren't going to solve quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Lawrence is trying to draw the connection between the blue birds and the women here. The scene with the dresses is right after the scene with the birds. Plus, the dresses are the same color as the birds. They're even the same shade of blue. Fighting blue birds in one scene are mirrored by fighting women in another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I can post more on that tomorrow. Before I do that, though, I should probably write something for the Chekhov thread. We're coming to an important part in "About Love", and it seems like the conversation is starting to flag for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I knew that! I just mean 'logically', why would the secretary pick the same color dress, knowing hers will appear to be inferior to the wife's expensive one? Is it the only nice dress she owns? I wondered about whether Lawrence just ignored realism here and contrived to have them mimic the two bluebirds; it seems unlike Lawrence to ignore the obvious, in whether realistically, the secretary would put herself in the position of being inferior, or maybe that was the point - she wished to look less impressive, than the wife, more down to earth and ordinary. It still seems strange to me.Quote:
Lawrence is trying to draw the connection between the blue birds and the women here. The scene with the dresses is right after the scene with the birds. Plus, the dresses are the same color as the birds. They're even the same shade of blue. Fighting blue birds in one scene are mirrored by fighting women in another.
Well you better;), where have you been in the Chekhov thread, anyway....off with the new "Thus Spoke Z" thread? eh, Quark? .... and in Chekhov, we are not falling behind?!? It only just turned April 11th, from where I am sitting and geez, that leaves nearly 20 more days in this month. Nor is the conversation starting to flag, whatever that means. If you had gone in there today, you might have noticed that I posted a fairly long post.....I will give you a flag! :smash: I wish to post more tomorrow, and even some questions that popped up, while I was reading the story for the FOURTH time last night....YES, the 4th!...I am not kidding.:DQuote:
I can post more on that tomorrow. Before I do that, though, I should probably write something for the Chekhov thread. We're coming to an important part in "About Love", and it seems like the conversation is starting to flag for some reason.
Yes I would agree. The color of mustard does seem to really leap out at you, and well it also does not bring to my mind a very pleasant color either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The other thing I noticed as that it seemed the wife was wearing, bolder versions of the colors her husband were in.
As he was in yellow and white, and she was in mustard and cream.
I see there being some relation between yellow and mustard, but yellow is a more mellow color while mustard really stand out a lot more.
As well cream to me, is just a sort of off-white color.
I think the reason the secretary is made to appear to sort of blend in more, is because, as has been talked before, she is not really the focus of the problem. And she is more humble and does just sort of fit into the background. While the husband and the wife are more overbearing personalities, and the secretary is just sort of caught between the two of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Yes, it does seem to be sort of showing the transformation, for lack of a better word, that the wife progresses through, within the story. I did find the werewolf analogy to be quite interesting though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That was an odd moment, it could almost be seen as an act of defiance on part of the secretary, as sort of passive aggression against the wife. Perhaps she had meant to irritate the woman, or play upon her "jealousy" on purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I'm not sure what to make of all the colors and clothing coordination. I had only picked up on the blue dresses mirroring the two blue birds. It struck me as a little contrived. But no doubt Lawrence is trying to suggest something with all this, but I'm not sure I've figured it out altogether.
Me either, Virgil :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Remember the colored stockings in "Women in Love" ?
Hey, maybe our Lawrence was a 'cross-dresser'; he sure was interested in woman's clothes! :lol:
I skimmed through this essay. The author is a "Dr" so I assume he's a PhD. But it's not that good really. Perhaps "good" is the wrong criteria. It's simple and not at a PhD level. It strikes me as undergraduate level. However, I bet most master's thesis are on this level. I don't want to brag, but my master's thesis was way better. Save your ink and paper Janine. Just skim through and jump to the Lawrence section.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yeah Yeah, I know....I was reading it last night and truthfully I didn't understand a lot of it. I would have to look a lot of the terms he is using up and then I was still not sure what his conclusions were on Woolf or Lawrence, were you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Hey, Virgil, I thought you would address my last post and laugh your head off :lol:....you know - 'Lawrence, the cross-dresser'...you are really slipping here. I don't have the nerve to post my other idea. :blush: but he may have had to wear dresses for comfort, you know.;) I can't believe I am writing all this. I must be getting like you. :blush:
Yes your other idea was bad. :p Well there are rumors he was gay, so why not start a cross dressing rumor. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I don't know if there's any hidden meaning behind that. I think you're right when you say that it's just contrived. L was probably just looking for a quick way to make the parallel clearer, and he stumbled into this idea for the two dresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh, please. It's not like I've said anything substantial in the Nietzsche thread. I try to stop in and prod people with some questions, but I'm not really a part of the conversation. I'm not even sure whether there is a conversation going in there yet. I just try to support these threads that really get into a book or author.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You've never heard flag used as a verb? When something is losing strength or vigor it's referred to as flagging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You must have posted that when I was at the book store or something because I didn't see your post until you mentioned it. I can't respond to everything that was in it yet because I've promised to post and talk about the next section of the story first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think I may have matched you this month on story rereads. I've read up-and-down, back-and-forth every part of "Two Blue Birds."Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You know 'cross-dressers' usually are straight.:lol: he might have been misunderstood. He sure liked those bright colored stockings in WIL and he loved for Frieda to wear them - they were thick and truly ugly, but something about them really turned him on....strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Can we get a picture? I mean of the ugly stockings, not Lawrence turned on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I will see what I can come up with. I have seen photos in my books, of Frieda wearing those lovely 'attractive' stockings, but of course, the photos are not in color, so you will have to use your imagination, for that one. However, in the film adaptation, Gudrun and Ursula did indeed wear those stockings and especially Ursula's stood out as being garish colors. Maybe I can find a film still; I don't think hers were quite as thick though.Quote:
Can we get a picture? I mean of the ugly stockings,...
I don't know. That does not sound like L's intentions. He usually was so detailed and wrote things like that on purpose; he would not just let it slip by or add it, as a contrived image. I will re-read that part again and see if it yields any clues. I will let you know after, what I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
You've said more than I. Actually, I have never read much on Nietzsche, only what I know of L's readings of his work. I need to read a full work of his, but I don't have time right now. It is on my 'to read list'...the endless one.....Quote:
Oh, please. It's not like I've said anything substantial in the Nietzsche thread. I try to stop in and prod people with some questions, but I'm not really a part of the conversation. I'm not even sure whether there is a conversation going in there yet. I just try to support these threads that really get into a book or author.
Gee, I thought if we got the flag that meant 'go!' Yeah, I guess sometime or the other I heard the word used the other way. I guess it is more a sports term, isn't it? Well, I have lost strength and vigor in the past few years, so I guess I'm 'flagged'. ;) :lol:Quote:
You've never heard flag used as a verb? When something is losing strength or vigor it's referred to as flagging.
Oh, back to the old bookstore, eh....B & N again? Spill any coffee this time, Quark? They actually allowed you back in, humm? ;) Oh, yes, my last brilliant post; I forgot about that one. That is ok, answer it eventually and I will still keep talking to you. ;)Quote:
You must have posted that when I was at the book store or something because I didn't see your post until you mentioned it. I can't respond to everything that was in it yet because I've promised to post and talk about the next section of the story first.
Hahaa...so why did you? Still trying to figure this one out? I guess the story was not that bad, afterall....especially if we are still discussing it.Quote:
I think I may have matched you this month on story rereads. I've read up-and-down, back-and-forth every part of "Two Blue Birds."
Last night, I was reading the other story, Virgil, said was a good one, "The Princess" It is quite a bit longer than this one, but so far, it has me captivated. I don't think this story was about Brett, but rather their other mutal friend, who is pictured in the photo that Virgil posted earlier, this being Mabel Luhan, who lived with, then later married an Native American Indian; she played prominently in Lawrence's life, at this time. During this time or about, Lawrence also wrote "The Woman Who Rode Away", which I know Virgil has mentioned several times in this thread. Mabel was also the model for this story, I just read the references to it in my research books, and they are quite specific. [opps! I may have found some conflicting information about who was the model for each story; I guess I have to do more intense research; so don't quote me on any of this (my musings outloud)]
These two stories may be good posibilities for the coming months, even though these are more advanced and later stories of L's. However, actually, in my book Volume 2, one preceeds 'Two Blue Birds', and the other follows it (The Princess).
Or we can do a really early story, if you wish Janine. As you wish. The Princess might be a good one now.
Well, if we finish this one soon, maybe...because it is long; that way we could devote more than a month to it, and take it slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I have some family concerns right now, as you know, and the big event that is soon to come up in ours lives - my grandbaby! So, I was unsure as to whether I can devote the time to this thread next month. I don't want to miss out on anything and "The Princess" does seem like a good one. I will get back to you on this - ok?
I will read the second half tonight or tomorrow night.
:lol:Janine, the Princess will decide soon.... :lol:
Well I don't think there's much more to it than that. I suppose you could argue that it's a gesture on the part of secretary. She sees the wife in a blue dress and decides to challenge her by wearing similar clothing. The secretary could be competing with the wife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I believe the term comes from the droopiness of flags in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
My town is a little too small for a Barnes and Noble. We have a locally owned, non-chain store here that is actually pretty good. They keep expanding, too, so they must be doing something right. Or, maybe they're just pouring money into a finical sinkhole. I don't know. I would assume they're making some money, but I don't know where it would come from. The locals around here are not exactly the literary type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
As for your post--which was brilliant--it's still tabled because now we're into this whole other discussion about Anna and Alekhin. Once I turn the conversation to the husband, I'll respond to your post.
Who said it was a bad story?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Obviously I don't relish having to do lengthy reading. Yet, if it's the better story, go with that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Janine, if you got a busy month, you might want to do something simpler than The Princess. It's a complicated story and will bring much discussion I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil,I finished reading it last night...Wow! - it was something and so unexpectable. I could not stop reading, but I especially liked the descriptive writing, just brilliant, as they climb further and further up to the summit of the mountains and on horse-back. It was lovely decriptive writing, some of L's best I think. The plot or storyline are complicated, though. I will see how things develop and let you know. Maybe for now, I will choose a shorter one, but we must do this one eventually. It was a good story; really captivated my interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I have to go out a short while for now, so Quark, will post something in answer to yours, tonight or tomorrow; same applies to DM. Sorry for delays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That is a good one! :lol: I think I feel droopy a lot lately so I must be flagged! ;)Quote:
I believe the term comes from the droopiness of flags in general.
Well, my B&N is about 20 minutes from here, near the mall; but that is ok, because you know how women love any excuse to go to the mall or near the mall - lots of good stores around it, too. But actually, I only normally browse in B&N and then buy it cheaper off Amazon, or try to....but of course some days I do cave in and find a bargain at B&N. Locals here are not that literary either; like I am amazed at the sheer junk, that people check out of my library. I go to hunt for a classic and normally the book is old or falling into ruin. They usually end up giving away the best old books, so I have gotten lucky occasionally. They also got wise and sold some on Amazon - darn!Quote:
My town is a little too small for a Barnes and Noble. We have a locally owned, non-chain store here that is actually pretty good. They keep expanding, too, so they must be doing something right. Or, maybe they're just pouring money into a finical sinkhole. I don't know. I would assume they're making some money, but I don't know where it would come from. The locals around here are not exactly the literary type.
My post was brilliant? Well, hello... then, Quark, am I still 'tabled'? Is our Chekhov thread fading into oblivion? huh, huh......hello, anyone there??? Also, I wondered if this one was also fading away.......:(Quote:
As for your post--which was brilliant--it's still tabled because now we're into this whole other discussion about Anna and Alekhin. Once I turn the conversation to the husband, I'll respond to your post.
Well, Virgil, said it was not one of his best. I thought it was quite good myself and the dialogue was written brilliantly. Lawrence very rarely disappoints me.Quote:
Who said it was a bad story?
Well, I might hold off on 'The Princess' for now. I have many more that are candidates to choose from. We can do a simplier one for now since the next two months for me will be truly busy ones. I have to think of my new grandchild first. :)Quote:
Obviously I don't relish having to do lengthy reading. Yet, if it's the better story, go with that one.
Well I paused for your response to my post, but instead you took a mini-vacation. Perhaps it was a well-deserved break, but meanwhile the threads went silent. I don't think we were in any threat of oblivion, though. Was that comic overstatement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I enjoyed the dialogue, too. I also liked how the thoughts of the wife were written and how Lawrence developed the sense of distance between husband and wife. Other parts of the story disappointed me, though. The characters weren't as nuanced as some of the other characters we've seen, and the story-telling was a little clumsy at times--like Lawrence using the blue dresses to draw a parallel. I'm sure this will provoke more ire from you, but there were some problems with the story. Not everything in a Lawrence story is perfect. Overall, it was still pretty good. Like Virgil hinted, it wasn't the best story we've read, but it certainly wasn't the worst. Somewhere in the middle is where it falls in my estimation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Recently I got the list of Lawrence anthologies that my book story can order. I'll have to email the list of what they have so you can help me make a decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Well, I didn't say it was bad or disappointing. It was a good story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine